Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)


Post Reply 
To Long Term member of the Sun Belt
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
MTPiKapp Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 14,425
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation: 445
I Root For: MiddleTennessee
Location: Roswell, GA
Post: #41
RE: To Long Term member of the Sun Belt
(03-26-2014 09:27 PM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  
(03-26-2014 09:06 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  
(03-26-2014 06:05 PM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  
(03-26-2014 03:32 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  
(03-26-2014 03:24 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  You 2 are sort of the old guard now of the Sun Belt. How do you feel your school would view adding UMass as a football only member?

South Alabama is a founding member and has been a member fifteen years longer than Arkansas State and Louisiana.

03-shhhh

Maybe you missed it, but he said football only. South Alabama is not a founding member in football. That honor goes to UL, ASU and Troy.

I still don't see why it matters, is football different than any other sport? Sure, but does it really differ that much when it comes to adding members even if it is just for football? It doesn't, but you disagreeing with me rates pretty low on the surprise scale.

And it's already been pointed out, but maybe you missed it Troy joined in 2004...

And it doesn't surprise me that you would find some reason to disagree with the obvious. It matters in this manner, they saved millions of dollors not playing football period for years. There was no true investment or commitment to NCAA football or the Sun Belt football brand for the initial years. So tell me once again why they should be mentioned in the same breathe as ASU, UL or ULM? Sorry you think that a program that wasn't willing to invest in football or build the Sun Belt football brand during the initial years deserves mention when discussing the initial founding Sun Belt football programs.

My point is they are the only member of the Sun Belt that's seen three full decades come and go, they've seen more schools leave and more schools join than anyone else. I just do not see how a proposed member being of a sport they're newish to sponsoring makes that much of a difference. They know the history and inner workings of this conference better than anyone and, to me, that's as important, if not morse so, than how long they've been sponsoring the sport in question.
03-26-2014 09:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AtlantaJag Offline
Beltbbs USA INsider
*

Posts: 2,387
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 65
I Root For: USA Jaguars
Location:
Post: #42
RE: To Long Term member of the Sun Belt
(03-26-2014 09:39 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  
(03-26-2014 09:27 PM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  
(03-26-2014 09:06 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  
(03-26-2014 06:05 PM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  
(03-26-2014 03:32 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  South Alabama is a founding member and has been a member fifteen years longer than Arkansas State and Louisiana.

03-shhhh

Maybe you missed it, but he said football only. South Alabama is not a founding member in football. That honor goes to UL, ASU and Troy.

I still don't see why it matters, is football different than any other sport? Sure, but does it really differ that much when it comes to adding members even if it is just for football? It doesn't, but you disagreeing with me rates pretty low on the surprise scale.

And it's already been pointed out, but maybe you missed it Troy joined in 2004...

And it doesn't surprise me that you would find some reason to disagree with the obvious. It matters in this manner, they saved millions of dollors not playing football period for years. There was no true investment or commitment to NCAA football or the Sun Belt football brand for the initial years. So tell me once again why they should be mentioned in the same breathe as ASU, UL or ULM? Sorry you think that a program that wasn't willing to invest in football or build the Sun Belt football brand during the initial years deserves mention when discussing the initial founding Sun Belt football programs.

My point is they are the only member of the Sun Belt that's seen three full decades come and go, they've seen more schools leave and more schools join than anyone else. I just do not see how a proposed member being of a sport they're newish to sponsoring makes that much of a difference. They know the history and inner workings of this conference better than anyone and, to me, that's as important, if not morse so, than how long they've been sponsoring the sport in question.

Thank you.
USA has not been playing football since the conference was founded, but this is really not a football question as much as a realignment question and South Alabama has been there for all of them in the SBC.
That being said, this seems like a no-brainer to me. Amherst is much easier to get to than Idaho or NMSU and they are putting resources into their football product. With an increased exposure to recruits in the South, it's easy to see that they could start getting better quickly. Add in the almost certain basketball arrangement and UMass is welcome aboard as far as I'm concerned.
03-26-2014 09:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CrazyCajun Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,317
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 60
I Root For: Louisiana
Location:
Post: #43
RE: To Long Term member of the Sun Belt
(03-26-2014 09:39 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  
(03-26-2014 09:27 PM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  
(03-26-2014 09:06 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  
(03-26-2014 06:05 PM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  
(03-26-2014 03:32 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  South Alabama is a founding member and has been a member fifteen years longer than Arkansas State and Louisiana.

03-shhhh

Maybe you missed it, but he said football only. South Alabama is not a founding member in football. That honor goes to UL, ASU and Troy.

I still don't see why it matters, is football different than any other sport? Sure, but does it really differ that much when it comes to adding members even if it is just for football? It doesn't, but you disagreeing with me rates pretty low on the surprise scale.

