Just kidding we would be first and NMSU second.
I have to wonder if that will be an issue going forward.
No FBS conference has non football members except the SBC.
The clear top two G5 conferences have football only members.

I read kick out Idaho from fans of schools who have not won an FBS game or played a season yet. I doubt what message boards fans think matters it does get old though.

Some still clamor for JMU they don't want to join it sounds needy. Add Missouri State sounds great except they don't want to leave the Valley. Add Southern Miss except for a million dollars a year plus less in T.V. money it sounds great.

I just hope if a twelfth school is added after the initial complaining it stops. The schools fans support each other and let the administration's make future decisions. Building a stronger conference together until further changes occur.

(05-15-2014 05:18 AM)MJG Wrote:  Just kidding we would be first and NMSU second.
I have to wonder if that will be an issue going forward.
No FBS conference has non football members except the SBC.
The clear top two G5 conferences have football only members.

I read kick out Idaho from fans of schools who have not won an FBS game or played a season yet. I doubt what message boards fans think matters it does get old though.

Some still clamor for JMU they don't want to join it sounds needy. Add Missouri State sounds great except they don't want to leave the Valley. Add Southern Miss except for a million dollars a year plus less in T.V. money it sounds great.

I just hope if a twelfth school is added after the initial complaining it stops. The schools fans support each other and let the administration's make future decisions. Building a stronger conference together until further changes occur.

I dont see much negative effect of uta and ualr being members without football. good adds for the other sports..my hope would be that nmsu gets the rest of their sports in and Idaho has a good football season so folks will quit griping about them..mo state is a good school and a good add in my view. as a uta grad who attended the football games in the old days, I hope it gets restarted. they have spent many hundreds of millions of dollars improving other stuff at the school the last few years and maybe the restart of football is not out of the question, just not on the list yet.

We would probably have a problem with kicking out our in-state basketball rival.

(05-15-2014 07:52 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  We would probably have a problem with kicking out our in-state basketball rival.

Would you really?

You'd have no problem leaving them behind for another conference. And you could always schedule them as a OOC game.

(05-15-2014 05:18 AM)MJG Wrote:  Just kidding we would be first and NMSU second.
I have to wonder if that will be an issue going forward.
No FBS conference has non football members except the SBC.
The clear top two G5 conferences have football only members.

I read kick out Idaho from fans of schools who have not won an FBS game or played a season yet. I doubt what message boards fans think matters it does get old though.

Some still clamor for JMU they don't want to join it sounds needy. Add Missouri State sounds great except they don't want to leave the Valley. Add Southern Miss except for a million dollars a year plus less in T.V. money it sounds great.

I just hope if a twelfth school is added after the initial complaining it stops. The schools fans support each other and let the administration's make future decisions. Building a stronger conference together until further changes occur.

AAC has Navy as football only, the MWC has Hawaii as football only and the ACC has Notre Dame with non-football sports.

I think the problem with Idaho lies less with being football only and more with being a dramatic geographic outlier football only that really isn't all that good at football.

I don't expect a primarily pacific northwest conference would be thrilled about having a football only member in the southeast that has averaged 3 wins a season for the last decade and plays in a 16,000 seat facility either.

(05-15-2014 08:17 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  I think the problem with Idaho lies less with being football only and more with being a dramatic geographic outlier football only that really isn't all that good at football.

I don't expect a primarily pacific northwest conference would be thrilled about having a football only member in the southeast that has averaged 3 wins a season for the last decade and plays in a 16,000 seat facility either.

That is fair and Idaho can only blame Idaho for not having twenty thousand seats. I am fine with that way things are just pointing out how some act. Before the last four were added some fans were arguing no more FCS call ups. Some of those were fans of schools just called up. The only four schools that don't have fans complaining are the four partial members. Maybe it will change or maybe we here the obvious over and over again.

I am just going to pull for the SBC out of conference and my team in it .I just had time on my hands so figured I would point out the obvious .

I have zero qualms about booting UALR, AState would continue to schedule them. The membership of this league sat down seven years ago developed a plan for making the league better for years to come. We've all departed from the plan in some ways but none more than UALR and they've gone backwards by dropping to 14 sports. As to UTA, they've performed pretty well but the Mavs never should have been invited. They don't sponsor football which was supposed to be a criteria for membership and they don't sponsor 15 league sports which is supposedly a membership standard.

I'd cut Idaho and if the votes aren't there for NMSU all-sports, I'd cut them as well.

If you want a conference worth a damn you better start all rowing in the same direction and that isn't happening right now.

It's not going to happen either so all the above mentioned schools can rest easy.

(05-15-2014 05:18 AM)MJG Wrote:  Just kidding we would be first and NMSU second.
I have to wonder if that will be an issue going forward.
No FBS conference has non football members except the SBC.
The clear top two G5 conferences have football only members.

I read kick out Idaho from fans of schools who have not won an FBS game or played a season yet. I doubt what message boards fans think matters it does get old though.

Some still clamor for JMU they don't want to join it sounds needy. Add Missouri State sounds great except they don't want to leave the Valley. Add Southern Miss except for a million dollars a year plus less in T.V. money it sounds great.

I just hope if a twelfth school is added after the initial complaining it stops. The schools fans support each other and let the administration's make future decisions. Building a stronger conference together until further changes occur.

ACC has Notre Dame as a non football member.

(05-15-2014 08:07 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 07:52 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  We would probably have a problem with kicking out our in-state basketball rival.

Would you really?

You'd have no problem leaving them behind for another conference. And you could always schedule them as a OOC game.

Now that I think of it, I believe ASU would kick out UALR if the conference was okay with it..

(05-15-2014 09:53 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 08:07 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 07:52 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  We would probably have a problem with kicking out our in-state basketball rival.

Would you really?

