(08-19-2010 12:27 AM)Curtzilla Wrote: [ -> ] (08-19-2010 12:21 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote: [ -> ] (08-19-2010 12:18 AM)Curtzilla Wrote: [ -> ]All members or just MTSU ?
Convince me it benefits anyone, other than giving strays a hot meal and a roof over their head.
Only if you'll first explain how increased bowl games and upgraded opponents benefits no one outside Murfreesboro.
Okay...where do I begin...
To be honest, I think I might go back and re-answer your original question and say that it's not workable as long as Hawaii is in the mix. I don't think it works on either end with Hawaii, I can't see us honestly wanting them and I can't see them wanting us. A conference that stretches from Honolulu to Miami? Seriously? From Hawaii's end, they currently travel east of New Mexico for football once every other year when they go to Ruston, in this proposed scenario they'd be doing it at least twice a year with having UNT, La Tech and Ark State in their division and playing an east division team on the road. So one year they'd be @ Ark State and @ Troy and the following year they'd be at @ UNT @ La Tech and @ WKU. So I just don't see Hawaii wanting any part of us or us wanting any part of them and taking Hawaii out eliminates one of the only real "upgraded competition" teams.
Now as far as the rest of it, where else do I begin?
The conference championship game idea is a bad one too, do you really think that NMSU, SJSU, USU or Idaho would agree to the "western" neutral site being Shreveport? How many Spartan fans will show up in Shreveport for a Sun Belt championship game? It would be in the hundreds. With a geographic footprint like the one you're proposing there is absolutely nowhere to put it, the only somewhat viable option would be to play it at one of the participating teams home stadium and then you're giving a decided advantage to one of the teams.
As far as the "upgraded competition" idea goes, who are you talking about?
New Mexico State? They've had two winning seasons in the last thirty years.
Utah State? They've had four winning seasons in the last thirty years.
San Jose State? They've had twelve winning seasons in the last thirty years, but only two since 1992.
Idaho? They've had nineteen winning seasons in the last thirty years, impressive, but since 1999 they've only had two.
La Tech? They've had nine winning seasons since going FBS in 1989.
La Tech is probably the most attractive of the candidates based on their being within the existing footprint and they have a decent name recognition. Provided that Idaho's 2009 season wasn't a fluke, Idaho at least would be adding a competitive team, but in regards to your idea of "better competition" two out of the five teams that
might work would come in and beef up the middle of the pack in our conference and only one of those two is a team that's going attract anything in the way of a casual fan. The other three would be bringing up the rear every year. You're basically talking about adding two decent teams and picking up three horrible dead weights.
More bowls? Which bowls would those be? I doubt we'd keep the WAC's humanitarian bid, there's no way they'd want to risk getting stuck with an eastern based team that might bring 400 fans to that game. In the end we'd probably only be picking up the New Mexico bowl and maybe the Poinsettia bowl. Two bowls that 75% of the conference would take less than a thousand fans to.