Future of the Sun Belt

Discussion about anything related to the Sun Belt Conference
User avatar
/\PP ST/\TE GRAD 09
Posts: 3137
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 2:05 pm
School: Appalachian State
Location: Virginia
Has thanked: 653 times
Been thanked: 1767 times

Future of the Sun Belt

Unread post by /\PP ST/\TE GRAD 09 » Tue Mar 01, 2016 3:41 pm

Idaho & NMSU out. Coastal in for 2017. This brings the total to 10. Do you think the Sun Belt will be content with 10, with the somewhat recent news update from the NCAA, or do you think they will look to add two teams to get to 12 with two divisions? If we keep 10, then like the Big 12 we would only have 3 OOC games a year. What do you all think will be the direction the Sun Belt looks to go?
Twitter: @brosef_yosef

EastHallApp
Posts: 6776
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2013 4:34 pm
School: Appalachian State
Location: Raleigh
Has thanked: 3360 times
Been thanked: 2928 times

Re: Future of the Sun Belt

Unread post by EastHallApp » Tue Mar 01, 2016 3:43 pm

/\PP ST/\TE GRAD 09 wrote:If we keep 10, then like the Big 12 we would only have 3 OOC games a year.
Think that assumption is premature - sounds like the intent is to play an eight-game conference schedule.

User avatar
/\PP ST/\TE GRAD 09
Posts: 3137
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 2:05 pm
School: Appalachian State
Location: Virginia
Has thanked: 653 times
Been thanked: 1767 times

Re: Future of the Sun Belt

Unread post by /\PP ST/\TE GRAD 09 » Tue Mar 01, 2016 4:01 pm

EastHallApp wrote:
/\PP ST/\TE GRAD 09 wrote:If we keep 10, then like the Big 12 we would only have 3 OOC games a year.
Think that assumption is premature - sounds like the intent is to play an eight-game conference schedule.
I personally don't agree with the notion of not playing every team when you have an 10 team conference. I like how the Big 12 does it. You play everyone, and can't dodge a bullet by the rotation of not playing a certain team.
Twitter: @brosef_yosef

User avatar
T-Dog
Posts: 6947
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:35 pm
School: Appalachian State
Has thanked: 283 times
Been thanked: 2945 times

Re: Future of the Sun Belt

Unread post by T-Dog » Tue Mar 01, 2016 4:10 pm

The new rules means the Sun Belt doesn't have to play a full round robin, just like the Big XII doesn't. If you have two equal divisions and you have a full round robin schedule in each division, you can have a conference championship game.

The chances of going to a 9-game league schedule is very small.

User avatar
hapapp
Posts: 16934
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2000 12:48 pm
School: Appalachian State
Location: Rocky Mount, VA
Has thanked: 2672 times
Been thanked: 3071 times

Re: Future of the Sun Belt

Unread post by hapapp » Tue Mar 01, 2016 4:19 pm

I doubt folks want to give up the 4 OOC games.

User avatar
hotrod2001
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 9:26 am
School: Appalachian State
Has thanked: 398 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: Future of the Sun Belt

Unread post by hotrod2001 » Tue Mar 01, 2016 10:57 pm

Listening to the teleconference, it seems that the majority of the board members were pushing for 10 teams and thus kicking NMSU and Idaho out. At this point, I would think the Sun Belt is more worried about some other conference plucking their teams than looking for expansion.

User avatar
hapapp
Posts: 16934
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2000 12:48 pm
School: Appalachian State
Location: Rocky Mount, VA
Has thanked: 2672 times
Been thanked: 3071 times

Re: Future of the Sun Belt

Unread post by hapapp » Wed Mar 02, 2016 5:51 am

I believe it would have taken nine members to vote to extend the two beyond 2017. Obviously, there weren't that many votes to do so. Not sure if any feathers were ruffled over the decision.

Saint3333
Posts: 14356
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2000 8:42 am
Has thanked: 3964 times
Been thanked: 6161 times

Re: Future of the Sun Belt

Unread post by Saint3333 » Wed Mar 02, 2016 9:06 am

hotrod2001 wrote:Listening to the teleconference, it seems that the majority of the board members were pushing for 10 teams and thus kicking NMSU and Idaho out. At this point, I would think the Sun Belt is more worried about some other conference plucking their teams than looking for expansion.
If the SBC was concerned about other conferences taking our members I doubt we'd drop down to 10 members.

