(12-11-2021 06:28 PM)hotrod2001 Wrote:  

(12-11-2021 07:04 AM)MeanGreenStebo Wrote:  

(12-10-2021 10:46 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(12-10-2021 06:02 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(12-10-2021 03:01 PM)JCMiner Wrote:  Imo if we go to 10 we should get a team in the middle of Texas to bridge UTEP/NMSU to SHSU/LT.

Texas State fits like a glove. Whether or not they'd come is debatable (I think extremely unlikely) but they fit the geography.

Debatable? That's not even close to being debatable. You are totally out of your mind if you think Texas State would leave the Sunbelt for CUSA. Have you not seen what has happened over the last 4-6 months?

The Sun Belt is still the trailer park of conferences. If you look at each school’s acceptance rate/SAT scores/athletic budgets, the standards are generally lower than the new CUSA and significantly lower than the AAC (there are exceptions like UTEP). Nobody from the Belt was ever looked at for the AAC openings, why? Status and perception. If you think UNT got into the AAC because of a market, you have not looked at the full picture. It’s the athletic budget, the infrastructure investment, the coaches’ salary pool, all the things that show we are committed to building a real program. The Belt does way more with way less, but notice that no big schools will touch them in bowls. Back to back great seasons and the Belt can’t even get an AAC team in a bowl game this year, just MAC and CUSA. So would Texas State look at CUSA? We will have to see if the remaining/new schools decide to double down or if they keep it status quo.

You’re adding two FCS teams, another team that has been in the wilderness for most of the last decade and a diploma mill which had been told no multiple times by other conferences. Not to mention your conference is spread out to the four winds while the “trailer park east” is going to have 2/3rds of its members within four hours of each other.

And if you think the AAC is going to be anything of note as the three teams which have put that conference on the map are on their way out you’re delusional.

How many FCS teams have y'all added the last few go rounds?

(12-11-2021 08:14 PM)JCMiner Wrote:  

(12-11-2021 06:28 PM)hotrod2001 Wrote:  

(12-11-2021 07:04 AM)MeanGreenStebo Wrote:  

(12-10-2021 10:46 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(12-10-2021 06:02 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Texas State fits like a glove. Whether or not they'd come is debatable (I think extremely unlikely) but they fit the geography.

Debatable? That's not even close to being debatable. You are totally out of your mind if you think Texas State would leave the Sunbelt for CUSA. Have you not seen what has happened over the last 4-6 months?

The Sun Belt is still the trailer park of conferences. If you look at each school’s acceptance rate/SAT scores/athletic budgets, the standards are generally lower than the new CUSA and significantly lower than the AAC (there are exceptions like UTEP). Nobody from the Belt was ever looked at for the AAC openings, why? Status and perception. If you think UNT got into the AAC because of a market, you have not looked at the full picture. It’s the athletic budget, the infrastructure investment, the coaches’ salary pool, all the things that show we are committed to building a real program. The Belt does way more with way less, but notice that no big schools will touch them in bowls. Back to back great seasons and the Belt can’t even get an AAC team in a bowl game this year, just MAC and CUSA. So would Texas State look at CUSA? We will have to see if the remaining/new schools decide to double down or if they keep it status quo.

You’re adding two FCS teams, another team that has been in the wilderness for most of the last decade and a diploma mill which had been told no multiple times by other conferences. Not to mention your conference is spread out to the four winds while the “trailer park east” is going to have 2/3rds of its members within four hours of each other.

And if you think the AAC is going to be anything of note as the three teams which have put that conference on the map are on their way out you’re delusional.

How many FCS teams have y'all added the last few go rounds?

I'm trying to figure out how 2/3 of the SB schools are within 4 hours of each other I have to assume he's talking flight times.

I'm also trying to figure out why leaving schools are so concerned about the new conference map. What difference does it make to them?

(12-11-2021 02:32 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(12-11-2021 07:04 AM)MeanGreenStebo Wrote:  

(12-10-2021 10:46 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(12-10-2021 06:02 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(12-10-2021 03:01 PM)JCMiner Wrote:  Imo if we go to 10 we should get a team in the middle of Texas to bridge UTEP/NMSU to SHSU/LT.

Texas State fits like a glove. Whether or not they'd come is debatable (I think extremely unlikely) but they fit the geography.

Debatable? That's not even close to being debatable. You are totally out of your mind if you think Texas State would leave the Sunbelt for CUSA. Have you not seen what has happened over the last 4-6 months?

The Sun Belt is still the trailer park of conferences. If you look at each school’s acceptance rate/SAT scores/athletic budgets, the standards are generally lower than the new CUSA and significantly lower than the AAC (there are exceptions like UTEP). Nobody from the Belt was ever looked at for the AAC openings, why? Status and perception. If you think UNT got into the AAC because of a market, you have not looked at the full picture. It’s the athletic budget, the infrastructure investment, the coaches’ salary pool, all the things that show we are committed to building a real program. The Belt does way more with way less, but notice that no big schools will touch them in bowls. Back to back great seasons and the Belt can’t even get an AAC team in a bowl game this year, just MAC and CUSA. So would Texas State look at CUSA? We will have to see if the remaining/new schools decide to double down or if they keep it status quo.

When the bowls are reorganized and the mighty AAC has three tie-ins annually to the trailer park. Where will you park? Probably your couch.

You’re going to be disappointed as the AAC tie-ins look much closer to The CUSA lineup and the SBCs get better.

Bowl tie ins really mean nothing now. Both teams must agree to play one another. There are so many bowls that this is reality. AAC is playing 4 bowls against P5 opponents plus the playoff game. MWC has two. Army has one. Only one or two of those are per conference agreements, the rest were agreed to by the bigger name team. Look at ULL, they have lost 1 game per season for two consecutive years but are stuck in New Orleans because nobody wants to play and potentially lose to a Sun Belt team. The Belt has QUALITY football, but it still is the lowest on the pecking order due to academic reputations, athletic budgets, and crowds. I watched that Belt championship game - great football in front of an empty stadium for a top 25 home team that had only lost 2 out of their last 24 games. That’s a shame but it’s reality.

