From what I'm hearing the Jews and Muslims can agree on more stuff than the SB schools.asu66 wrote:from twitter...
Chad Bishop @MrChadBishop
Benson: "We're going back and looking at that pool of prospects. We want to make sure there's at least 10 football-playing schools."
Benson: "We sit here again tonight with some uncertainty. But the Sun Belt has options, and good options."
Retweeted by Jay Bir
Benson must be one piece-of-work!
It seems like everybody on that board is acting like statefanatic's words are gospel. He said App State was in last year and we know how that turned out. He is the only one I've seen reporting any of this, maybe he is just guessing like the rest of us?asu66 wrote:from crazycajun on the SunBeltbbs...
RE: Georgia Southern will follow App to Sunbelt
(Today 06:26 PM)statefanatic Wrote:
(Today 06:18 PM)ninernation1989 Wrote: The SB are a bunch of idiots if they truly wanted asu and gsu they would had received invites last year
I have no idea what went wrong today. This was all suppose to end today. Either another school announced it was leaving or somebody got pissed because their picks weren't voted on.
There weren't going to announce any decisions until April. But it sounds like agreements weren't honored because UL, ASU and ULM held firm on no Sam Houston or any other SLC program right now. My suspicion is no concensus could be reached on NMSU after the votes for App State and Georgia Southern. Tempers probably flared once that happened.
A little bit of both. I know a guy on the outside of the program that has been retained by an SBC school. His information jibes with informal reports I have seen all over the web. There is too much information out there that fits together for it to be rumor at this point.sixtoes9134 wrote:GoAppsGo - do you have some specific knowledge about what went down or just reading through the Sunbelt BBS and summarizing what those guys think happened?
asu66 wrote:from Turnbury79 (an App State grad) on the SunBeltbbs...
Appalachian is in fact a done deal.......have known that for just under three weeks. When the conference office announces the invitations I have no idea. I do know that the Appalachian has already started the process of gearing up and would not have done this unless they knew they would be transitioning.
Due to professional responsibility, I cannot say how I obtained this information or who I have spoken to. I can just say that I know people on both sides of the ledger very well.
It makes sense to pair Georgia Southern with Appalachian for a number of reasons beyond their both having supporting administrations and aggressive athletic departments with the desire and financial ability to meet and surpass the criteria for FCS inclusion. First, they do not expand the conference footprint very much and choosing them would insure that all member institutions are from the same "athletic culture". That is more of a factor than most imagine. Many people I speak to in my practice see that, as time goes by, as becoming a problem for the conferences that have overly large footprints.
As for travel, athletic departments have to look at that very closely, more so for Olympic sports than the major ones. With the cost of travel rising quickly, and no end to those increases in sight, that expenditure not only dramatically impacts the financial welfare of athletic departments but at some point will create problems with Title IX compliance. If the University of West Virginia is already complaining, even with their large media rights revenue, about the cost of their travel as a member of the Big 12, you know it is a serious point of concern for institutions in G5 conferences. In short, with NMSU well outside of the defined SBC footprint, their inclusion under normal circumstances would be difficult to argue. Furthermore, NMSU being a current FBS member is not as important a factor as many posters have stated. The Sun Belt and the situation the WAC faced recently are not in any manner the same. But, as I noted earlier, other factors are at play that are unique to this situation. I do think that a case will be made by the conference office to add NMSU and, depending on how strong that case is made and how well it is delivered, that they will be invited despite the fact that their inclusion will increase travel related costs for all member institutions. It is up in the air if NMSU brings any net gain financially to the conference. Clearly, that is not the case in football as it would be difficult to argue, looking at their total football history, that they have only been going through a couple of lean years in that sport.
I can say that I am not talking about any dictate from the NCAA to add NMSU. The NCAA has enough troubles without adding something like that to their list. Clearly, no one would stand for that as it would set a precedent that goes nowhere but to a federal courtroom.
A quick note, although I am an Appalachian graduate from the mid 70's, I am not, as many call, "pimping" for my alma mater. I practice in areas associated with both media law and college sports, so in my work I have to look at issues based in reality and weigh the facts as I see them. That is what I try to do when I post.
