(04-25-2012 01:43 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(04-25-2012 01:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-25-2012 12:59 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(04-25-2012 12:16 PM)laxtonto Wrote:  You sound like a majority of the ECU fans. Don't take them because they will pass us bye. Welcome to life, its not fair. Competition should spur development. You are essentially implying that all the AD's in the Belt are complacent.

Accept the fact that potential does not guarantee success, but market size does pay the bills. If they eventually leave, which I would like some clarification to where exactly they could be going to, so be it. We have expanded the market of the Sun Belt and the recruiting base for several schools while hopefully increase the potential revenues of the Belt and increase the national perception of the Belt.

Well we are right to say it, because it's sadly true. Dominating teams on the field like we did to UCF, Memphis, and Cincy back in the day doesn't keep us ahead of them. Building top flight faculties and having the largest non-AQ fan base outside of BYU doesn't stop it from happening. Hell having higher merchandise sales than any member of C-USA didn't stop it from happening. You think I like having the opinion that ECU should actively work against large market teams because we are scared they will pass us? I hate it. I hate this is the opinion I'm forced to have. I hate feeling like I need to be scared of any program. I hate feeling like we could kick their teeth in year in and year out and they'd still move past us due to nothing more than the ground their school is built on, but this is where we are at. We have reached a point I never could have imagined a decade ago, I as an ECU fan am scared to death of a school that hasn't played a down of football. It flat out disgusts me.

Therein lies my point of a few weeks ago. Why play the short-term game?

After 13 departures, why is CUSA considering going back to that well?

CUSA has three top 50 market teams left, Rice, Tulane and UAB. Why Tulsa, Marshall, USM, ECU chose to remain with them and fill in with more eventual departees makes little sense.

This where FAR's should be carrying more weight. The typical faculty athletic rep will outlast several AD's and presidents and are more likely to think long-term because of that.

Why chase the short-term dollar? Go for the programs outside the top 50 markets that have the best chance of making the league a BCS buster and pick up NCAA units. If you have BCS and NCAA success, TV eventually follows regardless of market size.

The reason people chase the short-term dollar is that the average president sticks around three years and AD's much the same.

I agree with you, but you've got the issue what candidates out there have proven consistent success on the football field or the hardwood? Who out there do you believe has the proven commitment, budget, and fan support that will survive through losing a talented coach and will show they can get another one? I think you guys may be about to take that step. WKU has the basketball tradition and maybe is making the strides in football. ULL made a huge jump last year, but will they continue it and if they had a down season would all those fans disappear again? I'm asking a serious question who do you believe has the qualities required to actually build the type of league you are describing?

Sticking with those outside the top 50 TV markets.

Louisiana is making an investment in infrastructure and has bumped the coach's salary nicely. Working an overall $100 million facility plan, with several projects completed or under construction. 39-45 last seven years, one bowl appearance (shattered New Orleans Bowl attendance record), two sub .500 seasons past seven years.

Troy seems to always have some sort of construction project underway most recent a $31 million basketball arena. 48-39 the last seven years, 4 bowl appearances in that span. Posted 6 winning records in the past 8 years and 5 bowls in 8 years.

Arkansas State. Averaged 21k last year despite a Tuesday night game. Just hired the highest paid assistant in college football to be head coach with a compensation package that conflicting media reports tab as low as $850,000 and as high as $1.15 million. Rumors have swirled that ASU within the next few weeks will publicly rollout a plan for an indoor practice facility and stadium upgrades to the tune of $30 million. Reliable sources have said that ASU already has $18 million to $20 million of that committed and is waiting on a final answer from one or two big hitters before going public. 41-44 last 7 years, 3 sub .500 seasons, two bowl appearances.

Louisiana Tech. Has announced $20 million in improvements, had $9 million of that committed at the time it was announced. 40-46 last 7 years, two bowl appearances in that span, 4 sub .500 years.

Western Kentucky. Spent nearly $50 million upgrading their stadium. Only FCS since 2009. Posted first winning record in FCS this year at 7-5 by winning 7 of last 8. Coach was rumored to be headed to Memphis until he secured a nice raise. Last 7 year data essentially meaningless for them. Four NCAA Tournament appearances past 10 seasons 4-4 record in the Tournament.

You listed the 5 in small markets I would certainly consider. Next question you have to ask which of those schools have budgets in line with what C-USA's currently are? USM has the lowest budget in C-USA by a pretty wide margin at around 20 million, so that's the cutoff. USM quite frankly works miracles to win at high levels in all 3 sports with that level of budget so anything in the teens isn't high enough. Then the question is how are these schools going to help us bust the BCS and continue to be a multi-bid league? You have a bunch of teams listed with losing records over the last 7 years except for Troy who went 3-9 last year. Can these schools afford to stop playing buy games? Buy games for the most part are going to make it near impossible for you to be a BCS buster. Are donations from alumni and ticket sales numbers and value on par with the average of C-USA?

