(01-06-2015 09:16 AM)ASUMountaineer Wrote:  How many bowl tie-ins did the SBC have, and where were they located, when Texas State chose to join the conference?

Had three and they were all the same distance away.

Which is precisely why I'm not campaigning to change the rules regarding bowl selection. It's why I'm explaining it's not an ideal fit for us.

(01-06-2015 09:36 AM)trojanbrutha Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 09:31 AM)APPrising Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 09:16 AM)ASUMountaineer Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 06:11 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 03:35 PM)JoeJag Wrote:  Oh, no! The "Bobcees" are searching for higher ground already?

Bobcees? really? REALLY?

And you don't have to worry about us moving on, we aren't looking.

I can say that with relative certainty due to our AD. Looking to move elsewhere is like... work.

But it's no secret Texas State fans would like to be in a conference where we (and I mean this for just the Bobcats) are not basically required to win conference every year to have a legit chance at a bowl game.

In the Sun Belt, I think that is pretty much the case. Now, I'm sure if we go 9-3, with 2 conference losses, it will be tough to pick a (for example) 7-5 ULM team.. But I think you get my drift.

It's an inequity that doesn't sit well with our fans. I think USA fans would agree if they were in a conference that had all bowls at least 500 miles from them, and has no other teams from their state to build a rivalry with.

Doesn't help that Benson doesn't exactly inspire confidence that he will fix those problems (nor should he necessarily, as we are but one team in the conference, and he shouldn't bow to just one team).

How many bowl tie-ins did the SBC have, and where were they located, when Texas State chose to join the conference?

I think I see where this is going...

It is a legitimate question...

I see what you did there....

(01-06-2015 09:40 AM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 09:16 AM)ASUMountaineer Wrote:  How many bowl tie-ins did the SBC have, and where were they located, when Texas State chose to join the conference?

Had three and they were all the same distance away.

Which is precisely why I'm not campaigning to change the rules regarding bowl selection. It's why I'm explaining it's not an ideal fit for us.

They had two when we joined. And we chose to join the conference because the only other option was going independent.

(01-06-2015 09:50 AM)slycat Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 09:40 AM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 09:16 AM)ASUMountaineer Wrote:  How many bowl tie-ins did the SBC have, and where were they located, when Texas State chose to join the conference?

Had three and they were all the same distance away.

Which is precisely why I'm not campaigning to change the rules regarding bowl selection. It's why I'm explaining it's not an ideal fit for us.

They had two when we joined. And we chose to join the conference because the only other option was going independent.

So beggars are trying to be choosers?

I kid, I kid. I understand the Bobcats situation, and I hope we don't find ourselves in a similar situation.

(01-06-2015 09:54 AM)ASUMountaineer Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 09:50 AM)slycat Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 09:40 AM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 09:16 AM)ASUMountaineer Wrote:  How many bowl tie-ins did the SBC have, and where were they located, when Texas State chose to join the conference?

Had three and they were all the same distance away.

Which is precisely why I'm not campaigning to change the rules regarding bowl selection. It's why I'm explaining it's not an ideal fit for us.

They had two when we joined. And we chose to join the conference because the only other option was going independent.

So beggars are trying to be choosers?

I kid, I kid. I understand the Bobcats situation, and I hope we don't find ourselves in a similar situation.

Cool, Which is exactly why we may need to go the way of N. TX, MTSU, FIU, FAU, WKU . . . ect., . . so forth, . . . and so on . . . .

. . . . . we aint beggin', but we can also recognize that this is not a good fit for us, and in so recognizing, do what we need to do to position ourselves for a better fit (somewhere else if it's in the cards). . . . ANY of you in our shoes would do the same thing, and if you claim you wouldn't, you're lying . . .

The fact is that someone that is from the conference is going to be left sitting at home during bowl season. That team this year was Texas State. Next year if each member school has the same win/loss record 2 teams will be sitting at home.

We all know that the conference needs another bowl tie in, but the question is what is the best location for that bowl. That location has to be one were there is community support for the bowl. As it stands right now if a 5th bowl is added they would have last pick on who would play in there bowl from the conference therefore the location would need to be one that has options. The idea location would be one that the fans of the most conference member schools could drive to the bowl game.

This is just my option but a good location for a new bowl game would be Chattanooga. Most of the Sun Belt members are within a driveable distance of Chattanooga.

(01-06-2015 10:30 AM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  The fact is that someone that is from the conference is going to be left sitting at home during bowl season. That team this year was Texas State. Next year if each member school has the same win/loss record 2 teams will be sitting at home.

We all know that the conference needs another bowl tie in, but the question is what is the best location for that bowl. That location has to be one were there is community support for the bowl. As it stands right now if a 5th bowl is added they would have last pick on who would play in there bowl from the conference therefore the location would need to be one that has options. The idea location would be one that the fans of the most conference member schools could drive to the bowl game.

This is just my option but a good location for a new bowl game would be Chattanooga. Most of the Sun Belt members are within a driveable distance of Chattanooga.

