Did our new Commish take office on March 15? I haven't seen anything promoting it. He said he would be moving quickly on things. I've read all the speculation. I wonder what his timetable is on adding new members and just who those are.

Unfortunalety I may feel this way, I don't think we should just start adding all willy nilly. We may be in a holding pattern until we find out what the Mega Merger Conference is doing....

(03-16-2012 01:34 PM)HoustonCajun Wrote:  Did our new Commish take office on March 15? I haven't seen anything promoting it. He said he would be moving quickly on things. I've read all the speculation. I wonder what his timetable is on adding new members and just who those are.

U haven't heard ? Idaho and NMSU and Denver to the Belt

(03-16-2012 01:40 PM)Usajags Wrote:  Unfortunalety I may feel this way, I don't think we should just start adding all willy nilly. We may be in a holding pattern until we find out what the Mega Merger Conference is doing....

I tend to disagree with that if the goal is to get to 12 in FB which Benson has alluded to. If the goal is 12, then you get there as quickly as possible while trying to keep who you have. IMO there are only 3 FBS-ish teams that we can get or want at this point. Those are LA Tech, UTSA, and Tx St. La Tech is the only true FBS team in the bunch, and they are not going to pursue or accept a SB invite until it is certain they are not getting into "The Alliance". If we wait that long then it is too late. The WAC is dead for FB with or without being raided again IMO, it is only a matter of time. Benson jumped ship, and the only schools they have been able to add are non-FB. They can't even find any more FCS teams to move up.

That is why I like the strategy of going after UTSA. They know they are not getting into they alliance and are in FBS-limbo, so they will do back flips into the Belt. With their addition it may or may not help keep UNT, but I don't see UNT and La Tech both getting into "The Alliance". Therefore, if the loose UNT we then simply add Tech to back fill their spot.

I am not so happy about the UNCC deal, and wish that we would only try to add former WAC schools. However, I do agree 100% with Atlanta Jag's rationale as to why we should add them over Ga St or any other FCS team for that matter. Basically UNCC has said that they are starting FB and want to be FBS. If we don't add them the MAC will. There is a high probabilty that they are gone in 5-7 years, but I don't think that "The Alliance" will be around in 5-7 years either. Hopefully next time around the SB is still stable, and a little stronger so we have the ability to to sang a team or two from the former "Alliance".

If there is no goal to get to 12, then you add no one and do away with the divisions.

(03-16-2012 01:34 PM)HoustonCajun Wrote:  Did our new Commish take office on March 15? I haven't seen anything promoting it. He said he would be moving quickly on things. I've read all the speculation. I wonder what his timetable is on adding new members and just who those are.

-----Beware of the IDES of March!!!!

Even if we go to 12 and have a conference championship game, we should do away with divisions, top 2 teams play for the conference championship.

I have a feeling that is the way the other conferences are going to go. If they do the 4 team playoff in the BCS and make it to where only conference champs are availible, then I promise the SEC will go to top 2 teams play for conference championship.

Could you imagine an undefeated LSU team playing a 8-4 Georgia team in the conference championship game and lose.

(03-16-2012 02:52 PM)Usajags Wrote:  Even if we go to 12 and have a conference championship game, we should do away with divisions, top 2 teams play for the conference championship.

I have a feeling that is the way the other conferences are going to go. If they do the 4 team playoff in the BCS and make it to where only conference champs are availible, then I promise the SEC will go to top 2 teams play for conference championship.

Could you imagine an undefeated LSU team playing a 8-4 Georgia team in the conference championship game and lose.

If there are no divisions, each time will play 11 conference games so only 1 OOC. No AD will agree to that.

Never said we would play 11 conference games. We would play 8 conference games. All the teams would, top 2 teams in the conference would play in the championship game.

(03-16-2012 03:04 PM)Usajags Wrote:  Never said we would play 11 conference games. We would play 8 conference games. All the teams would, top 2 teams in the conference would play in the championship game.

I think you need divisions to have a championship game(s), otherwise league play would decide the champion. And if you have divisions:
17.9.1.2 © Twelve-Member Conference Championship Game. [FBS/FCS] A conference championship game between division champions of a member conference of 12 or more institutions that is divided into two divisions (of six or more institutions each), each of which conducts round-robin, regular-season competition among the members of that division;

But lets say it was possible, how would we decide which 3 teams USA doesn't play in a given year? If it is the same teams each year, then maybe we should go divisions then and make it official.

Wouldn't always play the same teams every year. We would play Troy every year like you guys would play FAU every year. The UL's would play, stuff like that.

If the playoff sets up like the Big 10 wants it, expect all the conferences with championships game to move in this direction.

