(05-18-2012 12:24 PM)Dedsquirrl Wrote:  Don't get me wrong.
I am happy with GSU.
Inside the footprint, in a state that is great for recruiting, driving distance from my school., etc are all great IMO. The market is just a plus.

But further expansion is going to have to take a different strategy. Since there aren't any more GSU's out there in the footprint.

And a lot of GSU fans are pro-App State. Some are not, but I feel like most are for that. I admit, most of us are anti-GS for selfish reasons. We don't want our state watered down under us by our own conference. I don't think their budget is up to par(I know that's debatable around here). Honestly, I think having our teams waste a week preparing for their TO will be detrimental to everybody. I think a lot of Georgia State fans would say they want our next two adds to be NMSU and App State. A good mix of the two lines of thinking.

(05-18-2012 12:26 PM)Senatobia Wrote:  Ther is no rush to do anything. I'd have several schools lined up for "if and when" and pull the trigger on the best replacements as spots open up.

I think the best two replacements are GaSo and AppSt so they'd be at the front of the line, but not the only ones.

I wouldn't "water down" my product for something totally uproven like GaSt.

No FCS team is "proven" at this level. So let's end that argument right there. Most around here agree that even an App State or GS would have trouble for the first couple of years. Why are those two schools the best if you're at 8? Let's get some reasons. Who else is in line if not Georgia State or Texas State?

(05-18-2012 12:30 PM)Tuscon Wrote:  

(05-18-2012 12:24 PM)Dedsquirrl Wrote:  Don't get me wrong.
I am happy with GSU.
Inside the footprint, in a state that is great for recruiting, driving distance from my school., etc are all great IMO. The market is just a plus.

But further expansion is going to have to take a different strategy. Since there aren't any more GSU's out there in the footprint.

And a lot of GSU fans are pro-App State. Some are not, but I feel like most are for that. I admit, most of us are anti-GS for selfish reasons. We don't want our state watered down under us by our own conference. I don't think their budget is up to par(I know that's debatable around here). Honestly, I think having our teams waste a week preparing for their TO will be detrimental to everybody. I think a lot of Georgia State fans would say they want our next two adds to be NMSU and App State. A good mix of the two lines of thinking.

I would be in that camp.

(05-18-2012 12:32 PM)Tuscon Wrote:  

(05-18-2012 12:26 PM)Senatobia Wrote:  Ther is no rush to do anything. I'd have several schools lined up for "if and when" and pull the trigger on the best replacements as spots open up.

I think the best two replacements are GaSo and AppSt so they'd be at the front of the line, but not the only ones.

I wouldn't "water down" my product for something totally uproven like GaSt.

No FCS team is "proven" at this level. So let's end that argument right there. Most around here agree that even an App State or GS would have trouble for the first couple of years. Why are those two schools the best if you're at 8? Let's get some reasons. Who else is in line if not Georgia State or Texas State?

Attendance, tradition, national recognition, etc.

They have it you don't.

(05-18-2012 12:37 PM)Senatobia Wrote:  Attendance, tradition, national recognition, etc.

They have it you don't.

As far as attendance, we were top 20 in the FCS for our only two years of existence. So there's that. Sure we don't have tradition yet, but we'll be building that in the Sun Belt now. I fail to see how such a nebulous concept as tradition has any bearing on conference politics though. We have lots of national recognition in the two years we've been playing football. That's why CBC was such a great hire. Did you know we were on the cover of SI? I'd argue that we have just as much national recognition as GS at this point. As in, no one knows who we are. We do get name dropped quite a bit in national news because of Curry though. App State is riding that Michigan wave still, and kudos to them, but without that no one knows who they are either.

(05-18-2012 12:37 PM)Senatobia Wrote:  

(05-18-2012 12:32 PM)Tuscon Wrote:  

(05-18-2012 12:26 PM)Senatobia Wrote:  Ther is no rush to do anything. I'd have several schools lined up for "if and when" and pull the trigger on the best replacements as spots open up.

I think the best two replacements are GaSo and AppSt so they'd be at the front of the line, but not the only ones.

