(01-26-2014 07:15 PM)SHWISH Wrote:  What claim did I make?

1. You've claimed the Cajuns would support Lamar's inclusion
2. You've claimed that Texas State would support Lamar's inclusion.
3. You've claimed that there is a plan for 14 members.
4. You've claimed that stAte is the one driving the no SLC teams.
5. You've claimed that Lamar's budget is higher than a few of the Sun Belt's schools

(01-26-2014 06:41 PM)MJG Wrote:  Add. NDSU football only and Wichita State for all sports if stipend is FBS only .

Use the FBS status to recruit a couple strong basketball schools .
Montana might take a football only invite not a lot of good football candidates. Basketball is a different story and if two strong basketball schools could be added the conference benefits .

A possible benefit besides strengthening basketball is the football only additions leaving to start a new conference .

You seriously think Wichita St. would join the Sun Belt?

Sun Belt can also add VCU, Gonzaga, Butler and Creighton too for hoops...I am sure like VCU and Creighton with this much success Wichita has had recently, they will be moving to the BE in basketball soon...

(01-26-2014 08:03 PM)panama Wrote:  If 9 presidents vote for the kid from revenge of the nerds then I am done.

The school is named after the guy in 'Blazing Saddle'. Do some research before you post.

(01-26-2014 08:11 PM)SHWISH Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 08:03 PM)panama Wrote:  If 9 presidents vote for the kid from revenge of the nerds then I am done.

The school is named after the guy in 'Blazing Saddle'. Do some research before you post.

Headley Lamarr?

(01-26-2014 08:32 PM)JSinLR Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 08:11 PM)SHWISH Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 08:03 PM)panama Wrote:  If 9 presidents vote for the kid from revenge of the nerds then I am done.

The school is named after the guy in 'Blazing Saddle'. Do some research before you post.

Headley Lamarr?

Yup, Lamar's namesake.

(01-26-2014 08:32 PM)JSinLR Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 08:11 PM)SHWISH Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 08:03 PM)panama Wrote:  If 9 presidents vote for the kid from revenge of the nerds then I am done.

The school is named after the guy in 'Blazing Saddle'. Do some research before you post.

Headley Lamarr?

You missed a prime opportunity to set someone up... You should have called him "Heddy Lamarr".

Then someone could have come back with "that's Hedley!"

lets assume his theory is right. it would indicate a few things
3-4 schools are moving up could mean its almost a sure thing a couple teams are leaving. since state and ul are the likrly canidates they cant/wont block any to move up. lamar and shsu match travel better for the western schools and maybe either one or both mo st and jmu to the east.
This could be a lot of dealing going on and making the best of a crappy situation. travel and conference stability addressed. some schools may not like the adds, but there may not be any choice. Im sure there is a lot of complaining and someone is going to have to lose out. hopefully no one leaves and we add one solid program and bring nmsu all in.

At this point I can't see a reason to go above 12. If another round of realignment occurs (which I do not expect in the next 3-4 years) it is possible the Sun Belt could need to add more teams, but at this point I would not be in favor of bringing in more than 1 new team.

(01-26-2014 09:57 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  At this point I can't see a reason to go above 12. If another round of realignment occurs (which I do not expect in the next 3-4 years) it is possible the Sun Belt could need to add more teams, but at this point I would not be in favor of bringing in more than 1 new team.

The only reason I could see the SBC going to 14 teams would be to protect itself in further rounds of realignment -- mainly due to the 2 year transition any FCS school would have to endure.

If the SBC is involved, any FCS school is a candidate for number twelve. Any school. One reason why I would like to get out. Am so tired of this 12th member stuff. Any FCS school will weaken the conference again and reinforce the fact that we are the way to the FBS for anyone that may be interested. A poor image gets poorer and we ask why. A 12th member just to have a 12th member seems to be typical thinking however for Karl's followers.

better for 12 football teams now and work with UALR and UTA to get football there then have 14+2

(01-26-2014 10:31 PM)Huan Wrote:  better for 12 football teams now and work with UALR and UTA to get football there then have 14+2

UALR wrote in their charter that they would never sponsor football according to several accounts. It would take an act of legislature for them to even start a program.

(01-26-2014 10:31 PM)Huan Wrote:  better for 12 football teams now and work with UALR and UTA to get football there then have 14+2

Why? What is the benefit of 12 now?

If more money comes from having a CCG

Money trail:
TV contract: based on conf regardless of number of members. Adding a member would likely decrease the split unless the increased in money from a CCG offset this.
"BCS" share: to conference per team but max out at 12.

Intangible of:
Increased visibility to the conference of a CCG
Increased in revenue as this would likely be a net gain even if small
Risk of an upset ala NIU vs BSU

I still see a net gain while recognizing the risk
In addition, it may become the standard for post season play. The big XII could likely meet this deficit within a year (BYU and likely another G5 team would sue to leave their current conference to join the big xii ASAP). The Sun Belt would likely need to get the 12th from FCS rank and thus likely a 2-3 years delay. Delay = revenue lost but more significantly damage to its already vulnerable perception as a week conference (despite this year performance).

