http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc12.htm

According to Sagarin the most recent defections have trimmed off the three worst performing teams in the Sun Belt. I will give USA a pass since they are a brand new team that is building up the program.

Sure is ironic that losing the three worst performers is perceived as a disaster.

This is missing the point. By some accounts, the belt had a breakout year. Future was looking bright and some argued we were poised to surpass cusa in a few years. Despite this, programs still looked to push the eject button as soon as a parachute was thrown their direction. This basically means that we will always be a transition league, unless the top just decides they don't want any more schools.

To me, it just begs the question "what in the world can we do to get some stability?"

the disaster is losing MT. the other schools could be replaced. MT was a rival for WKU, and Troy and starting to become one too stAte. not many people were upset after UNT and FIU left. and most figured FAU would follow.

(11-30-2012 02:14 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  This is missing the point. By some accounts, the belt had a breakout year. Future was looking bright and some argued we were poised to surpass cusa in a few years. Despite this, programs still looked to push the eject button as soon as a parachute was thrown their direction. This basically means that we will always be a transition league, unless the top just decides they don't want any more schools.

To me, it just begs the question "what in the world can we do to get some stability?"

bcome a member of the SEC. they are the only conference not losing teams. cue Mizzou to the B1G in 3...2.....


see my point.

(11-30-2012 02:14 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  This is missing the point. By some accounts, the belt had a breakout year. Future was looking bright and some argued we were poised to surpass cusa in a few years. Despite this, programs still looked to push the eject button as soon as a parachute was thrown their direction. This basically means that we will always be a transition league, unless the top just decides they don't want any more schools.

To me, it just begs the question "what in the world can we do to get some stability?"

SB has to build solid teams a few of which are challenging for the 7th BCS bowl every year. If the SB has a team that is making the BCS consistenly and CUSA is not making the BCS that could be what it takes to make teams stay. In this scenario, the Sun Belt via the BCS would be bringing in much more money than CUSA.

It could be argued that CUSA could then target the good teams, but would they if they were from a small market?

If SB is bringing in consistent BCS $$, could they then steal from CUSA?

(11-30-2012 02:14 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  This is missing the point. By some accounts, the belt had a breakout year. Future was looking bright and some argued we were poised to surpass cusa in a few years. Despite this, programs still looked to push the eject button as soon as a parachute was thrown their direction. This basically means that we will always be a transition league, unless the top just decides they don't want any more schools.

To me, it just begs the question "what in the world can we do to get some stability?"

Stability comes when your school making $$$ in athletics doesn't look out the window and see $$$$$. Until then there is no stability. I don't like it either, but it is what etc.....

(11-30-2012 04:45 PM)BkGold Wrote:  

(11-30-2012 02:14 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  This is missing the point. By some accounts, the belt had a breakout year. Future was looking bright and some argued we were poised to surpass cusa in a few years. Despite this, programs still looked to push the eject button as soon as a parachute was thrown their direction. This basically means that we will always be a transition league, unless the top just decides they don't want any more schools.

To me, it just begs the question "what in the world can we do to get some stability?"

Stability comes when your school making $$$ in athletics doesn't look out the window and see $$$$$. Until then there is no stability. I don't like it either, but it is what etc.....

Remember Jim Mora's "Playoffs...Playoffs?" comment......heck that is now just as your words above......"Stability?.......Stability?........"

(11-30-2012 02:14 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  This is missing the point. By some accounts, the belt had a breakout year. Future was looking bright and some argued we were poised to surpass cusa in a few years. Despite this, programs still looked to push the eject button as soon as a parachute was thrown their direction. This basically means that we will always be a transition league, unless the top just decides they don't want any more schools.

To me, it just begs the question "what in the world can we do to get some stability?"

I can tell you most people here were looking forward to the lineup we have now. One of the selling points for people in Atlanta was the relative proximity of Troy, MTSU and WKU and the idea of a trip to S Fla every other year was not a bad deal. The idea was also that sure there are three of us in transition but we'll catch up to whats turning into a great league. Now we're talking 5 transitional teams and maybe 7 if it gets worse. You can see why SBC Presidents are issuing statements about the well being of student athletes almost as a precursor to saying buh-bye. That's not even to talk about basketball. Western Kentucky RPI is 86. MTSU's is 27. There is no mentioned replacement under 140 and most are over 200. I know our MBB coach has to be sick. He signed a contract to coachin the CAA and then ends up in the SBC and makespiece with it because of UT-Arlington, WKU and MTSU and now this. So its not personal its just the reality of the situation.

The only way to get stability is to up the exit fees and pick small market teams that have quality programs (a la Appalachian State and Georgia Southern).

Even that might not do it, but that is the best bullet you have.

(12-01-2012 07:31 AM)Hilltopper2K Wrote:  The only way to get stability is to up the exit fees and pick small market teams that have quality programs (a la Appalachian State and Georgia Southern).

Even that might not do it, but that is the best bullet you have.

I think this is the best route for the Sun Belt and if MT were staying and others had been picked, this would be what I would be advocating. I don't think realignment is done by a long shot, and there will be others leaving. Time to lock up some solid programs that will most likely stay for awhile (App State, Ga Southern, and James Madison). Get them in the pipeline now.

Go Sun Belt and Go Blue Raiders!