(03-24-2012 08:47 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 04:52 PM)HERD-it-wuz-DJ Wrote:  Maybe it means that FAU was not in this time around and that only two schools have been invited and informally accepted.
FIU? North Texas?

I don't know if this news means the alliance won't expand to 24. I think it means that they didn't see an added value in inviting both FIU and FAU, when the two are so close to each other. It appears FIU will get the nod, if or when the alliance chooses a Florida program. They could still desire 24, and have other Sun Belt programs in mind.

If this news is a sign the alliance won't expand to 24 right now, I think it is probably very bad news for LA Tech. The Boca Raton market though close to Miami, is still dramatically larger than any of the combination of media markets LA Tech might want to claim.

How is this bad news for Tech? They are still getting looked at by the CUSA/MWC conference

(03-24-2012 08:35 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 03:39 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 09:05 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Ouch...I'm sure many FAU fans are not happy today, but this is good for the Sun Belt. I'm glad the Belt has not rushed to add new members. It looks like the conference may not lose very many teams, and probably won't have to replace as many as some were thinking we would.

Why would FAU fans not be happy?

Because, dispite the belief of some on the board, a move to the alliance would be in the best interest of FAU. The Sun Belt is a great home, but the alliance would have offered FAU more money and national exposure.

I think it is obvious FAU and many of their fans wanted an invitation.

Everyone wants to be loved and wanted. The grass is always greener.

A lot of people are acting like this Alliance will be a more important conference than CUSA or MWC were before they lost all their most important programs. That is absurd.

Tulane and Tulsa and Wyoming and UAB are still Tulane and Tulsa and Wyoming and UAB. Wyoming is going to be no more important than they were before and neither are the others.

Contrary to popular belief, losing TCU, Boise, SMU, Houston and Memphis basketball don't make you more important and desirable...it makes you less important and desirable.

I truly admire the marketing job they have done leveraging the former reputations of the previous CUSA and MWC lineups before it fades and convincing all of the WAC and half the SBC to come slobber all over the Wyoming/Tulane/UAB/etc shoes in a servile way.

You can take CUSA remnants, some SBC, some WAC programs and and FCS school or two and put together a pretty good looking football conference. Unfortunately that good football conference would lean more toward full stadiums in smaller markets in an era when empty stadiums in large markets are preferred.

I don't blame FAU, they are only 10 years old.

(03-24-2012 08:35 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 03:39 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 09:05 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Ouch...I'm sure many FAU fans are not happy today, but this is good for the Sun Belt. I'm glad the Belt has not rushed to add new members. It looks like the conference may not lose very many teams, and probably won't have to replace as many as some were thinking we would.

Why would FAU fans not be happy?

Because, dispite the belief of some on the board, a move to the alliance would be in the best interest of FAU. The Sun Belt is a great home, but the alliance would have offered FAU more money and national exposure.

I think it is obvious FAU and many of their fans wanted an invitation.

And you learned all this how?

(03-24-2012 04:07 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 12:25 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Don't see that their moving to the mega-Walmart conference, spread out as poorly as they are would be any upgrade except maybe in TV revenue right now.

mega-Walmart conference?? Is that the same one you were pimping Appy State for recently?

Quote:Do what you feel best, but App State should be included in the new Alliance conference to help build an even better conference.

CUSA board

Why the change of heart? Or are you just kissing as many conference butts as possible hoping to increase the chance of ANY FBS invite?

I also said that I hoped App State got an offer from the Alliance and turned it down. It is right there on the CUSA board, might be in that same thread. I further said that I would be in favor of accepting a Sun Belt offer though if it were offerred. So just don't quote part of that conversation.

Our President, Peacock, not Obama, said in LA a few days ago that he feels that we will wind up in that new conference we and several other schools have been working on for years. It would be a much more regional conference.

The reason I like the Sun Belt over the Alliance, or mega-Walmart conference, is because it is more regional and not spread out all over the Western Hemisphere nearly as much. It maintains much more stability. I also have the opinion that the school makes it's own destiny, the conference helps, but eventually it is up to the school.

