(11-19-2013 05:10 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Exactly. This has nothing to do with adding FCS schools, it has to do with a glaring error in a newspaper that pops up far too often. Its not like the editor intentionally chose to ignore us because we added FCS schools. If that was the case, he would have ignored CUSA too.

.
Exactly, there is no excuse for this occuring regardless of who is in the league. They left out an entire FBS conference period.

I dropped my subscription to that rag 5 years ago and stopped buying it from the box 2 years ago. Not worth the money.

(11-19-2013 05:27 PM)bobcatbuc Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 04:01 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 03:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 02:07 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 01:46 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This instance is probably just lazy journalism.

However, it highlights a danger that the SBC needs to find a way to address. The SBC will be marginalized if it becomes the conference of transitioning from FCS to FBS. That is to say, the more the conference is swamped by teams and programs of a certain calibre the less relevant to the national conversation the SBC will be. I don't think anybody in the SBC, despite a level of security a transition type conference brings, wants to be relegated to being just that and thereby be excluded from the national conversation.

Well I cant help but get my feathers a little rustled reading that comment. "teams and programs of a certain caliber"? I don't think the caliber was what CUSA was looking at when taking the two FL programs or UNCC. How is our conference any worse than theirs?
Plus, You can call me crazy if you want but I consider Georgia Southern and App State to be as high of a caliber program as any in this conference or theirs! And... how are we to end this trend of taking programs from the FCS anyway? If we are going to get to 12 - Which I think is imperative to the advancement of the Sun Belt - then we are going to have to take an FCS program unless you think we are going to poach a program from another conference.

Of course they will have to come from the FCS.

You can think of it like this; adding teams that are lower than the FBS middle ground swamps out the conference and lessens it in the eyes of the whole FBS machine.

Now, considering that adding teams from the FCS that are significantly smaller than the middle ground of the FCS and you have even more of the problem I mentioned.

Perception is reality and the SBC needs some help.

We need to raise our perception, but it can be argued that some of the Added FCS teams, at least in this last round, are above the rank of the FBS adds the conference made. So the question is what does "smaller" mean in this paragraph? Smaller perception?

The only team I can figure out that you are talking about is GAST. And I think they have more potential than the two FBS we brought in.

Maybe you are talking about previous expansions and the FL programs?

At any rate, help is coming! I believe that the additions from the SoCon and TX State are going to turn some heads with their on field performance and early. Looking forward to winning soom OOC games for the coference. Losing FAU/FIU/NT wont hurt us and will weaken CUSA. Still wish we had held onto WKU. I can think of a couple of FCS programs that could help us, JMU being one. Adding FCS might have an initial Knee jerk negative effect, but the strength of the recent ones added and with USA coming along nicely - that will quickly be left behind. The average BCS fan doesn't know the difference between the upper crust of 1-AA, the Sun Belt , the Mac or half of CUSA. And to be honest with you, there isn't that much difference anyway in many cases.

If we are taking in Idaho in, why not go for Montana and Montana State?
Montana State sells out almost every home game (even if it is only 17,500) and won the last 3 Big Sky titles. Montana had a winning season from 1986-2011. In Washington-Grizzly Stadium they have a winning percentage of .890 including playoffs. They hold the records for most playoff appearances in a row (17), Big Sky Conference titles in a row (12), and overall playoff appearances (19). Their success made them the most successful program in all college football in the 2000s (119 wins) and third most successful team in FCS in the 1990s (93 wins). Montana has also led the FCS the last 2 years in attendance at 22,600. Plus the surrounding view of the campus is amazing.

What does this have to do with USA Today forgetting about the Sun Belt?

The biggest thing I took away from this was... USA Today still exists??

(11-19-2013 06:52 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 05:27 PM)bobcatbuc Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 04:01 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 03:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 02:07 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  Well I cant help but get my feathers a little rustled reading that comment. "teams and programs of a certain caliber"? I don't think the caliber was what CUSA was looking at when taking the two FL programs or UNCC. How is our conference any worse than theirs?
Plus, You can call me crazy if you want but I consider Georgia Southern and App State to be as high of a caliber program as any in this conference or theirs! And... how are we to end this trend of taking programs from the FCS anyway? If we are going to get to 12 - Which I think is imperative to the advancement of the Sun Belt - then we are going to have to take an FCS program unless you think we are going to poach a program from another conference.

