(01-14-2016 02:29 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 02:04 PM)BirdofParadise Wrote:  Many have stated in this thread that having NMSU and Idaho does not (or has not) affected their schools.

That would be an incorrect statement.

Last year, without those two schools, we would have finished ahead of the MAC when it came to CFP revenue distribution. And, I think the same was true this year, since NMSU did not win a single OOC game and Idaho's only win was over an FCS school.

So, those two schools have cost YOUR program plenty.

While both schools showed some improvement this year, reality is there is no pattern of consistency, especially in the case of New Mexico State. Love Las Cruces, love their fans, love their basketball. But their football has dragged us down financially and there's no indication that will change. History says otherwise.

Idaho had one good season under Rob Akey. Everything else has been Akey Breaky Heart. And, it's a MISERABLE trip for anyone who has to go to Moscow.

Look, I feel for these two schools. I HATE that they are in the situation they are in. But, if we're going to reject NMSU's best sport (by choosing someone else for all sports membership) then why do you keep their WORST sport in your league.

The smart thing to do will be to give the two schools a years grace for scheduling purposes, buy out 2017 and send them on their way.

Then stay with an eight game conference schedule for a set number of years, don't worry about a conference championship game and give the member schools some time to fix their OOC schedules. THEN, if you want a championship game and can show you can make money with it, ONLY then do you go to a round robin and host a title game.

Right now a championship game should be out of the question because we would lose money on it.

Do you have a source for your numbers or are you making stuff up? The Sun Belt as a whole won a grand total of 4 OOC FBS games last year and I believe another 4
OOC FBS games this year (not including the few bowl wins). Even with Idaho and NMSU taken out, you're still dead last in the CFP revenue distribution by a long ways and certainly not passing up the MAC.

I never make stuff up. Its a formula, not an opinion. And, no, I don't have to give you sources. Feel free to not believe it. I really don't care.

And, while the rest of the league hasn't been stellar, the rest are all FULL TIME members of this league. Idaho and NMSU are not.

Look this is personal to you. I get it. But this is a business decision that's going to be made on March 10. And from a business standpoint, it's better for the league to cut the ties.

Simply my opinion, based on the facts I have.

Personally, I think we should be open to the idea of reimbursing lost performance money over the next 4 years, offset by whatever we help make the conference when we're good, just to take that argument off the table. But I don't know if that's a possibility in real life.

(01-14-2016 02:21 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 02:04 PM)BirdofParadise Wrote:  Many have stated in this thread that having NMSU and Idaho does not (or has not) affected their schools.

That would be an incorrect statement.

Last year, without those two schools, we would have finished ahead of the MAC when it came to CFP revenue distribution. And, I think the same was true this year, since NMSU did not win a single OOC game and Idaho's only win was over an FCS school.

So, those two schools have cost YOUR program plenty.

While both schools showed some improvement this year, reality is there is no pattern of consistency, especially in the case of New Mexico State. Love Las Cruces, love their fans, love their basketball. But their football has dragged us down financially and there's no indication that will change. History says otherwise.

Idaho had one good season under Rob Akey. Everything else has been Akey Breaky Heart. And, it's a MISERABLE trip for anyone who has to go to Moscow.

Look, I feel for these two schools. I HATE that they are in the situation they are in. But, if we're going to reject NMSU's best sport (by choosing someone else for all sports membership) then why do you keep their WORST sport in your league.

The smart thing to do will be to give the two schools a years grace for scheduling purposes, buy out 2017 and send them on their way.

Then stay with an eight game conference schedule for a set number of years, don't worry about a conference championship game and give the member schools some time to fix their OOC schedules. THEN, if you want a championship game and can show you can make money with it, ONLY then do you go to a round robin and host a title game.

Right now a championship game should be out of the question because we would lose money on it.

Sorry we drug down the Belt's stellar OOC performance. Oh, wait ...

In 2014 the entire Sun Belt won a grand total of 4 OOC FBS games during the season. In 2015 the number shot all the way up to 5.

