(05-21-2014 12:49 PM)Eagleditka Wrote:  There just wasn't anyone ready or willing to make the move this year. I would like to know what Missouri State's official reason for declining an invite. Was it because of basketball or was it because they weren't ready?

50/50 on both. Not quite ready on the football side of things and basketball is the bell cow as of right now. The big money on the donations come from basketball, you need a solid plan going forward to see that money go to football. Having the students step up is a great start as it shows the interest is their in the program.

Funny that Benson's best move as SBC commish is no move at all. Well done SBC.

(05-21-2014 04:34 PM)asupatch Wrote:  Funny that Benson's best move as SBC commish is no move at all. Well done SBC.

Presidents decide. Commissioners execute.

(05-21-2014 03:17 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 03:01 PM)slycat Wrote:  I've gotta say that was a build up to nothing. But in a way it was expected. In all other conference movement there is plenty of smoke and info leaked well in advance and memebrs are added well before the meetings. This year there were plenty of rumors, as always, but no smoke.

We get to dance this dance again next year. But with JMU all but off the table and no other strong options, I'm guessing it stays at 12 unless other movement higher up the food chain occurs.

I was really hoping for NMSU all sports.

Stays at 12? The Sun Belt is an 11/13 conference.

It seems as though Benson sounded disappointed that nothing was done this year in that announcement.

Errr 11...

(05-21-2014 03:17 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  Stays at 12? The Sun Belt is an 11/13 conference.

You mean 11/11? I didn't see the mention of NMSU and Idaho upgraded to all-sports in that official league announcement.

(05-21-2014 01:43 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  The weirdest thing about all this seems to be so many posters wanting to include Missouri State, yet their total lack of interest. If they are not interested, why even continue discussing them.

Its a long logical leap from them not being interested in transitioning this June to them having no interest at all. They aren't spending on athletic facilities like a school with no interest at all in making the step up.

(05-21-2014 03:17 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 03:01 PM)slycat Wrote:  I've gotta say that was a build up to nothing. But in a way it was expected. In all other conference movement there is plenty of smoke and info leaked well in advance and memebrs are added well before the meetings. This year there were plenty of rumors, as always, but no smoke.

We get to dance this dance again next year. But with JMU all but off the table and no other strong options, I'm guessing it stays at 12 unless other movement higher up the food chain occurs.

I was really hoping for NMSU all sports.

Stays at 12? The Sun Belt is an 11/13 conference.

It seems as though Benson sounded disappointed that nothing was done this year in that announcement.

He may have a little bit of realignment PTSD.

I'd say he needs to adjust to an environment where it is possible to complete a year without waking up to a bunch of text messages on your phone asking about the league's plans to deal with the departure of a school.

From the Springfield Republican paper.

Quote:UMass athletic director John McCutcheon, who wouldn't comment on the specifics of Benson's statement or CBS Sports' report, wasn't surprised by the Sun Belt's decision.

"We didn't anticipate that anything was going to come out of their spring meetings, he said. "As I've said before, it's an ongoing process, and we're going to continue to explore all the options that we can pursue and develop.

"The bottom line is we're committed to FBS-level football. Whether it's now or down the road, we're going to find a way to work out a suitable situation for ourselves."

Amidst a changing NCAA landscape, McCutcheon said the university will continue to focus on the present while it works to secure its future.

"There are a lot of different things going on in college athletics right now with conferences and the NCAA governance structure," he said. "We've got two seasons in the MAC that we're preparing for and coach (Mark) Whipple's doing a great job. We'll keep working at it until we find a situation that fits us."

Though the Sun Belt's current members aren't ready for expansion this summer, that doesn't shut the door on adding UMass in the future. The university's 2015 deadline with the MAC provides for some wiggle room and perhaps enough time for Benson and his conference to change its mind.

Benson's comment about potentially adding a 12th member for all sports – as opposed to football-only, like UMass' current set up with the MAC – could end up a tricky sticking point for UMass.

...

n the meantime, McCutcheon said he and the administration is "extremely excited about what's going on with the Atlantic 10."

"As a basketball-centric conference being in a multiple (NCAA tournament-bid) situation, as well as the geography and rivalries that we naturally have in the A-10, is a really good fit for us," he said.