When all is said and done, Appalachian, and probably Georgia Southern, will be where they should be and, I hope, that they stay there for a very long time and can help the conference grow and prosper. Appalachian is very similar to the current member institutions in countless ways......not just in athletics. I also think fans of the other institutions will enjoy a road trip to Boone in the fall. The mountains are beautiful and you will find that the people are more than accommodating. I personally look forward to the opportunity to enjoy games at the Sun Belt member institutions that I have never had chance to visit.
hapapp wrote:asu66 wrote:from Turnbury79 (an App State grad) on the SunBeltbbs...
Appalachian is in fact a done deal.......have known that for just under three weeks. When the conference office announces the invitations I have no idea. I do know that the Appalachian has already started the process of gearing up and would not have done this unless they knew they would be transitioning.
Due to professional responsibility, I cannot say how I obtained this information or who I have spoken to. I can just say that I know people on both sides of the ledger very well.
It makes sense to pair Georgia Southern with Appalachian for a number of reasons beyond their both having supporting administrations and aggressive athletic departments with the desire and financial ability to meet and surpass the criteria for FCS inclusion. First, they do not expand the conference footprint very much and choosing them would insure that all member institutions are from the same "athletic culture". That is more of a factor than most imagine. Many people I speak to in my practice see that, as time goes by, as becoming a problem for the conferences that have overly large footprints.
As for travel, athletic departments have to look at that very closely, more so for Olympic sports than the major ones. With the cost of travel rising quickly, and no end to those increases in sight, that expenditure not only dramatically impacts the financial welfare of athletic departments but at some point will create problems with Title IX compliance. If the University of West Virginia is already complaining, even with their large media rights revenue, about the cost of their travel as a member of the Big 12, you know it is a serious point of concern for institutions in G5 conferences. In short, with NMSU well outside of the defined SBC footprint, their inclusion under normal circumstances would be difficult to argue. Furthermore, NMSU being a current FBS member is not as important a factor as many posters have stated. The Sun Belt and the situation the WAC faced recently are not in any manner the same. But, as I noted earlier, other factors are at play that are unique to this situation. I do think that a case will be made by the conference office to add NMSU and, depending on how strong that case is made and how well it is delivered, that they will be invited despite the fact that their inclusion will increase travel related costs for all member institutions. It is up in the air if NMSU brings any net gain financially to the conference. Clearly, that is not the case in football as it would be difficult to argue, looking at their total football history, that they have only been going through a couple of lean years in that sport.
I can say that I am not talking about any dictate from the NCAA to add NMSU. The NCAA has enough troubles without adding something like that to their list. Clearly, no one would stand for that as it would set a precedent that goes nowhere but to a federal courtroom.
A quick note, although I am an Appalachian graduate from the mid 70's, I am not, as many call, "pimping" for my alma mater. I practice in areas associated with both media law and college sports, so in my work I have to look at issues based in reality and weigh the facts as I see them. That is what I try to do when I post.
When all is said and done, Appalachian, and probably Georgia Southern, will be where they should be and, I hope, that they stay there for a very long time and can help the conference grow and prosper. Appalachian is very similar to the current member institutions in countless ways......not just in athletics. I also think fans of the other institutions will enjoy a road trip to Boone in the fall. The mountains are beautiful and you will find that the people are more than accommodating. I personally look forward to the opportunity to enjoy games at the Sun Belt member institutions that I have never had chance to visit.
Chuck, is his post still there? I can't find it.
That's Benson's ace in the hole. He moved East because there are plenty of targets to hit. Running through the scenarios, I don't see more the one current SBC member leaving over the next year to 3 years. Big 10 would have to make a move because America 12 is only adding one more school. I just don't expect Big 10 to do anything over the next year... I think everyone is on pins and needles right now. No one wants to make a bad decision, and these conferences that straddle the East and West have to make compromises. I think that some felt they had a workable plan yesterday to bring in NMSU... I don't think NMSU has enough support, so Benson must go back and review the list of candidates to find someone that both sides of the conference can support. As this all relates to us: it delays things a bit. There is plenty of support for AppState to be extended an invitation... that's the good news. SBC just needs to find a third school to satisfy the West and the East combined. The article on Benson said SBC will have new members in 30 days. No one expected an offical announcement yesterday, but I did expect something within a week of the SBC basketball tournament... not sure it will be that fast, but I still think we are rounding third and heading for home.YesAppCan wrote:Some interesting things Benson said (extracted from al.com article):
"No decisions were made today to extend invitations to any school. We evaluated about 20 different perspective members and will continue to move forward with that."
