(04-24-2013 10:10 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 11:59 PM)Tuffguy21 Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 11:06 PM)surlycanon Wrote:  Furthermore Sun Belt additions went 1-9 against the Future of CUSA, while CUSA Additions went 17-15 against the future of the Belt.

Apples to apples eh...

How about this, The new sunbelt has 3 bowl teams from the 2012 season. With 3 extra teams, New CUSA only sent 2 teams to bowl games last year. We went 2-1 in our bowls, yall went 1-1, and those are the games that matter.

And the new CUSA had four bowl eligible teams, one of which didn't go bowling due to Sun Belt membership. The last time an eligible CUSA team sat at home was 2006 when SMU went 6-6 and didn't receive a bowl bid, since then the Sun Belt has had one 7-5 team and two 8-4 teams left sitting at home.

The new CUSA had 1 more bowl eligible team with 3 extra members. On the merit of which conference does more for it's members, I give you that CUSA has done a better job of taking care of it's membership, and likely will continue to do so. As far as on the field, to pull the numbers out like Surlycanon did like the new SBC went 1-9 against New CUSA, that's disingenuous as the strongest of our new additions only played one new CUSA team and beat them in a playoff scenario.

I won't argue about which conference does more for their members, in fact, I agree that CUSA does a better job getting bowl tie ins and more television money, but on the field product, even with the new additions, it is still negligible right now. Last year, SBC>CUSA, but after the teams CUSA picked off, and the teams the SBC replaced with, I'd be more apt to say SBC=CUSA. That could change if CUSA goes to 16.

(04-24-2013 11:49 AM)Tuffguy21 Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 10:10 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 11:59 PM)Tuffguy21 Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 11:06 PM)surlycanon Wrote:  Furthermore Sun Belt additions went 1-9 against the Future of CUSA, while CUSA Additions went 17-15 against the future of the Belt.

Apples to apples eh...

How about this, The new sunbelt has 3 bowl teams from the 2012 season. With 3 extra teams, New CUSA only sent 2 teams to bowl games last year. We went 2-1 in our bowls, yall went 1-1, and those are the games that matter.

And the new CUSA had four bowl eligible teams, one of which didn't go bowling due to Sun Belt membership. The last time an eligible CUSA team sat at home was 2006 when SMU went 6-6 and didn't receive a bowl bid, since then the Sun Belt has had one 7-5 team and two 8-4 teams left sitting at home.

The new CUSA had 1 more bowl eligible team with 3 extra members. On the merit of which conference does more for it's members, I give you that CUSA has done a better job of taking care of it's membership, and likely will continue to do so. As far as on the field, to pull the numbers out like Surlycanon did like the new SBC went 1-9 against New CUSA, that's disingenuous as the strongest of our new additions only played one new CUSA team and beat them in a playoff scenario.

I won't argue about which conference does more for their members, in fact, I agree that CUSA does a better job getting bowl tie ins and more television money, but on the field product, even with the new additions, it is still negligible right now. Last year, SBC>CUSA, but after the teams CUSA picked off, and the teams the SBC replaced with, I'd be more apt to say SBC=CUSA. That could change if CUSA goes to 16.

I seem to be agreeing with you. I don't know if that means I think it's a good thing for both C-USA and Sunbelt. Or if that means I think both C-USA and Sunbelt have fallen farther behind the newly minted AAC and MWC.

I think there is definitely a separation between [MWC/AAC] and [C-USA/Sunbelt], I just don't know how much or how that separation will change over the next 3 to 5 years in the new "College Football Playoff" format.

(04-24-2013 10:21 AM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  Not that bowl tie ins will not change in a few years, but I think this was main reason at least in football we seeked a CUSA membership....Has to be frustrating fininshing second in conf. and left out.....I think the SBC can get to 3 bowl tie ins, but CUSA will still have 4 if nothing else changed or they did not gain one...

I just want to point out that the year WKU went 7-5 and left out of the bowl picture was because they went 0-4 outside of terrible-rated conference and had an absolute terrible season the year before. That's pretty palpable to a bowl.

Add to that the bowls would rather take a 6-6 team from a conference with a perceived higher prestige over the "lower level" conference and the most likely teams to get invites will be only those that the lower level conferences have ties. C-USA will likely fit that bill now.

(04-24-2013 03:09 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 10:21 AM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  Not that bowl tie ins will not change in a few years, but I think this was main reason at least in football we seeked a CUSA membership....Has to be frustrating fininshing second in conf. and left out.....I think the SBC can get to 3 bowl tie ins, but CUSA will still have 4 if nothing else changed or they did not gain one...

