WKU Coaches Inform Players 2013-14 Will Be Final Year in Sun Belt Conf

[Harry]

Bowling Green, Ky--The revolving door that is conference realignment has yet to affect Western Kentucky.

Until now.

According to multiple sources, Western Kentucky coaches in at least one sport have informed players the upcoming 2013-14 season will be the school's last as a member of the Sun Belt Conference.

The most likely landing spot for Western would be Conference USA. Numerous reports suggest Tulsa will leave C-USA as early as next week for the soon-to-be-renamed Big East Conference, and WKU would be the prime candidate to replace Tulsa.

Read more: http://www.wbko.com/sports/headlines/Source-WKU-Coaches-Inform-Players-2013-Final-Year-in-Sun-Belt-Conference-200113051.html

[NM Green]

They sure are bumping their gums a lot for a program without an announced invitation!

GMG

[kalebschumann]

This is pretty much the only team that I wanted to see in the CUSA with us.

I love to hate them so much! This hate stems all the way back to the 2007 Thanksgiving Weekend football game. Staying in the same hotel as their basketball team in Mobile in 2008 was also good fun. And the recent on the court battles we've had in the conference tourny certainly helped too.

What is a hilltopper?

[UNT90]

Great...

Let's get ULM in here, also...

[outoftown]

Great...

Let's get ULM in here, also...

I hope this is sarcasm

[MeanGreen61]

Please, after WKU no more Belt teams to CUSA !

[Mean Green 93-98]

Please, after WKU UNT no more Belt teams to CUSA !

Better.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

The Big East got very large from it had been plus it contained basketball only schools with football ones.... It is self destructing ( as I thought it would) from what it was with most of originals leaving and many other changes.

Going back futher The WAC enlarged and then most of the originals left to form the Mountain West. The WAC is about if not dead.

The SWC is bit different.... the size of schools (and cheating) was the big issue... Rice, SMU.TCU at the time were not at all competive ...it is gone.

The Big X only added Penn State until recently... still exists.

PacX has not changed in decades until recently.... still exists.

Big XII...really scattered now and was once mostly the Big 8 ... Still exists but has lost several of original Big 8 members.

the MVC .... not much a football league and had many teams only basketball ... changed greatly.

To me the SEC and ACC until now are the only ones that has gotten rather large but rather slowly... and has done ok.... so far

----I fear the conference getting too large and/or too diverse and too scattered (hurts attendence) ... slow down ...

The Pac-10, Big-X, ACC, and SEC (until now) are mostly closely grouped schools... which helps as well.

Edited March 27, 2013 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Arkstfan]

The Big East got very large from it had been plus it contained basketball only schools with football ones.... It is self destructing ( as I thought it would) from what it was with most of originals leaving and many other changes.

Going back futher The WAC enlarged and then most of the originals left to form the Mountain West. The WAC is about if not dead.

The SWC is bit different.... the size of schools (and cheating) was the big issue... Rice, SMU.TCU at the time were not at all competive ...it is gone.

The Big X only added Penn State until recently... still exists.

PacX has not changed in decades until recently.... still exists.

Big XII...really scattered now and was once mostly the Big 8 ... Still exists but has lost several of original Big 8 members.

the MVC .... not much a football league and had many teams only basketball ... changed greatly.

To me the SEC and ACC until now are the only ones that has gotten rather large but rather slowly... and has done ok.... so far

----I fear the conference getting too large and/or too diverse and too scattered (hurts attendence) ... slow down ...

The Pac-10, Big-X, ACC, and SEC (until now) are mostly closely grouped schools... which helps as well.

Some thoughts that sort of follow down that trail.

Big 10, SEC, Pac-12, ACC were all founded in an era where there was no TV money. Bowl money was of little consequence and schools courted bowls who picked and chose not the environment of today. What money there was in athletics came from selling tickets and soliciting donations. If you were lucky Coca-Cola or Golden Flake or Frito-Lay might help you buy a scoreboard.

The first three have tweaked their line-up in response to the market change but they are essentially who they were 50 years ago. They are inherently stable because their foundation was built on the foundation of like minded, regional institutions who support themselves via self-generated income.

The ACC is the only one of that group that has a made a radical change in who they are.

Penn State had little interaction with the Big 10 prior to joining yet interestingly played each of Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland more times in the 20 years prior to joining than they had played all the rest of the Big 10 combined.

