(05-19-2014 12:44 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Getting to 12/12 with UMass/NMSU is a temporary solution that kicks the can down the road then creates another problem later.

It only creates a real problem later if you are committed to a 12/12 model, but Benson claims to be.

Quote:They also want a FB championship game but it appears the NCAA is going to deregulate that so there is no need to rush for a temporary solution to get to 12.

And since we won't know the actual specific terms of a change, if one is indeed approved (and its originally a Division 2 rule that is being changed, so who knows what obscure objection could arise), there is no way for the Sunbelt to get any useful estimate of the incremental media value of various alternatives.

Not happening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(05-17-2014 05:44 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 05:34 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  I don't know if this was posted here yet, from the csi board

"Sun Belt commissioner Karl Benson told CBS Sports that his conference and the University of Massachusetts have had discussions about the Minutemen joining as a football-only member.

It’s a pretty good bet that if it’s at the point where Benson is willing to admit the talks publicly, there’s a legitimate chance of this happening."

http://www.gazettenet.com/sports/umasssp...uld-happen

Yeah, that's the (original) point of this discussion ~ the recent "news" was not that UMass contacted the Sunbelt to ask if there was a FB-only place, the news was that Benson was willing to mention it to CBS Sports.

If Plan A was JMU, and JMU said no, and Plan B was Liberty, then this would be consistent with Benson realizing that there were three or firm no votes against Liberty, so move on to Plan C.

Commissioner Benson's remarks at most suggest that it'll be put to the test, and it can of course also fall down by three or more firm votes no ... and also by three or more votes of "not yet", since unlike an FCS call-up, there is no firm June 1 2014 deadline to get UMass in the conference in July 2015.

Everyone keeps saying there are 3 votes against Liberty without even being in the room at the meeting. Who are the three schools and what is the proof of the three defeating votes.

(05-25-2014 08:02 AM)carolinaknights Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 05:44 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 05:34 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  I don't know if this was posted here yet, from the csi board

"Sun Belt commissioner Karl Benson told CBS Sports that his conference and the University of Massachusetts have had discussions about the Minutemen joining as a football-only member.

It’s a pretty good bet that if it’s at the point where Benson is willing to admit the talks publicly, there’s a legitimate chance of this happening."

http://www.gazettenet.com/sports/umasssp...uld-happen

Yeah, that's the (original) point of this discussion ~ the recent "news" was not that UMass contacted the Sunbelt to ask if there was a FB-only place, the news was that Benson was willing to mention it to CBS Sports.

If Plan A was JMU, and JMU said no, and Plan B was Liberty, then this would be consistent with Benson realizing that there were three or firm no votes against Liberty, so move on to Plan C.

Commissioner Benson's remarks at most suggest that it'll be put to the test, and it can of course also fall down by three or more firm votes no ... and also by three or more votes of "not yet", since unlike an FCS call-up, there is no firm June 1 2014 deadline to get UMass in the conference in July 2015.

Everyone keeps saying there are 3 votes against Liberty without even being in the room at the meeting. Who are the three schools and what is the proof of the three defeating votes.

It was said by Liberty University's president that no vote on them was taken. None what so ever. Some people are only mentioning three no votes as an example of how little is needed to defeat the admission of any team.

(05-25-2014 08:38 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(05-25-2014 08:02 AM)carolinaknights Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 05:44 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 05:34 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  I don't know if this was posted here yet, from the csi board

"Sun Belt commissioner Karl Benson told CBS Sports that his conference and the University of Massachusetts have had discussions about the Minutemen joining as a football-only member.

It’s a pretty good bet that if it’s at the point where Benson is willing to admit the talks publicly, there’s a legitimate chance of this happening."

http://www.gazettenet.com/sports/umasssp...uld-happen

Yeah, that's the (original) point of this discussion ~ the recent "news" was not that UMass contacted the Sunbelt to ask if there was a FB-only place, the news was that Benson was willing to mention it to CBS Sports.

