(05-02-2013 12:46 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(05-02-2013 12:36 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  

(05-02-2013 12:29 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  Be careful what you say. You could insert SBC and SEC in that statement and find agreement amongst many people.

You could say that BAMA is top dog in the SEC and they have lost to a Sun Belt team. When was the last time a MAC team beat Michagan or Ohio St. the top dogs of the Big 10.

Bama wasn't the Top Dog at that time. And the MAC won against the Big 10 last year if I'm not mistaken. I get your point but you are really reaching on this one.

True. I would have to look but the MAC has beaten about every Big10 team at some point other than Ohio State. We have come awfully close some years but we just can't put them away. There might be another team or two but OSU is the only team that we really feel like we need to beat.

That Toledo team that year wasn't even that good that year if I recall correctly and of course they really did not like that. Toledo is literally just down the road and so is a place where some of your recruits may decide to go to.

Yes the MAC was forced down for one year to IAA. The MAC apparently refused to cooperate and did not participate in the playoffs or anything of the sort. In addition the MAC schools got together and made a choice to go back up immediately. To force the matter all the MAC schools declared that they would make their stadiums 30k+ which they did. After declaring there was no teeth to keep the MAC down. Later when the rules were changed to average attendance sold and not stadium size most MAC schools downgraded their stadiums to a size more fitting to them and put programs in place to ensure they will always make the requirement legitimately (by the rules as we all know some of you are going to take issue with it but it is legally legitimate).

This is what I said before the MAC will always do exactly what it takes to be FBS and this is why it is silly when I hear somebody say that a MAC school will go down or the conference will.

Also some of you really need a reality check. I understand that some of you really like your league but even so you don't have to go and be insulting to prop yourselves up. The MAC has not just been playing for a long time we have been winning too. Back in the 70s the conference was really good with many top 20 teams (apparently it only went to 20 back then) and bowl wins against teams like Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. The late 90s and early 2000s we had top 25 teams again and victories over many major programs like a ranked Alabama team (since somebody likes them so much). In fact in terms of playing poorly there was the mid 2000s (where we did not look that good but still had a ranked team here or there) and of course the 80-early mid 90s. It could very well be that us dropping for a year could have been the catalyst for that time (plus a lack of bowls back then) but I am not sure. How can you make comments on how much you think the MAC sucks when every school here is still trying to imitate what the MAC has done already 40-50 years and even stuff from as recently as last year.

Some of you will cry out that you have potential. That is great I think a lot of places have potential. The MAC has potential. IF we did not then you would not see MAC schools getting into the Elite 8, being ranked in every Men's sport outside of track, be one game away from a BCS game, and go to the college world series. All of that was just from Kent State which is a prototypical MAC school and one most people here don't talk about. If Kent can do it so can almost any MAC school because we are so similar in profile.

You will find me one of the bigger supporters of the MAC who have no bone in the fight.

They are the only conference at the 1-A level that hasn't been dramatically altered (though the SEC additions were minor). Every other conference has seen dramatic changes. Through it all, for whatever reason, the Big East, Mountain West and C-USA never raided them. They may very well be one of the better non-power 1-A conferences. Most of all, I admire their stability. Many long-term teams have stayed there for decades. Yes, UCF and Temple came and went in football, but only Marshall left, and anyone who thought their stay would be long-term is a bit misguided. The core has stayed and that is what is admirable. Six schools have been there for over 60 years. Another three have been there over 40 years. That's longer than the SBC has been in existence. They currently have 12 full members and only five former full members

They also sponsor such a wide range of sports, 20 to be exact. The ones that impress me include men's swimming & diving, soccer and wrestling and women's field hockey.

If the SBC can attain what the MAC has, I will be very happy.

(05-02-2013 06:32 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  You will find me one of the bigger supporters of the MAC who have no bone in the fight.

