(01-20-2013 11:16 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 11:03 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 10:59 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  I can understand and appreciate the whole wait argument; however, I do not see where the SBC actually has the luxury to wait. CUSA and the Big East can wait. The SBC has to act to stabilize, which waiting cannot resolve or cure. App. State, GA So. and NMSU will allow us to stabilize, and do not act to over exaggerate our boundaries. Besides, the moves help to stabilize the league and do not injure our perception. Heck, even if we added SHSU such a move would not be too injurious to our perception, as they have been to multiple FCS title games recently. So, make the moves and stop looking reactionary. That actually injures our perception.

If we wait and remain at eight teams, wouldn't that appear more stable than adding a group of FCS teams and just getting bigger to be bigger?
The conference can add at it's own pace, as needed.

No, because that 8 will be about as stable as the Big East, and its stability will be contingent upon the actions or inactions of others. The league administrators appear to be sitting at the conference room table with their eyes shut and fingers crossed hoping that nothing comes of CUSAs 1 pm conference call today and the Big XIIs meeting next Monday. Should something happen, we more than likely will move from a 8 team league to potentially a 6 team league. That's how unstable we are. We must be proactive and act to add some schools so as to limit and tempur any moves that may occur, while adding quality schools. We can control our destiny and perception. Instead, it appears that others are controlling such.

But moving before that happens will do nothing to promote the image that we are a stable league.
On the contrary, should all eight teams still be in place after June 1st, the SBC will seem like the only non-contract conference with a stable core.
Sometimes the hardest thing to do is demonstrate patience and wait, but that's the right call here.

The problem is a few teams in the SB are acting from a perspective that we will be in CUSA, so waiting to add wont hurt me as I will be gone.

(01-20-2013 11:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 10:59 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  I can understand and appreciate the whole wait argument; however, I do not see where the SBC actually has the luxury to wait. CUSA and the Big East can wait. The SBC has to act to stabilize, which waiting cannot resolve or cure. App. State, GA So. and NMSU will allow us to stabilize, and do not act to over exaggerate our boundaries. Besides, the moves help to stabilize the league and do not injure our perception. Heck, even if we added SHSU such a move would not be too injurious to our perception, as they have been to multiple FCS title games recently. So, make the moves and stop looking reactionary. That actually injures our perception.

FCS move-ups don't have to give notice to the NCAA until June 1.

Why pull the trigger today when the league map like different on May 31?

Anyone you invite today spends 2013 in transition year 1, in 2014 plays a Sun Belt schedule as a transition year 2. Is eligible for bowls and the league title effective August 1, 2015.

Anyone you invite May 31 is on that same timeline.

What do you gain acting this week? If you wait until the Sun Belt spring meetings which I believe are the week of May 20, you have had more time to look at candidates, more time to get to know them, and hopefully if Big East is doing something, they've done it and if CUSA is doing something, they've done it.

Because it makes the league appear to be in control of its destiny instead of being left to pick from the table scraps of those who will be perceived as being above the league. Just a few years ago the SBC was a laughing stock on such shows as College Game Day and more. We have now forced more of the talking heads and people that control the media (i.e. the flow of positive information) to take us seriously. However, now we are being once again treated like scrubs due to this realignment crap because we have been very reactionary. By stepping up and stating that we are adding the cream of the crop of FCS, Idaho for football only and/or NMSU we can at least appear to be proactive, measured and calculated in our approach. We will also control the flow of good information with respect to the league. As for your other part, if we haven't identified and investigated schools then that's a serious problem.m

(01-20-2013 11:16 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 11:03 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 10:59 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  I can understand and appreciate the whole wait argument; however, I do not see where the SBC actually has the luxury to wait. CUSA and the Big East can wait. The SBC has to act to stabilize, which waiting cannot resolve or cure. App. State, GA So. and NMSU will allow us to stabilize, and do not act to over exaggerate our boundaries. Besides, the moves help to stabilize the league and do not injure our perception. Heck, even if we added SHSU such a move would not be too injurious to our perception, as they have been to multiple FCS title games recently. So, make the moves and stop looking reactionary. That actually injures our perception.

If we wait and remain at eight teams, wouldn't that appear more stable than adding a group of FCS teams and just getting bigger to be bigger?
The conference can add at it's own pace, as needed.

