Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)


Post Reply 
SBC meetings
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
CrimsonPhantom Offline
CUSA Curator
*

Posts: 41,324
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 2371
I Root For: NM State
Location:
Post: #61
RE: SBC meetings
(01-22-2015 06:22 PM)DoubleAggie Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 05:58 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Well you wont have to worry about NMSU becoming a full member. Like I said a couple of weeks back it was rumored NMSU was already told that they would only be in the SBC for football through 2017.

Phantom, your sources have been pretty accurate, but are you sure there's no miscommunication on this? any follow up?

It doesn't seem to jive with the stated goal of expansion in the Sun Belt ( unless there's a big move for numerous additions ).

I haven't heard anything else. I would like to be wrong. I would love to be wrong. If my credibility takes a hit that is fine. The meeting to decide NMSU's and Idaho's fate in the SBC is less then 51 weeks away. A lot can happen over the next year.
01-22-2015 06:31 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GEAGLESJAG Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 907
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 37
I Root For: USA & USM
Location:
Post: #62
RE: SBC meetings
(01-22-2015 05:25 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 10:49 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 10:43 AM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  Adding UAB and NMSU all sports would be great for the SBC. having UAB in an east division would be nice too. I really hope the SBC can sort out this 12th football member issue. The only down side I see to adding UAB is that IF we ever drop Idaho and add 2 new full members would having 15 olympic sports teams be an issue?

I think the Sun Belt having a CCG is not going to happen, so all the SBC would have is a 10 team FB (no Idaho) and 13 team Olympic sports. You can work a schedule to where there is a 'division' without really having one because the tournament take care of who the Sun Belt champion is.

The SBC is not going to a 10 team, nine game conference schedule. No school is going to want to lose a potential money game or home game. Playing five conference games on the road is not going to happen.

A 13 team SBC olympic schedule also makes no sense. Dividing up NCAA tournament revenue 13 ways instead of 11 does not make sense unless the additional teams mean a 2nd bid. Neither NMSU or UAB get you there. NMSU this season is 10-10 and 1-8 on the road. UAB is 8-10. Over the years they have both had good basketball programs, but they are not difference makers.

UAB is centrally located for travel so they could make sense as a 12th school. NMSU is a long way to send all of the eastern SBC olympic sports teams. All of these programs would be traveling to Las Cruces because the men's basketball program has been pretty good in the past compared to the SBC men's basketball programs. A lousy reason to add NMSU.
UAB is in a good location but the stigma of cutting athletic programs is going to make recruiting difficult. Their better days in basketball has probably passed.
01-22-2015 06:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
airtroop Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 2,256
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 48
I Root For: South Alabama
Location: Mobile, AL
Post: #63
RE: SBC meetings
(01-22-2015 06:31 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 06:22 PM)DoubleAggie Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 05:58 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Well you wont have to worry about NMSU becoming a full member. Like I said a couple of weeks back it was rumored NMSU was already told that they would only be in the SBC for football through 2017.

Phantom, your sources have been pretty accurate, but are you sure there's no miscommunication on this? any follow up?

It doesn't seem to jive with the stated goal of expansion in the Sun Belt ( unless there's a big move for numerous additions ).

I haven't heard anything else. I would like to be wrong. I would love to be wrong. If my credibility takes a hit that is fine. The meeting to decide NMSU's and Idaho's fate in the SBC is less then 51 weeks away. A lot can happen over the next year.

I haven't any idea about the 2017 split being written in stone but I can confirm it'd take a MAJOR emergency (i.e., big SBC raid) for NMSU to ever become an all-sports SBC member again... that from a very trustworthy source (remember I'm the one who confirmed the F-U's were gone weeks before it was official -- same source).
01-22-2015 08:33 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GaSoEagle Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,435
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 89
I Root For: Ga Southern
Location:
Post: #64
RE: SBC meetings
I think the plan remains to bring in a 12th member from the eastern side of the conference -- who that might be I have no idea.
01-22-2015 08:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bobcat87 Offline
San Marvelous Cat
*

Posts: 10,509
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 358
I Root For: TXST, A&M, UNT
Location: Texas
Post: #65
RE: SBC meetings
(01-22-2015 08:33 PM)airtroop Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 06:31 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 06:22 PM)DoubleAggie Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 05:58 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Well you wont have to worry about NMSU becoming a full member. Like I said a couple of weeks back it was rumored NMSU was already told that they would only be in the SBC for football through 2017.