I wouldn't "water down" my product for something totally uproven like GaSt.

No FCS team is "proven" at this level. So let's end that argument right there. Most around here agree that even an App State or GS would have trouble for the first couple of years. Why are those two schools the best if you're at 8? Let's get some reasons. Who else is in line if not Georgia State or Texas State?

Attendance, tradition, national recognition, etc.

They have it you don't.

So, how much is that tradition worth? Tradition plus a couple of quarters might buy you a Coke. And national recognition? Are you serious? When was the last time GaSo played a nationally televised prime-time game against the defending national champion? We did it out first year.

(05-18-2012 12:42 PM)Tuscon Wrote:  App State is riding that Michigan wave still, and kudos to them, but without that no one knows who they are either.

Wonder what happens to their national profile when Michigan gets its revenge in a couple of years. They better hope they are on the way to FBS by then.

(05-18-2012 12:46 PM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(05-18-2012 12:42 PM)Tuscon Wrote:  App State is riding that Michigan wave still, and kudos to them, but without that no one knows who they are either.

Wonder what happens to their national profile when Michigan gets its revenge in a couple of years. They better hope they are on the way to FBS by then.

On the contrary, that game will probably get some national attention because of the compelling storyline. We can't argue against App State in the national recognition line of thinking except to say we also have it.

(05-18-2012 12:48 PM)Tuscon Wrote:  

(05-18-2012 12:46 PM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(05-18-2012 12:42 PM)Tuscon Wrote:  App State is riding that Michigan wave still, and kudos to them, but without that no one knows who they are either.

Wonder what happens to their national profile when Michigan gets its revenge in a couple of years. They better hope they are on the way to FBS by then.

On the contrary, that game will probably get some national attention because of the compelling storyline. We can't argue against App State in the national recognition line of thinking except to say we also have it.

I would argue that our profile has a better shot at long-term viability, but you are right, we aren't there yet.

(05-18-2012 11:51 AM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(05-18-2012 11:46 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(05-17-2012 05:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Your comments about us desiring to be small market and not aspiring to grow are out-of-line and disrespectful to the members of this conference.

This post pretty much makes my point - you want to disparage your best options and add small markets - that is anti-growth defined.


To weigh in on this just portion of the discussion, I think that adding small markets is the SBC's best strategy. When CUSA or the Big East come hunting for programs to poach, they look for the market size, not the quality of athletic product. The best long-term strategy for the Sun Belt is to include well-run programs from small markets, like WKU for basketball or Troy for football. Those programs will have success because they have the support and leadership necessary for every successful program, regardless of their market. Their success will reflect well on the rest of the conference and help it's overall image and negotiating power without the inevitable poaching that will occur when another conference needs a new member.

So, a program with too much potential is bad, and a program that will never be attractive enough to leave is good. Again, this is the defeatist posture that will keep the SBC down. If that is what you want, then great. Just don't get upset when someone points it out.

In 1999 you would be telling us to load up on dot com stocks because the growth potential was unlimited and in spring 2008 telling us to load up on real estate because it will always outperform stocks.

The "market" madness is driven by what may very well be temporary condition in the television markets. Did you pay any attention to the vaunted Pac-12 Network? In most markets it isn't a channel on the TV, it will be part of the "on-demand" programming of TV service providers. They've already made the first leap in dealing with the next problem facing the TV industry, cord cutters. They are putting the programming on to prevent people from dumping their cable company to get internet video.

Are you familiar with the Horizon League TV network? It is an internet based network the very thing Pac-12 is trying to avoid.

Netflix has started buying original content. They are building an online subscriber based network.

ESPN3 is a money loser but they are investing huge in it because they see the direction we are headed, into a world where fewer and fewer people subscribe to cable or satellite. Congress continues to toy with the idea of requiring cable and satellite to offer ala carte programming. Industry experts estimate that if ala carte passes, ESPN will have to charge $20 to $30 a month to be viable. That's why they are trying to get in the internet arena, ESPN3 is offered on a per subscriber fee. They want to preserve the model knowing that while some people will fork out $25 a month to get ESPN, many will only do it during the season of their favorite sport and others will opt for a lower quality picture on ESPN3 that is included in their internet package.

