(05-16-2014 01:45 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 01:19 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 01:12 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  So basically he's saying, "it's not my call, but if you ask me it's not something I would do."

Yes, but given his relationship with our chancellor...that pretty much guarantees we're a no vote. And if we're a no vote...that means UALR is a no vote. Throw in that I don't see the Cajuns taking a different opinion here given they have a lot of the same ideas we do, and you could see where this could be a straight block for UMass.

Interestingly enough he did not mention Liberty at all.

Do you think there is anything UMass could do could swing them? Obviously it doesn't seem like the possibility of UMass playing 4 OOC basketball games against Sun Belt teams interests them very much.

Why should the possibility of UMass playing 4 OOC games against Sun Belt teams be enough? Benson was stupid in suggesting such a thing to the Presidents! All he has done is devalue the Sun Belt Conference brand further by offering any compromise to UMass that would allow them to become a football member only. I agree with the MAC, UMass brings very little value to this conference without basketball. Best of luck as an independent.

The bad thing is, I don't think 4 is enough. It could be my own ignorance on basketball scheduling, but I'd want at least half the teams having a game with UMass, with half of those games being home games in the Sun Belt schools.

I see the value in it... While it currently waters down football, it would increase basketball's exposure. Couple that with full membership for NMSU, and you have just improved Sun Belt basketball quite a bit.

But asking for 6-7 games is a HUGE amount in basketball. I honestly don't know.

(05-16-2014 03:36 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  The bad thing is, I don't think 4 is enough. It could be my own ignorance on basketball scheduling, but I'd want at least half the teams having a game with UMass, with half of those games being home games in the Sun Belt schools.

I see the value in it... While it currently waters down football, it would increase basketball's exposure. Couple that with full membership for NMSU, and you have just improved Sun Belt basketball quite a bit.

But asking for 6-7 games is a HUGE amount in basketball. I honestly don't know.

Yeah, that would be a huge amount of games. Even 4 is a lot. You have to remember that for us to keep our RPI high we have to schedule a lot of games vs P5 and Big East schools. Being in the A-10 we rely heavily on OOC games to keep our RPI high.

(05-16-2014 09:24 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 08:16 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  What I need is a financial analysis that shows me how this thing will make enough money for my school to be worth the risk of the league losing out on its first end-of-season ranking or losing an access bowl slot. There are numbers that would justify a CCG. I have not seen them. There is no guarantee that this thing will not lose money for the league.
Has anyone assured us that their is a desire by some tv network to televise AND PAY FOR a CCG? I haven't seen that.
Is there any analysis showing that an SBC leader will gain any sort of boost amongst the pollsters or committee by beating yet another SBC team with a lesser record in one final game? None that I have seen.
A CCG is most beneficial when you have two ranked teams fighting it out for a rankings boost at the end of the season. We've never even had one ranked team yet. Breaking through that barrier is the first concern.
There will be a time when the need for an SBC CCG will be obvious. I don't see any evidence we are there yet.

What many are failing to see is this is not about making money but it is about exposure. While other conferences are holding their CCG's, the Sun Belt season will be OVER. How many G-5 schools here are really in it to make money? Ha! None. We don't spend $20-$25 million a year on our athletic programs for the $1M CFP pay-out or the road body/money games. We spend the money to say 'We Belong', i.e. we feel we are with a group of our peers and this is what we do.

Now, pro's and con's of the CCG. Con: you may lose your CFP bid. Ha! that's a laugh. Let's give equal weighting to the G-5's; so once every 5 years the Sun Belt may have a school in a qualifying position. That's an extra ~$6M split 11/12 ways. Big Whoop. And the odds of losing those dollars due to a CCG are 50/50 (though the higher ranked team should be playing at home with a better team, so better than 50/50). That's the risk of a CCG.

Pro's: A nationally televised SBC CCG will attract somewhere around one million viewers on ESPN. Let's say the host school is UL-L or ArkSt or Appy; wouldn't that draw 40,000 fans? A full stadium, EVERY YEAR, Nationally televised with a chance at a CFP slot would be great EXPOSURE for a G5 conference named the Sun Belt.

So again, look at the reason you play FBS football. It sure as heck isn't about getting paid, it's for exposure and about doing what your peer schools are doing (don't bring up the BXII, the SBC aint the BXII).

So SBC football can close down at the end of November and wait around for their bowls or they can get another nationally telivised game EVERY YEAR that may have some real importance. And we all know there are a bunch of SBC schools who could use the additional exposure.

Now if UMass is unwilling to come right now, then all of the above is moot.

Post of the thread minus the UMASS part. Exposure.