AAC bowls:
Cinci vs Bama
ECU vs BC
Houston vs Auburn
SMU vs Virginia
UCF vs Florida

MWC bowls:
Oregon State vs USU
Air Force vs Louisville

Independent:
Army vs Missouri

UTSA (CUSA champ) is playing the MWC runner up. This is not an accident. UTSA doesn’t want to lose to ULL in a bowl but they can stomach a loss to SDSU. The Belt gets our runner ups. Indy Bowl can stomach a CUSA team, BYU would not agree to play a Belt team. It’s about more than how good the football is, it’s about school reputation.

Will this change? I honestly do not see it changing. AAC and MWC will still be the top dogs. Cusa will likely still have a higher status compared to the Belt. MAC is it’s own entity, they don’t really compare to the rest of the G5. Belt will be these scrappy schools that do more with less. JMU will bring some legitimacy to the conference in terms of academics. Southern Miss will feel more at home, they are drowning in debt trying to keep up with the growing cost of football and can tap the breaks a little. Same with Marshall. I have a ton of respect for all of the Belt schools but there is a branding issue with that collection of teams due to academics and budgets.

CUSA has had some P5 bowls, I can’t think of a Belt team ever playing a P5 in a bowl game. That sucks because the Belt would spank them in most cases but perception is reality.

(12-11-2021 09:11 PM)MeanGreenStebo Wrote:  

(12-11-2021 02:32 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(12-11-2021 07:04 AM)MeanGreenStebo Wrote:  

(12-10-2021 10:46 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(12-10-2021 06:02 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Texas State fits like a glove. Whether or not they'd come is debatable (I think extremely unlikely) but they fit the geography.

Debatable? That's not even close to being debatable. You are totally out of your mind if you think Texas State would leave the Sunbelt for CUSA. Have you not seen what has happened over the last 4-6 months?

The Sun Belt is still the trailer park of conferences. If you look at each school’s acceptance rate/SAT scores/athletic budgets, the standards are generally lower than the new CUSA and significantly lower than the AAC (there are exceptions like UTEP). Nobody from the Belt was ever looked at for the AAC openings, why? Status and perception. If you think UNT got into the AAC because of a market, you have not looked at the full picture. It’s the athletic budget, the infrastructure investment, the coaches’ salary pool, all the things that show we are committed to building a real program. The Belt does way more with way less, but notice that no big schools will touch them in bowls. Back to back great seasons and the Belt can’t even get an AAC team in a bowl game this year, just MAC and CUSA. So would Texas State look at CUSA? We will have to see if the remaining/new schools decide to double down or if they keep it status quo.

When the bowls are reorganized and the mighty AAC has three tie-ins annually to the trailer park. Where will you park? Probably your couch.

You’re going to be disappointed as the AAC tie-ins look much closer to The CUSA lineup and the SBCs get better.

Bowl tie ins really mean nothing now. Both teams must agree to play one another. There are so many bowls that this is reality. AAC is playing 4 bowls against P5 opponents plus the playoff game. MWC has two. Army has one. Only one or two of those are per conference agreements, the rest were agreed to by the bigger name team. Look at ULL, they have lost 1 game per season for two consecutive years but are stuck in New Orleans because nobody wants to play and potentially lose to a Sun Belt team. The Belt has QUALITY football, but it still is the lowest on the pecking order due to academic reputations, athletic budgets, and crowds. I watched that Belt championship game - great football in front of an empty stadium for a top 25 home team that had only lost 2 out of their last 24 games. That’s a shame but it’s reality.

AAC bowls:
Cinci vs Bama
ECU vs BC
Houston vs Auburn
SMU vs Virginia
UCF vs Florida

MWC bowls:
Oregon State vs USU
Air Force vs Louisville

Independent:
Army vs Missouri

UTSA (CUSA champ) is playing the MWC runner up. This is not an accident. UTSA doesn’t want to lose to ULL in a bowl but they can stomach a loss to SDSU. The Belt gets our runner ups. Indy Bowl can stomach a CUSA team, BYU would not agree to play a Belt team. It’s about more than how good the football is, it’s about school reputation.

Will this change? I honestly do not see it changing. AAC and MWC will still be the top dogs. Cusa will likely still have a higher status compared to the Belt. MAC is it’s own entity, they don’t really compare to the rest of the G5. Belt will be these scrappy schools that do more with less. JMU will bring some legitimacy to the conference in terms of academics. Southern Miss will feel more at home, they are drowning in debt trying to keep up with the growing cost of football and can tap the breaks a little. Same with Marshall. I have a ton of respect for all of the Belt schools but there is a branding issue with that collection of teams due to academics and budgets.

CUSA has had some P5 bowls, I can’t think of a Belt team ever playing a P5 in a bowl game. That sucks because the Belt would spank them in most cases but perception is reality.

WTF are you talking about? How'd you come up with that lame conclusion?

(12-11-2021 09:11 PM)MeanGreenStebo Wrote:  

(12-11-2021 02:32 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(12-11-2021 07:04 AM)MeanGreenStebo Wrote:  

(12-10-2021 10:46 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(12-10-2021 06:02 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Texas State fits like a glove. Whether or not they'd come is debatable (I think extremely unlikely) but they fit the geography.

Debatable? That's not even close to being debatable. You are totally out of your mind if you think Texas State would leave the Sunbelt for CUSA. Have you not seen what has happened over the last 4-6 months?

The Sun Belt is still the trailer park of conferences. If you look at each school’s acceptance rate/SAT scores/athletic budgets, the standards are generally lower than the new CUSA and significantly lower than the AAC (there are exceptions like UTEP). Nobody from the Belt was ever looked at for the AAC openings, why? Status and perception. If you think UNT got into the AAC because of a market, you have not looked at the full picture. It’s the athletic budget, the infrastructure investment, the coaches’ salary pool, all the things that show we are committed to building a real program. The Belt does way more with way less, but notice that no big schools will touch them in bowls. Back to back great seasons and the Belt can’t even get an AAC team in a bowl game this year, just MAC and CUSA. So would Texas State look at CUSA? We will have to see if the remaining/new schools decide to double down or if they keep it status quo.

When the bowls are reorganized and the mighty AAC has three tie-ins annually to the trailer park. Where will you park? Probably your couch.