I know a lot of you and others will think this stupid or odd, especially since so many seem to be running around needing Pampers anytime some invite is discussed for their school in the mega-huge conference, but I do not believe they will get a whopping TV deal they expect either.

(03-24-2012 10:45 PM)techdawg88 Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 08:47 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 04:52 PM)HERD-it-wuz-DJ Wrote:  Maybe it means that FAU was not in this time around and that only two schools have been invited and informally accepted.
FIU? North Texas?

I don't know if this news means the alliance won't expand to 24. I think it means that they didn't see an added value in inviting both FIU and FAU, when the two are so close to each other. It appears FIU will get the nod, if or when the alliance chooses a Florida program. They could still desire 24, and have other Sun Belt programs in mind.

If this news is a sign the alliance won't expand to 24 right now, I think it is probably very bad news for LA Tech. The Boca Raton market though close to Miami, is still dramatically larger than any of the combination of media markets LA Tech might want to claim.

How is this bad news for Tech? They are still getting looked at by the CUSA/MWC conference

I don't know if it will be bad for LA Tech, I wrote, "if this news is a sign the alliance won't expand to 24", then I think it could be bad for LA Tech, because you guys don't have a large market, and most people believe t.v markets are driving realignment. An alliance of 24 gives you a better chance at an invitation, then an alliance of 18, or 20.

(03-25-2012 12:36 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 08:35 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 03:39 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 09:05 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Ouch...I'm sure many FAU fans are not happy today, but this is good for the Sun Belt. I'm glad the Belt has not rushed to add new members. It looks like the conference may not lose very many teams, and probably won't have to replace as many as some were thinking we would.

Why would FAU fans not be happy?

Because, dispite the belief of some on the board, a move to the alliance would be in the best interest of FAU. The Sun Belt is a great home, but the alliance would have offered FAU more money and national exposure.

I think it is obvious FAU and many of their fans wanted an invitation.

And you learned all this how?

Lets see... The AD recently stated that he expected FAU to recieve strong consideration from the alliance, and he boasted of FAU's selling points. Of course that was before the university desided not to keep him, and the FAU president announced they would stay in the Sun Belt.

Another article stated that many Sun belt programs had been in contact with the alliance regarding the expansion. FAU was included in the list.

The alliance will be in every timezone in America, so it will naturally get more national exposure. The alliance T.V. deal will be more than the Sun Belt's, because no other FBS conference would accept the deal we signed.

That is how I learned and rationalized my response.

(03-24-2012 11:08 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 08:35 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 03:39 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 09:05 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Ouch...I'm sure many FAU fans are not happy today, but this is good for the Sun Belt. I'm glad the Belt has not rushed to add new members. It looks like the conference may not lose very many teams, and probably won't have to replace as many as some were thinking we would.

Why would FAU fans not be happy?

Because, dispite the belief of some on the board, a move to the alliance would be in the best interest of FAU. The Sun Belt is a great home, but the alliance would have offered FAU more money and national exposure.

I think it is obvious FAU and many of their fans wanted an invitation.

Everyone wants to be loved and wanted. The grass is always greener.

A lot of people are acting like this Alliance will be a more important conference than CUSA or MWC were before they lost all their most important programs. That is absurd.

Tulane and Tulsa and Wyoming and UAB are still Tulane and Tulsa and Wyoming and UAB. Wyoming is going to be no more important than they were before and neither are the others.

Contrary to popular belief, losing TCU, Boise, SMU, Houston and Memphis basketball don't make you more important and desirable...it makes you less important and desirable.

I truly admire the marketing job they have done leveraging the former reputations of the previous CUSA and MWC lineups before it fades and convincing all of the WAC and half the SBC to come slobber all over the Wyoming/Tulane/UAB/etc shoes in a servile way.

You can take CUSA remnants, some SBC, some WAC programs and and FCS school or two and put together a pretty good looking football conference. Unfortunately that good football conference would lean more toward full stadiums in smaller markets in an era when empty stadiums in large markets are preferred.

I don't blame FAU, they are only 10 years old.