Of course they will have to come from the FCS.

You can think of it like this; adding teams that are lower than the FBS middle ground swamps out the conference and lessens it in the eyes of the whole FBS machine.

Now, considering that adding teams from the FCS that are significantly smaller than the middle ground of the FCS and you have even more of the problem I mentioned.

Perception is reality and the SBC needs some help.

We need to raise our perception, but it can be argued that some of the Added FCS teams, at least in this last round, are above the rank of the FBS adds the conference made. So the question is what does "smaller" mean in this paragraph? Smaller perception?

The only team I can figure out that you are talking about is GAST. And I think they have more potential than the two FBS we brought in.

Maybe you are talking about previous expansions and the FL programs?

At any rate, help is coming! I believe that the additions from the SoCon and TX State are going to turn some heads with their on field performance and early. Looking forward to winning soom OOC games for the coference. Losing FAU/FIU/NT wont hurt us and will weaken CUSA. Still wish we had held onto WKU. I can think of a couple of FCS programs that could help us, JMU being one. Adding FCS might have an initial Knee jerk negative effect, but the strength of the recent ones added and with USA coming along nicely - that will quickly be left behind. The average BCS fan doesn't know the difference between the upper crust of 1-AA, the Sun Belt , the Mac or half of CUSA. And to be honest with you, there isn't that much difference anyway in many cases.

If we are taking in Idaho in, why not go for Montana and Montana State?
Montana State sells out almost every home game (even if it is only 17,500) and won the last 3 Big Sky titles. Montana had a winning season from 1986-2011. In Washington-Grizzly Stadium they have a winning percentage of .890 including playoffs. They hold the records for most playoff appearances in a row (17), Big Sky Conference titles in a row (12), and overall playoff appearances (19). Their success made them the most successful program in all college football in the 2000s (119 wins) and third most successful team in FCS in the 1990s (93 wins). Montana has also led the FCS the last 2 years in attendance at 22,600. Plus the surrounding view of the campus is amazing.

What does this have to do with USA Today forgetting about the Sun Belt?

The relevance has to do with the diminishing, seemingly, perception of the SBC nationally.

As I said earlier, this is probably just an editorial oversight with nothing behind it.

It does beg the question though, how is the SBC going to stay relevant going forward. What is the strategy the conference is adopting? If it is to become a transition type conference then how will that play out going forward?

It's just a simple conversation. The future of the conference demands that be addressed instead of patting ourselves on the back and pretending that Georgia Southern, no disrespect, is as good as a WKU or even F_U for the perception of the conference.

(11-19-2013 07:55 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 06:52 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 05:27 PM)bobcatbuc Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 04:01 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 03:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Of course they will have to come from the FCS.

You can think of it like this; adding teams that are lower than the FBS middle ground swamps out the conference and lessens it in the eyes of the whole FBS machine.

Now, considering that adding teams from the FCS that are significantly smaller than the middle ground of the FCS and you have even more of the problem I mentioned.

Perception is reality and the SBC needs some help.

We need to raise our perception, but it can be argued that some of the Added FCS teams, at least in this last round, are above the rank of the FBS adds the conference made. So the question is what does "smaller" mean in this paragraph? Smaller perception?

The only team I can figure out that you are talking about is GAST. And I think they have more potential than the two FBS we brought in.

Maybe you are talking about previous expansions and the FL programs?

At any rate, help is coming! I believe that the additions from the SoCon and TX State are going to turn some heads with their on field performance and early. Looking forward to winning soom OOC games for the coference. Losing FAU/FIU/NT wont hurt us and will weaken CUSA. Still wish we had held onto WKU. I can think of a couple of FCS programs that could help us, JMU being one. Adding FCS might have an initial Knee jerk negative effect, but the strength of the recent ones added and with USA coming along nicely - that will quickly be left behind. The average BCS fan doesn't know the difference between the upper crust of 1-AA, the Sun Belt , the Mac or half of CUSA. And to be honest with you, there isn't that much difference anyway in many cases.

