IMO, the MAC stands more to gain from an alliance than the Belt does. but, I'm still in favor of it.

Not at all, I would hate the travel. And the conference would be huge. Plus the SBC is still a young conference. If that happens Toledo, WMU, CMU, NIU, EMU would all bug out and go somewhere else. Such a waste to play teams equal to or worse than our program right now. I'm speaking for Toledo anyways.

(10-15-2011 10:42 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  the "attitude" displayed by many Tech fans who I have personally observed, is that the Bulldogs are too good for the Sun Belt.

when Tech bolted for the WAC they burned a lot of bridges in the Belt. now that the ship is sinking and the Bulldgos are dressed in their tails playing the final chorus, it seems they have been hoping C-USA will come along in a skiff and rescue them. That isn't going to happen, and I think most realize that now.

To think that La Tech will simply waltz back in to the Belt as a last resort option is arrogant ("While the belt would sting, it's a much softer landing than the Big Sky or Indy"). it will be OUR decision whether we LET yall back in. I doubt ULM will vote yes.

Personally, I want Tech back in the Belt because yall bring another decent team in to the Conference that sits within the footprint. I do not however like the elitest attitude that SOME of your fans hold.

That's better. Now, I never said anything about the ease with which Tech would return to the Belt...or even said it was certain. I do think it's a good possibility. Teams like Idaho will have NO hope if they don't get picked up and the WAC crashes (which I expect it to do). Teams near other FBS conferences are in a better spot...that's what my point was.

As far as some elitist fans...we've all got them. I think the Tech fan base by and large is having quite a reality check as they look into the future and see what the new WAC will be (if it holds on).

And to the OP...yes, you get this started if for no other reason to use it to go after Thompson.

I hope we all realize that's what this is...it's a play to separate CUSA and the MWC from all the other non-AQs. They're trying to create a sort of middle layer between non-AQ and AQ. It's bad for everyone not involved...and it will likely lead to legal disputes (which should be fun to watch).

well based on your response you seem to be a reasonable Tech fan, which I respect. like I said before, I'd like to have your Bulldogs back in the Belt. It'll all come down to how your AD approaches the Conference. If yall come back, I think Troy and Tech will develop in to a strong and healthy rivalry that I personally will really enjoy.

I don't believe we should do a merger, a Sun-MAC conference is just not a good idea. WITH THAT SAID, I think that a comprehensive scheduling agreement would be great, something like a Sunbelt/MAC challenge. every team in the conference plays one team from the MAC in an OOC game, no need for necessary "return game" because next year there will be a team returning the trip whether its the team they played the year before or not. I would think that early season SBC/MAC challenge games would be played at the MAC stadiums because of the better weather early on, and later in the season SBC/MAC challenge games would be in the SBC stadiums because of better late season weather.

I think this would work out which would also get teams forced to play one fewer body bag game and have all the teams in the league play someone more on their own footing. Lastly, it would be nice to see the 2 conferences come together to more actively get the 2 leagues champions to play each other in a bowl game so that the bowl game would seem to mean a little more.

The more the MWC-CUSA Alliance gets legitimacy with a potential for Auto Bid, the more there will be a bigger dividing line between the (AQs, MWC, CUSA) & the (MAC, SBC and WAC).

The MAC-SBC need to at least talk to give the perception to the BCS that if the MWC-CUSA Alliance gets an Auto-bid, then the MAC-SBC will ask for the same thing. The BCS never likes to give a little because they know more will ask for the same with the potential for Anti-trust litigation.

(10-15-2011 09:03 PM)johnnylightnin Wrote:  While the belt would sting, it's a much softer landing than the Big Sky or Indy...I'll wait and see how the current realignment gumbo works out first though.

Given that the Belt is rated higher than the WAC today (pre-loss of Nevada, Fresno, Hawaii).

And given that the Sun Belt isn't offering SLC scrape-ups to survive (UTA, UTSA, TSU).

Add that Benson has already admitted that ESPN has cut the TV money to the Sun Belt dollar figure and will cut more after the departures.

Further considering that the Sun Belt is ahead of the WAC in baseball and arguably women's basketball, and now ahead in football and has more bowl ties without pinning all bowl hopes on a bowl played at the stadium of a departed team.