Yes, Idaho & NMSU stunk in 2014. Given what our programs went through in 2011-2013, who wouldn't have? We both improved in 2015. I don't know about NMSU, but Idaho lost very few contributors and is poised to keep improving next year.

You can make us the scapegoat for OOC issues if you want, but it's a conference-wide problem.

stAte won the SBC Football Championship and did not beat one . . not one . . FBS OOC opponent. How sad is that !!

(01-14-2016 02:38 PM)BirdofParadise Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 02:29 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 02:04 PM)BirdofParadise Wrote:  Many have stated in this thread that having NMSU and Idaho does not (or has not) affected their schools.

That would be an incorrect statement.

Last year, without those two schools, we would have finished ahead of the MAC when it came to CFP revenue distribution. And, I think the same was true this year, since NMSU did not win a single OOC game and Idaho's only win was over an FCS school.

So, those two schools have cost YOUR program plenty.

While both schools showed some improvement this year, reality is there is no pattern of consistency, especially in the case of New Mexico State. Love Las Cruces, love their fans, love their basketball. But their football has dragged us down financially and there's no indication that will change. History says otherwise.

Idaho had one good season under Rob Akey. Everything else has been Akey Breaky Heart. And, it's a MISERABLE trip for anyone who has to go to Moscow.

Look, I feel for these two schools. I HATE that they are in the situation they are in. But, if we're going to reject NMSU's best sport (by choosing someone else for all sports membership) then why do you keep their WORST sport in your league.

The smart thing to do will be to give the two schools a years grace for scheduling purposes, buy out 2017 and send them on their way.

Then stay with an eight game conference schedule for a set number of years, don't worry about a conference championship game and give the member schools some time to fix their OOC schedules. THEN, if you want a championship game and can show you can make money with it, ONLY then do you go to a round robin and host a title game.

Right now a championship game should be out of the question because we would lose money on it.

Do you have a source for your numbers or are you making stuff up? The Sun Belt as a whole won a grand total of 4 OOC FBS games last year and I believe another 4
OOC FBS games this year (not including the few bowl wins). Even with Idaho and NMSU taken out, you're still dead last in the CFP revenue distribution by a long ways and certainly not passing up the MAC.

I never make stuff up. Its a formula, not an opinion. And, no, I don't have to give you sources. Feel free to not believe it. I really don't care.

And, while the rest of the league hasn't been stellar, the rest are all FULL TIME members of this league. Idaho and NMSU are not.

Look this is personal to you. I get it. But this is a business decision that's going to be made on March 10. And from a business standpoint, it's better for the league to cut the ties.

Simply my opinion, based on the facts I have.

Lol you must have a pretty funky formula if a conference that can't win FBS OOC games (5-30 this year, 4-30 last year) is somehow going to pass anyone on the conference rankings just by removing a few of those losses.

(01-14-2016 03:30 PM)DoubletapWolf Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 02:21 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 02:04 PM)BirdofParadise Wrote:  Many have stated in this thread that having NMSU and Idaho does not (or has not) affected their schools.

That would be an incorrect statement.

Last year, without those two schools, we would have finished ahead of the MAC when it came to CFP revenue distribution. And, I think the same was true this year, since NMSU did not win a single OOC game and Idaho's only win was over an FCS school.

So, those two schools have cost YOUR program plenty.

While both schools showed some improvement this year, reality is there is no pattern of consistency, especially in the case of New Mexico State. Love Las Cruces, love their fans, love their basketball. But their football has dragged us down financially and there's no indication that will change. History says otherwise.

Idaho had one good season under Rob Akey. Everything else has been Akey Breaky Heart. And, it's a MISERABLE trip for anyone who has to go to Moscow.

Look, I feel for these two schools. I HATE that they are in the situation they are in. But, if we're going to reject NMSU's best sport (by choosing someone else for all sports membership) then why do you keep their WORST sport in your league.

The smart thing to do will be to give the two schools a years grace for scheduling purposes, buy out 2017 and send them on their way.

Then stay with an eight game conference schedule for a set number of years, don't worry about a conference championship game and give the member schools some time to fix their OOC schedules. THEN, if you want a championship game and can show you can make money with it, ONLY then do you go to a round robin and host a title game.