No, because that 8 will be about as stable as the Big East, and its stability will be contingent upon the actions or inactions of others. The league administrators appear to be sitting at the conference room table with their eyes shut and fingers crossed hoping that nothing comes of CUSAs 1 pm conference call today and the Big XIIs meeting next Monday. Should something happen, we more than likely will move from a 8 team league to potentially a 6 team league. That's how unstable we are. We must be proactive and act to add some schools so as to limit and tempur any moves that may occur, while adding quality schools. We can control our destiny and perception. Instead, it appears that others are controlling such.

The thing is, the only way the Big East loses more is if an AQ league poaches them. There arent exactly many options left that have even a sniff of getting in an AQ league. UConn and Cincy might, but neither bring anything to the table in football, and we all know that is all that matters.

Even if the Big 12 poached Louisvlle out of the ACC, I am not sure its a sure thing the ACC feels the need to pick up two more.

CUSA will not move until Tusa and Southern Miss go, and if they do, they will pick up 2 teams max.

I still listen daily to scuttlebutt that ASU and CUSA have little interest in each other. ULL fans may really want to move, but their administration isnt really pushing either. SBC only collapses if literally half the league left, and if that happened, you can bet most every one of our members will have somewhere to go.

(01-20-2013 11:09 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 11:03 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 10:59 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  I can understand and appreciate the whole wait argument; however, I do not see where the SBC actually has the luxury to wait. CUSA and the Big East can wait. The SBC has to act to stabilize, which waiting cannot resolve or cure. App. State, GA So. and NMSU will allow us to stabilize, and do not act to over exaggerate our boundaries. Besides, the moves help to stabilize the league and do not injure our perception. Heck, even if we added SHSU such a move would not be too injurious to our perception, as they have been to multiple FCS title games recently. So, make the moves and stop looking reactionary. That actually injures our perception.

If we wait and remain at eight teams, wouldn't that appear more stable than adding a group of FCS teams and just getting bigger to be bigger?
The conference can add at it's own pace, as needed.

What if you are down to 4 teams? Keep waiting? You need nine at least.

You aren't factoring the timeline into process.

Let's say Sun Belt adds four teams at a press conference tomorrow. We will call them I, J, K, L.

March 1, Big East goes to 14 by taking 2 CUSA among their picks.

CUSA reacts on March 15 taking four Sun Belt schools. Let's call them E, F, G, and H.

So Sun Belt is at 8 for 2014.

But I, J, K, L are transition year 2. They have to play at least 4 FBS opponents at home and per NCAA interpretation cannot count games against each other as FBS games.

Basically what has to happen is the remaining Sun Belt schools A, B, C, D have to play at those schools to get their schedule to work but they can't play at all four and have a four game home league schedule.

So what happens (barring a stunning reversal by the NCAA s some great non-conference scheduling by some of the schools) is I &J do transition year 2 in 2014 and become full FBS for 2015 and K and L do transition year 2 in 2015 and become full FBS in 2016 with the Sun Belt availing itself of the two year grace period in 2014 and 2015.

How does that change if the Sun Belt waits to make that call until May 22nd?

It doesn't.

(01-20-2013 11:19 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  The problem is a few teams in the SB are acting from a perspective that we will be in CUSA, so waiting to add wont hurt me as I will be gone.

I don't think anyone is acting from that perspective....even WKU who has more reason than anyone to think that.

I think everyone is assuming the worst for themselves.

(01-20-2013 11:19 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 11:16 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 11:03 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 10:59 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  I can understand and appreciate the whole wait argument; however, I do not see where the SBC actually has the luxury to wait. CUSA and the Big East can wait. The SBC has to act to stabilize, which waiting cannot resolve or cure. App. State, GA So. and NMSU will allow us to stabilize, and do not act to over exaggerate our boundaries. Besides, the moves help to stabilize the league and do not injure our perception. Heck, even if we added SHSU such a move would not be too injurious to our perception, as they have been to multiple FCS title games recently. So, make the moves and stop looking reactionary. That actually injures our perception.

If we wait and remain at eight teams, wouldn't that appear more stable than adding a group of FCS teams and just getting bigger to be bigger?
The conference can add at it's own pace, as needed.

No, because that 8 will be about as stable as the Big East, and its stability will be contingent upon the actions or inactions of others. The league administrators appear to be sitting at the conference room table with their eyes shut and fingers crossed hoping that nothing comes of CUSAs 1 pm conference call today and the Big XIIs meeting next Monday. Should something happen, we more than likely will move from a 8 team league to potentially a 6 team league. That's how unstable we are. We must be proactive and act to add some schools so as to limit and tempur any moves that may occur, while adding quality schools. We can control our destiny and perception. Instead, it appears that others are controlling such.

