(12-26-2011 01:41 PM)CAJUNNATION Wrote:  

(12-26-2011 01:17 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Why would anyone want to water that down by adding FCS programs that we don't need?

Let me just say this.

I find it extremely interesting that the people who are mostly responsible for all of the negative comments regarding SBC expansion are from schools who believe they are next in line for CUSA/Alliance invitations.

If anybody believes that the current SBC membership will be the same in 5 or 6 years they are being foolish.

If you learn anything from the realignment history of college football, learn this. Conferences do not "leap frog" in front of other conferences in terms strength or profitability. Weaker conferences are gobbled up by stronger conferences.

The Big East fed on CUSA

The MWC fed on the WAC.

The ACC fed on the Big East.

The Big East fed on CUSA and the MWC.

The Alliance will feed on the WAC and the SBC.

We will either feed on WAC remnants and/or FCS schools or we will die.

Plain and simple.


Again, anybody who believes that the SBC will ever become an equal to CUSA or the Alliance is fooling themselves.

First the Sun Belt has never been raided. I'm not saying it never will, but so far it has not. Even if the Belt was raided, we would most likly only lose 2 maybe 3 schools. At that point, the conference could access our next move. We don't need to do something foolish like add teams we probably won't need.

Second, conferences DO "leap frog" in front of other conferences. The MWC "leap fronged" the WAC and C-USA. C-USA "leap froged" the WAC too. Most importantly, the Sun Belt has now "leap froged" the WAC, and possibly the MAC too. Your whole argument is flawed.

(12-26-2011 01:52 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  First the Sun Belt has never been raided

.

That should tell you something. If your conference has not lost schools in realignment, you're either at the top of the pecking order, or you're at the bottom, and the wave has just not hit you yet. Care to guess where the SBC stands?

Quote: I'm not saying it never will, but so far it has not. Even if the Belt was raided, we would most likly only lose 2 maybe 3 schools. At that point, the conference could access our next move. We don't need to do something foolish like add teams we probably won't need.

For those schools unfortunate enough to not get called up to the Alliance, "probably" just won't cut it.

Quote:Second, conferences DO "leap frog" in front of other conferences. The MWC "leap fronged" the WAC and C-USA. C-USA "leap froged" the WAC too.

The MWC was formed when the top programs in the old WAC left to form their own league, immediately placing them ahead of the WAC in the strength hierarchy as well as CUSA. They didn't "grow" themselves ahead of CUSA. That group of schools was already stronger than CUSA when they formed.

NO. No matter how you slice it it's not good for North Texas, and that's the only thing I'm concerned about. A 12 team conference would include adding one of Texas St. & UTSA, if not both.

WE DONT NEED TWO MORE FBS TEAMS IN TEXAS. THERE'S ALREADY TEN. AND TEXAS IS ALREADY THE MOST RECRUITED STATE IN THE NATION. THERES ALREADY 122 FBS TEAMS, WE DONT NEED ANYMORE. LET THE MWC TAKE UTAH ST/SJSU AND LET THE OTHER 4 WAC SCHOOLS GO BACK TO FCS OR TRY TO MAKE IT AS AN INDEPENDENT. FBS DOESN'T NEED ANYMORE SCHOOLS. CERTAINLY NOT IN TEXAS...

(12-26-2011 03:31 PM)CAJUNNATION Wrote:  

(12-26-2011 01:52 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  First the Sun Belt has never been raided

.

That should tell you something. If your conference has not lost schools in realignment, you're either at the top of the pecking order, or you're at the bottom, and the wave has just not hit you yet. Care to guess where the SBC stands?

Quote: I'm not saying it never will, but so far it has not. Even if the Belt was raided, we would most likly only lose 2 maybe 3 schools. At that point, the conference could access our next move. We don't need to do something foolish like add teams we probably won't need.

For those schools unfortunate enough to not get called up to the Alliance, "probably" just won't cut it.

Quote:Second, conferences DO "leap frog" in front of other conferences. The MWC "leap fronged" the WAC and C-USA. C-USA "leap froged" the WAC too.

The MWC was formed when the top programs in the old WAC left to form their own league, immediately placing them ahead of the WAC in the strength hierarchy as well as CUSA. They didn't "grow" themselves ahead of CUSA. That group of schools was already stronger than CUSA when they formed.

We have leap froged the WAC. I don't care if it is because they lost their best teams or not. I believe the Sun Belt is leap froging the MAC too, and they haven't lost anyone.

Look, I can't change your mind about how our leadership should best plot the future of our conference, just like you won't change my mind. I don't believe planning for the future out of fear is in the best interest of the Sun Belt. I think the Belt is in a better position then it has ever been.