You are right. The alliance will be weaker from having lost most of their top programs. Having said that, it will still get more attention and T.V. money.

I believe the Sun Belt will have a window of opportunity maybe (3-5 years) to gain some ground on the alliance. During this time the difference in the overall quality of football will not be as great as it has been. But, I think the Sun Belt will only be able to capitalize on this if it avoids unnecessary expansion. I believe 8 higher quality programs will be better for the conference then 7 or 8 quality teams and adding 4 or 5 warm bodies, just to get to 12.

I think the Sunbelt is sitting pretty good right now.

If they lose a team or two, they just take a WAC team or two.

The WAC is on life support......soon to have the machine unplugged.

(03-24-2012 11:08 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 08:35 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 03:39 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 09:05 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Ouch...I'm sure many FAU fans are not happy today, but this is good for the Sun Belt. I'm glad the Belt has not rushed to add new members. It looks like the conference may not lose very many teams, and probably won't have to replace as many as some were thinking we would.

Why would FAU fans not be happy?

Because, dispite the belief of some on the board, a move to the alliance would be in the best interest of FAU. The Sun Belt is a great home, but the alliance would have offered FAU more money and national exposure.

I think it is obvious FAU and many of their fans wanted an invitation.

Everyone wants to be loved and wanted. The grass is always greener.

A lot of people are acting like this Alliance will be a more important conference than CUSA or MWC were before they lost all their most important programs. That is absurd.

Tulane and Tulsa and Wyoming and UAB are still Tulane and Tulsa and Wyoming and UAB. Wyoming is going to be no more important than they were before and neither are the others.

Contrary to popular belief, losing TCU, Boise, SMU, Houston and Memphis basketball don't make you more important and desirable...it makes you less important and desirable.

I truly admire the marketing job they have done leveraging the former reputations of the previous CUSA and MWC lineups before it fades and convincing all of the WAC and half the SBC to come slobber all over the Wyoming/Tulane/UAB/etc shoes in a servile way.

You can take CUSA remnants, some SBC, some WAC programs and and FCS school or two and put together a pretty good looking football conference. Unfortunately that good football conference would lean more toward full stadiums in smaller markets in an era when empty stadiums in large markets are preferred.

I don't blame FAU, they are only 10 years old.

so true! this sums it up

The fact is that teams in the WAC are looking for a way out. ALong with teams moving up and possibly a couple of Sun Belt teams they all are interested in a likely lythical pay raise that the MountUSA would present. It's stupid to claim that the WAC is better than the Sun Belt and nobod yis beggoing to join the MAC either. UTSA fans have been the worst but a lot of people moving up feel like they have to bash the Belt to prove themselves and fit in.

(03-25-2012 01:56 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 11:08 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 08:35 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 03:39 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 09:05 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Ouch...I'm sure many FAU fans are not happy today, but this is good for the Sun Belt. I'm glad the Belt has not rushed to add new members. It looks like the conference may not lose very many teams, and probably won't have to replace as many as some were thinking we would.

Why would FAU fans not be happy?

Because, dispite the belief of some on the board, a move to the alliance would be in the best interest of FAU. The Sun Belt is a great home, but the alliance would have offered FAU more money and national exposure.

I think it is obvious FAU and many of their fans wanted an invitation.

Everyone wants to be loved and wanted. The grass is always greener.

A lot of people are acting like this Alliance will be a more important conference than CUSA or MWC were before they lost all their most important programs. That is absurd.

Tulane and Tulsa and Wyoming and UAB are still Tulane and Tulsa and Wyoming and UAB. Wyoming is going to be no more important than they were before and neither are the others.

Contrary to popular belief, losing TCU, Boise, SMU, Houston and Memphis basketball don't make you more important and desirable...it makes you less important and desirable.

I truly admire the marketing job they have done leveraging the former reputations of the previous CUSA and MWC lineups before it fades and convincing all of the WAC and half the SBC to come slobber all over the Wyoming/Tulane/UAB/etc shoes in a servile way.