But moving before that happens will do nothing to promote the image that we are a stable league.
On the contrary, should all eight teams still be in place after June 1st, the SBC will seem like the only non-contract conference with a stable core.
Sometimes the hardest thing to do is demonstrate patience and wait, but that's the right call here.

Sorry, the only league outside of the big boys that is stable and appears stable is the MAC. The most unstable looking league is the SBC.

(01-20-2013 11:19 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  The problem is a few teams in the SB are acting from a perspective that we will be in CUSA, so waiting to add wont hurt me as I will be gone.

If we have schools doing that, they certainly are hiding it well. ASU and ULL might want to get into the MWC or something of the like, but I have yet to hear anything involving similar contact with CUSA.

I have long since accepted that ASU was a Sun Belt program, and would not go anywhere.

Personally, and I've stated this in some fashion before, I think the SBC needs to work towards getting to 12-14 teams as soon as possible. Yes, it will diminish the share each school gets from TV (he laughs as he says money and SBC in same sentence) but what we should be concerned about is having more winning programs that are Bowl eligible. The more times we have teams in Bowls or Bowl eligible, the better chance we have that they win. The more winning programs we have, the better chance SBC teams will beat a "big boy" program. With only 8 teams, typically only 3 and on occasion 4 may have a winning season. With 12-14 teams, each year there are going to be at a minimum 5 and sometimes up to 8 teams with winning seasons and Bowl eligible. That's how the MAC does it. Yes, there will be teams that will be perennial bottom dwellers but even the MAC, CUSA, MWC, etc, have that. It's about having more teams with winning seasons. It's about gaining respect and winning Bowl games. One caveat here though, the SBC will need to work as hard as the other conferences at getting addtional Bowl tie-ins.

I'm not sure that adding right now benefits anyone. At this point, probably too late to boost recruiting much for the FCS programs unless they could steal some other school's commits and in terms of the timeline, January 20 and May 20 are all the same.

(01-20-2013 11:31 AM)WKUApollo Wrote:  Personally, and I've stated this in some fashion before, I think the SBC needs to work towards getting to 12-14 teams as soon as possible. Yes, it will diminish the share each school gets from TV (he laughs as he says money and SBC in same sentence) but what we should be concerned about is having more winning programs that are Bowl eligible. The more times we have teams in Bowls or Bowl eligible, the better chance we have that they win. The more winning programs we have, the better chance SBC teams will beat a "big boy" program. With only 8 teams, typically only 3 and on occasion 4 may have a winning season. With 12-14 teams, each year there are going to be at a minimum 5 and sometimes up to 8 teams with winning seasons and Bowl eligible. That's how the MAC does it. Yes, there will be teams that will be perennial bottom dwellers but even the MAC, CUSA, MWC, etc, have that. It's about having more teams with winning seasons. It's about gaining respect and winning Bowl games. One caveat here though, the SBC will need to work as hard as the other conferences at getting addtional Bowl tie-ins.

Being able to stay at 12-14 teams would be almost impossible. There are only 6 programs that we know for sure that would jump at an SBC opportunity. Even if we picked up every single one of them, that doesnt stop WKU, or Georgia State from leaving at first opportunity. What if ULL and ASU managed to get invited somewhere. You're still looking at a 10 team league that would look incredibly unstable, and there would be almost no realignment options left if this thing ever started again.

(01-20-2013 11:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 11:09 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 11:03 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 10:59 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  I can understand and appreciate the whole wait argument; however, I do not see where the SBC actually has the luxury to wait. CUSA and the Big East can wait. The SBC has to act to stabilize, which waiting cannot resolve or cure. App. State, GA So. and NMSU will allow us to stabilize, and do not act to over exaggerate our boundaries. Besides, the moves help to stabilize the league and do not injure our perception. Heck, even if we added SHSU such a move would not be too injurious to our perception, as they have been to multiple FCS title games recently. So, make the moves and stop looking reactionary. That actually injures our perception.

If we wait and remain at eight teams, wouldn't that appear more stable than adding a group of FCS teams and just getting bigger to be bigger?
The conference can add at it's own pace, as needed.

What if you are down to 4 teams? Keep waiting? You need nine at least.

You aren't factoring the timeline into process.

