Suppose the SBC does not lose any more teams to C-USA. Do you guys expand anyway before July 1 or just sit tight as is?

(02-13-2013 09:53 AM)Blue Raider Dave Wrote:  Suppose the SBC does not lose any more teams to C-USA. Do you guys expand anyway before July 1 or just sit tight as is?

I have worn out the knees in 6 pair of slacks praying that the SBC sits tight if it loses no more teams; at least until the currently transitional members are full FBS. The only acceptable addition before that time is NMSU.

(02-13-2013 10:34 AM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 09:53 AM)Blue Raider Dave Wrote:  Suppose the SBC does not lose any more teams to C-USA. Do you guys expand anyway before July 1 or just sit tight as is?

I have worn out the knees in 6 pair of slacks praying that the SBC sits tight if it loses no more teams; at least until the currently transitional members are full FBS. The only acceptable addition before that time is NMSU.

I love basketball more than most people, and I would give a resounding NO to adding NMS. IT IS WAAAAY TO FAR FROM THE CURRENT FOOTPRINT.

(02-13-2013 09:53 AM)Blue Raider Dave Wrote:  Suppose the SBC does not lose any more teams to C-USA. Do you guys expand anyway before July 1 or just sit tight as is?

IMHO, Expand by 2. If we're not going to 12 and a Championship game, fine . . but at least get back to 10. Sitting at 8 with the possibility of additional losses in the future is NOT the place to be . . .

(02-13-2013 09:53 AM)Blue Raider Dave Wrote:  Suppose the SBC does not lose any more teams to C-USA. Do you guys expand anyway before July 1 or just sit tight as is?

Sit tight. 8 pie slices are bigger than 10.

(02-13-2013 10:49 AM)panama Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 09:53 AM)Blue Raider Dave Wrote:  Suppose the SBC does not lose any more teams to C-USA. Do you guys expand anyway before July 1 or just sit tight as is?

Sit tight. 8 pie slices are bigger than 10.

That would be my exact line of thinking if I was a Prez/AD.

(02-13-2013 10:49 AM)panama Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 09:53 AM)Blue Raider Dave Wrote:  Suppose the SBC does not lose any more teams to C-USA. Do you guys expand anyway before July 1 or just sit tight as is?

Sit tight. 8 pie slices are bigger than 10.

I saw that show, in the WAC . . it did not end well, and yes, I know the Belt's situation is different, there will always be a host of FCS schools to call up, but if we're going to have to go that route, do it now, get 'em FBS ready now, so that we're not on the brink when our current FBS schools "take a walk" whenever cusa comes a callin'

I think you need to go to 10 just to have that buffer. Considering that we still have options that likely make us stronger in the long run I think it is a no brainer.

(02-13-2013 10:55 AM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 10:49 AM)panama Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 09:53 AM)Blue Raider Dave Wrote:  Suppose the SBC does not lose any more teams to C-USA. Do you guys expand anyway before July 1 or just sit tight as is?

Sit tight. 8 pie slices are bigger than 10.

I saw that show, in the WAC . . it did not end well, and yes, I know the Belt's situation is different, there will always be a host of FCS schools to call up, but if we're going to have to go that route, do it now, get 'em FBS ready now, so that we're not on the brink when our current FBS schools "take a walk" whenever cusa comes a callin'

(02-13-2013 11:13 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  I think you need to go to 10 just to have that buffer. Considering that we still have options that likely make us stronger in the long run I think it is a no brainer.

The difference is that the WAC ran out of call ups in the west. We have several left in the East and THAT's your buffer.

(02-13-2013 10:35 AM)TOPPERSonTOP Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 10:34 AM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 09:53 AM)Blue Raider Dave Wrote:  Suppose the SBC does not lose any more teams to C-USA. Do you guys expand anyway before July 1 or just sit tight as is?

I have worn out the knees in 6 pair of slacks praying that the SBC sits tight if it loses no more teams; at least until the currently transitional members are full FBS. The only acceptable addition before that time is NMSU.

I love basketball more than most people, and I would give a resounding NO to adding NMS. IT IS WAAAAY TO FAR FROM THE CURRENT FOOTPRINT.

Would you be okay with adding NMSU if we split into East/west divisions and you were in the east?

(02-13-2013 11:19 AM)panama Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 10:55 AM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 10:49 AM)panama Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 09:53 AM)Blue Raider Dave Wrote:  Suppose the SBC does not lose any more teams to C-USA. Do you guys expand anyway before July 1 or just sit tight as is?

Sit tight. 8 pie slices are bigger than 10.

I saw that show, in the WAC . . it did not end well, and yes, I know the Belt's situation is different, there will always be a host of FCS schools to call up, but if we're going to have to go that route, do it now, get 'em FBS ready now, so that we're not on the brink when our current FBS schools "take a walk" whenever cusa comes a callin'

(02-13-2013 11:13 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  I think you need to go to 10 just to have that buffer. Considering that we still have options that likely make us stronger in the long run I think it is a no brainer.

The difference is that the WAC ran out of call ups in the west. We have several left in the East and THAT's your buffer.

When you wait until you HAVE to add that looks desperate. If you add when you WANT to add and get teams that make the most sense it is better.

(02-13-2013 11:24 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 11:19 AM)panama Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 10:55 AM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 10:49 AM)panama Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 09:53 AM)Blue Raider Dave Wrote:  Suppose the SBC does not lose any more teams to C-USA. Do you guys expand anyway before July 1 or just sit tight as is?

