Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)


Post Reply 
six or eight years down the line
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
MJG Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,279
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 30
I Root For: U I , UMich, SC
Location: Myrtle Beach
Post: #1
six or eight years down the line
This is just the usual realignment made up scenario kinda crap.
So I am assuming UMASS and the current football only schools stay that way . So twelve for football and eleven for basketball.

Most likely the SBC will not get raided in the future.
I know it is possible but I am also assuming that to be the case.

That leaves three affiliate football and two non football members. No other FBS conference has non football members . That will probably become undesirable at some point. Twelve all sports members is probably the SBC long term goal.

The non football schools would be given the option to add football its a lot easier if an FBS conference invite is in hand. The best possible travel partner for APP ST will be ready in eight years.

So how could the SBC get rid of the football only schools in a positive way. Have each of the twelve members play one game a year against one rotating home and home . So instead of a nine game conference schedule an 8 plus one schedule. These games played in November and December would make an independent schedule to work. The newly independent schools could also play each other for six guaranteed games to schedule around.

Lot of moving parts the Sun Belt could even include the independent games as part of its TV package. Maybe more minor rules changes would be helpful like independent schools getting a full play off share. The SBC gets its tight footprint and retains some exposure and relationships with the outlier programs. The football only members get to remain FBS and play in Olympic conferences that make sense.
(This post was last modified: 04-27-2014 10:31 AM by MJG.)
04-27-2014 10:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

BRtransplant Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,927
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 27
I Root For: La Tech
Location:
Post: #2
RE: six or eight years down the line
No more changes until the Big 12 starts adding members, which may never happen.
04-27-2014 11:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MJG Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,279
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 30
I Root For: U I , UMich, SC
Location: Myrtle Beach
Post: #3
RE: six or eight years down the line
(04-27-2014 11:07 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  No more changes until the Big 12 starts adding members, which may never happen.

I am fine with UMASS , NMSU and Idaho staying long term .
I only made up this scenario to get to 12 all sports members for the fans that are not. The desire for a tight footprint is expressed often on this board. Finding a beneficial way to get there for all is what this post is about. No SBC defections is part of the scenario.

Hopefully people can share their thoughts without hijacking the thread.
Like NMSU all sports it is not part of the scenario.
Adding Liberty or EKU I am not against either just not part of this idea.
04-27-2014 12:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TheRevSWT Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,213
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 126
I Root For: Bobcats!
Location:
Post: #4
RE: six or eight years down the line
Keep in mind, if rumors are true, NMSU will no longer be football only.

So you will have Idaho & UMass as football only. UALR & UTA as Olympic members only. 12 football/12 olympic.
04-27-2014 02:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

GE and MTS Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 2,020
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: Future FBS!!!
Post: #5
RE: six or eight years down the line
For any independent to survive, they need to have games when other conferences are playing conference games. With the Big Ten moving to a 9 game conference schedule and more conferences to follow, there will be less of a chance for those non-independents to schedule someone non-conference in October and November. I would hope for Idaho's, NMSU's, and UMass's sake that they don't find themselves in a situation that makes them independents. Notre Dame and BYU at least have more rivalries and desirability that makes them more attractive to play late-season unlike the others.
04-27-2014 03:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ATX Bobcat Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 63
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation: 2
I Root For: Texas State
Location:
Post: #6
RE: six or eight years down the line
In six to eight years it would be nice to see UT-Arlington sponsor football.
04-27-2014 03:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FoUTASportscaster Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,816
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 44
I Root For: UTA
Location:
Post: #7
RE: six or eight years down the line
You aren't the only one. I think the lack of football is the only thing preventing the UTA-TXST rivalry from hitting a high-intensity level.
04-27-2014 03:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

TheRevSWT Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,213
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 126
I Root For: Bobcats!
Location:
Post: #8
RE: six or eight years down the line
(04-27-2014 03:44 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  You aren't the only one. I think the lack of football is the only thing preventing the UTA-TXST rivalry from hitting a high-intensity level.

