(05-07-2012 09:31 PM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  Can we assume the one add, if the report is true, is UTA? Would App State turn the Belt down? Would Ga. Southern?

Not unless CUSA came calling.

But if we turn THEM down it might be time for the MAC to finally make a move on App State.

Karl Benson was on the Paul Finebaum Show today and while I didn't get to hear it I was told that Karl Benson said that we have plans to add one more school within 7-10 days and that school might not play football... all signs point to UTA and nothing set in stone afterward.

damnit, why can't we be smart? App State is the OBVIOUS choice!

(05-07-2012 09:31 PM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  Can we assume the one add, if the report is true, is UTA? Would App State turn the Belt down? Would Ga. Southern?

No way in hell we would reject an invite. But we would try to delay it a year.

(05-07-2012 10:14 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  Karl Benson was on the Paul Finebaum Show today and while I didn't get to hear it I was told that Karl Benson said that we have plans to add one more school within 7-10 days and that school might not play football... all signs point to UTA and nothing set in stone afterward.

I said last week it would be UTA and that's it.

The only holdup for UTA was their getting approval from their board of supervisors, otherwise it would have been announced last week.

We'll stay right there unless someone else from the 'Belt gets an invite.

(05-07-2012 11:11 PM)BirdofParadise Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 10:14 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  Karl Benson was on the Paul Finebaum Show today and while I didn't get to hear it I was told that Karl Benson said that we have plans to add one more school within 7-10 days and that school might not play football... all signs point to UTA and nothing set in stone afterward.

We'll stay right there unless someone else from the 'Belt gets an invite.

Got an explanation for why?

(05-07-2012 11:11 PM)BirdofParadise Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 10:14 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  Karl Benson was on the Paul Finebaum Show today and while I didn't get to hear it I was told that Karl Benson said that we have plans to add one more school within 7-10 days and that school might not play football... all signs point to UTA and nothing set in stone afterward.

I said last week it would be UTA and that's it.

The only holdup for UTA was their getting approval from their board of supervisors, otherwise it would have been announced last week.

We'll stay right there unless someone else from the 'Belt gets an invite.

So the 2013 Belt will, at this point, be 10 football & 12 basketball ?

If we don't expand there are only a few reasons this may occurr.
1- Undecisive (not knowing the right path to take NMST/APP St/ Quality Progrma or Markets)
2-Decent (one party wants teams A and another wants teams B)
3- Hesitation(teams were asked and they flintched and want more time)
4- opportunity (teams from CUSA not happy with their additions and are sending out feelers)

I think right now expanion and compromise are our ally. We can't have 1 or 2. We need to invite teams that are ready. If invites went out and we were told to wait a year or two then we should send a letter back saying fine but the entry fee will go up. We are taking a risk waiting. One that didn't fare well for the WAC. WE also need a larger exit fee. This will be difficult given the current landscape but we need something that will keep teams from jumping at a quick invite. If there are teams from CUSA sending feelers out we cannot aford to entertain false promises. Again the WAC was burned bad when the BYU project blew up. We need teams that WANT to be in the SBC. Not just wanting to stay until they find a new home (Big East).

Bottom line of Appalachain St is ready we need to take them now. Same for Ga Southern. We need quality programs not crappy teams from large markets. What Appalachain Lacks in Market size it makes up for in name recognition. Same goes for Georgia Southern. Their Fans are used to winning and will step up to keep winning. What they lack in Market size the make up in loyalty. This isn't a time for our presidents to be scared. We need to make a move now. It's about positioning for power.
:noisycricket:

(05-07-2012 11:19 PM)TXSTCAT Wrote:  This isn't a time for our presidents to be scared. We need to make a move now. It's about positioning for power.

(05-07-2012 11:25 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 11:19 PM)TXSTCAT Wrote:  This isn't a time for our presidents to be scared. We need to make a move now. It's about positioning for power.

I know how this game is played. :kneelsucka:

I thought Appy was a slam dunk. UTA? Really?
I guess they are going to sit back and watch the dominos fall. I dunno....maybe that's the best position.