I just want to point out that the year WKU went 7-5 and left out of the bowl picture was because they went 0-4 outside of terrible-rated conference and had an absolute terrible season the year before. That's pretty palpable to a bowl.

I don't think you're understanding what he's saying. Yes, "other" criteria are considered by Bowl committees, but good conferences have tie-ins for their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc place teams. The SBC doesn't. The SBC only has one guaranteed spot and that's for the conference champion.

(04-24-2013 03:14 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 03:09 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 10:21 AM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  Not that bowl tie ins will not change in a few years, but I think this was main reason at least in football we seeked a CUSA membership....Has to be frustrating fininshing second in conf. and left out.....I think the SBC can get to 3 bowl tie ins, but CUSA will still have 4 if nothing else changed or they did not gain one...

I just want to point out that the year WKU went 7-5 and left out of the bowl picture was because they went 0-4 outside of terrible-rated conference and had an absolute terrible season the year before. That's pretty palpable to a bowl.

I don't think you're understanding what he's saying. Yes, "other" criteria are considered by Bowl committees, but good conferences have tie-ins for their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc place teams. The SBC doesn't. The SBC only has one guaranteed spot and that's for the conference champion.

Two guaranteed spots. GoDaddy and New Orleans Bowl are both SBC tie-ins.

(04-24-2013 03:33 PM)CajunFan3406 Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 03:14 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 03:09 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 10:21 AM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  Not that bowl tie ins will not change in a few years, but I think this was main reason at least in football we seeked a CUSA membership....Has to be frustrating fininshing second in conf. and left out.....I think the SBC can get to 3 bowl tie ins, but CUSA will still have 4 if nothing else changed or they did not gain one...

I just want to point out that the year WKU went 7-5 and left out of the bowl picture was because they went 0-4 outside of terrible-rated conference and had an absolute terrible season the year before. That's pretty palpable to a bowl.

I don't think you're understanding what he's saying. Yes, "other" criteria are considered by Bowl committees, but good conferences have tie-ins for their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc place teams. The SBC doesn't. The SBC only has one guaranteed spot and that's for the conference champion.

Two guaranteed spots. GoDaddy and New Orleans Bowl are both SBC tie-ins.

Correct but neither are required to take the 2nd place team. That's the point of the discussion. We all know there are two Bowl tie-ins for the SBC.

Comparing Bowl tie-ins and T.V. contracts is pointless.

These two conferences are basically new conferences .

The MAC ,Sun Belt and Conference USA future T.V. contracts will be close enough that they wont matter.

The Sun Belt may have stayed close to the same while C-USA has lost all of its top teams except USM.

The G of 5 conferences screwed up realignment by going after markets .
The emphasis should have been take the best teams for a chance at an Access Bowl.

Conference USA was clearly ahead of the other bottom three but now its close.The SBC benefited the most by these realignment mistakes .

Keeping UL ,Troy and Ark ST and adding GA So and APP ST maybe not be the best markets but good teams

(04-24-2013 03:52 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 03:33 PM)CajunFan3406 Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 03:14 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 03:09 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 10:21 AM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  Not that bowl tie ins will not change in a few years, but I think this was main reason at least in football we seeked a CUSA membership....Has to be frustrating fininshing second in conf. and left out.....I think the SBC can get to 3 bowl tie ins, but CUSA will still have 4 if nothing else changed or they did not gain one...

I just want to point out that the year WKU went 7-5 and left out of the bowl picture was because they went 0-4 outside of terrible-rated conference and had an absolute terrible season the year before. That's pretty palpable to a bowl.

I don't think you're understanding what he's saying. Yes, "other" criteria are considered by Bowl committees, but good conferences have tie-ins for their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc place teams. The SBC doesn't. The SBC only has one guaranteed spot and that's for the conference champion.

Two guaranteed spots. GoDaddy and New Orleans Bowl are both SBC tie-ins.

Correct but neither are required to take the 2nd place team. That's the point of the discussion. We all know there are two Bowl tie-ins for the SBC.

I guess I misunderstood your "one guaranteed spot" comment. The SBC has a guaranteed spot for its champion, and then the way I see it, they have another guaranteed spot to the second most desirable team after the champion. That team may or may not be in 2nd place. Is this stemming from the fact that you guys didn't get an invite 2 years ago as the 2nd place team while UL and FIU each got an invite? Because you would have a hard time making a big fuss about that if you consider that MTSU stayed home last year as a 2nd place team while you guys got an invite.

