(03-09-2012 11:15 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 10:56 AM)goherd17 Wrote:  Plus beat FIU one of the belt's best teams. I respect the belt as I have stated before but to call the Alliance left overs is your choice. But what is the belt then if the alliance is leftovers. All conf that are not in the Big 5 are leftovers but we have to make the best of what we have.

By definition the alliance is the groups of MWC and CUSA members who were not poached away by the Big East.

Would that not make then "leftovers"

I'm assuming then that if any Belt teams get "poached" by the Alliance, that teams remaining in the Belt will be "leftovers". Correct ?

(03-09-2012 12:48 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 11:15 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 10:56 AM)goherd17 Wrote:  Plus beat FIU one of the belt's best teams. I respect the belt as I have stated before but to call the Alliance left overs is your choice. But what is the belt then if the alliance is leftovers. All conf that are not in the Big 5 are leftovers but we have to make the best of what we have.

By definition the alliance is the groups of MWC and CUSA members who were not poached away by the Big East.

Would that not make then "leftovers"

I'm assuming then that if any Belt teams get "poached" by the Alliance, that teams remaining in the Belt will be "leftovers". Correct ?

Don't leave mean green, I don't want my conference to be known as a leftovers conference!

Just took a stroll over to the C-USA board, their thread on the merger is ridiculous. They are talking 3 divisions, this whole thing in a legistical nightmare.

I don't see there being a TV deal coming that is going to pay them more then what they were making before.

I'm not a fan of the NCAA as an organization, but this is one time they really need to step in and take control of this whole conference realignment mess. They needed to step in a few years ago but didn't. The NCAA is a useless organization.

(03-09-2012 01:32 PM)Usajags Wrote:  Just took a stroll over to the C-USA board, their thread on the merger is ridiculous. They are talking 3 divisions, this whole thing in a legistical nightmare.

I don't see there being a TV deal coming that is going to pay them more then what they were making before.

I'm not a fan of the NCAA as an organization, but this is one time they really need to step in and take control of this whole conference realignment mess. They needed to step in a few years ago but didn't. The NCAA is a useless organization.

They failed long ago to do anything about it. I don't like the ideas we are looking at, and what we have been forced to do to try to keep up, but in the end ECU has to do whatever it takes to remain as competitive as possible financially with our regional AQ neighbors. That's all that's important. Those are who we have to compete with and who we have to beat out on a daily basis.

(03-09-2012 11:04 AM)MG61 Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 09:52 AM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  it's the "Alliance of Leftovers" fellas, no one cares about them. Southern Miss and ECU are the only programs I personally would watch on TV.

Why are you so bitter about "the Alliance" ?

Bitter isn't the right term, I am annoyed. The fans of these programs were snubbed and left behind, yet still turn their noses up at us as a league...then claim they will swoop in and steal any of our programs they want.

I just don't respect some of them, and I see the whole thing as a structure that will inevitably fail.

I don't see how people think this is a good idea and actually believe they can make triple what they were.

[CUSA ($14 million) - Memphis, Houston, SMU, UCF] + [MWC ($12 million) - TCU, Utah, BYU, Boise St, San Diego St + Hawaii, Fresno St, Nevada] + a few random WAC, SBC, & FCS schools = $90 million

A classroom full of MIT professors couldn't make that equation work. I find it hard to believe execs will pay them more money. The TV networks should be getting a bargain w/ a bunch of mediocre programs. Only once conference tourney will be televised instead of 2.

So here's what they "gain":
1. People are losing their jobs because there can't be 2 commissioners
2. They will lose playoff berths (football bowls, baseball postseason, basketball tournament...)
3. Why even be in a conference if you aren't going to play all the people in your conference
4. Some added expense w/ travel costs
5. Each school will have a smaller chance of winning conference and many will probably not even make conference tournament
6. Representation will be less since there are more schools and the two votes of two conferences will now be one

I think they started this whole thing in hopes of getting AQ status. That was stupid to begin with thinking that they would be granted this if each conf champion played eachother and the winner of that went to a BCS bowl. Well that didn't work out and then they lost more teams. I think their pride was too big to swallow to admit that maybe it wasnt a good idea anymore, and they just kept going forward with it.

CUSA would have been better if they would have just added 4 new schools.

(03-09-2012 08:09 PM)GoBigRed26 Wrote:  I don't see how people think this is a good idea and actually believe they can make triple what they were.

