I believe for better or worse the line up is pretty much set.
Arkansas ST may leave for the MAC I doubt it.
A twelfth team will be added for sure then stability for eight years or longer.

Which I think is what this conference needs stability.

Maybe South Alabama will be great maybe UAB similar circumstances.

Texas St could rule the conference or be UTEP with less support.
Georgia Southern has great potential but the new coach could stunt it.
Georgia State will win FBS games and if they win have a huge market to tap into.
APP ST I believe will be the SBC ' S ECU with great support when they expand.

Things are almost settled So embrace the conference for what it is and can be. None of the schools are locks for success or failure. The right coach can win anywhere and even Alabama has had down years. The difference at this level none of the schools can steal a proven winner. Hudspeth I would think is at the top he leaves . ULL hires a hot shot coordinator he struggles they try either a FCS coach or another coordinator.

LSU struggles they take MSU ' S coach who is proven. That turned out to be Nick Saban . Success at this Level is harder to maintain. Sure it can be done but not counted on.

I see what you're saying, but there's absolutely nothing similar between the circumstances at UAB and USA.

Don't let the disgruntled fan's of two of the left behind schools that post here distract from the fact that the SBC is a very solid G5 football conference, and should be going forward. While it might take the newbies a little time to adjust I think they will preform better than expected from the get go.

When realignment started the SBC was in with out a doubt the worse non-aq conference in football, and this past year it was the best, and that is a fact.

I don't understand where all the self-loathing and outside hatred comes from. Sure the SB has been seen in a negative light for years, but did they not win the best non power conference this past year? Granted its a small sample size, but dang, we have something to build on. I don't want to get decried for "beating my chest" and all like some of us GS fans are accused of, but us and APP are not your average move-ups. I think this conference is headed in the right direction and I'm glad to be a part of it. So lets all go kick some OOC ass, play each other tough and let the chips fall where they may, we need to shut up all this external BS and internal inferiority.

(05-14-2014 08:17 AM)MJG Wrote:  I believe for better or worse the line up is pretty much set.
Arkansas ST may leave for the MAC I doubt it.
A twelfth team will be added for sure then stability for eight years or longer.

Which I think is what this conference needs stability.

Maybe South Alabama will be great maybe UAB similar circumstances.

Texas St could rule the conference or be UTEP with less support.
Georgia Southern has great potential but the new coach could stunt it.
Georgia State will win FBS games and if they win have a huge market to tap into.
APP ST I believe will be the SBC ' S ECU with great support when they expand.

Things are almost settled So embrace the conference for what it is and can be. None of the schools are locks for success or failure. The right coach can win anywhere and even Alabama has had down years. The difference at this level none of the schools can steal a proven winner. Hudspeth I would think is at the top he leaves . ULL hires a hot shot coordinator he struggles they try either a FCS coach or another coordinator.

LSU struggles they take MSU ' S coach who is proven. That turned out to be Nick Saban . Success at this Level is harder to maintain. Sure it can be done but not counted on.

It's been said, but USA and UAB are not similar. USA is its own system. UAB is part of the University of Alabama system. Any team can be good or bad, so if that was your intent you could make that case for any team in comparison to UAB. But USA and UAB are not that similar. I see you're an Idaho fan, so I'll chalk it up to not knowing. But for future reference this is a terrible comparison.

In reality all G5 conferences are worse today than they were in 2010, with the exception of the MAC, but the incremental change/decline at the SBC compared to the other three is less.

(05-14-2014 09:15 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 08:17 AM)MJG Wrote:  I believe for better or worse the line up is pretty much set.
Arkansas ST may leave for the MAC I doubt it.
A twelfth team will be added for sure then stability for eight years or longer.

Which I think is what this conference needs stability.

Maybe South Alabama will be great maybe UAB similar circumstances.

Texas St could rule the conference or be UTEP with less support.
Georgia Southern has great potential but the new coach could stunt it.
Georgia State will win FBS games and if they win have a huge market to tap into.
APP ST I believe will be the SBC ' S ECU with great support when they expand.