Phantom, your sources have been pretty accurate, but are you sure there's no miscommunication on this? any follow up?

It doesn't seem to jive with the stated goal of expansion in the Sun Belt ( unless there's a big move for numerous additions ).

I haven't heard anything else. I would like to be wrong. I would love to be wrong. If my credibility takes a hit that is fine. The meeting to decide NMSU's and Idaho's fate in the SBC is less then 51 weeks away. A lot can happen over the next year.

I haven't any idea about the 2017 split being written in stone but I can confirm it'd take a MAJOR emergency (i.e., big SBC raid) for NMSU to ever become an all-sports SBC member again... that from a very trustworthy source (remember I'm the one who confirmed the F-U's were gone weeks before it was official -- same source).

Sorry to hear that. . . . Short sighted in my opinion. .. .Idaho, yeah I get that . . They're so far out that it makes no sense to keep them. NMSU brings immediate help in BB and baseball. Karl says he wants a CG, now you're kicking NMSU to the curb, not sure how that helps. Do your "sources" have any insight as to a replacement?
01-22-2015 08:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
southernwolf Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 128
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 4
I Root For: Arkansas State
Location:
Post: #66
RE: SBC meetings
(01-21-2015 12:54 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  
(01-20-2015 11:43 AM)Beltfan Wrote:  
(01-20-2015 11:15 AM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  
(01-20-2015 09:25 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  This will be a slippery slope and will lead to either a split in FBS or more UAB type situations in ten years. Either that or the cost of education (through student fee increases) will be a larger percentage of athletic "revenue" for G5 programs.

Understand what you're saying, I would point out though that UAB did not fail due to finances . .. theirs was a political demise . . .
But for those programs whose athletic income is already marginal, this could be bad news over time . . .

They didn't? What you need to understand is, it wasn't all "politics". The BOT can't be blamed for the poor play on the field and the empty seats in the stadium. UAB originally was the medical school of the University of Alabama and became a commuter school later when other curriculum was added. They have always been under the control of the UATBOT, unlike the way the Texas system operates. If the football program had carried their weight it would have survived.
Among Sun Belt fans, is there any interest in having UAB as a non-football member?

It would be great to have UAB, but they've been bitten by the CUSA bug. They would probally never come into the Sunbelt. The CUSA schools think that the Sunbelt is the lowest of the low, and it's a shame.
01-22-2015 08:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bobcat87 Offline
San Marvelous Cat
*

Posts: 10,509
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 358
I Root For: TXST, A&M, UNT
Location: Texas
Post: #67
RE: SBC meetings
(01-22-2015 08:45 PM)southernwolf Wrote:  
(01-21-2015 12:54 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  
(01-20-2015 11:43 AM)Beltfan Wrote:  
(01-20-2015 11:15 AM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  
(01-20-2015 09:25 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  This will be a slippery slope and will lead to either a split in FBS or more UAB type situations in ten years. Either that or the cost of education (through student fee increases) will be a larger percentage of athletic "revenue" for G5 programs.

Understand what you're saying, I would point out though that UAB did not fail due to finances . .. theirs was a political demise . . .
But for those programs whose athletic income is already marginal, this could be bad news over time . . .

They didn't? What you need to understand is, it wasn't all "politics". The BOT can't be blamed for the poor play on the field and the empty seats in the stadium. UAB originally was the medical school of the University of Alabama and became a commuter school later when other curriculum was added. They have always been under the control of the UATBOT, unlike the way the Texas system operates. If the football program had carried their weight it would have survived.
Among Sun Belt fans, is there any interest in having UAB as a non-football member?

It would be great to have UAB, but they've been bitten by the CUSA bug. They would probally never come into the Sunbelt. The CUSA schools think that the Sunbelt is the lowest of the low, and it's a shame.

