chargeradio Wrote:I haven't heard anything from the EKU camp, but Western Kentucky has long been a rival for Eastern Kentucky in football. Obviously if WKU moves past the point of playing FCS (I-AA) teams, EKU may feel pressured to move up. They could have a pseudo "home" game with UK at Commonwealth Stadium, not to mention they are a short drive from a number of Big Ten, Sun Belt, SEC, and Big East schools.

If there's no room in the Sun Belt for all sports, could EKU try to move to the Missouri Valley, possibly with Saint Louis (who has expressed interest in leaving the Atlantic 10), and join the Sun Belt for football only?

EKU to the Missouri Valley? Are you serious? They bring NO basketball tradition. MVC would take Murray State before EKU. Butler is in the mix too. It's all mute anyway because EKU does not have the resources to go FBS right now.

I would like to see this for the Sun Belt in 2010.

Eastern Division
Appalachian State
Florida Atlantic
Florida International
Georgia Southern
Middle Tennessee
Western Kentucky

Western Division
Arkansas State
Louisiana-Lafayette
Louisiana-Monroe
North Texas
South Alabama
Troy

UTSA has announced it will start a football program with the goal of moving to I-A (they will play as a I-AA independent initially), Texas State has made noise about moving up to I-A, and Lamar is reportedly going to make the same announcement UTSA just made. The Sun Belt might look like this sometime after 2011:

West - UNT, Texas State, UTSA, Lamar, ULL, ULM, (Denver), (UNO)
East - Troy, Arkansas State, MTSU, WKU, FAU, FIU, (USA), (UALR)

Would the Sun Belt keep the non-football schools and stay at 16, or do they get the hint and leave? New Orleans and UALR could go to the Southland, but the options are less clear for USA and Denver.

It's been reported that South Alabama is seriously considering starting football. They would probably stay in the Sunbelt and eventually play football there.

UT-San Antonio students just voted to increase athletic fees for football and a $60 million athletic complex is coming. They would play their games in the Alamodome. The San Antonio market would be great for the SBC.

Lamar has yet to announce football, but they have added women's soccer, with softball on the way. With $20 million of facility upgrades approved ($10 million in renovations for the football stadium alone), football is definitely in the plans. Plus Lamar has a lot of history with the ex-SLC schools in the Sunbelt and would love to get back in the Sunbelt.

The administration at Texas State don't seem to interested in going FBS. They really haven't made the commitment to upgrade their facilities. I'd be surprised if they moved to the Sunbelt.

I'm actually surprised USA has come up again. My dad retired from the administration there a few years ago (and is actually consulting USA on a few issues right now) and is familiar with the athletic department budget. In the short term, you may actually see an announcement on a swimming program-USA has hired some consultants about building a natatorium. If USA does football, women's swimming is a given (men's swimming could happen too since the NCAA considers swimming a "mixed" sport), and bowling, lacrosse, and crew are all on the short list.

Texas State has been under some very public pressure to move up, but yes, the stadium would need some serious expansion.

I read that Mobile already has a 40,000 seat stadium that USA could use, plus the Mobile MSA has over 500K people, so football makes sense there.

Lamar is about to spend $1.5 million on a new press box for their stadium, mostly for renovations due to Hurricana Rita (and neglect). The stadium could easily be expanded to over 30K, if they do start football and wish to go FBS.

I doubt we'll see any movement of schools until 2011 or 2012, after the moratorium ends. There might be a lot of movement at that time, so it should interesting.

UTSA has been very vocal about their target date for reaching FBS being 2014 and CUSA being their target league. You can do an online search to check the articles on the subject. They have not said one word about the SBC.

I also do not think going to 12 football teams would be the right move for the SBC. If it turns out that South Alabama does indeed add football, save a spot for them, and go with 10 football schools plus UNO and UALR. That works.

As for Lamar, TAMU Corpus Christi and UT Arlington are also looking at adding football, so they should just focus on improving the Southland Conference. UTSA, however, probably sealed their swan song with their statements.

The Sun Belt is not in an expansion mood right now; nor should they be. Neither will they boot a school that is in good standing just because some out-of-touch fan on a bulletin board thinks they ought to.

While the SBC won't be kicking Denver out, I think they will try to help them find a new conference home that makes better geographic sense for all parties involved.

In the case of New Orleans, the Privateers were struck hard by Hurricane Katrina, and both the conference and the NCAA are giving them the leeway they need to get things put back together. If the UNO administration thinks that they can't remain competitive for the long haul in Division I, then they may decide to drop back to Division II, but it won't be a decision made overnight (unlike what Birmingham-Southern appears to have done when they decided to leave the Big South for Division III).

