While I'd love the trip, the New Mexico Bowl is a looooong trip, not terribly interested in picking it up.

Right now makes more sense to pursue Shreveport given that by all accounts neither the ACC nor the bowl committee are wild about renewing the deal. Further, given that TCU is now out of the MWC along with Boise and the Air Force defection risk remains, MWC getting renewed there is not a slam dunk.

St. Pete went Big East/CUSA in the hopes of frequent USF/UCF appearances. There is no assurance St. Pete will stick with CUSA. Sun Belt offers more teams within a decent drive than CUSA so it remains a possible outlet.

I thought I saw that Loser Tech had Indy bowl reps with them at their CUSA dog and pony show?

(04-16-2012 12:01 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  I thought I saw that Loser Tech had Indy bowl reps with them at their CUSA dog and pony show?

wow, that's real mature calling Tech names now and is there a point to Tech having Indy Bowl reps there?

(04-16-2012 12:03 PM)techdawg88 Wrote:  wow, that's real mature calling Tech names now and is there a point to Tech having Indy Bowl reps there?

Freaking newbies.

(04-16-2012 12:03 PM)techdawg88 Wrote:  

(04-16-2012 12:01 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  I thought I saw that Loser Tech had Indy bowl reps with them at their CUSA dog and pony show?

wow, that's real mature calling Tech names now and is there a point to Tech having Indy Bowl reps there?

What?! Where on Earth have you been for the past decade? Must not be anywhere Tech fans gather, yall have spit enough venom in our direction to drown a bear in.

(04-16-2012 11:26 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  While I'd love the trip, the New Mexico Bowl is a looooong trip, not terribly interested in picking it up.

Right now makes more sense to pursue Shreveport given that by all accounts neither the ACC nor the bowl committee are wild about renewing the deal. Further, given that TCU is now out of the MWC along with Boise and the Air Force defection risk remains, MWC getting renewed there is not a slam dunk.

St. Pete went Big East/CUSA in the hopes of frequent USF/UCF appearances. There is no assurance St. Pete will stick with CUSA. Sun Belt offers more teams within a decent drive than CUSA so it remains a possible outlet.

NO doubt LT is much better than NM St one on one HOWEVER you already have 2 schools in that state and adding a third wouldn't do as much good unless that locked up their bowl game also. If they were not picked up by the alliance thingy then they should be begging you guys for entry.

After that their only other option is to beg the MAC for FB only membership and we may be goofy enough to do it.

(04-16-2012 12:36 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  What?! Where on Earth have you been for the past decade? Must not be anywhere Tech fans gather, yall have spit enough venom in our direction to drown a bear in.

I doubt he was old enough to get online.
That school has been know as Loser Tech since at least the 70's.

(04-16-2012 11:16 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(04-16-2012 11:12 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(04-16-2012 10:19 AM)Tiguar Wrote:  No New Mexico teams unless we get wrecked by coosa and need them to survive.

Why?

Adding NM St is worth it if they get you to 12 AND you also have 2 TX schools.

At worse in separate divisions you will have to go to one of three further schools in football and two at most in other sports.

They are your best bet to increase your footprint while still making sense, after 2014 you will likely pick up a secondary bowl tie-in for the NM bowl, you add a championship football game, you have your basketball conference tournaments in New Orleans where fans actually want to visit. Adding the football conference championship game would likely open up your TV contract for renegotiations or an outright bid for that game only. Not that you would get a ton more but it still should be more money for all and better yet more TV face time.

Expanding the footprint 600+ miles westward is stupid.

By that logic you should not consider adding UTSA or TX St if you guys lose UNT just so you can save another 415 miles from ULL who is the nearest SB school.

Getting more bowl access should be your top priority when considering expansion. Your conference gets better when more teams go to bowl games each year.

(04-16-2012 01:11 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  By that logic you should not consider adding UTSA or TX St if you guys lose UNT just so you can save another 415 miles from ULL who is the nearest SB school.

Getting more bowl access should be your top priority when considering expansion. Your conference gets better when more teams go to bowl games each year.

I would agree except for the fact that the 'Belt wants/needs a presence in Texas. If UNT goes then one of those schools gets the nod and possibly both to ease travel if both are available. Same goes for Florida.