If CUSA kicks 'em to the curb, as is expected, and their choice is us or go Indy, well, we might not look that bad . . . .
01-22-2015 08:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CrimsonPhantom Offline
CUSA Curator
*

Posts: 41,324
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 2371
I Root For: NM State
Location:
Post: #68
RE: SBC meetings
(01-22-2015 08:45 PM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 08:33 PM)airtroop Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 06:31 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 06:22 PM)DoubleAggie Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 05:58 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Well you wont have to worry about NMSU becoming a full member. Like I said a couple of weeks back it was rumored NMSU was already told that they would only be in the SBC for football through 2017.

Phantom, your sources have been pretty accurate, but are you sure there's no miscommunication on this? any follow up?

It doesn't seem to jive with the stated goal of expansion in the Sun Belt ( unless there's a big move for numerous additions ).

I haven't heard anything else. I would like to be wrong. I would love to be wrong. If my credibility takes a hit that is fine. The meeting to decide NMSU's and Idaho's fate in the SBC is less then 51 weeks away. A lot can happen over the next year.

I haven't any idea about the 2017 split being written in stone but I can confirm it'd take a MAJOR emergency (i.e., big SBC raid) for NMSU to ever become an all-sports SBC member again... that from a very trustworthy source (remember I'm the one who confirmed the F-U's were gone weeks before it was official -- same source).

Sorry to hear that. . . . Short sighted in my opinion. .. .Idaho, yeah I get that . . They're so far out that it makes no sense to keep them. NMSU brings immediate help in BB and baseball. Karl says he wants a CG, now you're kicking NMSU to the curb, not sure how that helps. Do your "sources" have any insight as to a replacement?
September 2013 Benson told NMSU that the SBC was not interested in adding NMSU for all sports. At that time NMSU stopped pursuing the SBC.
August 2014 Benson told NMSU that being a football only member was not ideal for the SBC.

From what Benson has said to NMSU and from what I have heard we will be gone in 3 years. Also some have gotten the feeling that Benson is doing what he can to keep NMSU where it is to help out his good friend Jeff Hurd the WAC commissioner keep the WAC viable. Such BS.
01-23-2015 12:44 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
runamuck Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,962
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 31
I Root For: uta
Location: DFW
Post: #69
RE: SBC meetings
(01-23-2015 12:44 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 08:45 PM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 08:33 PM)airtroop Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 06:31 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 06:22 PM)DoubleAggie Wrote:  Phantom, your sources have been pretty accurate, but are you sure there's no miscommunication on this? any follow up?

It doesn't seem to jive with the stated goal of expansion in the Sun Belt ( unless there's a big move for numerous additions ).

I haven't heard anything else. I would like to be wrong. I would love to be wrong. If my credibility takes a hit that is fine. The meeting to decide NMSU's and Idaho's fate in the SBC is less then 51 weeks away. A lot can happen over the next year.

I haven't any idea about the 2017 split being written in stone but I can confirm it'd take a MAJOR emergency (i.e., big SBC raid) for NMSU to ever become an all-sports SBC member again... that from a very trustworthy source (remember I'm the one who confirmed the F-U's were gone weeks before it was official -- same source).

Sorry to hear that. . . . Short sighted in my opinion. .. .Idaho, yeah I get that . . They're so far out that it makes no sense to keep them. NMSU brings immediate help in BB and baseball. Karl says he wants a CG, now you're kicking NMSU to the curb, not sure how that helps. Do your "sources" have any insight as to a replacement?
September 2013 Benson told NMSU that the SBC was not interested in adding NMSU for all sports. At that time NMSU stopped pursuing the SBC.
August 2014 Benson told NMSU that being a football only member was not ideal for the SBC.

From what Benson has said to NMSU and from what I have heard we will be gone in 3 years. Also some have gotten the feeling that Benson is doing what he can to keep NMSU where it is to help out his good friend Jeff Hurd the WAC commissioner keep the WAC viable. Such BS.

