+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: Sun Belt making its own rules (/thread-689589.html)
Sun Belt making its own rules - MJG - 05-16-2014 10:15 PM
The SBC may or may not add UMass for three football only.
The Sun Belt has two non football members no other FBS conference has one. No other FBS conference has more than one football only member.
The Sun Belt has basically no T.V deal and receives the least amount of media exposure. The conference also lacks stability .
Doing things their own way could help the situation . Gaining exposure and media attention because of the differences. Also adding influence in different regions let alone markets. Maybe a name change would end some of the criticism. Maybe any press is good press and it helps. Another member leaves add NDSU and UNC - Ashville for Olympic sports. Broadening influence in football four away games a year with tight Olympic sports membership.
RE: Sun Belt making its own rules - BruceMcF - 05-16-2014 10:42 PM
(05-16-2014 10:15 PM)MJG Wrote: The SBC may or may not add UMass for three football only.Probably not, and if so the most widely discussed option is UMass FB-only and NMSU upgraded (back) to all-sports, so still two FB-only, as presently planned for 2014, and as the MAC had planned to be playing in 2012, except Temple was invited back by the conference that had kicked it out, because the Big12 had taken WVU and they needed a school that could start playing FB ASAP.
Quote: The Sun Belt has two non football members no other FBS conference has one.The ACC has one ... little school you may have heard about called "Notre Dame" (I think that's French).
Quote: No other FBS conference has more than one football only member.
But, as noted, not for lack of trying.
RE: Sun Belt making its own rules - MJG - 05-16-2014 10:46 PM
(05-16-2014 10:42 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:(05-16-2014 10:15 PM)MJG Wrote: The SBC may or may not add UMass for three football only.Probably not, and if so the most widely discussed option is UMass FB-only and NMSU upgraded (back) to all-sports, so still two FB-only, as presently planned for 2014, and as the MAC had planned to be playing in 2012, except Temple was invited back by the conference that had kicked it out, because the Big12 had taken WVU and they needed a school that could start playing FB ASAP.
Quote: The Sun Belt has two non football members no other FBS conference has one.The ACC has one ... little school you may have heard about called "Notre Dame" (I think that's French).
Quote: No other FBS conference has more than one football only member.
But, as noted, not for lack of trying.
I guess Notre Dame being over half in for football makes that different. UTA and UALR don't even play football so non football sponsoring members to be clear.
I think the MAC's plan was sound and only failed due to uncontrolled circumstances. Adding Temple and Umass was an easy way to extend the conference. While keeping Olympic sports tight for low travel costs.
RE: Sun Belt making its own rules - Attackcoog - 05-17-2014 12:27 AM
(05-16-2014 10:46 PM)MJG Wrote:(05-16-2014 10:42 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:(05-16-2014 10:15 PM)MJG Wrote: The SBC may or may not add UMass for three football only.Probably not, and if so the most widely discussed option is UMass FB-only and NMSU upgraded (back) to all-sports, so still two FB-only, as presently planned for 2014, and as the MAC had planned to be playing in 2012, except Temple was invited back by the conference that had kicked it out, because the Big12 had taken WVU and they needed a school that could start playing FB ASAP.
Quote: The Sun Belt has two non football members no other FBS conference has one.The ACC has one ... little school you may have heard about called "Notre Dame" (I think that's French).
Quote: No other FBS conference has more than one football only member.
But, as noted, not for lack of trying.
I guess Notre Dame being over half in for football makes that different. UTA and UALR don't even play football so non football sponsoring members to be clear.
I think the MAC's plan was sound and only failed due to uncontrolled circumstances. Adding Temple and Umass was an easy way to extend the conference. While keeping Olympic sports tight for low travel costs.
The Big East was tried to go that route bigger than anyone. They were shooting for 5 football only members at one point (Navy, Boise, SDSU, BYU, and AF).
RE: Sun Belt making its own rules - chiefsfan - 05-17-2014 01:24 AM
(05-16-2014 10:15 PM)MJG Wrote: The SBC may or may not add UMass for three football only.
The Sun Belt has two non football members no other FBS conference has one. No other FBS conference has more than one football only member.
The Sun Belt has basically no T.V deal and receives the least amount of media exposure. The conference also lacks stability .
Doing things their own way could help the situation . Gaining exposure and media attention because of the differences. Also adding influence in different regions let alone markets. Maybe a name change would end some of the criticism. Maybe any press is good press and it helps. Another member leaves add NDSU and UNC - Ashville for Olympic sports. Broadening influence in football four away games a year with tight Olympic sports membership.
The whole irony to this mess is the way to fix the SBC's problems is to boot Idaho...