(04-25-2012 04:09 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  You listed the 5 in small markets I would certainly consider. Next question you have to ask which of those schools have budgets in line with what C-USA's currently are? USM has the lowest budget in C-USA by a pretty wide margin at around 20 million, so that's the cutoff. USM quite frankly works miracles to win at high levels in all 3 sports with that level of budget so anything in the teens isn't high enough. Then the question is how are these schools going to help us bust the BCS and continue to be a multi-bid league? You have a bunch of teams listed with losing records over the last 7 years except for Troy who went 3-9 last year. Can these schools afford to stop playing buy games? Buy games for the most part are going to make it near impossible for you to be a BCS buster. Are donations from alumni and ticket sales numbers and value on par with the average of C-USA?

Don't trust budget numbers, they are too easy to manipulate. I know there are schools reporting some low budget numbers that are doing that to stay in the good graces of the state auditors. Booster club expenses are considered fund-raising so costs attributed to the university development office rather than athletics to stay under caps on spending. Media relations is funded out of the university communications office. Facilities used for the occasional intra-mural event are budgeted to student activity boards. Arenas are placed under a different arm (or at Louisiana off budget under a regional partnership).

The budget numbers that matter are, "Can they afford a competent coaching staff?"

For example, most any budget site would have Arkansas State around $10 million or $11 million but the university doesn't report booster club payments as part of the budget. If you look at the various reports of Malzahn's salary it is clearly below what SMU, UCF, and ECU pay. It is at or above Tulsa's salary, at or above Memphis, at or above Houston, and ahead of USM, Marshall, UTEP, Rice, Tulane, and UAB. The top assistants with booster club supplement are at or above CUSA average.

If you look more closely at the schools I've listed, all are in the early stages of big committments. They have been where ECU was mid 80's and now are more like the ECU of the early 90's that began putting money and attention into the program. ECU was 79-89 from 1984 to 1990 a seven year span with one season above .500.

I see no comparison with Liberty and Baylor. As far as I can remember, Baylor has never played in 1AA (FCS) They were previously members of the Southwest Conference, then The Big 12. Baylor has about 12500 students. What history could they possibly have in common with Richmond?

(04-25-2012 03:22 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(04-25-2012 02:47 PM)PTJR Wrote:  

(04-25-2012 02:01 PM)Glassonion Wrote:  

(04-25-2012 01:53 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  Haha...

Only you my friend, only you.

I'd bet dollars to donuts less than half those teams will be FBS in ten years.

Richmond is absolutely out of the picture, they will never move. I've never heard one thing on Florida Gulf Coast or whatever, or N Florida. And I think Im relatively up to date on CFB.

The University of Richmond is a highly regarded academic private university with an undergraduate enrollment of just under 3,000. Although they do play FCS football, and won the National Championship in football at that level a few years ago, there is no chance that it will ever pursue FBS football. Unless I'm wrong, I think this off the wall idea came from the same poster who thought Villanova would leave the Big East to join a conference with Lehigh and Liberty.

The idea was to identify the unversities that may have the interest and the means to get to FBS eventually. Nothing is certain. I see Richmond as an eastern version of Baylor.

I see no comparison with Liberty and Baylor. As far as I can remember, Baylor has never played in 1AA (FCS) They were previously members of the Southwest Conference, then The Big 12. Baylor has about 12500 students. What history could they possibly have in common with Richmond?


Both Baylor and Richmond are old money and politically connected. Richmond's enrollment is 4,250 and can increase enrollment at will.

(04-25-2012 04:54 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If you look more closely at the schools I've listed, all are in the early stages of big committments. They have been where ECU was mid 80's and now are more like the ECU of the early 90's that began putting money and attention into the program. ECU was 79-89 from 1984 to 1990 a seven year span with one season above .500.

I wanted to take a look at this more closely. Record wise no doubt it's very comparable (although our schedule in those independent days was just nasty with some years only having 4 home games). I'll ignore your selective picking of the 7 year period, where in the year before we went 8-3 and finished the season ranked 20th and the year after we finished top 10 and just focus on the period you picked out. Our average attendance during that period with a bunch of losing seasons was just over 28k. I don't know what the average attendance of the teams you listed was for that 7 year period, but my guess is it's close to 10k less than that for all of them, and some cases more. So honestly to say these schools are where we were in the early 90's is not quite accurate. From a fan base perspective you are closer to where we were in the early 70's.

(04-25-2012 08:45 AM)panama Wrote:  

(04-24-2012 09:17 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(04-24-2012 08:55 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote:  

(04-24-2012 08:38 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Since Benson's hiring, our conference feels more unstable...

I don't know why you're feeling that way.
Nothing has really happened since he's been hired except for GSU.....and I don't see that as making the conference unstable.

I feel that way because there was no need to add GSU at this time. I think it was a weak move by the Sun Belt. I didn't say the conference was more unstable. I said it "feels" more unstable. Bad leadership has a way for changing people's perception.

You do realize the irony of the fact that youre going to get added to CUSA for the same reasons we got added to the Belt? You dont think some CUSA fans feel the same way about UNT that you feel about GSU? There are plenty of "Lets stick at 8" folks over on the CUSA board. But youre a big school in the #5 DMA with a new stadium and great recruiting ground.