They are the only conference at the 1-A level that hasn't been dramatically altered (though the SEC additions were minor). Every other conference has seen dramatic changes. Through it all, for whatever reason, the Big East, Mountain West and C-USA never raided them. They may very well be one of the better non-power 1-A conferences. Most of all, I admire their stability. Many long-term teams have stayed there for decades. Yes, UCF and Temple came and went in football, but only Marshall left, and anyone who thought their stay would be long-term is a bit misguided. The core has stayed and that is what is admirable. Six schools have been there for over 60 years. Another three have been there over 40 years. That's longer than the SBC has been in existence. They currently have 12 full members and only five former full members

They also sponsor such a wide range of sports, 20 to be exact. The ones that impress me include men's swimming & diving, soccer and wrestling and women's field hockey.

If the SBC can attain what the MAC has, I will be very happy.

I have always been surprised at the number of sports the MAC fields as a conference. I think it is one of the highest in FBS.

The MAC is old it is true. We are older than the Sun Belt, CUSA, MWC, Big East (and AAC), and ACC. Older than the PAC unless you count their time as the PCC (which I think is unfair they did disband).

UMass is not shown in above map. MAC is pretty well concentrated with 6 schools in Ohio and 3 in Michigan. Kind of a bus league of members that enjoy playing each other. Has been hard for them to justify leaving the MAC and incurring much higher travel expenses. Add to this that they are in the shadow of the Big10 and it has made them fairly insular. Most conferences have avoided asking MAC teams to join because the chances of their leaving their snug setting would be relatively low unless you asked several.
That's why I believe UMass will ask the Sun Belt for admittance in football if the MAC members sign a Grant of Rights agreement.

(05-02-2013 07:29 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  I am trying to get a grasp on the reason the Southland, and therefore my team, along with many other conferences dropped down to 1-AA after the 1981 season. I know The NCAA's Supreme Court case against Georgia and Oklahoma played a part, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_v._Boa..._Oklahoma.

I ran across an old thread started by arkstfan, that got into a little bit of detail, http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=25700.

I know the NCAA gave a deadline of 1982 for schools and conferences to decide. Some dropped willingly and some were made to by NCAA decree.

Any other information would be helpful.

Also, since Arkansas St was a member at the time, maybe arkstfan knows why the Independence Bowl didn't feature the SLC champ in 1981 and after. Did that play a part in why the SLC dropped? Many of the schools that went to 1-AA were indy's (like UNT and NELa, now UL-M). Were they forced down as well?

Any answers to these would be greatly appreciated and any other perspectives and information will be appreciated also.

Of all the Southland Conference schools in 1981, only UL and McNeese made the 17000 attendance average over the previous four years. UL chose to go 1-A, McNeese chose to go 1-AA. Arkansas State and Louisiana Tech asked for waivers but these requests were declined. The Southland required that UL go to 1-AA or leave the conference (we wanted to stay in the SLC for non-football sports), so we withdrew and became independent.

In later years, the Southland made exceptions. UTA dropped football and ULM went 1-A in football for example.

The Independence Bowl wanted out of the Southland tie-in and eventually did get out. When the SLC went 1-AA in 1982 they were in national championship playoffs and so they couldn't go to a bowl game. They later took Louisiana Tech a couple of times but in later years they would not take a Louisiana school not named LSU or Tulane. That aggravated the taxpayer who helped support the I-Bowl. For many years, they went after the "name" school. They would take a 6-5 BCS school over an 11-0 non-BCS school any day. It seems like they have loosened up in recent years and both Louisiana Tech and ULM got bowl bids.

(05-04-2013 06:07 PM)CaliforniaCajun Wrote:  Of all the Southland Conference schools in 1981, only UL and McNeese made the 17000 attendance average over the previous four years. UL chose to go 1-A, McNeese chose to go 1-AA. Arkansas State and Louisiana Tech asked for waivers but these requests were declined. The Southland required that UL go to 1-AA or leave the conference (we wanted to stay in the SLC for non-football sports), so we withdrew and became independent.

In later years, the Southland made exceptions. UTA dropped football and ULM went 1-A in football for example.

The Independence Bowl wanted out of the Southland tie-in and eventually did get out. When the SLC went 1-AA in 1982 they were in national championship playoffs and so they couldn't go to a bowl game. They later took Louisiana Tech a couple of times but in later years they would not take a Louisiana school not named LSU or Tulane. That aggravated the taxpayer who helped support the I-Bowl. For many years, they went after the "name" school. They would take a 6-5 BCS school over an 11-0 non-BCS school any day. It seems like they have loosened up in recent years and both Louisiana Tech and ULM got bowl bids.