Things are almost settled So embrace the conference for what it is and can be. None of the schools are locks for success or failure. The right coach can win anywhere and even Alabama has had down years. The difference at this level none of the schools can steal a proven winner. Hudspeth I would think is at the top he leaves . ULL hires a hot shot coordinator he struggles they try either a FCS coach or another coordinator.

LSU struggles they take MSU ' S coach who is proven. That turned out to be Nick Saban . Success at this Level is harder to maintain. Sure it can be done but not counted on.

It's been said, but USA and UAB are not similar. USA is its own system. UAB is part of the University of Alabama system. Any team can be good or bad, so if that was your intent you could make that case for any team in comparison to UAB. But USA and UAB are not that similar. I see you're an Idaho fan, so I'll chalk it up to not knowing. But for future reference this is a terrible comparison.

.I was not comparing the schools only the obvious similarities.
Alabama schools in cities with ready made stadiums.
South does have a right sized stadium and other advantages even in my simple comparison. UAB should have been better considering the local recruits vs competition. The point I guess is two plus two is not always four. Memphis is a prime example.

(05-14-2014 09:15 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  It's been said, but USA and UAB are not similar. USA is its own system. UAB is part of the University of Alabama system. Any team can be good or bad, so if that was your intent you could make that case for any team in comparison to UAB. But USA and UAB are not that similar. I see you're an Idaho fan, so I'll chalk it up to not knowing. But for future reference this is a terrible comparison.

In terms of talent, the two are very similar. USA, UAB, and Troy all operate at roughly the same talent level. The difference is UAB has a low ceiling due to their BOT. Troy and USA do not, with USA probably having the highest ceiling due to location and a larger main campus student body.

If all three teams played eachother you'd have to flip a coin to see who'd win each matchup. Troy (and UAB) are not (and would not be) guaranteed wins this year for USA like a couple of USA fans believe.

(05-14-2014 10:07 AM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 09:15 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  It's been said, but USA and UAB are not similar. USA is its own system. UAB is part of the University of Alabama system. Any team can be good or bad, so if that was your intent you could make that case for any team in comparison to UAB. But USA and UAB are not that similar. I see you're an Idaho fan, so I'll chalk it up to not knowing. But for future reference this is a terrible comparison.

In terms of talent, the two are very similar. USA, UAB, and Troy all operate at roughly the same talent level. The difference is UAB has a low ceiling due to their BOT. Troy and USA do not, with USA probably having the highest ceiling due to location and a larger main campus student body.

If all three teams played eachother you'd have to flip a coin to see who'd win each matchup. Troy (and UAB) are not (and would not be) guaranteed wins this year for USA like a couple of USA fans believe.

Troy is limited by their location and student population. They have a lower ceiling than UAB ever will because of that.

UAB has been ranked in a BCS Football poll before and made it to 3 sweet 16's and 1 elite 8 in basketball.

USA just has the young program issues currently. If anything they have the most potential once they get a chance to move up a better conference. If USA had the foresight to start football in the 1990's there is no telling where their program would be. Especially with the growth of Mobile in the last decade.

UAB and USA are both medical schools in the 2 largest cities in Alabama. But beyond that, I'm not sure what other comparisons there are.

Also to the original post; UAB has no interest in being in a conference with Troy. USA would be an option but it is not an option to be in a conference with both USM and USA. I'll take USM all day. For those reasons we will not rejoin the belt by choice.

The SBC is fast achieving parity with CUSA but neither is a great configuration.

The AAC has the most major conference tradition. The MWC has some nice fan bases. The MAC has a great business model and institutional similarity.

The SBC and CUSA are largely a mess, IMO

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(05-14-2014 10:20 AM)Dracorex Wrote:  Troy is limited by their location and student population. They have a lower ceiling than UAB ever will because of that.

UAB has been ranked in a BCS Football poll before and made it to 3 sweet 16's and 1 elite 8 in basketball.