If we are taking in Idaho in, why not go for Montana and Montana State?
Montana State sells out almost every home game (even if it is only 17,500) and won the last 3 Big Sky titles. Montana had a winning season from 1986-2011. In Washington-Grizzly Stadium they have a winning percentage of .890 including playoffs. They hold the records for most playoff appearances in a row (17), Big Sky Conference titles in a row (12), and overall playoff appearances (19). Their success made them the most successful program in all college football in the 2000s (119 wins) and third most successful team in FCS in the 1990s (93 wins). Montana has also led the FCS the last 2 years in attendance at 22,600. Plus the surrounding view of the campus is amazing.

What does this have to do with USA Today forgetting about the Sun Belt?

The relevance has to do with the diminishing, seemingly, perception of the SBC nationally.

As I said earlier, this is probably just an editorial oversight with nothing behind it.

It does beg the question though, how is the SBC going to stay relevant going forward. What is the strategy the conference is adopting? If it is to become a transition type conference then how will that play out going forward?

It's just a simple conversation. The future of the conference demands that be addressed instead of patting ourselves on the back and pretending that Georgia Southern, no disrespect, is as good as a WKU or even F_U for the perception of the conference.

The perception of the conference is bad because teams like ULL NEVER win big out of conference games, not because Ga Southern is joining.

This year is a perfect example as the Cajuns laid an egg against a bad Arkansas team and KState that had just lost to a FCS team.

This has to change for the SBC's reputation to improve. All the current teams have been unsuccessful for a decade. Let's see what USA, Ga Southern, App and TX St can do. Nowhere to go but up thanks to the low bar set.

(11-19-2013 09:08 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 07:55 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 06:52 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 05:27 PM)bobcatbuc Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 04:01 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  We need to raise our perception, but it can be argued that some of the Added FCS teams, at least in this last round, are above the rank of the FBS adds the conference made. So the question is what does "smaller" mean in this paragraph? Smaller perception?

The only team I can figure out that you are talking about is GAST. And I think they have more potential than the two FBS we brought in.

Maybe you are talking about previous expansions and the FL programs?

At any rate, help is coming! I believe that the additions from the SoCon and TX State are going to turn some heads with their on field performance and early. Looking forward to winning soom OOC games for the coference. Losing FAU/FIU/NT wont hurt us and will weaken CUSA. Still wish we had held onto WKU. I can think of a couple of FCS programs that could help us, JMU being one. Adding FCS might have an initial Knee jerk negative effect, but the strength of the recent ones added and with USA coming along nicely - that will quickly be left behind. The average BCS fan doesn't know the difference between the upper crust of 1-AA, the Sun Belt , the Mac or half of CUSA. And to be honest with you, there isn't that much difference anyway in many cases.

If we are taking in Idaho in, why not go for Montana and Montana State?
Montana State sells out almost every home game (even if it is only 17,500) and won the last 3 Big Sky titles. Montana had a winning season from 1986-2011. In Washington-Grizzly Stadium they have a winning percentage of .890 including playoffs. They hold the records for most playoff appearances in a row (17), Big Sky Conference titles in a row (12), and overall playoff appearances (19). Their success made them the most successful program in all college football in the 2000s (119 wins) and third most successful team in FCS in the 1990s (93 wins). Montana has also led the FCS the last 2 years in attendance at 22,600. Plus the surrounding view of the campus is amazing.

What does this have to do with USA Today forgetting about the Sun Belt?

The relevance has to do with the diminishing, seemingly, perception of the SBC nationally.

As I said earlier, this is probably just an editorial oversight with nothing behind it.

It does beg the question though, how is the SBC going to stay relevant going forward. What is the strategy the conference is adopting? If it is to become a transition type conference then how will that play out going forward?

It's just a simple conversation. The future of the conference demands that be addressed instead of patting ourselves on the back and pretending that Georgia Southern, no disrespect, is as good as a WKU or even F_U for the perception of the conference.