Right now a championship game should be out of the question because we would lose money on it.

Sorry we drug down the Belt's stellar OOC performance. Oh, wait ...

In 2014 the entire Sun Belt won a grand total of 4 OOC FBS games during the season. In 2015 the number shot all the way up to 5.

Yes, Idaho & NMSU stunk in 2014. Given what our programs went through in 2011-2013, who wouldn't have? We both improved in 2015. I don't know about NMSU, but Idaho lost very few contributors and is poised to keep improving next year.

You can make us the scapegoat for OOC issues if you want, but it's a conference-wide problem.

stAte won the SBC Football Championship and did not beat one . . not one . . FBS OOC opponent. How sad is that !!

Case in point. Both of the past 2 years our conference champion ran the table in the Sun Belt but went 0-fer in OOC play. The top of this conference is as much to blame for this problem as the bottom.

(USA fans are exempt from this rant. They're the only school in the conference with an OOC win both years.)

(01-14-2016 02:04 PM)BirdofParadise Wrote:  Many have stated in this thread that having NMSU and Idaho does not (or has not) affected their schools.

That would be an incorrect statement.

Last year, without those two schools, we would have finished ahead of the MAC when it came to CFP revenue distribution. And, I think the same was true this year, since NMSU did not win a single OOC game and Idaho's only win was over an FCS school.

So, those two schools have cost YOUR program plenty.

While both schools showed some improvement this year, reality is there is no pattern of consistency, especially in the case of New Mexico State. Love Las Cruces, love their fans, love their basketball. But their football has dragged us down financially and there's no indication that will change. History says otherwise.

Idaho had one good season under Rob Akey. Everything else has been Akey Breaky Heart. And, it's a MISERABLE trip for anyone who has to go to Moscow.

Look, I feel for these two schools. I HATE that they are in the situation they are in. But, if we're going to reject NMSU's best sport (by choosing someone else for all sports membership) then why do you keep their WORST sport in your league.

The smart thing to do will be to give the two schools a years grace for scheduling purposes, buy out 2017 and send them on their way.

Then stay with an eight game conference schedule for a set number of years, don't worry about a conference championship game and give the member schools some time to fix their OOC schedules. THEN, if you want a championship game and can show you can make money with it, ONLY then do you go to a round robin and host a title game.

Right now a championship game should be out of the question because we would lose money on it.

Idaho and NMSU are contractually here through 2017, so we are not going to buy them out. The CUSA CCG is moving from ESPN to Fox in 2016, so ESPN will have an opening on the last Saturday of college football for a Conference Championship game and the Sun Belt should fill that void. It is stupid to be on the sidelines for the last weekend of the season while every other FBS conference is playing for something and being nationally televised.

You could have taken NMSU and Idaho out of the conference in 2014 and maybe it helps. But without those wins against Idaho and NMSU, AState has five wins, Texas State has five wins and USA has five wins. We are all trying to find another win to become bowl eligible. Our conference champions the last two seasons were unbeaten in conference play and winless in FBS OOC games. The performance of the conference is a conference issue, not a Idaho and NMSU issue only.

(01-14-2016 03:41 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  Case in point. Both of the past 2 years our conference champion ran the table in the Sun Belt but went 0-fer in OOC play. The top of this conference is as much to blame for this problem as the bottom.

(USA fans are exempt from this rant. They're the only school in the conference with an OOC win both years.)

We didn't win an FBS non-conference game, but we also played two ACC bowl teams and we didn't finish in the bottom 10 in almost all national rankings.

Personally, I wouldn't mind extending Idaho and NMSU. At least give the programs a chance for fans and supporters to rally around them a la UAB.

(01-14-2016 09:29 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 09:07 AM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  I look at it this way. The conference had a plan to get to a 12/12 make up when GS and AppSt were added along with Idaho and NMSU as football only. What has changed since that time except WKU leaving right after this addition to the conference was made then the conference waiting for the right addition to replace WKU.

