Why We Should Leave The Sun Belt

keith · May 27, 2010

Playing Boise, Fresno, L.A. Tech, New Mexico State, Nevada, and Hawaii every year sounds alot better then most of who we play in the Sun Belt.

We used to play Boise, New Mexico State, Nevada every year. It was the same tired excuse then with these teams (no one wants to see us play [insert team of choice here] because no one cares) that it is now with our current conference mates. Why is Boise so attractive now? Is it because they are in the WAC or because they have put together a winning program? We did not capitalize on our run at the beginning of the decade and we don't compete or win against top 25/top 50, etc. teams. If we did that on a regular basis, then everything else would take care of itself.

Keith

untjim1995 · May 27, 2010

What we need to see is if Boise joins the MWC. If the Pac-10 or Big 12 tap Utah/BYU/TCU then the WAC just became better than the remaining MWC. Air Force would become the premier program and the dropoff is pretty severe from there. So it could be that the WAC is the survivor, not the MWC. Neither league can afford to lose their top teams and survive unless they want to become the next Belt. There are no other teams that are likely to be an asset except Montana and unless there's a change by the Montana legislature they would have to include Montana State in expansion.

There are certainly worse fates than being in the WAC or MWC but CUSA might not be so bad in the final analysis.

Besides, based on last year, we would raise the quality of the Belt by leaving it.
(quote)
Its just ironic that we are a school, with 34k in enrollmetn, a huge alumni base, and a long history (even if not real successful), but the best we can look at for the future in a conference is either some far-flung deal out west or some far-flung deal with schools in the Southeast. When others gripe that we should raise standards and expectations around here, the issue that I have is even when we have had "success" in football or basketball, we still can't find a better conference to be a part of--whether its from other schools in the state or in the region. It just makes no sense to me and it makes me believe that the SBC, even with other teams leaving, is probably the place we will stay. I just don't see us ever being in a conference with anyone other than ULM, ULL, Ark State, Troy, and whoever else stays/joins the SBC over the next decade.

stebo · May 28, 2010

The WAC would be a feel good move. We would send a message to the nation that another conference wanted us (twice) and we felt like we could compete. But the WAC was in REAL trouble before Boise and Hawaii revived their programs. If Boise leaves, we wouldn't even have that to put on our schedule... just schools like Idaho and Utah State and San Jose... which are ok, but the time change becomes a problem again.

All that being said - I think that NT can compete in the WAC now. With the new athletic fee kicking in next year, we will have a budget to consider the WAC. The last time we were invited, I was 100% against it because we could not afford it and we had a better chance of winning in the Belt.

I think that we wait and see what happens. If the WAC loses a couple of teams, they will come to us. And we should really conisder the invite. One main reason that we should consider the invite now (as opposed to the one that we turned down a couple of years ago) - UTSA/TSU-San Marcos. If we say no, one of them (or both) will say yes. We will watch those schools possibly pass us by in the public's view. I have always been against a return to the Big Wac but with our new athletic fee - we can afford the better publicity. But I sure would feel like a fool if we left the Belt and Troy or MTSU became a BCS buster. Those two schools have made a commitment to winning at the Div I level and are spending the money to make it happen. Believe it or not, so have the Florida schools, they just haven't quite taken off yet and have really "young" fan bases (i.e. empty stands).

What do you think? Would you consider joining the WAC as a proactive approach to staying above TSU/San Marcos and UTSA? I think it would be a good move if that starts to line up. One last thin - I would really hope to bring UL with us. I really think that having ULM in the conference has hurt us more than helped us. We need to find a way to dump them if we stay in the Belt. I would say that kicking ULM out for having a low budget, no dedication to athletics, poor attendance, etc would be a good move and would set the Belt up to lure in La Tech. La Tech really has no problem with the Belt other than ULM.

Mean Green 93-98 · May 28, 2010

I would say that kicking ULM out for having a low budget, no dedication to athletics, poor attendance, etc would be a good move and would set the Belt up to lure in La Tech. La Tech really has no problem with the Belt other than ULM.

I'm in favor of kicking them out for kicking our derrieres in football. :mellow:

Edited May 28, 2010 by Mean Green 93-98

MeanGreen61 · May 28, 2010

The WAC would be a feel good move. We would send a message to the nation that another conference wanted us (twice) and we felt like we could compete. But the WAC was in REAL trouble before Boise and Hawaii revived their programs. If Boise leaves, we wouldn't even have that to put on our schedule... just schools like Idaho and Utah State and San Jose... which are ok, but the time change becomes a problem again.

