(10-02-2016 09:01 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  The sounds coming out of Southern Miss and Marshall ndicate a growing dissatisfaction with CUSA

Coming out of their message board?

(10-03-2016 12:43 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  If the Big 12 does indeed stay at 10 then the hopes of either team moving to the AAC are done for a long time. That could cause a lot of schools to rethink their current situation, and while USM and Marshall may not join the Sun Belt they could certainly lead the charge to create a new league. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if 6 teams from a conference remain together you can get a waiver to keep NCAA credit, right?

If so lets say App, GS, Troy, USA, UL, and stAte stay together from Sun Belt to meet that requirement. Then add USM, Marshall, La. Tech, MTSU, and WKU from CUSA. Then add 1 from the group of ULM, GSU, UAB, and ODU. Whoever gets the most votes.

Virtually 0 percent chance of that happening. You need 8 votes to eject a member. You won't get them.

So the only way you can take 6 from the Belt and 6 from CUSA is to create an entirely new conference. Which would be opposed by every conference. And they can make the new conference wait the full 6 years to gain an auto bid to March Madness etc.

Not to discourage the discussion but it's annoying when someone from our conference suggest a realignment without the current members. The ride going forward will be exciting to watch for everyone as it currently stands. Any addition or subtraction would inhale vigorously IMO. We're good like we are. Texas state just needs to get over it. They'll be glad they did.

All of these "Doomsday " type scenarios of new conferences reforming or move up move down situations is exactly the reason we made the move when it presented itself

We wanted to be aligned with like-minded biggish publics as opposed to what we had in big south

(10-03-2016 01:47 PM)Tealblood Wrote:  All of these "Doomsday " type scenarios of new conferences reforming or move up move down situations is exactly the reason we made the move when it presented itself

We wanted to be aligned with like-minded biggish publics as opposed to what we had in big south

Small privates that leaned to the right?

(10-03-2016 11:27 AM)GoBigRed26 Wrote:  

(10-02-2016 10:17 PM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  Unless we negotiate a significantly better TV deal than CUSA currently has, which isn't likely, there's still no reason for a CUSA team to make a move that's still perceived to be a step backwards . . . .

If dissatisfaction is that high for a few CUSA members, they'll either suck it up and live with it . . . . Or look to move up . . . . And "UP" still ain't towards The Belt.

If two marquis name CUSA teams flip to the Belt, that perception will be completely flipped on its head. Without a doubt the SunBelt with those two teams will be a step up from the conference they're in now.

I don't disagree with you .. . .

So tell me, what was the last school to leave CUSA for The Belt?

And THAT is still the problem. We may have an improved product, but the pecking order hasn't changed . .

(10-03-2016 01:30 PM)Oldyeller Wrote:  Not to discourage the discussion but it's annoying when someone from our conference suggest a realignment without the current members. The ride going forward will be exciting to watch for everyone as it currently stands. Any addition or subtraction would inhale vigorously IMO. We're good like we are. Texas state just needs to get over it. They'll be glad they did.

aaaaand just what is it we're "supposed to get over?"

I'm not going to say it won’t happen but I think this entire notion of x or y CUSA team to the Belt is not going to happen at least not for a while. For the Sun Belt to poach teams from another G5 I think we will need 3 things to happen:

1. Sun Belt teams earn significantly more revenue (even with 2 added) than the other conference.
2. The Sun Belt becomes generally seen as a move up in stature (which will take years of winning).
3. The teams seeking to move to the Belt would have to be regarded as peer institutions.

(10-03-2016 03:16 PM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  

(10-03-2016 11:27 AM)GoBigRed26 Wrote:  

(10-02-2016 10:17 PM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  Unless we negotiate a significantly better TV deal than CUSA currently has, which isn't likely, there's still no reason for a CUSA team to make a move that's still perceived to be a step backwards . . . .

If dissatisfaction is that high for a few CUSA members, they'll either suck it up and live with it . . . . Or look to move up . . . . And "UP" still ain't towards The Belt.

If two marquis name CUSA teams flip to the Belt, that perception will be completely flipped on its head. Without a doubt the SunBelt with those two teams will be a step up from the conference they're in now.

I don't disagree with you .. . .

So tell me, what was the last school to leave CUSA for The Belt?

And THAT is still the problem. We may have an improved product, but the pecking order hasn't changed . .

Pecking order doesn't change until it does. If these two teams were to leave for the Belt, it would change just like that. I don't see it happening though. In the minds of the AD's/Presidents it would be too risky of a move and they wouldn't want to fave any criticism so they just stay with status quo.

(10-03-2016 03:18 PM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  

(10-03-2016 01:30 PM)Oldyeller Wrote:  Not to discourage the discussion but it's annoying when someone from our conference suggest a realignment without the current members. The ride going forward will be exciting to watch for everyone as it currently stands. Any addition or subtraction would inhale vigorously IMO. We're good like we are. Texas state just needs to get over it. They'll be glad they did.

aaaaand just what is it we're "supposed to get over?"

The lack of a more significant Texas presence in the Sun Belt. If we continue on the current trajectory you should have no problem scheduling OOC with your Texas rivals. Moving would only increase the opportunity but give less opportunity to set yourselves apart in a conference with fewer members all on the rise. Pressure to keep up is underrated certainly in the short term.

