(04-25-2014 10:50 PM)JMU2004 Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 10:41 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 10:24 PM)JMU2004 Wrote:  SBC needs stability. UMass doesn't help there. Benson has a serious WAC fear.

Hope NMSU joins for all sports now. In 2 years, UMass and Idaho need to be headed elsewhere. Missouri st and EKU at that point?

UMASS works perfect, and in many ways is the best choice from purely a football perspective than any choice out there. They are a flagship school, they bring in new states and media markets, they are already FBS, they are making investments in football infrastructure NOW, and they want to join.

As for what happens in two years? Who knows! Any decision should be made by making the best choice of the available options. UMASS is the best choice by far. I prefer to think and assume UMASS and Idaho will be good members that will add value to the conference. They both have to have somewhere to go before they can leave.... And there are signs everywhere that realignment is slowing down. Should UMASS and Idaho flourish in the SBC why change? If either has something else to pursue, I'm sure the process will start over again, but I think we will be set with these teams for another 4-5 years or more. By then, EKU can prove they want to be FBS by putting money where their mouth is as well as MSU, LIBERTY can further distance itself from its past and win some football championships, and JMU can get their head out of their pompous backside and decide to finally evolve. Anything can happen.

JMU is a separate issue. I know we screwed the pooch.

JMU won't ever join the SBC. I think that has been made clear. I hate it, but I'm not in control.

UMass and Idaho aren't the answer, but they're all that's available. Better than liberty and EKU, for now.

Nothing is over until we say it is!

Until the Sun Belt takes Liberty which I am reasonably certain won't happen and the league has 12 football members who play all sports in the conference, the possibility of expansion remains.

There are two MASSIVE issues with the August Revolution in governance that have to be pinned downed (much to the disappointment of the odd folks who were rooting for a split).

The first is how far permissive legislation will extend. We seem to now have agreement and clarity that if a majority of the P5 vote to adopt permissive legislation the G5 leagues will have authority on a conference by conference basis to adopt those same policies without any NCAA action being required. What we don't have clarity on is whether FCS and I-AAA (the old name for non-football leagues) will have that same authority. If they can track along without consent of a full NCAA vote, that change means little for Big East, A10, etc., who want to keep up. If it requires a full division vote, being FCS or I-AAA is swimming in handcuffs with people trying to attach weight to your legs.

The second will be final approval the weighted voting plan. As proposed FBS would have sufficient voting power if united to shape ALL Division I legislation. If this stays unchanged, the FCS and I-AAA become like Republicans in New York in a presidential election, able to vote but not able to influence the outcome.

Getting resolution on what this all looks like in the real world can greatly influence the future of FBS aspirations. If you are Mo State chasing Wichita State in the Valley the game looks vastly different if suddenly Sun Belt, MAC, etc., are walking into the same homes you are recruiting and say a scholarship with us is worth X dollars cash in your hand you can spend any way you like, now call Mo State, Wichita, DePaul, and Gonzaga and ask how much cash their scholarship provides. Things get different if JMU hopes that hoops will position for greener pastures and App and Ohio walk in and offer not just cash, but a four year guaranteed scholarship. If the coach leaves, the next coach can't take your scholie for some kid he knows.