(03-20-2015 09:32 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote: What do we gain by adding NMSU?
- they don't add a second bid to the ncaa's and one additional "good" team averaged in with 12 others doesn't move the needle much for the conference as a whole.
Even if nothing else changed, NMSU's RPI would improve everyone else's by a few points, which in turn improves everyone else's when they play everyone else. A loss against NMSU with a better RPI than any other team is better than a loss to a team with an RPI in the bottom half. Only NMSU comes close in terms of legit SBC expansion candidates in terms of good RPI. Factor in the program's history and it is a no-brainer which brings the better program. Which leads me to...
(03-20-2015 09:32 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote: - football is a disaster and will not get much better. NMSU needs to be a short term fix that will move on soon and improve our RPI by leavin
g. Football is the crown jewel for the SBC so don't hurt the 75% factor of importance to improve the 20%.
This is the absolute most incorrect thing of all. Football brings in money, no question. But bowl payouts don't cover the cost of the bowl. (see here for an example,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...eed-payout) The college football playoff will bring some money, especially if the SBC can be in the top-tier of conferences, but the sheer expense of the sport, 85 scholarships, dozens of unscholarship players, million-dollar coaching salaries, training and support, etc. mean a ton of money.
Football is not, repeat is not, a money maker.
Basketball, on the pother hand, is. Just making the tournament is worth 1.6 million for the conference, a win is 3.2 million and so on. Even though the money is split over six years, it happens yearly, so it is roughly 1.6 per year minimum. Spread over 13 scholarships, a couple non-scholarship, hundreds of thousands of coaches salaries and some support. Travel costs are far lower, with a hundred fewer seats, hotels, meals, etc. Basketball is more likely to be a profit than football is for the G5 and lower.
The travel cost debate leads to...
(03-20-2015 09:32 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote: - travel is a disaster for EVERY school in the conference. We should make our travel budgets soar to permanently hurt the crown jewel which is football?
Once you have committed to a flight, distance is not much of a factor. The primary cost of flying is takeoff and landing, a constant for any trip. A flight to EKU is marginally cheaper than NMSU. It is the bus ride from the airport that makes more of a difference. NMSU's distance from El Paso can not be understated.
NMSU's big drawback is the lack of a travel partner, but really, that only affects the basketball sports and volleyball. Football doesn't utilize that, neither do track and field, cross country, baseball or softball. Tennis could but doesn't always.
Factor in divisional play, which would be in effect for any new add, and travel costs actually fall from where they are now for every school in the east with NMSU. You only make half the trips to the west.
Divisional play does set up its own problems, especially in sports like baseball or softball, where you wouldn't even play ever team in the conference, but those are competitive issues, not cost issues.