Apple is venturing into the pay delivery of video and Google is experimenting with live content via YouTube.

In 15 years when these mega deals start expiring we may already be in an environment where sports are much more a subscriber based product. We may be in an environment where advertisers no longer believe a 30 second untargeted commercial carries much value and advertising has moved away from conventional television and is instead built around internet and mobile platforms on social networks. Google, Facebook and Twitter have the capability to track you when not on their sites and eventually will be able to highly target ads. Assuming that the 30 second TV model of advertising is the top is foolish and ignores history and current trends.

In 2027 the blockbuster deals may well be subscriber based deals for delivery via cable on-demand, internet, or mobile apps. If that is our environment Alabama, Nebraska, Texas will have to think long and hard about signing their video rights over to their conference when they can make more money selling them on their own when ad dollars no longer drive the market (keep an eye on Longhorn Net, Major League Soccer and Fox Soccer Net are already getting their feet wet in this field offering delivery via cable/satellite, internet, and apps to subscribers).

If that is our marketplace who is more valuable? SMU located in one of the nation's largest TV markets but drawing less than Arkansas State or East Carolina in one of the smaller markets but drawing more than double what SMU does? The number of people who care enough to buy a ticket is likely an outstanding indicator of how many will care enough to buy a subscription to receive the content.

Also remember the national demographics are changing. A recent poll of males age 15 to 25 found their favorite sport to be the NFL followed by soccer. The #2 spot had been held by college football. In another 10 years they are going to be much more desirable audience as they become wealthier and reaching that group of 25-35 year olds will mean moving ad dollars from college football to soccer programming.

Your whole premise of chasing markets is based on an assumption that today's 30 second ad dollar gold rush will be infinite in growth. Just as radio was an infinite growth market in 1949 and newspapers were an infinite growth market in 1925.

INTELLIGENT leadership doesn't chase fads. Dell has nearly killed itself making "me too" Apple product clones.

You look at the base fundamentals. Does this program have an established history of fielding winning teams? Does this program have an established history of taking positive corrective action when the program slips? Does the program have a demonstrated capability of selling tickets? Does the program have a demonstrated capability of raising donations and selling sponsorships?

A small market team that has those features is likely to win and have TV value (see Boise State) (see Fresno roughly the size of Little Rock) and if the nature of the athletic revenue economy changes are their fundamentals strong enough that they will be positioned to take advantage? What good will it do for SMU to be a large market if they have weak fundamentals and cannot withstand a change in the athletic economy?

What is so stupid and pig headed about your arguments is you repeat over and over your liars mantra that we are defeatist if we look at small markets. That is a lie. There is not a person I am aware of on this board who opposes a large market team for the sake of being in a large market. There are plenty of us who oppose large market teams who don't have stong fundamentals and offer nothing other than their presence in a large metro area.

There are more ways to make money than off default viewership. This year one NCAA unit was worth $258,000. WKU earned two. That is a guaranteed revenue stream of $3 million over the next six years.

Build a conference that earns 5 units per year in basketball (one Sweet 16 team and two teams losing the first round) you will generate nearly $8 million annually and have a success level that will lead to a better television contract. If you win one additional first round game per year each year you generate $9.2 million annually and have even greater TV value.

Bust the BCS it is likely next form (4 team playoff plus some bowls where you get in at #12 or #16) and you are looking at a payoff of $20 million to $30 million. Do that once every four years and it averages out to $5 million to $6 million per year.

Just play good basketball and football regardless of market size and you can generate enough income to equal the CUSA TV deal before you even get to the point of negotiating TV rights. The WAC quadrupled their TV deal just on the strength of good performances by small market Boise, small market Nevada, medium market Fresno, and almost big enough to be a medium market Honolulu.

You want only large markets. If I have to choose between schools with equal fundamentals, I'll go with the larger market. But if my choice is a program in a small market that is averaging 23,000 people a game and winning 70% of the time vs. a program that avverages 17,000 by offering a lot of 2 for 1 and $5 discount tickets and has boosters buying tickets that are never used and is winning 50% of its games, I'm taking the small market team every time.