And it's already been pointed out, but maybe you missed it Troy joined in 2004...

And it doesn't surprise me that you would find some reason to disagree with the obvious. It matters in this manner, they saved millions of dollors not playing football period for years. There was no true investment or commitment to NCAA football or the Sun Belt football brand for the initial years. So tell me once again why they should be mentioned in the same breathe as ASU, UL or ULM? Sorry you think that a program that wasn't willing to invest in football or build the Sun Belt football brand during the initial years deserves mention when discussing the initial founding Sun Belt football programs.

My point is they are the only member of the Sun Belt that's seen three full decades come and go, they've seen more schools leave and more schools join than anyone else. I just do not see how a proposed member being of a sport they're newish to sponsoring makes that much of a difference. They know the history and inner workings of this conference better than anyone and, to me, that's as important, if not morse so, than how long they've been sponsoring the sport in question.

Right! Which is nothing to do with being a founding member in football! The topic or original question asked the "FOUNDING FOOTBALL MEMBERS".The fact that they have seen three decades of membership is irrelevant to the subject of Founding Football Members. Their absence from the first few initial post was factually correct, regardless of whether it sits well with you or not.
03-26-2014 09:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MTPiKapp Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 14,425
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation: 445
I Root For: MiddleTennessee
Location: Roswell, GA
Post: #44
RE: To Long Term member of the Sun Belt
(03-26-2014 09:57 PM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  
(03-26-2014 09:39 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  
(03-26-2014 09:27 PM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  
(03-26-2014 09:06 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  
(03-26-2014 06:05 PM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  Maybe you missed it, but he said football only. South Alabama is not a founding member in football. That honor goes to UL, ASU and Troy.

I still don't see why it matters, is football different than any other sport? Sure, but does it really differ that much when it comes to adding members even if it is just for football? It doesn't, but you disagreeing with me rates pretty low on the surprise scale.

And it's already been pointed out, but maybe you missed it Troy joined in 2004...

And it doesn't surprise me that you would find some reason to disagree with the obvious. It matters in this manner, they saved millions of dollors not playing football period for years. There was no true investment or commitment to NCAA football or the Sun Belt football brand for the initial years. So tell me once again why they should be mentioned in the same breathe as ASU, UL or ULM? Sorry you think that a program that wasn't willing to invest in football or build the Sun Belt football brand during the initial years deserves mention when discussing the initial founding Sun Belt football programs.

My point is they are the only member of the Sun Belt that's seen three full decades come and go, they've seen more schools leave and more schools join than anyone else. I just do not see how a proposed member being of a sport they're newish to sponsoring makes that much of a difference. They know the history and inner workings of this conference better than anyone and, to me, that's as important, if not morse so, than how long they've been sponsoring the sport in question.

Right! Which is nothing to do with being a founding member in football! The topic or original question asked the "FOUNDING FOOTBALL MEMBERS".The fact that they have seen three decades of membership is irrelevant to the subject of Founding Football Members. Their absence from the first few initial post was factually correct, regardless of whether it sits well with you or not.

Atlanta Jag said it better and more concisely than I did, this is more a question of realignment than it is a question of football.

Let's play nice for once and agree to disagree, at the end of the day you and I are arguing semantics anyhow.
03-26-2014 10:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TOPSTRAIGHT Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,283
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 44
I Root For: WKU
Location: Glasgow,KY.
Post: #45
RE: To Long Term member of the Sun Belt
Semantics "sont vous" !
03-26-2014 10:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoBigRed26 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,105
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 22
I Root For: stAte
Location: Little Rock, AR
Post: #46
RE: To Long Term member of the Sun Belt
Why are some so desperate to add members just to add members. I say we boot Idaho and make NMSU a full member and keep it at 10/12.
03-26-2014 11:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SpiritCymbal Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 213
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation: 3
I Root For: Ga. Southern
Location: Newport Beach, CA
Post: #47
RE: To Long Term member of the Sun Belt
(03-26-2014 11:25 PM)GoBigRed26 Wrote:  Why are some so desperate to add members just to add members. I say we boot Idaho and make NMSU a full member and keep it at 10/12.

+1
03-26-2014 11:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
eagleskins Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,147
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 0
I Root For: GSU
Location:
Post: #48
RE: To Long Term member of the Sun Belt
No Liberty. Ever
03-27-2014 02:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,883
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 333
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #49
RE: To Long Term member of the Sun Belt
(03-26-2014 07:54 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  
(03-26-2014 06:35 PM)ManzanoWolf Wrote:  UMASS is a very bad idea . . their football is horrible.

