I still prefer Ohio University as JMU's replacement. I feel Toledo should be given consideration, too. Yes, they're northern Ohio, but they've always been historically good in football and solid in basketball.

(Today 08:02 AM)NewfieHerdFan Wrote:  I still prefer Ohio University as JMU's replacement. I feel Toledo should be given consideration, too. Yes, they're northern Ohio, but they've always been historically good in football and solid in basketball.

Wouldn't it just be easier for the MAC to add Marshall?

there is not a team in Texas that is the answer unless the question is "where should we NOT add a team from".....and I say that as someone that wants to see all Texas teams with a few exceptions do as well as possible

lets break down some real facts here:

1. there is no such thing as a "market" in college football.....you do not get people in a major metro area to become fans of a college program over night because that program is in a city....sure there are plenty of examples of "college towns" where there is not a lot else to do, the university has been there forever and helped make the city what it is, entertainment options are limited....AND they play at a very high level and have done so for a long period of time

no currently available team in Texas comes close to meeting that standard

2. 20,000 students is a large university in a lot of places.....that is a mid sized university in Texas and there are a TON of mid sized universities in Texas and playing one of them is not a real recruiting advantage because that university will not even have that advantage because of the number of D1-A programs and P level programs already in the state and the massive number of ones from other places that rely on recruiting in Texas every year

3. Tarleton is 50% first gen students and 62% females.....if you are looking for a sugar baby that is probably your sweet spot for recruiting.....not so much for a university that has fans that are heavily vested in college sports even in football crazy Texas......I suppose being ~60% White and ~25% Hispanic helps with those that might want to watch football and more s with those looking for a sugar baby, but still that is not going to overcome the factor of a lot of them are probably Tshirt fans of other programs or not interested in college sports

4. their enrollment growth is VERY recent.....that means their alumni pool is small, young, not making major donations, and not showing up to fill the stands

5. a lot of people like to trash UT, but UT as a SYSTEM is NOT the system in Texas that keeps their other system member universities down and that is definitely something they do not do academically and something they do not do for athletics......on the other hand The Texas A&M System IS the system that does that and they do it worse than even the UH System.....so there is every chance that if things change they could have the rug pulled out from under them in terms of facilities improvements, enrollment growth, ability to spend academic side money on athletics, and a number of other ways....which gets me to

6. 76% of their budget of $31.96 million comes from student fees or direct academic side transfers.....actually split down the middle 38% each.....if there comes a time (and it will come) when there are questions about why the academic side is paying $24.5 million per year to play sports (along with that question for every other public university in Texas and many other states spending like that) well the answer from a large system like the A&M System will be "we have affordable over here" ----->>> Tarleton and other system members that were just told to cut academic side subsidies while College Station rolls on with donor money (that Tarleton is a long ways away from having)

Tarleton is not the answer, Sam Houston is not the answer, and UTRGV is not the answer.....cross them all off the list ASAP if you want what is best for The SunBelt

You've sold me on Tarleton, if I ever need a sugar baby.

The SB has seen its greatest success come from concentrating on regional schools that produced good rivalries. While the TV money might not be as good, there are far more fannies in the stands and that makes the games far more enjoyable. I would hope the PTB would continue that mindset.

(Today 08:47 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  

(Today 08:02 AM)NewfieHerdFan Wrote:  I still prefer Ohio University as JMU's replacement. I feel Toledo should be given consideration, too. Yes, they're northern Ohio, but they've always been historically good in football and solid in basketball.

Wouldn't it just be easier for the MAC to add Marshall?

And be in a conference with the Ball Sac twins? No thanks. I think half of your teams are about to drop to FCS aren’t they?

(Today 08:47 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  

(Today 08:02 AM)NewfieHerdFan Wrote:  I still prefer Ohio University as JMU's replacement. I feel Toledo should be given consideration, too. Yes, they're northern Ohio, but they've always been historically good in football and solid in basketball.

Wouldn't it just be easier for the MAC to add Marshall?

Did the Chips ever beat us the last time we were there?

(Today 08:55 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  there is not a team in Texas that is the answer unless the question is "where should we NOT add a team from".....and I say that as someone that wants to see all Texas teams with a few exceptions do as well as possible

lets break down some real facts here:

1. there is no such thing as a "market" in college football.....you do not get people in a major metro area to become fans of a college program over night because that program is in a city....sure there are plenty of examples of "college towns" where there is not a lot else to do, the university has been there forever and helped make the city what it is, entertainment options are limited....AND they play at a very high level and have done so for a long period of time

no currently available team in Texas comes close to meeting that standard

2. 20,000 students is a large university in a lot of places.....that is a mid sized university in Texas and there are a TON of mid sized universities in Texas and playing one of them is not a real recruiting advantage because that university will not even have that advantage because of the number of D1-A programs and P level programs already in the state and the massive number of ones from other places that rely on recruiting in Texas every year

3. Tarleton is 50% first gen students and 62% females.....if you are looking for a sugar baby that is probably your sweet spot for recruiting.....not so much for a university that has fans that are heavily vested in college sports even in football crazy Texas......I suppose being ~60% White and ~25% Hispanic helps with those that might want to watch football and more s with those looking for a sugar baby, but still that is not going to overcome the factor of a lot of them are probably Tshirt fans of other programs or not interested in college sports

4. their enrollment growth is VERY recent.....that means their alumni pool is small, young, not making major donations, and not showing up to fill the stands

5. a lot of people like to trash UT, but UT as a SYSTEM is NOT the system in Texas that keeps their other system member universities down and that is definitely something they do not do academically and something they do not do for athletics......on the other hand The Texas A&M System IS the system that does that and they do it worse than even the UH System.....so there is every chance that if things change they could have the rug pulled out from under them in terms of facilities improvements, enrollment growth, ability to spend academic side money on athletics, and a number of other ways....which gets me to

6. 76% of their budget of $31.96 million comes from student fees or direct academic side transfers.....actually split down the middle 38% each.....if there comes a time (and it will come) when there are questions about why the academic side is paying $24.5 million per year to play sports (along with that question for every other public university in Texas and many other states spending like that) well the answer from a large system like the A&M System will be "we have affordable over here" ----->>> Tarleton and other system members that were just told to cut academic side subsidies while College Station rolls on with donor money (that Tarleton is a long ways away from having)

Tarleton is not the answer, Sam Houston is not the answer, and UTRGV is not the answer.....cross them all off the list ASAP if you want what is best for The SunBelt

1. The Louisiana schools are in a larger institutions system and are apt to face the same budget cuts you theorize, maybe the rest of us should just drop them if it’s such an issue? (Not something I’m advocating for, just trying to make a point)

2. One of your negatives is essentially just that it’s a young and growing university

3. You completely ignore any athletic success they’ve had in your rant

4. If it’s a growing university, clearly their students don’t care about paying said student fees, so why is that seen as such a downside to the school?

5. Alot of the SBC have donor bases that are old and dying, so in 10 years, who’s going to be making more donations? The recent college grads or the dead people?

6. I’m not advocating to add TSU as #14, but your word salad rant intrigued me.

(Today 01:03 PM)Herdfanatic04 Wrote:  5. Alot of the SBC have donor bases that are old and dying, so in 10 years, who’s going to be making more donations? The recent college grads or the dead people?

Which schools in the Sun Belt have donor bases who are old and dying?


Don't you think they'll be replaced in 10 years by donor bases who are then old and dying?