Your TV contract benefit is not a benefit as it wouldn't trigger a new contract.
The BCS share doesn't give the conference more money or the individual schools more money. It gives another school $1M (or whatever it is at now), but in reality that lessens our share of the payout money as the additional million would come out of the "divvy" amount.

What increase in revenue would occur from a championship game? You MIGHT get a little bump if you're the hosting team, but that's questionable at best.
Your risk of an upset is precisely that... a risk.

if the chips do fall like you suggest, we still won't lose any money, while those FCS's we move up will lose money.

The only possible loss we have by not adding now is really the exposure on CCG weekend. But given our current TV contract, there's no guarantee we'd even be on TV for it (odds are good we'd be slotted on ESPN3, but that's no lock).

I dunno. Right now, I don't see the draw. I just don't see a team that will help propel us to the next level (surpassing CUSA in perception). I think we'd be better off waiting, adding more bowls, and trying to find a way to renegotiate the television deal. If we can accomplish that, then we'd be in better position to poach someone instead of being the constantly poached.

(01-26-2014 11:35 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  Your TV contract benefit is not a benefit as it wouldn't trigger a new contract.
The BCS share doesn't give the conference more money or the individual schools more money. It gives another school $1M (or whatever it is at now), but in reality that lessens our share of the payout money as the additional million would come out of the "divvy" amount.

What increase in revenue would occur from a championship game? You MIGHT get a little bump if you're the hosting team, but that's questionable at best.
Your risk of an upset is precisely that... a risk.

if the chips do fall like you suggest, we still won't lose any money, while those FCS's we move up will lose money.

The only possible loss we have by not adding now is really the exposure on CCG weekend. But given our current TV contract, there's no guarantee we'd even be on TV for it (odds are good we'd be slotted on ESPN3, but that's no lock).

I dunno. Right now, I don't see the draw. I just don't see a team that will help propel us to the next level (surpassing CUSA in perception). I think we'd be better off waiting, adding more bowls, and trying to find a way to renegotiate the television deal. If we can accomplish that, then we'd be in better position to poach someone instead of being the constantly poached.

+1 on poaching someone.

(01-26-2014 04:56 PM)Cat79 Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 04:29 PM)SHWISH Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 04:09 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 03:24 PM)SHWISH Wrote:  That is your bias opinion. ULL already said they would vote yes on Lamar. Texas st and Lamar are both part of the TSU system. If you don't want Lamar, fine, but don't make up stuff.

Where has the Cajuns said they would vote yes on Lamar?

What does Texas State and Lamar being part of the TSUS have to do with us voting them in?

Are you serious? TSUS will allow TSU to block another TSUS school from moving up. OK. If you oppose Lamar, just say it, don't make stuff up.

Lamar had a chance with the WAC and your president pulled out of consideration and made ties with Sam Houston to stay in the SLC. I had been hearing rumors that Lamar and Sam Houston think they will be in Cusa soon. Cusa has gone on record stating no more FCS move ups will be taken by them. You are now placing your chance to move up with the SBC. UL , ASU and Texas State are reluctant to consider SLC candidates when a team like JMU seems better prepared for the move.

I don't recall CUSA going on record saying that they'll not take any more FCS move ups. Everything I've read and heard says that JMU will be the next CUSA addition. Its hard to predict though. So much depends on what other conferences do. If UTSA got an invitation to join the AAC, Texas State's phone would ring immediately with an offer from CUSA. If instead, UTSA stayed in CUSA and UTEP left for the MWC, then ASU or UL-L would likely to be invited as the replacement. In either scenario, JMU wouldn't be the replacement for a CUSA West member.

(01-26-2014 10:02 PM)GATA Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 09:57 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  At this point I can't see a reason to go above 12. If another round of realignment occurs (which I do not expect in the next 3-4 years) it is possible the Sun Belt could need to add more teams, but at this point I would not be in favor of bringing in more than 1 new team.

The only reason I could see the SBC going to 14 teams would be to protect itself in further rounds of realignment -- mainly due to the 2 year transition any FCS school would have to endure.

Exactly
If the SBC bring in just 1 team and start a CCG, then a team is lost, the SBC would have to cancel the CCG for a year. For example, the SBC could have a CCG 2015, 2016, canceled for 2017 because SBC lost a team.

The Sun Belt don't need no stinkin' championship game. The Sun Belt don't need no stinkin' 12th member. Leave it the fark alone and let it build its reputation with what it's got now. We did fine in 2013, the best of the non-AQ's in fact.

Why monkey with success at this point?

the Sun Belt only needs a championship game if there is a good addition that improves either the league's football, or Olympic sports considerably. There are 1 or 2 teams that currently fit that bill. I highly doubt we will expand to twelve just because we can.