Adding teams just to be able to hold a football championship game is silly & unrealistic. Except for Troy, and occasionally one or two other teams, the SBC doesn't consistently draw well in football. That will change as the current members start to get to know each other better & develop more heated rivalries. It will also help when more SBC teams start playing - and winning - home-and-home series against mid-level & better BCS schools, and develop regular rivalries with nearby non-BCS schools.

You've got to have a strong infrastructure before you start making additions.

Exactly. I do not know why some fans are so obsessed with the idea of 12 team conferences and title games. Just because it works for the SEC and, somewhat, the Big 12 does not mean every league needs to copy the same idea. The ACC title game sucks. CUSA and the MAC are not all that either. Why should the Sun Belt, Big East, or any other league want to bog themselves down like that? It is a completely ridiculous notion.

The only future Sun Belt addition I could see right now is South Alabama, if they do go ahead and start a football program, but that would probably be by 2014 at the earliest. No membership changes would be necessary for that since the Jaguars already play all of their other sports in the Sun Belt. The office would just have to decide between nine football games or eight football games and skipping one opponent per year.

As for Denver, they should just bite the bullet and move on their own, choices are not ideal no matter what. The Summit is at 10 teams and, if they ever really want to expand to 12 schools, the easy option would be adding either North Dakota and South Dakota or SIU-Edwardsville and Utah Valley. But, of course, losing Southern Utah to the Big Sky, somehow, would really be best for them. SIU-Edwardsville and Denver?

The Big Sky, if they ever decided to let in a non-football member, fits the geography since Northern Colorado was their last addition. Doing this would give them 10 overall schools and nine football schools, which is pretty optimal for scheduling, but a big question becomes would such a great geographic fit also be a great institutional fit? Then there is the matter of what happens if any members ever move up to Division I-FBS.

A very popular rumor speculates that Denver is waiting for an invitation to the West Coast Conference. The problem with this theory is that the WCC has six members in California, one in Oregon, and one in Washington. What benefit could be gained from expanding halfway across the country to Denver? It will not change a one-bid basketball league into a multi-bid basketball league and everyone's travel costs would escalate.

Too many Western schools made the mistake of moving to Division I without having a conference lined up. Now they are suffering. Seattle (if they still want to move after the WCC voted against expansion at their last meeting), Utah Valley, Denver, Oklahoma City, North Dakota, South Dakota, Houston Baptist, and longtime independent Texas Pan American should just consider forming a new Western Misfits league.

Obviously the problem with forming a new conference is the lack of an automatic bid to the NCAA Tournament. Six of the Western Misfits are completely new to Division I and will not be eligible for the NCAA Tournament for many years as well. This makes such an arrangement quite unattractive to Denver, which at least has hope in the Sun Belt, and deepens their desire to stay where they are for as long as they can get away with it.

I have a question for everybody here, and it's not intended as smack. Do you see FIU maintaining a viable I-A football program in the long run? Having just lost their 18th consectutive game (at home in front of roughly 5k fans), FIU's performance to date is pretty attrocious. I know they have stadium plans and everything, but I think there's at least an outside chance that football isn't going to work out for them.

North Dakota and South Dakota would probably go to the Summit League, which would take them to twelve. If someone else leaves, then Denver might get in the Summit-the only downside for the Summit is that Missouri-Kansas City and/or Oral Roberts may be in opposite divisions from the schools closest to them. Although it wouldn't be until after the moratorium, a football playing school upgrading from Division II may also make more sense for the Summit, such as Nebraska-Omaha, Central Oklahoma, or Central Missouri.

Denver and the rest of the WCC would rack up a lot of air miles, but the travel costs probably wouldn't be that bad for the WCC. If all else fails, schools can simply drop two "eastern" non-conference opponents in basketball. Denver can trade its trips to Mobile, Miami, Nashville, etc. for trips to Spokane, San Diego, San Francisco, etc.

If Florida International isn't forced out of the Bowl Subdivision, I think they'll make it long term. They need to watch their back, though, because Florida Gulf Coast is already talking about starting a program. Add in potential new programs at South Alabama, Texas-San Antonio, Lamar, etc., and it will definitely be harder to right the ship the longer this persists.

Actually, not all of the so-called "Western Misfits" are entirely new to Division I. Seattle, Houston Baptist & Oklahoma City have all been Division I in the past. But it has been a while. Most of these schools dropped down to Division II or the NAIA back in the 1970's or 1980's when there were about as many independents as conferences in Division I.

Oklahoma City was kind of a mid-level indie power for a few years, and was the fomer host of one of the more prestigious long-running basketball invitationals - the All-College Tournament - before dropping down to the small college ranks.