Thanks for the heads up. Good stuff.

Something you said made me put two and two together. When looking into UTA football, I obviously have to look at the program's end. UTA's men sports were actually forced out of the Southland for a year to play as an independent. With the disbandment of the team, we violated one of the bylaws, all teams with conference membership must have a football and men's basketball team.

We were looking into membership in the conference that is now known as the Atlantic Sun. The SLC then changed their membership requirements to allow non-football teams into the conference and we rejoined for the 1986 season.

That paved the way for Monroe to move up their team and stay in the SLC and for UTSA and Southeastern Louisiana to join in the '90's, both of which didn't have teams.

I was always curious why the Cajuns left the SLC. I wonder if they tried to change the rules and were denied, just said fine and left, if the SLC was still mift about the drop and said see ya or anything or combo of.

(05-04-2013 07:28 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 06:07 PM)CaliforniaCajun Wrote:  Of all the Southland Conference schools in 1981, only UL and McNeese made the 17000 attendance average over the previous four years. UL chose to go 1-A, McNeese chose to go 1-AA. Arkansas State and Louisiana Tech asked for waivers but these requests were declined. The Southland required that UL go to 1-AA or leave the conference (we wanted to stay in the SLC for non-football sports), so we withdrew and became independent.

In later years, the Southland made exceptions. UTA dropped football and ULM went 1-A in football for example.

The Independence Bowl wanted out of the Southland tie-in and eventually did get out. When the SLC went 1-AA in 1982 they were in national championship playoffs and so they couldn't go to a bowl game. They later took Louisiana Tech a couple of times but in later years they would not take a Louisiana school not named LSU or Tulane. That aggravated the taxpayer who helped support the I-Bowl. For many years, they went after the "name" school. They would take a 6-5 BCS school over an 11-0 non-BCS school any day. It seems like they have loosened up in recent years and both Louisiana Tech and ULM got bowl bids.

Thanks for the heads up. Good stuff.

Something you said made me put two and two together. When looking into UTA football, I obviously have to look at the program's end. UTA's men sports were actually forced out of the Southland for a year to play as an independent. With the disbandment of the team, we violated one of the bylaws, all teams with conference membership must have a football and men's basketball team.

We were looking into membership in the conference that is now known as the Atlantic Sun. The SLC then changed their membership requirements to allow non-football teams into the conference and we rejoined for the 1986 season.

That paved the way for Monroe to move up their team and stay in the SLC and for UTSA and Southeastern Louisiana to join in the '90's, both of which didn't have teams.

I was always curious why the Cajuns left the SLC. I wonder if they tried to change the rules and were denied, just said fine and left, if the SLC was still mift about the drop and said see ya or anything or combo of.

This!

Remember though that five years after UL was forced to leave the Southland because they couldn't get a bylaw change Arkansas State, Lamar and Louisiana Tech left the Southland to form a new league with UL. I've never heard how the vote went but it would have taken four yes votes from ASU, Lamar, Louisiana Tech, McNeese, and UTA. Always found it funny that of the six schools when the issue came up that four ended up back together within such a short time.

Arkstfan, I have speculated about it, but maybe you can answer. What caused them to leave. I am certain it had something to do with us and our dropping of football.

(05-04-2013 09:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Remember though that five years after UL was forced to leave the Southland because they couldn't get a bylaw change Arkansas State, Lamar and Louisiana Tech left the Southland to form a new league with UL. I've never heard how the vote went but it would have taken four yes votes from ASU, Lamar, Louisiana Tech, McNeese, and UTA. Always found it funny that of the six schools when the issue came up that four ended up back together within such a short time.

Maybe it had to be a unanimous vote.

I'm probably the only one on earth left that heard our local sports guy say when the American South started that McNeese applied for membership. At halftime of our 1981 game vs. McNeese, the MSU AD was interviewed and he said that all SLC schools should drop to 1-AA or get out.

Translated, when the likes of McNeese couldn't force their fellow members to stay together they all of a sudden wanted to join us.

