I understand that we may need to add teams if we lose teams to the "alliance" however I do not understand the recent mindset that we need to increase our membership just for the sake of it. We do not need to add a single team to the conference unless it adds value immediately. If prestige, TV money, or competitiveness is not increased from the beginning they do not need to be added. Potential should not be considered. Let those teams realize their potential and then we give them a call. So, that rules out every 1AA school and every WAC school including LA Tech no matter how highly their fans think of themselves.

The only schools we should look to consider are schools from CUSA. If this is not possible, fine, than we stay with our current configuration and continue to increase prestige and competitiveness.

I understand your concerns, but I dont think you'll find App State as another mouth to feed. We have always had a solid program, no matter who we played. App football operates in the black, we do not lose money, a rarity in FCS and most of FBS at this point, we match the top half of what used to be CUSA in corporate sponsorship. The App athletic budget is currently $17.8 million, and $6 million more is already spoken for, without any TV money at all, and we support 20 Div 1 scholarship programs. We have great support from the Winston Salem, Greensboro, and Charlotte areas, and have a good, recognisable brand, already established. When people hear Appalachian State, they dont say "who's that?" They may not know where it is, probably have never been there, but they know the name, and name recognition is a huge plus when selling your brand.

We also have the best leadership we've ever had, Charlie Cobb put us in a position to win three national championships, increased attendence by 10,000 in 4 years, brought our athletic budget from $12 million to 17.8, while builing an upper deck, and a 120,000 sq ft, 7 story press box/athletic facility.

Chancellor Peacock has already raised $120 million in a new funding campaign, and has kept us afloat through the worst budgetary crisis in NC's modern history.

(02-23-2012 08:51 AM)MT FAN Wrote:  I understand that we may need to add teams if we lose teams to the "alliance" however I do not understand the recent mindset that we need to increase our membership just for the sake of it. We do not need to add a single team to the conference unless it adds value immediately. If prestige, TV money, or competitiveness is not increased from the beginning they do not need to be added. Potential should not be considered. Let those teams realize their potential and then we give them a call. So, that rules out every 1AA school and every WAC school including LA Tech no matter how highly their fans think of themselves.

The only schools we should look to consider are schools from CUSA. If this is not possible, fine, than we stay with our current configuration and continue to increase prestige and competitiveness.

Honestly, I understand the sentiment. Expanding just for the sake of getting bigger without a definite benefit to the conference would make no sense. Although I have no idea where App stands on Benson's wish list, I think you would be pleasantly surprised with the value that we would add if invited.

There is a difference in a mouth to feed and a team that adds value. In the current format of the Sun Belt we have enough teams to survive not enough teams to die or progress very far. Adding teams like Jacksonville State, North Alabama, La Tech, or Middle of no where university is adding a mouth to feed. Some people want to stay in our geographic footprint which is nice but in this day and age is irrelevant because once your on a plane your on a plane. A year ago if anyone would have said the Sun Belt was expanding with teams from the WAC everyone would have laughed. And we really have a good chance to come out this thing very strong if we make an effort just look at this list.

TxSt. 34k enrollment in San Marcos, Tx which is pretty much a part of Austin which is a huge market.
UTSA. 26k enrollment in San Antonio, Tx. Another huge school and market with a bowl level football venue. (SOMETHING WE REALLY NEED AND COULD GET WITH MORE TEXAS TEAMS)
UNMS. 18k enrollment in Las Cruces, NM. Decent market value and brings a very storied basketball team which is something else we need.
UTA. 34k enrollment in Arlington, Tx the 50th largest city in America. They also have great hoops from what I understand and play in a nice facility.
Appalachian State 20k enrollment in a Sun Belt sized market. Good football and basketball and would probably be a nice long term investment. But it's 1000 miles from Dallas to Boone so the people saying UNMS is to far must consider what is close to one team is far to another.

If the WAC gets these teams they are going to be a better conference than us in six years and we will be right back to the bottom. We could really build a stronger conference with those four teams then it would give us the ability to start trying out the Georgia State's of the world. I personally would like to see every team on this list join us and we would probably be as good or better than the alliance.

I agree with TxST and UTSA but not the other two. We were in a conference with UTA and UNMS and while both where good conference mates neither added anything to the conference that I could see.

May be true but just posting that there are teams who won't be mouths to feed. Were going to regret letting those teams go to the WAC.

(02-23-2012 08:51 AM)MT FAN Wrote:  I understand that we may need to add teams if we lose teams to the "alliance" however I do not understand the recent mindset that we need to increase our membership just for the sake of it. We do not need to add a single team to the conference unless it adds value immediately. If prestige, TV money, or competitiveness is not increased from the beginning they do not need to be added. Potential should not be considered. Let those teams realize their potential and then we give them a call. So, that rules out every 1AA school and every WAC school including LA Tech no matter how highly their fans think of themselves.

The only schools we should look to consider are schools from CUSA. If this is not possible, fine, than we stay with our current configuration and continue to increase prestige and competitiveness.

I agree, but I think there is value in adding certain schools for different reasons. LA Tech would bring immediately competitive football. I hear your concern about not considering potential, but I think UTSA should be the only Texas school we consider for membership if the Sun Belt isn't cleaned out. The San Antonio market and the potential to add a bowl game there is as good of an argument as any. I'm not a huge fan of growing the footprint westward, but if we had to, UTSA would be my pick.