You can take CUSA remnants, some SBC, some WAC programs and and FCS school or two and put together a pretty good looking football conference. Unfortunately that good football conference would lean more toward full stadiums in smaller markets in an era when empty stadiums in large markets are preferred.

I don't blame FAU, they are only 10 years old.

You are right. The alliance will be weaker from having lost most of their top programs. Having said that, it will still get more attention and T.V. money.

I believe the Sun Belt will have a window of opportunity maybe (3-5 years) to gain some ground on the alliance. During this time the difference in the overall quality of football will not be as great as it has been. But, I think the Sun Belt will only be able to capitalize on this if it avoids unnecessary expansion. I believe 8 higher quality programs will be better for the conference then 7 or 8 quality teams and adding 4 or 5 warm bodies, just to get to 12.

I think they will get additional notice because 1) something new, 2) residual reputation leftover from Boise, TCU, etc. I think that sort of interest fades fairly quickly despite the brilliant marketing they are doing to take advantage of it.

Depending on how they arrange it they may get an attendance boost for a time due to getting new teams at home. That sort of goes away if the new teams aren't that interesting or they don't have much inter-divisional play.

But after the new wears off a UAB/Rice game will still be a UAB/Rice game and not really attract more additional national attention than it did before....probably less since Boise, TCU, SMU, Houston, etc are not in the mix.

Everybody is looking for a quick buck and a shortcut to glory.

(03-25-2012 01:56 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  You are right. The alliance will be weaker from having lost most of their top programs. Having said that, it will still get more attention and T.V. money.

I believe the Sun Belt will have a window of opportunity maybe (3-5 years) to gain some ground on the alliance. During this time the difference in the overall quality of football will not be as great as it has been. But, I think the Sun Belt will only be able to capitalize on this if it avoids unnecessary expansion. I believe 8 higher quality programs will be better for the conference then 7 or 8 quality teams and adding 4 or 5 warm bodies, just to get to 12.

There is little difference between the western side of the Alliance and the Sun Belt in football. That remains part of what puzzles me. Why go to 16+ to prop up the western schools. If I were in Bankowsky's shoes I'd be working up a raid of the Sun Belt. You can get a league that is stronger than the Alliance with fewer mouths to feed and championships all within the region.

I believe 10 is a good number for the Sun Belt. I don't care about chasing TV dollars, I want to chase NCAA units and BCS money. Do that effectively and TV follows.

(03-25-2012 05:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-25-2012 01:56 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  You are right. The alliance will be weaker from having lost most of their top programs. Having said that, it will still get more attention and T.V. money.

I believe the Sun Belt will have a window of opportunity maybe (3-5 years) to gain some ground on the alliance. During this time the difference in the overall quality of football will not be as great as it has been. But, I think the Sun Belt will only be able to capitalize on this if it avoids unnecessary expansion. I believe 8 higher quality programs will be better for the conference then 7 or 8 quality teams and adding 4 or 5 warm bodies, just to get to 12.

There is little difference between the western side of the Alliance and the Sun Belt in football. That remains part of what puzzles me. Why go to 16+ to prop up the western schools. If I were in Bankowsky's shoes I'd be working up a raid of the Sun Belt. You can get a league that is stronger than the Alliance with fewer mouths to feed and championships all within the region.

I believe 10 is a good number for the Sun Belt. I don't care about chasing TV dollars, I want to chase NCAA units and BCS money. Do that effectively and TV follows.

People are thinking very short-term and immediate gratification. You see Texas A&M and the SEC talking about "100 year decisions". I'm not seeing much 100 year thinking at the mid-major level.

(03-25-2012 06:29 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-25-2012 05:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-25-2012 01:56 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  You are right. The alliance will be weaker from having lost most of their top programs. Having said that, it will still get more attention and T.V. money.

I believe the Sun Belt will have a window of opportunity maybe (3-5 years) to gain some ground on the alliance. During this time the difference in the overall quality of football will not be as great as it has been. But, I think the Sun Belt will only be able to capitalize on this if it avoids unnecessary expansion. I believe 8 higher quality programs will be better for the conference then 7 or 8 quality teams and adding 4 or 5 warm bodies, just to get to 12.