What I don't understand is why it took the American South/Sun Belt until Year 14 to start football.

It seems like every conference reaches a crossroads point and their response forever determines whether they become a transitory conference or one people actually want to join. I like Georgia Southern and Appalachian State because there is genuine fan interest rather than potential interest, but I simply refuse to sit on the porch and watch another round of cars pass through and pass me by. I think the likes of UL and ASU will regress if they don't keep their options open.

(05-04-2013 07:28 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  Thanks for the heads up. Good stuff.

Something you said made me put two and two together. When looking into UTA football, I obviously have to look at the program's end. UTA's men sports were actually forced out of the Southland for a year to play as an independent. With the disbandment of the team, we violated one of the bylaws, all teams with conference membership must have a football and men's basketball team.

We were looking into membership in the conference that is now known as the Atlantic Sun. The SLC then changed their membership requirements to allow non-football teams into the conference and we rejoined for the 1986 season.

That paved the way for Monroe to move up their team and stay in the SLC and for UTSA and Southeastern Louisiana to join in the '90's, both of which didn't have teams.

I was always curious why the Cajuns left the SLC. I wonder if they tried to change the rules and were denied, just said fine and left, if the SLC was still mift about the drop and said see ya or anything or combo of.

The Cajuns were an independent in football 16 out of the next 20 years, and independent in all sports until 1988 when the American South was formed. In 1991 the original Sun Belt was gutted, and the ASC "adopted" the remaining members WKU, Jacksonville, and USA, plus the name "Sun Belt."

I seem to remember the SLC gutting the Gulf Star and were forced to take three of the schools in a package (I want to say SFA and two others).

I also seem to remember a "Southland Football League" which included some schools that had a relationship only in football. It might have been because the SLC had some Olympic sports only schools.

The Southland is like the Sun Belt in that it has re-invented itself several times, but can't stay together. You can't adopt policies that try to force togetherness, you have to become a place where members don't want to leave. I don't know why they haven't been able to achieve continuity, but I suspect the reason is that certain members are holding down the conference's standards because of financial or other reasons. For example, the conference has tried to adopt measures requiring that opponents scheduled are Division I or fall into certain RPI ranges. If you are rebuilding a particular sport, it's harder to win under those circumstances, but if you don't adopt standards your best team gets snubbed or isn't as battle tested entering the postseason.

(05-04-2013 11:11 PM)CaliforniaCajun Wrote:  What I don't understand is why it took the American South/Sun Belt until Year 14 to start football.

Lack of critical mass.

ASC added UCF because of their intent to go I-A. They had budget issues that pushed back the move. When the TV dispute arose after the ASC/SBC merger they were allowed to leave early without penalty in part because of frustration over their move being put on hiatus.

Northern Illinois had agreed to join football only then they were able to rejoin the MAC in 1997.

Chattanooga toyed with the idea but could never string together the seasons needed to get the support in place.

At one point Jackson State seemed likely but wanted Southern and Grambling as well. Southern was interested if Grambling came but Grambling wasn't biting.

North Texas was on radar but we couldn't ever reach critical mass so they went Big West.

(05-04-2013 11:31 PM)CaliforniaCajun Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 07:28 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  Thanks for the heads up. Good stuff.

Something you said made me put two and two together. When looking into UTA football, I obviously have to look at the program's end. UTA's men sports were actually forced out of the Southland for a year to play as an independent. With the disbandment of the team, we violated one of the bylaws, all teams with conference membership must have a football and men's basketball team.

We were looking into membership in the conference that is now known as the Atlantic Sun. The SLC then changed their membership requirements to allow non-football teams into the conference and we rejoined for the 1986 season.

That paved the way for Monroe to move up their team and stay in the SLC and for UTSA and Southeastern Louisiana to join in the '90's, both of which didn't have teams.

I was always curious why the Cajuns left the SLC. I wonder if they tried to change the rules and were denied, just said fine and left, if the SLC was still mift about the drop and said see ya or anything or combo of.

The Cajuns were an independent in football 16 out of the next 20 years, and independent in all sports until 1988 when the American South was formed. In 1991 the original Sun Belt was gutted, and the ASC "adopted" the remaining members WKU, Jacksonville, and USA, plus the name "Sun Belt."

