Why is it that FIU, FAU, NT and MT fans can't understand that no matter which teams leave the Sun Belt, the remaining schools will always claim that the worst teams left and that the Belt is actually better off not having them?

Fans don't look at athletic budgets, TV Markets, academia or endowments which are all instrumental in having a strong and prestigious conference. The Sun Belt just lost its 2 largest tv markets, its 3 largest schools and its 3 largest athletic budgets yet none of that is considered a loss? (The Sun Belt is not known for having strong academic institutions so i will not comment on that).

I hope that this new commissioner figures out a way to keep the conference moving in the right direction. I wish you guys the best and i hope that everything works out for the sake of the conference.

(12-25-2012 11:06 AM)CivilEng Wrote:  Why is it that FIU, FAU, NT and MT fans can't understand that no matter which teams leave the Sun Belt, the remaining schools will always claim that the worst teams left and that the Belt is actually better off not having them?

You can feel free to leave MT out of that statement. You'd have to be a women's softball fan to find a crappy MT program.

(12-25-2012 12:00 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 11:06 AM)CivilEng Wrote:  Why is it that FIU, FAU, NT and MT fans can't understand that no matter which teams leave the Sun Belt, the remaining schools will always claim that the worst teams left and that the Belt is actually better off not having them?

You can feel free to leave MT out of that statement. You'd have to be a women's softball fan to find a crappy MT program.

You completely missed the point of my post.

(12-25-2012 04:38 PM)CivilEng Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 12:00 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 11:06 AM)CivilEng Wrote:  Why is it that FIU, FAU, NT and MT fans can't understand that no matter which teams leave the Sun Belt, the remaining schools will always claim that the worst teams left and that the Belt is actually better off not having them?

You can feel free to leave MT out of that statement. You'd have to be a women's softball fan to find a crappy MT program.

You completely missed the point of my post.

I don't think he did, the wording was just a bit off(in both your posts) I think his point was that few if any are claiming losing MT is a good thing or that we are a crappy program. Whether or not any of us are crappy programs or whether or not the conference is better off without any of us, I think he was just arguing the semantics that most are willing to admit that we were a real loss to the conference.

(12-25-2012 05:07 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 04:38 PM)CivilEng Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 12:00 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 11:06 AM)CivilEng Wrote:  Why is it that FIU, FAU, NT and MT fans can't understand that no matter which teams leave the Sun Belt, the remaining schools will always claim that the worst teams left and that the Belt is actually better off not having them?

You can feel free to leave MT out of that statement. You'd have to be a women's softball fan to find a crappy MT program.

You completely missed the point of my post.

I don't think he did, the wording was just a bit off(in both your posts) I think his point was that few if any are claiming losing MT is a good thing or that we are a crappy program. Whether or not any of us are crappy programs or whether or not the conference is better off without any of us, I think he was just arguing the semantics that most are willing to admit that we were a real loss to the conference.

I see where you're coming from and I agree with you but his post did not imply what you have just stated. However, while most SB posters do agree that losing MT was a significant loss for the conference, a lot try to down play it. I'll be the first one to recognize MT as one of, if not the best school in the Sun Belt athletically. That is the point I was trying to make. It doesn't matter whether it's FIU and it's large tv market/athletic budget or MT overall athletics/athletic budgets, remaining schools will always claim that the conference didn't lose much.

By the way, I love my school but I am more of realist than anything else; so in no way am I attempting to compare FIU's athletics with MT's. It goes without saying that we're not at your level YET.

(12-25-2012 06:45 PM)CivilEng Wrote:  I see where you're coming from and I agree with you but his post did not imply what you have just stated. However, while most SB posters do agree that losing MT was a significant loss for the conference, a lot try to down play it. I'll be the first one to recognize MT as one of, if not the best school in the Sun Belt athletically. That is the point I was trying to make. It doesn't matter whether it's FIU and it's large tv market/athletic budget or MT overall athletics/athletic budgets, remaining schools will always claim that the conference didn't lose much.

By the way, I love my school but I am more of realist than anything else; so in no way am I attempting to compare FIU's athletics with MT's. It goes without saying that we're not at your level YET.

Its not a secret recipe. We fund all our programs and we pay our coaches. We've had a bit of luck with some of our coaches with guys like Hayes and Coach Pete who both stayed for decades, as well as a guy like Insell who is an alum and perfectly happy where he is and guys like Kermit and Stock who were consistently good but perhaps never good enough to attract a job offer they couldn't refuse. I'm confident in saying Stock will be here for a long time unless his on field results completely fall off. I would honestly be surprised if he left for any job other than his alma mater(Florida State) or Clemson or South Carolina(the two schools he spent the most time at as an assistant). I don't expect FSU or Clemson to be looking for a head coach any time soon and while Spurrier is bound to retire before too much longer, I'm not sure Stock would be a big enough name, nevermind the fact that he just turned 55 this week, Spurrier was 60 when South Carolina hired him, but I don't see Stock even scratching the surface of Spurrier's resume in the next five years. With each passing season the chances that Stock stays till retirement(provided he keeps winning) increases.