You’re going to be disappointed as the AAC tie-ins look much closer to The CUSA lineup and the SBCs get better.

Bowl tie ins really mean nothing now. Both teams must agree to play one another. There are so many bowls that this is reality. AAC is playing 4 bowls against P5 opponents plus the playoff game. MWC has two. Army has one. Only one or two of those are per conference agreements, the rest were agreed to by the bigger name team. Look at ULL, they have lost 1 game per season for two consecutive years but are stuck in New Orleans because nobody wants to play and potentially lose to a Sun Belt team. The Belt has QUALITY football, but it still is the lowest on the pecking order due to academic reputations, athletic budgets, and crowds. I watched that Belt championship game - great football in front of an empty stadium for a top 25 home team that had only lost 2 out of their last 24 games. That’s a shame but it’s reality.

AAC bowls:
Cinci vs Bama
ECU vs BC
Houston vs Auburn
SMU vs Virginia
UCF vs Florida

MWC bowls:
Oregon State vs USU
Air Force vs Louisville

Independent:
Army vs Missouri

UTSA (CUSA champ) is playing the MWC runner up. This is not an accident. UTSA doesn’t want to lose to ULL in a bowl but they can stomach a loss to SDSU. The Belt gets our runner ups. Indy Bowl can stomach a CUSA team, BYU would not agree to play a Belt team. It’s about more than how good the football is, it’s about school reputation.

Will this change? I honestly do not see it changing. AAC and MWC will still be the top dogs. Cusa will likely still have a higher status compared to the Belt. MAC is it’s own entity, they don’t really compare to the rest of the G5. Belt will be these scrappy schools that do more with less. JMU will bring some legitimacy to the conference in terms of academics. Southern Miss will feel more at home, they are drowning in debt trying to keep up with the growing cost of football and can tap the breaks a little. Same with Marshall. I have a ton of respect for all of the Belt schools but there is a branding issue with that collection of teams due to academics and budgets.

CUSA has had some P5 bowls, I can’t think of a Belt team ever playing a P5 in a bowl game. That sucks because the Belt would spank them in most cases but perception is reality.

Sigh, one of these days people will understand how bowl games work.

The current bowl contracts were agreed to years ago, when both our leagues were in largely different situations. The SBC intentionally chased games in regional locations because at the time of the last set of contracts, we were mostly a league filled of teams with little bowl experience. When you've never been to a bowl, its important for that first one to be nearby so your fans travel and you look good to other bowl games for that inevitable 6-6 year down the road when you just want anyone to take you. Taking regional games like Mobile and Montgomery meant there was little chance to even manage a contract with the AAC much less a P5 team.

Now? Different situation entirely. Basically every SBC team has played in a bowl at this point, or in many cases, several games. When the next set of bowl contracts come up, you can expect a far more proactive league searching for better matchups while trying to maintain some regionality.

Though, we'll never give up NOLA.

(12-12-2021 01:15 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-11-2021 09:11 PM)MeanGreenStebo Wrote:  

(12-11-2021 02:32 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(12-11-2021 07:04 AM)MeanGreenStebo Wrote:  

(12-10-2021 10:46 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  Debatable? That's not even close to being debatable. You are totally out of your mind if you think Texas State would leave the Sunbelt for CUSA. Have you not seen what has happened over the last 4-6 months?

The Sun Belt is still the trailer park of conferences. If you look at each school’s acceptance rate/SAT scores/athletic budgets, the standards are generally lower than the new CUSA and significantly lower than the AAC (there are exceptions like UTEP). Nobody from the Belt was ever looked at for the AAC openings, why? Status and perception. If you think UNT got into the AAC because of a market, you have not looked at the full picture. It’s the athletic budget, the infrastructure investment, the coaches’ salary pool, all the things that show we are committed to building a real program. The Belt does way more with way less, but notice that no big schools will touch them in bowls. Back to back great seasons and the Belt can’t even get an AAC team in a bowl game this year, just MAC and CUSA. So would Texas State look at CUSA? We will have to see if the remaining/new schools decide to double down or if they keep it status quo.

When the bowls are reorganized and the mighty AAC has three tie-ins annually to the trailer park. Where will you park? Probably your couch.

You’re going to be disappointed as the AAC tie-ins look much closer to The CUSA lineup and the SBCs get better.

Bowl tie ins really mean nothing now. Both teams must agree to play one another. There are so many bowls that this is reality. AAC is playing 4 bowls against P5 opponents plus the playoff game. MWC has two. Army has one. Only one or two of those are per conference agreements, the rest were agreed to by the bigger name team. Look at ULL, they have lost 1 game per season for two consecutive years but are stuck in New Orleans because nobody wants to play and potentially lose to a Sun Belt team. The Belt has QUALITY football, but it still is the lowest on the pecking order due to academic reputations, athletic budgets, and crowds. I watched that Belt championship game - great football in front of an empty stadium for a top 25 home team that had only lost 2 out of their last 24 games. That’s a shame but it’s reality.

AAC bowls:
Cinci vs Bama
ECU vs BC
Houston vs Auburn
SMU vs Virginia
UCF vs Florida

MWC bowls:
Oregon State vs USU
Air Force vs Louisville

Independent:
Army vs Missouri

UTSA (CUSA champ) is playing the MWC runner up. This is not an accident. UTSA doesn’t want to lose to ULL in a bowl but they can stomach a loss to SDSU. The Belt gets our runner ups. Indy Bowl can stomach a CUSA team, BYU would not agree to play a Belt team. It’s about more than how good the football is, it’s about school reputation.

Will this change? I honestly do not see it changing. AAC and MWC will still be the top dogs. Cusa will likely still have a higher status compared to the Belt. MAC is it’s own entity, they don’t really compare to the rest of the G5. Belt will be these scrappy schools that do more with less. JMU will bring some legitimacy to the conference in terms of academics. Southern Miss will feel more at home, they are drowning in debt trying to keep up with the growing cost of football and can tap the breaks a little. Same with Marshall. I have a ton of respect for all of the Belt schools but there is a branding issue with that collection of teams due to academics and budgets.