Pure conjecture as it can't be measured, but I'll stick to my belief and reiterate that UAB's BOT and no on campus stadium will hinder UAB far more than a small student body and location ever will. Troy is growing rapidly and has over 30,000 students worldwide. I don't think you'll ever get rid of the BOT and because of that you won't ever have an on campus stadium. That will forever be your achilles heal.

(05-14-2014 09:20 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  In reality all G5 conferences are worse today than they were in 2010, with the exception of the MAC, but the incremental change/decline at the SBC compared to the other three is less.

How so? The SBC has three teams left that were playing FBS football 5 years ago. Fortunately for the SBC they have retained their two best programs based on recent performance, but long term success is unlikely at this level anyway. Look at USM. Ranked and a possible BCS game contender three years ago and now they have 1 win in the last two seasons.

Everyone else in the SBC is either new to FBS or struggling to stay FBS (NMSU, Idaho, and potentially UMass).

I'm not saying the SBC is leagues below CUSA or anything, I just think it is silly to say the SBC didn't experience much change.

When half your conference leaves and you have to throw life rafts to two FBS programs that couldn't find a home just so you have enough FBS teams to remain an FBS in the short term you have experienced a tremendous amount of change.

The SBC and CUSA were easily the most ravaged conferences. The AAC obviously lost a lot recently, but they were able to grab proven FBS programs, so their future is more certain.

(05-14-2014 10:22 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The SBC is fast achieving parity with CUSA but neither is a great configuration.

The AAC has the most major conference tradition. The MWC has some nice fan bases. The MAC has a great business model and institutional similarity.

The SBC and CUSA are largely a mess, IMO

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I think there is some truth. Both configurations have holes and are messy.

But the SBC schools and fans know it is messy. I think some CUSA think they have reached the promised land and expect to suddenly be seen as Houston, ECU, SMU, etc. while others feel like they are exiled in hell (USM, Rice).

It won't be easy for either.

Funny about losing coaches.

This is one of the reasons I wanted to keep running our old triple option. Not many schools are going to want to run it - partly due to it not being embraced/ran in the NFL. Regardless of how successful it is, big programs with big $ to steal those coaches would likely stay away from it. Outside of maybe Nebraska going back to a major option based scheme, we really only had to worry about the Service Academies. Once Air Force converts to a truer branch of the PJ tree (although now still related) all of those positions would likely be filled for a long time.

Running that could sustain us long term as far as coaching continuity (a major factor in maintaining a program long term) and IF successful at this level running that - we might have grown the fan base and cash flow to be able to hold on to our staff against most would be coach thieves.

Water under the bridge....

While I obviously hope Coach Fritz is crazy successful and even though he still runs a triple option attack - I think that his approach/scheme is going to be main stream enough that he would be a more likely target from a AQ or even much more wealthy G5. For that reason - I don't see him lasting more than 5 years at Southern. Win or lose. We might be looking at a 4/5 year cycle at the HC position with anything outside of our old version of the old triple option flex bone. One way or another - this is why I believe we are likely to see its return to Statesboro (its birthplace!) within 5 years. I think it has the best chance to give us long term sustainability for many reasons including being a contrary offense that is hard to defend on short notice, allowing use of skill sets not recruited as hard by other programs as well as helping us hold on to our coaching staff.

I know there are many who doubt a teams ability to win at this level with that offense, and that is fine. - We can agree to disagree. I do think we will get to find out - one day.

(05-14-2014 10:33 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 09:20 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  In reality all G5 conferences are worse today than they were in 2010, with the exception of the MAC, but the incremental change/decline at the SBC compared to the other three is less.

How so? The SBC has three teams left that were playing FBS football 5 years ago. Fortunately for the SBC they have retained their two best programs based on recent performance, but long term success is unlikely at this level anyway. Look at USM. Ranked and a possible BCS game contender three years ago and now they have 1 win in the last two seasons.

Everyone else in the SBC is either new to FBS or struggling to stay FBS (NMSU, Idaho, and potentially UMass).

I'm not saying the SBC is leagues below CUSA or anything, I just think it is silly to say the SBC didn't experience much change.