There is little difference between the western side of the Alliance and the Sun Belt in football. That remains part of what puzzles me. Why go to 16+ to prop up the western schools. If I were in Bankowsky's shoes I'd be working up a raid of the Sun Belt. You can get a league that is stronger than the Alliance with fewer mouths to feed and championships all within the region.

I believe 10 is a good number for the Sun Belt. I don't care about chasing TV dollars, I want to chase NCAA units and BCS money. Do that effectively and TV follows.

People are thinking very short-term and immediate gratification. You see Texas A&M and the SEC talking about "100 year decisions". I'm not seeing much 100 year thinking at the mid-major level.

Because who of us wants to be on this level 100 years from now? If you are in the SEC that's where you'd like to be for the next 100 years. I'd love for ECU to be talking about a 100 year decision, but there isn't a school left in non-AQ other than USM and maybe Marshall that I would want us to be with longer than necessary.

(03-25-2012 05:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-25-2012 01:56 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  You are right. The alliance will be weaker from having lost most of their top programs. Having said that, it will still get more attention and T.V. money.

I believe the Sun Belt will have a window of opportunity maybe (3-5 years) to gain some ground on the alliance. During this time the difference in the overall quality of football will not be as great as it has been. But, I think the Sun Belt will only be able to capitalize on this if it avoids unnecessary expansion. I believe 8 higher quality programs will be better for the conference then 7 or 8 quality teams and adding 4 or 5 warm bodies, just to get to 12.

There is little difference between the western side of the Alliance and the Sun Belt in football. That remains part of what puzzles me. Why go to 16+ to prop up the western schools. If I were in Bankowsky's shoes I'd be working up a raid of the Sun Belt. You can get a league that is stronger than the Alliance with fewer mouths to feed and championships all within the region.

I believe 10 is a good number for the Sun Belt. I don't care about chasing TV dollars, I want to chase NCAA units and BCS money. Do that effectively and TV follows.

What Sun-Belt programs have better basketball than UNLV and New Mexico? What Sun-Belt programs have better football programs (not just last season) than Air Force, Hawaii, Nevada, or Fresno State? Feel free to define what would make it stronger to add whatever Sun-Belt members you define are the best? Won't be stronger financially, won't get more NCAA bids, so outside of being kinda sorta in the same region outside of ECU and Marshall what would make it stronger? You want to chase NCAA units and yet think merging with the MWC who was a 4 bid league last year isn't effectively doing that?

(03-25-2012 09:58 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-25-2012 06:29 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(03-25-2012 05:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-25-2012 01:56 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  You are right. The alliance will be weaker from having lost most of their top programs. Having said that, it will still get more attention and T.V. money.

I believe the Sun Belt will have a window of opportunity maybe (3-5 years) to gain some ground on the alliance. During this time the difference in the overall quality of football will not be as great as it has been. But, I think the Sun Belt will only be able to capitalize on this if it avoids unnecessary expansion. I believe 8 higher quality programs will be better for the conference then 7 or 8 quality teams and adding 4 or 5 warm bodies, just to get to 12.

There is little difference between the western side of the Alliance and the Sun Belt in football. That remains part of what puzzles me. Why go to 16+ to prop up the western schools. If I were in Bankowsky's shoes I'd be working up a raid of the Sun Belt. You can get a league that is stronger than the Alliance with fewer mouths to feed and championships all within the region.

I believe 10 is a good number for the Sun Belt. I don't care about chasing TV dollars, I want to chase NCAA units and BCS money. Do that effectively and TV follows.

People are thinking very short-term and immediate gratification. You see Texas A&M and the SEC talking about "100 year decisions". I'm not seeing much 100 year thinking at the mid-major level.

Because who of us wants to be on this level 100 years from now? If you are in the SEC that's where you'd like to be for the next 100 years. I'd love for ECU to be talking about a 100 year decision, but there isn't a school left in non-AQ other than USM and maybe Marshall that I would want us to be with longer than necessary.