I agree with the viewpoint that the SBC is ahead of the WAC and MAC. I think getting one Texas school (probably UTSA, if you ask me) and Louisiana Tech from the WAC would be the ideal situation if we were to expand to 12 teams. It'd make us a stronger conference than just having 10. With additional teams you've got more chances for success and bowl games. Gaining UTSA and LTU would probably cement our position ahead of the WAC and MAC for the time being and might even push us up to the level of CUSA.

(12-26-2011 04:10 PM)ntmeangreen11 Wrote:  WE DONT NEED TWO MORE FBS TEAMS IN TEXAS. THERE'S ALREADY TEN. AND TEXAS IS ALREADY THE MOST RECRUITED STATE IN THE NATION.

San Antonio has needed a team for some time. It's too large of a population area in a football crazy state to not have one.

Maybe the NCAA should set up a promotion and relegation system for college football teams. Cap the number at each level to some number that could conveniently feed into a playoff.

Maybe have each level consist of 4 conferences of 16 teams. Each conference plays 7 conference games and a conference championship game. Each conference champ makes the playoffs. Other teams can play in bowls or additional games after the season so that everybody plays the same number of games, 10 to 12.

The worst two teams in each conference get moved down. The best two teams in each conference in the next lowest level get moved up (the two teams that make the championship game in each conference). Maybe a team can't change levels more than once every 4 years to give some stability to things.

Promotion and relegation would certainly shake things up. Imagine a bad team fighting to stay at the highest level and needing to win their last game of the season to do that. You'd have drama at both ends of the standings. :)

Promotion and relegation described:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promotion_and_relegation

Check out English football uses that system. It's crazy how seemingly every single football team has their place in the system:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_foo...gue_system

(12-26-2011 08:12 PM)jarmzet Wrote:  

(12-26-2011 04:10 PM)ntmeangreen11 Wrote:  WE DONT NEED TWO MORE FBS TEAMS IN TEXAS. THERE'S ALREADY TEN. AND TEXAS IS ALREADY THE MOST RECRUITED STATE IN THE NATION.

San Antonio has needed a team for some time. It's too large of a population area in a football crazy state to not have one.

Yeah I feel the same way, definitely shows with your attendance figures. It'd also do the Sun Belt a big favor to have a great stadium like the Alamodome hosting SBC games in front of a nice fan base. As a UTSA fan, how do you feel about moving to the SBC after seeing the WAC's slow demise? I can imagine people might be having feelings about trying to get out of the WAC soon considering they're moving towards non-football sports.

(12-26-2011 04:10 PM)ntmeangreen11 Wrote:  NO. No matter how you slice it it's not good for North Texas, and that's the only thing I'm concerned about. A 12 team conference would include adding one of Texas St. & UTSA, if not both.

WE DONT NEED TWO MORE FBS TEAMS IN TEXAS. THERE'S ALREADY TEN. AND TEXAS IS ALREADY THE MOST RECRUITED STATE IN THE NATION. THERES ALREADY 122 FBS TEAMS, WE DONT NEED ANYMORE. LET THE MWC TAKE UTAH ST/SJSU AND LET THE OTHER 4 WAC SCHOOLS GO BACK TO FCS OR TRY TO MAKE IT AS AN INDEPENDENT. FBS DOESN'T NEED ANYMORE SCHOOLS. CERTAINLY NOT IN TEXAS...

I thought I've seen several UNT fans in favor of adding at least one (of the 2 Texas schools) to help with the travel budget, and not being as much of an "outlier" in the SBC. I don't know enough about either school to form an educated opinion.

(12-26-2011 08:15 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  Yeah I feel the same way, definitely shows with your attendance figures. It'd also do the Sun Belt a big favor to have a great stadium like the Alamodome hosting SBC games in front of a nice fan base. As a UTSA fan, how do you feel about moving to the SBC after seeing the WAC's slow demise? I can imagine people might be having feelings about trying to get out of the WAC soon considering they're moving towards non-football sports.

I'd love to see UTSA in the Sun Belt with North Texas and Texas State.

WAC travel is too much. Plus, as you alluded to, it might not be a football conference for much longer.

Hard to believe that the Sun Belt fans would want to take in Texas State and UTSA. Why don't you just take over the WAC entirely if you are planning on doing that. Sounds like people there are intent on going West.

By the way. Please take La Tech so their posters will go away, and GaState also. Thanks. Appreciate it.

(12-29-2011 01:16 PM)KingKong Wrote:  Hard to believe that the Sun Belt fans would want to take in Texas State and UTSA. Why don't you just take over the WAC entirely if you are planning on doing that. Sounds like people there are intent on going West.

Well if the 'Belt wants to expand thats where the teams are. Unless some CUSA teams want to come aboard there really isnt much in the East other than App State that I would want.

No FCS teams for me at the moment. I would prefer not to have 12 and stay with FBS schools.