SpeedkingATL
Posts: 1192
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:40 am
School: Appalachian State
Location: Atlanta GA
Has thanked: 106 times
Been thanked: 235 times

Re: Future of the Sun Belt

Unread post by SpeedkingATL » Wed Mar 02, 2016 10:34 am

T-Dog wrote:The new rules means the Sun Belt doesn't have to play a full round robin, just like the Big XII doesn't. If you have two equal divisions and you have a full round robin schedule in each division, you can have a conference championship game.

The chances of going to a 9-game league schedule is very small.
What T-Dog said. Now just have to keep current members from leaving. I could see eventually growing to 12 but with the availability of a Championship game with 10 members there is certainly no rush to add members to reach 12. Certainly a more friendly travel schedule for everyone with these 2 schools departure and a big money saver on travel.

MDaniels84
Posts: 1388
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 10:47 pm
School: Appalachian State
Has thanked: 414 times
Been thanked: 464 times

Re: Future of the Sun Belt

Unread post by MDaniels84 » Wed Mar 02, 2016 10:39 am

This does set up much better for an East / West split in divisions . Hoping that all of the teams in the Belt stay the course and get better each year. App and Ga Southern have become the new face of the conference and will maintain that status if they keep up their tradition of winning . Looking forward to another App football season and another bowl win.

User avatar
moonshine
Posts: 2202
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 7:25 am
School: Appalachian State
Location: High Country
Has thanked: 288 times
Been thanked: 755 times

Re: Future of the Sun Belt

Unread post by moonshine » Wed Mar 02, 2016 10:45 am

The Sun Belt has some protection with CUSA at 14 members. I'd venture to guess that CUSA wouldn't mind shedding at least 2 programs and possibly up to 4 without having to add after seeing the TV money shrink. They have a lot of mouths to feed and if the CFP money has dropped down to $10mil per conference, CUSA programs will earn $285k+ less than SB programs off the CFP. With performance payouts increasing, the SB could ultimately catch up to and possibly surpass CUSA in revenue.
Picked up via free agency by the High Country All-Stars

User avatar
hotrod2001
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2015 9:26 am
School: Appalachian State
Has thanked: 398 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: Future of the Sun Belt

Unread post by hotrod2001 » Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:54 pm

Saint3333 wrote:
hotrod2001 wrote:Listening to the teleconference, it seems that the majority of the board members were pushing for 10 teams and thus kicking NMSU and Idaho out. At this point, I would think the Sun Belt is more worried about some other conference plucking their teams than looking for expansion.
If the SBC was concerned about other conferences taking our members I doubt we'd drop down to 10 members.
I agree. I probably worded it wrong, but what I meant is that they're not actively looking for other teams to join. Their goal is to be a solid, stable, REGIONAL 10-team conference and they seem to have done that with CCU coming in.

User avatar
JTApps1
Posts: 2673
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 9:18 am
School: Appalachian State
Location: Belmont
Has thanked: 614 times
Been thanked: 1174 times

Re: Future of the Sun Belt

Unread post by JTApps1 » Wed Mar 02, 2016 1:54 pm

hapapp wrote:I doubt folks want to give up the 4 OOC games.
Yep. We can't really compare to the Big XII since most of those teams play 7 home games by scheduling G5's and FCS teams OOC. Although they may have to change their philosophy if the trend of H&H'S between P5 and G5 keeps going.

