(10-05-2016 07:05 PM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  After kicking two members to the curb, does anyone else see the irony in a thread that proposes to add two new members . . . .

Wait until were dead and gone before you try dating .

(10-05-2016 08:08 PM)MJG Wrote:  

(10-05-2016 07:05 PM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  After kicking two members to the curb, does anyone else see the irony in a thread that proposes to add two new members . . . .

Wait until were dead and gone before you try dating .

I'm not dating friend, merely observing . . . .

(10-05-2016 01:09 PM)Artemis Silver Bow Wrote:  if Southern Miss had any common sense they would jump ship from CUSA to the Sunbelt. No FCS schools!

^^^^ This ^^^^

There is danger in a championship game from both directions. At this point the Sun Belt is the only Group of Five league that still risks split conference championships... then again, we've seen what conference championships have done to the bowl bids of teams like Houston (when they were in C-USA and upset by Southern Miss) and several MAC programs.

The Sun Belt is still sitting behind several other mid-major leagues in terms of prestige, but I'm not sure a CCG would do it... http://saturdayblitz.com/2016/10/05/grou...-rankings/

I know Bama just scored to make it 21-3, but I've been following Chattanooga all season and the Mocs are certainly making a name for themselves.

I'm thinking they are good bet for a future SBC school.

They'd need to add baseball. They don't have it.

true

Why split money 12 ways, when you can split 10

What threads like this ignore is that the SBC already has 12 members. Adding 2 members not only splits the CFP money needlessly, but every other revenue stream like the BBall tourney among 14.

NMSU and Idaho were really best case scenarios because they used their CFP money to subsidize SBC travel and didn't dilute the rest.

Why stop at 12? I say expand expand expand until no end. I think a true 20 team conference is whats best. Think about all the extra tv money each school would make. Whats not to like about having more teams? (sarcasm)

(10-05-2016 10:42 PM)Bigalke Wrote:  There is danger in a championship game from both directions. At this point the Sun Belt is the only Group of Five league that still risks split conference championships... then again, we've seen what conference championships have done to the bowl bids of teams like Houston (when they were in C-USA and upset by Southern Miss) and several MAC programs.

The Sun Belt is still sitting behind several other mid-major leagues in terms of prestige, but I'm not sure a CCG would do it... http://saturdayblitz.com/2016/10/05/grou...-rankings/

a championship game would just give one sbc team another loss to an unranked team and hurt their chances at being selected for a bowl game. plus having the game at a neutral with with only a few thousand in the stands would not be good image for the conference when touting our legitimacy.

Adding teams is really more of a luxury than a necessity at this point. Might as well hold out for someone good. Southern Miss, James Madison, New Mexico St, or Wichita State. Not even sure if Missouri St makes my list anymore. Next additions have to add something real to the conference.

I'd still be ok with UTA restarting and snaking away USM. But for that to happen, we have to continue to improve as a conference.

(11-22-2016 09:14 AM)Usajags Wrote:  I'd still be ok with UTA restarting and snaking away USM. But for that to happen, we have to continue to improve as a conference.

UTA restarting football should be the Belt's #1 expansion priority.

(11-22-2016 11:11 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(11-22-2016 09:14 AM)Usajags Wrote:  I'd still be ok with UTA restarting and snaking away USM. But for that to happen, we have to continue to improve as a conference.

UTA restarting football should be the Belt's #1 expansion priority.

But is it UTA athletics number one priority??

You would have hoped it would have been part of the invite for them. You can join the SBC, but you must have football restarted by date XXXX. So far, nothing has been said this was the case, another bad misstep by our "leadership".

SBC 16 - Scenario 1

I did these for fun. It's slow during the holidays.

SBC 12

(11-22-2016 05:55 PM)ChooChoo Wrote:  

SBC 12

If anything, this. Just need to start leaning on LR and UTA!!!

(11-22-2016 11:44 AM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(11-22-2016 11:11 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(11-22-2016 09:14 AM)Usajags Wrote:  I'd still be ok with UTA restarting and snaking away USM. But for that to happen, we have to continue to improve as a conference.

UTA restarting football should be the Belt's #1 expansion priority.

But is it UTA athletics number one priority??

Yes and no, it's complicated.

UTA had a lot of stuff to do in order to be a legit Division I athletic Departement. We were content to compete for Southland championships in DII quality venues (or worse in some cases), and had a lot of work to do for what we had existing.

The last real post I put on the matter is here, but have discussed the other steps that had to be taken and what has been a matter of public record for a while.

http://themaverickrambler.blogspot.com/2...o-uta.html