That's because you are talking about being invited to something somebody else already built...immediate gratification. But that's not really going to happen for most programs, and its going to happen even less in the future because the slots for "upward mobility" are going to be gone.

Pretty much all that is left right is just shuffling around of various mid-majors into different combinations. But no matter how you shift them they are still UAB, Wyoming, Tulane, etc.

Now we can all play the mid-major conference shuffle musical chairs game every few years chasing some magic ring or we can establish some sort of rational regional mid-major conferences based on reality and then commit to them and build them into something with some longevity.

Because we are getting down to the point where building something is going to be the only option since there will be nobody left to reach down and yank you from obscurity into AQ heaven.

As for the "lessers" that people don't want to "associate" with. Boise was FCS once. UCF was FCS once. They were "lessers" just like Texas State, App State, Georgia State, etc. are today. Somebody considered their potential at some point and was willing to associate with them on the off chance they could become more. They did. You probably wish you were in the position of those "lessers" today. Get over your prejudices and look ahead.

I have no illusion...we are going to go through an era where we have mid-major mega-conferences that stretch from sea to shining sea. Maybe a decade before it cracks up and we start again....maybe with some rational alignments then.

(03-25-2012 11:32 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  That's because you are talking about being invited to something somebody else already built...immediate gratification. But that's not really going to happen for most programs, and its going to happen even less in the future because the slots for "upward mobility" are going to be gone.

Pretty much all that is left right is just shuffling around of various mid-majors into different combinations. But no matter how you shift them they are still UAB, Wyoming, Tulane, etc.

Now we can all play the mid-major conference shuffle musical chairs game every few years chasing some magic ring or we can establish some sort of rational regional mid-major conferences based on reality and then commit to them and build them into something with some longevity.

Because we are getting down to the point where building something is going to be the only option since there will be nobody left to reach down and yank you from obscurity into AQ heaven.

As for the "lessers" that people don't want to "associate" with. Boise was FCS once. UCF was FCS once. They were "lessers" just like Texas State, App State, Georgia State, etc. are today. Somebody considered their potential at some point and was willing to associate with them on the off chance they could become more. They did. You probably wish you were in the position of those "lessers" today. Get over your prejudices and look ahead.

I have no illusion...we are going to go through an era where we have mid-major mega-conferences that stretch from sea to shining sea. Maybe a decade before it cracks up and we start again....maybe with some rational alignments then.

The MAC has had plenty of longevity, but has that really helped them move up the ladder any? They have for the most part been considered at or near the bottom rung of the non-AQ world, and their core has been together for 50+ years. So longevity only really matters if you have programs who have invested and are growing. What good is it going to be to form the southern MAC if it's just going to have a bunch of programs that never consistently pack more than 20k fans in the stands and are not respected by the majority of the college football world? As for my own prejudices I've advocated a long term mid-atlantic regional league for ECU assuming 10-15 years from now after the merger has failed we are still in a worse position. I think schools like App, ODU, JMU, Delaware, GSU, and Charlotte have great future FBS promise, but each are several years away from being at this level. Now for me to actually want ECU in this league several things have to happen. First some or all of these programs have to make the move to FBS and at least establish a little credibility at this level. Second the merger has to fail (which is most likely inevitable). Then third ECU has to pretty much know for sure we are never getting the call to anything better and it's time to settle in for the long haul. We can't currently send the message to our fan base that all this money (100 million in facility additions in the last 4 years), time, and effort has pretty much landed us back in the SOCON we left in 1979. We have to play out the clock on expansion and hope we can catch a ride on the last train out. If that doesn't happen the group long term we'll associate with is a group of mid-atlantic teams, not deep south teams because we are very far removed from teams in your area and when this reality sets in we are going to need to be in as tight a conference from a geography standpoint as possible to save money.