When half your conference leaves and you have to throw life rafts to two FBS programs that couldn't find a home just so you have enough FBS teams to remain an FBS in the short term you have experienced a tremendous amount of change.

The SBC and CUSA were easily the most ravaged conferences. The AAC obviously lost a lot recently, but they were able to grab proven FBS programs, so their future is more certain.

I think the point is that the SBC actually got stronger on the grid iron.
Change yes - but not change towards decline!
While CUSA went the other direction for the most part (WKU was a good pickup) sacrificing football competition ability for larger markets in pursuit of the dollars from TV contracts. Which - I think will not work out as I expect TV deals to basically level out between CUSA and the SBC.

The SBC did have to throw a life line to two potential football liabilities and would have rather retained MTSU and WKU. Imagine if those two had stayed.

At any rate, the SBC surpassed CUSA in football conference ranking. Something that they could not claim just a year earlier. I'd call this the opposite of decline. And that was without Ga Southern and App State - who honestly possibly will be the best two "move ups" ever.

We will see.

The SBC is a strong conference, and getting stronger each year. For a league that recently came into existence with a bunch of relative start-ups and new comers, we are in a great position. Even with membership changes, we have shown the ability to pretty much reload. Sure, the programs we are bringing will take time to adjust to this level in football; however, they come with history showing that they will work to be solid. Even Ga. State will grow and thrive within a nice size metropolitan area. What both the MAC and CUSA have, which are programs who have shown the max value they can bring when they reach their ceiling, the SBC doesn't have as we are all only at a level where we are exhibiting our potential to strive towards our ceilings. That there speaks volumes to me and says that although the present shows CUSA and the MAC to be more valuable leagues the future shows the SBC to be the most valuable out of the three. Why then leave that situation for immediate results? Stop looking for this "quick out". Build upon what you have created, for the value in the long run will be greater than the situation you are striving to possibly pursue elsewhere.

(05-14-2014 11:22 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  The SBC is a strong conference, and getting stronger each year. For a league that recently came into existence with a bunch of relative start-ups and new comers, we are in a great position.

I agree to an extent. However, Idaho, NMSU, and what now looks like UMASS will hurt the league more than we want to admit. Georgia State played most SBC teams fairly close but they were still 0-12. App and GS are high potential programs with mile long histories, but there is no guarantee the transition won't be rough. We can count on USA, Texas State, Troy, ASU, ULM and Louisiana to have at least decent years, but you never can tell. We need to prepare ourselves for the possibility of a rough year or two (UMASS in 2015, is looking more likely by the day).

(05-14-2014 11:37 AM)TroyFootball05 Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 11:22 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  The SBC is a strong conference, and getting stronger each year. For a league that recently came into existence with a bunch of relative start-ups and new comers, we are in a great position.

I agree to an extent. However, Idaho, NMSU, and what now looks like UMASS will hurt the league more than we want to admit. Georgia State played most SBC teams fairly close but they were still 0-12. App and GS are high potential programs with mile long histories, but there is no guarantee the transition won't be rough. We can count on USA, Texas State, Troy, ASU, ULM and Louisiana to have at least decent years, but you never can tell. We need to prepare ourselves for the possibility of a rough year or two (UMASS in 2015, is looking more likely by the day).

Would you be counting on Idaho if this was 2010 ? Coming off a bowl win and only us and Troy would have a bowl victory assuming the half of the conference that never played FBS moved up that year. UMASS was a strong FCS program at that point . No real reason The so called bottom teams won't win.

UMass now has a couple of years of FBS football in the MAC and just brought back
one of their most successful coaches so if they do come in they may not be so bad
football wise.

I'm looking at football only here.

CUSA lost Tulsa, ECU, SMU, Houston, and UCF, all were considered to be in the top half of the conference.

The SBC lost MTSU, WKU, North Texas, FAU, and FIU, three of those teams were in the bottom half of the SBC the last five years.

There used to be a clear divide on the field between the two conferences, but is marginal at best now. Check out your passenger side mirror, now read the caption.