I dont see where nmsu has any option to move anywhere. if c-usa boots uab, u-laf would probably take their place. we would need to hang on to nmsu and try to snag uab. umass for football or mostate would suddenly be on the table. as a western school, having nmsu all in would be good for uta and txst. we have a history with them. they recruit here and if there were two divisions, the regional alignment would work well. plus they are a nationally known school and would add a little credibility to the sbc that most of the other expansion candidates dont.
01-23-2015 08:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bobcat87 Offline
San Marvelous Cat
*

Posts: 10,509
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 358
I Root For: TXST, A&M, UNT
Location: Texas
Post: #70
RE: SBC meetings
(01-23-2015 08:30 AM)runamuck Wrote:  
(01-23-2015 12:44 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 08:45 PM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 08:33 PM)airtroop Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 06:31 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  I haven't heard anything else. I would like to be wrong. I would love to be wrong. If my credibility takes a hit that is fine. The meeting to decide NMSU's and Idaho's fate in the SBC is less then 51 weeks away. A lot can happen over the next year.

I haven't any idea about the 2017 split being written in stone but I can confirm it'd take a MAJOR emergency (i.e., big SBC raid) for NMSU to ever become an all-sports SBC member again... that from a very trustworthy source (remember I'm the one who confirmed the F-U's were gone weeks before it was official -- same source).

Sorry to hear that. . . . Short sighted in my opinion. .. .Idaho, yeah I get that . . They're so far out that it makes no sense to keep them. NMSU brings immediate help in BB and baseball. Karl says he wants a CG, now you're kicking NMSU to the curb, not sure how that helps. Do your "sources" have any insight as to a replacement?
September 2013 Benson told NMSU that the SBC was not interested in adding NMSU for all sports. At that time NMSU stopped pursuing the SBC.
August 2014 Benson told NMSU that being a football only member was not ideal for the SBC.

From what Benson has said to NMSU and from what I have heard we will be gone in 3 years. Also some have gotten the feeling that Benson is doing what he can to keep NMSU where it is to help out his good friend Jeff Hurd the WAC commissioner keep the WAC viable. Such BS.

I dont see where nmsu has any option to move anywhere. if c-usa boots uab, u-laf would probably take their place. we would need to hang on to nmsu and try to snag uab. umass for football or mostate would suddenly be on the table. as a western school, having nmsu all in would be good for uta and txst. we have a history with them. they recruit here and if there were two divisions, the regional alignment would work well. plus they are a nationally known school and would add a little credibility to the sbc that most of the other expansion candidates dont.

Just MHO, but if what Phantom says is correct, and based on our experiences in the Belt sooooooooooo far .. . this conference really does not care about the western part of its footprint . . .The East drives the decisions in the Belt . . . 07-coffee3
01-23-2015 09:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
97App Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 381
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 21
I Root For: Appalachian St
Location:
Post: #71
RE: SBC meetings
(01-23-2015 08:30 AM)runamuck Wrote:  I dont see where nmsu has any option to move anywhere. if c-usa boots uab, u-laf would probably take their place. we would need to hang on to nmsu and try to snag uab. umass for football or mostate would suddenly be on the table. as a western school, having nmsu all in would be good for uta and txst. we have a history with them. they recruit here and if there were two divisions, the regional alignment would work well. plus they are a nationally known school and would add a little credibility to the sbc that most of the other expansion candidates dont.

I wonder if CUSA would replace UAB at all. I doubt the Cajuns will increase CUSA's overall revenues and $12million split over 13 schools is better than $12million split over 14 schools. Not to mention the slight chance of the Big 12 expanding and CUSA eventually losing another school as the effects trickle down.
01-23-2015 09:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Vobserver Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 2,422
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 102
I Root For: Louisiana
Location:
Post: #72
RE: SBC meetings
(01-23-2015 09:44 AM)97App Wrote:  
(01-23-2015 08:30 AM)runamuck Wrote:  I dont see where nmsu has any option to move anywhere. if c-usa boots uab, u-laf would probably take their place. we would need to hang on to nmsu and try to snag uab. umass for football or mostate would suddenly be on the table. as a western school, having nmsu all in would be good for uta and txst. we have a history with them. they recruit here and if there were two divisions, the regional alignment would work well. plus they are a nationally known school and would add a little credibility to the sbc that most of the other expansion candidates dont.