We do make our own rules...always have. We've been in existence for 12 seasons of football, and trying to compete with leagues that have been established for decades. When that happens, you have to rewrite the rules a bit.
RE: Sun Belt making its own rules - Attackcoog - 05-17-2014 01:40 AM
(05-17-2014 01:24 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:(05-16-2014 10:15 PM)MJG Wrote: The SBC may or may not add UMass for three football only.
The Sun Belt has two non football members no other FBS conference has one. No other FBS conference has more than one football only member.
The Sun Belt has basically no T.V deal and receives the least amount of media exposure. The conference also lacks stability .
Doing things their own way could help the situation . Gaining exposure and media attention because of the differences. Also adding influence in different regions let alone markets. Maybe a name change would end some of the criticism. Maybe any press is good press and it helps. Another member leaves add NDSU and UNC - Ashville for Olympic sports. Broadening influence in football four away games a year with tight Olympic sports membership.
The whole irony to this mess is the way to fix the SBC's problems is to boot Idaho...
We do make our own rules...always have. We've been in existence for 12 seasons of football, and trying to compete with leagues that have been established for decades. When that happens, you have to rewrite the rules a bit.
If and when the Sunbelt has better more attractive replacement choices available, I suspect Idaho might be shown the door.
RE: Sun Belt making its own rules - MJG - 05-17-2014 09:24 AM
Say the Citadel , Missouri State and JMU all get the itch for FBS.
That would be ideal adding strong candidates and new markets.
Keeping the footprint tight for twelve all sports members.
Having UMASS , Idaho and NMSU football only until schools similar to the ones above help bring fan interest. A10 and Big Sky and WAC have thirty plus members between them. A A10 or Big Sky fan will have a passing interest in the SBC.
RE: Sun Belt making its own rules - BruceMcF - 05-17-2014 09:25 AM
(05-16-2014 10:46 PM)MJG Wrote: I guess Notre Dame being over half in for football makes that different.Over half in? I had not heard that Notre Dame gets to compete for the ACC title over half the time. Is that odd years and even years that are multiples of 16?
Notre Dame playing over half an ACC conference schedule's worth of games with the the ACC may obscure it, but its an optical illusion. Notre Dame needed four home and away that it was free to schedule in the last half of its season ... so the Olympic sports entry came at a cost to Notre Dame of one additional game, maximum. The other four are not "partway in" games, they are "maintaining independence" games.
So the point stands, the ACC and the Sunbelt are the two FBS conferences with Olympic Sports members.
And the two FB-only members ~ whether Idaho and NMSU or Idaho and UMass ~ is quite obviously not unprecedented in the slightest, as its been contracted to occur twice in the last decade. If the Sunbelt carries the plan out, the only difference will be in successful execution of a plan that two other conferences tried and failed to execute.
RE: Sun Belt making its own rules - bullet - 05-17-2014 09:43 AM
(05-16-2014 10:15 PM)MJG Wrote: The SBC may or may not add UMass for three football only.
The Sun Belt has two non football members no other FBS conference has one. No other FBS conference has more than one football only member.
The Sun Belt has basically no T.V deal and receives the least amount of media exposure. The conference also lacks stability .
Doing things their own way could help the situation . Gaining exposure and media attention because of the differences. Also adding influence in different regions let alone markets. Maybe a name change would end some of the criticism. Maybe any press is good press and it helps. Another member leaves add NDSU and UNC - Ashville for Olympic sports. Broadening influence in football four away games a year with tight Olympic sports membership.
They've got a good name. And at one point, they were a pretty good basketball conference. Although most of those schools are AAC or CUSA now.
RE: Sun Belt making its own rules - BruceMcF - 05-17-2014 10:06 AM
(05-17-2014 09:43 AM)bullet Wrote: They've got a good name. And at one point, they were a pretty good basketball conference. Although most of those schools are AAC or CUSA now.With predictable results:
Go5 conferences Conference RPI ~ Rank. Conference, Best Team
8. AAC, Louisville (-->ACC)
10. MWC, New Mexico
12. MAC, WMU
13. CUSA, Tulsa (-->AAC)
19. Sunbelt, ULouisiana
Therefore a desire in some quarters to make moves that would boost the BBall.
RE: Sun Belt making its own rules - MJG - 05-17-2014 10:23 AM
(05-17-2014 09:25 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:(05-16-2014 10:46 PM)MJG Wrote: I guess Notre Dame being over half in for football makes that different.Over half in? I had not heard that Notre Dame gets to compete for the ACC title over half the time. Is that odd years and even years that are multiples of 16?