CUSA has had some P5 bowls, I can’t think of a Belt team ever playing a P5 in a bowl game. That sucks because the Belt would spank them in most cases but perception is reality.

Sigh, one of these days people will understand how bowl games work.

The current bowl contracts were agreed to years ago, when both our leagues were in largely different situations. The SBC intentionally chased games in regional locations because at the time of the last set of contracts, we were mostly a league filled of teams with little bowl experience. When you've never been to a bowl, its important for that first one to be nearby so your fans travel and you look good to other bowl games for that inevitable 6-6 year down the road when you just want anyone to take you. Taking regional games like Mobile and Montgomery meant there was little chance to even manage a contract with the AAC much less a P5 team.

Now? Different situation entirely. Basically every SBC team has played in a bowl at this point, or in many cases, several games. When the next set of bowl contracts come up, you can expect a far more proactive league searching for better matchups while trying to maintain some regionality.

Though, we'll never give up NOLA.

You don’t understand. The contracts are no longer worth the paper they were written on when it comes to conference affiliation. CUSA had a contract with the Heart of Dallas Bowl to play a Big 12 or B1G school. Only once or twice did either conference choose to send a team because they had to like the matchup. It used to be, if the team turned down the invite - they might sit at home. This is no longer the case. Now every team goes bowling. If the opponent is not someone they want to play, they just trade spots. Almost none of the contracts are honored. Even when you have a contract, the team with the higher status has to agree to the lower status team (see this year’s Indy Bowl). 6-6 P5 teams can stomach a loss in a bowl to certain AAC and MWC teams but they would never agree to play someone they think of as beneath them. And since ESPN organizes the majority of the games, they just shuffle people around. Sure, the invites get honored when it’s MAC vs Belt. But even when it comes to CUSA vs Belt, there is a hierarchy and pecking order that has still not changed. Listen, maybe someday this will change but I just don’t see it. To many of those schools, they look at the Belt as beneath them - regardless of how talented the football is. I have been to most Belt and CUSA stadiums and campuses, they have different cultures. You can see those cultures on paper if you look up the average SAT scores, average cost, average acceptance rates, average spending, etc. Why do you think Southern Miss has been passed over so many times for a higher status conference but Rice is able to keep moving the chains? Or UNT for that matter, it’s not like we have had consistent on the field performance. But we have moved our academics to a higher level and our donors have spent over $100M in the past 5-10 years. You wouldn’t even recognize the place these days.

I root for every Belt school every Saturday. They are the ultimate underdog. We all cheer for these g5 underdog teams and the Belt is the epitome of that. But you can’t change a fan base or culture overnight. It takes decades and some old fashioned luck.

Stebo take a screen shot of the AAC bowl opponents now and in three years when things reset.

Next bookmark this thread and reread it.

Enjoy a stiff drink, you’re going to need it.

(12-12-2021 08:26 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Stebo take a screen shot of the AAC bowl opponents now and in three years when things reset.

Next bookmark this thread and reread it.

Enjoy a stiff drink, you’re going to need it.

The new Aack! will still be the go-to for 6-6 P5 teams trying to get matched-up for a low-rent bowl game. Just like Auburn, Boston College, Florida, and Virginia this year. The Mountain will have that 1 tie-in with a P12 at SoFi Stadium. But MAC, C-USA, and SBC won’t even have that.

The saving grace for us (Belt) is that our champ will have the inside track for the NY6, or the expanded playoff, whichever it is.

(12-12-2021 04:59 AM)MeanGreenStebo Wrote:  

(12-12-2021 01:15 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-11-2021 09:11 PM)MeanGreenStebo Wrote:  

(12-11-2021 02:32 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(12-11-2021 07:04 AM)MeanGreenStebo Wrote:  The Sun Belt is still the trailer park of conferences. If you look at each school’s acceptance rate/SAT scores/athletic budgets, the standards are generally lower than the new CUSA and significantly lower than the AAC (there are exceptions like UTEP). Nobody from the Belt was ever looked at for the AAC openings, why? Status and perception. If you think UNT got into the AAC because of a market, you have not looked at the full picture. It’s the athletic budget, the infrastructure investment, the coaches’ salary pool, all the things that show we are committed to building a real program. The Belt does way more with way less, but notice that no big schools will touch them in bowls. Back to back great seasons and the Belt can’t even get an AAC team in a bowl game this year, just MAC and CUSA. So would Texas State look at CUSA? We will have to see if the remaining/new schools decide to double down or if they keep it status quo.

When the bowls are reorganized and the mighty AAC has three tie-ins annually to the trailer park. Where will you park? Probably your couch.

You’re going to be disappointed as the AAC tie-ins look much closer to The CUSA lineup and the SBCs get better.

Bowl tie ins really mean nothing now. Both teams must agree to play one another. There are so many bowls that this is reality. AAC is playing 4 bowls against P5 opponents plus the playoff game. MWC has two. Army has one. Only one or two of those are per conference agreements, the rest were agreed to by the bigger name team. Look at ULL, they have lost 1 game per season for two consecutive years but are stuck in New Orleans because nobody wants to play and potentially lose to a Sun Belt team. The Belt has QUALITY football, but it still is the lowest on the pecking order due to academic reputations, athletic budgets, and crowds. I watched that Belt championship game - great football in front of an empty stadium for a top 25 home team that had only lost 2 out of their last 24 games. That’s a shame but it’s reality.

AAC bowls:
Cinci vs Bama
ECU vs BC
Houston vs Auburn
SMU vs Virginia
UCF vs Florida

MWC bowls:
Oregon State vs USU
Air Force vs Louisville

Independent:
Army vs Missouri

UTSA (CUSA champ) is playing the MWC runner up. This is not an accident. UTSA doesn’t want to lose to ULL in a bowl but they can stomach a loss to SDSU. The Belt gets our runner ups. Indy Bowl can stomach a CUSA team, BYU would not agree to play a Belt team. It’s about more than how good the football is, it’s about school reputation.

Will this change? I honestly do not see it changing. AAC and MWC will still be the top dogs. Cusa will likely still have a higher status compared to the Belt. MAC is it’s own entity, they don’t really compare to the rest of the G5. Belt will be these scrappy schools that do more with less. JMU will bring some legitimacy to the conference in terms of academics. Southern Miss will feel more at home, they are drowning in debt trying to keep up with the growing cost of football and can tap the breaks a little. Same with Marshall. I have a ton of respect for all of the Belt schools but there is a branding issue with that collection of teams due to academics and budgets.