Let's say Sun Belt adds four teams at a press conference tomorrow. We will call them I, J, K, L.

March 1, Big East goes to 14 by taking 2 CUSA among their picks.

CUSA reacts on March 15 taking four Sun Belt schools. Let's call them E, F, G, and H.

So Sun Belt is at 8 for 2014.

But I, J, K, L are transition year 2. They have to play at least 4 FBS opponents at home and per NCAA interpretation cannot count games against each other as FBS games.

Basically what has to happen is the remaining Sun Belt schools A, B, C, D have to play at those schools to get their schedule to work but they can't play at all four and have a four game home league schedule.

So what happens (barring a stunning reversal by the NCAA s some great non-conference scheduling by some of the schools) is I &J do transition year 2 in 2014 and become full FBS for 2015 and K and L do transition year 2 in 2015 and become full FBS in 2016 with the Sun Belt availing itself of the two year grace period in 2014 and 2015.

How does that change if the Sun Belt waits to make that call until May 22nd?

It doesn't.

The key being for me that we appeared to have controlled our situation, fate and destiny by acting on who we wanted and moving forward before the other leagues acted. Makes us appear to be aggressive and serious about being a player at this level and not just a hanger-on pretender. It's all about perception people, and the lack thereof has cost us money and members.

Sun Belt needs to control the message and show they have taken the bull by the horns.

"we believe that quality athletics and football is the lifeblood of a conference and will continue the Sun Belt's growth which Has been significant recently. While media markets continue playing a major role in realignment, we are of the belief that long term, success on the football field is more important to build and grow the conference. With that said, we have a tremendous opportunity to add Ga Southern and App St, the two most successful programs in FCS history with 9 national titles. In addition, both programs are within the Sun Belt footprint and have leadership committed to continuing their program's success."

This is your story which makes it look like you CHOSE a different path than CUSA, which in your judgement is the correct one long term which will help SB pass CUSA on the field. I would even, in a professional way, say that the teams lost struggled on the field and we will be stronger than before realignment. Essentially, the fat has been removed.

Right now, SB looks soooooooo weak and at CUSA's mercy. CONTROL THE MESSAGE BENSON!

(01-20-2013 11:25 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 11:19 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 11:16 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 11:03 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 10:59 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  I can understand and appreciate the whole wait argument; however, I do not see where the SBC actually has the luxury to wait. CUSA and the Big East can wait. The SBC has to act to stabilize, which waiting cannot resolve or cure. App. State, GA So. and NMSU will allow us to stabilize, and do not act to over exaggerate our boundaries. Besides, the moves help to stabilize the league and do not injure our perception. Heck, even if we added SHSU such a move would not be too injurious to our perception, as they have been to multiple FCS title games recently. So, make the moves and stop looking reactionary. That actually injures our perception.

If we wait and remain at eight teams, wouldn't that appear more stable than adding a group of FCS teams and just getting bigger to be bigger?
The conference can add at it's own pace, as needed.

No, because that 8 will be about as stable as the Big East, and its stability will be contingent upon the actions or inactions of others. The league administrators appear to be sitting at the conference room table with their eyes shut and fingers crossed hoping that nothing comes of CUSAs 1 pm conference call today and the Big XIIs meeting next Monday. Should something happen, we more than likely will move from a 8 team league to potentially a 6 team league. That's how unstable we are. We must be proactive and act to add some schools so as to limit and tempur any moves that may occur, while adding quality schools. We can control our destiny and perception. Instead, it appears that others are controlling such.

But moving before that happens will do nothing to promote the image that we are a stable league.
On the contrary, should all eight teams still be in place after June 1st, the SBC will seem like the only non-contract conference with a stable core.
Sometimes the hardest thing to do is demonstrate patience and wait, but that's the right call here.

Sorry, the only league outside of the big boys that is stable and appears stable is the MAC. The most unstable looking league is the SBC.

MWC is stable. Once they won back Boise and SDSU it was game over. Only the Pac-12 is a threat to them and none of their members are on the short-term acceptable list for Pac-12.

(01-20-2013 11:36 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Being able to stay at 12-14 teams would be almost impossible. There are only 6 programs that we know for sure that would jump at an SBC opportunity. Even if we picked up every single one of them, that doesnt stop WKU, or Georgia State from leaving at first opportunity. What if ULL and ASU managed to get invited somewhere. You're still looking at a 10 team league that would look incredibly unstable, and there would be almost no realignment options left if this thing ever started again.

