(11-02-2021 11:19 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(11-02-2021 10:33 AM)HerdZoned Wrote:  I don't believe the Sun Belt should do what CUSA done to Marquette, ST Louis and Charlotte in 2003. Those 3 were told they couldn't stay if they didn't have football. I think the Sun Belt could encourage both but unless they find a more suitable home that fits them they should be allowed to stay.

If both school were winning 20+ games a year would the thought process be different. I think it would.

I don't believe the SB will straight-up kick them out. I certainly would hope not. It's one thing if they violate conference bylaws or do some egregious legal or NCAA infraction, but short of that, just voting them out, IMO, is bad form. (That said, though, LR is technically falling short of the minimum number of Sun Belt sports required to be in the league. UTA is fine.)

Arkstfan pointed out at one point that UTA and LR have, a 1/12th ownership in the league; it will be 1/16th when expansion is complete. They can't just be kicked out. It would have to be voluntary.

My understanding is that the SB has informed the two non football schools have been told that decisions at the conference level are going to be football-driven, and while they wouldn't be "kicked out," they might be happier in a conference that is either more friendly to a footbl/non football mix (WAC, perhaps CUSA), or an entirely non football conference altogether (MVC, Summit).

I'm certainly not advocating kicking out UTA or Little Rock, but to address the bolded statement above, Little Rock is already in violation of Sun Belt bylaws for not sponsoring the minimum number of SBC-sponsored sports.

(11-02-2021 03:54 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(11-02-2021 11:19 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(11-02-2021 10:33 AM)HerdZoned Wrote:  I don't believe the Sun Belt should do what CUSA done to Marquette, ST Louis and Charlotte in 2003. Those 3 were told they couldn't stay if they didn't have football. I think the Sun Belt could encourage both but unless they find a more suitable home that fits them they should be allowed to stay.

If both school were winning 20+ games a year would the thought process be different. I think it would.

I don't believe the SB will straight-up kick them out. I certainly would hope not. It's one thing if they violate conference bylaws or do some egregious legal or NCAA infraction, but short of that, just voting them out, IMO, is bad form. (That said, though, LR is technically falling short of the minimum number of Sun Belt sports required to be in the league. UTA is fine.)

Arkstfan pointed out at one point that UTA and LR have, a 1/12th ownership in the league; it will be 1/16th when expansion is complete. They can't just be kicked out. It would have to be voluntary.

My understanding is that the SB has informed the two non football schools have been told that decisions at the conference level are going to be football-driven, and while they wouldn't be "kicked out," they might be happier in a conference that is either more friendly to a footbl/non football mix (WAC, perhaps CUSA), or an entirely non football conference altogether (MVC, Summit).

I'm certainly not advocating kicking out UTA or Little Rock, but to address the bolded statement above, Little Rock is already in violation of Sun Belt bylaws for not sponsoring the minimum number of SBC-sponsored sports.

To be fair, Old Dominion will only offer 11 when it enters the conference.

(11-02-2021 06:17 PM)TheMackAttack Wrote:  

(11-02-2021 03:54 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(11-02-2021 11:19 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(11-02-2021 10:33 AM)HerdZoned Wrote:  I don't believe the Sun Belt should do what CUSA done to Marquette, ST Louis and Charlotte in 2003. Those 3 were told they couldn't stay if they didn't have football. I think the Sun Belt could encourage both but unless they find a more suitable home that fits them they should be allowed to stay.

If both school were winning 20+ games a year would the thought process be different. I think it would.

I don't believe the SB will straight-up kick them out. I certainly would hope not. It's one thing if they violate conference bylaws or do some egregious legal or NCAA infraction, but short of that, just voting them out, IMO, is bad form. (That said, though, LR is technically falling short of the minimum number of Sun Belt sports required to be in the league. UTA is fine.)

Arkstfan pointed out at one point that UTA and LR have, a 1/12th ownership in the league; it will be 1/16th when expansion is complete. They can't just be kicked out. It would have to be voluntary.

My understanding is that the SB has informed the two non football schools have been told that decisions at the conference level are going to be football-driven, and while they wouldn't be "kicked out," they might be happier in a conference that is either more friendly to a footbl/non football mix (WAC, perhaps CUSA), or an entirely non football conference altogether (MVC, Summit).

I'm certainly not advocating kicking out UTA or Little Rock, but to address the bolded statement above, Little Rock is already in violation of Sun Belt bylaws for not sponsoring the minimum number of SBC-sponsored sports.

To be fair, Old Dominion will only offer 11 when it enters the conference.

Kick ‘em out.