[CUSA ($14 million) - Memphis, Houston, SMU, UCF] + [MWC ($12 million) - TCU, Utah, BYU, Boise St, San Diego St + Hawaii, Fresno St, Nevada] + a few random WAC, SBC, & FCS schools = $90 million

A classroom full of MIT professors couldn't make that equation work. I find it hard to believe execs will pay them more money. The TV networks should be getting a bargain w/ a bunch of mediocre programs. Only once conference tourney will be televised instead of 2.

So here's what they "gain":
1. People are losing their jobs because there can't be 2 commissioners
2. They will lose playoff berths (football bowls, baseball postseason, basketball tournament...)
3. Why even be in a conference if you aren't going to play all the people in your conference
4. Some added expense w/ travel costs
5. Each school will have a smaller chance of winning conference and many will probably not even make conference tournament
6. Representation will be less since there are more schools and the two votes of two conferences will now be one

I think they started this whole thing in hopes of getting AQ status. That was stupid to begin with thinking that they would be granted this if each conf champion played eachother and the winner of that went to a BCS bowl. Well that didn't work out and then they lost more teams. I think their pride was too big to swallow to admit that maybe it wasnt a good idea anymore, and they just kept going forward with it.

CUSA would have been better if they would have just added 4 new schools.

Lol someone should quote that.

But you forgot that if both conferences dissolve then they not only are able to get out their TV contracts, they also lose all bowl tie in's and the bowls are legally free to negotiate with other conferences.

For the combined conference to get more monies than the separate leagues with key members gone is not going to happen, everyone knows that. The focus is on maximizing their position as an much bigger conference. Few if any know how this will shake out but not having two commissioners and staffs saves money and the hope is that by using divisions they will cut travel cost not add to it while having the security of a bigger conference.

I doubt they will have any success at attaining an automatic BCS bowl, if that even exists in the future. The truth is though that the two highest rated non-aq conferences are combining. Is the alliance obviously better than the MAC or Belt in a combined state? My answer to that is no, but the overall perception is that it is.

I am not sure any of these super conferences will be successful in the long run. But I do think that teams in the alliance will get substanially more monies than the Belt or MAC and probably a much better bowl selection. The worst thing that can happen is that the alliance will not work and it will be split back into two conferences. The reality of the situation is that if that happens both of those conferences will probably still be perceived to be better than the MAC or Belt.

I think long term this could be good for the Belt pending on how many teams they ultimately lose. But losing any of the Belt teams and replacing them with fc move ups is not going to help the Belt. The good thing is that the distance between the old CUSA and MWC and the Belt has narrowed unless the Belt losses 3 or 4 teams.

I think a lot of you are whistling in the dark about the potential effects of the Alliance. I believe it is going to give any Belt team that goes to the alliance a big advantage over the teams left in the Belt in terms of prestige, recruiting and most importantly resources. Long term the Alliance may be a disaster, but short term it will give a boost to any Belt program moving into it.

I disagree Grandgreen. good day to you sir.

(03-09-2012 01:32 PM)Usajags Wrote:  Just took a stroll over to the C-USA board, their thread on the merger is ridiculous. They are talking 3 divisions, this whole thing in a legistical nightmare.

I don't see there being a TV deal coming that is going to pay them more then what they were making before.

I'm not a fan of the NCAA as an organization, but this is one time they really need to step in and take control of this whole conference realignment mess. They needed to step in a few years ago but didn't. The NCAA is a useless organization.

The NCAA is useless, they are afraid that the big schools will form their own organization and cut them out. I think I read recently their cut of the basketball pie is something like 300 million?

(03-10-2012 12:15 AM)Grandgreen Wrote:  For the combined conference to get more monies than the separate leagues with key members gone is not going to happen, everyone knows that. The focus is on maximizing their position as an much bigger conference. Few if any know how this will shake out but not having two commissioners and staffs saves money and the hope is that by using divisions they will cut travel cost not add to it while having the security of a bigger conference.

I doubt they will have any success at attaining an automatic BCS bowl, if that even exists in the future. The truth is though that the two highest rated non-aq conferences are combining. Is the alliance obviously better than the MAC or Belt in a combined state? My answer to that is no, but the overall perception is that it is.

I am not sure any of these super conferences will be successful in the long run. But I do think that teams in the alliance will get substanially more monies than the Belt or MAC and probably a much better bowl selection. The worst thing that can happen is that the alliance will not work and it will be split back into two conferences. The reality of the situation is that if that happens both of those conferences will probably still be perceived to be better than the MAC or Belt.