If Plan A was JMU, and JMU said no, and Plan B was Liberty, then this would be consistent with Benson realizing that there were three or firm no votes against Liberty, so move on to Plan C.

Commissioner Benson's remarks at most suggest that it'll be put to the test, and it can of course also fall down by three or more firm votes no ... and also by three or more votes of "not yet", since unlike an FCS call-up, there is no firm June 1 2014 deadline to get UMass in the conference in July 2015.

Everyone keeps saying there are 3 votes against Liberty without even being in the room at the meeting. Who are the three schools and what is the proof of the three defeating votes.

It was said by Liberty University's president that no vote on them was taken. None what so ever. Some people are only mentioning three no votes as an example of how little is needed to defeat the admission of any team.

Yep. 3 votes is all it takes.

The only two teams that could get past that barrier are JMU and Missouri State and both of them aren't interested.

I'm good at 11 teams. Its not like EKU, Liberty, Jax St, Lamar, etc. are going anywhere else.

You are assuming that JMU and Missouri State could have gotten enough votes to join the Sun Belt.
Considering the Sun Belt decided not to even consider expansion that was not assured.
Months ago when the SBC seemed determined to get to 12 members and hold a CCG it seemed much more
of a possibility. With the current attitude to stay at 11 seriously doubt even those two would have been
admitted.

Based on past experience. If Liberty had even six supporters it would have gone to debate and a vote because even if there were enough stated opposition, discussion often swings votes. It is unlikely that Liberty had even six supporters.

(05-25-2014 10:12 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Based on past experience. If Liberty had even six supporters it would have gone to debate and a vote because even if there were enough stated opposition, discussion often swings votes. It is unlikely that Liberty had even six supporters.

Even further, since the Sunbelt has said on several occasions that there was a collective desire to get to 12 THIS year, then it's logical to assume that if there were NOT at least 3 "no" votes, Liberty would be a member today. Its fairly obvious that there is no willing Sunbelt expansion school candidate that can muster the votes for admission at this time other than JMU (who apparently is not currently agreeable). The possible coming reform of FBS division play rules---which were fairly arbitrary to begin with (based upon the SI article)---has taken away any need to compromise on the choice as a Sunbelt CCG can probably be added next year without any addition at all. So it appears that the momentum for immediate SB expansion has fizzled out.

(05-25-2014 10:12 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Based on past experience. If Liberty had even six supporters it would have gone to debate and a vote because even if there were enough stated opposition, discussion often swings votes. It is unlikely that Liberty had even six supporters.

Excellent point.

Had been said that Liberty could not get enough support to have a second from any SBC school when Benson
mentioned them twice before. Not sure if what was said was true, but we do know there was no votes previously
evidently. Sun Belt may be adamant about only expanding if needed at this point.

(05-25-2014 08:38 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  It was said by Liberty University's president that no vote on them was taken. None what so ever.

Which at least suggests more than three opposing the move.

Quote: Some people are only mentioning three no votes as an example of how little is needed to defeat the admission of any team.

Precisely ... in the context of discussing an expansion option in advance of the meeting, a "strong no vote" would refer to a school committed to voting no if it were to come to a vote.

It only takes three strong no votes to block a move. With two strong no votes, it takes all the fence sitters and leaning no schools to be persuaded to vote yes over the strong objections of two members.

That's why a strong prospect of extra money for everyone is one of the more common forces driving an expansion move, since that is something that every President at the meeting looks on favorably.

And its also why institutional fit can sometimes be more important than fans of a school's sporting teams sometimes realize, since just one not vote on the grounds of either wanting to or not wanting to be associated in a conference with a school is sometimes often to swing an outcome.