(05-07-2012 11:48 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  I thought Appy was a slam dunk. UTA? Really?
I guess they are going to sit back and watch the dominos fall. I dunno....maybe that's the best position.

Thinking right now that Benson was urged by the WAC members to seek and take the SBC job just to take care of the WAC schools. It's been instant WAC satisfaction except for him knowing and working previously with the GaState AD.

Looking at it from an outsider's perspective, I suspect your presidents are thinking two FCS move-ups are enough for now. Add four at once and a third of your football membership is comprised of FCS move-ups. That won't improve the Sun Belt's reputation. The only downside risk of waiting a year or two is that the MAC might take App State before you invite them.

By adding UTA the Sun Belt can set up divisions for Olympic sports to control travel expense, while having ten football schools lets you play a round-robin football schedule. That's a pretty good arrangement.

The SBC has a great lineup as it is and it breaks down nicely in divisional structure.

West: TXST, UTA, ULL, ULM, Ark St, UALR
East: WKU, MTSU, USA, Troy, GSU, FAU

When you try to move to 14 either South Alabama moves West to accommodate App State. That becomes problematic.

I suspect the votes are not there from USA, Troy and a few others likely impacted by a 14 split to make it happen.

(05-08-2012 04:00 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Looking at it from an outsider's perspective, I suspect your presidents are thinking two FCS move-ups are enough for now. Add four at once and a third of your football membership is comprised of FCS move-ups. That won't improve the Sun Belt's reputation. The only downside risk of waiting a year or two is that the MAC might take App State before you invite them.

By adding UTA the Sun Belt can set up divisions for Olympic sports to control travel expense, while having ten football schools lets you play a round-robin football schedule. That's a pretty good arrangement.

True. But it also means that they stay just above what is needed to have a conference. When they try to renegotiate a TV contract they are many members behind others which will relegate them always to a minor contract. Also doesn't give them enough for a conference play off game. Time does not stand still for anyone. Do not understand what those that mention shake out have in mind. Makes me think of the old bird in hand vs two in the bush. Oh, well.

I really have a hard time believing that anyone knows what is going to happen or what happened in the meeting. I alos don't believe that Benson is going to tell a reporter every move that we are trying to make. I think you take everything with a grain of salt and let this play out.

(05-07-2012 11:25 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-07-2012 11:19 PM)TXSTCAT Wrote:  This isn't a time for our presidents to be scared. We need to make a move now. It's about positioning for power.

Agreed, This is not the time to be TIMID . . . This is the time to be BOLD. While a a newbie, I keep hearing that this is a conference poised to surpass, or at the very least be on the same level with C-USA. We need at least 12 FB members. If they have a conference championship, then we need one as well. Add Appy . . add Ga So., you don't want 2 eastern schools, then add Appy and a TX school. But don't stop your forward momentum now. With great risk comes great reward.

(05-08-2012 04:00 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Looking at it from an outsider's perspective, I suspect your presidents are thinking two FCS move-ups are enough for now. Add four at once and a third of your football membership is comprised of FCS move-ups. That won't improve the Sun Belt's reputation. The only downside risk of waiting a year or two is that the MAC might take App State before you invite them.

By adding UTA the Sun Belt can set up divisions for Olympic sports to control travel expense, while having ten football schools lets you play a round-robin football schedule. That's a pretty good arrangement.

If is either take FCS move-ups now, one year from now, or two years from now, or add NMSU, those are the options. If they don't add them now they will allow the newly added FBS programs to out recruit the potential Sun Belt move-ups thus hamstringing the programs they'd like to eventually add.

Perception be damned, give App and GSU 22 more scholarships and let them make a their own reputation at the FBS level.

What program from another FBS conference is the Sun Belt going to get, am I missing something?

(05-08-2012 06:45 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 04:00 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Looking at it from an outsider's perspective, I suspect your presidents are thinking two FCS move-ups are enough for now. Add four at once and a third of your football membership is comprised of FCS move-ups. That won't improve the Sun Belt's reputation. The only downside risk of waiting a year or two is that the MAC might take App State before you invite them.