That means, for now, McCutcheon, UMass and its fans are stuck playing the waiting game.

Article with Sun Belt graphics

(05-21-2014 05:01 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 03:17 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  Stays at 12? The Sun Belt is an 11/13 conference.

You mean 11/11?

I thought the SunBelt logo thingy:


was a reference to the two blue rays that are FB only and the two blue rays that are non-FB.
And there are twelve rays in all. It's the Da Vinci Code, right?

Here is what I take from today's announcement:

1. The 12th member will be an all sports member. In a couple of years we may have some better choices that apparently the membership feels we don't have right now. It is obvious that UMass and Liberty just could not get the votes. If they couldn't get them this year they won't get them next year either. If the conference goes to 12 (and at this point that is certainly not a given at all) someone like Missouri St. or Eastern Kentucky will be the 12th in a year or two.
2. No announcement of any change in 8 conference football games so one would assume there was not much support to go to 9 there.
3. I didn't see any announcement of any basketball or football scheduling rules so I guess it is up to each school going forward. All I see is a decision to play conference women's and men's games as doubleheaders. I assume that means if ULM plays at Ga. Southern first ULM's women will play Ga. Southern's women followed by the men's game.That must be to save money on flights somehow.

(05-21-2014 05:42 PM)DoubleAggie Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 05:01 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 03:17 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  Stays at 12? The Sun Belt is an 11/13 conference.

You mean 11/11?

I thought the SunBelt logo thingy ... was a reference to the two blue rays that are FB only and the two blue rays that are non-FB.

And there are twelve rays in all. It's the Da Vinci Code, right?

And then WKU left.

(12-1)/(12-1) = 11/11

I also think today's annoucement shows by not taking UMass or adding NMSU in all sports that the conference is very serious about trying to create a tigher footprint for the Sun Belt. I am not sure at this point that when Idaho's 4 years are up that they are excused and the conference goes to 10 for football and 11 for other sports.

(05-21-2014 03:19 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 12:49 PM)Eagleditka Wrote:  There just wasn't anyone ready or willing to make the move this year. I would like to know what Missouri State's official reason for declining an invite. Was it because of basketball or was it because they weren't ready?

50/50 on both. Not quite ready on the football side of things and basketball is the bell cow as of right now. The big money on the donations come from basketball, you need a solid plan going forward to see that money go to football. Having the students step up is a great start as it shows the interest is their in the program.

Will that equation change in a year? If the Sun Belt comes back next Spring and offers an invite, will Mo State be in a position to accept? Just curious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(05-21-2014 09:00 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  I also think today's annoucement shows by not taking UMass or adding NMSU in all sports that the conference is very serious about trying to create a tigher footprint for the Sun Belt. I am not sure at this point that when Idaho's 4 years are up that they are excused and the conference goes to 10 for football and 11 for other sports.

Or they are waiting on UMass to leave the MAC after 2015 and see what happens in the mean time. If more shuffles happen then adding UMass would have been a waste. No matter what they will still be there in a couple years.

I'll be interested to see how EKU progresses over the next couple of years to see if the infrastructure is improved enough to have the potential to make the move if the Sun Belt does add teams..

(05-21-2014 09:15 PM)slycat Wrote:  Or they are waiting on UMass to leave the MAC after 2015 and see what happens in the mean time. If more shuffles happen then adding UMass would have been a waste. No matter what they will still be there in a couple years.

That's the thing: UMass is not going to become unavailable over the next two years, so any decision in any given meeting to not take them can always be reversed in the following meeting.

So where there is sometimes an "insurance" value to an expansion, there is no need to contract with UMass on an "insurance" basis, since they'll still be available in the event of whatever you may have been insuring against.

(05-21-2014 09:18 PM)EKUSteve Wrote:  I'll be interested to see how EKU progresses over the next couple of years to see if the infrastructure is improved enough to have the potential to make the move if the Sun Belt does add teams..

Facilities would seem to be the challenge for EKU, for a move up in either direction.

(05-21-2014 05:26 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  From the Springfield Republican paper.

Quote:UMass athletic director John McCutcheon, who wouldn't comment on the specifics of Benson's statement or CBS Sports' report, wasn't surprised by the Sun Belt's decision.