All that being said - I think that NT can compete in the WAC now. With the new athletic fee kicking in next year, we will have a budget to consider the WAC. The last time we were invited, I was 100% against it because we could not afford it and we had a better chance of winning in the Belt.

I think that we wait and see what happens. If the WAC loses a couple of teams, they will come to us. And we should really conisder the invite. One main reason that we should consider the invite now (as opposed to the one that we turned down a couple of years ago) - UTSA/TSU-San Marcos. If we say no, one of them (or both) will say yes. We will watch those schools possibly pass us by in the public's view. I have always been against a return to the Big Wac but with our new athletic fee - we can afford the better publicity. But I sure would feel like a fool if we left the Belt and Troy or MTSU became a BCS buster. Those two schools have made a commitment to winning at the Div I level and are spending the money to make it happen. Believe it or not, so have the Florida schools, they just haven't quite taken off yet and have really "young" fan bases (i.e. empty stands).

What do you think? Would you consider joining the WAC as a proactive approach to staying above TSU/San Marcos and UTSA? I think it would be a good move if that starts to line up. One last thin - I would really hope to bring UL with us. I really think that having ULM in the conference has hurt us more than helped us. We need to find a way to dump them if we stay in the Belt. I would say that kicking ULM out for having a low budget, no dedication to athletics, poor attendance, etc would be a good move and would set the Belt up to lure in La Tech. La Tech really has no problem with the Belt other than ULM.

1. We need to take care of ourselves and do what's best for us. We have no obligation or need to be tied to ULL. Let them take care of their own interest.

2. ULM is not gonna get kicked out of the Belt. They are a charter football member and without their initial participation, there would be no Belt football. Tech's biggest problem is Tech.

Edited May 28, 2010 by MeanGreen61

stebo · May 28, 2010

1. We need to take care of ourselves and do what's best for us. We have no obligation or need to be tied to ULL. Let them take care of their own interest.

2. ULM is not gonna get kicked out of the Belt. They are a charter football member and without their initial participation, there would be no Belt football. Tech's biggest problem is Tech.

1. Agreed - 100%. The only reason that I mentioned them was they are close to us and of we were to go WACKY, it would be nice to have at least two regional opponents.

2. Disagree - 100%. ULM was given football only membership to the Belt because we needed them to hit the 6 member rule. When the NCAA changed the rules to 8 full time members, we extended them an invite out of neccesity and also invited Troy. ULM is drastically underfunded, have piss poor fan support, and have the absolute lowest budget of any Sun Belt school. They have a lower athletic budget than most FCS schools. They have one of the lowest athletic budgets in the country. They attempt to make a bold statement by replacing Weatherbie after a 6-6 season, only to hire a guy that has never even come close to winning - anywhere. But when you have a $7 - $8 million dollar athletic budget and can only afford to pay your Div I head coach $165K - that is who you get. The Belt, if it is to succeed - will need to set certain standards for members. The first standard should be athletic budget. If a school cannot wrangle up a $15 million dollar athletic budget (very low for Div I) - they should not be in the Belt. The Belt will never get better without a true commitment to success - and that starts with money spent on the program. Having UNO leave was a wonderful thing for the Belt, now if we could just get rid of ULM, we would be one step closer to being in a blog like the one we were just left out of.

Again - 100% agree with you that we need to do what is best for us. The second comment is my opinion about the Belt (if we were to stay). We have been in our Sun Belt home for 10 years now, it is time to start cleaning out the rats and re-finances that nasty sub prime mortgage that was thrown together out of survival... ULM was not a program that the Belt "picked" - they are a program that the Belt got stuck with.

MeanGreen61 · May 28, 2010

1. Agreed - 100%. The only reason that I mentioned them was they are close to us and of we were to go WACKY, it would be nice to have at least two regional opponents.