Go SBC !! 04-cheers

yEAh, it is....imagine Georgia State would love that.

So make sure you beat us this fall because I am bookmarking this post.
03-27-2014 06:22 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fanof49ASU Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,758
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation: 172
I Root For: stAte
Location: Nashville, TN
Post: #50
RE: To Long Term member of the Sun Belt
(03-27-2014 06:22 AM)panama Wrote:  
(03-26-2014 07:54 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  
(03-26-2014 06:35 PM)ManzanoWolf Wrote:  UMASS is a very bad idea . . their football is horrible.

Go SBC !! 04-cheers

yEAh, it is....imagine Georgia State would love that.

So make sure you beat us this fall because I am bookmarking this post.

Ga St shocked me last year. I am expecting for them to have a very dramatic turnaround year.
03-27-2014 09:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JoeJag Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 3,280
Joined: Jul 2009
Reputation: 60
I Root For: South Alabama
Location: US of A
Post: #51
RE: To Long Term member of the Sun Belt
(03-26-2014 04:01 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  UMass is no more ridiculous than Idaho and easier to fly to than Idaho.

Yep. Good point.
03-27-2014 02:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
geauxcajuns Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,707
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 40
I Root For: Louisiana
Location:
Post: #52
RE: To Long Term member of the Sun Belt
(03-26-2014 11:25 PM)GoBigRed26 Wrote:  Why are some so desperate to add members just to add members. I say we boot Idaho and make NMSU a full member and keep it at 10/12.

That could work. 9 game conference slate 1 money game, 1 home and home and an FCS rent a win.
03-28-2014 01:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chiefsfan Offline
No Seriously, they let me be a mod
*

Posts: 33,572
Joined: Sep 2007
Reputation: 389
I Root For: ASU
Location:
Post: #53
RE: To Long Term member of the Sun Belt
(03-26-2014 11:25 PM)GoBigRed26 Wrote:  Why are some so desperate to add members just to add members. I say we boot Idaho and make NMSU a full member and keep it at 10/12.

We make the same per team from the NCAA if we have 10 football members and 12 football members. In other words, provided our Presidents are not idiots, it would be really hard for an addition to hurt us.
03-28-2014 01:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AtlantaJag Offline
Beltbbs USA INsider
*

Posts: 2,387
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 65
I Root For: USA Jaguars
Location:
Post: #54
RE: To Long Term member of the Sun Belt
(03-27-2014 02:39 PM)JoeJag Wrote:  
(03-26-2014 04:01 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  UMass is no more ridiculous than Idaho and easier to fly to than Idaho.

Yep. Good point.

I think some people don't realize how large our country is. Amherst and Moscow may seem equally distant from, say, Statesboro, but there's a whole lot more United States to cover to get to Idaho and than Massachusetts.
03-28-2014 02:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chiefsfan Offline
No Seriously, they let me be a mod
*

Posts: 33,572
Joined: Sep 2007
Reputation: 389
I Root For: ASU
Location:
Post: #55
RE: To Long Term member of the Sun Belt
(03-28-2014 02:15 PM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  
(03-27-2014 02:39 PM)JoeJag Wrote:  
(03-26-2014 04:01 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  UMass is no more ridiculous than Idaho and easier to fly to than Idaho.

Yep. Good point.

I think some people don't realize how large our country is. Amherst and Moscow may seem equally distant from, say, Statesboro, but there's a whole lot more United States to cover to get to Idaho and than Massachusetts.

Its more about how we are laid out geographically. The Northeast is a much smaller strip of land than the Northwest is...meaning it is always far easier to travel Northeast than Northwest.

One way to look at it is that while Arkansas would appear to be near the center of the US because of its proximity to the Mississippi River. The reality is the Geographic Center of the US is in Lebanon, KS, which is really close to the Nebraska State line.
03-28-2014 02:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chargeradio Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,863
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 76
I Root For: ALA, KY, USA
Location: Louisville, KY
Post: #56
To Long Term member of the Sun Belt
UMass makes a good contingency plan, but I'd rather wait on Missouri State, James Madison, or Eastern Kentucky. If the Sun Belt wants to drop Idaho, it could at then humanely offer a scheduling alliance for both the Vandals and Minutemen. Idaho and UMass could start with 5 straight non-SBC games, play some combination of Army/BYU, and play each other the last week of the season. That would leave 5 games for each of them in Sun Belt play.
03-30-2014 12:47 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Saint3333 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,405
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation: 190
I Root For: App State
Location:
Post: #57
RE: To Long Term member of the Sun Belt
(03-26-2014 04:01 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  UMass is no more ridiculous than Idaho and easier to fly to than Idaho.

Can we trade Idaho for UMass?
03-30-2014 02:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.