(05-15-2014 08:39 PM)rknj8993 Wrote:  To me, it sounds like there was not a team that all members were willing to place their money on. With JMU and MoSt out, our best options were far from "the best." I think the members are making the right move by waiting another year and seeing where everything stands next year. This gives all of the potential candidates another year to prepare and the current members another year to solidify the conference.

This, sound like a team could not be found and just a spin. I want a CCG but waiting a year or two for the potential candidates to decide what they want to do is not a bad idea. Lets see who is serious and even if an EKU can get its act together and shock the doubters. Might be a blessing in disguise in the long run.

(05-15-2014 10:33 PM)Campaign4Liberty Wrote:  I have to yawn a lot here. Everyone is getting all bent out of shape over twitter comments and a CCG. No SBC for LU? No worries. We'll just schedule as many SBC teams as possible OOC in all sports and take it to you that way. Remember this day 20 years from now - we will be light years ahead of the SBC. I'm not sure you guys really understand what you're missing here and where Liberty is going. When you have a billion dollars cash, your own TV network, a first class AD who spent 13 years in the SEC, a President who loves to build, combined with a chip on your shoulder, watch out. This will be good fun, I really hope we schedule SBC schools in all sports quite often.

(05-16-2014 03:36 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  The bad thing is, I don't think 4 is enough. It could be my own ignorance on basketball scheduling, but I'd want at least half the teams having a game with UMass, with half of those games being home games in the Sun Belt schools.

I see the value in it... While it currently waters down football, it would increase basketball's exposure. Couple that with full membership for NMSU, and you have just improved Sun Belt basketball quite a bit.

But asking for 6-7 games is a HUGE amount in basketball. I honestly don't know.

The only way 6 would work would be if it were incorporated into an exempt event and the NCAA changes the rules on them practically every year so I've lost track of what it takes to do one.

(05-16-2014 12:46 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  I don't really get why the App. St. fans are that upset either, unless they were big advocates of Liberty--- who just can't get 9 yes votes it seems.

Some.

(05-16-2014 04:14 PM)hapapp Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 12:46 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  I don't really get why the App. St. fans are that upset either, unless they were big advocates of Liberty--- who just can't get 9 yes votes it seems.

Some.

I'm not upset about staying at 11. I don't want Liberty either. I can't stand the championship game position of Arkansas State. That's it.

(05-16-2014 03:31 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 03:23 PM)OsageJ Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 08:15 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  So every other Conference that has a Championship Game is wrong, because it's another game that their best team could lose. Why have CCG at all? That's the backward thinking I'm talking about. Fear? Possibly. Lame excuse? Absolutely. If the SBC isn't about competing both JMU and LU will be glad to not be associated with them

We are glad you aren't here too.

He needs to go tell the Big 12 board he'll be glad not to join their fear-riddled league too.

The fact that you compare the SBC situation with that of the Big XII is laughable. The only correlation you could make was the WVU add. But Oklahoma. Texas and the majority of the other Big XII teams are on an entirely different level than any and every school in the SBC

(05-16-2014 04:48 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 03:31 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 03:23 PM)OsageJ Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 08:15 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  So every other Conference that has a Championship Game is wrong, because it's another game that their best team could lose. Why have CCG at all? That's the backward thinking I'm talking about. Fear? Possibly. Lame excuse? Absolutely. If the SBC isn't about competing both JMU and LU will be glad to not be associated with them

We are glad you aren't here too.

He needs to go tell the Big 12 board he'll be glad not to join their fear-riddled league too.

The fact that you compare the SBC situation with that of the Big XII is laughable. The only correlation you could make was the WVU add. But Oklahoma. Texas and the majority of the other Big XII teams are on an entirely different level than any and every school in the SBC

The only correlation I made was in terms of not having a championship game.

And this is an accurate correlation. Next.

(05-16-2014 01:06 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Mohajir clarified his position today.


Paraphrasing here kiddos.

"UMass contacted the SBC about joining after they were forced to leave the MAC"

"My position is that we are happy with the current membership of the SBC, and want expansion candidates that will improve the league" "UMass would be a football only flight to Amherst every year, and does nothing to address All sports sitting at an odd number,"

"If UMass were to come for all sports, that would change things obviously"

"Obviously if the Presidents and Chancellors support UMass, we'll do whatever they say, but my position is that the SBC needs an all sports invite"

Good clarification. Can't say there is much to disagree with. A FB only add provides no stability for the Conference.

(05-16-2014 03:36 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  The bad thing is, I don't think 4 is enough. It could be my own ignorance on basketball scheduling, but I'd want at least half the teams having a game with UMass, with half of those games being home games in the Sun Belt schools.