I wonder if CUSA would replace UAB at all. I doubt the Cajuns will increase CUSA's overall revenues and $12million split over 13 schools is better than $12million split over 14 schools. Not to mention the slight chance of the Big 12 expanding and CUSA eventually losing another school as the effects trickle down.

CUSA has always been proactive. I do not look for that to change now. Word is that USM wants to move to the East Division. I expect that if one school is added, it will be in the west. I am also hearing that they will not add one school, as the membership cannot agree one a single one to add. I am hearing 3 schools [either 2 West-1 East or all in the West] or none.
(This post was last modified: 01-23-2015 09:49 AM by Vobserver.)
01-23-2015 09:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Georgia_Power_Company Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,481
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: GA Southern
Location: Statesboro GA
Post: #73
RE: SBC meetings
(01-23-2015 09:48 AM)Vobserver Wrote:  
(01-23-2015 09:44 AM)97App Wrote:  
(01-23-2015 08:30 AM)runamuck Wrote:  I dont see where nmsu has any option to move anywhere. if c-usa boots uab, u-laf would probably take their place. we would need to hang on to nmsu and try to snag uab. umass for football or mostate would suddenly be on the table. as a western school, having nmsu all in would be good for uta and txst. we have a history with them. they recruit here and if there were two divisions, the regional alignment would work well. plus they are a nationally known school and would add a little credibility to the sbc that most of the other expansion candidates dont.

I wonder if CUSA would replace UAB at all. I doubt the Cajuns will increase CUSA's overall revenues and $12million split over 13 schools is better than $12million split over 14 schools. Not to mention the slight chance of the Big 12 expanding and CUSA eventually losing another school as the effects trickle down.

CUSA has always been proactive. I do not look for that to change now. Word is that USM wants to move to the East Division. I expect that if one school is added, it will be in the west. I am also hearing that they will not add one school, as the membership cannot agree one a single one to add. I am hearing 3 schools [either 2 West-1 East or all in the West] or none.

I just don't see 16 being a good number for a G5 conference. What 3 teams could they add that want to be in CUSA and could also move the $$ needle enough for CUSA to want them?
01-23-2015 10:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Louisiana99 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,385
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Louisiana
Location:
Post: #74
RE: SBC meetings
The money split at 13 doesn't equal the added cost of travel and jacked up scheduling.
01-23-2015 10:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Vobserver Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 2,422
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 102
I Root For: Louisiana
Location:
Post: #75
RE: SBC meetings
I just don't see 16 being a good number for a G5 conference. What 3 teams could they add that want to be in CUSA and could also move the $$ needle enough for CUSA to want them?


The dollar needle will move way down on the expense side with 8 team divisions. That, plus the added revenue from playing more regional teams in whom your fans are likely to be more interested, will more than offset the loss in CFP and TV per school money.

To answer your specific question, NMSU as a travel partner for UTEP would be an excellent choice, cutting travel costs for all members. UL and Texas State are both easily drivable for fans of multiple schools in CUSA West, as well as being bus trips instead of flights for teams.
(This post was last modified: 01-23-2015 11:04 AM by Vobserver.)
01-23-2015 11:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MWC Tex Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,850
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 179
I Root For: MW
Location: TX
Post: #76
RE: SBC meetings
(01-23-2015 10:43 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  
(01-23-2015 09:48 AM)Vobserver Wrote:  
(01-23-2015 09:44 AM)97App Wrote:  
(01-23-2015 08:30 AM)runamuck Wrote:  I dont see where nmsu has any option to move anywhere. if c-usa boots uab, u-laf would probably take their place. we would need to hang on to nmsu and try to snag uab. umass for football or mostate would suddenly be on the table. as a western school, having nmsu all in would be good for uta and txst. we have a history with them. they recruit here and if there were two divisions, the regional alignment would work well. plus they are a nationally known school and would add a little credibility to the sbc that most of the other expansion candidates dont.