Sit tight. 8 pie slices are bigger than 10.

I saw that show, in the WAC . . it did not end well, and yes, I know the Belt's situation is different, there will always be a host of FCS schools to call up, but if we're going to have to go that route, do it now, get 'em FBS ready now, so that we're not on the brink when our current FBS schools "take a walk" whenever cusa comes a callin'

(02-13-2013 11:13 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  I think you need to go to 10 just to have that buffer. Considering that we still have options that likely make us stronger in the long run I think it is a no brainer.

The difference is that the WAC ran out of call ups in the west. We have several left in the East and THAT's your buffer.

When you wait until you HAVE to add that looks desperate. If you add when you WANT to add and get teams that make the most sense it is better.

You really think that if we expand now it's going to be viewed as something other than we were desperate?

(02-13-2013 11:46 AM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 11:24 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 11:19 AM)panama Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 10:55 AM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 10:49 AM)panama Wrote:  Sit tight. 8 pie slices are bigger than 10.

I saw that show, in the WAC . . it did not end well, and yes, I know the Belt's situation is different, there will always be a host of FCS schools to call up, but if we're going to have to go that route, do it now, get 'em FBS ready now, so that we're not on the brink when our current FBS schools "take a walk" whenever cusa comes a callin'

(02-13-2013 11:13 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  I think you need to go to 10 just to have that buffer. Considering that we still have options that likely make us stronger in the long run I think it is a no brainer.

The difference is that the WAC ran out of call ups in the west. We have several left in the East and THAT's your buffer.

When you wait until you HAVE to add that looks desperate. If you add when you WANT to add and get teams that make the most sense it is better.

You really think that if we expand now it's going to be viewed as something other than we were desperate?

1. Looks better than scrambling for members when you're down to 6 or 5.
2. AND then if they're FCS call ups, you have that whole 2 year transitional process, how's that leave ya lookin' as a conference?

One other point, with the most recent departures, you can't count on your losses leavin' the conference the "following year" from whenever they're called up . . . departure might be immediate.

If you dont go to 12 then 9 is better than 10 imo. Balanced schedule and one less mouth to feed.

(02-13-2013 11:58 AM)TeKERaider Wrote:  If you dont go to 12 then 9 is better than 10 imo. Balanced schedule and one less mouth to feed.

. . . said the guy on his way out da door. Kidding, kidding, don't go gettin' upset . . . 10, 9, 12 makes no diff to me, just have some kinda buffer against disaster . . . cause while other conferences reload, we at the bottom get to rebuild . . . such is life at the bottom

(02-13-2013 12:01 PM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 11:58 AM)TeKERaider Wrote:  If you dont go to 12 then 9 is better than 10 imo. Balanced schedule and one less mouth to feed.

. . . said the guy on his way out da door. Kidding, kidding, don't go gettin' upset . . . 10, 9, 12 makes no diff to me, just have some kinda buffer against disaster . . . cause while other conferences reload, we at the bottom get to rebuild . . . such is life at the bottom

Then stabilize with the current 8 + [maybe] NMSU and get up off the bottom.

(02-13-2013 01:10 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 12:01 PM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 11:58 AM)TeKERaider Wrote:  If you dont go to 12 then 9 is better than 10 imo. Balanced schedule and one less mouth to feed.

. . . said the guy on his way out da door. Kidding, kidding, don't go gettin' upset . . . 10, 9, 12 makes no diff to me, just have some kinda buffer against disaster . . . cause while other conferences reload, we at the bottom get to rebuild . . . such is life at the bottom

Then stabilize with the current 8 + [maybe] NMSU and get up off the bottom.

. . . and therein lies the catch 22 . . . as long as realignment is what it is, and every school in the Belt is "OUT" the second another conference comes callin, there is NO stability . . . .

Stay at 8. More money.

If we need to expand later then we will expand later. If we add now it's still looked at as reactionary and we lose money by having to divide the money more ways. Expand later and it's still reactionary albeit necessary. There isn't much difference between adding them now or later to me. Why expand now to bring in teams to coddle into the FBS, let us take their lumps, then when they are turning the corner they could possibly get picked up by another conference and we do not ever reap the benefits of having that member? That could be a possibility. Or what about the possibility we have over-expanded too soon? It's better to stay at 8. We have more wiggle room by waiting to call up FCS teams only if absolutely needed.

(02-13-2013 01:10 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 12:01 PM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 11:58 AM)TeKERaider Wrote:  If you dont go to 12 then 9 is better than 10 imo. Balanced schedule and one less mouth to feed.

. . . said the guy on his way out da door. Kidding, kidding, don't go gettin' upset . . . 10, 9, 12 makes no diff to me, just have some kinda buffer against disaster . . . cause while other conferences reload, we at the bottom get to rebuild . . . such is life at the bottom

Then stabilize with the current 8 + [maybe] NMSU and get up off the bottom.

That should be the plan. Add NMSU for football only at least (now that the WAC is more stable). That would give 9 fb teams and equal home and away conference schedule. It is is a FBS program so it works to help the FCS transistion schools. Work the conference up over CUSA with the success of Ark st & Louisana. Any more than that is really watering down the playoff money and TV revenue.

Aside from being proactive and prepared so we don't get stuck with 5 or 6, someone else could jump up and grab the most attractive candidates before us. We had the opportunity to add Texas St. and UTSA and passed some time back.