(05-14-2022 08:21 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  

(05-14-2022 08:40 AM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(04-28-2022 06:00 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(04-28-2022 04:56 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(04-28-2022 04:44 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  Good. It's mutual. TXST would not accept an invitation, anyway.

Again, what school that would actually be willing to accept an invitation would be better than TXST?

I can imagine maybe UMass FB only. Maybe even Missouri State (although Matt Brown said they had no interest). I'm trying to figure this out. Who would add more?

The league office will need to figure that question out at some point. Staying at nine is perfectly fine. But there needs to be a contingency plan in the event WKU, or MTSU, or La. Tech, or someone else leaves.

What’s the rush to expand? Nine is perfect. Just leave it like that. And where are those schools going? I just don’t see any movement until the ACC GOR is up in the mid 2030’s.

For the conference sake, I hope they don’t expand and just focus on what they have moving forward. What the Sun Belt or any other G5 conference does or doesn’t do should not be any of our concern.

I'm enjoying this discussion, UTEPDallas. Too many times, people try to be message board tough guys. I don't get that vibe from you at all.

I think you must have misunderstood me due to my being unclear. I agree with you that nine is best right now. I was just talking about contingency scenarios in which C-USA needs to backfill. For example, Memphis goes to the Big 12 (along with Boise). AAC backfills with MTSU. C-USA needs a plan. Or, say,, the Sun Belt [stupidly] adds Missouri State and WKU. C-USA needs a backup plan.. But I agree with you: don't add new schools now. Nine is good. See what happens.

Regarding the Sun Belt at 10 vs. 14.

I agree that the Belt had a good thing going at 10 members. The past several seasons have been the highest level of performance in football in the league's history.

I agree, we have yet to find out if the SBC can do well at more than 12 members.

Let's look at the WAC-16. BYU went 14-1 in 1996, finished in the Top 5, won the Cotton Bowl over K-State, and certainly would have been in today's NY6 if not CFP. It was probably BYU's second best season ever, behind only the 1984 national championship. That made it clear that large G5-equivalent conferences can produce dominant teams. The league broke in two, so the experiment failed. However, the Sun Belt can't just break in two. The NCAA/P5 aren't going to allow a 33rd automatic bid.

Additionally, the WAC-16 broke up rivalries. The old-line WAC schools were separated from each other, and they hated it. The SBC14 does the opposite. It has brought rivalries together, and their fans love it.

C-USA14 didn't produce any NY6 contenders. I don't know why that was exactly. But the way the conference was run and set up may have played a role.

1. C-USA14 can't be faulted for losing schools to the AAC. That was always the better conference. But losing schools to a league it once raided was a failure. 2. It failed for many reasons: poor leadership, perceived favoritism towards Texas schools, terrible multimedia deals, a bad basketball tournament setup, and few regional, historic rivalries. There was a lack of commonality. The divisions were really widespread and very difficult for most fans to drive to for most road games.. The SBC14 largely has been satisfied with Benson and now Gill. The tournament was moved more towards the middle of the league. The multimedia deal with ESPN is simple, easy to understand, and provides ample exposure opportunities. The rivalries in both divisions are great. The divisions are compact, driveable, and primed for rivalries.

Time will tell whether the SBC14 can start getting some teams in the NY6. It's a level playing field once Cincy, Houston, and UCF are gone. No excuses not to get some teams a few times in the NY6 at that point. We'll see. Maybe you'll be right and parity will drag the league down.

I agree with this...

1. The AAC has the superior media deal and the most overall G5 success. They could have added any program they chose from C-USA, Sun Belt, or the MAC.

2. In football the Sun Belt has surpassed C-USA. The fact that they raided them just proves the point. You named multiple reasons for this but have failed to name one of the most important reason.... disgruntle members. It is no secret that a small group of C-USA programs openly complained and destabilized C-USA once the media deal went south (complaints about travel costs, complaints about losing revenue, complaints about tournament locations/events, cancelling some of their sports, cancelling entire seasons,...). Generating negative press about C-USA was an annual off-season agenda for them. They had their eyes on the AAC, but when the music stopped those AAC chairs were taken. The Sun Belt threw those three a lifeline, so you better hope you can keep them happy.

While I don't view C-USA as a winner in the latest round of realignment, I do think removing those cancers was a step in the right direction. Personally, I have nothing against those three programs. But, I'll never understand why they attacked C-USA instead of helping build it. I liken it to rioters that burn down their own neighborhoods. Having seen the damage they have done, I'd never want my university to conference with them again. And, I doubt any of the C-USA6 would vote to add any of them to the AAC should spots open up down the road.

Hopefully everyone will be happy in their new conferences, and all of our battles can be fought on the fields.

Oh EFF OFF! What has UNT done? NOTHING! The ONLY reason you got into the AAC is because you fit the framework. Has nothing to do with success, otherwise you'd have been left out. You should hear what the AAC guys say about adding you buffoons. You aren't wanted, and you're going to see a reorg/defection from the AAC by the bigger members. Your media deal is going to go south. I can't wait to see that titanic UNT/Tulane epic battle. That's must-hear tape delayed radio.

Get your snob ass off this board.