I seem to remember the SLC gutting the Gulf Star and were forced to take three of the schools in a package (I want to say SFA and two others).

I also seem to remember a "Southland Football League" which included some schools that had a relationship only in football. It might have been because the SLC had some Olympic sports only schools.

The Southland is like the Sun Belt in that it has re-invented itself several times, but can't stay together. You can't adopt policies that try to force togetherness, you have to become a place where members don't want to leave. I don't know why they haven't been able to achieve continuity, but I suspect the reason is that certain members are holding down the conference's standards because of financial or other reasons. For example, the conference has tried to adopt measures requiring that opponents scheduled are Division I or fall into certain RPI ranges. If you are rebuilding a particular sport, it's harder to win under those circumstances, but if you don't adopt standards your best team gets snubbed or isn't as battle tested entering the postseason.

The Southland's struggle has been finding teams truly on the same page. When everyone started moving Division I, Trinity and Abilene bailed. The ASC formed because the marketplace had changed and there was a real opportunity for a quality basketball league to make some noise but ASU, Tech, and Lamar felt the others weren't willing to make the commitment needed (and ASU and Tech were both eyeing I-A football). The ASC was even plagued by that taking UTPA just to get numbers but they were never on the same page as the rest of the league.

(05-04-2013 06:07 PM)CaliforniaCajun Wrote:  

(05-02-2013 07:29 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  I am trying to get a grasp on the reason the Southland, and therefore my team, along with many other conferences dropped down to 1-AA after the 1981 season. I know The NCAA's Supreme Court case against Georgia and Oklahoma played a part, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_v._Boa..._Oklahoma.

I ran across an old thread started by arkstfan, that got into a little bit of detail, http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=25700.

I know the NCAA gave a deadline of 1982 for schools and conferences to decide. Some dropped willingly and some were made to by NCAA decree.

Any other information would be helpful.

Also, since Arkansas St was a member at the time, maybe arkstfan knows why the Independence Bowl didn't feature the SLC champ in 1981 and after. Did that play a part in why the SLC dropped? Many of the schools that went to 1-AA were indy's (like UNT and NELa, now UL-M). Were they forced down as well?

Any answers to these would be greatly appreciated and any other perspectives and information will be appreciated also.

Of all the Southland Conference schools in 1981, only UL and McNeese made the 17000 attendance average over the previous four years. UL chose to go 1-A, McNeese chose to go 1-AA. Arkansas State and Louisiana Tech asked for waivers but these requests were declined. The Southland required that UL go to 1-AA or leave the conference (we wanted to stay in the SLC for non-football sports), so we withdrew and became independent.

In later years, the Southland made exceptions. UTA dropped football and ULM went 1-A in football for example.

The Independence Bowl wanted out of the Southland tie-in and eventually did get out. When the SLC went 1-AA in 1982 they were in national championship playoffs and so they couldn't go to a bowl game. They later took Louisiana Tech a couple of times but in later years they would not take a Louisiana school not named LSU or Tulane. That aggravated the taxpayer who helped support the I-Bowl. For many years, they went after the "name" school. They would take a 6-5 BCS school over an 11-0 non-BCS school any day. It seems like they have loosened up in recent years and both Louisiana Tech and ULM got bowl bids.

They don't seemed to have learned their lesson. In the last couple months, the I Bowl and their sponsor have been very clear that they're only interested in the SEC's scraps.

(05-02-2013 12:36 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  

(05-02-2013 12:29 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  Be careful what you say. You could insert SBC and SEC in that statement and find agreement amongst many people.

You could say that BAMA is top dog in the SEC and they have lost to a Sun Belt team. When was the last time a MAC team beat Michagan or Ohio St. the top dogs of the Big 10.

(05-02-2013 12:37 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(05-02-2013 12:29 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  Be careful what you say. You could insert SBC and SEC in that statement and find agreement amongst many people.

Historically though it seems the Big 10 has looked after the MAC in regards to keeping them 1A. The same cannot be said of the Sunbelt as they have a much shorter 1A/FBS football history.