I think long term this could be good for the Belt pending on how many teams they ultimately lose. But losing any of the Belt teams and replacing them with fc move ups is not going to help the Belt. The good thing is that the distance between the old CUSA and MWC and the Belt has narrowed unless the Belt losses 3 or 4 teams.

I think a lot of you are whistling in the dark about the potential effects of the Alliance. I believe it is going to give any Belt team that goes to the alliance a big advantage over the teams left in the Belt in terms of prestige, recruiting and most importantly resources. Long term the Alliance may be a disaster, but short term it will give a boost to any Belt program moving into it.

I see it about the same way. In the alliance, I believe any of the Sun Belt programs would see a bump in their attendance and athletic budget. Those factors certainly wouldn't hurt recruiting, and under the right coaching, should lead to increasing success on the field.

By the same logic, I can't see how expanding the Sun Belt by adding FCS programs will lead to increased interest in Sun Belt football. I know I'm not interested in the prospect.

(03-10-2012 10:09 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-10-2012 12:15 AM)Grandgreen Wrote:  For the combined conference to get more monies than the separate leagues with key members gone is not going to happen, everyone knows that. The focus is on maximizing their position as an much bigger conference. Few if any know how this will shake out but not having two commissioners and staffs saves money and the hope is that by using divisions they will cut travel cost not add to it while having the security of a bigger conference.

I doubt they will have any success at attaining an automatic BCS bowl, if that even exists in the future. The truth is though that the two highest rated non-aq conferences are combining. Is the alliance obviously better than the MAC or Belt in a combined state? My answer to that is no, but the overall perception is that it is.

I am not sure any of these super conferences will be successful in the long run. But I do think that teams in the alliance will get substanially more monies than the Belt or MAC and probably a much better bowl selection. The worst thing that can happen is that the alliance will not work and it will be split back into two conferences. The reality of the situation is that if that happens both of those conferences will probably still be perceived to be better than the MAC or Belt.

I think long term this could be good for the Belt pending on how many teams they ultimately lose. But losing any of the Belt teams and replacing them with fc move ups is not going to help the Belt. The good thing is that the distance between the old CUSA and MWC and the Belt has narrowed unless the Belt losses 3 or 4 teams.

I think a lot of you are whistling in the dark about the potential effects of the Alliance. I believe it is going to give any Belt team that goes to the alliance a big advantage over the teams left in the Belt in terms of prestige, recruiting and most importantly resources. Long term the Alliance may be a disaster, but short term it will give a boost to any Belt program moving into it.

I see it about the same way. In the alliance, I believe any of the Sun Belt programs would see a bump in their attendance and athletic budget. Those factors certainly wouldn't hurt recruiting, and under the right coaching, should lead to increasing success on the field.

By the same logic, I can't see how expanding the Sun Belt by adding FCS programs will lead to increased interest in Sun Belt football. I know I'm not interested in the prospect.

One of the bigger potential benefits to expansion I see is shortened travel, which is why I've been pushing one east, one west, both from within our current footprint. Georgia State is pretty much smack dab in the middle of what would be the east division, and Louisiana Tech is pretty much smack dab in the middle of what would be the west division.

(03-10-2012 10:29 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(03-10-2012 10:09 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-10-2012 12:15 AM)Grandgreen Wrote:  For the combined conference to get more monies than the separate leagues with key members gone is not going to happen, everyone knows that. The focus is on maximizing their position as an much bigger conference. Few if any know how this will shake out but not having two commissioners and staffs saves money and the hope is that by using divisions they will cut travel cost not add to it while having the security of a bigger conference.

I doubt they will have any success at attaining an automatic BCS bowl, if that even exists in the future. The truth is though that the two highest rated non-aq conferences are combining. Is the alliance obviously better than the MAC or Belt in a combined state? My answer to that is no, but the overall perception is that it is.

I am not sure any of these super conferences will be successful in the long run. But I do think that teams in the alliance will get substanially more monies than the Belt or MAC and probably a much better bowl selection. The worst thing that can happen is that the alliance will not work and it will be split back into two conferences. The reality of the situation is that if that happens both of those conferences will probably still be perceived to be better than the MAC or Belt.

I think long term this could be good for the Belt pending on how many teams they ultimately lose. But losing any of the Belt teams and replacing them with fc move ups is not going to help the Belt. The good thing is that the distance between the old CUSA and MWC and the Belt has narrowed unless the Belt losses 3 or 4 teams.