2. Disagree - 100%. ULM was given football only membership to the Belt because we needed them to hit the 6 member rule. When the NCAA changed the rules to 8 full time members, we extended them an invite out of neccesity and also invited Troy. ULM is drastically underfunded, have piss poor fan support, and have the absolute lowest budget of any Sun Belt school. They have a lower athletic budget than most FCS schools. They have one of the lowest athletic budgets in the country. They attempt to make a bold statement by replacing Weatherbie after a 6-6 season, only to hire a guy that has never even come close to winning - anywhere. But when you have a $7 - $8 million dollar athletic budget and can only afford to pay your Div I head coach $165K - that is who you get. The Belt, if it is to succeed - will need to set certain standards for members. The first standard should be athletic budget. If a school cannot wrangle up a $15 million dollar athletic budget (very low for Div I) - they should not be in the Belt. The Belt will never get better without a true commitment to success - and that starts with money spent on the program. Having UNO leave was a wonderful thing for the Belt, now if we could just get rid of ULM, we would be one step closer to being in a blog like the one we were just left out of.

Again - 100% agree with you that we need to do what is best for us. The second comment is my opinion about the Belt (if we were to stay). We have been in our Sun Belt home for 10 years now, it is time to start cleaning out the rats and re-finances that nasty sub prime mortgage that was thrown together out of survival... ULM was not a program that the Belt "picked" - they are a program that the Belt got stuck with.

With your $15,000,000 say goodbye to ULL ($12,000,000), USA ($12,875,000)and Arkansas State ($10,745,000)along with ULM. Also would make FAU ($14,110,000) and Troy ($14,389,000) borderline along with saying no thanks to Tech (13,900,000). The Belt is what it is. The lowest hanging fruit on the tree.

GrandGreen · May 28, 2010

1. Agreed - 100%. The only reason that I mentioned them was they are close to us and of we were to go WACKY, it would be nice to have at least two regional opponents.

2. Disagree - 100%. ULM was given football only membership to the Belt because we needed them to hit the 6 member rule. When the NCAA changed the rules to 8 full time members, we extended them an invite out of necessity and also invited Troy. ULM is drastically underfunded, have piss poor fan support, and have the absolute lowest budget of any Sun Belt school. They have a lower athletic budget than most FCS schools. They have one of the lowest athletic budgets in the country. They attempt to make a bold statement by replacing Weatherbie after a 6-6 season, only to hire a guy that has never even come close to winning - anywhere. But when you have a $7 - $8 million dollar athletic budget and can only afford to pay your Div I head coach $165K - that is who you get. The Belt, if it is to succeed - will need to set certain standards for members. The first standard should be athletic budget. If a school cannot wrangle up a $15 million dollar athletic budget (very low for Div I) - they should not be in the Belt. The Belt will never get better without a true commitment to success - and that starts with money spent on the program. Having UNO leave was a wonderful thing for the Belt, now if we could just get rid of ULM, we would be one step closer to being in a blog like the one we were just left out of.

Again - 100% agree with you that we need to do what is best for us. The second comment is my opinion about the Belt (if we were to stay). We have been in our Sun Belt home for 10 years now, it is time to start cleaning out the rats and re-finances that nasty sub prime mortgage that was thrown together out of survival... ULM was not a program that the Belt "picked" - they are a program that the Belt got stuck with.

Obviously, the Belt picked ULM; how else did they become a member. I would be a little careful throwing around reported athletic budgets, because there are practically no reporting standards and they can be very misleading. For example, private school tuition such as SMU could amount to over a $6m difference between their budget and NT and yet their real out of pocket costs are close to the same. Unless they have recently changed, athletes tuition in Louisiana is not counted in the athletic budget. A lot if not most universities do about everything they can to hide the obvious, they lose a lot of money on athletes.

Instead of berating ULM maybe we should hire someone from there, with their budget they are playing the same number of sports and have about the same number of coaches as NT. I am not so sure that NT is not going to have more budget problems with this new stadium. Unless, they have some major donations they are keeping undercover; paying for half of the stadium may put a definite drain on the budget and revenues that would normally go for operating expenses may be used for debt service. I certainly hope that doesn't happen but even new revenue streams such as premium seating and suites may not be enough to cover stadium construction costs.

Back to ULM, based on what I have recently read all football programs in Louisiana expect LSU are heavily subsidized by the state. ULL and ULM may get over half their athletic budget from the state. With more state cutbacks probably coming in Louisiana, it may be very tough for not only ULM but ULL and La Tech to remain viable in the FB division.

Just be aware that weeding out the undesired may have some very bad consequences. NT is at the bottom in almost every category when compared to the FB schools as a whole; budget, attendance, and stadium size.