I don't get why the Sun Belt wants to be reactive instead of pro-active. Go to 12 now, regardless of who they take, the Sun Belt is going to lose a team or two if not now then a year from now, get to 12 then if you lose members you are still at 10.. seems silly to me.

Cobb has royally screwed us. It's official. When he finally gets off his knees and washes the taste of CUSA jock out of his mouth, he might finally realize the gravity of this situation. His disinterest has cost us a spot in our best option for at least another year. Now we are doomed to either a zombie WAC or the ever-terrible SmallCon.

It's not great to be a Mountaineer as of late.

(05-23-2012 12:12 PM)DrGonzo Wrote:  Cobb has royally screwed us. It's official. When he finally gets off his knees and washes the taste of CUSA jock out of his mouth, he might finally realize the gravity of this situation. His disinterest has cost us a spot in our best option for at least another year. Now we are doomed to either a zombie WAC or the ever-terrible SmallCon.

It's not great to be a Mountaineer as of late.

There are so many things that will change in the near future, who knows whats going to happen.

(05-23-2012 12:12 PM)Liberty22 Wrote:  I don't get why the Sun Belt wants to be reactive instead of pro-active. Go to 12 now, regardless of who they take, the Sun Belt is going to lose a team or two if not now then a year from now, get to 12 then if you lose members you are still at 10.. seems silly to me.

They were proactive, they added GSU, TSU and UTA.

(05-23-2012 12:12 PM)Liberty22 Wrote:  I don't get why the Sun Belt wants to be reactive instead of pro-active. Go to 12 now, regardless of who they take, the Sun Belt is going to lose a team or two if not now then a year from now, get to 12 then if you lose members you are still at 10.. seems silly to me.

You're really don't have any expansion candidates now that CUSA went to 14 so the Sun Belt is safe from further poaching. I think the Belt will be a stronger conference than ever before with the new additions. Right now the best thing to do is let USA, GSU and TX St get full speed at FBS and develop before pursuing anybody else. Just win some OCC games (I'll be rooting for Ark St to beat Oregon) and be really competitive.

(05-23-2012 12:20 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 12:12 PM)Liberty22 Wrote:  I don't get why the Sun Belt wants to be reactive instead of pro-active. Go to 12 now, regardless of who they take, the Sun Belt is going to lose a team or two if not now then a year from now, get to 12 then if you lose members you are still at 10.. seems silly to me.

They were proactive, they added GSU, TSU and UTA.

Thats not proactive, that's replacing for two teams they lost and then added one non football school, pro active is adding more football schools so when they are raided this year or a year from now they are still in great shape..

Here's the deal: if the dominoes fall again, CUSA will either reload with FCS teams, SBC teams, or a mix of the two. If they take FCS teams, we don't need to reload. If they take SBC teams, we have our options. The only risk would be losing out on our FCS reload-ees. This is only an issue if we really wanted them.

Evidently, the decision makers decided we were better off with a wait-and-see approach and that the possibility of losing the FCS schools was not a big deal. Either way the future of the SBC as a football conference isn't in jeopardy, I don't think.

(05-23-2012 12:24 PM)Liberty22 Wrote:  Thats not proactive, that's replacing for two teams they lost and then added one non football school, pro active is adding more football schools so when they are raided this year or a year from now they are still in great shape..

Texas State and Georgia State were added before an teams were lost. It was proactive.

The SBC will lose another team or two before this year ends....

(05-23-2012 12:09 PM)BirdofParadise Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 11:24 AM)KAjunRaider Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 11:04 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 10:41 AM)Glassonion Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 10:35 AM)OwlFamily Wrote:  Additional topics of discussion included conference expansion, Sun Belt Conference leadership positions and Sun Belt Conference championships.

Well looky there, looks like we're still in a holding pattern waiting for real info...

The college football RBTL unit (read between the lines) has performed an analysis of the statement and found it contained the following information.

1. We lost 2 we added 3. We like what we've done so far.

2. We like divisions in basketball and now have divisions that make sense.

3. Multiple presidents and chancellors are not convinced that a football title game provides sufficient revenue to offset the cost of adding them and they want a reasonably firm proposal outlining where such a game would be played, what date it would have to be played on, the network that would carry the game, the amount such network would pay. They are also concerned that a title game might reduce the fans that can afford to turn around and buy bowl tickets, especially for an early game like New Orleans, making the trip unprofitable.