I just don't see how the Sun Belt "sting" compares to the boot in the face that is the WAC.

From a UNT perspective...if we end up staying in the Sun Belt...I would rather just expand the Sun Belt with WAC/future WAC schools (LA Tech, UTSA, NM St.) and other current FBS teams, other than UTSA.

(10-17-2011 04:57 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-15-2011 09:03 PM)johnnylightnin Wrote:  While the belt would sting, it's a much softer landing than the Big Sky or Indy...I'll wait and see how the current realignment gumbo works out first though.

Given that the Belt is rated higher than the WAC today (pre-loss of Nevada, Fresno, Hawaii).

And given that the Sun Belt isn't offering SLC scrape-ups to survive (UTA, UTSA, TSU).

Add that Benson has already admitted that ESPN has cut the TV money to the Sun Belt dollar figure and will cut more after the departures.

Further considering that the Sun Belt is ahead of the WAC in baseball and arguably women's basketball, and now ahead in football and has more bowl ties without pinning all bowl hopes on a bowl played at the stadium of a departed team.

I just don't see how the Sun Belt "sting" compares to the boot in the face that is the WAC.

never said the future WeAC wasn't also gonna sting...it will...a lot

the Sun Belt is a STEP UP from the WAC. anyone who says otherwise is fooling themselves...or suffers from the same condition as Forest Gump.

(10-17-2011 05:41 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  the Sun Belt is a STEP UP from the WAC. anyone who says otherwise is fooling themselves...or suffers from the same condition as Forest Gump.

patriotism and perseverance? lol

(10-17-2011 05:51 PM)MeanGreenFan123 Wrote:  

(10-17-2011 05:41 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  the Sun Belt is a STEP UP from the WAC. anyone who says otherwise is fooling themselves...or suffers from the same condition as Forest Gump.

patriotism and perseverance? lol

naw, more the gettin' your momma to go to extremes to get you in to the normal school.

(10-17-2011 05:52 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  

(10-17-2011 05:51 PM)MeanGreenFan123 Wrote:  

(10-17-2011 05:41 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  the Sun Belt is a STEP UP from the WAC. anyone who says otherwise is fooling themselves...or suffers from the same condition as Forest Gump.

patriotism and perseverance? lol

naw, more the gettin' your momma to go to extremes to get you in to the normal school.

MAC SBC alliance is possible... but I think it wouldn't be the smartest thing ever. =/

Right now wanting to be in the WAC for prestige and reputation is like wanting to be in the Southern because Alabama, Clemson, Tennessee and Duke used to be in there.

MAC and Sun Belt champions play in the Go Daddy Bowl.

(10-18-2011 11:50 PM)OhioBobcatJohn Wrote:  MAC and Sun Belt champions play in the Go Daddy Bowl.

Actually, not necessarily...

We don't actually send our champion to any bowl automatically, the New Orleans Bowl and Go Daddy.com Bowl alternate years having the first pick of bowl eligible Sun Belt teams and technically neither bowl has to take the Sun Belt champion, so long as the Sun Belt champion is bowling somewhere.

For instance, in 2010, GoDaddy had the first pick, and New Orleans the second and one of our secondary ties, Little Caesars came into play as well. FIU and Troy were co-champions in 2010, but FIU won the head to head, so they had to be accommodated first, but neither one of GoDaddy or New Orleans Bowl were particularly enthralled with the idea of taking FIU given their track record(or lack thereof) in bowl ticket sales and less than stellar home attendance, but since they knew Little Caesar's was contractually bound to take them, they could pass on FIU.

Now allow me to backtrack for a moment, in 2008 Troy was the champion and went to New Orleans, 2009(the first year of our contract with GoDaddy) New Orleans had the first pick and Troy was the conference champion, but they took Middle Tennessee since they had just had Troy the year before and Troy could go to GoDaddy which would be good for both Troy and Godaddy. Now go back to 2010, even with Godaddy having the first pick and Troy right down the road, they had the Trojans the year before and New Orleans had Middle Tennessee they year before, so despite GoDaddy having the first pick, they actually took 6-6 Middle Tennessee, co-champion Troy went to New Orleans and co-champion FIU went to Detroit.

And as far as the MAC goes, as I understand you guys alternate your champion between GoDaddy and Little Caesar's.