shouldn't the prospective member substantially add to our conference before adding them?
NMSU + upgrade in basketball – increase in travel
LaTech = ?
I just don't see the benefit here.
(01-25-2011 09:49 AM)Fanof49ASU Wrote: [ -> ]shouldn't the prospective member substantially add to our conference before adding them?
NMSU + upgrade in basketball – increase in travel
LaTech = ?
I just don't see the benefit here.
Agree; there is no benefit to adding Loser Tech.
Everyone knows that I love to bash Loser Tech for any reason (or none at all), but I'm being serious.
What do they add other than another mouth to feed and a 'regional' opponent? Their fb hasn't been any better than ours, nor their basketball or baseball. What is their value?
(01-25-2011 10:12 AM)Fanof49ASU Wrote: [ -> ]Everyone knows that I love to bash Loser Tech for any reason (or none at all), but I'm being serious.
What do they add other than another mouth to feed and a 'regional' opponent? Their fb hasn't been any better than ours, nor their basketball or baseball. What is their value?
I just explained it in the USU thread.
Their biggest additions to the conference are "perception" and WBB (though it has fallen on rough times as of late).
There are plenty of reasons to bash Tech, most of which are their own doing.
Editing to note that IF we take on Tech, it better be a HUGE penalty for them to withdraw because they'll cut us the first chance they get.
I am not a La Tech hater but I think they burned their bridges when they left. Now New Mexico State is not a good fit because, my opinion anyway. Just like Denver they are too far away, no where near the "sunbelt". They seem to have some pretty good athletic programs but just don't fit in regionally with the other league schools. There are better potential options than these 2 programs. I can hear the La Tech fans now, they would act like going back to the SBC was like going down to D2 or being put on probation. The Aggies seem like a western school and no natural rivals in the SBC.
(01-25-2011 09:49 AM)Fanof49ASU Wrote: [ -> ]shouldn't the prospective member substantially add to our conference before adding them?
NMSU + upgrade in basketball – increase in travel
LaTech = ?
I just don't see the benefit here.
BCS money is distributed to conferences based on how well they compare to other conferences. The Sun Belt has always received the least amount of distributions among the conferences. The MAC seems to be in striking distance. Here's how Sagarin would rank the SBC and the MAC with the addition of La Tech to the SBC:
80. Troy
88. FIU
91. La Tech
117. Arkansas St
138. MTSU
140. ULM
150. UNT
155. FAU
162. ULL
165. WKU
Avg: 128.6 (133.7 without Tech)
46. NIU
66. Temple
77. Miami (OH)
92. Toledo
99. WMU
104. Ohio
120. Kent
134. CMU
160. Ball St
163. BGU
183. EMU
185. Buffalo
206. Akron
Avg: 125.7
There are a couple of reasons to add teams:
Survival - see Karl Benson and current WAC situation
Money - In 2008/2009 the Belt recieved on average $690,000 per school in conference distribution. Average based upon ULL, ULM, ASU, UNT payments. 9 football playing schools. Roughly $6,210,000 in money. This is very rough numbers. Ten schools with the addition of South Alabama. For argument sake lets say the total pot for 2011/2012 is $8,000,000 or $800,000 per school. Can adding two additional schools increase the payout? Can the additional schools increase the TV contract and other revenue streams by $2,000,000 a year? If so the total payout per school is $833,333. With the ESPN contract expiring at the end of the 2011/2012 season, this good be an excellent opportunity to shop the idea. Would Fox Sports Southwest jump on a 12 team Belt with Fox Sports South, and Fox Sports Florida? Would ESPN cough up more money for additional games and a championship game?
Perception - Would adding additional teams give the league added exposure and credibility? Would adding two teams garner national headlines? Right now adding any combination of La Tech, NMSU, UTSA or Texas State would definitely put the Belt into the national spotlight. The demise of the WAC is being blogged on a minute by minute basis. Everyone assumes that the MWC will be its killer. The Belt jumping into the fray would wrench the spotlight off the MWC. Any additions by the MWC after the Belt would be a news afterthought to the move that put Karl Benson out of his misery.
None of these are the answer, but they definitely raise some possiblities. Waters needs to think strategically. He has an opportunity to show some leadership and address these issues. Will he? Who knows. Maybe he already has, just not publically.
BTW I hate typing on an I-phone. Damn buttons are too small.
(01-25-2011 10:33 AM)T_Won1 Wrote: [ -> ]I realize that pretty much everyone on here thinks that Sagarin is crap, but I continue to use them when I post here.