Appalachian State already has the brand recognition, but as it's been pointed out time and again - the travel just isn't very convenient and it's not offset by exposure in a recruiting hotbed like the Texas schools.

That said, there is no reason to expand for the sake of expansion unless we have the $$$ to prove that it's worth it. Obviously that's the conference office's job.

Why are people calling NMSU UNMS? Did I miss something? Name change? Another name battle? Disrespect to NMSU or just unaware? I've seen it a few times on this board and now I'm curious.

The only school that I can think of that gets butt hurt about it's name is ULL.

You guys all talk about the drive to Boone, or them being hard to get too. Have any of you guys ever been to Boone???

I can get to Boone from Birmingham in less then 6 hours. It's less then 5.5 from Nashville. I think Nashville is further then that from all but WKU.

EDIT: After doing a little more research, Nashville is closer to a few more schools, like 30 minutes closer...

(02-23-2012 10:50 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  Why are people calling NMSU UNMS? Did I miss something? Name change? Another name battle? Disrespect to NMSU or just unaware? I've seen it a few times on this board and now I'm curious.

Good question.

It reminded me of those who poked fun of the name change by referring to the Tigers as the University of Memphis State University.

(02-23-2012 11:03 AM)Usajags Wrote:  The only school that I can think of that gets butt hurt about it's name is ULL.

You guys all talk about the drive to Boone, or them being hard to get too. Have any of you guys ever been to Boone???

I can get to Boone from Birmingham in less then 6 hours. It's less then 5.5 from Nashville. I think Nashville is further then that from all but WKU.

EDIT: After doing a little more research, Nashville is closer to a few more schools, like 30 minutes closer...

I don't think it's the fans' drive that is the issue. I'd be more than happy to roadtrip to Boone every other year. I think the lack of a major airport nearby is the logistics issue for teams in the conference.

Teams with a lot smaller budgets then teams in the SBC are doing that trip now with out any problems. Are you telling me SoCon teams are more resiliant then SBC teams??? And lets not forget that Appy State is making that trip out of the valley alot more times then any school will have to travel into it.

(02-23-2012 11:17 AM)MTowho Wrote:  I don't think it's the fans' drive that is the issue. I'd be more than happy to roadtrip to Boone every other year. I think the lack of a major airport nearby is the logistics issue for teams in the conference.

Not exactly ideal but it is doable. The Tri-Cities Regional Airport in Johnson City is 70 miles from campus, about an hour and a half drive. They should be able to accommodate the team travel but if not, the Greensboro and Charlotte airports are both 100 miles away on the highway and take about an hour forty five. Again, Boone is certainly a bit remote but there are some travel options that would have the team on a bus for less than two hours.

(02-23-2012 11:23 AM)Usajags Wrote:  Teams with a lot smaller budgets then teams in the SBC are doing that trip now with out any problems. Are you telling me SoCon teams are more resiliant then SBC teams??? And lets not forget that Appy State is making that trip out of the valley alot more times then any school will have to travel into it.

Don't get me wrong, I see where you are coming from. The real question is adding them going to add enough value to offset the cost of travel? If they were located smack in the middle of our footprint it may be a slam dunk, but I don't think that's the case considering they are a geographical outlier similar to NMSU.

I just don't understand the arguement of not wanting a team because of location. (Not refering to regional location).

If you don't want to add a team just because they are in a big city, you can't not want a team because they are in what some are calling a remote locale.

I think Appy State brings in a name that people recognize. Even the moderate fan is going to know the name because of the Michigan win from a few years back. That will add interest to the league and TV's will be tuned in for them.

Just my opinion.

Oh, I honestly thought they were the UNMS because isn't there one in the MWC named NMU?

(02-23-2012 11:34 AM)Usajags Wrote:  I just don't understand the arguement of not wanting a team because of location. (Not refering to regional location).

If you don't want to add a team just because they are in a big city, you can't not want a team because they are in what some are calling a remote locale.

Exactly.

I honestly don't plan on going to any away games that aren't in Louisiana, Alabama, or Tennessee anyway. The Sun Belt regional core ULL, ULM, South, Troy, MT, and AS (I feel absolutely ridiculous not typing ASU) are as regional as we need to be. I would like to see the rest of the additions be for bowl games, improving basketball, markets, and attendance.

Looking at it from the standpoint of just brinigng in mouths to feed will keep us in a state of stagnation and regeression. Right now we are not getting anything of significance from our tv deal. Staying as the unit we currently have will not better that situation unless two of the 10 immediately grow into top 35 programs. We need to look to prosper. In order to do that, we must look to add programs. Unless we can lure some CUSA teams to the SBC, we will have to look for teams that have not maxed their value and appear to be in a position to grow beyond leaps and bounds. There are three programs currently pursuing FBS football or looking to pursue FBS football that fit that criteria - UTSA, GA State and UNCC. Get them in and allow them to put their resources into the SBC. They will be more than just mouths to feed.

I feel that any additions will be well-thought-out by the AD's, Prez's, and Commish.

They won't go adding teams willy nilly.

They will definitley look at improving our TV package, so I think we are going to go after markets (my opinion).