Arkansas had a long off and on rivalry with Ole Miss before joining the SEC but South Carolina rarely played anyone from SEC other than Georgia.

So pre-existing relationships aren't essential.

But the ACC has changed the nature of who they are with the foray north.

As to the Big East. It's foundational mission was to capitalize on the expansion of the NCAA tournament and the greater value placed on auto bids as well as to take advantage of the start of the new enterprise of cablecasting. The Big East and ESPN started the same year and the core idea behind it was to telecast UConn basketball and the Hartford Whalers. The Big East morphed and grew in response to changes in the marketplace, but unlike the Big 10, SEC, Pac-12, and to a lesser degree the ACC it was ill-equipped to respond to those changes with just a few tweaks. They had to add Miami all-sports and initially add football only members Rutgers, West Virginia, Virginia Tech (later full members) and Temple (dropped then added back).

The Big East had to change its very nature to be a player.

The Southwest Conference was plagued by scandal after scandal. I know in one of Arkansas' championship years it was noted that every SWC team except Arkansas and Rice was on probation or just coming off. But that wasn't the only problem. There was a vast chasm in philosophy. Five large public institutions and four private institutions meant they often didn't see eye to eye. You would have huge crowds at Texas and TAMU, large crowds at Arkansas and then you had Rice with an average attendance that was under I-AA Arkansas State. You had big-time major conference crowds in the top half of the league and you had schools with crowds that wouldn't be in the top of the Sun Belt today and what was worse, those bad drawing schools? They were hosting at least one of Arkansas, Texas, and TAMU every year.

The SWC had a broken foundation because you had some schools aspiring to be nationally relevant in athletics and others that just assumed being in the club was enough.

The Big East had a foundation that just couldn't accomodate the market changes without changing who they were.

[Rudy]

Technically, no it won't

According to multiple sources, Western Kentucky coaches in at least one sport have informed players the upcoming 2013-14 season will be the school's last as a member of the Sun Belt Conference.

[shaft]

So the CUSA divisions will be?

West: UTEP, UNT, UTSA, Rice, LA Tech, SMiss, UAB

East: Marshall,ODU, UNC-C, WKY, MTSU, FIU, FAU

[Harry]

So the CUSA divisions will be?

West: UTEP, UNT, UTSA, Rice, LA Tech, SMiss, UAB

East: Marshall,ODU, UNC-C, WKY, MTSU, FIU, FAU

Don't think UAB wants to be in the west; therein lies the problem.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

Technically, no it won't

[foutsrouts]

So the CUSA divisions will be?

West: UTEP, UNT, UTSA, Rice, LA Tech, SMiss, UAB

East: Marshall,ODU, UNC-C, WKY, MTSU, FIU, FAU

Sure would be nice if we could eventually break off that West and form another conference with a couple of others.

[10Eagle10]

why did UNT90 get all that negative cred? sure, he might deserve it sometimes, but in this case he's spot on. For anyone who tossed out the negative points and is willing to discuss it, I'd like to know why YOU think Louisiana-Monroe and all the other Sun Belt teams are such great adds? I sure as heck can't think of a single positive to Sun Belt 2.0. If you enjoyed the Sun Belt, then thats an ok answer.. I'd just like to hear you say it. sounds pretty awful to me

[VideoEagle]

why did UNT90 get all that negative cred? sure, he might deserve it sometimes, but in this case he's spot on. For anyone who tossed out the negative points and is willing to discuss it, I'd like to know why YOU think Louisiana-Monroe and all the other Sun Belt teams are such great adds? I sure as heck can't think of a single positive to Sun Belt 2.0. If you enjoyed the Sun Belt, then thats an ok answer.. I'd just like to hear you say it. sounds pretty awful to me

So you would prefer to still be in the Sun Belt? Since the choice is either the Sun Belt or CUSA and you don't like CUSA the only alternative is to remain in the Belt.

By the way, Monroe isn't in CUSA.

[greenminer]

Louisiana makes for an outstanding roadtrip.

I just want to start winning consistently, against anyone.

[GoMeanGreen1999]

I am far more excited to have WKY in CUSA than I am the FIU. I like this addition.

[GTWT]

I am far more excited to have WKY in CUSA than I am the FIU. I like this addition.

I don't like the addion of WKY but I hate it less than the adding of FIU, FAU, & MT.