CUSA has had some P5 bowls, I can’t think of a Belt team ever playing a P5 in a bowl game. That sucks because the Belt would spank them in most cases but perception is reality.

Sigh, one of these days people will understand how bowl games work.

The current bowl contracts were agreed to years ago, when both our leagues were in largely different situations. The SBC intentionally chased games in regional locations because at the time of the last set of contracts, we were mostly a league filled of teams with little bowl experience. When you've never been to a bowl, its important for that first one to be nearby so your fans travel and you look good to other bowl games for that inevitable 6-6 year down the road when you just want anyone to take you. Taking regional games like Mobile and Montgomery meant there was little chance to even manage a contract with the AAC much less a P5 team.

Now? Different situation entirely. Basically every SBC team has played in a bowl at this point, or in many cases, several games. When the next set of bowl contracts come up, you can expect a far more proactive league searching for better matchups while trying to maintain some regionality.

Though, we'll never give up NOLA.

You don’t understand. The contracts are no longer worth the paper they were written on when it comes to conference affiliation. CUSA had a contract with the Heart of Dallas Bowl to play a Big 12 or B1G school. Only once or twice did either conference choose to send a team because they had to like the matchup. It used to be, if the team turned down the invite - they might sit at home. This is no longer the case. Now every team goes bowling. If the opponent is not someone they want to play, they just trade spots. Almost none of the contracts are honored. Even when you have a contract, the team with the higher status has to agree to the lower status team (see this year’s Indy Bowl). 6-6 P5 teams can stomach a loss in a bowl to certain AAC and MWC teams but they would never agree to play someone they think of as beneath them. And since ESPN organizes the majority of the games, they just shuffle people around. Sure, the invites get honored when it’s MAC vs Belt. But even when it comes to CUSA vs Belt, there is a hierarchy and pecking order that has still not changed. Listen, maybe someday this will change but I just don’t see it. To many of those schools, they look at the Belt as beneath them - regardless of how talented the football is. I have been to most Belt and CUSA stadiums and campuses, they have different cultures. You can see those cultures on paper if you look up the average SAT scores, average cost, average acceptance rates, average spending, etc. Why do you think Southern Miss has been passed over so many times for a higher status conference but Rice is able to keep moving the chains? Or UNT for that matter, it’s not like we have had consistent on the field performance. But we have moved our academics to a higher level and our donors have spent over $100M in the past 5-10 years. You wouldn’t even recognize the place these days.

I root for every Belt school every Saturday. They are the ultimate underdog. We all cheer for these g5 underdog teams and the Belt is the epitome of that. But you can’t change a fan base or culture overnight. It takes decades and some old fashioned luck.

You seem to be set on one idea without understanding something

ULL is playing Marshall because our contract would not allow them to go to any other bowl. Normally ESPN gets first pick but when ULL wins the league a clause in NOLA’s contract signed 5 years ago allows NOLA to jump ESPN and take ULL regardless of what ULL or ESPN wants

Likewise CUSA’s deal gives ESPN the power to send UTSA wherever they want without a care for what the road runners want.

All these contracts expire at the end of next season. Which means the clause that prevented ULL from being able to play a 10 win team likely won’t exist after that

(12-12-2021 09:42 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-12-2021 04:59 AM)MeanGreenStebo Wrote:  

(12-12-2021 01:15 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-11-2021 09:11 PM)MeanGreenStebo Wrote:  

(12-11-2021 02:32 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  When the bowls are reorganized and the mighty AAC has three tie-ins annually to the trailer park. Where will you park? Probably your couch.

You’re going to be disappointed as the AAC tie-ins look much closer to The CUSA lineup and the SBCs get better.

Bowl tie ins really mean nothing now. Both teams must agree to play one another. There are so many bowls that this is reality. AAC is playing 4 bowls against P5 opponents plus the playoff game. MWC has two. Army has one. Only one or two of those are per conference agreements, the rest were agreed to by the bigger name team. Look at ULL, they have lost 1 game per season for two consecutive years but are stuck in New Orleans because nobody wants to play and potentially lose to a Sun Belt team. The Belt has QUALITY football, but it still is the lowest on the pecking order due to academic reputations, athletic budgets, and crowds. I watched that Belt championship game - great football in front of an empty stadium for a top 25 home team that had only lost 2 out of their last 24 games. That’s a shame but it’s reality.

AAC bowls:
Cinci vs Bama
ECU vs BC
Houston vs Auburn
SMU vs Virginia
UCF vs Florida

MWC bowls:
Oregon State vs USU
Air Force vs Louisville

Independent:
Army vs Missouri

UTSA (CUSA champ) is playing the MWC runner up. This is not an accident. UTSA doesn’t want to lose to ULL in a bowl but they can stomach a loss to SDSU. The Belt gets our runner ups. Indy Bowl can stomach a CUSA team, BYU would not agree to play a Belt team. It’s about more than how good the football is, it’s about school reputation.

Will this change? I honestly do not see it changing. AAC and MWC will still be the top dogs. Cusa will likely still have a higher status compared to the Belt. MAC is it’s own entity, they don’t really compare to the rest of the G5. Belt will be these scrappy schools that do more with less. JMU will bring some legitimacy to the conference in terms of academics. Southern Miss will feel more at home, they are drowning in debt trying to keep up with the growing cost of football and can tap the breaks a little. Same with Marshall. I have a ton of respect for all of the Belt schools but there is a branding issue with that collection of teams due to academics and budgets.

CUSA has had some P5 bowls, I can’t think of a Belt team ever playing a P5 in a bowl game. That sucks because the Belt would spank them in most cases but perception is reality.

Sigh, one of these days people will understand how bowl games work.

The current bowl contracts were agreed to years ago, when both our leagues were in largely different situations. The SBC intentionally chased games in regional locations because at the time of the last set of contracts, we were mostly a league filled of teams with little bowl experience. When you've never been to a bowl, its important for that first one to be nearby so your fans travel and you look good to other bowl games for that inevitable 6-6 year down the road when you just want anyone to take you. Taking regional games like Mobile and Montgomery meant there was little chance to even manage a contract with the AAC much less a P5 team.