4. We like the idea of membership standards, we just need to figure out what they should be and what carrot or stick is appropriate.

5. The idea of a new name sounds good but no one knows what it should be so we are going to hire a consultant to give us some suggestions.

If the SBC likes divisions so much, why are they going to a 20-game conference schedule ? That hurts MT, in my opinion.

The 20 game schedule is for this year only, since we'll only have eleven teams. We'll go back to a sixteen game schedule the following year (2013-14)

Thanks, J. Good news.

[/quote]

The 20 game schedule is for this year only, since we'll only have eleven teams. We'll go back to a sixteen game schedule the following year (2013-14)

[/quote]

Do you know we'll return to a 16-game schedule? Or is that speculation? If it hasn't been decided, I'd hope the league sticks with 20. I'd even be happy with a full double round robin and 22 games (although unlikely).

The league is still committed to improving RPI, and nobody wants a scheduling scramble for OOC games. With a longer conference schedule, the ADs can focus their efforts on getting a limited number of better opponents and not just filling the schedule with whomever.

(05-23-2012 12:38 PM)Journeyman22 Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 12:09 PM)BirdofParadise Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 11:24 AM)KAjunRaider Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 11:04 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 10:41 AM)Glassonion Wrote:  Well looky there, looks like we're still in a holding pattern waiting for real info...

The college football RBTL unit (read between the lines) has performed an analysis of the statement and found it contained the following information.

1. We lost 2 we added 3. We like what we've done so far.

2. We like divisions in basketball and now have divisions that make sense.

3. Multiple presidents and chancellors are not convinced that a football title game provides sufficient revenue to offset the cost of adding them and they want a reasonably firm proposal outlining where such a game would be played, what date it would have to be played on, the network that would carry the game, the amount such network would pay. They are also concerned that a title game might reduce the fans that can afford to turn around and buy bowl tickets, especially for an early game like New Orleans, making the trip unprofitable.

4. We like the idea of membership standards, we just need to figure out what they should be and what carrot or stick is appropriate.

5. The idea of a new name sounds good but no one knows what it should be so we are going to hire a consultant to give us some suggestions.

If the SBC likes divisions so much, why are they going to a 20-game conference schedule ? That hurts MT, in my opinion.

The 20 game schedule is for this year only, since we'll only have eleven teams. We'll go back to a sixteen game schedule the following year (2013-14)

Do know we'll return to a 16-game schedule? Or is that speculation? If it hasn't been decided, I'd hope the league sticks with 20. I'd even be happy with a full double round robin and 22 games (although unlikely).

The league is still committed to improving RPI, and nobody wants a scheduling scramble for OOC games. With a longer conference schedule, the ADs can focus their efforts on getting a limited number of better opponents and not just filling the schedule with whomever.

Our conference RPI is so bad, more conference games would make it worse.

We lost 10 RPI points at the end of the year, after winning by THIRTY at ULM.

(05-23-2012 12:39 PM)KAjunRaider Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 12:38 PM)Journeyman22 Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 12:09 PM)BirdofParadise Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 11:24 AM)KAjunRaider Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 11:04 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The college football RBTL unit (read between the lines) has performed an analysis of the statement and found it contained the following information.

1. We lost 2 we added 3. We like what we've done so far.

2. We like divisions in basketball and now have divisions that make sense.

3. Multiple presidents and chancellors are not convinced that a football title game provides sufficient revenue to offset the cost of adding them and they want a reasonably firm proposal outlining where such a game would be played, what date it would have to be played on, the network that would carry the game, the amount such network would pay. They are also concerned that a title game might reduce the fans that can afford to turn around and buy bowl tickets, especially for an early game like New Orleans, making the trip unprofitable.

4. We like the idea of membership standards, we just need to figure out what they should be and what carrot or stick is appropriate.

5. The idea of a new name sounds good but no one knows what it should be so we are going to hire a consultant to give us some suggestions.

If the SBC likes divisions so much, why are they going to a 20-game conference schedule ? That hurts MT, in my opinion.