I think a lot of you are whistling in the dark about the potential effects of the Alliance. I believe it is going to give any Belt team that goes to the alliance a big advantage over the teams left in the Belt in terms of prestige, recruiting and most importantly resources. Long term the Alliance may be a disaster, but short term it will give a boost to any Belt program moving into it.

I see it about the same way. In the alliance, I believe any of the Sun Belt programs would see a bump in their attendance and athletic budget. Those factors certainly wouldn't hurt recruiting, and under the right coaching, should lead to increasing success on the field.

By the same logic, I can't see how expanding the Sun Belt by adding FCS programs will lead to increased interest in Sun Belt football. I know I'm not interested in the prospect.

One of the bigger potential benefits to expansion I see is shortened travel, which is why I've been pushing one east, one west, both from within our current footprint. Georgia State is pretty much smack dab in the middle of what would be the east division, and Louisiana Tech is pretty much smack dab in the middle of what would be the west division.

I don't see reduced travel trumping reduced interest. LA Tech would help with attendance and interest, but I believe Georga State or any other FCS program would reduce interest in Sun Belt football. The casual Sun Belt football fans are tired of this being a gateway conference. We will never be taken seriously as an FBS conference so long as we continue this policy. In the past we may have had no other choice. That is not the case anymore. Don't expand out of fear. If we have 8 teams we have a Sun Belt. If we must add, LA Tech will join. Their fans won't agree, but the WAC is in bad shape. If a second team is needed, New Mexico State should be added. I feel move up FCS programs are not needed. I can't see a situation where the Belt falls below 8 teams.

I'd much prefer increasing athletic budgets, verses tightening up the conference by adding FCS teams. The programs in this conference have to stop thinking cheap.

(03-10-2012 10:51 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-10-2012 10:29 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(03-10-2012 10:09 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(03-10-2012 12:15 AM)Grandgreen Wrote:  For the combined conference to get more monies than the separate leagues with key members gone is not going to happen, everyone knows that. The focus is on maximizing their position as an much bigger conference. Few if any know how this will shake out but not having two commissioners and staffs saves money and the hope is that by using divisions they will cut travel cost not add to it while having the security of a bigger conference.

I doubt they will have any success at attaining an automatic BCS bowl, if that even exists in the future. The truth is though that the two highest rated non-aq conferences are combining. Is the alliance obviously better than the MAC or Belt in a combined state? My answer to that is no, but the overall perception is that it is.

I am not sure any of these super conferences will be successful in the long run. But I do think that teams in the alliance will get substanially more monies than the Belt or MAC and probably a much better bowl selection. The worst thing that can happen is that the alliance will not work and it will be split back into two conferences. The reality of the situation is that if that happens both of those conferences will probably still be perceived to be better than the MAC or Belt.

I think long term this could be good for the Belt pending on how many teams they ultimately lose. But losing any of the Belt teams and replacing them with fc move ups is not going to help the Belt. The good thing is that the distance between the old CUSA and MWC and the Belt has narrowed unless the Belt losses 3 or 4 teams.

I think a lot of you are whistling in the dark about the potential effects of the Alliance. I believe it is going to give any Belt team that goes to the alliance a big advantage over the teams left in the Belt in terms of prestige, recruiting and most importantly resources. Long term the Alliance may be a disaster, but short term it will give a boost to any Belt program moving into it.

I see it about the same way. In the alliance, I believe any of the Sun Belt programs would see a bump in their attendance and athletic budget. Those factors certainly wouldn't hurt recruiting, and under the right coaching, should lead to increasing success on the field.

By the same logic, I can't see how expanding the Sun Belt by adding FCS programs will lead to increased interest in Sun Belt football. I know I'm not interested in the prospect.

One of the bigger potential benefits to expansion I see is shortened travel, which is why I've been pushing one east, one west, both from within our current footprint. Georgia State is pretty much smack dab in the middle of what would be the east division, and Louisiana Tech is pretty much smack dab in the middle of what would be the west division.

I don't see reduced travel trumping reduced interest. LA Tech would help with attendance and interest, but I believe Georga State or any other FCS program would reduce interest in Sun Belt football. The casual Sun Belt football fans are tired of this being a gateway conference. We will never be taken seriously as an FBS conference so long as we continue this policy. In the past we may have had no other choice. That is not the case anymore. Don't expand out of fear. If we have 8 teams we have a Sun Belt. If we must add, LA Tech will join. Their fans won't agree, but the WAC is in bad shape. If a second team is needed, New Mexico State should be added. I feel move up FCS programs are not needed. I can't see a situation where the Belt falls below 8 teams.