But would it rival the App State/Georgia Southern rivalry that is tops in the nation?
04-27-2014 04:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
trueeagle98 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,606
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 11
I Root For: GS Eagles
Location: the Holy City
Post: #9
RE: six or eight years down the line
(04-27-2014 04:12 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  
(04-27-2014 03:44 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  You aren't the only one. I think the lack of football is the only thing preventing the UTA-TXST rivalry from hitting a high-intensity level.

But would it rival the App State/Georgia Southern rivalry that is tops in the nation?

Just the sun belt nation.

I don't see the sbc having football only members in 8 years and i don't see Idaho and umass going all in.
04-27-2014 05:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MJG Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,279
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 30
I Root For: U I , UMich, SC
Location: Myrtle Beach
Post: #10
RE: six or eight years down the line
(04-27-2014 05:40 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  
(04-27-2014 04:12 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  
(04-27-2014 03:44 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  You aren't the only one. I think the lack of football is the only thing preventing the UTA-TXST rivalry from hitting a high-intensity level.

But would it rival the App State/Georgia Southern rivalry that is tops in the nation?

Just the sun belt nation.

I don't see the sbc having football only members in 8 years and i don't see Idaho and umass going all in.

Since half of the conference is new who knows what direction it will take. Football only is at least done by two other FBS conferences. No FBS conference has non football playing members except the SBC.
The 12 -12 plan is fine going forward but some are obviously against it. UTA and UALR could be forced to add football if 12 all sports is desired. 12-14 makes no sense ten is a better number for basketball.
04-27-2014 06:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

GE and MTS Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 2,020
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: Future FBS!!!
Post: #11
RE: six or eight years down the line
(04-27-2014 06:59 PM)MJG Wrote:  
(04-27-2014 05:40 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  
(04-27-2014 04:12 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  
(04-27-2014 03:44 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  You aren't the only one. I think the lack of football is the only thing preventing the UTA-TXST rivalry from hitting a high-intensity level.

But would it rival the App State/Georgia Southern rivalry that is tops in the nation?

Just the sun belt nation.

I don't see the sbc having football only members in 8 years and i don't see Idaho and umass going all in.

Since half of the conference is new who knows what direction it will take. Football only is at least done by two other FBS conferences. No FBS conference has non football playing members except the SBC.
The 12 -12 plan is fine going forward but some are obviously against it. UTA and UALR could be forced to add football if 12 all sports is desired. 12-14 makes no sense ten is a better number for basketball.

If I understand you correctly, the ACC has Notre Dame who is a non-football playing member of the conference despite having football.
04-27-2014 08:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The4thOption Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,019
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 29
I Root For: GeorgiaSouthern
Location:
Post: #12
RE: six or eight years down the line
(04-27-2014 04:12 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  
(04-27-2014 03:44 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  You aren't the only one. I think the lack of football is the only thing preventing the UTA-TXST rivalry from hitting a high-intensity level.

But would it rival the App State/Georgia Southern rivalry that is tops in the nation?

No sir... No it wont.
04-27-2014 10:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
LR Eagle Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 888
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 11
I Root For: USM
Location:
Post: #13
RE: six or eight years down the line
(04-27-2014 06:59 PM)MJG Wrote:  
(04-27-2014 05:40 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  
(04-27-2014 04:12 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  
(04-27-2014 03:44 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  You aren't the only one. I think the lack of football is the only thing preventing the UTA-TXST rivalry from hitting a high-intensity level.

But would it rival the App State/Georgia Southern rivalry that is tops in the nation?

Just the sun belt nation.

I don't see the sbc having football only members in 8 years and i don't see Idaho and umass going all in.

Since half of the conference is new who knows what direction it will take. Football only is at least done by two other FBS conferences. No FBS conference has non football playing members except the SBC.
The 12 -12 plan is fine going forward but some are obviously against it. UTA and UALR could be forced to add football if 12 all sports is desired. 12-14 makes no sense ten is a better number for basketball.

I'm no expert on Arkansas sports since I'm a transplant, but I can tell you the odds of UALR ever adding football is pretty much nil. The UA BOT with never allow them to field a FBS team. The state is short on talent as it is, and UA has to recruit TX pretty hard to even field a team.
04-27-2014 11:10 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.