I understand what you're saying but since I believe WKU is not going anywhere, but should stAte, UL, GaSt, TxSt bolt (very likely to happen for 2 or more of them), then WKU, Troy, ULM, and USA will be left high and dry. Likely if 2 or more of those that I think may leave do actually leave, most likely they wouldn't be able to move until 2014 at the earliest. That'll give us time to get some FCS programs halfway through transition....add in NMSU to the mix. Yes, we might end up with 10 after adding 4 but that's better than being stuck with 6 FBS teams in a defunct conference.....ala WAC.

Some have a mishmash of ideas about what other conferences did or did not do. Whether they did them soon enough, or waited too long. All that doesn't mean that the Sun Belt should do a certain thing. They mainly need to do what's best for the conference.

Would all of the teams mentioned by fans actually accept a SB offer, or be in a position to accept? No. Not likely.
Do all of the current SB members want to stay in the SB? No.
Do any of the current SB members want to stay in the SB? No.
Will the SB lose any more members anytime soon. Sounds probable. So yes.
Should the SB prepare and guard for the future. Of course. Yes.
Is it better for the remaining SB members to wait until you absolutely are desperate to add new members? No.

(01-20-2013 11:37 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 11:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 11:09 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 11:03 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 10:59 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  I can understand and appreciate the whole wait argument; however, I do not see where the SBC actually has the luxury to wait. CUSA and the Big East can wait. The SBC has to act to stabilize, which waiting cannot resolve or cure. App. State, GA So. and NMSU will allow us to stabilize, and do not act to over exaggerate our boundaries. Besides, the moves help to stabilize the league and do not injure our perception. Heck, even if we added SHSU such a move would not be too injurious to our perception, as they have been to multiple FCS title games recently. So, make the moves and stop looking reactionary. That actually injures our perception.

If we wait and remain at eight teams, wouldn't that appear more stable than adding a group of FCS teams and just getting bigger to be bigger?
The conference can add at it's own pace, as needed.

What if you are down to 4 teams? Keep waiting? You need nine at least.

You aren't factoring the timeline into process.

Let's say Sun Belt adds four teams at a press conference tomorrow. We will call them I, J, K, L.

March 1, Big East goes to 14 by taking 2 CUSA among their picks.

CUSA reacts on March 15 taking four Sun Belt schools. Let's call them E, F, G, and H.

So Sun Belt is at 8 for 2014.

But I, J, K, L are transition year 2. They have to play at least 4 FBS opponents at home and per NCAA interpretation cannot count games against each other as FBS games.

Basically what has to happen is the remaining Sun Belt schools A, B, C, D have to play at those schools to get their schedule to work but they can't play at all four and have a four game home league schedule.

So what happens (barring a stunning reversal by the NCAA s some great non-conference scheduling by some of the schools) is I &J do transition year 2 in 2014 and become full FBS for 2015 and K and L do transition year 2 in 2015 and become full FBS in 2016 with the Sun Belt availing itself of the two year grace period in 2014 and 2015.

How does that change if the Sun Belt waits to make that call until May 22nd?

It doesn't.

The key being for me that we appeared to have controlled our situation, fate and destiny by acting on who we wanted and moving forward before the other leagues acted. Makes us appear to be aggressive and serious about being a player at this level and not just a hanger-on pretender. It's all about perception people, and the lack thereof has cost us money and members.

If it had been my call, we would have waited and announced Texas State, UTA, and Georgia State all at the same time and announced 2012 would be the last season of the Sun Belt and rebranded as American South for the 2013 season.

(01-20-2013 11:43 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 11:25 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 11:19 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 11:16 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 11:03 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  If we wait and remain at eight teams, wouldn't that appear more stable than adding a group of FCS teams and just getting bigger to be bigger?
The conference can add at it's own pace, as needed.

No, because that 8 will be about as stable as the Big East, and its stability will be contingent upon the actions or inactions of others. The league administrators appear to be sitting at the conference room table with their eyes shut and fingers crossed hoping that nothing comes of CUSAs 1 pm conference call today and the Big XIIs meeting next Monday. Should something happen, we more than likely will move from a 8 team league to potentially a 6 team league. That's how unstable we are. We must be proactive and act to add some schools so as to limit and tempur any moves that may occur, while adding quality schools. We can control our destiny and perception. Instead, it appears that others are controlling such.