Notre Dame playing over half an ACC conference schedule's worth of games with the the ACC may obscure it, but its an optical illusion. Notre Dame needed four home and away that it was free to schedule in the last half of its season ... so the Olympic sports entry came at a cost to Notre Dame of one additional game, maximum. The other four are not "partway in" games, they are "maintaining independence" games.
So the point stands, the ACC and the Sunbelt are the two FBS conferences with Olympic Sports members.
And the two FB-only members ~ whether Idaho and NMSU or Idaho and UMass ~ is quite obviously not unprecedented in the slightest, as its been contracted to occur twice in the last decade. If the Sunbelt carries the plan out, the only difference will be in successful execution of a plan that two other conferences tried and failed to execute.
Notre Dame will end up hurting the ACC going forward.
When the Irish are good going 4-1 or 5-0 it hurts the conference.
When they are bad the ACC will get no credit little upside besides exposure. Basketball wise they will be fine considering how they did in the Big East.
RE: Sun Belt making its own rules - BruceMcF - 05-17-2014 10:32 AM
(05-17-2014 10:23 AM)MJG Wrote: Notre Dame will end up hurting the ACC going forward.All beside the point on the ACC being another FBS conference with Olympic-sports membership.
RE: Sun Belt making its own rules - MJG - 05-17-2014 10:32 AM
I can't think of a close Olympic only schools for APP ST travel partner that helps basketball. Travel wise UNC - ASHVILLE would be perfect. Adding them and UMASS makes sense. College of Charleston maybe or Davidson at one time.
I bring that up because UTA and UALR serve as NMSU and Idaho's Olympic sports partner. They are also Arkansas ST and Texas States travel partner . So adding a third football only can easily be balanced out with a third non football.
The six partial members fulfilling the role of three full members.
The other six full members benefit from having in state conference members. Texas St, Arkansas ST and APP STATE would then each have a non-football school for a travel partner.
RE: Sun Belt making its own rules - BruceMcF - 05-17-2014 10:35 AM
(05-17-2014 10:32 AM)MJG Wrote: The six partial members fulfilling the role of three full members.Except there seem to be only two FB-only members being considered ~ either Idaho/NMSU or Idaho/UMass, going from 11/11 to 12/12 by adding UMass FB-only and upgrading NMSU to all-sports.
A third Olympic-sports match for a FB-only school would only be needed if three FB-only schools were being considered, and there is nothing to indicate that three FB-only schools are being considered.
RE: Sun Belt making its own rules - arkstfan - 05-17-2014 11:21 AM
I've been in the room or just outside the room or talking closely to the power makers and I can tell you the Sun Belt has had an ever changing vision.
2004-05 Get enough members to live another day.
2007 the vision was to slowly nudge the non-football members out and be a 10 member conference comprised solely of FBS members.
2010 with resolve to push people out fading the vision became being a league with 10 to 12 football members and 2 to 4 of the best non-football basketball programs in current SBC states or states bordering the then current Sun Belt. Alignments of 10/12, 10/14, 12/14, and 12/15 were looked at.
2011 (late) the vision became standing pat and seeing if Big East delivered a mortal wound to CUSA that would allow Sun Belt to broker an agreement with CUSA dividing the two leagues into essentially new properties with the Sun Belt name going away.
2012 (early) Boise surprised the Sun Belt because no one in the Belt believed the TV numbers Big East was touting and there was some hope no other western team would bite, a position that seemed reasonable as a number of MWC schools declared their lack of interest. In the meantime SBC changes commissioners and exploited a procedural move to add Georgia State without a full league vote (loophole now closed) taking the stance that the league should just rebuild without trying to see if there were some other option.
2012-13 backfilling and adding members.
Right now I don't know that a shared vision exists and what happens in Florida at the league meetings starting Sunday may help us figure out if one is crafted.
RE: Sun Belt making its own rules - BruceMcF - 05-17-2014 12:11 PM
So with respect to rules, its Calvinball rules, with rules made up on the fly in the middle of the game.
RE: Sun Belt making its own rules - MJG - 05-17-2014 12:55 PM
(05-17-2014 10:32 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:(05-17-2014 10:23 AM)MJG Wrote: Notre Dame will end up hurting the ACC going forward.All beside the point on the ACC being another FBS conference with Olympic-sports membership.
I tried to clear that up the only FBS conference with members who do not have football programs. This benefit of those members is in being travel partners for the one member state schools. Performing a dual role as Idaho and NMSU ' S Olympic partners.
No one knows if three football only programs is being considered. I guess adding NMSU could mean kicking out UTA since they become Texas St travel partner.