But any more than 4 is not practical, which is why it was 4 for Temple FB-only in the MAC and 4 for UMass FB-only in the MAC. It was indeed on a home and home basis, so half of the games were at MAC courts, giving a little help to MAC schools that have struggled to get 15 home games a season (it would have been more help if Temple had not been raided by the conference that kicked them out in the first place, where 1/3 of the conference would have had home OOC games through the OOC contract every year).

If it was a single rotation and then reverse home and away, and the Olympic Sports were allowed in on it, an individual school would see them once every three years, and you'd have to renew the contract for at least two years for every school to host them, but UMass would show up as part of the conference RPI through four contests each season.

(05-16-2014 04:50 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 04:48 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 03:31 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 03:23 PM)OsageJ Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 08:15 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  So every other Conference that has a Championship Game is wrong, because it's another game that their best team could lose. Why have CCG at all? That's the backward thinking I'm talking about. Fear? Possibly. Lame excuse? Absolutely. If the SBC isn't about competing both JMU and LU will be glad to not be associated with them

We are glad you aren't here too.

He needs to go tell the Big 12 board he'll be glad not to join their fear-riddled league too.

The fact that you compare the SBC situation with that of the Big XII is laughable. The only correlation you could make was the WVU add. But Oklahoma. Texas and the majority of the other Big XII teams are on an entirely different level than any and every school in the SBC

The only correlation I made was in terms of not having a championship game.

And this is an accurate correlation. Next.

But the reasons are entirely different. A BMW and a Yugo are both cars and get you from Point A to Point B. But no one would confuse the two as being equal

(05-16-2014 04:54 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 04:50 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 04:48 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 03:31 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 03:23 PM)OsageJ Wrote:  We are glad you aren't here too.

He needs to go tell the Big 12 board he'll be glad not to join their fear-riddled league too.

The fact that you compare the SBC situation with that of the Big XII is laughable. The only correlation you could make was the WVU add. But Oklahoma. Texas and the majority of the other Big XII teams are on an entirely different level than any and every school in the SBC

The only correlation I made was in terms of not having a championship game.

And this is an accurate correlation. Next.

But the reasons are entirely different. A BMW and a Yugo are both cars and get you from Point A to Point B. But no one would confuse the two as being equal

My response was in regard to the statement that not being in favor of a championship game means fear of playing. If so, he should go chastise the Big 12 for being fearful.

That is accurate.

And it has nothing to do with any other characteristics of the Big 12 or SBC that you may want to drag in to try and blur my, rather concise, point.

No Big XII AD ever cited the possibility of an upset in the CCG as a reason for not having one. A SBC AD did

(05-16-2014 05:17 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  No Big XII AD ever cited the possibility of an upset in the CCG as a reason for not having one. A SBC AD did

How about their conference commissioner?

"We like our path to the playoff. I think it's a good thing we don't have our two best teams playing each other on the last date of the season," Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby told David Ubben of Fox Sports Southwest. "One of them's going to lose, and sometimes it's not the right one."

Next.

Absolutely true the big 12 doesnt want a ccg because they are chicken sh t.

(05-16-2014 05:36 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  Absolutely true the big 12 doesnt want a ccg because they are chicken sh t.

Why do the P5 want to play "cupcakes" instead of exclusively other P5? Is it because they are chicken? No, its because of revenue and bowl eligibility. Business.

Why is Georgia Southern planning on playing FCS while Arkansas State is planning on phasing them out? Is Georgia Southern chicken? No, they are transitional and need to establish a winning record at this level and get bowl eligibility first. Business.

Why does the Big 12 not want a championship game? Because the revenue it produces does not offset the revenue they would lose by having their playoff team and potential national champion derailed and/or there is no team to add to get to the championship game that adds enough value. Business.

We are told that we must add the nearest warm body right this instant, to avoid one or two years without a championship game that won't make money, and has nobody clamoring to televise it, and won't influence the selection committee much, and risks costing the conference its first Top 25 or Access Bowl team. Business.

(05-16-2014 04:48 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 03:31 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 03:23 PM)OsageJ Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 08:15 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  So every other Conference that has a Championship Game is wrong, because it's another game that their best team could lose. Why have CCG at all? That's the backward thinking I'm talking about. Fear? Possibly. Lame excuse? Absolutely. If the SBC isn't about competing both JMU and LU will be glad to not be associated with them

We are glad you aren't here too.

He needs to go tell the Big 12 board he'll be glad not to join their fear-riddled league too.

The fact that you compare the SBC situation with that of the Big XII is laughable. The only correlation you could make was the WVU add. But Oklahoma. Texas and the majority of the other Big XII teams are on an entirely different level than any and every school in the SBC

You do know that each and every school in the SBC is on a different level than Liberty. So if he can't bring up the Big XII why are you wasting our time?