Now? Different situation entirely. Basically every SBC team has played in a bowl at this point, or in many cases, several games. When the next set of bowl contracts come up, you can expect a far more proactive league searching for better matchups while trying to maintain some regionality.

Though, we'll never give up NOLA.

You don’t understand. The contracts are no longer worth the paper they were written on when it comes to conference affiliation. CUSA had a contract with the Heart of Dallas Bowl to play a Big 12 or B1G school. Only once or twice did either conference choose to send a team because they had to like the matchup. It used to be, if the team turned down the invite - they might sit at home. This is no longer the case. Now every team goes bowling. If the opponent is not someone they want to play, they just trade spots. Almost none of the contracts are honored. Even when you have a contract, the team with the higher status has to agree to the lower status team (see this year’s Indy Bowl). 6-6 P5 teams can stomach a loss in a bowl to certain AAC and MWC teams but they would never agree to play someone they think of as beneath them. And since ESPN organizes the majority of the games, they just shuffle people around. Sure, the invites get honored when it’s MAC vs Belt. But even when it comes to CUSA vs Belt, there is a hierarchy and pecking order that has still not changed. Listen, maybe someday this will change but I just don’t see it. To many of those schools, they look at the Belt as beneath them - regardless of how talented the football is. I have been to most Belt and CUSA stadiums and campuses, they have different cultures. You can see those cultures on paper if you look up the average SAT scores, average cost, average acceptance rates, average spending, etc. Why do you think Southern Miss has been passed over so many times for a higher status conference but Rice is able to keep moving the chains? Or UNT for that matter, it’s not like we have had consistent on the field performance. But we have moved our academics to a higher level and our donors have spent over $100M in the past 5-10 years. You wouldn’t even recognize the place these days.

I root for every Belt school every Saturday. They are the ultimate underdog. We all cheer for these g5 underdog teams and the Belt is the epitome of that. But you can’t change a fan base or culture overnight. It takes decades and some old fashioned luck.

You seem to be set on one idea without understanding something

ULL is playing Marshall because our contract would not allow them to go to any other bowl. Normally ESPN gets first pick but when ULL wins the league a clause in NOLA’s contract signed 5 years ago allows NOLA to jump ESPN and take ULL regardless of what ULL or ESPN wants

Likewise CUSA’s deal gives ESPN the power to send UTSA wherever they want without a care for what the road runners want.

All these contracts expire at the end of next season. Which means the clause that prevented ULL from being able to play a 10 win team likely won’t exist after that

Keep telling yourself that. CUSA also has a contract with a non-ESPN bowl - the highest paying and most prestigious one (Indy). ESPN still called the shots because they control all the other bowl games. They control the TV, they control everything.

The AAC will continue to be the conference with P5 Bowl tie-ins. SMU, Navy, ECU, etc - these are names of opponents that P5’s can live with. They may not agree to play UNT, even a UNT in the AAC - but there is at least a chance.

The MAC and Belt have zero chance playing in a playoff system set up by a committee. Would need an auto invite for conference champs for that to happen. I am not saying it’s right, but as I read the Belt board - I just don’t think people understand what is holding the conference back.

So back to the original question that got me to reply in the first place - would Texas State consider CUSA? I don’t think it’s as crazy of an idea as you all do. CUSA will be leaner and meaner after these changes. The remaining schools need to make commitments to really compete at the FBS level rather than keeping the status quo. I will be rooting for both CUSA and the Belt.

(12-12-2021 10:18 AM)MeanGreenStebo Wrote:  

(12-12-2021 09:42 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-12-2021 04:59 AM)MeanGreenStebo Wrote:  

(12-12-2021 01:15 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-11-2021 09:11 PM)MeanGreenStebo Wrote:  Bowl tie ins really mean nothing now. Both teams must agree to play one another. There are so many bowls that this is reality. AAC is playing 4 bowls against P5 opponents plus the playoff game. MWC has two. Army has one. Only one or two of those are per conference agreements, the rest were agreed to by the bigger name team. Look at ULL, they have lost 1 game per season for two consecutive years but are stuck in New Orleans because nobody wants to play and potentially lose to a Sun Belt team. The Belt has QUALITY football, but it still is the lowest on the pecking order due to academic reputations, athletic budgets, and crowds. I watched that Belt championship game - great football in front of an empty stadium for a top 25 home team that had only lost 2 out of their last 24 games. That’s a shame but it’s reality.

AAC bowls:
Cinci vs Bama
ECU vs BC
Houston vs Auburn
SMU vs Virginia
UCF vs Florida

MWC bowls:
Oregon State vs USU
Air Force vs Louisville

Independent:
Army vs Missouri

UTSA (CUSA champ) is playing the MWC runner up. This is not an accident. UTSA doesn’t want to lose to ULL in a bowl but they can stomach a loss to SDSU. The Belt gets our runner ups. Indy Bowl can stomach a CUSA team, BYU would not agree to play a Belt team. It’s about more than how good the football is, it’s about school reputation.

Will this change? I honestly do not see it changing. AAC and MWC will still be the top dogs. Cusa will likely still have a higher status compared to the Belt. MAC is it’s own entity, they don’t really compare to the rest of the G5. Belt will be these scrappy schools that do more with less. JMU will bring some legitimacy to the conference in terms of academics. Southern Miss will feel more at home, they are drowning in debt trying to keep up with the growing cost of football and can tap the breaks a little. Same with Marshall. I have a ton of respect for all of the Belt schools but there is a branding issue with that collection of teams due to academics and budgets.

CUSA has had some P5 bowls, I can’t think of a Belt team ever playing a P5 in a bowl game. That sucks because the Belt would spank them in most cases but perception is reality.

Sigh, one of these days people will understand how bowl games work.