Save the kick out Idaho talk I am not for kicking anyone out.
Realignment discussions tend to go sideways . No harm in looking at possible moves . I think it makes more sense to stay on topic and suggest non football Olympic travel partners for Appalachian State. Following the conference's current strategy for the Texas and Arkansas schools along with football only members.
RE: Sun Belt making its own rules - BruceMcF - 05-17-2014 01:56 PM
(05-17-2014 12:55 PM)MJG Wrote: I tried to clear that up the only FBS conference with members who do not have football programs.Yeah, for purposes of keeping the agrument alive you have to go there ... but its a quibbling distinction to hang an argument on, where Olympic Sports members is something with a lot more pedigree, since not so long ago there was an FBS conference with eight Olympic Sports members ... a number of whom played football (one as an FBS independent, the others in the FCS) and a number of whom didn't. And that conference had something like twenty years of playing like that, so its hard to peg it as a transitional kind of thing.
What that conference had that the ACC has and the Sunbelt has (either wisely or fortuitiously) avoided is being lopsided with more Olympic Sports members than FB members.
(05-17-2014 12:55 PM)MJG Wrote: No one knows if three football only programs is being considered. I guess adding NMSU could mean kicking out UTA since they become Texas St travel partner.True, no one knows for sure, but "nobody can prove they aren't thinking about three FB only schools" is quite a long way from "its likely that they are considering three FB only schools", which is what using the UMass discussions for this argument about the "Sunbelt making its own rules" requires.
And why would they kick out UTA? If they go divisional in BBall, one of the eastern schools would have to move west, if they go to clustered scheduling, they could use three school clusters. Either one would involve 12 BBall members.
RE: Sun Belt making its own rules - carolinaknights - 05-18-2014 09:55 AM
(05-16-2014 10:46 PM)MJG Wrote:(05-16-2014 10:42 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:(05-16-2014 10:15 PM)MJG Wrote: The SBC may or may not add UMass for three football only.Probably not, and if so the most widely discussed option is UMass FB-only and NMSU upgraded (back) to all-sports, so still two FB-only, as presently planned for 2014, and as the MAC had planned to be playing in 2012, except Temple was invited back by the conference that had kicked it out, because the Big12 had taken WVU and they needed a school that could start playing FB ASAP.
Quote: The Sun Belt has two non football members no other FBS conference has one.The ACC has one ... little school you may have heard about called "Notre Dame" (I think that's French).
Quote: No other FBS conference has more than one football only member.
But, as noted, not for lack of trying.
I guess Notre Dame being over half in for football makes that different. UTA and UALR don't even play football so non football sponsoring members to be clear.
I think the MAC's plan was sound and only failed due to uncontrolled circumstances. Adding Temple and Umass was an easy way to extend the conference. While keeping Olympic sports tight for low travel costs.
If Army would join the MAC as a FB only tomorrow then the eastern wing would still be a sound move for the MAC and UMass would still be a FB only member. It would also be interesting if James Madison would join for FB only and leave their other sports in the CAA or move them to the A-10 with UMass. All of those options must have been looked at and one of the parties rejected the move so now UMass is looking for another conference or independent football in two years to try and hold on until the American Conference throws them a life line either going to 14 with Army or BYU for FB only or because one of Cinn or UConn has announced their departure date. If it is because Cinn or UConn are leaving they will probably get an all sports invite to keep the current structure at 11 all sports and 1 FB only (Navy).
RE: Sun Belt making its own rules - BruceMcF - 05-18-2014 10:07 AM
(05-18-2014 09:55 AM)carolinaknights Wrote: If Army would join the MAC as a FB only tomorrow then the eastern wing would still be a sound move for the MAC and UMass would still be a FB only member. It would also be interesting if James Madison would join for FB only and leave their other sports in the CAA or move them to the A-10 with UMass. All of those options must have been looked at and one of the parties rejected the move ...I'd expect so.
Regarding Army, the MAC with its tight geographic footprint would be the worst base for a national schedule for Army. If Army started to feel pressure on the scheduling front, a late season scheduling agreement with the Sunbelt or CUSA to match its current three game agreement with the MAC seems like it would be enough to take that pressure off.
While Army might have both the location and hold sufficient interest to take the place of Temple in the original plan, its quite possible that JMU would not and the MAC would not be interested in JMU all-sports.
And JMU is rumored to have a preference for an all-sports move over a FB-only move. Perhaps that may change if the A10 invited JMU, but the A10 has no particular reason to invite a middling CAA BBall school after its recent success in snaring not just NCAA at-large bids but also some valuable NCAA tournament wins leading to extra NCAA units.