The perception of the conference is bad because teams like ULL NEVER win big out of conference games, not because Ga Southern is joining.

This year is a perfect example as the Cajuns laid an egg against a bad Arkansas team and KState that had just lost to a FCS team.

This has to change for the SBC's reputation to improve. All the current teams have been unsuccessful for a decade. Let's see what USA, Ga Southern, App and TX St can do.

I think that's certainly part of it.

That said, in today's college football world you'll only ever be as good as your competition is perceived to be. FCS additions tend to lessen that perception.

Then I guess CUSA is really screwed adding Charlotte that didn't even have a football program. And I guarantee you the Sun Belt's reputation will be hurt much more by FBS additions Idaho and NMSU than FCS additions App St and Ga Southern.

The FCS stigma is quickly forgotten once a season or two passes. WKU went from a FCS addition to people being in tears two years later when they left. Lol

(11-19-2013 09:20 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  Then I guess CUSA is really screwed adding Charlotte that didn't even have a football program. And I guarantee you the Sun Belt's reputation will be hurt much more by FBS additions Idaho and NMSU than FCS additions App St and Ga Southern.

The FCS stigma is quickly forgotten once a season or two passes. WKU went from a FCS addition to people being in tears two years later when they left. Lol

WKU is a horrible example to prove your point. They've been a member of the conference for over 30 years. Only USA (only remaining founding member) has been in the conference longer. People aren't lamenting the loss of WKU because of some success in football.

Other than hotels does anyone subscribe to USA today?

(11-19-2013 09:08 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 07:55 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 06:52 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 05:27 PM)bobcatbuc Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 04:01 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  We need to raise our perception, but it can be argued that some of the Added FCS teams, at least in this last round, are above the rank of the FBS adds the conference made. So the question is what does "smaller" mean in this paragraph? Smaller perception?

The only team I can figure out that you are talking about is GAST. And I think they have more potential than the two FBS we brought in.

Maybe you are talking about previous expansions and the FL programs?

At any rate, help is coming! I believe that the additions from the SoCon and TX State are going to turn some heads with their on field performance and early. Looking forward to winning soom OOC games for the coference. Losing FAU/FIU/NT wont hurt us and will weaken CUSA. Still wish we had held onto WKU. I can think of a couple of FCS programs that could help us, JMU being one. Adding FCS might have an initial Knee jerk negative effect, but the strength of the recent ones added and with USA coming along nicely - that will quickly be left behind. The average BCS fan doesn't know the difference between the upper crust of 1-AA, the Sun Belt , the Mac or half of CUSA. And to be honest with you, there isn't that much difference anyway in many cases.

If we are taking in Idaho in, why not go for Montana and Montana State?
Montana State sells out almost every home game (even if it is only 17,500) and won the last 3 Big Sky titles. Montana had a winning season from 1986-2011. In Washington-Grizzly Stadium they have a winning percentage of .890 including playoffs. They hold the records for most playoff appearances in a row (17), Big Sky Conference titles in a row (12), and overall playoff appearances (19). Their success made them the most successful program in all college football in the 2000s (119 wins) and third most successful team in FCS in the 1990s (93 wins). Montana has also led the FCS the last 2 years in attendance at 22,600. Plus the surrounding view of the campus is amazing.

What does this have to do with USA Today forgetting about the Sun Belt?

The relevance has to do with the diminishing, seemingly, perception of the SBC nationally.

As I said earlier, this is probably just an editorial oversight with nothing behind it.

It does beg the question though, how is the SBC going to stay relevant going forward. What is the strategy the conference is adopting? If it is to become a transition type conference then how will that play out going forward?

It's just a simple conversation. The future of the conference demands that be addressed instead of patting ourselves on the back and pretending that Georgia Southern, no disrespect, is as good as a WKU or even F_U for the perception of the conference.

The perception of the conference is bad because teams like ULL NEVER win big out of conference games, not because Ga Southern is joining.

This year is a perfect example as the Cajuns laid an egg against a bad Arkansas team and KState that had just lost to a FCS team.