You'd have no problem leaving them behind for another conference. And you could always schedule them as a OOC game.

Now that I think of it, I believe ASU would kick out UALR if the conference was okay with it..

Our basketball gets more attention in LR by playing conference games, and in the tourney, versus UALR. Unless the basketball situation changes I don't see how we gain more by dropping them.

(05-15-2014 10:04 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 09:53 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 08:07 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 07:52 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  We would probably have a problem with kicking out our in-state basketball rival.

Would you really?

You'd have no problem leaving them behind for another conference. And you could always schedule them as a OOC game.

Now that I think of it, I believe ASU would kick out UALR if the conference was okay with it..

Our basketball gets more attention in LR by playing conference games, and in the tourney, versus UALR. Unless the basketball situation changes I don't see how we gain more by dropping them.

If the SBC was to make such a m ove and use the opportunity to enhance the overall quality of the league, then I am quite sure we would go along with it.

If our administration is ever willing to leave the SBC, it means we're probably going to be willing to boot UALR at some point, because we'd never be able to drag them along with us.

All you would have to do is paint it that UALR athletics is struggling, and dropping sports, and their lack of sponsorship of football makes them no longer viable to the SBC as a whole.

That being said, the SBC would never do it.

There seem to be philosophical reasons for dropping UTA and UALR but in practical terms our UALR games attract fan and student interest and in-state media attention.

They are a close trip in a league we don't have many close trips in.

For now I wouldn't be willing to give up the practical be edits for the philosophical ones.

Those games personally mean more to me.

(05-15-2014 10:16 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  There seem to be philosophical reasons for dropping UTA and UALR but in practical terms our UALR games attract fan and student interest and in-state media attention.

They are a close trip in a league we don't have many close trips in.

For now I wouldn't be willing to give up the practical be edits for the philosophical ones.

Those games personally mean more to me.

I'd say how you brand your conference via who is a member is more than a philosophical issue.

(05-15-2014 10:23 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 10:16 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  There seem to be philosophical reasons for dropping UTA and UALR but in practical terms our UALR games attract fan and student interest and in-state media attention.

They are a close trip in a league we don't have many close trips in.

For now I wouldn't be willing to give up the practical be edits for the philosophical ones.

Those games personally mean more to me.

I'd say how you brand your conference via who is a member is more than a philosophical issue.

It's still an abstraction. I'm not sure UALR and UTA's presence is causing anyone to look down on SBC basketball more than they would if they were gone.

The perception of SBC basketball is being determined by things other than whether UTA and UALR are members. We should fix those other things and then look again.

(05-15-2014 09:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I have zero qualms about booting UALR, AState would continue to schedule them. The membership of this league sat down seven years ago developed a plan for making the league better for years to come. We've all departed from the plan in some ways but none more than UALR and they've gone backwards by dropping to 14 sports. As to UTA, they've performed pretty well but the Mavs never should have been invited. They don't sponsor football which was supposed to be a criteria for membership and they don't sponsor 15 league sports which is supposedly a membership standard.

I'd cut Idaho and if the votes aren't there for NMSU all-sports, I'd cut them as well.

If you want a conference worth a damn you better start all rowing in the same direction and that isn't happening right now.

It's not going to happen either so all the above mentioned schools can rest easy.

So how do you plan to cut NMSU? Our Contract is not worded like Idaho's. My understanding is that NMSU can only be cut, is if NMSU turns down an all sports invite to the SBC.

(05-15-2014 11:11 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 09:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I have zero qualms about booting UALR, AState would continue to schedule them. The membership of this league sat down seven years ago developed a plan for making the league better for years to come. We've all departed from the plan in some ways but none more than UALR and they've gone backwards by dropping to 14 sports. As to UTA, they've performed pretty well but the Mavs never should have been invited. They don't sponsor football which was supposed to be a criteria for membership and they don't sponsor 15 league sports which is supposedly a membership standard.

I'd cut Idaho and if the votes aren't there for NMSU all-sports, I'd cut them as well.

If you want a conference worth a damn you better start all rowing in the same direction and that isn't happening right now.

It's not going to happen either so all the above mentioned schools can rest easy.

So how do you plan to cut NMSU? Our Contract is not worded like Idaho's. My understanding is that NMSU can only be cut, is if NMSU turns down an all sports invite to the SBC.

If that's the case wiffle bat beatings for everyone in the league for signing the STUPIDEST contract ever.

Even full members can be expelled with a 3/4ths vote.

(05-15-2014 11:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:11 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 09:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I have zero qualms about booting UALR, AState would continue to schedule them. The membership of this league sat down seven years ago developed a plan for making the league better for years to come. We've all departed from the plan in some ways but none more than UALR and they've gone backwards by dropping to 14 sports. As to UTA, they've performed pretty well but the Mavs never should have been invited. They don't sponsor football which was supposed to be a criteria for membership and they don't sponsor 15 league sports which is supposedly a membership standard.

I'd cut Idaho and if the votes aren't there for NMSU all-sports, I'd cut them as well.

If you want a conference worth a damn you better start all rowing in the same direction and that isn't happening right now.

It's not going to happen either so all the above mentioned schools can rest easy.

So how do you plan to cut NMSU? Our Contract is not worded like Idaho's. My understanding is that NMSU can only be cut, is if NMSU turns down an all sports invite to the SBC.

If that's the case wiffle bat beatings for everyone in the league for signing the STUPIDEST contract ever.

Even full members can be expelled with a 3/4ths vote.

Part of the agreement was providing our AggieVison feed for free to SBC members. You really think that NMSU would allow that to happen if the SBC could kick us out after two years? four years?

Kick out Arkansas State because they are flirting with the MAC.


Just kidding

No hate on Idaho. But... y'all really need to fix your stadium situation.