(12-25-2012 06:45 PM)CivilEng Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 05:07 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 04:38 PM)CivilEng Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 12:00 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 11:06 AM)CivilEng Wrote:  Why is it that FIU, FAU, NT and MT fans can't understand that no matter which teams leave the Sun Belt, the remaining schools will always claim that the worst teams left and that the Belt is actually better off not having them?

You can feel free to leave MT out of that statement. You'd have to be a women's softball fan to find a crappy MT program.

You completely missed the point of my post.

I don't think he did, the wording was just a bit off(in both your posts) I think his point was that few if any are claiming losing MT is a good thing or that we are a crappy program. Whether or not any of us are crappy programs or whether or not the conference is better off without any of us, I think he was just arguing the semantics that most are willing to admit that we were a real loss to the conference.

I see where you're coming from and I agree with you but his post did not imply what you have just stated. However, while most SB posters do agree that losing MT was a significant loss for the conference, a lot try to down play it. I'll be the first one to recognize MT as one of, if not the best school in the Sun Belt athletically. That is the point I was trying to make. It doesn't matter whether it's FIU and it's large tv market/athletic budget or MT overall athletics/athletic budgets, remaining schools will always claim that the conference didn't lose much.

By the way, I love my school but I am more of realist than anything else; so in no way am I attempting to compare FIU's athletics with MT's. It goes without saying that we're not at your level YET.

I like FIU's odds of being a surprise power in CUSA East. We both have some things to prove. BTW, the SBC is a great and rising conference. We set a goal in 1999 to earn our way into CUSA....that was our goal because it was right for MT, but it is no negative reflection on the SBC. This conference is solid and hopefully both MT and FIU represent it as producers of solid programs.

(12-25-2012 04:38 PM)CivilEng Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 12:00 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 11:06 AM)CivilEng Wrote:  Why is it that FIU, FAU, NT and MT fans can't understand that no matter which teams leave the Sun Belt, the remaining schools will always claim that the worst teams left and that the Belt is actually better off not having them?

You can feel free to leave MT out of that statement. You'd have to be a women's softball fan to find a crappy MT program.

You completely missed the point of my post.

I was trying to be a dick. Guess I wasn't clear enough. Merry Christmas.

Don't hurt your arm patting yourself on the back. Maybe the OP was just saying, based on previous results, that MT has had a few good seasons but it's not like they dominated. By the way, you can say the same thing about pretty much all of the current/former belt schools. None of us have a sustainable advantage over the other schools so we either struggle along around .500 and have a couple of decent seasons here and there or we have swings from high to low.

For reference, I believe the following is MT's recent record in men's football and hoops. Respectable, but not conference crippling (per the OP's point). We are all replaceable.

Football 1999-2011
2-10
6-7
10-3
5-7
5-7
7-6
4-7
5-6
4-8
4-8
8-3
6-5
3-8

Basketball 1999-2011
27-7
16-16
19-14
18-14
17-15
15-17
16-12
19-12
17-12
16-14
14-15
5-22
15-13

(12-25-2012 07:49 PM)CurveItAround Wrote:  Don't hurt your arm patting yourself on the back. Maybe the OP was just saying, based on previous results, that MT has had a few good seasons but it's not like they dominated. By the way, you can say the same thing about pretty much all of the current/former belt schools. None of us have a sustainable advantage over the other schools so we either struggle along around .500 and have a couple of decent seasons here and there or we have swings from high to low.

For reference, I believe the following is MT's recent record in men's football and hoops. Respectable, but not conference crippling (per the OP's point). We are all replaceable.

Football 1999-2011
2-10
6-7
10-3
5-7
5-7
7-6
4-7
5-6
4-8
4-8
8-3
6-5
3-8

Basketball 1999-2011
27-7
16-16
19-14
18-14
17-15
15-17
16-12
19-12
17-12
16-14
14-15
5-22
15-13

Our Bubas cup record speaks for itself. Anyone who says we aren't the top program in the Belt is fooling themselves. Western is the only program that has even a half way legitimate claim to that title aside from us. When it comes to athletic programs in the belt, it's MT with Western right behind and then everyone else.

Was there a reason you picked 13 years as your time frame? Seems a bit odd, especially considering we're discussing the Sun Belt specifically and we've only been conference members since 2001. Perhaps you just wanted to sneak that 5-22 basketball season and that 3-8 football season(our first at the FBS level) in.

Many posters on this board scoff at Bubas cup standings, but the further up you go the conference ladder, the higher the concentration gets of programs that compete at a high level in all sports within each given conference. Football and markets are certainly driving the bus and then MBB may get some more consideration than any other sport, but all other sports combined are a big deal. There are more than a couple of programs in this conference with shoestring budgets most of which gets funneled into football, there isn't a lot of room for that kind of program in more esteemed conferences.