"We didn't anticipate that anything was going to come out of their spring meetings, he said. "As I've said before, it's an ongoing process, and we're going to continue to explore all the options that we can pursue and develop.

"The bottom line is we're committed to FBS-level football. Whether it's now or down the road, we're going to find a way to work out a suitable situation for ourselves."

Amidst a changing NCAA landscape, McCutcheon said the university will continue to focus on the present while it works to secure its future.

"There are a lot of different things going on in college athletics right now with conferences and the NCAA governance structure," he said. "We've got two seasons in the MAC that we're preparing for and coach (Mark) Whipple's doing a great job. We'll keep working at it until we find a situation that fits us."

Though the Sun Belt's current members aren't ready for expansion this summer, that doesn't shut the door on adding UMass in the future. The university's 2015 deadline with the MAC provides for some wiggle room and perhaps enough time for Benson and his conference to change its mind.

Benson's comment about potentially adding a 12th member for all sports – as opposed to football-only, like UMass' current set up with the MAC – could end up a tricky sticking point for UMass.

...

n the meantime, McCutcheon said he and the administration is "extremely excited about what's going on with the Atlantic 10."

"As a basketball-centric conference being in a multiple (NCAA tournament-bid) situation, as well as the geography and rivalries that we naturally have in the A-10, is a really good fit for us," he said.

That means, for now, McCutcheon, UMass and its fans are stuck playing the waiting game.

Article with Sun Belt graphics

FWIW, AState's president has taken a never say never stance when asked about UMass, he always says UMass has contacted, there have been talks, it's a long way from being decided.

Maybe they did decide this week but even if UMass were wanting to enter for 2015 and pay the MAC exit (or seek waiver) that's a decision that can wait until late June.

If UMass doesn't want to pay the fee or MAC is holding firm to it, there is no point making a decision now (even if it would be beneficial for the scheduling plans of UMass).

(05-21-2014 10:32 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 09:15 PM)slycat Wrote:  Or they are waiting on UMass to leave the MAC after 2015 and see what happens in the mean time. If more shuffles happen then adding UMass would have been a waste. No matter what they will still be there in a couple years.

That's the thing: UMass is not going to become unavailable over the next two years, so any decision in any given meeting to not take them can always be reversed in the following meeting.

So where there is sometimes an "insurance" value to an expansion, there is no need to contract with UMass on an "insurance" basis, since they'll still be available in the event of whatever you may have been insuring against.

(05-21-2014 09:18 PM)EKUSteve Wrote:  I'll be interested to see how EKU progresses over the next couple of years to see if the infrastructure is improved enough to have the potential to make the move if the Sun Belt does add teams..

Facilities would seem to be the challenge for EKU, for a move up in either direction.

EKU's facilities while not ideal are passable. The greater need for EKU isn't capital funds but operating budget. They really need about another $2 million a year to be a serious applicant.

Basketball doubleheaders sound good and have advantages,however,several problems can occur.I will not list them all but here are a few:practice time availability for road teams,parking(esp. on thurs.),seating(where women have significant crowds),GAME TIME RUNOVER,media schedule conflicts,and perceived "slights" regarding TitleIX.
The advantage to doubleheaders may overcome some of these issues but you can predict there will be conflicts.
Personally, I prefer the DH's but it will be a big change at some schools especially on Thursdays.

(05-21-2014 09:18 PM)EKUSteve Wrote:  I'll be interested to see how EKU progresses over the next couple of years to see if the infrastructure is improved enough to have the potential to make the move if the Sun Belt does add teams..

If the school can't pass a $100 student fee EKU is not going to be in much better shape in 1 or 2 years. The worse thing the EKU President could have done was put it to a vote. He's paid to made those decisions and to do what he thinks is best for EKU...

Something like adding student fees should have been between him and the BOR then explain why it's needed after it's passed. From what I read he seems to have a vision for EKU and to get it done he's going to have to take heat and go after the added cost to the students. Without it EKU is doomed.

(05-22-2014 12:44 AM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  Basketball doubleheaders sound good and have advantages,however,several problems can occur.

One advantage of not scheduling doubleheaders in conference play is that rained out games in the first of a two game series or one of the first two games of a three game series can often be made up with a double header.