http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_15405677

"The University of Denver is a school we have evaluated and considered," Benson said. "One of the options we have looked at has been the admission of a nonfootball member. Any further discussions have been delayed now until at least July 1, 2012."

DU does not have a football program and competes in basketball in the Sun Belt Conference.

"There are several institutions without football in the Mountain and Pacific time zones that we could consider," Benson said.

With 8 schools a non-football doesn't make a lot of sense. It made more sense when they were at 9 and could have gone to 10 in basketball. Even numbers are much more important in basketball scheduling than football.

(06-30-2010 02:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  With 8 schools a non-football doesn't make a lot of sense. It made more sense when they were at 9 and could have gone to 10 in basketball. Even numbers are much more important in basketball scheduling than football.

Maybe they plan to add a football school soon. Or maybe they just needed some kind of headline that implied they were doing something since Boise bailed on them. My instinct is the latter.

(06-30-2010 02:13 PM)VideoGreenEagle Wrote:  

(06-30-2010 02:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  With 8 schools a non-football doesn't make a lot of sense. It made more sense when they were at 9 and could have gone to 10 in basketball. Even numbers are much more important in basketball scheduling than football.

Maybe they plan to add a football school soon. Or maybe they just needed some kind of headline that implied they were doing something since Boise bailed on them. My instinct is the latter.

Either way this is a good move for the Belt should it happen. This would definitely lower some of our travel cost in various sports.

(06-30-2010 02:26 PM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  

(06-30-2010 02:13 PM)VideoGreenEagle Wrote:  

(06-30-2010 02:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  With 8 schools a non-football doesn't make a lot of sense. It made more sense when they were at 9 and could have gone to 10 in basketball. Even numbers are much more important in basketball scheduling than football.

Maybe they plan to add a football school soon. Or maybe they just needed some kind of headline that implied they were doing something since Boise bailed on them. My instinct is the latter.

Either way this is a good move for the Belt should it happen. This would definitely lower some of our travel cost in various sports.

I read this Denver possibility as a potential WAC insurance policy if Louisiana Tech leaves. The fact that the WAC has put off talking about this for another two years means the earliest Denver might get in would probably be 2013.

(06-30-2010 02:42 PM)puck swami Wrote:  I read this Denver possibility as a potential WAC insurance policy if Louisiana Tech leaves. The fact that the WAC has put off talking about this for another two years means the earliest Denver might get in would probably be 2013.

When was the deadline for Denver to meet the number of sports played in order to stay in the SunBelt?

(06-30-2010 02:42 PM)puck swami Wrote:  

(06-30-2010 02:26 PM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  

(06-30-2010 02:13 PM)VideoGreenEagle Wrote:  

(06-30-2010 02:05 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  With 8 schools a non-football doesn't make a lot of sense. It made more sense when they were at 9 and could have gone to 10 in basketball. Even numbers are much more important in basketball scheduling than football.

Maybe they plan to add a football school soon. Or maybe they just needed some kind of headline that implied they were doing something since Boise bailed on them. My instinct is the latter.

Either way this is a good move for the Belt should it happen. This would definitely lower some of our travel cost in various sports.

I read this Denver possibility as a potential WAC insurance policy if Louisiana Tech leaves. The fact that the WAC has put off talking about this for another two years means the earliest Denver might get in would probably be 2013.

Sounds to me like this guy Bensen is really grasping at straws right now.

That conference is really desperate and will attempt anything to survive.

(06-30-2010 02:46 PM)OwlFamily Wrote:  

(06-30-2010 02:42 PM)puck swami Wrote:  I read this Denver possibility as a potential WAC insurance policy if Louisiana Tech leaves. The fact that the WAC has put off talking about this for another two years means the earliest Denver might get in would probably be 2013.

When was the deadline for Denver to meet the number of sports played in order to stay in the SunBelt?

This is from the May 2007 conference initiatives.

Quote:Member institutions are expected to sponsor a minimum of fifteen (15) sports in which the conference offers a championship. There shall be a five-year (2012-2013) grace period for UNO and Denver to reach this standard.

http://www.sunbeltsports.org/ViewArticle...ID=1151032

As long as we're revisiting these things...

1. Schools will play a minimum of 11 home games over a two-year period.

2. Schools may schedule not more than two games annually that do not include a return game provision at the institutions home field.

3. Schools may not play more than one I-AA opponent each year and that must be at home.

4. Schools must increase “average home attendance” annually until the school reaches 75% of the stadium capacity.

5. Schools must increase “season ticket” sales annually until the school reaches 25% of the stadium capacity.

I wonder how many schools are in compliance with all five of those. As far MT goes...