I'd much prefer increasing athletic budgets, verses tightening up the conference by adding FCS teams. The programs in this conference have to stop thinking cheap.

I wish NMSU would join the Alliance or just fold football so Sun Belt fans would stop freaking talking about them. They are beyond a horrible fit and I guarantee that Georgia State would draw as well or better in the east than New Mexico State. I think UNT and Louisiana are the only schools the Aggies would even slightly move the meter for.

I simply do not see how Georgia State would reduce interest, it's not like we'd be replacing big time games with Georgia State and again, Georgia State is drivable for three out of five teams in the division and cheap flights to Florida from Atlanta as well. I don't think the average fan at most east schools would complain about playing Georgia State rather than North Texas, ULM, Louisiana, or Arkansas State. At MT we've had a decent rivalry with North Texas and Louisiana, but not so much that I feel like we'd be losing out by not playing each other every year, especially when it's to add another yearly opponent that's drivable.

To your final point, Georgia State would come in with a more than competitive budget, adding the Panthers would not be "thinking cheap".

I think App State would be a respected choice, despite being an FCS move-up. I agree it is time to stop being the home for that, but the Mountaineers are different, they bring brand recognition and are widely regarded nationwide as a great program.

Bring in Tech and App State and I think both the fans and the nation would approve. App would also increase fan interest, something no other FCS program will do.

(03-10-2012 12:24 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  I think App State would be a respected choice, despite being an FCS move-up. I agree it is time to stop being the home for that, but the Mountaineers are different, they bring brand recognition and are widely regarded nationwide as a great program.

Bring in Tech and App State and I think both the fans and the nation would approve. App would also increase fan interest, something no other FCS program will do.

I dunno, I see App State as more of a novelty than anything(in regards to increased fan interest) the average college football fan does not follow FCS football at all and with each passing year we're getting further and further from the only thing that's ever made them truly relevant on a national level, after this upcoming season it will have been five full seasons since their victory at the Big House, even if they were to announce tomorrow, what would be the soonest they'd be playing in our stadiums? 2014 maybe 2015? The majority of our students at that point would have been in middle school when that game at Michigan was played.

I'm not saying that App State isn't a good choice for a lot of reasons, but I simply do not see them being more than marginally more interesting the majority of Sun Belt football fans.

(03-10-2012 12:33 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(03-10-2012 12:24 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  I think App State would be a respected choice, despite being an FCS move-up. I agree it is time to stop being the home for that, but the Mountaineers are different, they bring brand recognition and are widely regarded nationwide as a great program.

Bring in Tech and App State and I think both the fans and the nation would approve. App would also increase fan interest, something no other FCS program will do.

I dunno, I see App State as more of a novelty than anything(in regards to increased fan interest) the average college football fan does not follow FCS football at all and with each passing year we're getting further and further from the only thing that's ever made them truly relevant on a national level, after this upcoming season it will have been five full seasons since their victory at the Big House, even if they were to announce tomorrow, what would be the soonest they'd be playing in our stadiums? 2014 maybe 2015? The majority of our students at that point would have been in middle school when that game at Michigan was played.

I'm not saying that App State isn't a good choice for a lot of reasons, but I simply do not see them being more than marginally more interesting the majority of Sun Belt football fans.

Look no further than Wikipedia, for talking points about who may be interesting or a novelty. Didn't MTSU win a 1-AA championship at one point?

MTSU: Athletics

Athletics logo
Main article: Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders

Middle Tennessee's athletic teams, known as the Blue Raiders, compete in the Sun Belt Conference of NCAA's Division I in the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS, formerly Division I-A). MTSU has won two national championships: golf in 1965, and men's doubles tennis in 2007.

The MTSU mascot is "Lightning," a winged horse based on Pegasus from Greek mythology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Tenn...University

App State:
Athletics

Main article: Appalachian State Mountaineers

Appalachian's sports teams are nicknamed the Mountaineers. The Mountaineers compete in Division I of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and are members of the Southern Conference. Appalachian fields varsity teams in 20 sports, 10 for men and 10 for women.[22] The Mountaineer football team competes in the Football Championship Subdivision (formerly I-AA).

