Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)


Poll: What would you do?
Invite current FCS schools
Force Arlington and/or Little Rock to start football
Invite football only schools like NMSU, Idaho, and/or UMass
No new football teams, even if two schools left conference
[Show Results]
 
Post Reply 
if Sun Belt were to expand, what's your ideal result?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
airtroop Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 1,796
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 39
I Root For: South Alabama
Location: Mobile, AL
Post: #211
RE: if Sun Belt were to expand, what's your ideal result?
(Yesterday 12:34 PM)Usajags Wrote:  
(Yesterday 12:22 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  
(Yesterday 12:01 PM)Usajags Wrote:  
(Yesterday 11:10 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  
(Yesterday 06:38 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  I just threw up a little bit. We might as well just drop back down to FCS as a conference

I don't like but accept the reasoning behind the idea that the Sun Belt is better off with 10 football schools. But if you guys kick out a school that went bowling last year and is about to go again this year and then turn around and call up FCS schools you all need your heads examined.

Relocate your school to Mississippi and your back in the conference. Until then, nothing you say changes the fact you are in western Idaho, and that is to far out of the footprint. Sorry.

I didn't make the argument in this post that the conference should keep Idaho (although it should). I'm just saying that the Belt booted two schools largely because the CFP payouts are now structured to discourage G5 conferences larger than 10 teams unless those extra teams are pulling their weight on the field, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to add FCS schools.

You can make the argument that booting Idaho and not replacing them is a good financial move. But if you toss Idaho, which is currently producing results on the field and made the conference 7 figures last year, in favor of an unproven FCS team you're doing something that hurts your bottom line.

I don't think anyone right now is realistically talking football expansion. But in the long run, and that is what we need to be talking about, a "local" FCS team called up now, may hurt short term compared to what Idaho is currently doing, which is something you have never proven you can sustain, can be more benefit in the long run with rivalries.

I hate you guys are being UAb'd, getting the rug pulled out as soon as you show progress. And hopefully you guys have a UAb ending. But your administration seems against it and not sure there are enough people in Moscow to change their minds.

That's probably a "fer shure" with the G5's. Frankly, our 10-team conference setup is likely an envy of at least most of the other G5's I'd wager.
Yesterday 02:50 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TrueBlueDrew Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,202
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 22
I Root For: GS Eagles
Location:
Post: #212
RE: if Sun Belt were to expand, what's your ideal result?
(Yesterday 02:50 PM)airtroop Wrote:  
(Yesterday 12:34 PM)Usajags Wrote:  
(Yesterday 12:22 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  
(Yesterday 12:01 PM)Usajags Wrote:  
(Yesterday 11:10 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  I don't like but accept the reasoning behind the idea that the Sun Belt is better off with 10 football schools. But if you guys kick out a school that went bowling last year and is about to go again this year and then turn around and call up FCS schools you all need your heads examined.

Relocate your school to Mississippi and your back in the conference. Until then, nothing you say changes the fact you are in western Idaho, and that is to far out of the footprint. Sorry.

I didn't make the argument in this post that the conference should keep Idaho (although it should). I'm just saying that the Belt booted two schools largely because the CFP payouts are now structured to discourage G5 conferences larger than 10 teams unless those extra teams are pulling their weight on the field, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to add FCS schools.

You can make the argument that booting Idaho and not replacing them is a good financial move. But if you toss Idaho, which is currently producing results on the field and made the conference 7 figures last year, in favor of an unproven FCS team you're doing something that hurts your bottom line.

I don't think anyone right now is realistically talking football expansion. But in the long run, and that is what we need to be talking about, a "local" FCS team called up now, may hurt short term compared to what Idaho is currently doing, which is something you have never proven you can sustain, can be more benefit in the long run with rivalries.

I hate you guys are being UAb'd, getting the rug pulled out as soon as you show progress. And hopefully you guys have a UAb ending. But your administration seems against it and not sure there are enough people in Moscow to change their minds.

That's probably a "fer shure" with the G5's. Frankly, our 10-team conference setup is likely an envy of at least most of the other G5's I'd wager.

I'm sure a lot of CUSA members have already picked out which four schools they would boot in a heartbeat if they could
(This post was last modified: Yesterday 03:08 PM by TrueBlueDrew.)
Yesterday 03:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2017 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.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.