The current bowl contracts were agreed to years ago, when both our leagues were in largely different situations. The SBC intentionally chased games in regional locations because at the time of the last set of contracts, we were mostly a league filled of teams with little bowl experience. When you've never been to a bowl, its important for that first one to be nearby so your fans travel and you look good to other bowl games for that inevitable 6-6 year down the road when you just want anyone to take you. Taking regional games like Mobile and Montgomery meant there was little chance to even manage a contract with the AAC much less a P5 team.

Now? Different situation entirely. Basically every SBC team has played in a bowl at this point, or in many cases, several games. When the next set of bowl contracts come up, you can expect a far more proactive league searching for better matchups while trying to maintain some regionality.

Though, we'll never give up NOLA.

You don’t understand. The contracts are no longer worth the paper they were written on when it comes to conference affiliation. CUSA had a contract with the Heart of Dallas Bowl to play a Big 12 or B1G school. Only once or twice did either conference choose to send a team because they had to like the matchup. It used to be, if the team turned down the invite - they might sit at home. This is no longer the case. Now every team goes bowling. If the opponent is not someone they want to play, they just trade spots. Almost none of the contracts are honored. Even when you have a contract, the team with the higher status has to agree to the lower status team (see this year’s Indy Bowl). 6-6 P5 teams can stomach a loss in a bowl to certain AAC and MWC teams but they would never agree to play someone they think of as beneath them. And since ESPN organizes the majority of the games, they just shuffle people around. Sure, the invites get honored when it’s MAC vs Belt. But even when it comes to CUSA vs Belt, there is a hierarchy and pecking order that has still not changed. Listen, maybe someday this will change but I just don’t see it. To many of those schools, they look at the Belt as beneath them - regardless of how talented the football is. I have been to most Belt and CUSA stadiums and campuses, they have different cultures. You can see those cultures on paper if you look up the average SAT scores, average cost, average acceptance rates, average spending, etc. Why do you think Southern Miss has been passed over so many times for a higher status conference but Rice is able to keep moving the chains? Or UNT for that matter, it’s not like we have had consistent on the field performance. But we have moved our academics to a higher level and our donors have spent over $100M in the past 5-10 years. You wouldn’t even recognize the place these days.

I root for every Belt school every Saturday. They are the ultimate underdog. We all cheer for these g5 underdog teams and the Belt is the epitome of that. But you can’t change a fan base or culture overnight. It takes decades and some old fashioned luck.

You seem to be set on one idea without understanding something

ULL is playing Marshall because our contract would not allow them to go to any other bowl. Normally ESPN gets first pick but when ULL wins the league a clause in NOLA’s contract signed 5 years ago allows NOLA to jump ESPN and take ULL regardless of what ULL or ESPN wants

Likewise CUSA’s deal gives ESPN the power to send UTSA wherever they want without a care for what the road runners want.

All these contracts expire at the end of next season. Which means the clause that prevented ULL from being able to play a 10 win team likely won’t exist after that

Keep telling yourself that. CUSA also has a contract with a non-ESPN bowl - the highest paying and most prestigious one (Indy). ESPN still called the shots because they control all the other bowl games. They control the TV, they control everything.

The AAC will continue to be the conference with P5 Bowl tie-ins. SMU, Navy, ECU, etc - these are names of opponents that P5’s can live with. They may not agree to play UNT, even a UNT in the AAC - but there is at least a chance.

The MAC and Belt have zero chance playing in a playoff system set up by a committee. Would need an auto invite for conference champs for that to happen. I am not saying it’s right, but as I read the Belt board - I just don’t think people understand what is holding the conference back.

So back to the original question that got me to reply in the first place - would Texas State consider CUSA? I don’t think it’s as crazy of an idea as you all do. CUSA will be leaner and meaner after these changes. The remaining schools need to make commitments to really compete at the FBS level rather than keeping the status quo. I will be rooting for both CUSA and the Belt.

Personally I don’t think we need Texas St even if they wanted to join. They have been dead weight for the SBC for a long time. We shouldn’t be helping them (SBC) out. They’d likely just poach one from WKU, MTSU or LT. While all of those schools would jump if given the chance why would CUSA open that door for a struggling Texas St in exchange?

The new AAC will not receive the same privileges as the current one.

Expectations are going to be severely destroyed if you believe the AAC bowls aren’t going to take a serious hit. The TV money for the new members is less than 1/3 of the old members. That type of treatment will be pervasive.

(12-12-2021 10:32 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  The new AAC will not receive the same privileges as the current one.

Expectations are going to be severely destroyed if you believe the AAC bowls aren’t going to take a serious hit. The TV money for the new members is less than 1/3 of the old members. That type of treatment will be pervasive.

Exactly. Given the new pecking order established by the last conf shuffle, here is how the effected conferences will fare, in regards to new media and bowl deals:

AAC: will drop significantly with both. They will essentially be equal to (at least for the time being) the SBC.
SBC: will see significant gains in both. They will essentially be equal to (at least for now) the AAC.
Cusa: will experience an even worse new media deal, and will lose significant bowl tie-ins.

Sorry, but that is just the reality of new world order.

Personally, I don't know whether Texas State would be a good or realistic add for the #10 spot in CUSA. Maybe? But under no circumstances should we go above 10 teams in CUSA. The next two years are all about the ECONOMICS!!! So, if ya crunch the numbers and it doesn't enhance CUSA's value stay at 9.

(12-11-2021 08:14 PM)JCMiner Wrote:  

(12-11-2021 06:28 PM)hotrod2001 Wrote:  

(12-11-2021 07:04 AM)MeanGreenStebo Wrote:  

(12-10-2021 10:46 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(12-10-2021 06:02 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Texas State fits like a glove. Whether or not they'd come is debatable (I think extremely unlikely) but they fit the geography.

Debatable? That's not even close to being debatable. You are totally out of your mind if you think Texas State would leave the Sunbelt for CUSA. Have you not seen what has happened over the last 4-6 months?

The Sun Belt is still the trailer park of conferences. If you look at each school’s acceptance rate/SAT scores/athletic budgets, the standards are generally lower than the new CUSA and significantly lower than the AAC (there are exceptions like UTEP). Nobody from the Belt was ever looked at for the AAC openings, why? Status and perception. If you think UNT got into the AAC because of a market, you have not looked at the full picture. It’s the athletic budget, the infrastructure investment, the coaches’ salary pool, all the things that show we are committed to building a real program. The Belt does way more with way less, but notice that no big schools will touch them in bowls. Back to back great seasons and the Belt can’t even get an AAC team in a bowl game this year, just MAC and CUSA. So would Texas State look at CUSA? We will have to see if the remaining/new schools decide to double down or if they keep it status quo.