1st time I've heard as many as 20 potential candidates.
"The fact that we have so many strong options right now can allow us to change our plans and go to plan-B if a current member were to leave. This is what makes the Sun Belt so attractive, there are so many options."
Sounds like it's a given one or more is about ready to leave--- I assume WKU would be one of them.
The quote did not come from the SunBeltBBS board. It came from the conference realignment section of the BBS. I believe the subject is "Appalachian, Tulsa, and WKU will have new conference homes" or something to that effect.asu66 wrote:Gotta finish getting ready for church; but didn't find it in two run-throughs. Wasn't aware you could completely delete a post there! Will do a more through search this pm.
hapapp wrote:asu66 wrote:from Turnbury79 (an App State grad) on the SunBeltbbs...
Appalachian is in fact a done deal.......have known that for just under three weeks. When the conference office announces the invitations I have no idea. I do know that the Appalachian has already started the process of gearing up and would not have done this unless they knew they would be transitioning.
Due to professional responsibility, I cannot say how I obtained this information or who I have spoken to. I can just say that I know people on both sides of the ledger very well.
It makes sense to pair Georgia Southern with Appalachian for a number of reasons beyond their both having supporting administrations and aggressive athletic departments with the desire and financial ability to meet and surpass the criteria for FCS inclusion. First, they do not expand the conference footprint very much and choosing them would insure that all member institutions are from the same "athletic culture". That is more of a factor than most imagine. Many people I speak to in my practice see that, as time goes by, as becoming a problem for the conferences that have overly large footprints.
As for travel, athletic departments have to look at that very closely, more so for Olympic sports than the major ones. With the cost of travel rising quickly, and no end to those increases in sight, that expenditure not only dramatically impacts the financial welfare of athletic departments but at some point will create problems with Title IX compliance. If the University of West Virginia is already complaining, even with their large media rights revenue, about the cost of their travel as a member of the Big 12, you know it is a serious point of concern for institutions in G5 conferences. In short, with NMSU well outside of the defined SBC footprint, their inclusion under normal circumstances would be difficult to argue. Furthermore, NMSU being a current FBS member is not as important a factor as many posters have stated. The Sun Belt and the situation the WAC faced recently are not in any manner the same. But, as I noted earlier, other factors are at play that are unique to this situation. I do think that a case will be made by the conference office to add NMSU and, depending on how strong that case is made and how well it is delivered, that they will be invited despite the fact that their inclusion will increase travel related costs for all member institutions. It is up in the air if NMSU brings any net gain financially to the conference. Clearly, that is not the case in football as it would be difficult to argue, looking at their total football history, that they have only been going through a couple of lean years in that sport.
I can say that I am not talking about any dictate from the NCAA to add NMSU. The NCAA has enough troubles without adding something like that to their list. Clearly, no one would stand for that as it would set a precedent that goes nowhere but to a federal courtroom.
A quick note, although I am an Appalachian graduate from the mid 70's, I am not, as many call, "pimping" for my alma mater. I practice in areas associated with both media law and college sports, so in my work I have to look at issues based in reality and weigh the facts as I see them. That is what I try to do when I post.
When all is said and done, Appalachian, and probably Georgia Southern, will be where they should be and, I hope, that they stay there for a very long time and can help the conference grow and prosper. Appalachian is very similar to the current member institutions in countless ways......not just in athletics. I also think fans of the other institutions will enjoy a road trip to Boone in the fall. The mountains are beautiful and you will find that the people are more than accommodating. I personally look forward to the opportunity to enjoy games at the Sun Belt member institutions that I have never had chance to visit.
Chuck, is his post still there? I can't find it.
Please excuse my potential ignorance here, but can someone please clarify for me guaranteed spot in the "playoffs." I understand the best team from the Go5 will "get in." Though the way I understand it, "get-in" simply means a spot in one of the current, as we know it BCS one and done, regardless of win/lose games. This guaranteed spot is NOT to be confused with the chance to play for a National Championship by winning and advancing. They true play-off only includes 4 teams which consists of the 4 highest ranked teams in a BCS style model.YesAppCan wrote:He makes the case in talking about the "Gof5's" best team getting a playoff spot......