1. The last time we didn't have 11 home games over a two year period was the 07/08 period and we had 6 home games last year and will again in 2010 and 2011. Currently for 2012 we already have two OOC away games, so we'll have to add at least one home game and I'm sure we'll try to make both additions at home.

2. The last time we had more than one game that didn't include a return game was 2006 when we played one-offs with Oklahoma and NC State. The last time we had more than two was 2005.

3. Don't think this ever has or ever will be a problem

4&5. Don't know specific numbers for either, but are probably in compliance with both.

(06-30-2010 03:33 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  As long as we're revisiting these things...

1. Schools will play a minimum of 11 home games over a two-year period.

2. Schools may schedule not more than two games annually that do not include a return game provision at the institutions home field.

3. Schools may not play more than one I-AA opponent each year and that must be at home.

4. Schools must increase “average home attendance” annually until the school reaches 75% of the stadium capacity.

5. Schools must increase “season ticket” sales annually until the school reaches 25% of the stadium capacity.

I wonder how many schools are in compliance with all five of those. As far MT goes...

1. The last time we didn't have 11 home games over a two year period was the 07/08 period and we had 6 home games last year and will again in 2010 and 2011. Currently for 2012 we already have two OOC away games, so we'll have to add at least one home game and I'm sure we'll try to make both additions at home.

2. The last time we had more than one game that didn't include a return game was 2006 when we played one-offs with Oklahoma and NC State. The last time we had more than two was 2005.

3. Don't think this ever has or ever will be a problem

4&5. Don't know specific numbers for either, but are probably in compliance with both.

Call me crazy but do alot of those standands seem to be common sense stuff on how to run a FBS program?

(06-30-2010 03:53 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(06-30-2010 03:33 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  As long as we're revisiting these things...

1. Schools will play a minimum of 11 home games over a two-year period.

2. Schools may schedule not more than two games annually that do not include a return game provision at the institutions home field.

3. Schools may not play more than one I-AA opponent each year and that must be at home.

4. Schools must increase “average home attendance” annually until the school reaches 75% of the stadium capacity.

5. Schools must increase “season ticket” sales annually until the school reaches 25% of the stadium capacity.

I wonder how many schools are in compliance with all five of those. As far MT goes...

1. The last time we didn't have 11 home games over a two year period was the 07/08 period and we had 6 home games last year and will again in 2010 and 2011. Currently for 2012 we already have two OOC away games, so we'll have to add at least one home game and I'm sure we'll try to make both additions at home.

2. The last time we had more than one game that didn't include a return game was 2006 when we played one-offs with Oklahoma and NC State. The last time we had more than two was 2005.

3. Don't think this ever has or ever will be a problem

4&5. Don't know specific numbers for either, but are probably in compliance with both.

Call me crazy but do alot of those standands seem to be common sense stuff on how to run a FBS program?

You're crazy...

Okay but for real, yeah most of it is of the "duh" persuasion, however, I think the conference just wanted to get it on paper to keep teams from not moving forward.

(06-30-2010 04:02 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(06-30-2010 03:53 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(06-30-2010 03:33 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  As long as we're revisiting these things...

1. Schools will play a minimum of 11 home games over a two-year period.

2. Schools may schedule not more than two games annually that do not include a return game provision at the institutions home field.

3. Schools may not play more than one I-AA opponent each year and that must be at home.

4. Schools must increase “average home attendance” annually until the school reaches 75% of the stadium capacity.

5. Schools must increase “season ticket” sales annually until the school reaches 25% of the stadium capacity.

I wonder how many schools are in compliance with all five of those. As far MT goes...

1. The last time we didn't have 11 home games over a two year period was the 07/08 period and we had 6 home games last year and will again in 2010 and 2011. Currently for 2012 we already have two OOC away games, so we'll have to add at least one home game and I'm sure we'll try to make both additions at home.

2. The last time we had more than one game that didn't include a return game was 2006 when we played one-offs with Oklahoma and NC State. The last time we had more than two was 2005.

3. Don't think this ever has or ever will be a problem

4&5. Don't know specific numbers for either, but are probably in compliance with both.

Call me crazy but do alot of those standands seem to be common sense stuff on how to run a FBS program?

You're crazy...

Okay but for real, yeah most of it is of the "duh" persuasion, however, I think the conference just wanted to get it on paper to keep teams from not moving forward.

Makes sense.

As I said on Beltboard yesterday, there aren't many programs that I couldn't point in a better direction.

(06-30-2010 04:39 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  As I said on Beltboard yesterday, there aren't many programs that I couldn't point in a better direction.

ASF= gun, I mean consultant, for hire