Mike Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Reached out to some folks today and this is what I've got: -I think it's pretty obvious that the SBC and LU have spoken. I'd say that if LU was financially ready to make such a move and their sports teams were winning in the SLC on a more consistent basis it would almost be a certainty that they'd be invited and accept the invitation to the SBC. The issue is they are not ready. The timing for all of this recent conference movement and the opportunity for LU to move up to an FBS conference is not occurring at the most opportune time for the university. - I hear that the SBC has a list of Georgia Southern, Idaho, New Mexico State & then Lamar. Indications are that GSU & NM State will accept and rumors have Idaho joining in football only. The Vandals other sports would stay in the WAC or could possibly move to the Big Sky conference. Lamar would be on deck for the SBC. What does all this mean? It means who really knows? I read somewhere else that LU would be announced moving to the Sun Belt in two weeks.....well that could still happen but other than probably Jimmy Simmons, Jason Henderson & Karl Benson who really knows the answer? I don't expect it to happen this soon but I've been wrong many times before. There have been too many people I've spoken with that would have heard of this by now and they all tell me they haven't heard anything about it. They either all have great poker faces or Lamar still has a few obstacles in the way before making such a move. Stay tuned, we'll keep asking.
LUSportsFan Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 For SBC, plus for NMSt and Idaho is that they are already FBS. The negative is that one is across the country and the other is basically in El Paso. NMSt has excellent basketball, good baseball, as well as other sports. Both are weak in football currently. Georgia Southern would be a good add for the SBC in terms of footprint, support, and history. I think we would too. Our main negative is Won / Loss record. Those are short term. (Look at A&M, SHSU before Fritz, etc.) I hope that long-term decisions would not made just on current Won / Loss records. The main thing to me would be the commitment to athletics and a commitment of the University to continue improvement. I have my fingers crossed, but I'm keeping my excitement and expectation low until a formal annoucement. Learned that from LU dealings with the WAC.
jdcurran235 Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 The fact that we have conversations ongoing is a good sign. But it sounds like the SBC might not pull the trigger this year.
puddin tane Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 dont know why anybody would want idaho,football only there has to be a reason for the contract extension
LUSportsFan Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Idaho was in the SBC football only from 2001-2004. It was a win-win. It helped Idaho with a tie to a conference until they to get a "permanent" home and it helped the Sun Belt meeting minimum numbers. It was temporary then, and I expect it would be a temporary thing again if it came to pass.
jdcurran235 Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 Are finances truly an issue for affording it. It's hard to imagine that it is affordable for ULM and not LU. We need an additional 20 schollies. Which makes 40 total for title IX. Seems like we could afford that. Our facilities are already in place. It's not like travel costs are a concern in the SBC.
jdcurran235 Posted November 30, 2012 Posted November 30, 2012 dont know why anybody would want idaho,football only there has to be a reason for the contract extension I am guessing you are talking about woodard
coachacola Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 Are finances truly an issue for affording it. It's hard to imagine that it is affordable for ULM and not LU. We need an additional 20 schollies. Which makes 40 total for title IX. Seems like we could afford that. Our facilities are already in place. It's not like travel costs are a concern in the SBC. I'm guessing the finances would be for expanding the stadium. ULM already has a 30K stadium.
jdcurran235 Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 Are finances truly an issue for affording it. It's hard to imagine that it is affordable for ULM and not LU. We need an additional 20 schollies. Which makes 40 total for title IX. Seems like we could afford that. Our facilities are already in place. It's not like travel costs are a concern in the SBC. I'm guessing the finances would be for expanding the stadium. ULM already has a 30K stadium. But our stadium already meets the FBS minimum.
scurran Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 [move]Go Big Red: Very interesting - these "Latest on Sun Belt Rumors". Love to see it happen.
Sly Fox Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 Double the number of scholarships you add to go FBS because you have to add the equivalencies on the women's side as well. At Liberty, we are financially primed and ready to go. But we are outside the current footprint. So the two LUs are both frustrated for the exact opposite reasons.
Guest BigRed2010 Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 Are finances truly an issue for affording it. It's hard to imagine that it is affordable for ULM and not LU. We need an additional 20 schollies. Which makes 40 total for title IX. Seems like we could afford that. Our facilities are already in place. It's not like travel costs are a concern in the SBC. If finances were the problem, we never would have asked the WAC or the SBC for membership. The only reason I can think of, if NMSU and Idaho are invited, is that they are already FBS and could fill in for the 2013 schedules. To me there is no other reason. Neither one brings any kind of market, they are not a hotbed for recruiting players and way out of the SBC footprint.
