Mac Should Avoid The Sun Belt In Bowl Games

MeanGreen61 · December 29, 2010

Article that was posted on the Sun Belt board.

EXERPT

The Sun Belt as a league, whether it's fair or not, is perceived as the pissant division of college football, even as it proves it's on par with the MAC's second tier (anything below Northern Illinois this season — and perhaps Temple and WMU at their best).

FULL ARTICLE

http://www.mlive.com/broncos/index.ssf/2010/12/graham_couch_the_mac_should_do.html

Mean Green 93-98 · December 29, 2010

I kind of see the writer's point, but it's a little late now. If they wanted to keep from sliding below the Belt, the MAC should have avoided playing them several years ago. But now, the Belt has pretty well owned the MAC.

greenjoe · December 29, 2010

It's getting harder and harder to support the position that the Sun Belt is the weakest conference. When other conference teams play the Belt, and lose, who is in fact the weaker conference ?

ColoradoEagle · December 29, 2010

Half of the conference's problem is it's just not a great football conference. The other half is that the teams don't just play any AQ team, they play the very biggest programs to earn the biggest paychecks. So basically, outside of the one or two nationally televised SBC games a year, what people see is this conference getting pasted by scores like 52-7. Whenever we schedule lower to middle tier AQ games, we usually post respectable scores, eg. KSU@NT, FIU@aTm, Troy@Okie State.

Until the conference can start winning those games, and keeping games against the top 25 respectable, you'll see articles like this.

Yellow Snow · December 29, 2010

Half of the conference's problem is it's just not a great football conference. The other half is that the teams don't just play any AQ team, they play the very biggest programs to earn the biggest paychecks. So basically, outside of the one or two nationally televised SBC games a year, what people see is this conference getting pasted by scores like 52-7. Whenever we schedule lower to middle tier AQ games, we usually post respectable scores, eg. KSU@NT, FIU@aTm, Troy@Okie State.

Until the conference can start winning those games, and keeping games against the top 25 respectable, you'll see articles like this.

This is exactly true. The money games certainly don't do the SBC any favors as far as perception is concerned.

Getting teams drubbed for a paycheck hurts all of the conference schools in the long run. The SBC would benefit more by avoiding the public executions and scheduling WAC, C-USA, MWC, etc. teams home and home. Playing middle of the pack AQ teams, two for one even, would be more beneficial. I know as an Iowa State fan, i'd definately give you more than a solid chance to win a home game against us. Teams like this are who the SBC needs to get on the docket.

The Sun Belt has proven this bowl season to be a notch above the MAC for sure. Playing those teams in the non-con would provide more long term benefits (i.e. winning, bowls, pride, conference image) than the cash and body bag games each year. Sure the immediate budget takes a bit of a hit, but if the conference as a whole moved ahead of the MAC and WAC to even with C-USA and MWC, the bowl tie-ins, tv revenue, etc. would more than make up for the missing cash games.

Looking at UNT's non-con schedules posted below, I think you have the right idea. Indiana, Ball State, Army, Tulsa, SMU and Houston are all excellent matchups you will be able to win at LEAST 50% of the time once Mac gets established. The Alabama and LSU types... not so much.

Just my 2 cents.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Yellow Snow

DallasGreen · December 30, 2010

This is exactly true. The money games certainly don't do the SBC any favors as far as perception is concerned.

Getting teams drubbed for a paycheck hurts all of the conference schools in the long run. The SBC would benefit more by avoiding the public executions and scheduling WAC, C-USA, MWC, etc. teams home and home. Playing middle of the pack AQ teams, two for one even, would be more beneficial. I know as an Iowa State fan, i'd definately give you more than a solid chance to win a home game against us. Teams like this are who the SBC needs to get on the docket.

The Sun Belt has proven this bowl season to be a notch above the MAC for sure. Playing those teams in the non-con would provide more long term benefits (i.e. winning, bowls, pride, conference image) than the cash and body bag games each year. Sure the immediate budget takes a bit of a hit, but if the conference as a whole moved ahead of the MAC and WAC to even with C-USA and MWC, the bowl tie-ins, tv revenue, etc. would more than make up for the missing cash games.
UT in 2014 you are dog meat
Looking at UNT's non-con schedules posted below, I think you have the right idea. Indiana, Ball State, Army, Tulsa, SMU and Houston are all excellent matchups you will be able to win at LEAST 50% of the time once Mac gets established. The Alabama and LSU types... not so much.

Just my 2 cents.