As much as people want to focus on UNT's lack of football performance as of late and put market at the forefront of the discussion when it comes to you guys being picked for C-USA, the fact that you guys have are committed to funding all sports(as evidenced by your large budget) certainly doesn't hurt. Without looking it up, in the past few years I'm fairly certain you guys have finished in the top 4 in the Bubas cup. Again, without fact checking, I'm pretty sure Arkansas State is the only program to have multiple recent appearances in the top 4 in Bubas cup standings, while not being in the top 4 in budget. I'd say they certainly get more bang for their buck in Jonesboro than anyone in this conference.

(12-25-2012 11:06 AM)CivilEng Wrote:  Why is it that FIU, FAU, NT and MT fans can't understand that no matter which teams leave the Sun Belt, the remaining schools will always claim that the worst teams left and that the Belt is actually better off not having them?

Fans don't look at athletic budgets, TV Markets, academia or endowments which are all instrumental in having a strong and prestigious conference. The Sun Belt just lost its 2 largest tv markets, its 3 largest schools and its 3 largest athletic budgets yet none of that is considered a loss? (The Sun Belt is not known for having strong academic institutions so i will not comment on that).

I hope that this new commissioner figures out a way to keep the conference moving in the right direction. I wish you guys the best and i hope that everything works out for the sake of the conference.

FIU and FAU are in the Miami-Ft Laud-WPB market. They don't own that market by any stretch of the imagination. People in South Florida could care less about college football. Miami wins national championships, plays high profile teams and largely succeeds, and.... is largely ignored. And FIU and FAU are even less relevant. Ask 100 people in Davie or in Weston, or in Hialeah what the mascot of FIU or FAU is, and you might get the correct answer 10 out of 100 queries.

FIU and FAU leaving didnt hurt the Belt that much. I wish you both well. But the Sun Belt didn't have the Miami-FTL-WPB market with you guys in the conference. I fail to see how you deliver any better results for a CUSA made up of exactly 1 continuing school that is bowling this year, than you did for the Sun Belt. Losing you guys is kind of like CUSA losing Tulane. Rejection never feels good, but its no more than a glancing blow.

We replaced UNT, a regional commuter school in the far northern suburbs of DFW, with UTA, which does represent a loss for the conference, at least in football. But we're still there as a conference.

When we lost MTSU, we actually did lose a school with an actual market claim (albeit a tangential one). Bubas cup standings are irrelevant, but MTSU actually put a good football and good basketball product out there. That loss hurt the conference.

The reason why CUSA has more bowls and TV money than the Sun Belt has nothing to do with the schools currently set to make up the conference. It is a legacy of UCF, Houston, Memphis (basketball), ECU, and SMU's participation (as well as existing members USM and to a much lesser extent Tulsa and Marshall) in the conference.

its a shame Waters saddled the Belt with such a crummy TV deal that doesn't expire for a few more years.

(12-22-2012 11:14 PM)HoustonCajun Wrote:  

(12-22-2012 01:29 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  why do UL's commercials keep saying "University of Louisiana AT Lafayette"? I thought they were the flaship.

Check out the major school official names:

University of Texas at Austin - Texas
University of California Berkeley - Cal
University of Nebraska Lincoln - Nebraska
University of Wisconsin Madison - Wisconsin
University of Nevada at Reno - Nevada
Etc., etc.

Our official name is The University of Louisiana at Lafayette. We have branded ourselves as LOUISIANA.

You failed to mention an important fact. All the schools you just listed are flagship universities of their state. The University of Louisiana System has no flagship University. Therefore, when advertising, your school has to use its only correct name "University of Louisiana-Lafayette." However, your athletic program has been granted permission to label itself as just "University of Lousiana" and can advertise under that name for athletics only. The other Universities you mentioned can use either name for academics or athletics.

(12-26-2012 12:02 PM)GoBigRed26 Wrote:  

(12-22-2012 11:14 PM)HoustonCajun Wrote:  

(12-22-2012 01:29 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  why do UL's commercials keep saying "University of Louisiana AT Lafayette"? I thought they were the flaship.

Check out the major school official names:

University of Texas at Austin - Texas
University of California Berkeley - Cal
University of Nebraska Lincoln - Nebraska
University of Wisconsin Madison - Wisconsin
University of Nevada at Reno - Nevada
Etc., etc.

Our official name is The University of Louisiana at Lafayette. We have branded ourselves as LOUISIANA.

You failed to mention an important fact. All the schools you just listed are flagship universities of their state. The University of Louisiana System has no flagship University. Therefore, when advertising, your school has to use its only correct name "University of Louisiana-Lafayette." However, your athletic program has been granted permission to label itself as just "University of Lousiana" and can advertise under that name for athletics only. The other Universities you mentioned can use either name for academics or athletics.

Just stop