Houston Baptist had a few good years as a mid-level indie, too. I seem to recall them being in the TransAmerica Conference (now the A-Sun) for a brief period before dropping down.

I believe Seattle was once a member of the West Coast Conference before they dropped down. I don't know if there is bad blood between them & their former league mates, or if the WCC just doesn't want to bother with expansion.

Question: would UALR and New Orleans consider a Southland invite? With football all but officially announced at USA, I'm wondering how long it is before the non-football members seek more level ground.

I'm thinking if a couple of schools leave the Southland for a higher level of football, the Southland might look like this:

West - Sam Houston State, Stephen F. Austin State, Texas-Arlington, Texas A&M-Corpus Christi, McNeese State, Texas State/Lamar/Texas-San Antonio/Expansion School

East - McNeese State, Southeastern Louisiana, New Orleans, Northwestern State, Arkansas-Little Rock, Central Arkansas

Do not be so sure about North Dakota and South Dakota going to the Summit League. Those two initially tried to block North Dakota State and South Dakota State from moving to Division I, watched their growing pains, and are now following behind after watching them suffer through all the growing pains. You better believe there is a lot of bad blood there and the two newbies might find themselves twisting in the independent wind for a few years. There is no real benefit for a one-bid non-football league to expand to 12 schools anyway.

As for the WCC, why should they want to "rack up a lot of air miles just to add Denver, regardless of how "not that bad" the costs are? How does that benefit the WCC? Would adding Denver and Seattle make them a two-bid basketball league? The answer is a resounding no. So what good would that do the WCC? None. It would help Denver and Seattle but that is not the mission or purpose of the WCC. Those two schools should have thought about the conference problem before they decided to move up to Division I in the first place.

While a couple of the "Western Misfits" have been Division I members in the distant past, they are new in the modern sense of the term, since they have to go through the transition process with no regard to what they did many decades ago. It would be to their benefit to temporarily band together since it would, at the very least, reduce their scheduling headaches and give their student-athletes a conference championship to chase. That is better than the "no reward" status of life as an independent ineligible for the NCAA Tournament.

The Sun Belt has no reason to want UALR or New Orleans to leave. What is wrong with having 10 football schools and 2 non-football schools? UALR and New Orleans are longtime Sun Belt members in good standing with the league in every way possible. And why would the Southland want to expand to 14 teams or add any non-football members? UTSA, Lamar, and TAMU Corpus Christi are all looking at adding football. How does adding two non-football schools support the direction in which that league seems to be headed these days?

Well, Krocker, if you look back to Conference USA, Charlotte and St. Louis were told they could stay as long as they want, but UNCC and SLU did move to a conference primarily with other non-football schools. When Sun Belt schools start cashing checks for bowl games on a more regular basis, the non-football schools may feel they are at a disadvantage. UALR and UNO may eventually feel the same way and leave the Sun Belt, but it's probably not going to happen before (1) South Alabama takes the football field and (2) some other Southland schools move up to the Bowl Subdivision, and quite possibly the Sun Belt.

There's been nothing so far, but UALR and/or UNO could be playing football as well one day. If they do, Division I FCS would more likely be their ultimate destination. Even if UALR and UNO don't pick up the pigskin, the Southland could take a net loss of two football schools and still have an automatic bid to the NCAA playoffs-the schools you mentioned will probably keep the Southland above their current football membership of eight for quite some time (As a side note, Texas-Arlington has also done a football feasibility study).

When Southland schools start moving up, is the Southland willing to take more schools from Division II, or does the conference go for schools that are already members of Division I?

If bad blood between the Dakotas and Dakota States are keeping all four from being in the same conference, I feel it ultimately hurts all four schools. While it won't make the Summit a two-bid league, having all four Dakota schools makes for travel efficiencies and facilitates divisional play. The conference can also go from 18 games down to 16 in basketball, which allows schools two more opportunities to win non-conference games. If you don't win your non-conference games, it really doesn't matter who is in the conference.

The Summit is also very vulnerable to expansion from other conferences-both Oral Roberts and UMKC have approached the Missouri Valley (we obviously know how that turned out), UMKC has reportedly been considered by the Horizon League, Southern Utah has applied for the Big Sky, Centenary has applied for the Southland, Oakland has been mentioned as a replacement for Detroit Mercy should they leave the Horizon, etc.

Krocker Krapp Wrote:As for the WCC, why should they want to "rack up a lot of air miles just to add Denver, regardless of how "not that bad" the costs are? How does that benefit the WCC? Would adding Denver and Seattle make them a two-bid basketball league? The answer is a resounding no. So what good would that do the WCC? None. It would help Denver and Seattle but that is not the mission or purpose of the WCC. Those two schools should have thought about the conference problem before they decided to move up to Division I in the first place.