(05-18-2012 12:32 PM)Tuscon Wrote:  

(05-18-2012 12:26 PM)Senatobia Wrote:  Ther is no rush to do anything. I'd have several schools lined up for "if and when" and pull the trigger on the best replacements as spots open up.

I think the best two replacements are GaSo and AppSt so they'd be at the front of the line, but not the only ones.

I wouldn't "water down" my product for something totally uproven like GaSt.

No FCS team is "proven" at this level. So let's end that argument right there. Most around here agree that even an App State or GS would have trouble for the first couple of years. Why are those two schools the best if you're at 8? Let's get some reasons. Who else is in line if not Georgia State or Texas State?

First of all, the first time Texas State talked of moving up, I wanted nothing to do with them. Multi-decade record of bad FCS football. They've done much better finishing .500 or better four of the last seven years. They've finally demonstrated they can operate a program.

No FCS is proven and I'll be the first to agree to that.

But if my choice is a program that has won consistently at a lower level vs a program that has a poor history of success, I'll go with the people have shown the competence to run a successful program. Look at Troy. Division II until 1993 then FCS until 2002. They had back-to-back losing seasons in 1988-89. They've not had back-to-back losing seasons since. Five years in the FCS Southland Conference, they took three league titles. Eight years in the Sun Belt they've won or shared five Sun Belt titles. They've gone from Division II national champs twice to a team with five bowl appearances with two wins and two of their bowl losses in OT.

I don't understand the logic of people who oppose small markets even being on a Sun Belt board. Troy has made four really good post-season appearances for us, since joining they are 2-3 vs. the Big XII, 2-1 vs. the WAC, and 4-4 vs. CUSA. Small market WKU since the merger has won 2 NCAA Tournament games twice and won one game five times. I could go on but we've ACTUALLY had some accomplishments and the snot noses running around talking about how we can't do anything because we are in small markets are damned offensive.

I'm not understanding this argument much. Is the argument that small markets should be treated the same as large markets, or that small markets are preferable over large markets. If it's the latter, i can tell you that that is just not true. It's like saying that ugly girls are preferable to date over good looking girls because other guys would look at the good looking girls but nobody else would want the ugly girls. I mean seriously, cut off your nose to spite your face.

Furthermore, if the argument is that App or Southern should have been picked up over GSU, i'm failing to understand the argument. Georgia State hasn't been consistently bad, it hasn't been consistently anything. So granted, Georgia Southern might have a decent record since it has had a football team, but they have absolutely atrocious facilities and currently haven't show the commitment to athletics necessary to move up, and also aren't in any decent media market. The point being, at their current status, Southern is at their maximum potential.

As for watering down conferences, both App and Southern would terribly water things down in basketball.

Finally, i'd like to state i'm not against App State. I think they have demonstrated that they are committed to being FBS. I don't believe Southern has and i think they stated their desire to move on a whim. Regarding GSU (of which i am a very recent alum), well, argument or not, the facts speak for themselves. The media market and potential offered by GSU were enough to warrant an invite.

(05-18-2012 12:46 PM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(05-18-2012 12:42 PM)Tuscon Wrote:  App State is riding that Michigan wave still, and kudos to them, but without that no one knows who they are either.

Wonder what happens to their national profile when Michigan gets its revenge in a couple of years. They better hope they are on the way to FBS by then.

The nation will likely say that's what they expected to happen. No matter what the score is they can never erase the loss from their record and those that know football and watched the game know that it was a fluke. I hope App is FBS by then as well, we'll add 22 more scholarships and receive an additional $200K.

We were on the cover of ESPN the Mag too. I have a copy that is waiting to be framed in my desk drawer.

(05-18-2012 02:30 PM)itsmeagain Wrote:  I'm not understanding this argument much. Is the argument that small markets should be treated the same as large markets, or that small markets are preferable over large markets. If it's the latter, i can tell you that that is just not true. It's like saying that ugly girls are preferable to date over good looking girls because other guys would look at the good looking girls but nobody else would want the ugly girls. I mean seriously, cut off your nose to spite your face.