The Sunbelt tabled the expansion issue because James Madison shot them down. The school they wanted didn't want to join, the schools that want to join the Sunbelt aren't ready or are not wanted (i.e. don't have enough votes to join), and a move with UMass doesn't have to happen right now. With UMass tied to the MAC until 2015 as a conference partner. There is time to hash out contracts similar to what they have with the MAC in Sunbelt negotiations. That also gives James Madison time to re-think their position too. Time is on the side of all parties and the Sunbelt and UMass can come to terms in a win - win situation for both down the road while they both wait for their chosen permanent plans to work out in the wonderful world of constant realignment.

(05-25-2014 01:49 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Had been said that Liberty could not get enough support to have a second from any SBC school when Benson
mentioned them twice before. Not sure if what was said was true, but we do know there was no votes previously
evidently. Sun Belt may be adamant about only expanding if needed at this point.

And lack of a second can mean either only one supports them or the support was so low that there was no belief that discussion could make it a close vote.

The thing some of the armchair commissioners aren't getting is that full membership is the granting of an equity position. You don't grant equity unless you are desperate or fully satisfied with the candidate.

I suspect the eastern edge of the Sun Belt takes that equity position seriously, if future changes create a hole in the west, NMSU as an equity member becomes a burden, in the current line-up the travel burden isn't that significant but if you become too small to rely on divisional play, they are a real budget buster.

Even if championship deregulation fails, getting to 12 absent some fat money doesn't create an imperative to expand like getting down to the minimum number of teams required to survive.

I've been told repeatedly that if the right schools apply, the league will go larger than 12, apparently Liberty isn't one of the schools prompting that thinking.

(05-26-2014 11:47 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I suspect the eastern edge of the Sun Belt takes that equity position seriously, if future changes create a hole in the west, NMSU as an equity member becomes a burden, in the current line-up the travel burden isn't that significant but if you become too small to rely on divisional play, they are a real budget buster.

That's a good point, if some of the Texas schools leave the SBC then having NMSU in there would be a real outlier for travel. It would be like when the WAC added Louisiana Tech and then all of the WAC's Texas schools (and Tulsa) left shortly thereafter for CUSA.

(05-26-2014 11:47 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-25-2014 01:49 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Had been said that Liberty could not get enough support to have a second from any SBC school when Benson
mentioned them twice before. Not sure if what was said was true, but we do know there was no votes previously
evidently. Sun Belt may be adamant about only expanding if needed at this point.

And lack of a second can mean either only one supports them or the support was so low that there was no belief that discussion could make it a close vote.

The thing some of the armchair commissioners aren't getting is that full membership is the granting of an equity position. You don't grant equity unless you are desperate or fully satisfied with the candidate.

I suspect the eastern edge of the Sun Belt takes that equity position seriously, if future changes create a hole in the west, NMSU as an equity member becomes a burden, in the current line-up the travel burden isn't that significant but if you become too small to rely on divisional play, they are a real budget buster.

Even if championship deregulation fails, getting to 12 absent some fat money doesn't create an imperative to expand like getting down to the minimum number of teams required to survive.

I've been told repeatedly that if the right schools apply, the league will go larger than 12, apparently Liberty isn't one of the schools prompting that thinking.

That's interesting. I would have thought that the structure of the CFP playoff payout would make going over 12 unattractive. The decline in the per-school CFP split would be about $143,000. That's more than each Sunbelt school earns from the media contract (which would also decline due to being split more ways).

(05-26-2014 12:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 11:47 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I've been told repeatedly that if the right schools apply, the league will go larger than 12 ...

That's interesting. I would have thought that the structure of the CFP playoff payout would make going over 12 unattractive. The decline in the per-school CFP split would be about $143,000. That's more than each Sunbelt school earns from the media contract (which would also decline due to being split more ways).

That looks like it tells you what "the right schools" consist of ... schools that through some combination of reduced travel costs and increased media value carry their own weight, which a large majority of the existing schools are also happy to have on board as members.

Of course, if any of those schools were interested in joining, they would have already been given an invite.