(12-29-2011 01:16 PM)KingKong Wrote:  Hard to believe that the Sun Belt fans would want to take in Texas State and UTSA. Why don't you just take over the WAC entirely if you are planning on doing that. Sounds like people there are intent on going West.

The Sun Blet doesn't want to take UTSA or Texas State, that's why they are supposedly going to the WAC. We will see if there will still be a WAC for them to join. The Sun Belt doesn't need or wan to expand. If we did, we would have done it by now.

(12-29-2011 01:17 PM)KingKong Wrote:  By the way. Please take La Tech so their posters will go away, and GaState also. Thanks. Appreciate it.

People get sooooo snippy when they get left at the altar.


P.S. Buahahahahahaha!

(12-29-2011 01:39 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  The Sun Blet doesn't want to take UTSA or Texas State, that's why they are supposedly going to the WAC. We will see if there will still be a WAC for them to join. The Sun Belt doesn't need or want to expand. If we did, we would have done it by now.

There is going to be football in the WAC next year at least. UTSA and Texas State will play at least one year there. In two years (supposedly) they will both be full FBS members. If UTSA and Texas State have to, they can go independent in football after that.

I'm sure the Sun Belt doesn't want to and will never change. The way it is is the way it always will be. It'd be foolish to change anything. Nobody would even think of leaving the Sun Belt. If the CUSA came knocking, every single school would obviously say "no".

Maybe some other conference will take the Texas twins if WAC football is no more. Or maybe they'll form the first two team conference. They'll play 7 games each year against each other. The top two teams in the conference will make the conference championship game. A bunch of kids from each team will make the all conference team. If both teams win 6 games, they can play each other in an end of year bowl game. It'll be great. :)

(12-29-2011 01:39 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-29-2011 01:16 PM)KingKong Wrote:  Hard to believe that the Sun Belt fans would want to take in Texas State and UTSA. Why don't you just take over the WAC entirely if you are planning on doing that. Sounds like people there are intent on going West.

The Sun Blet doesn't want to take UTSA or Texas State, that's why they are supposedly going to the WAC. We will see if there will still be a WAC for them to join. The Sun Belt doesn't need or wan to expand. If we did, we would have done it by now.

Why do you say Texas State and UTSA are supposedly joining the WAC? Do you not believe what you hear?

(12-29-2011 04:03 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  

(12-29-2011 01:39 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-29-2011 01:16 PM)KingKong Wrote:  Hard to believe that the Sun Belt fans would want to take in Texas State and UTSA. Why don't you just take over the WAC entirely if you are planning on doing that. Sounds like people there are intent on going West.

The Sun Blet doesn't want to take UTSA or Texas State, that's why they are supposedly going to the WAC. We will see if there will still be a WAC for them to join. The Sun Belt doesn't need or wan to expand. If we did, we would have done it by now.

Why do you say Texas State and UTSA are supposedly joining the WAC? Do you not believe what you hear?

You guys will be fine. People are losing it. People keep saying that Benson and Marinatto are idiots or bad commissioners but they have done a good job in a bad situation not of their making. The WAC is not going anywhere yet.

I know things will change. They always do. The more I think about what the MWC is going to do in January, the more I believe things will be changing very fast.

I don't know that the WAC, as a FBS football conference, has much time left.

I think the merger will soon go through. I don't know if it will be an all sports merger or a football only merger, but I'm sure there is going to be a merger.

San Jose is already filing paperwork in an effort to join the MWC. The Hawaii paper is saying UTEP is moving to the MWC under the merger. If true, I think the new conference will settle on a two division conference with 10 teams in each division. I think the West will add USU and SJSU, and the East will add two programs as well. I don't think the two divisions will play crossover games, other then the Championship Game. I think that was the original plan. The teams would play a 9 game conference schedule, and have to alternate seasons with 5 conference home games and 4 conference home games.

This configuration would allow for each team to only play 3 OOC games a season, and allow the conference to negotiate for more T.V. revenue, as they would be adding 10 more conference games each season, to the value of their network deal.

With 3 OOC games per team, programs in the merged conference could schedule one creampuff, extra home game a season, one quality game against a tough AQ team; and one game against a chosen rival.

If the BCS is truly going away, I think this configuration will give the merged conference its best chance at gaining access to the top level of college football, and create a situation where the conference will enjoy stability in a post BCS world.

If it goes this way, the Sun Belt, MAC, and what is left of the WAC will probably have to react. I could see the Sun Belt and MAC merging, before I see the Sun Belt merging with what would be left from the WAC. Some WAC programs (LA Tech, and maybe UTSA, for its market), might get invited.

But like I said, this is just my opinion.

I'd love a SBC-MAC merger and a similar setup to the CUSA-MWC. It would really make for a great football conference that could be deserving of an AQ bid to the BCS after a few years. It makes sense to combine forces. Two heads are better than one.

no