This has to change for the SBC's reputation to improve. All the current teams have been unsuccessful for a decade. Let's see what USA, Ga Southern, App and TX St can do. Nowhere to go but up thanks to the low bar set.

Well the bar is actually set higher for GaSouth, since you have no victories over any FBS programs ever. And considering your performance this season at the FCS level, you certainly will not have a major impact on this conference next year. So you will only drag it down further for the first few years. Thanks.

Cajuns are 8-4 in their last 12 games against FCS and have more FCS losses than ANY FBS program.

Besides, you guys had a time against powerhouse GaSt that was beaten badly by two FCS teams.

(11-19-2013 09:11 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 09:08 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 07:55 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 06:52 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 05:27 PM)bobcatbuc Wrote:  If we are taking in Idaho in, why not go for Montana and Montana State?
Montana State sells out almost every home game (even if it is only 17,500) and won the last 3 Big Sky titles. Montana had a winning season from 1986-2011. In Washington-Grizzly Stadium they have a winning percentage of .890 including playoffs. They hold the records for most playoff appearances in a row (17), Big Sky Conference titles in a row (12), and overall playoff appearances (19). Their success made them the most successful program in all college football in the 2000s (119 wins) and third most successful team in FCS in the 1990s (93 wins). Montana has also led the FCS the last 2 years in attendance at 22,600. Plus the surrounding view of the campus is amazing.

What does this have to do with USA Today forgetting about the Sun Belt?

The relevance has to do with the diminishing, seemingly, perception of the SBC nationally.

As I said earlier, this is probably just an editorial oversight with nothing behind it.

It does beg the question though, how is the SBC going to stay relevant going forward. What is the strategy the conference is adopting? If it is to become a transition type conference then how will that play out going forward?

It's just a simple conversation. The future of the conference demands that be addressed instead of patting ourselves on the back and pretending that Georgia Southern, no disrespect, is as good as a WKU or even F_U for the perception of the conference.

The perception of the conference is bad because teams like ULL NEVER win big out of conference games, not because Ga Southern is joining.

This year is a perfect example as the Cajuns laid an egg against a bad Arkansas team and KState that had just lost to a FCS team.

This has to change for the SBC's reputation to improve. All the current teams have been unsuccessful for a decade. Let's see what USA, Ga Southern, App and TX St can do.

I think that's certainly part of it.

That said, in today's college football world you'll only ever be as good as your competition is perceived to be. FCS additions tend to lessen that perception.

Sure it is, but it also has to do with the perception of being a transition conference as well. How will this conference look next year when it adds NMST, Idaho and the supposed FCS powers APP. State and GaSouth who are not having great seasons?

With all is warts, the SBC looks no better on paper next season when you add FCS programs that aren't living up to their preseason hype.

(11-19-2013 10:09 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  Cajuns are 8-4 in their last 12 games against FCS and have more FCS losses than ANY FBS program.

Besides, you guys had a time against powerhouse GaSt that was beaten badly by two FCS teams.

Move along bubba, because even with your glory seasons you have yet to defeat any FBS program. And looking at your performance this season, NMST would score 60 pts on GaSouth. Right now your resume is a total blank at the FBS level, and your last season in the FCS has been nothing close to your glory years. LEGEND OF THE FALL!

GSU Eagles is actually right. As long as our best teams continue to lose by 20 plus points to AQ programs, we will never earn any respect.

People look at NIU and see they have a win over Iowa and a blowout win over Purdue. They look at ASU last year and see losses to Oregon and Nebraska, and UL this year with losses to Pigville and Kansas State. Automatically we are assumed to not be as good as NIU.

ULM can continue to beat up on SEC and ACC teams all they want, but unless the Warhawks start winning the conference, they'll only be known as a giant killer and not as a solid football program.

(11-19-2013 10:18 PM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  Move along bubba, because even with your glory seasons you have yet to defeat any FBS program. And looking at your performance this season, NMST would score 60 pts on GaSouth. Right now your resume is a total blank at the FBS level, and your last season in the FCS has been nothing close to your glory years. LEGEND OF THE FALL!