(04-25-2013 12:42 PM)CajunFan3406 Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 03:52 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 03:33 PM)CajunFan3406 Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 03:14 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 03:09 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  I just want to point out that the year WKU went 7-5 and left out of the bowl picture was because they went 0-4 outside of terrible-rated conference and had an absolute terrible season the year before. That's pretty palpable to a bowl.

I don't think you're understanding what he's saying. Yes, "other" criteria are considered by Bowl committees, but good conferences have tie-ins for their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc place teams. The SBC doesn't. The SBC only has one guaranteed spot and that's for the conference champion.

Two guaranteed spots. GoDaddy and New Orleans Bowl are both SBC tie-ins.

Correct but neither are required to take the 2nd place team. That's the point of the discussion. We all know there are two Bowl tie-ins for the SBC.

I guess I misunderstood your "one guaranteed spot" comment. The SBC has a guaranteed spot for its champion, and then the way I see it, they have another guaranteed spot to the second most desirable team after the champion. That team may or may not be in 2nd place. Is this stemming from the fact that you guys didn't get an invite 2 years ago as the 2nd place team while UL and FIU each got an invite? Because you would have a hard time making a big fuss about that if you consider that MTSU stayed home last year as a 2nd place team while you guys got an invite.

No. Has nothing to do with WKU being left out or MT being left out. it's just a fact. The SBC only has a guaranteed spot for the 1st place team. If you're not a team in Louisiana or Alabama and you don't win the conference, your chances of getting a bid to the second Bowl tie-in is slim to none if a Louisiana or Alabama team is available, even if you finish 2nd. On the other hand, the 2nd place team in any other FBS conference has a guaranteed Bowl, regardless of their geographic location.

(04-25-2013 12:54 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 12:42 PM)CajunFan3406 Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 03:52 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 03:33 PM)CajunFan3406 Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 03:14 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  I don't think you're understanding what he's saying. Yes, "other" criteria are considered by Bowl committees, but good conferences have tie-ins for their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc place teams. The SBC doesn't. The SBC only has one guaranteed spot and that's for the conference champion.

Two guaranteed spots. GoDaddy and New Orleans Bowl are both SBC tie-ins.

Correct but neither are required to take the 2nd place team. That's the point of the discussion. We all know there are two Bowl tie-ins for the SBC.

I guess I misunderstood your "one guaranteed spot" comment. The SBC has a guaranteed spot for its champion, and then the way I see it, they have another guaranteed spot to the second most desirable team after the champion. That team may or may not be in 2nd place. Is this stemming from the fact that you guys didn't get an invite 2 years ago as the 2nd place team while UL and FIU each got an invite? Because you would have a hard time making a big fuss about that if you consider that MTSU stayed home last year as a 2nd place team while you guys got an invite.

No. Has nothing to do with WKU being left out or MT being left out. it's just a fact. The SBC only has a guaranteed spot for the 1st place team. If you're not a team in Louisiana or Alabama and you don't win the conference, your chances of getting a bid to the second Bowl tie-in is slim to none if a Louisiana or Alabama team is available, even if you finish 2nd. On the other hand, the 2nd place team in any other FBS conference has a guaranteed Bowl, regardless of their geographic location.

I see your point. Now just to further this discussion along. I understand that other conferences essentially "reward" their second place team with a guaranteed bowl, but why? If the second place team isn't going to make the conference, the bowl, or the host city any money then is rewarding that team with a bowl worth the potential losses in revenue? The SBC's "rule" is essentially place the champ, and then the other bowl gets to take its pick from whatever is left. For a lower tier bowl does it not make sense for them to choose a team which will benefit the bowl and it's host city with the most revenue?

(04-25-2013 01:36 PM)CajunFan3406 Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 12:54 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 12:42 PM)CajunFan3406 Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 03:52 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 03:33 PM)CajunFan3406 Wrote:  Two guaranteed spots. GoDaddy and New Orleans Bowl are both SBC tie-ins.

Correct but neither are required to take the 2nd place team. That's the point of the discussion. We all know there are two Bowl tie-ins for the SBC.

I guess I misunderstood your "one guaranteed spot" comment. The SBC has a guaranteed spot for its champion, and then the way I see it, they have another guaranteed spot to the second most desirable team after the champion. That team may or may not be in 2nd place. Is this stemming from the fact that you guys didn't get an invite 2 years ago as the 2nd place team while UL and FIU each got an invite? Because you would have a hard time making a big fuss about that if you consider that MTSU stayed home last year as a 2nd place team while you guys got an invite.