LUSportsFan Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 Double the number of scholarships you add to go FBS because you have to add the equivalencies on the women's side as well. At Liberty, we are financially primed and ready to go. But we are outside the current footprint. So the two LUs are both frustrated for the exact opposite reasons. I think the Title IX part would be minimal for us. We added Softball with the first season this year so meeting that requirement is already being worked on. I haven't seen the numbers, but my understanding is that we were in Title IX compliance for FCS without Softball.
jdcurran235 Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 Bobcat is reporting that we are on deck as long as we can get funds together. I am guessing for stadium expansion?
jdcurran235 Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 So here is my theory: I think LU does not have a problem with adding scholarships if that is all that they would have to do. I think the SBC is demanding certain requirements of LU before they extend us an invite. I think the conference call was about what LU needed to get done to get an invite. I think LU spends the next week talking to donors to see what money is available to meet the demands of he sunbelt. IE entrance fees and whatever else the SBC is demanding. LU will have another meeting in the next week or two with the SBC so everyone can get on the same page. At that point we MAY see an invite from the SBC. I think the "BALL" might be in our court right now. We might be working to meet the demands of the SBC. Thoughts?
LAZEEK Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 So here is my theory: I think LU does not have a problem with adding scholarships if that is all that they would have to do. I think the SBC is demanding certain requirements of LU before they extend us an invite. I think the conference call was about what LU needed to get done to get an invite. I think LU spends the next week talking to donors to see what money is available to meet the demands of he sunbelt. IE entrance fees and whatever else the SBC is demanding. LU will have another meeting in the next week or two with the SBC so everyone can get on the same page. At that point we MAY see an invite from the SBC. I think the "BALL" might be in our court right now. We might be working to meet the demands of the SBC. Thoughts? I completely agree!!!!
lcard05 Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 LU Sunbelt record next year....0-11 You can add all the seats you want. We are not filling half the ones we have now. This program is no where near the level of the Southland Con. and we are moving up?? Coaches want to move up because they won't be expected to win again. Three more years of a hall pass on losing.
Guest NorthoftheBorder Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 LU Sunbelt record next year....0-11 You can add all the seats you want. We are not filling half the ones we have now. This program is no where near the level of the Southland Con. and we are moving up?? Coaches want to move up because they won't be expected to win again. Three more years of a hall pass on losing. I don't see it as 3 more years. I am not happy with what I am seeing about the all around management of the football program, but I think this raises the anti on winning and 0-11, although that is what we would expect, will not be acceptable. Long term, most programs rise to the level of competition. That can be expected (that is if Henderson is worth his salt). I am in favor of the move. But LU has to do better job of managing athletics and making the right moves in order for it to work.
lu cards Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 long term is the sbc or slc better for lamar?i think short term its the southland but long term its a no brainer-sbc.you have to make the move when the opportunity is there.
coachacola Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 If Lamar joins the Sun Belt then they'll have to transition for a couple of years before they would become a full-fledge FBS team. It would cause more growing pains and more losses in the short term, but it's something they'd have to go through anyway. WKU had a long losing streak when they moved up but now they are winning. South Alabama has only won 2 games this year, one of those was a 6 point win over Nicholls State. I'm sure that's on everyone's mind and is probably a concern. Although Lamar's stadium is FBS ready in the short term, I'm sure the Sun Belt would require them to upgrade as soon as possible. They would probably only need to expand to around 25K at this point. I'm guessing Lamar is talking to the big donors to see what kind of interest there is to pay for any expansion. They are already paying a hefty amount now for the original renovations a few years ago, and with student fees already rising for other things, I doubt they'll ask the students for more money.
jdcurran235 Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 Does anyone know the entrance fee for the SBC (UTA paid 300K)? And lets say we do not have to expand our stadium, how much does a move cost? 1 million? 5 million? 10 million? I am not sure what the real expense is of a move to FBS.
jdcurran235 Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 It seems like if LU could get 2 mill together with some donations, they could make the move pretty easily if the 300K is true. Unless I am missing something. According to the article I read, UTA's was partially paid for by the SBC revenue sharing. So, I dont know how much of that would be an upfront cost. Also, what is the exit fee from the SLC?
Guest BigRed2010 Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 Although Lamar's stadium is FBS ready in the short term, I'm sure the Sun Belt would require them to upgrade as soon as possible. They would probably only need to expand to around 25K at this point. I'm guessing Lamar is talking to the big donors to see what kind of interest there is to pay for any expansion. They are already paying a hefty amount now for the original renovations a few years ago, and with student fees already rising for other things, I doubt they'll ask the students for more money. Western Kentucky stadium seats a little over 22,000. Maybe this would be large enough for us right now.
jdcurran235 Posted December 1, 2012 Posted December 1, 2012 I think as long as we expand to over 20 we are good. Even if we get stuck in the SLC we need to do that.
Recommended Posts