Furthermore, if the argument is that App or Southern should have been picked up over GSU, i'm failing to understand the argument. Georgia State hasn't been consistently bad, it hasn't been consistently anything. So granted, Georgia Southern might have a decent record since it has had a football team, but they have absolutely atrocious facilities and currently haven't show the commitment to athletics necessary to move up, and also aren't in any decent media market. The point being, at their current status, Southern is at their maximum potential.

As for watering down conferences, both App and Southern would terribly water things down in basketball.

Finally, i'd like to state i'm not against App State. I think they have demonstrated that they are committed to being FBS. I don't believe Southern has and i think they stated their desire to move on a whim. Regarding GSU (of which i am a very recent alum), well, argument or not, the facts speak for themselves. The media market and potential offered by GSU were enough to warrant an invite.

Let give you and example of the difference. This past fall I made the trip to Miami to see UNT play FIU. Our Hotel was UNT team hotel and when we go to get into a taxi at the hotel none of the 4 taxi drivers at the team hotel even knew where the FIU stadium was located. That is the Big City mentality. Now I can tell you it would probally the same in Atlanta if you told the taxi driver you wanted to go to Georgia State football game and did not tell him the Georgia Dome from the airport.

Try the following test this fall itsmeagain. Go 3 miles from the Dome and ask the first ten people you see the location of Georgia State football stadium or where does Georgia State play there football games. See how many out of the ten can ansewer this question. Then the next time that you are in a small market town such as Troy AL, Boone NC or even Statesboro GA stop just anywhere and ask where the football stadium is located. It does not even have to be during the football season. My guess is that the people you ask in the small market town will know the correct ansewer by a greater % that those in Atlanta.

The difference between the big market and the small market is the University is the Big Fish inside the small market where as the University is a small fish in the Big Market.

(05-18-2012 04:43 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  

(05-18-2012 02:30 PM)itsmeagain Wrote:  I'm not understanding this argument much. Is the argument that small markets should be treated the same as large markets, or that small markets are preferable over large markets. If it's the latter, i can tell you that that is just not true. It's like saying that ugly girls are preferable to date over good looking girls because other guys would look at the good looking girls but nobody else would want the ugly girls. I mean seriously, cut off your nose to spite your face.

Furthermore, if the argument is that App or Southern should have been picked up over GSU, i'm failing to understand the argument. Georgia State hasn't been consistently bad, it hasn't been consistently anything. So granted, Georgia Southern might have a decent record since it has had a football team, but they have absolutely atrocious facilities and currently haven't show the commitment to athletics necessary to move up, and also aren't in any decent media market. The point being, at their current status, Southern is at their maximum potential.

As for watering down conferences, both App and Southern would terribly water things down in basketball.

Finally, i'd like to state i'm not against App State. I think they have demonstrated that they are committed to being FBS. I don't believe Southern has and i think they stated their desire to move on a whim. Regarding GSU (of which i am a very recent alum), well, argument or not, the facts speak for themselves. The media market and potential offered by GSU were enough to warrant an invite.

Let give you and example of the difference. This past fall I made the trip to Miami to see UNT play FIU. Our Hotel was UNT team hotel and when we go to get into a taxi at the hotel none of the 4 taxi drivers at the team hotel even knew where the FIU stadium was located. That is the Big City mentality. Now I can tell you it would probally the same in Atlanta if you told the taxi driver you wanted to go to Georgia State football game and did not tell him the Georgia Dome from the airport.

Try the following test this fall itsmeagain. Go 3 miles from the Dome and ask the first ten people you see the location of Georgia State football stadium or where does Georgia State play there football games. See how many out of the ten can ansewer this question. Then the next time that you are in a small market town such as Troy AL, Boone NC or even Statesboro GA stop just anywhere and ask where the football stadium is located. It does not even have to be during the football season. My guess is that the people you ask in the small market town will know the correct ansewer by a greater % that those in Atlanta.

The difference between the big market and the small market is the University is the Big Fish inside the small market where as the University is a small fish in the Big Market.