No. Has nothing to do with WKU being left out or MT being left out. it's just a fact. The SBC only has a guaranteed spot for the 1st place team. If you're not a team in Louisiana or Alabama and you don't win the conference, your chances of getting a bid to the second Bowl tie-in is slim to none if a Louisiana or Alabama team is available, even if you finish 2nd. On the other hand, the 2nd place team in any other FBS conference has a guaranteed Bowl, regardless of their geographic location.

I see your point. Now just to further this discussion along. I understand that other conferences essentially "reward" their second place team with a guaranteed bowl, but why? If the second place team isn't going to make the conference, the bowl, or the host city any money then is rewarding that team with a bowl worth the potential losses in revenue? The SBC's "rule" is essentially place the champ, and then the other bowl gets to take its pick from whatever is left. For a lower tier bowl does it not make sense for them to choose a team which will benefit the bowl and it's host city with the most revenue?

I see your point exactly. Yes, from the Bowl's perspective it's about making money for the Bowl. That's not the issue I'm referring to in this discussion. The issue is that other conferences have 4, 5, 6, etc. Bowl tie-ins. A school will be much happier in a conference where they have a chance at a Bowl every year whereas in the SBC only the Conference Champ and an Alabama or Louisiana school has a chance at a bowl usually....until the SBC gets more Bowl tie-ins. That's the issue. It'd still be the issue if our 2 Bowl tie-ins were in Louisville and Nashville instead of Mobile and New Orleans. In those cases, WKU, MT, and ArkSt would be the best choice each year and Louisiana and Alabama schools would not be happy.

(04-25-2013 01:58 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 01:36 PM)CajunFan3406 Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 12:54 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 12:42 PM)CajunFan3406 Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 03:52 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  Correct but neither are required to take the 2nd place team. That's the point of the discussion. We all know there are two Bowl tie-ins for the SBC.

I guess I misunderstood your "one guaranteed spot" comment. The SBC has a guaranteed spot for its champion, and then the way I see it, they have another guaranteed spot to the second most desirable team after the champion. That team may or may not be in 2nd place. Is this stemming from the fact that you guys didn't get an invite 2 years ago as the 2nd place team while UL and FIU each got an invite? Because you would have a hard time making a big fuss about that if you consider that MTSU stayed home last year as a 2nd place team while you guys got an invite.

No. Has nothing to do with WKU being left out or MT being left out. it's just a fact. The SBC only has a guaranteed spot for the 1st place team. If you're not a team in Louisiana or Alabama and you don't win the conference, your chances of getting a bid to the second Bowl tie-in is slim to none if a Louisiana or Alabama team is available, even if you finish 2nd. On the other hand, the 2nd place team in any other FBS conference has a guaranteed Bowl, regardless of their geographic location.

I see your point. Now just to further this discussion along. I understand that other conferences essentially "reward" their second place team with a guaranteed bowl, but why? If the second place team isn't going to make the conference, the bowl, or the host city any money then is rewarding that team with a bowl worth the potential losses in revenue? The SBC's "rule" is essentially place the champ, and then the other bowl gets to take its pick from whatever is left. For a lower tier bowl does it not make sense for them to choose a team which will benefit the bowl and it's host city with the most revenue?

I see your point exactly. Yes, from the Bowl's perspective it's about making money for the Bowl. That's not the issue I'm referring to in this discussion. The issue is that other conferences have 4, 5, 6, etc. Bowl tie-ins. A school will be much happier in a conference where they have a chance at a Bowl every year whereas in the SBC only the Conference Champ and an Alabama or Louisiana school has a chance at a bowl usually....until the SBC gets more Bowl tie-ins. That's the issue. It'd still be the issue if our 2 Bowl tie-ins were in Louisville and Nashville instead of Mobile and New Orleans. In those cases, WKU, MT, and ArkSt would be the best choice each year and Louisiana and Alabama schools would not be happy.

Now join our last two points together and imagine CUSA next year where there is a two or three-way tie for 5th. And then imagine this happens year after year. The school that will get left out in any given year will always be unhappy. The solution is only solved if the conference gets an absurd SEC number of bowls.

But I think we're in agreement on a lot of points. The extra bowl opportunities do make for a good reason to leave this conference. AND the SBC should be actively working to get a 3rd and 4th bowl because it seems that this problem has been going on for a while now.