Kidd Brewer Stadium is the 25,000 seat home of Appalachian football. Affectionately nicknamed "The Rock", the stadium is located at an elevation of 3,333 feet (1,016 m).

The George M. Holmes Convocation Center is the home court for Appalachian's basketball teams. The 200,840-square-foot (18,659 m2) arena, with seating for 8,325, is also the home for volleyball and indoor track and field.

University Recreation (UREC) also offers 19 club sports that compete with other regional institutions on a non-varsity level. They are: lacrosse (men's and women's), rugby (men's and women's), soccer (men's and women's), ultimate frisbee (men's and women's), volleyball (men's and women's), climbing, cycling, equestrian, fencing, ice hockey, skiing, racquetball, snowboarding, swimming, and triathlon.

The university's cycling team has had success at the regional and national level, they compete within the Atlantic Collegiate Cycling Conference. The team competes in every discipline of bicycle racing that is achnowledged by National Collegiate Cycling Association within USA Cycling. This includes road bicycle racing, Mountain bike racing and Cyclocross. The team won the Division 2, as established by USA Cycling, collegiate team mountain bike national championships in 2008. They won the Division 2 collegiate team cyclocross national championships in 2008 and 2009.[23] The team is now recognized as a Division 1 team.

In other Division 1 sports action, as of February 19, 2011, the Appalachian State Mountaineer Women's Basketball Team clinched the 2011 Southern Conference regular season title outright, the first time since the 1995-96 season. This is a first for Head Coach Darcie Vincent [goasu.com].

[edit] Football

Main article: Appalachian State Mountaineers football

Appalachian won three consecutive Division I FCS (I-AA) national championships in 2005, 2006, and 2007, over the University of Northern Iowa, the University of Massachusetts, and the University of Delaware, respectively. The Mountaineers are the first FCS team to win three straight national championships since the playoffs began in 1978. They are also the first Division I program to win three consecutive national championships since Army accomplished the feat in 1944, 1945, and 1946.[24]

In a milestone for ASU athletics, the Appalachian State football team played their season opener at the fifth-ranked University of Michigan in front of the largest crowd to ever witness an ASU football game on September 1, 2007. Appalachian State beat Michigan in the game that would become known as "The Horror" 34-32 and became the first Division I FCS (I-AA) football team to defeat a Division I FBS (I-A) team ranked in the AP poll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian...University

(03-10-2012 02:03 PM)ManOnABuffalo Wrote:  Look no further than Wikipedia

Stopped reading...

Look man, it wasn't a slight against App so stop getting hurt feelings, nor did I say that MT was some national relevant powerhouse. This isn't a pissing match about who's more relevant, I know exactly where Middle Tennessee and the Sun Belt stand in the grand scheme of things. The point that I was making was that I just don't see Appy bringing fans out significantly more than any other FCS school moving up. You're an FCS power, that's what you are, and the lowest rated bowl games draw more viewers than the FCS championship every single year. No one gives a damn about FCS football and as I said, we're getting further and further away from the last time anyone did give a damn about FCS football and that was when Appy beat Michigan. If you were joining a year or two after beating Michigan, than there'd be some excitement, but App State just isn't exponentially more exciting than anyone else we're talking about that's just the way I see it, you need to stop taking everything I say as a direct insult to App State.

I understand UNT fans are really wanting an alliance bid, so they are going to defend the move, but for the average SBC school the alliance will not necessarily increase attendance.

ASU fans will show up early next year because Gus Malzahn's the coach. It wont matter if we are playing Southern Miss or Alcorn State. At the same time, a game in November against UAB will bring about the same number of fans as a game against Troy would. Why? Because ASU fans dont necessarilly see UAB as a name. We dont see Marshall as a name, or Tulsa. Those are great programs, but they would not bring an increase in attendance for us just because of their presence.

The reality of the matter is that SBC schools benefit from playing opposing teams that travel. UAB or Marshall wont bring a large number of fans a long distance. New Mexico State as a potential SBC add certainly wouldnt. We need to play teams that will travel well, and the fact is that SBC teams will travel fairly well if the team is performing.

A 10-2 New Mexico State brings the same crowd to Jonesboro that a 6 win MTSU team would. A 2 win NMSU team would bring 4,000 less fans at least.

(03-10-2012 02:23 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  A 10-2 New Mexico State brings the same crowd to Jonesboro that a 6 win MTSU team would. A 2 win NMSU team would bring 4,000 less fans at least.