I wonder if CUSA would replace UAB at all. I doubt the Cajuns will increase CUSA's overall revenues and $12million split over 13 schools is better than $12million split over 14 schools. Not to mention the slight chance of the Big 12 expanding and CUSA eventually losing another school as the effects trickle down.

CUSA has always been proactive. I do not look for that to change now. Word is that USM wants to move to the East Division. I expect that if one school is added, it will be in the west. I am also hearing that they will not add one school, as the membership cannot agree one a single one to add. I am hearing 3 schools [either 2 West-1 East or all in the West] or none.

I just don't see 16 being a good number for a G5 conference. What 3 teams could they add that want to be in CUSA and could also move the $$ needle enough for CUSA to want them?

It wouldn't be about moving the $$ needle but compacting the divisions for travel. Or, outside thinking here, to give the American Sport Network more inventory to choose to show.
If S. Miss really wanted to be in the East division, then 3 teams in the West would need to be added. NMSU, Tex. St and ULL. You have two nice regional divisions.

If just going to 14 then a west team would be still be added to regionalize the two divisions. In which case look for Ark. St, ULL, Tex St or NMSU to be 1 of teams added.

edit: Despite having 16 teams, it would raise their profile in basketball to a 2 or 3 bid league. With usual basketball powerhouses like NMSU, Rice, UTEP, WKU, ODU and Charlotte adding more RPI strength at the top.
(This post was last modified: 01-23-2015 11:17 AM by MWC Tex.)
01-23-2015 11:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
runamuck Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,962
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 31
I Root For: uta
Location: DFW
Post: #77
RE: SBC meetings
(01-23-2015 11:02 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(01-23-2015 10:43 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  
(01-23-2015 09:48 AM)Vobserver Wrote:  
(01-23-2015 09:44 AM)97App Wrote:  
(01-23-2015 08:30 AM)runamuck Wrote:  I dont see where nmsu has any option to move anywhere. if c-usa boots uab, u-laf would probably take their place. we would need to hang on to nmsu and try to snag uab. umass for football or mostate would suddenly be on the table. as a western school, having nmsu all in would be good for uta and txst. we have a history with them. they recruit here and if there were two divisions, the regional alignment would work well. plus they are a nationally known school and would add a little credibility to the sbc that most of the other expansion candidates dont.

I wonder if CUSA would replace UAB at all. I doubt the Cajuns will increase CUSA's overall revenues and $12million split over 13 schools is better than $12million split over 14 schools. Not to mention the slight chance of the Big 12 expanding and CUSA eventually losing another school as the effects trickle down.

CUSA has always been proactive. I do not look for that to change now. Word is that USM wants to move to the East Division. I expect that if one school is added, it will be in the west. I am also hearing that they will not add one school, as the membership cannot agree one a single one to add. I am hearing 3 schools [either 2 West-1 East or all in the West] or none.

I just don't see 16 being a good number for a G5 conference. What 3 teams could they add that want to be in CUSA and could also move the $$ needle enough for CUSA to want them?

It wouldn't be about moving the $$ needle but compacting the divisions for travel. Or, outside thinking here, to give the American Sport Network more inventory to choose to show.
If S. Miss really wanted to be in the East division, then 3 teams in the West would need to be added. NMSU, Tex. St and ULL. You have two nice regional divisions.

If just going to 14 then a west team would be still be added to regionalize the two divisions. In which case look for Ark. St, ULL, Tex St or NMSU to be 1 of teams added.

edit: Despite having 16 teams, it would raise their profile in basketball to a 2 or 3 bid league. With usual basketball powerhouses like NMSU, Rice, UTEP, WKU, ODU and Charlotte adding more RPI strength at the top.

I dont know who changed my post with the bold lettering and underscoring, but I only meant to add my opinion that u-laf would be attractive to c-usa and the cajuns would probably bolt. someone said that c-usa might just stay with 13 but 2 seven team divisions would make sense.
01-23-2015 12:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chiefsfan Offline
No Seriously, they let me be a mod
*

Posts: 43,710
Joined: Sep 2007
Reputation: 1061
I Root For: ASU
Location:
Post: #78
RE: SBC meetings
Would you guys quit acting like CUSA's realignment moves make sense?