(04-25-2013 02:22 PM)CajunFan3406 Wrote:  Now join our last two points together and imagine CUSA next year where there is a two or three-way tie for 5th. And then imagine this happens year after year. The school that will get left out in any given year will always be unhappy. The solution is only solved if the conference gets an absurd SEC number of bowls.

But I think we're in agreement on a lot of points. The extra bowl opportunities do make for a good reason to leave this conference. AND the SBC should be actively workings to get a 3rd and 4th bowl because it seems that this problem has been going on for a while now.

We're on the same page. Although I would wager that finishing second every year and getting left out is far more painful than finishing 5th every year and being left out.

Along these lines, I wonder if App St truly understands that unless they win the conference, their Bowl options are limited if UL, ULM, Troy, or USA are also Bowl eligible. Of course, App St and GaSo will win the conference every year so it's a moot point. Oh wait, if both win I guess there'll be a tie-breaker and the loser gets to stay home. I kid...I kid. With the expansion of the SBC in the number of teams, hopefully the SBC front office is working overtime to get another Bowl tie-in by 2014.

(04-25-2013 02:33 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(04-25-2013 02:22 PM)CajunFan3406 Wrote:  Now join our last two points together and imagine CUSA next year where there is a two or three-way tie for 5th. And then imagine this happens year after year. The school that will get left out in any given year will always be unhappy. The solution is only solved if the conference gets an absurd SEC number of bowls.

But I think we're in agreement on a lot of points. The extra bowl opportunities do make for a good reason to leave this conference. AND the SBC should be actively workings to get a 3rd and 4th bowl because it seems that this problem has been going on for a while now.

We're on the same page. Although I would wager that finishing second every year and getting left out is far more painful than finishing 5th every year and being left out.

This is the exact problem with the Belt Bowl situation. No 5th place team should get pissed about anything, a second place team has a bit more to gripe about.

(04-23-2013 09:11 PM)Tuffguy21 Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 08:58 PM)slow-runner Wrote:  I'm really interested in watching the new-to-FBS teams from C-USA and the Sunbelt over the next several years.

Lets see, we have:
UTSA
TxSt
South Alabama
Georgia St
Charlotte
ODU
Georgia Southern
App St

Am I missing any? Obviously I keep tabs on my UTSA, but I also keep tabs on TxSt.

UTSA will be playing our second transition year this year.
TxSt will be full FBS this season.
South Alabama (I think) is full FBS now.

What about all the others?

I believe, but may not be correct that this is the case.

Ga St and ODU are transitional teams, not eligible for FCS Playoffs or bowls. Georgia Southern, App State, are eligible for playoffs one more season, will be transitioning in 2014. Charlotte is just starting their program, so I don't know what their timetable is, but if their plan is to be FBS by 2015, then they will experiance more growing pains than any team on this list

To clarify: Ga State is in I believe their Second transition year to the FBS. Which means no Bowl, but they could win the SBC.

ODU, Georgia Southern and App State are ALL on the same time line for transition. ODU declared last year AFTER the June 1 deadline. So they were eligable for the playoffs last year (in which they lost to Georgia Southern just like in 2011) but the CAA didnt allow them to win their FCS conference title.

Georgia Southern and App both declared between June 2nd of last year and June 1 of this year = same time line as ODU. But ODU is not locked into CAA conference play and have 5/6 FBS games this year as they had about a 10month advance notice to get some FBS games scheduled for the 2013 season. BUT -- All three of us are NOT FCS PLAYOFF ELIGABLE for the 2013 season and on the same time line for full FBS transition. ODU will not be able to play in a Bowl game till 2015 - same as GaSouthern and App State. But all three will play a full FBS schedule in conference in 2014 and are eligable to win the Confernece Title in 2014. NCAA says no bowling in 2014 though.

Any possible addition to the SBC who delcares a move from the FCS before June 1st of this year would be on the same time line.

(04-24-2013 11:49 AM)Tuffguy21 Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 10:10 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 11:59 PM)Tuffguy21 Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 11:06 PM)surlycanon Wrote:  Furthermore Sun Belt additions went 1-9 against the Future of CUSA, while CUSA Additions went 17-15 against the future of the Belt.

Apples to apples eh...

How about this, The new sunbelt has 3 bowl teams from the 2012 season. With 3 extra teams, New CUSA only sent 2 teams to bowl games last year. We went 2-1 in our bowls, yall went 1-1, and those are the games that matter.