Northern Illinois beat Alabama in 2003, Toledo has beaten both Michigan (2003) and Penn State back to back, and Miami has beaten the Big Ten Champion.

Cliff Notes version if 10 great MAC accomplishments and as we discussed on out board, these probably not the 10 greatEST as the writer isnt totally familiar with the MAC just giving us props.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...fs-cmu-mac


.

(05-05-2013 08:00 AM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(05-02-2013 12:36 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  

(05-02-2013 12:29 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  Be careful what you say. You could insert SBC and SEC in that statement and find agreement amongst many people.

You could say that BAMA is top dog in the SEC and they have lost to a Sun Belt team. When was the last time a MAC team beat Michagan or Ohio St. the top dogs of the Big 10.

(05-02-2013 12:37 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(05-02-2013 12:29 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  Be careful what you say. You could insert SBC and SEC in that statement and find agreement amongst many people.

Historically though it seems the Big 10 has looked after the MAC in regards to keeping them 1A. The same cannot be said of the Sunbelt as they have a much shorter 1A/FBS football history.

Northern Illinois beat Alabama in 2003, Toledo has beaten both Michigan (2003) and Penn State back to back, and Miami has beaten the Big Ten Champion.

Toledo has only played Michigan and Penn State one time each which were 8 years apart. So how could they have beat Michigan and Penn State back to back?

Thank you all. I am really glad I started this thread. A lot of really good information.

(05-04-2013 11:31 PM)CaliforniaCajun Wrote:  The Cajuns were an independent in football 16 out of the next 20 years, and independent in all sports until 1988 when the American South was formed. In 1991 the original Sun Belt was gutted, and the ASC "adopted" the remaining members WKU, Jacksonville, and USA, plus the name "Sun Belt."

I seem to remember the SLC gutting the Gulf Star and were forced to take three of the schools in a package (I want to say SFA and two others).

I also seem to remember a "Southland Football League" which included some schools that had a relationship only in football. It might have been because the SLC had some Olympic sports only schools.

The Southland is like the Sun Belt in that it has re-invented itself several times, but can't stay together. You can't adopt policies that try to force togetherness, you have to become a place where members don't want to leave. I don't know why they haven't been able to achieve continuity, but I suspect the reason is that certain members are holding down the conference's standards because of financial or other reasons. For example, the conference has tried to adopt measures requiring that opponents scheduled are Division I or fall into certain RPI ranges. If you are rebuilding a particular sport, it's harder to win under those circumstances, but if you don't adopt standards your best team gets snubbed or isn't as battle tested entering the postseason.

Interesting. I'd rather have the name American South than Sun Belt.

Southwest Texas State, Northwestern State, Sam Houston State and Stephen F. Austin joined the SLC from the Gulf Star. Nicholls State and Southeastern Louisiana were the other mebers of the Gulf Star and they would eventually join the SLC too.

Troy State and Jacksonville State were apart of the SLC in football.
Instead of calling them affiliate members, they called it the SFL. I am sure it had something to do with the bylaws.

The problem with the Southland is something that is out of its control. Dividing D1 is just stupid. If people want to play at the highest level, it shouldn't be divided. The SLC will never find enough schools that are content at just being at the 1-AA level.

As far as RPI, the SLC doesn't have a problem with good schools, it has a problem with bottom-feeders. Nicholls is constantly the worse school in all-sports as an example, but because they field a football team, the SLC will struggle in every other sport.

(05-05-2013 01:13 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The Southland's struggle has been finding teams truly on the same page. When everyone started moving Division I, Trinity and Abilene bailed. The ASC formed because the marketplace had changed and there was a real opportunity for a quality basketball league to make some noise but ASU, Tech, and Lamar felt the others weren't willing to make the commitment needed (and ASU and Tech were both eyeing I-A football). The ASC was even plagued by that taking UTPA just to get numbers but they were never on the same page as the rest of the league.

Trinity and Abilene Christian bailed because the NCAA went from College and University Divisions to D I, D II and D III. Trinity went the III route and AC went to II. UTA was the first school in the SLC to move to the University Division, so they stayed in the SLC and Arkansas St and Lamar followed.