User avatar
JTApps1
Posts: 2673
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 9:18 am
School: Appalachian State
Location: Belmont
Has thanked: 614 times
Been thanked: 1174 times

Re: Future of the Sun Belt

Unread post by JTApps1 » Wed Mar 02, 2016 1:58 pm

moonshine wrote:The Sun Belt has some protection with CUSA at 14 members. I'd venture to guess that CUSA wouldn't mind shedding at least 2 programs and possibly up to 4 without having to add after seeing the TV money shrink. They have a lot of mouths to feed and if the CFP money has dropped down to $10mil per conference, CUSA programs will earn $285k+ less than SB programs off the CFP. With performance payouts increasing, the SB could ultimately catch up to and possibly surpass CUSA in revenue.
One poster on the Sub Belt board calculated the G5 conference standing without Idaho and NMSU in the SBC, and our ranking was ahead of CUSA for 2015. If our bottom teams can improve just a little we should see much improved CFP payouts in the upcoming years.

NewApp
Posts: 7799
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:59 am
School: Appalachian State
Has thanked: 1018 times
Been thanked: 949 times
Contact:

Re: Future of the Sun Belt

Unread post by NewApp » Wed Mar 02, 2016 6:03 pm

/\PP ST/\TE GRAD 09 wrote:Idaho & NMSU out. Coastal in for 2017. This brings the total to 10. Do you think the Sun Belt will be content with 10, with the somewhat recent news update from the NCAA, or do you think they will look to add two teams to get to 12 with two divisions? If we keep 10, then like the Big 12 we would only have 3 OOC games a year. What do you all think will be the direction the Sun Belt looks to go?
So we kicked them out because of distance. Understandable. But why did they let them in to begin with?
NewApp formerly known as JCline
If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
Google SUX

User avatar
/\PP ST/\TE GRAD 09
Posts: 3137
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 2:05 pm
School: Appalachian State
Location: Virginia
Has thanked: 653 times
Been thanked: 1767 times

Re: Future of the Sun Belt

Unread post by /\PP ST/\TE GRAD 09 » Wed Mar 02, 2016 7:58 pm

NewApp wrote:
/\PP ST/\TE GRAD 09 wrote:Idaho & NMSU out. Coastal in for 2017. This brings the total to 10. Do you think the Sun Belt will be content with 10, with the somewhat recent news update from the NCAA, or do you think they will look to add two teams to get to 12 with two divisions? If we keep 10, then like the Big 12 we would only have 3 OOC games a year. What do you all think will be the direction the Sun Belt looks to go?
So we kicked them out because of distance. Understandable. But why did they let them in to begin with?
Needed someone to fill the empty slot for all the teams that bolted to C-USA
Twitter: @brosef_yosef

AppDawg
Posts: 1534
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:19 am
School: Appalachian State
Has thanked: 1399 times
Been thanked: 554 times

Re: Future of the Sun Belt

Unread post by AppDawg » Wed Mar 02, 2016 8:30 pm

/\PP ST/\TE GRAD 09 wrote:
NewApp wrote:
/\PP ST/\TE GRAD 09 wrote:Idaho & NMSU out. Coastal in for 2017. This brings the total to 10. Do you think the Sun Belt will be content with 10, with the somewhat recent news update from the NCAA, or do you think they will look to add two teams to get to 12 with two divisions? If we keep 10, then like the Big 12 we would only have 3 OOC games a year. What do you all think will be the direction the Sun Belt looks to go?
So we kicked them out because of distance. Understandable. But why did they let them in to begin with?
Needed someone to fill the empty slot for all the teams that bolted to C-USA
Not entirely accurate. They were not added simply to replace teams. They were added to the conference the same day us and Gaso were admitted. At that time the 4 of us put the conference at 12 football playing members and we were poised to have a championship game. Unfortunately, just a very short time later WKU threw a wrench in the plan by jumping to C-usa.

The goal all along was a CCG. Now that we can have one with just 10 teams, there is not a need for the geographical outliers.

appsfan
Posts: 957
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 7:18 pm
Has thanked: 1166 times
Been thanked: 103 times

Re: Future of the Sun Belt

Unread post by appsfan » Wed Mar 02, 2016 9:09 pm

hotrod2001 wrote:Listening to the teleconference, it seems that the majority of the board members were pushing for 10 teams and thus kicking NMSU and Idaho out. At this point, I would think the Sun Belt is more worried about some other conference plucking their teams than looking for expansion.
Keeping NMSU and Idaho for that reason wouldn't help much. The rules require a conference to have 8 football schools who are all sports members, so with or without them, we are at 10 from that perspective.