The MAC has had success it is just that people ignore it. The MAC has been a two bid league in basketball before (and we hope to get back to that). The MAC has several programs with some great history in football. Miami has one of the best records of all non-AQ teams. Toledo, Bowling Green, and the like actually have good histories in football if you care to look it up. Sure we have a few schools that have not done well in football such as Kent, Akron, or Ohio (notice I said Ohio as this is the best Ohio has been as traditionally they have not been good) but who doesn't? As recently as the late 90s early 2000s the MAC was known as a "giant killer" due to all the upsets we kept doing (and for the record no it was not just Marshal). A big part of the reason people put down the MAC is prioritizing the short term as some of the recent years (not so much last year) were some of our worst but if last year is any indication we are coming out of it.

Besides improve on what ladder? Are we to delude ourselves like so many CUSA fans and think we are better than the AQ conferences (or at least particular AQ conferences)? The MAC has been good to its members the only thing it lacks is consistency. Heck the MAC has been the ultimate stepping stone which is why a place like Miami is called "the Cradle of Coaches" which is due to coaches moving on and becoming very successful. This has been good and bad for it has led to teams doing very well but then losing their coach and the cycle continues. Also note that the MAC came very close to having a BCS buster in Ball State in 2008 had they not lost the MAC championship (sound familiar CUSA fans?) and Miami could have if the current rules were in place in 2003 (some of the Marshal teams could have done it but then you would have the debate of they are not a current MAC team but they were when they did it so I am not putting that out there officially).

I am not trying to make a case that the MAC is better than any particular conference but the MAC takes way more crap than it deserves.

I was re-reading the quote and noticed something that I failed to notice the first time...

“not been invited to another conference… I think those decisions have already been made. I think it’s finished now. …We’re staying in the Sun Belt.”

Keying in on the word THINK here.

Now like I said, and HAVE said, Im ok with staying in the Sun Belt. But this isnt exactly saying that FAU was told it wasnt'd invited. Its saying she is "guessing" FAU isnt involved because she didnt know.

(03-26-2012 09:53 AM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  The MAC has had success it is just that people ignore it. The MAC has been a two bid league in basketball before (and we hope to get back to that). The MAC has several programs with some great history in football. Miami has one of the best records of all non-AQ teams. Toledo, Bowling Green, and the like actually have good histories in football if you care to look it up. Sure we have a few schools that have not done well in football such as Kent, Akron, or Ohio (notice I said Ohio as this is the best Ohio has been as traditionally they have not been good) but who doesn't? As recently as the late 90s early 2000s the MAC was known as a "giant killer" due to all the upsets we kept doing (and for the record no it was not just Marshal). A big part of the reason people put down the MAC is prioritizing the short term as some of the recent years (not so much last year) were some of our worst but if last year is any indication we are coming out of it.

Besides improve on what ladder? Are we to delude ourselves like so many CUSA fans and think we are better than the AQ conferences (or at least particular AQ conferences)? The MAC has been good to its members the only thing it lacks is consistency. Heck the MAC has been the ultimate stepping stone which is why a place like Miami is called "the Cradle of Coaches" which is due to coaches moving on and becoming very successful. This has been good and bad for it has led to teams doing very well but then losing their coach and the cycle continues. Also note that the MAC came very close to having a BCS buster in Ball State in 2008 had they not lost the MAC championship (sound familiar CUSA fans?) and Miami could have if the current rules were in place in 2003 (some of the Marshal teams could have done it but then you would have the debate of they are not a current MAC team but they were when they did it so I am not putting that out there officially).

I am not trying to make a case that the MAC is better than any particular conference but the MAC takes way more crap than it deserves.

The MAC has been good for it's members, because it's geographically reasonable and each of it's members are similar in size, support levels, and goals. The problem is there isn't a similar league available for ECU and never will be. If there was a group of non-AQ schools who had attendance levels in the 30-50k range with budgets similar to ours and in our geographic region then of course I'd want to talk about forming a long lasting league with those types of schools. The problem is those schools don't exist. There are a bunch of current non-AQ schools not in our region who average in the 15-25k announced range, and then a bunch of FCS schools in our region who also average in that same range. Neither are groups that we fit with. The FCS schools have the potential 10-20 years from now to maybe reach those support levels, but that's far from guaranteed.