If you are coming to Jonesboro from the East its really simple. Take US62 (Soon to be I-555) take the Stadium Boulevard exit and keep driving until you see the stadium.

(05-18-2012 02:30 PM)itsmeagain Wrote:  I'm not understanding this argument much. Is the argument that small markets should be treated the same as large markets, or that small markets are preferable over large markets. If it's the latter, i can tell you that that is just not true. It's like saying that ugly girls are preferable to date over good looking girls because other guys would look at the good looking girls but nobody else would want the ugly girls. I mean seriously, cut off your nose to spite your face.

Furthermore, if the argument is that App or Southern should have been picked up over GSU, i'm failing to understand the argument. Georgia State hasn't been consistently bad, it hasn't been consistently anything. So granted, Georgia Southern might have a decent record since it has had a football team, but they have absolutely atrocious facilities and currently haven't show the commitment to athletics necessary to move up, and also aren't in any decent media market. The point being, at their current status, Southern is at their maximum potential.

As for watering down conferences, both App and Southern would terribly water things down in basketball.

Finally, i'd like to state i'm not against App State. I think they have demonstrated that they are committed to being FBS. I don't believe Southern has and i think they stated their desire to move on a whim. Regarding GSU (of which i am a very recent alum), well, argument or not, the facts speak for themselves. The media market and potential offered by GSU were enough to warrant an invite.

Why do you guys struggle to understand this?

The position of the existing Sun Belt members is that we want schools that will make us stronger in football and/or basketball.

If the best available football program is in the 161st TV market we want them. If the best available football program is in the 12th largest market we want them. If the program in the 12th largest and the one in the 161st are roughly equal, we'll take the one in #12 thank you very much.

Priority #1 is improving the wins and losses in football. Priority #2 is improving the wins and losses in basketball. Market size isn't a concern unless the choices are basically equal.

(05-18-2012 05:20 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-18-2012 02:30 PM)itsmeagain Wrote:  I'm not understanding this argument much. Is the argument that small markets should be treated the same as large markets, or that small markets are preferable over large markets. If it's the latter, i can tell you that that is just not true. It's like saying that ugly girls are preferable to date over good looking girls because other guys would look at the good looking girls but nobody else would want the ugly girls. I mean seriously, cut off your nose to spite your face.

Furthermore, if the argument is that App or Southern should have been picked up over GSU, i'm failing to understand the argument. Georgia State hasn't been consistently bad, it hasn't been consistently anything. So granted, Georgia Southern might have a decent record since it has had a football team, but they have absolutely atrocious facilities and currently haven't show the commitment to athletics necessary to move up, and also aren't in any decent media market. The point being, at their current status, Southern is at their maximum potential.

As for watering down conferences, both App and Southern would terribly water things down in basketball.

Finally, i'd like to state i'm not against App State. I think they have demonstrated that they are committed to being FBS. I don't believe Southern has and i think they stated their desire to move on a whim. Regarding GSU (of which i am a very recent alum), well, argument or not, the facts speak for themselves. The media market and potential offered by GSU were enough to warrant an invite.

Why do you guys struggle to understand this?

The position of the existing Sun Belt members is that we want schools that will make us stronger in football and/or basketball.

If the best available football program is in the 161st TV market we want them. If the best available football program is in the 12th largest market we want them. If the program in the 12th largest and the one in the 161st are roughly equal, we'll take the one in #12 thank you very much.

Priority #1 is improving the wins and losses in football. Priority #2 is improving the wins and losses in basketball. Market size isn't a concern unless the choices are basically equal.

Seems so simple.

(05-18-2012 05:20 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-18-2012 02:30 PM)itsmeagain Wrote:  I'm not understanding this argument much. Is the argument that small markets should be treated the same as large markets, or that small markets are preferable over large markets. If it's the latter, i can tell you that that is just not true. It's like saying that ugly girls are preferable to date over good looking girls because other guys would look at the good looking girls but nobody else would want the ugly girls. I mean seriously, cut off your nose to spite your face.