User avatar
/\PP ST/\TE GRAD 09
Posts: 3137
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 2:05 pm
School: Appalachian State
Location: Virginia
Has thanked: 653 times
Been thanked: 1767 times

Re: Future of the Sun Belt

Unread post by /\PP ST/\TE GRAD 09 » Wed Mar 02, 2016 9:30 pm

AppDawg wrote:
/\PP ST/\TE GRAD 09 wrote:
NewApp wrote:
/\PP ST/\TE GRAD 09 wrote:Idaho & NMSU out. Coastal in for 2017. This brings the total to 10. Do you think the Sun Belt will be content with 10, with the somewhat recent news update from the NCAA, or do you think they will look to add two teams to get to 12 with two divisions? If we keep 10, then like the Big 12 we would only have 3 OOC games a year. What do you all think will be the direction the Sun Belt looks to go?
So we kicked them out because of distance. Understandable. But why did they let them in to begin with?
Needed someone to fill the empty slot for all the teams that bolted to C-USA
Not entirely accurate. They were not added simply to replace teams. They were added to the conference the same day us and Gaso were admitted. At that time the 4 of us put the conference at 12 football playing members and we were poised to have a championship game. Unfortunately, just a very short time later WKU threw a wrench in the plan by jumping to C-usa.

The goal all along was a CCG. Now that we can have one with just 10 teams, there is not a need for the geographical outliers.

Four teams left in 2013. We joined in 2014 along with three other teams to replace those four teams. Whether those teams left or not in 2013 they would still have the same 12 assuming WKU didn't leave either. However, if those teams left in 2013 with no replacement, the Sun Belt would have had big problems. As you mentioned, adding App, GSU, Idaho, and NMSU helped get that number to 12, however it would be wrong to dismiss the irony and facts that four teams left in 2013 and four teams joined in 2014. All of which was already planned behind the scenes. The moment those schools showed interest in leaving the belt, the belt went searching.

This of course is all just my take and opinion. I have zero insight on behind the scenes moves.
Twitter: @brosef_yosef

AppDawg
Posts: 1534
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:19 am
School: Appalachian State
Has thanked: 1399 times
Been thanked: 554 times

Re: Future of the Sun Belt

Unread post by AppDawg » Wed Mar 02, 2016 9:59 pm

/\PP ST/\TE GRAD 09 wrote:
AppDawg wrote:
/\PP ST/\TE GRAD 09 wrote:
NewApp wrote:
/\PP ST/\TE GRAD 09 wrote:Idaho & NMSU out. Coastal in for 2017. This brings the total to 10. Do you think the Sun Belt will be content with 10, with the somewhat recent news update from the NCAA, or do you think they will look to add two teams to get to 12 with two divisions? If we keep 10, then like the Big 12 we would only have 3 OOC games a year. What do you all think will be the direction the Sun Belt looks to go?
So we kicked them out because of distance. Understandable. But why did they let them in to begin with?
Needed someone to fill the empty slot for all the teams that bolted to C-USA
Not entirely accurate. They were not added simply to replace teams. They were added to the conference the same day us and Gaso were admitted. At that time the 4 of us put the conference at 12 football playing members and we were poised to have a championship game. Unfortunately, just a very short time later WKU threw a wrench in the plan by jumping to C-usa.

The goal all along was a CCG. Now that we can have one with just 10 teams, there is not a need for the geographical outliers.

Four teams left in 2013. We joined in 2014 along with three other teams to replace those four teams. Whether those teams left or not in 2013 they would still have the same 12 assuming WKU didn't leave either. However, if those teams left in 2013 with no replacement, the Sun Belt would have had big problems. As you mentioned, adding App, GSU, Idaho, and NMSU helped get that number to 12, however it would be wrong to dismiss the irony and facts that four teams left in 2013 and four teams joined in 2014. All of which was already planned behind the scenes. The moment those schools showed interest in leaving the belt, the belt went searching.

This of course is all just my take and opinion. I have zero insight on behind the scenes moves.
Your right. I was counting 3 in 2013. Forgot about North Texas.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Sun Belt Discussion”