You have to consider too, that right now the "Alliance" is proposing a semifinal and final playoff for thier conference championship and that too is not legal in the current FBS set up.

The Sun Belt school presidents need to authorize Benson to invite Texas State and UTSA right away. No sense in screwing around and only asking one when both should end up in the conference anyway. Losing them should put pressure on Louisiana Tech to think long and hard about what comes next.

When the Alliance/Merger invites North Texas, which we can almost be sure will happen in the next few months, Benson should publicly invite Louisiana Tech. The ball is in their court from that moment forward. But nothing needs to be done in the East Division unless, and until, FAU or FIU is pulled away.

Loser Tech's boat has sailed....let's move on.

I hereby propose THE RADICAL SOLUTION to divisions and championship games (principal can be applied to any league chasing the wealthy leagues).

In football and basketball.... screw geography.

Each year, take the top half of the league based on a two year rolling BCS ranking put the top half in the Red division bottom half in the Blue division. In basketball do the same thing except relying on two year rolling RPI average ranking.

In football if you have 12, you play five games in division and three out. The three cross-division as much as possible respect geography. If you have 14, you play six in division and two cross-over again respecting geography as much as possible, 16 you play 7 and so on.

In football I would opt out of a title game but if insisted upon, it is played at the champion of the Red division.

In basketball if you have 12, you play 10 divisional and 6 cross-over, 14 you play 12 divisional and 4 crossover, 16 play 14 divisional and 4 cross-over (bumping to 18 games).

In basketball if all-comers tournament format remains for 12 team league, Red 1 and Blue 1 get byes, the next two best RPI get a bye and are seeded 1-4 based on RPI. Rest of the field seeded based on RPI. If 14 Red 1 and Blue 1 get byes and are seeded 1-2 based on RPI, rest of the field 3-14 seeded based on RPI. If 16, use the Big East format 1-4 get double byes, 5-8 get single bye. 1-4 is Red 1, Blue 1 and two best RPI's seeded based on RPI. Seeds 5-16 are straight RPI.

Our goal should be bracket busting and BCS busting, Insuring the top performers have the toughest predicted schedules increases the chances of the top division champ being in busting range and minimizes the strength of schedule damage from struggling programs.

Upside winner of Red (top) division has likely played a tough schedule that positions for BCS busting and for earning at-large in the NCAA Tournament.

Downside, the schools at the bottom of the top division are unlikely to be bowl eligible or have a record for NIT, CBI, CIT participation while the top schools of the Blue division are likely bowl eligible and have a good enough record to be in the NIT, CBI, CTI mix in basketball.

Upside fan demands that they be provided a program that is upper division competitive means greater pressure and accountability.

Downside higher travel costs makes accomplishing improvements more difficult.

(03-16-2012 04:05 PM)Lolly Popp Wrote:  The Sun Belt school presidents need to authorize Benson to invite Texas State and UTSA right away. No sense in screwing around and only asking one when both should end up in the conference anyway. Losing them should put pressure on Louisiana Tech to think long and hard about what comes next.

When the Alliance/Merger invites North Texas, which we can almost be sure will happen in the next few months, Benson should publicly invite Louisiana Tech. The ball is in their court from that moment forward. But nothing needs to be done in the East Division unless, and until, FAU or FIU is pulled away.

Nothing need to be done in the West either. Until the Sun Belt knows for sure that they are losing teams, and which teams they are, no one needs to be added anywhere. If the conference still has eight teams after the alliance raid, I hope the presidents think long and hard about whether or not certain programs would enhance the Sun Belt. Don't just start inviting programs to increase numbers.

If the Sun Belt loses a few programs, eight teams is all the conference needs to have. Any number over that, should add value to the conference, not just be another mouth to feed. The Sun Belt would still have the ability to improve the quality of the conference, as long as it doesn't have a stupid reaction to the movements occurring in other conferences.

(03-17-2012 10:09 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-16-2012 04:05 PM)Lolly Popp Wrote:  The Sun Belt school presidents need to authorize Benson to invite Texas State and UTSA right away. No sense in screwing around and only asking one when both should end up in the conference anyway. Losing them should put pressure on Louisiana Tech to think long and hard about what comes next.

When the Alliance/Merger invites North Texas, which we can almost be sure will happen in the next few months, Benson should publicly invite Louisiana Tech. The ball is in their court from that moment forward. But nothing needs to be done in the East Division unless, and until, FAU or FIU is pulled away.

Nothing need to be done in the West either. Until the Sun Belt knows for sure that they are losing teams, and which teams they are, no one needs to be added anywhere. If the conference still has eight teams after the alliance raid, I hope the presidents think long and hard about whether or not certain programs would enhance the Sun Belt. Don't just start inviting programs to increase numbers.

