In my blog, I talked about what I think the SBC should do given the latest developments in reallignment.

WHat I didn't talk about was the process.

FIRST, the Commissioner needs to get in touch with the Presidents and build a consensus. It would take eight positive votes to authorize expansion. This will not be a slam dunk if the targets are NMSU and La. Tech (and I believe they are.) Here's a breakdown of the possibilities

FLORIDA--FAU/FIU
The two Florida schools probably won't be enthralled by the thought of expansion farther west, especially another school in the Mountain Time Zone (NMSU). However, the addition of those two schools would vault the Sun Belt past the WAC, the MAC and perhaps even CUSA in given years in BCS distribution. The financially-strapped Florida schools will understand that. Also, with the split of football into divsions, the football travel shouldn't be any worse for Florida than it is now.

SWITZERLAND--UNT/MTSU/WKU/USA/TROY
None of these schools should have a problem. They would all understand that the addition of the two schools makes the league better.

NOT SO FAST MY FRIENDS--DU/UALR/ASU/ULM/UL
Here's where it gets interesting.

Denver is the one really shaking today. They had a deal worked out to join BYU in the new WAC. The last thing they want is for the WAC to disband.
That's a NO vote

UALR doesn't play football. They know that the addtion of two more football playing schools would be their death knell in the SBC. That's a NO vote.

ASU has had a tough relationship with Louisiana Tech. We just don't hear that much about it here. But their chancellor has been on the job just a few years and isn't nearly as vehement against Tech as his predecessor. This vote is up in the air, but I think they'd lean yes.

ULM is without a President at this time. I don't think there's any question that the outgoing President would vote against Tech. But I wouldn't necessarily put this one in the NO column. Leaning NO perhaps.

UL also has a new President. Those in the Athletics Department might not be too high on Tech. But President Savioe would probably not be as hard lined.


I'm thinking it's going to be 9-3 at worst to authorize expansion.


Once the Presidents sign off, then the Commissioner can (quietly) contact NMSU and Tech. Tech will need a little time. President Reneau has called more than once in the last couple of years about a place for Tech if the WAC imploded or they ran out of money. He'll be ready to pull the trigger, but he'll need some time to sell some of his money people.

(anyone denying this is an arrogant p***k, so dont try it)

My guess is NMSU won't need any persuasion.

And, with the announcement today that the remaining WAC schools could leave the league without penalty, this could be done soon.

This is assuming there are no other reallignment issues. There are rumors of a 20 team superconference and such, but those are just rumors right now.

Actually, ASU is 'between' presidents as well.

My impression was that Dr. Potts was rather unhappy about how the I-Bowl deal played out. He's a nice gregarious fella but I don't suspect you move easily off his crap list once you get there.

Not so sure MT is a "yes" vote. Stockstill not too fond of Tony Franklin. Massaro and Stock very tight. MT doesn't play Tech in anything now..............

Will be interesting, for sure.

How about an "entrance fee" for Tech and NMSU ?

Yeah, I'm doubting much of BOP's analysis of how the schools would vote. If he thinks that certain schools would automatically vote yes for Tech than he doesn't really have his finger on the pulse of the conference as he thinks. I'm not saying they wouldn't vote yes but it's not automatic.

And Reneau has not been calling Waters for a backup plan. For the last two years Tech has only seen itself in the WAC or CUSA, and not the Belt...so, yeah, I'm a punk.

(08-19-2010 02:43 PM)SOT1977 Wrote:  Yeah, I'm doubting much of BOP's analysis of how the schools would vote. If he thinks that certain schools would automatically vote yes for Tech than he doesn't really have his finger on the pulse of the conference as he thinks. I'm not saying they wouldn't vote yes but it's not automatic.

And Reneau has not been calling Waters for a backup plan. For the last two years Tech has only seen itself in the WAC or CUSA, and not the Belt...so, yeah, I'm a punk.

Ya'll are thinking like fans and not like ADs/presidents.

Adding tech and NMSU would kill one of the SBCs competitors for BCS money. It would make us the most stable non-BCS conference in the country, and by splitting into East/West divisions, the travel differences would be negligible.

Umm, cash strapped? FIU has the largest athletic budget in the Sun Belt and has some of the highest paid coaches in the league.