FIFY
(01-25-2011 12:01 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote: [ -> ] (01-25-2011 10:33 AM)T_Won1 Wrote: [ -> ]I realize that pretty much everyone on here thinks that Sagarin is crap, but I continue to use them when I post here.
FIFY
I use Sagarin because they list the teams by conferences and it is easier to pull data. Here's the Massey Ratings which only has FBS teams and is an average of all computer rankings known to man. Tech doesn't help as much using this method. However, I doubt NIU can maintain it's ranking.
SBC:
73. Troy
79. La Tech
81. FIU
100. Arkansas St
101. ULM
102. MTSU
108. FAU
109. North Texas
111. ULL
115. WKU
Avg: 97.9 (100 without Tech)
MAC:
39. NIU
63. Miami
64. Temple
71. Toledo
78. Ohio
83. WMU
95. Kent
104. CMU
109. Ball St
112. BGU
117. EMU
119. Buffalo
120. Akron
Avg: 90.3
No more Louisiana schools.
Guys, do you realize that the BCS penalizes a conference for having less than 12 members. A less than 10 member conference gets a 25% penalty added to its score; where do you think the Sun Belt falls?
Conference membership Adjustment
12 or more members - no adjustment
10 or 11 members - points increased by 12.5 percent
9 or fewer members - points increased by 25 percent
Computations made according to the conference's membership on Dec. 4, 2011.
MAC penalty = 0; SBC penalty = 25%
Now do you see why everyone is in a rush to get to 12.
p.s. to clairfy, these are the points used by the BCS to assign units (money) to the conferences.
(01-25-2011 12:24 PM)FIUFan Wrote: [ -> ]Guys, do you realize that the BCS penalizes a conference for having less than 12 members. A less than 10 member conference gets a 25% penalty added to its score; where do you think the Sun Belt falls?
Conference membership Adjustment
12 or more members - no adjustment
10 or 11 members - points increased by 12.5 percent
9 or fewer members - points increased by 25 percent
Computations made according to the conference's membership on Dec. 4, 2011.
MAC penalty = 0; SBC penalty = 25%
Now do you see why everyone is in a rush to get to 12.
p.s. to clairfy, these are the points used by the BCS to assign units (money) to the conferences.
I never realized that. Thanks for sharing. It seems that someone wants all the conferences to have 12 teams.
(01-25-2011 12:24 PM)FIUFan Wrote: [ -> ]Guys, do you realize that the BCS penalizes a conference for having less than 12 members. A less than 10 member conference gets a 25% penalty added to its score; where do you think the Sun Belt falls?
Conference membership Adjustment
12 or more members - no adjustment
10 or 11 members - points increased by 12.5 percent
9 or fewer members - points increased by 25 percent
Computations made according to the conference's membership on Dec. 4, 2011.
MAC penalty = 0; SBC penalty = 25%
Now do you see why everyone is in a rush to get to 12.
p.s. to clairfy, these are the points used by the BCS to assign units (money) to the conferences.
Like em or not these ratings are relevant in money distribution and conference perception, just like the polls.
They may be proven wrong mulitple times, but the majority of fans look to them as indication of a team or conference strength.
(01-25-2011 12:24 PM)FIUFan Wrote: [ -> ]p.s. to clairfy, these are the points used by the BCS to assign units (money) to the conferences.
link?
After reading that, isn't it saying that there is an INCREASE of distributions if a conference doesn't have 12 teams?
(01-25-2011 12:48 PM)T_Won1 Wrote: [ -> ]After reading that, isn't it saying that there is an INCREASE of distributions if a conference doesn't have 12 teams?
No. points here are bad. If we are at 60; hten we would multiply that total by 1.25 to get 75. So even if the MAC comes in at 65, with the <12 conference, we still lose that unit.
USA gets us to 10, Tech and Southern get us to 12.
No. Points are good. We are getting zero points since we have no one ranked in the top 25.
Zero + 25% is still zero though. If we had someone ranked 25th, we'd get 1.25 points.
The % addition is only applicable to the points earned by teams finishing in the top 25 of the BCS. Fewer teams makes it more difficult to have more teams in the top 25, so they add a %.
Reading comprehension FTW! Also, that's why you ask for the source for things instead of just believing someone outright. Skepticism FTW too!
Yeah...not really sure how you're reading that FIUFan, but it definitely sounds like points are a good thing.
Arkstfan....please weigh in here....