The 20 game schedule is for this year only, since we'll only have eleven teams. We'll go back to a sixteen game schedule the following year (2013-14)

Do know we'll return to a 16-game schedule? Or is that speculation? If it hasn't been decided, I'd hope the league sticks with 20. I'd even be happy with a full double round robin and 22 games (although unlikely).

The league is still committed to improving RPI, and nobody wants a scheduling scramble for OOC games. With a longer conference schedule, the ADs can focus their efforts on getting a limited number of better opponents and not just filling the schedule with whomever.

Our conference RPI is so bad, more conference games would make it worse.

We lost 10 RPI points at the end of the year, after winning by THIRTY at ULM.

I'd agree if we scheduled great OOC games. But in most of the league, schools schedule just a few quality games (maybe 5), and the rest are worse than SBC RPI. I think more games would help, plus 5 great OOC opponents.

anybody that thinks a 20 game or a god forbid 22 game conference schedule is good needs to keep their chair in the back of the room and stfu and only raise their hand when football questions come up.

Quote:The 20 game schedule is for this year only, since we'll only have eleven teams. We'll go back to a sixteen game schedule the following year (2013-14)

Can we come play this year and not be stuck in CAA hell?

(05-23-2012 12:39 PM)KAjunRaider Wrote:  Our conference RPI is so bad, more conference games would make it worse.

We lost 10 RPI points at the end of the year, after winning by THIRTY at ULM.

I hate RPI.

I will never like a system that makes someone lose ground when they WIN games.

(05-23-2012 12:26 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  Here's the deal: if the dominoes fall again, CUSA will either reload with FCS teams, SBC teams, or a mix of the two. If they take FCS teams, we don't need to reload. If they take SBC teams, we have our options. The only risk would be losing out on our FCS reload-ees. This is only an issue if we really wanted them.

Evidently, the decision makers decided we were better off with a wait-and-see approach and that the possibility of losing the FCS schools was not a big deal. Either way the future of the SBC as a football conference isn't in jeopardy, I don't think.

Only problem is, if a moratorium goes back into effect, we become WAC 2.0 if realignment starts back up which it undoubtedly will.

(05-23-2012 12:45 PM)dahbeed Wrote:  anybody that thinks a 20 game or a god forbid 22 game conference schedule is good needs to keep their chair in the back of the room and stfu and only raise their hand when football questions come up.

I've got season tickets. It's no fun to attend a game where the outcome is never in doubt. Personally, I'd rather see a conference game than a dud game against an NAIA opponent.

A couple of years ago, the league surveyed season ticket holders on this very issue, asking what kind of opponents the fans wanted to see. Shortly thereafter, the 20-game conference schedule was revealed. That's probably not a coincidence.

(05-23-2012 12:52 PM)Journeyman22 Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 12:45 PM)dahbeed Wrote:  anybody that thinks a 20 game or a god forbid 22 game conference schedule is good needs to keep their chair in the back of the room and stfu and only raise their hand when football questions come up.

I've got season tickets. It's no fun to attend a game where the outcome is never in doubt. Personally, I'd rather see a conference game than a dud game against an NAIA opponent.

A couple of years ago, the league surveyed season ticket holders on this very issue, asking what kind of opponents the fans wanted to see. Shortly thereafter, the 20-game conference schedule was revealed. That's probably not a coincidence.

But it punishes the universities than schedule well, like MT and WKU.

Good luck getting an at-large with a 20+ game conference schedule.

(05-23-2012 12:48 PM)BLEEDITRED Wrote:  

(05-23-2012 12:26 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  Here's the deal: if the dominoes fall again, CUSA will either reload with FCS teams, SBC teams, or a mix of the two. If they take FCS teams, we don't need to reload. If they take SBC teams, we have our options. The only risk would be losing out on our FCS reload-ees. This is only an issue if we really wanted them.

Evidently, the decision makers decided we were better off with a wait-and-see approach and that the possibility of losing the FCS schools was not a big deal. Either way the future of the SBC as a football conference isn't in jeopardy, I don't think.

Only problem is, if a moratorium goes back into effect, we become WAC 2.0 if realignment starts back up which it undoubtedly will.

Or the WAC may form that rumored eastern division, calling up all these schools ahead of us. Once they've gotten their feet wet with the WAC at the FBS level, we could invite them into a geographically more sensible league. Curious if the WAC will make a move.