We all know they are going to do whatever Fox Sports tells them to do.
01-23-2015 12:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
97App Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 381
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 21
I Root For: Appalachian St
Location:
Post: #79
RE: SBC meetings
(01-23-2015 12:29 PM)runamuck Wrote:  
(01-23-2015 11:02 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(01-23-2015 10:43 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  
(01-23-2015 09:48 AM)Vobserver Wrote:  
(01-23-2015 09:44 AM)97App Wrote:  I wonder if CUSA would replace UAB at all. I doubt the Cajuns will increase CUSA's overall revenues and $12million split over 13 schools is better than $12million split over 14 schools. Not to mention the slight chance of the Big 12 expanding and CUSA eventually losing another school as the effects trickle down.

CUSA has always been proactive. I do not look for that to change now. Word is that USM wants to move to the East Division. I expect that if one school is added, it will be in the west. I am also hearing that they will not add one school, as the membership cannot agree one a single one to add. I am hearing 3 schools [either 2 West-1 East or all in the West] or none.

I just don't see 16 being a good number for a G5 conference. What 3 teams could they add that want to be in CUSA and could also move the $$ needle enough for CUSA to want them?

It wouldn't be about moving the $$ needle but compacting the divisions for travel. Or, outside thinking here, to give the American Sport Network more inventory to choose to show.
If S. Miss really wanted to be in the East division, then 3 teams in the West would need to be added. NMSU, Tex. St and ULL. You have two nice regional divisions.

If just going to 14 then a west team would be still be added to regionalize the two divisions. In which case look for Ark. St, ULL, Tex St or NMSU to be 1 of teams added.

edit: Despite having 16 teams, it would raise their profile in basketball to a 2 or 3 bid league. With usual basketball powerhouses like NMSU, Rice, UTEP, WKU, ODU and Charlotte adding more RPI strength at the top.

I dont know who changed my post with the bold lettering and underscoring, but I only meant to add my opinion that u-laf would be attractive to c-usa and the cajuns would probably bolt. someone said that c-usa might just stay with 13 but 2 seven team divisions would make sense.

It was me, I was just directing attention to the portion of your comment that I was commenting on. Simply offering a different point of view. I certainly have no insider info and don't claim to know what will happen.
01-23-2015 01:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
airtroop Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 2,256
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 48
I Root For: South Alabama
Location: Mobile, AL
Post: #80
RE: SBC meetings
(01-22-2015 08:45 PM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  
(01-22-2015 08:33 PM)airtroop Wrote:  I haven't any idea about the 2017 split being written in stone but I can confirm it'd take a MAJOR emergency (i.e., big SBC raid) for NMSU to ever become an all-sports SBC member again... that from a very trustworthy source (remember I'm the one who confirmed the F-U's were gone weeks before it was official -- same source).

Sorry to hear that. . . . Short sighted in my opinion. .. .Idaho, yeah I get that . . They're so far out that it makes no sense to keep them. NMSU brings immediate help in BB and baseball. Karl says he wants a CG, now you're kicking NMSU to the curb, not sure how that helps. Do your "sources" have any insight as to a replacement?

I don't know about any other schools but USA's objection was based upon travel and the Olympic sports AFIAK, nothing personal. Assuming that was the reasoning behind other member schools were opposed to NMSU but I'm not sure.

Personally, I'd love to have NMSU back if for no other reason than their basketball - nice little rivalry was beginning to develop between us last time they were in the SBC. Then again, I also want what's best for our school and if they would just add red ink to our athletics they've got my FULL support.

As for your question I have no idea. I haven't had the opportunity to hang out with any of them in a couple of months. When we do hang out I don't bombard them with questions, we hoist beers, watch sports and shoot the breeze. I know what I can and cannot repeat and to whom I can repeat it to if limited. They're friends and that's all.
01-23-2015 07:27 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.