But moving before that happens will do nothing to promote the image that we are a stable league.
On the contrary, should all eight teams still be in place after June 1st, the SBC will seem like the only non-contract conference with a stable core.
Sometimes the hardest thing to do is demonstrate patience and wait, but that's the right call here.

Sorry, the only league outside of the big boys that is stable and appears stable is the MAC. The most unstable looking league is the SBC.

MWC is stable. Once they won back Boise and SDSU it was game over. Only the Pac-12 is a threat to them and none of their members are on the short-term acceptable list for Pac-12.

Yes, I will agree with that. Heck, if Tulsa, UTEP, Houston and SMU could see that then that league could possibly fetch $10m-$13m per league member in revenues.

(01-20-2013 11:48 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 11:43 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 11:25 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 11:19 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 11:16 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  No, because that 8 will be about as stable as the Big East, and its stability will be contingent upon the actions or inactions of others. The league administrators appear to be sitting at the conference room table with their eyes shut and fingers crossed hoping that nothing comes of CUSAs 1 pm conference call today and the Big XIIs meeting next Monday. Should something happen, we more than likely will move from a 8 team league to potentially a 6 team league. That's how unstable we are. We must be proactive and act to add some schools so as to limit and tempur any moves that may occur, while adding quality schools. We can control our destiny and perception. Instead, it appears that others are controlling such.

But moving before that happens will do nothing to promote the image that we are a stable league.
On the contrary, should all eight teams still be in place after June 1st, the SBC will seem like the only non-contract conference with a stable core.
Sometimes the hardest thing to do is demonstrate patience and wait, but that's the right call here.

Sorry, the only league outside of the big boys that is stable and appears stable is the MAC. The most unstable looking league is the SBC.

MWC is stable. Once they won back Boise and SDSU it was game over. Only the Pac-12 is a threat to them and none of their members are on the short-term acceptable list for Pac-12.

Yes, I will agree with that. Heck, if Tulsa, UTEP, Houston and SMU could see that then that league could possibly fetch $10m-$13m per league member in revenues.

I think MWC will be leery of them because they will be a threat to be poached or eventually break off to form a regional league.

(01-20-2013 11:47 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 11:37 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 11:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 11:09 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 11:03 AM)AtlantaJag Wrote:  If we wait and remain at eight teams, wouldn't that appear more stable than adding a group of FCS teams and just getting bigger to be bigger?
The conference can add at it's own pace, as needed.

What if you are down to 4 teams? Keep waiting? You need nine at least.

You aren't factoring the timeline into process.

Let's say Sun Belt adds four teams at a press conference tomorrow. We will call them I, J, K, L.

March 1, Big East goes to 14 by taking 2 CUSA among their picks.

CUSA reacts on March 15 taking four Sun Belt schools. Let's call them E, F, G, and H.

So Sun Belt is at 8 for 2014.

But I, J, K, L are transition year 2. They have to play at least 4 FBS opponents at home and per NCAA interpretation cannot count games against each other as FBS games.

Basically what has to happen is the remaining Sun Belt schools A, B, C, D have to play at those schools to get their schedule to work but they can't play at all four and have a four game home league schedule.

So what happens (barring a stunning reversal by the NCAA s some great non-conference scheduling by some of the schools) is I &J do transition year 2 in 2014 and become full FBS for 2015 and K and L do transition year 2 in 2015 and become full FBS in 2016 with the Sun Belt availing itself of the two year grace period in 2014 and 2015.

How does that change if the Sun Belt waits to make that call until May 22nd?

It doesn't.

The key being for me that we appeared to have controlled our situation, fate and destiny by acting on who we wanted and moving forward before the other leagues acted. Makes us appear to be aggressive and serious about being a player at this level and not just a hanger-on pretender. It's all about perception people, and the lack thereof has cost us money and members.

If it had been my call, we would have waited and announced Texas State, UTA, and Georgia State all at the same time and announced 2012 would be the last season of the Sun Belt and rebranded as American South for the 2013 season.

Rebrand, yes...not fond of that name though. I like the SBC's name. We just need to change the logo and the league's colors. Changing the name is not necessary. Taking a Yugo and placing a Mercedes Benz logo on it does not truly increase its value. In all aspects of the vehicle it is still a Yugo. Redesign the Yugo and make its parts better. That will truly allow you to get better value for the Yugo. As for us, we are the Sun Belt. That better depicts the area of the country that our members are from.