Not necessarily, there are years when conferences fall short. I'm not saying we don't need another tie in but how many stay home each year is never a given.

some secondary tie ins would be nice

(01-06-2015 10:43 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  some secondary tie ins would be nice

That would require work and effort beyond raking a sand trap

(01-06-2015 09:54 AM)ASUMountaineer Wrote:  So beggars are trying to be choosers?

I kid, I kid. I understand the Bobcats situation, and I hope we don't find ourselves in a similar situation.

In truth, us joining was a marriage of convenience. UNT was out of the Sun Belt, the Sun Belt needed teams and wanted to be in Texas. We didn't want to be independent.

I know you're just busting chops, but really... You have a point.

Unfortunately, I think our AD sees the bowl situation (as it pertains to us) in this conference a good thing. If we rarely have to worry about going to a bowl, we always have the built in excuse of the lack of western bowls. Kinda like how Benson passed the buck to the bowl committees, our AD will pass it on to the Conference.

Jackson, MS only happens if one of two things happens.
1. They change the state flag and get out from under the NCAA post-season hosting ban.
2. The occasionally touted indoor stadium in partnership with Jackson State happens and JSU has a financial stake in the game and as an HBCU appeals directly to the NCAA to waive the ban.\

The Famous Potato Bowl exists today because Reno declined to host a bowl game for the Big West. The league was about to be without a bowl until Boise stepped up.

Los Angeles is often mentioned. Venue is an issue. USC now manages the Coliseum and it is too large and they aren't likely to want to showcase the venue with 15,000-20,000 inside the massive stadium. Rose Bowl will absolutely not allow another bowl there. That means you are looking at the Stub Hub Center in Carson or the new venue to be built for the other LA MLS team (site TBA).

Little Rock is still interested.

Lafayette actually put in a proposal opposite of Boise and then discovered that the Big West wasn't interested because the Big West was about to kick out the western schools. If there is any interest today it is kept quiet.

Memphis at one point was wanting to double host with games about 8-14 days apart but their title sponsor at the time nixed it.

(01-06-2015 10:06 AM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 09:54 AM)ASUMountaineer Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 09:50 AM)slycat Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 09:40 AM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 09:16 AM)ASUMountaineer Wrote:  How many bowl tie-ins did the SBC have, and where were they located, when Texas State chose to join the conference?

Had three and they were all the same distance away.

Which is precisely why I'm not campaigning to change the rules regarding bowl selection. It's why I'm explaining it's not an ideal fit for us.

They had two when we joined. And we chose to join the conference because the only other option was going independent.

So beggars are trying to be choosers?

I kid, I kid. I understand the Bobcats situation, and I hope we don't find ourselves in a similar situation.

Cool, Which is exactly why we may need to go the way of N. TX, MTSU, FIU, FAU, WKU . . . ect., . . so forth, . . . and so on . . . .

. . . . . we aint beggin', but we can also recognize that this is not a good fit for us, and in so recognizing, do what we need to do to position ourselves for a better fit (somewhere else if it's in the cards). . . . ANY of you in our shoes would do the same thing, and if you claim you wouldn't, you're lying . . .

Easy there, Ms. Victim. If you had read the entire post you would have realized that you essentially duplicated what I posted. Of course, I knew that line would get a rise out of you, so it was a fish-in-a-barrel situation. My bad.

As Rev said, I was just busting chops, no ill-intent...seriously.

I am just wondering if expansion for the Belt will become a dead issue if the championship game deregulation passes and we can have a champ game with less than 12.

(01-06-2015 01:13 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  I am just wondering if expansion for the Belt will become a dead issue if the championship game deregulation passes and we can have a champ game with less than 12.

I don't think it should kill it, as divisions (true divisions) help with travel.

Now WILL it? Hell, the way this conference goes, there's no telling.

If we are really going to try to add a 5th bowl we need 11 (or 12 teams). I can't see us getting a 5th bowl if we downsize to 9 teams. It is almost impossible to figure out what the schools will do. Benson can put his 2 cents in but the school leaders really make the decision.

All that has come from our AD is that the brakes have been put on adding a 12th team right now. We are waiting to see if we can have a championship game without 12 teams. So I guess everything is on hold now until the NCAA rules on the deregulation proposal, which should happen before June. So it would appear highly unlikely that we add a 12th team before June this year.

The real question coming up probably is not whether to add a 12th team but whether to cut NMSU and Idaho loose.

What is a bit scary is that if we jetison NMSU and Idaho and go to 9 football schools and 11 olympic sports teams it puts the conference a little more in danger of further realignment dropping the football playing schools to close to the minimum we need.

at this point, with no slam dunk choices for expansion, I hope CC games get deregulated. Then we can at least stay at 11 until there is a no brainer option to invite.

We all need to keep becoming bowl eligable to get our rolling average up and get more tie ins. I wonder if App St and GS counted towards that number this year since they were technically bowl eligable but could only get in if the stars perfectly aligned.

Also please add a bowl at Houstons new stadium.

Deregulation of CC would be ideal. No great options out there. Even JMU has to deal with Virginia capping student fees. Their athletic budget is about the decrease most likely. Holding our noses and adding UMass fb-only might be the only move.