If adding La Tech were to benefit the Sun Belt, I'm sure we would have no problem with them. We don't carry the same kind of baggage the Arkansas and Louisiana schools carry.

I think FIU and FAU would be on board. All we care about is profile and perception, the money is too small to sway us one way or the other.

(08-19-2010 02:59 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  Umm, cash strapped? FIU has the largest athletic budget in the Sun Belt and has some of the highest paid coaches in the league.

If adding La Tech were to benefit the Sun Belt, I'm sure we would have no problem with them. We don't carry the same kind of baggage the Arkansas and Louisiana schools carry.

I think FIU and FAU would be on board. All we care about is profile and perception, the money is too small to sway us one way or the other.

post #666!

(08-19-2010 03:09 PM)trojanbrutha Wrote:  

(08-19-2010 02:59 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  Umm, cash strapped? FIU has the largest athletic budget in the Sun Belt and has some of the highest paid coaches in the league.

If adding La Tech were to benefit the Sun Belt, I'm sure we would have no problem with them. We don't carry the same kind of baggage the Arkansas and Louisiana schools carry.

I think FIU and FAU would be on board. All we care about is profile and perception, the money is too small to sway us one way or the other.

post #666!

Look again...

p.s. I saw that too.

(08-19-2010 03:15 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(08-19-2010 03:09 PM)trojanbrutha Wrote:  

(08-19-2010 02:59 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  Umm, cash strapped? FIU has the largest athletic budget in the Sun Belt and has some of the highest paid coaches in the league.

If adding La Tech were to benefit the Sun Belt, I'm sure we would have no problem with them. We don't carry the same kind of baggage the Arkansas and Louisiana schools carry.

I think FIU and FAU would be on board. All we care about is profile and perception, the money is too small to sway us one way or the other.

post #666!

Look again...

p.s. I saw that too.

just messin' with you...

(08-19-2010 03:25 PM)trojanbrutha Wrote:  

(08-19-2010 03:15 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  post #666!

Look again...
p.s. I saw that too.

just messin' with you...
[/quote]

I know, but don't look now but you're come'n up soon.

(08-19-2010 02:43 PM)SOT1977 Wrote:  Yeah, I'm doubting much of BOP's analysis of how the schools would vote. If he thinks that certain schools would automatically vote yes for Tech than he doesn't really have his finger on the pulse of the conference as he thinks. I'm not saying they wouldn't vote yes but it's not automatic.

And Reneau has not been calling Waters for a backup plan. For the last two years Tech has only seen itself in the WAC or CUSA, and not the Belt...so, yeah, I'm a punk.

Umm, his sources are a hell of a lot better then yours SOT. This is a guy that interviews a number of Administrators and coaches throughout the SBC every year. Don't let your anti-Tech bias undermind your common sense.

(08-19-2010 02:59 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  Umm, cash strapped? FIU has the largest athletic budget in the Sun Belt and has some of the highest paid coaches in the league.

If adding La Tech were to benefit the Sun Belt, I'm sure we would have no problem with them. We don't carry the same kind of baggage the Arkansas and Louisiana schools carry.

I think FIU and FAU would be on board. All we care about is profile and perception, the money is too small to sway us one way or the other.

He isn't talking about Budgets, he is talking about losing money. Your last in the SBC in almost evey sports attendance and you are not losing money? Come on, this is why your President is against adding any more SBC members west. BOP hit this one right on the head, budget or not, FIU and FAU are losing money because of the travel cost and poor attendance. You might be spending more money than most of the SBC, including UL, but you are also losing more then most of us as well.

(08-19-2010 06:12 PM)CajunT Wrote:  

(08-19-2010 02:59 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  Umm, cash strapped? FIU has the largest athletic budget in the Sun Belt and has some of the highest paid coaches in the league.

If adding La Tech were to benefit the Sun Belt, I'm sure we would have no problem with them. We don't carry the same kind of baggage the Arkansas and Louisiana schools carry.

I think FIU and FAU would be on board. All we care about is profile and perception, the money is too small to sway us one way or the other.