Texas and Florida produce the largest amount of FBS Football athletes in the country I believe. Even if you are'nt "delivering" those markets right now you need to be in them. Because if one of the schools makes a "Boise State" type run those TV sets and HS talent will show interest and can help catapult the confrence and other schools in terms of perception.

(04-16-2012 01:54 PM)OwlFamily Wrote:  

(04-16-2012 01:11 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  By that logic you should not consider adding UTSA or TX St if you guys lose UNT just so you can save another 415 miles from ULL who is the nearest SB school.

Getting more bowl access should be your top priority when considering expansion. Your conference gets better when more teams go to bowl games each year.

I would agree except for the fact that the 'Belt wants/needs a presence in Texas. If UNT goes then one of those schools gets the nod and possibly both to ease travel if both are available. Same goes for Florida.

Texas and Florida produce the largest amount of FBS Football athletes in the country I believe. Even if you are'nt "delivering" those markets right now you need to be in them. Because if one of the schools makes a "Boise State" type run those TV sets and HS talent will show interest and can help catapult the confrence and other schools in terms of perception.

I agree that NM St is not on the top of your list but you guys should consider them to get to 12 so you have a championship game and to get an in with another bowl game, even if it is just a secondary tie-in.

(04-16-2012 10:32 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(04-16-2012 09:44 AM)SaintDK10 Wrote:  I think the way this shakes out is that C-USA will take FIU, UNT, LA Tech and Charlotte.

When that happens, I think this will be the new Sun Belt Football:

EAST
FAU
GSU
USA
Troy
MTSU
WKU

WEST
UALR (BB + Others) / NM St. (FB-Only)
ASU
UL-M
UL-L
UTSA
TX. St.

I think you have a solid, 12 team league right there. I know some may be against NM State, but honestly, if Sun Belt goes all the way to Texas, going one state over is not that big of a deal.

As an outsider I think that would be a good setup for you guys.
It could also open up the NM bowl as a secondary tie-in as it would make more sense for the bowl than the MAC as the current secondary tie-in.

If this really does comes to pass, I assume most Sun Belt fans would be able to eventually find NMSU acceptable as a football-only member to balance out UALR, as long as they keep their other sports in a non-football WAC?

(04-16-2012 01:11 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(04-16-2012 11:16 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(04-16-2012 11:12 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(04-16-2012 10:19 AM)Tiguar Wrote:  No New Mexico teams unless we get wrecked by coosa and need them to survive.

Why?

Adding NM St is worth it if they get you to 12 AND you also have 2 TX schools.

At worse in separate divisions you will have to go to one of three further schools in football and two at most in other sports.

They are your best bet to increase your footprint while still making sense, after 2014 you will likely pick up a secondary bowl tie-in for the NM bowl, you add a championship football game, you have your basketball conference tournaments in New Orleans where fans actually want to visit. Adding the football conference championship game would likely open up your TV contract for renegotiations or an outright bid for that game only. Not that you would get a ton more but it still should be more money for all and better yet more TV face time.

Expanding the footprint 600+ miles westward is stupid.

By that logic you should not consider adding UTSA or TX St if you guys lose UNT just so you can save another 415 miles from ULL who is the nearest SB school.

Getting more bowl access should be your top priority when considering expansion. Your conference gets better when more teams go to bowl games each year.

Sort of. However, waht we dont want is a bowl situation like the MAC has now where our 3rd team gets shipped off to Boise. We want a destination where our fans would travel, because that makes it more likely to retain the bowl.

If a league with a better travel situation then the MAC came calling for Boise, they would drop you guys like a bad job.

Im not putting you guys down, I just dont think its an attractive bowl situation at all.

The "You might as well add another 600 mi" argument is silly. Well we added NMSU, lets add a cali school. Well, how about Hawaii? I hear Japan has some quality football teams. Hyperbole, but you get my drift. Nothing against NMSU, I just like our regional little conference.

Add Puerto Rico NOW


University of Puerto Rico
Universidad de Puerto Rico

Established 1903
Type national university system
Endowment $1.3 billion USD (2010) [1]
President Miguel Muñoz
Academic staff 5,300[2]
Admin. staff 14,177[2]
Students 61,565[2]
Location San Juan, Puerto Rico
Campus 11 campuses
Former names Escuela Normal
Website http://www.upr.edu

I don't mind New Mexico St in the west if it's TxSt, UTSA, Denver Olympic sports, New Mexico , and Tech. That may increase travel but it no doubt improves the conference.