Furthermore, if the argument is that App or Southern should have been picked up over GSU, i'm failing to understand the argument. Georgia State hasn't been consistently bad, it hasn't been consistently anything. So granted, Georgia Southern might have a decent record since it has had a football team, but they have absolutely atrocious facilities and currently haven't show the commitment to athletics necessary to move up, and also aren't in any decent media market. The point being, at their current status, Southern is at their maximum potential.

As for watering down conferences, both App and Southern would terribly water things down in basketball.

Finally, i'd like to state i'm not against App State. I think they have demonstrated that they are committed to being FBS. I don't believe Southern has and i think they stated their desire to move on a whim. Regarding GSU (of which i am a very recent alum), well, argument or not, the facts speak for themselves. The media market and potential offered by GSU were enough to warrant an invite.

Why do you guys struggle to understand this?

The position of the existing Sun Belt members is that we want schools that will make us stronger in football and/or basketball.

If the best available football program is in the 161st TV market we want them. If the best available football program is in the 12th largest market we want them. If the program in the 12th largest and the one in the 161st are roughly equal, we'll take the one in #12 thank you very much.

Priority #1 is improving the wins and losses in football. Priority #2 is improving the wins and losses in basketball. Market size isn't a concern unless the choices are basically equal.

I'm having trouble understanding what you're meaning when you say strengthen football. Do you mean a football team that does well every season? Or one with a lot of potential and upside? Because if it's one that has been proven to do well, well GSU hasn't done that yet, and if that were the case then that clearly isn't what the current Sun Belt members are asking for. If its the potential and upside, then I understand.

(05-18-2012 06:36 PM)itsmeagain Wrote:  

(05-18-2012 05:20 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-18-2012 02:30 PM)itsmeagain Wrote:  I'm not understanding this argument much. Is the argument that small markets should be treated the same as large markets, or that small markets are preferable over large markets. If it's the latter, i can tell you that that is just not true. It's like saying that ugly girls are preferable to date over good looking girls because other guys would look at the good looking girls but nobody else would want the ugly girls. I mean seriously, cut off your nose to spite your face.

Furthermore, if the argument is that App or Southern should have been picked up over GSU, i'm failing to understand the argument. Georgia State hasn't been consistently bad, it hasn't been consistently anything. So granted, Georgia Southern might have a decent record since it has had a football team, but they have absolutely atrocious facilities and currently haven't show the commitment to athletics necessary to move up, and also aren't in any decent media market. The point being, at their current status, Southern is at their maximum potential.

As for watering down conferences, both App and Southern would terribly water things down in basketball.

Finally, i'd like to state i'm not against App State. I think they have demonstrated that they are committed to being FBS. I don't believe Southern has and i think they stated their desire to move on a whim. Regarding GSU (of which i am a very recent alum), well, argument or not, the facts speak for themselves. The media market and potential offered by GSU were enough to warrant an invite.

Why do you guys struggle to understand this?

The position of the existing Sun Belt members is that we want schools that will make us stronger in football and/or basketball.

If the best available football program is in the 161st TV market we want them. If the best available football program is in the 12th largest market we want them. If the program in the 12th largest and the one in the 161st are roughly equal, we'll take the one in #12 thank you very much.

Priority #1 is improving the wins and losses in football. Priority #2 is improving the wins and losses in basketball. Market size isn't a concern unless the choices are basically equal.

I'm having trouble understanding what you're meaning when you say strengthen football. Do you mean a football team that does well every season? Or one with a lot of potential and upside? Because if it's one that has been proven to do well, well GSU hasn't done that yet, and if that were the case then that clearly isn't what the current Sun Belt members are asking for. If its the potential and upside, then I understand.

My take...

When Troy beats Missouri or ULM beats Alabama or stAte beats Texas A&M it helps a lot. Ultimately you want programs that can do those things.

Georgia State has the potential to attract recruits because of location/state....and it's coaching choices indicate a real interest in putting a winning product on the field. That is why I personally was interested in Georgia State.....the Atlanta market is a pleasant plus.

Georgia State has the "potential" to rise up and be something. That is why if the choice had come down to New Mexico State or Georgia State I would have given Georgia State the nod. No...It hasn't proven anything...but NMSU has.