If the Sun Belt loses a few programs, eight teams is all the conference needs to have. Any number over that, should add value to the conference, not just be another mouth to feed. The Sun Belt would still have the ability to improve the quality of the conference, as long as it doesn't have a stupid reaction to the movements occurring in other conferences.

I don't think that Benson would propose adding members if it wasn't going to make money. If he were to do that and the presidents still voted for it then they don't deserve the jobs they have.

This is not directed at you Side Show Joe, but the thing I don't get about the whole realignment deal is that I don't think fans realize the field the administrators are playing on. They have all the information. With that it is really a simple economic analysis. Does adding team X and team Y make the SBC enough money to increase the revenue for all members. If the answer is yes then you add team X and Y. The Alliance is going to make money. If it wasn't then the two conferences would not have merged. If the Sun Belt goes to 12 it will make money. It may be a nominal amount, but it will.

The controversy and indecision comes in when you add the egos and risk. The Alliance may make money for the league (not to mention there is still hope for the auto-bid), but only be around for 3-4 yrs because if in-fighting and revenue streams being lower than predicted. Is a school willing to take that risk? Then the ego comes in and there is the natural instinct to suppress a perceived threat. For example the BCS schools not wanting a play-off even though it would make more money or schools not getting the votes to be allowed in a conference by the existing members.

(03-17-2012 11:12 AM)mts305 Wrote:  

(03-17-2012 10:09 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-16-2012 04:05 PM)Lolly Popp Wrote:  The Sun Belt school presidents need to authorize Benson to invite Texas State and UTSA right away. No sense in screwing around and only asking one when both should end up in the conference anyway. Losing them should put pressure on Louisiana Tech to think long and hard about what comes next.

When the Alliance/Merger invites North Texas, which we can almost be sure will happen in the next few months, Benson should publicly invite Louisiana Tech. The ball is in their court from that moment forward. But nothing needs to be done in the East Division unless, and until, FAU or FIU is pulled away.

Nothing need to be done in the West either. Until the Sun Belt knows for sure that they are losing teams, and which teams they are, no one needs to be added anywhere. If the conference still has eight teams after the alliance raid, I hope the presidents think long and hard about whether or not certain programs would enhance the Sun Belt. Don't just start inviting programs to increase numbers.

If the Sun Belt loses a few programs, eight teams is all the conference needs to have. Any number over that, should add value to the conference, not just be another mouth to feed. The Sun Belt would still have the ability to improve the quality of the conference, as long as it doesn't have a stupid reaction to the movements occurring in other conferences.

I don't think that Benson would propose adding members if it wasn't going to make money. If he were to do that and the presidents still voted for it then they don't deserve the jobs they have.

This is not directed at you Side Show Joe, but the thing I don't get about the whole realignment deal is that I don't think fans realize the field the administrators are playing on. They have all the information. With that it is really a simple economic analysis. Does adding team X and team Y make the SBC enough money to increase the revenue for all members. If the answer is yes then you add team X and Y. The Alliance is going to make money. If it wasn't then the two conferences would not have merged. If the Sun Belt goes to 12 it will make money. It may be a nominal amount, but it will.

The controversy and indecision comes in when you add the egos and risk. The Alliance may make money for the league (not to mention there is still hope for the auto-bid), but only be around for 3-4 yrs because if in-fighting and revenue streams being lower than predicted. Is a school willing to take that risk? Then the ego comes in and there is the natural instinct to suppress a perceived threat. For example the BCS schools not wanting a play-off even though it would make more money or schools not getting the votes to be allowed in a conference by the existing members.

My post is more directed at the idea of Sun Belt expansion. The alliance may work, or may not. I personally think, the dynamics of media distribution have changed a great deal since the time of the Mega-WAC, and if the alliance is structured the right way, it will be successful. Time will tell.

As for the Sun Belt, I believe adding programs to save on travel expenses, or for a short term bump in money is not worth the damage I think the conference with receive through watering down the conference by inviting FCS programs. Like I've said before, USA is a charter memeber of the Sun Belt, and I'm glad they are moving up, but other FCS programs do not need to be invited into the Sun Belt. This conference is not in desperate need of new programs. Even if the Belt is raided, I don't believe it will be in need of new programs.

If UNT is invited to the alliance, we will go. If that happens, then I won't really have a right to say what the Sun Belt should do. But, I do like this conference, and only want the best for it, and I believe reckless expansion is not in the best long term interest of the Sun Belt. If expansion must occur, I hope the conference stays with it's current Waters policy of only looking at established FBS programs.