FWIW there were a few Cajun fans (honestly, it may have just been one) pointing fingers at other Sun Belt teams earlier this season for losing or playing close games with FCS teams. I will remind you that as an FBS team you are 37-20 (.610) against FCS teams.

Yes, we are 0-17 against FBS teams, you are also 1-13 against those same teams (Colorado St, Alabama, Auburn, Florida, UGA). With a solo win over Colorado State. Congratulations.

Like a poster said earlier, until BOTH of us change these numbers the Sun Belt will continue to look bad in the eyes of the media and casual fan.

(11-19-2013 10:12 PM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 09:11 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 09:08 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 07:55 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 06:52 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  What does this have to do with USA Today forgetting about the Sun Belt?

The relevance has to do with the diminishing, seemingly, perception of the SBC nationally.

As I said earlier, this is probably just an editorial oversight with nothing behind it.

It does beg the question though, how is the SBC going to stay relevant going forward. What is the strategy the conference is adopting? If it is to become a transition type conference then how will that play out going forward?

It's just a simple conversation. The future of the conference demands that be addressed instead of patting ourselves on the back and pretending that Georgia Southern, no disrespect, is as good as a WKU or even F_U for the perception of the conference.

The perception of the conference is bad because teams like ULL NEVER win big out of conference games, not because Ga Southern is joining.

This year is a perfect example as the Cajuns laid an egg against a bad Arkansas team and KState that had just lost to a FCS team.

This has to change for the SBC's reputation to improve. All the current teams have been unsuccessful for a decade. Let's see what USA, Ga Southern, App and TX St can do.

I think that's certainly part of it.

That said, in today's college football world you'll only ever be as good as your competition is perceived to be. FCS additions tend to lessen that perception.

Sure it is, but it also has to do with the perception of being a transition conference as well. How will this conference look next year when it adds NMST, Idaho and the supposed FCS powers APP. State and GaSouth who are not having great seasons?

With all is warts, the SBC looks no better on paper next season when you add FCS programs that aren't living up to their preseason hype.

The idea of being a transition conference is the SBC's biggest safety net and biggest danger.

(11-19-2013 10:33 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  GSU Eagles is actually right. As long as our best teams continue to lose by 20 plus points to AQ programs, we will never earn any respect.

People look at NIU and see they have a win over Iowa and a blowout win over Purdue. They look at ASU last year and see losses to Oregon and Nebraska, and UL this year with losses to Pigville and Kansas State. Automatically we are assumed to not be as good as NIU.

ULM can continue to beat up on SEC and ACC teams all they want, but unless the Warhawks start winning the conference, they'll only be known as a giant killer and not as a solid football program.

That's really only part of the problem.

At least there were people prior to the season that thought the Cajuns would split the first two games.

Everybody expects the newcomers to FBS to be the worst teams in the nation. Being a transition conference, if that's the direction we end up going in, will only mean that we will always be viewed as the worst conference in the country simply by virtue of always having transition teams.

The danger can be eliminated once things settle down. We'll all be able to settle in and really grow our league's reputation once everyone quits worrying about the next league to realign for no reason whatsoever.

(11-19-2013 10:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:33 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  GSU Eagles is actually right. As long as our best teams continue to lose by 20 plus points to AQ programs, we will never earn any respect.

People look at NIU and see they have a win over Iowa and a blowout win over Purdue. They look at ASU last year and see losses to Oregon and Nebraska, and UL this year with losses to Pigville and Kansas State. Automatically we are assumed to not be as good as NIU.

ULM can continue to beat up on SEC and ACC teams all they want, but unless the Warhawks start winning the conference, they'll only be known as a giant killer and not as a solid football program.

That's really only part of the problem.

At least there were people prior to the season that thought the Cajuns would split the first two games.

Everybody expects the newcomers to FBS to be the worst teams in the nation. Being a transition conference, if that's the direction we end up going in, will only mean that we will always be viewed as the worst conference in the country simply by virtue of always having transition teams.

That is not necessarily the truth. CUSA has two transition programs, and will have three in the near future, and they are looked on as good programs.

The difference? UTSA and ODU are winning.

If App and GSU start winning games, no one is going to call them awful because they are transitioning.