(10-03-2016 11:37 AM)DrGonzo Wrote:  

(10-02-2016 10:15 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Mods on the CUSA board getting really touchy. Moved a thread about SBC-CUSA reorganizing that wasn't out of control to smack.

I wonder who that could have been....

There can only be one guy up there who still lives in Mama's basement, and gets his tighty whiteys up his crack everytime a SBC poster shows up to "his board".

He banned me awhile back from the Coosa boards because him and his school of choice are girly men who can't take any sort of heat in vicinity of the kitchen.

I feel for the Marshall and USM fans, their conference has over 50 percent dead weight that they are embarrassed to associate with, the conference picked a dud for a leader, the TV deal stinks regardless of what market they think they hold, and they feel like they should be moving forward not backward.

The Sun Belt needs a new name. Seriously. And this is not meant as a put down. Too many bad years and subsequent bad names that are associated with the Sun Belt Conference. "The "Belt", The Belch, Suck Belt, etc., etc. You guys have a lot going for you and a new name would rid you of those bad days of the past.

(10-03-2016 04:48 PM)ManOnABuffalo Wrote:  

(10-03-2016 11:37 AM)DrGonzo Wrote:  

(10-02-2016 10:15 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Mods on the CUSA board getting really touchy. Moved a thread about SBC-CUSA reorganizing that wasn't out of control to smack.

I wonder who that could have been....

I feel for the Marshall and USM fans, their conference has over 50 percent dead weight that they are embarrassed to associate with, the conference picked a dud for a leader, the TV deal stinks regardless of what market they think they hold, and they feel like they should be moving forward not backward.

While I feel for their fans, they should be asking questions to their own University Presidents and AD's who stood by there while CUSA passed over every team in the Sun Belt so they could take UNT, FIU, FAU, UNCC, UTSA, and ODU. Then UAB ended up collapsing.

But instead of blaming their own administrations for the mess they're in, they throw smack at their conference mates on their public conference forum, where all of the fans will see it. Sure, I'll throw smack. But I certainly wouldn't do it on their board unless challenged. By the way, much of the abuse seems to be thrown at UNCC. I loathe UNCC (going back to A-10 days - where they were an AWFUL conference mate), but they are supposed to suck in football right now. How does Marshall and USM think that a team in year 4 of playing football is going to perform? I'd understand people bagging on FIU or UNT, but UNCC's problems were eminently predictable when Marshall and USM added them.

(10-03-2016 04:53 PM)Green Menace Wrote:  The Sun Belt needs a new name. Seriously. And this is not meant as a put down. Too many bad years and subsequent bad names that are associated with the Sun Belt Conference. "The "Belt", The Belch, Suck Belt, etc., etc. You guys have a lot going for you and a new name would rid you of those bad days of the past.

May be a good time to consider this in 2018 when NM and Idaho exit.

(10-03-2016 04:53 PM)Green Menace Wrote:  The Sun Belt needs a new name. Seriously. And this is not meant as a put down. Too many bad years and subsequent bad names that are associated with the Sun Belt Conference. "The "Belt", The Belch, Suck Belt, etc., etc. You guys have a lot going for you and a new name would rid you of those bad days of the past.

Nah, were good with the Sun Belt.

(10-03-2016 04:53 PM)Green Menace Wrote:  The Sun Belt needs a new name. Seriously. And this is not meant as a put down. Too many bad years and subsequent bad names that are associated with the Sun Belt Conference. "The "Belt", The Belch, Suck Belt, etc., etc. You guys have a lot going for you and a new name would rid you of those bad days of the past.

Since the conference is focused in a South-easternly direction, perhaps we should call ourselves the South Eastern Conference? Kind of just rolls off the tongue and I don't think its taken

(10-03-2016 01:50 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(10-03-2016 01:47 PM)Tealblood Wrote:  All of these "Doomsday " type scenarios of new conferences reforming or move up move down situations is exactly the reason we made the move when it presented itself

We wanted to be aligned with like-minded biggish publics as opposed to what we had in big south

Small privates that leaned to the right?

I guess it depends on how well you get to know your conference mates...

(10-03-2016 04:53 PM)Green Menace Wrote:  The Sun Belt needs a new name. Seriously. And this is not meant as a put down. Too many bad years and subsequent bad names that are associated with the Sun Belt Conference. "The "Belt", The Belch, Suck Belt, etc., etc. You guys have a lot going for you and a new name would rid you of those bad days of the past.

I actually agree with this 100%.

(10-03-2016 05:07 PM)Oldyeller Wrote:  

(10-03-2016 04:53 PM)Green Menace Wrote:  The Sun Belt needs a new name. Seriously. And this is not meant as a put down. Too many bad years and subsequent bad names that are associated with the Sun Belt Conference. "The "Belt", The Belch, Suck Belt, etc., etc. You guys have a lot going for you and a new name would rid you of those bad days of the past.

May be a good time to consider this in 2018 when NM and Idaho exit.

Although if it's going to happen, next year might be good since it'll have the chance to be publicized through a CCG. Which...come to think of it...I actually have no idea if we're set to have in the one year we know we'll be at 12 SBC teams.

(10-03-2016 04:53 PM)Green Menace Wrote:  The Sun Belt needs a new name. Seriously. And this is not meant as a put down. Too many bad years and subsequent bad names that are associated with the Sun Belt Conference. "The "Belt", The Belch, Suck Belt, etc., etc. You guys have a lot going for you and a new name would rid you of those bad days of the past.

+1