No. I think you are compairing apples to oranges. C-USA needs to protect as much of their T.V. money as they can. The Big East raided them for some very large markets. If UNT and FIU were to leave for C-USA it couldn't effect the Sun Belt T.V. deal very much. What do we split?... Five bucks and a pack of smokes.

C-USA is trying to protect their media revenue. We (the Sun Belt) don't really have any media revenue to protect.

If the Belt only loses two programs, the conference would be better off staying at 8 (now 9), and really evaluating possible candidates vs. adding more teams, right away.

UNT will and can be easily replaced. FIU is a decent loss

(04-24-2012 11:56 PM)laxtonto Wrote:  

(04-24-2012 10:43 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(04-24-2012 09:20 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  Well who would you have added Joe? We need to be proactive instead of waiting to lose folks and feel pressured. I think bringing in the Atlanta market is smart. GSU won't be any good for the first three or four years but they'll come around, and while they are we will be able to use their home field as a recruiting tool in the State of Georgia.

I wouldn't ake anyone right now.

There are not enough spots in C-USA for all the programs that think they have a shot. I honestly don't believe the Belt will lose enough teams to worry about being pressured to expand. I think when the dust settles, the Belt only loses two teams at most. 8 teams is a conference. I'd rather see a strong Sun Belt of 8 teams (now 9, but not as strong) vs. a weaker Sun Belt of 12 or 14.

In all honesty, UNT was a middle of the pack team in the Sun Belt last season. FIU was a top tier team. If the Sun Belt lost both, they would still be in good shape.

ASU, ULL, and WKU, were very strong last season. We all know Troy and MTSU won't stay down. That's five of the remaining 8 (now 9), that are strong, and in any given year ULM can suprise us and go .500. I'd just rather the Belt be more patient.

That approach is foolish and essentially what lead to the downfall of the WAC. Now is not the time to wait. All that does is allow more time to get out maneuvered

Think it through all the way, and you will see the GSU add was all about leverage for now and later on down the line.

Right now there will be a total of 10 teams on tap for the 2013 season. The add of GSU would put them to 11. It is pretty much a forgone conclusion that at a minimum UNT is gone. That would put the CUSA at 9 (or 8 if UTEP moves over) with the possibility of 1 to 4 more adds.

That drops the SB to 10. The SB can now still withstand the loss of two additional schools and still stay above the magic 8 number. That is a much more palatable option than having to worry what happens if the alliance goes to 12 a side and 3 teams put the Sun Belt on equal terms as the WAC.

What makes this important is that as long as there would be potential uncertainty about the ability to maintain as a viable FBS conference the possibility of a school or set of schools to be picked off by the WAC is there. By closing that loophole the SB in effect does 2 things.

1. It essentially shows other schools that the game of saying" I want a football only invite because my basketball program is too good for the Belt" will potentially cost them the chance of ever moving up to FBS. This dramatically increases the leverage against teams like ODU, App St and UNCC. FBS slots are now at a premium and the Belt is the last ride to the dance for an extended portion of time in that part of the country.

2. It kills the hope of the rest of the WAC schools and should make the potential replacement of UNT easier by having a more than willing UTSA and TSU programs ready to move. As an added bonus, if 3 teams leave the Belt it virtually assures that La Tech now has no other choice but to rejoin the Belt on ours terms because they didn't get to the CUSA.

This move is trying to guarantee that any negotiation with any current WAC team means joining the Sun Belt and not merging the two conferences. This helps eliminate the potential of another coast to coast conference formed out of necessity, which is counter to the entire goal of the Belt schools.

Not buying the sit on the hands concept. All that does is imply that the Belt is waiting for everyone else. If GSU is considered one of the top candidates, which I personally think they are, then an early move makes no difference. Putting your head in the sand and trying to convince yourself no one is leaving won't change a thing. The public perception battle will never allow any team from the CUSA to go to the Belt right now. That may change in the future, but for the time being the potential choices are limited. All the Belt can do is position itself to make sure that the WAC and its member schools are in the weakest possible position. None of this happens in a vacuum. Hurting or even help kill the WAC helps both in expansion and in the ability to generate media revenue. It might be coldblooded, but it is the truth.

No. What led to the downfall of the WAC, was only having one really good top 10 program, a few respectible programs and way too many stiffs.

Even the big 5 conferences only carry a few doormats. The WAC had too many dragging them down. And, if the Belt unnecessarily chooses expansion candidates that will drag down the conferences quality, it will only make things worse.

(04-25-2012 06:43 PM)RustonCAT Wrote:  UNT will and can be easily replaced. FIU is a decent loss

Heck yeah... you can replace DFW with Ruston any day of the week.



All kidding aside, the loss of UNT means that the Belt stops at the LA/Tx border. Unless TSU and UTSA are included, which I expect to happen in the coming weeks, the Belt is now even more geographically-centric than ever before. The question is what happens on the media revenue side. Thankfully the add of Atlanta can balance the loss of DFW.