I stuck some WCC cities in Mapquest, and anything that involves one school in California and one that's not makes for a rather long drive. Spokane (Gonzaga) to San Diego is a longer Drive than Denver to anywhwere. Seattle, if they join, would actually be the farthest from Denver in terms of driving distance. Except for the California schools playing each other, this is already a flying-intensive league.

I doubt UNO or UALR would be interested in the SLC, that would be perceived as a step down for them. Anyway, I think the Southland prefers DII football schools moving up to D1AA over non-football D1 schools.

There's a very good chance both UTSA and Lamar will be starting football in 2010 as 1AA independents, then if the opportunity arises after the moratorium ends they will jump to a D1A conference instead of staying in the SLC. UTSA would be attractive to a D1A conference because of the San Antonio market, Lamar's in a smaller market (400K+), but has stronger athletic programs (top 20 golf program, good basketball and baseball programs).

Conference USA was being nice to Saint Louis and Charlotte in public by saying they did not want to kick them out. That was the classy thing to do and is very common in Division I. Denver is getting the same lip service from the Sun Belt right now as well. Behind the scenes, where Britton Banowsky was getting Mike Tranghese to talk his protege Lindo Bruno into adding Saint Louis and Charlotte to the Atlantic-10, is where the real story unfolded. Actions speak louder than words.

UALR and New Orleans are not going to voluntarily leave the Sun Belt Conference where they have been members in good standing for so many years. They do not feel disadvantaged now, and the Sun Belt has been sponsoring football for seven years, so South Alabama adding football in the future would not change that. You need to understand the Division I governance structure. The Sun Belt wields more internal power than the Southland and that is an important thing.

Texas-Arlington did a feasibility study and decided that it was not feasible for them to add football. As for other Southland schools moving up, there are no vacancies, so what conference would they move to? In addition, the Southland is at 12 members anyway, which is too many. They do not need to replace every possible future defector. Having nine members or ten members is enough for a one-bid league. Twelve is not some magic number mandated by the NCAA or anything.

As for the Dakota schools and Dakota State schools being hurt by not being in the same league, the Dakota schools should have thought about that before they tried to sabotage the Dakota State schools initial plans to move up to Division I, but they did not so we will have to see what consequences this has reaped. Go to the Any Given Saturday website and ask their fans how they feel, and what their insiders tell them, about possibly sharing the same conference anytime soon.

The Summit League is not vulnerable to expansion unless other leagues in their area are looking to expand. That is not the case. The Missouri Valley has stated repeatedly that they are happy with the 10 members they have. The Horizon League has said that they are happy with the 10 members they have and Detroit has nowhere to go. Centenary was asked by the Southland to apply but then got rejected and Southern Utah should have been admitted to the Big Sky years ago.

Losing those two schools would be no big deal for the Summit League if it ever happened. Southern Utah finally getting into the Big Sky, in fact, would be a huge blessing in disguise. They could easily be replaced by a new and more geographically sensible newbie like SIU Edwardsville or, perhaps, a travel partner like Oklahoma City if Oral Roberts thinks that would be helpful to the conference. Southern Utah and Centenary are expendable for the Summit League in the big picture.

With regards to the West Coast Conference, you still have not answered the question, what benefit would they get from adding Denver? This would not make the WCC a two-bid league or gain them any more respect in the structure of the NCAA. So what is the point? It would help Denver. It would not help the WCC. It called the West Coast Conference, not the West Coast & One School In The Middle Of The Rocky Mountains Conference, and the WCC has no reason to add Denver.

Conference USA in 2020
Alabama-Birmingham
Arkansas-Little Rock
Central Florida
East Carolina
Marshall
Memphis
South Alabama
Southern Mississippi
Troy

Southwest (New)
Houston
Louisiana Tech
North Texas
Rice
Southern Methodist
Texas-El Paso
Texas Christian
Tulane
Tulsa

Sun Belt in 2020.
Appalachian State
Arkansas State
Florida Atlantic
Florida International
Georgia Southern
Louisiana-Lafayette
Louisiana-Monroe
Middle Tennessee
Western Kentucky

If WKU is still in the Sunbelt in 2020 I will puke unless the rest of the schools bring more to the table. WKU,Troy,MTSU,FAU, and maybe ASU or UNT are the only schools that have anough versitility to step up. Budget/fanbase and commitment are needed to make a good confrenence. WKU leeds in all so what other schools can step up?