You’re adding two FCS teams, another team that has been in the wilderness for most of the last decade and a diploma mill which had been told no multiple times by other conferences. Not to mention your conference is spread out to the four winds while the “trailer park east” is going to have 2/3rds of its members within four hours of each other.

And if you think the AAC is going to be anything of note as the three teams which have put that conference on the map are on their way out you’re delusional.

How many FCS teams have y'all added the last few go rounds?

That would be four...of which one won the conference championship outright the first year they were in, two have been nationally ranked in the last three years and the newest one just ran a train on FCS powerhouse Montana yesterday.

SBC circa 2021 is not SBC circa 2014. And members of a conference which is about to lose over 60% of its membership isn't in a position to be talking down about other conferences.

I don't think Texas St will leave but even if they did, what do they add? Bad basketball and football? I'd be more interested in an FCS team with good basketball and good football potential, like MO St.

Just an FYI on Sam Houston State, here are their all-time records in football against the C-USA schools they're joining...

UTEP: 0-2
LA Tech: 0-2
WKU: 1-0
MTSU: 1-1
Jacksonville State: 5-4
New Mexico State: N/A
Liberty: N/A
FIU: N/A

Against some other teams of note they've played...
Louisiana: 9-8-1
Houston: 2-4
UNT: 11-18-1
UTSA: 1-0 (They had a home game against us in 2011, our very first year of football. Beat us 22-7.)
Rice: 1-16
USM: 1-0-1
Texas State 37-49-5

Btw, for those who didn't know, SHSU and Texas State were in the same conference together for a very long time. One reason I can't see Texas State moving to C-USA, though the Sun Belt would probably like them to, is because Texas State probably sees it as a downgrade in football, not only in terms of where the current schools are right now, but also in terms of not wanting to join a conference that their old rival, SHSU, just moved into from FCS.

Also, and I don't know how many others can say the same, but from what little I heard about Jacksonville State, I had always thought they were from Jacksonville, Florida. Never realized until recently that they're actually in Alabama.

(12-12-2021 08:26 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Stebo take a screen shot of the AAC bowl opponents now and in three years when things reset.

Next bookmark this thread and reread it.

Enjoy a stiff drink, you’re going to need it.

Seriously. New guy needs to flush out the head gear.

(12-12-2021 10:32 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  The new AAC will not receive the same privileges as the current one.

Expectations are going to be severely destroyed if you believe the AAC bowls aren’t going to take a serious hit. The TV money for the new members is less than 1/3 of the old members. That type of treatment will be pervasive.

We don’t know any of that. Sounds like you want that to be true, but we don’t know it to be true. When CUSA lost most of its “name brand” schools to the AAC, this type of stuff was said about them. We said they would never get a good contract and they would fall behind the rest. Well, they didn’t because the AAC chooses schools with a huge financial commitment. Look at the ones chosen, they have made a significant budget commitment. Why would a conference invite 6 new members and treat them differently? Sure they might pay less in place of entrance fees, that’s normal. Or maybe until the contract is up for renewal they pay a reduced amount since they are adding 6 to replace 3.

But just like the Big 12 will not suddenly become a G6 conference because they lost a couple of schools, the AAC will no suddenly lose all its value. We don’t know what will happen in the future - none of us. I believe that schools will step up, just like they did when Louisville moved up.

It’s so funny to read these message boards where people think they know about TV contracts. Is it really TV money if ESPN is essentially outsourcing the production to the schools? That’s what ESPN+ does with the Belt and the MAC, they “pay” for the rights to broadcast and that amount covers the production costs that the schools lay out. In return, espn gets to pick up certain games for national broadcast. CUSA on the other hand gets paid less by CBS Sports or Stadium but those networks handle all production costs and fly in the announcers, etc. Completely different model, but comparing the two is like apples and oranges. I am rooting for all G5 conferences and hope that we will all achieve fair access in the future. When I talk to my friends that went to P5 schools, they think drastically different.

(12-11-2021 07:04 AM)MeanGreenStebo Wrote:  

(12-10-2021 10:46 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(12-10-2021 06:02 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(12-10-2021 03:01 PM)JCMiner Wrote:  Imo if we go to 10 we should get a team in the middle of Texas to bridge UTEP/NMSU to SHSU/LT.

Texas State fits like a glove. Whether or not they'd come is debatable (I think extremely unlikely) but they fit the geography.

Debatable? That's not even close to being debatable. You are totally out of your mind if you think Texas State would leave the Sunbelt for CUSA. Have you not seen what has happened over the last 4-6 months?

The Sun Belt is still the trailer park of conferences. If you look at each school’s acceptance rate/SAT scores/athletic budgets, the standards are generally lower than the new CUSA and significantly lower than the AAC (there are exceptions like UTEP). Nobody from the Belt was ever looked at for the AAC openings, why? Status and perception. If you think UNT got into the AAC because of a market, you have not looked at the full picture. It’s the athletic budget, the infrastructure investment, the coaches’ salary pool, all the things that show we are committed to building a real program. The Belt does way more with way less, but notice that no big schools will touch them in bowls. Back to back great seasons and the Belt can’t even get an AAC team in a bowl game this year, just MAC and CUSA. So would Texas State look at CUSA? We will have to see if the remaining/new schools decide to double down or if they keep it status quo.

UNT HAS NEVER DONE JACK AND WILL CONTINUE TO NEVER DO JACK... The AAC isn't going to change that. UNT HAS 6 COUNT THEM 6 WINNING SEASONS SINCE THEY MOVED UP.

UNT was taken to cover SMU when they leave END OF F'N STORY

Not one of the New AACk members will ever come close to thinking about doing what UCF or Cincy has done. I give it until the next TV deal when ECU and the rest lose their 7 million and come back down to earth and realize that they are just a mediocre pile of @#$% that CUSA was, they will then start to scream the conference needs to split, I hope no one hears their screams.