He isn't talking about Budgets, he is talking about losing money. Your last in the SBC in almost evey sports attendance and you are not losing money? Come on, this is why your President is against adding any more SBC members west. BOP hit this one right on the head, budget or not, FIU and FAU are losing money because of the travel cost and poor attendance. You might be spending more money than most of the SBC, including UL, but you are also losing more then most of us as well.

What are you talking about...losing money? Of course, there is high travel cost, and low attendance which affects costs on one side, and income...or cash generation....on the other. But I would like to see how you reach that conclusion of "losing more money 'then' most of us".

A bit of information. Budgets have two sides: Expenditures and Revenues. Generally speaking, projections are made in terms of how much you can spend precisely based on what you feel you would be able to generate. Now, the fact you spend more money than the other, doesn't mean you "lose more money than the other". The revenue side in both of Florida schools are heavily financed by athletic fees paid by students. In fact, FAU just had the largest ever increase in fees in the history of the state of Florida (15% increase) to bolster their income and help pay for their new stadium. These fees generate millions and millions of dollars, particularly for FIU that has a student population of over 40,000 now.

Why would ULM vote No? They are obsessed with getting Tech on the schedule. This would guarantee that Tech HAS to play them and it would revive their program in a big way. They would be fools to vote no.

(08-19-2010 09:02 PM)FIUFanatic Wrote:  

(08-19-2010 06:12 PM)CajunT Wrote:  

(08-19-2010 02:59 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  Umm, cash strapped? FIU has the largest athletic budget in the Sun Belt and has some of the highest paid coaches in the league.

If adding La Tech were to benefit the Sun Belt, I'm sure we would have no problem with them. We don't carry the same kind of baggage the Arkansas and Louisiana schools carry.

I think FIU and FAU would be on board. All we care about is profile and perception, the money is too small to sway us one way or the other.

He isn't talking about Budgets, he is talking about losing money. Your last in the SBC in almost evey sports attendance and you are not losing money? Come on, this is why your President is against adding any more SBC members west. BOP hit this one right on the head, budget or not, FIU and FAU are losing money because of the travel cost and poor attendance. You might be spending more money than most of the SBC, including UL, but you are also losing more then most of us as well.

What are you talking about...losing money? Of course, there is high travel cost, and low attendance which affects costs on one side, and income...or cash generation....on the other. But I would like to see how you reach that conclusion of "losing more money 'then' most of us".

A bit of information. Budgets have two sides: Expenditures and Revenues. Generally speaking, projections are made in terms of how much you can spend precisely based on what you feel you would be able to generate. Now, the fact you spend more money than the other, doesn't mean you "lose more money than the other". The revenue side in both of Florida schools are heavily financed by athletic fees paid by students. In fact, FAU just had the largest ever increase in fees in the history of the state of Florida (15% increase) to bolster their income and help pay for their new stadium. These fees generate millions and millions of dollars, particularly for FIU that has a student population of over 40,000 now.

Exactly, and the difference between your net Expenditures and Revenues is either a positive or negative revenue flow. And this would include any fees recieved from students and state aid. Again, your budget is larger then most SBC programs, he was talking about your ependitures and comments from you president. If his information is incorrect, then by all means provide a link to your last audit so we can all see were his information is not correct. I don't have a problem correcting anything. BTW, there were close to ten BCS programs that actually made money off of athletics in 2009. Last time I checked, you were not one of them. FIU is losing money in athletics just like everyone else; the question remains how much?

I guess it's a matter of semantics, and I agree with FIUFan that FIU is not any more or less "cash strapped" than any other SBC schools...that's it. You talk about attendance (ie. revenue side), and travel budget (expediture side), then you say it's about expenditures only, besides saying that all but 10 schools "made money off of athletics" in 2009 (So EVERY school in the SBC, using that definition is "cash strapped"). So you checked "last time" and FIU wasn't one of them, yet you really don't know how much FIU loses, however you make a bold statement earlier indicating that FIU and FAU lost more money than "most of us" while ackonwledging later that you don't know how much FIU loses. How can you reach that conclusion then?

You know, all these specifics aside, I guess the point is that FIU (and FAU for that matter) isn't much, if any more or less cash strapped than UL, ULM, or any other SBC school actually is right now. And there is no question in terms of budget (revenue generating capabilities already in place) difference between ones and the others.