I am not surprised the schools felt the SLC wasn't willing to make the commitment to basketball. That is the SLC I know. Every move is based on football. Every other sport suffers if they have a football team. Texas A&M Corpus Christi was the only bone thrown towards Bball and they were added because their team was pretty good at the time. However, they have regressed and the rest of their sports are sub-par.

UTPA at least had a really good baseball team at the time that made a lot of runs in the NCAA tourney. They at least brought something to the table. I can't say the same for four or five of the SLC non-football teams.

(05-05-2013 08:50 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  Thank you all. I am really glad I started this thread. A lot of really good information.

(05-04-2013 11:31 PM)CaliforniaCajun Wrote:  The Cajuns were an independent in football 16 out of the next 20 years, and independent in all sports until 1988 when the American South was formed. In 1991 the original Sun Belt was gutted, and the ASC "adopted" the remaining members WKU, Jacksonville, and USA, plus the name "Sun Belt."

I seem to remember the SLC gutting the Gulf Star and were forced to take three of the schools in a package (I want to say SFA and two others).

I also seem to remember a "Southland Football League" which included some schools that had a relationship only in football. It might have been because the SLC had some Olympic sports only schools.

The Southland is like the Sun Belt in that it has re-invented itself several times, but can't stay together. You can't adopt policies that try to force togetherness, you have to become a place where members don't want to leave. I don't know why they haven't been able to achieve continuity, but I suspect the reason is that certain members are holding down the conference's standards because of financial or other reasons. For example, the conference has tried to adopt measures requiring that opponents scheduled are Division I or fall into certain RPI ranges. If you are rebuilding a particular sport, it's harder to win under those circumstances, but if you don't adopt standards your best team gets snubbed or isn't as battle tested entering the postseason.

Interesting. I'd rather have the name American South than Sun Belt.

Southwest Texas State, Northwestern State, Sam Houston State and Stephen F. Austin joined the SLC from the Gulf Star. Nicholls State and Southeastern Louisiana were the other mebers of the Gulf Star and they would eventually join the SLC too.

Troy State and Jacksonville State were apart of the SLC in football.
Instead of calling them affiliate members, they called it the SFL. I am sure it had something to do with the bylaws.

The problem with the Southland is something that is out of its control. Dividing D1 is just stupid. If people want to play at the highest level, it shouldn't be divided. The SLC will never find enough schools that are content at just being at the 1-AA level.

As far as RPI, the SLC doesn't have a problem with good schools, it has a problem with bottom-feeders. Nicholls is constantly the worse school in all-sports as an example, but because they field a football team, the SLC will struggle in every other sport.

(05-05-2013 01:13 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The Southland's struggle has been finding teams truly on the same page. When everyone started moving Division I, Trinity and Abilene bailed. The ASC formed because the marketplace had changed and there was a real opportunity for a quality basketball league to make some noise but ASU, Tech, and Lamar felt the others weren't willing to make the commitment needed (and ASU and Tech were both eyeing I-A football). The ASC was even plagued by that taking UTPA just to get numbers but they were never on the same page as the rest of the league.

Trinity and Abilene Christian bailed because the NCAA went from College and University Divisions to D I, D II and D III. Trinity went the III route and AC went to II. UTA was the first school in the SLC to move to the University Division, so they stayed in the SLC and Arkansas St and Lamar followed.

I am not surprised the schools felt the SLC wasn't willing to make the commitment to basketball. That is the SLC I know. Every move is based on football. Every other sport suffers if they have a football team. Texas A&M Corpus Christi was the only bone thrown towards Bball and they were added because their team was pretty good at the time. However, they have regressed and the rest of their sports are sub-par.

UTPA at least had a really good baseball team at the time that made a lot of runs in the NCAA tourney. They at least brought something to the table. I can't say the same for four or five of the SLC non-football teams.

some of the bowl shenanigans began when the ncaa started mandating the amount of the payouts. many charity bowls had to take on corporate names and select "name" teams to meet the criteria. that's one reason the independance bowl had to drop the slc..hence we have the Joe Magillicuty-Poulan Weedeater-Amway-Whoever bowl