And the new CUSA had four bowl eligible teams, one of which didn't go bowling due to Sun Belt membership. The last time an eligible CUSA team sat at home was 2006 when SMU went 6-6 and didn't receive a bowl bid, since then the Sun Belt has had one 7-5 team and two 8-4 teams left sitting at home.

The new CUSA had 1 more bowl eligible team with 3 extra members. On the merit of which conference does more for it's members, I give you that CUSA has done a better job of taking care of it's membership, and likely will continue to do so. As far as on the field, to pull the numbers out like Surlycanon did like the new SBC went 1-9 against New CUSA, that's disingenuous as the strongest of our new additions only played one new CUSA team and beat them in a playoff scenario.

I won't argue about which conference does more for their members, in fact, I agree that CUSA does a better job getting bowl tie ins and more television money, but on the field product, even with the new additions, it is still negligible right now. Last year, SBC>CUSA, but after the teams CUSA picked off, and the teams the SBC replaced with, I'd be more apt to say SBC=CUSA. That could change if CUSA goes to 16.

I don't see how you actually believe that after the CUSA and SB additions the SB = CUSA. Nearly half of the new SB is composed of FCS. On top of that you guys added Idaho and NM State, two of the worst programs in the country. I just don't see it.

Even if we assume that these new FCS transition fairly quickly and start having success, remember Western Kentucky and their 26 losing streak? I don't see any of these programs doing any better. Maybe they'll beat on each other making their records slightly better but that's it.

The new SB has great potential and can very well outperform CUSA in the near future again but that's left to be seen. However, on field performance is one part of the equation. There's a lot more to a conference than one or two years of good/bad on field performance.

(04-26-2013 10:25 AM)CivilEng Wrote:  Even if we assume that these new FCS transition fairly quickly and start having success, remember Western Kentucky and their 26 losing streak? I don't see any of these programs doing any better.

Western Kentucky was by far the worst transitioning program that ever existed, and you don't see the two most storied programs at the FCS level doing any better? Did you leave your brain in a palm tree somewhere?

(04-26-2013 12:51 PM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(04-26-2013 10:25 AM)CivilEng Wrote:  Even if we assume that these new FCS transition fairly quickly and start having success, remember Western Kentucky and their 26 losing streak? I don't see any of these programs doing any better.

Western Kentucky was by far the worst transitioning program that ever existed, and you don't see the two most stories programs at the FCS level doing any better? Did you leave your brain in a palm tree somewhere?

Yeah...I don't get that at all. I think they'll struggle, but to that extent? Not likely.

(04-23-2013 07:33 AM)Atlanta Trojan Wrote:  CUSA will continue to lose in football and baseball to the SBC IMO.
They have too many weak links and not enough strong programs.

Strong.
USM
WKU
MTSU
La Tech
Marshall

Could go either way
FIU
Utep


Weak
FAU
UAB
Charlotte
Rice
ODU
UTSA
UNT

What does this make like three years in a row where we have beaten C-USA head-to-head? I think the future is going to be interesting to see which league comes out in better shape. Really could go either way although I think the edge goes to C-USA. Don't forget you also added Idaho and NMSU.

I also think Old Dominion is a wild card. I'm still amazed that Virginia Tech has been able to remain good this long and their time is coming due very soon. ODU could become the best football program in that state. The Virginia Beach area is perhaps the newest hotbed of football talent and if they can keep enough of those kids home they're going to be tough to deal with in the future. And they have a bigger budget than any of us.

(04-26-2013 12:59 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 07:33 AM)Atlanta Trojan Wrote:  CUSA will continue to lose in football and baseball to the SBC IMO.
They have too many weak links and not enough strong programs.

Strong.
USM
WKU
MTSU
La Tech
Marshall

Could go either way
FIU
Utep


Weak
FAU
UAB
Charlotte
Rice
ODU
UTSA
UNT

What does this make like three years in a row where we have beaten C-USA head-to-head? I think the future is going to be interesting to see which league comes out in better shape. Really could go either way although I think the edge goes to C-USA. Don't forget you also added Idaho and NMSU.

I also think Old Dominion is a wild card. I'm still amazed that Virginia Tech has been able to remain good this long and their time is coming due very soon. ODU could become the best football program in that state. The Virginia Beach area is perhaps the newest hotbed of football talent and if they can keep enough of those kids home they're going to be tough to deal with in the future. And they have a bigger budget than any of us.

ODU has been FCS. They have potential but failed against FCS playoff caliber teams. I did not have the chance to see ODU in the FCS finals. Did you see them there? Potential will only carry you so far. They could end up like another UAB.