By adding UTA the Sun Belt can set up divisions for Olympic sports to control travel expense, while having ten football schools lets you play a round-robin football schedule. That's a pretty good arrangement.

True. But it also means that they stay just above what is needed to have a conference. When they try to renegotiate a TV contract they are many members behind others which will relegate them always to a minor contract. Also doesn't give them enough for a conference play off game. Time does not stand still for anyone. Do not understand what those that mention shake out have in mind. Makes me think of the old bird in hand vs two in the bush. Oh, well.

You only need eight football playing schools to be a viable FBS conference. We have ten. We're plenty above the minimum.

The reasons why we're going to be at 10/12 were stated above by other posters.

1. Convenience. The 12 team non football league gives you a compact division on the western side and, except for FAU, compact to the east as well. That makes travel cheaper and more convenient for non-football sports.

2. Just how many FCS moveups to we need to add at one time. South Alabama is just finishing the transition this year, as is Texas State. Georgia State is just now getting ready to begin the transition. That's three. Our league already has a tough perception to overcome. Having five startups at one time is a bit much.

3 Going to 14 right now makes deciding divisions more difficult and makes travel tougher because now you don't have definite travel partners. See #1 above.

When Commissioner Benson got the job, he talked about 12 football playing schools. However, at that particular time it looked like CUSA and the MWC were going to merge. He thought more schools would be available, specifically UTSA and Louisiana Tech. When they got gobbled up by CUSA, he backed off his statement....or should I say...."tempered" it.

We'll eventually get bigger, but as I said above, unless we have another defection, I think we're finished after UTA.

(05-08-2012 07:40 AM)BirdofParadise Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 06:45 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 04:00 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Looking at it from an outsider's perspective, I suspect your presidents are thinking two FCS move-ups are enough for now. Add four at once and a third of your football membership is comprised of FCS move-ups. That won't improve the Sun Belt's reputation. The only downside risk of waiting a year or two is that the MAC might take App State before you invite them.

By adding UTA the Sun Belt can set up divisions for Olympic sports to control travel expense, while having ten football schools lets you play a round-robin football schedule. That's a pretty good arrangement.

True. But it also means that they stay just above what is needed to have a conference. When they try to renegotiate a TV contract they are many members behind others which will relegate them always to a minor contract. Also doesn't give them enough for a conference play off game. Time does not stand still for anyone. Do not understand what those that mention shake out have in mind. Makes me think of the old bird in hand vs two in the bush. Oh, well.

You only need eight football playing schools to be a viable FBS conference. We have ten. We're plenty above the minimum.

The reasons why we're going to be at 10/12 were stated above by other posters.

1. Convenience. The 12 team non football league gives you a compact division on the western side and, except for FAU, compact to the east as well. That makes travel cheaper and more convenient for non-football sports.

2. Just how many FCS moveups to we need to add at one time. South Alabama is just finishing the transition this year, as is Texas State. Georgia State is just now getting ready to begin the transition. That's three. Our league already has a tough perception to overcome. Having five startups at one time is a bit much.

3 Going to 14 right now makes deciding divisions more difficult and makes travel tougher because now you don't have definite travel partners. See #1 above.

When Commissioner Benson got the job, he talked about 12 football playing schools. However, at that particular time it looked like CUSA and the MWC were going to merge. He thought more schools would be available, specifically UTSA and Louisiana Tech. When they got gobbled up by CUSA, he backed off his statement....or should I say...."tempered" it.

We'll eventually get bigger, but as I said above, unless we have another defection, I think we're finished after UTA.

This sounds like a good plan. Hypothetically would the SB establish a line of communication with a few FCS like App and Ga So over the next few years to have them ready to move up should we be poached again int he future?

Also, what is the dis-advantage with having adding NMSU and Idaho as football only and having 12 in all sports? How does that look economically?