Texas twins = attendance
La Tech = Bowl eligible team
Denver + New Mexico = Basketball

(04-16-2012 03:43 PM)panama Wrote:  Add Puerto Rico NOW


University of Puerto Rico
Universidad de Puerto Rico

Established 1903
Type national university system
Endowment $1.3 billion USD (2010) [1]
President Miguel Muñoz
Academic staff 5,300[2]
Admin. staff 14,177[2]
Students 61,565[2]
Location San Juan, Puerto Rico
Campus 11 campuses
Former names Escuela Normal
Website http://www.upr.edu

Man my Spanish is bad.

I was trying to find their athletics page and I think I accidentally enrolled.

Sad thing is I can read a little Spanish all I see is "The University of Puerto Rico, Admissions, academics, service, resources & finacial aid"

Then I see notifications and events in blue and something about a concert. Not joking but they probably don't have athletics besides soccer. But man the alliance should consider adding them with FIU

The ironic part is that it would be about what FIU is going to be traveling anyway.

(04-16-2012 03:43 PM)panama Wrote:  Add Puerto Rico NOW


University of Puerto Rico
Universidad de Puerto Rico

Established 1903
Type national university system
Endowment $1.3 billion USD (2010) [1]
President Miguel Muñoz
Academic staff 5,300[2]
Admin. staff 14,177[2]
Students 61,565[2]
Location San Juan, Puerto Rico
Campus 11 campuses
Former names Escuela Normal
Website http://www.upr.edu

I'm assuming you are being sarcastic, but UPR doesn't sponsor athletics.

(04-16-2012 04:25 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(04-16-2012 03:43 PM)panama Wrote:  Add Puerto Rico NOW


University of Puerto Rico
Universidad de Puerto Rico

Established 1903
Type national university system
Endowment $1.3 billion USD (2010) [1]
President Miguel Muñoz
Academic staff 5,300[2]
Admin. staff 14,177[2]
Students 61,565[2]
Location San Juan, Puerto Rico
Campus 11 campuses
Former names Escuela Normal
Website http://www.upr.edu

I'm assuming you are being sarcastic, but UPR doesn't sponsor athletics.

He probably was joking but If UNCC can start a team in a few years who is to say they can't? Heck lmao FIU games would probably sell out in Puerto Rico

Laughing about that but I'm not joking.....The Hispanic population in Miami is pretty big.....

(04-16-2012 03:26 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Sort of. However, waht we dont want is a bowl situation like the MAC has now where our 3rd team gets shipped off to Boise. We want a destination where our fans would travel, because that makes it more likely to retain the bowl.

If a league with a better travel situation then the MAC came calling for Boise, they would drop you guys like a bad job.

Im not putting you guys down, I just dont think its an attractive bowl situation at all.

Um ya that’s a no brainer.

Its true we do not have more than one attractive bowl for fans... GoDaddy.com.

Last year everyone from NIU had the greatest time at the GoDaddy bowl since our return to the bowl season in 2004.

The HB/Potato bowl was great for our 2010 team since many of them had never seen mountains before and the people were very friendly. The few of our fans that went there also had a good time and were treated well. The travel is the most difficult thing but our conference now has an agreement that there are no ticket purchase requirements in exchange for a lower payout. I have no idea what will happen to this now that BSU is heading to the nBE and the WAC seems to be going away in FBS.

The Pizza bowl is the closest but no one has any real desire to attend just the game unless we would be playing a B1G team. Though I guess Toledo had that same attitude in 2010! Detroit is a miserable town that has no attractions for the fans other than going over the boarder to go to the casinos. The other problem is our championship game is there so there is a 50/50 chance that the team that is playing there also played there earlier that month.

We would really do better with a bowl at a destination city or another close city with an indoor stadium (Indy or St Louis). We would also do better in the Military bowl.

The SB has a tremendous advantage as you guys have location over us. For the MAC it would be bad if NM St went to the SB because we would have a realistic chance of losing out on the NM bowl as a secondary tie-in.