I say leave the conference make up as is due to the fact that if we want to add a football conference championship game the conference can with 12 football members. If Idaho and NMSU are booted out the conference will not have that option just due to the fact that a round robin scheadule is not in the best interest of the conference. Also the conference membership is more stable that it has ever been since football was added to the conference and that is a good thing to have.

Split into 2 5 team divisions:
West: Tex St., ULM, ULL, Ark St, USA
East: Troy, App St, Ga St, Ga So, Coastal

I think it will happen since the Sunbelt whole heartily voted for the dereg.
Nobody is going to poach the Sunbelt. If the AAC still loses 2 to the Big 12 and pull from CUSA, CUSA isn't going to care about going to 14. Not with their TV contract. They stay at 12 and hope 2 more are taken to get to 10 and still have a CCG.

The only thing that can happen is a reorganization between CUSA and the Sunbelt to be more regional

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

(01-14-2016 04:02 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 03:41 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  Case in point. Both of the past 2 years our conference champion ran the table in the Sun Belt but went 0-fer in OOC play. The top of this conference is as much to blame for this problem as the bottom.

(USA fans are exempt from this rant. They're the only school in the conference with an OOC win both years.)

We didn't win an FBS non-conference game, but we also played two ACC bowl teams and we didn't finish in the bottom 10 in almost all national rankings.

Personally, I wouldn't mind extending Idaho and NMSU. At least give the programs a chance for fans and supporters to rally around them a la UAB.

Not trying to take anything away from you guys -- you've had 2 really good years. But 2 of our OOC games this year were at USC and Auburn and the other was against a G5 bowl team. It's still being held against us by some.

(01-14-2016 11:13 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  What does the conference gain dropping to 10 for football?

(01-14-2016 04:12 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 04:02 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 03:41 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  Case in point. Both of the past 2 years our conference champion ran the table in the Sun Belt but went 0-fer in OOC play. The top of this conference is as much to blame for this problem as the bottom.

(USA fans are exempt from this rant. They're the only school in the conference with an OOC win both years.)

We didn't win an FBS non-conference game, but we also played two ACC bowl teams and we didn't finish in the bottom 10 in almost all national rankings.

Personally, I wouldn't mind extending Idaho and NMSU. At least give the programs a chance for fans and supporters to rally around them a la UAB.

Not trying to take anything away from you guys -- you've had 2 really good years. But 2 of our OOC games this year were at USC and Auburn and the other was against a G5 bowl team. It's still being held against us by some.

We all should have scheduled Wyoming.

Other than giving us numbers to possibly protect against a raid of three or more teams after 2017 what value does either team add?

Even if we are raided after that point we can add one of several FCS teams that we would likely get added anyways if a raid happened since neither school is a long term solution. The only reasonable way to keep one is if NMSU is added for all sports along with a team in the east. The $$$ just doesn't add up, and we all know that's all that matters these days.

(01-14-2016 04:51 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  Other than giving us numbers to possibly protect against a raid of three or more teams after 2017 what value does either team add?

Even if we are raided after that point we can add one of several FCS teams that we would likely get added anyways if a raid happened since neither school is a long term solution. The only reasonable way to keep one is if NMSU is added for all sports along with a team in the east. The $$$ just doesn't add up, and we all know that's all that matters these days.

When your conference is raided for the 3rd time and is scrambling to survive for the 3rd time those FCS schools may not be as inclined to jump up and say "take me" as you might think. Plus...those FCS schools have a transition period.

I've thought a lot about this but the reason I voted "No" is because I don't think this question mark hanging over Idaho's and NMSU's futures in the Belt is good for either group. It would help both schools to be able to look a recruit in the eye and tell them "We're an independent, just like BYU, Notre Dame, Army, etc." so they know how, when and where they'll be spending their four/five years (IMO). It might help the Belt in their TV renegotiations to be able to provide a solid lineup of teams as well. That said, I'd not be overly bummed if we renewed them either.

(01-14-2016 02:38 PM)BirdofParadise Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 02:29 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 02:04 PM)BirdofParadise Wrote:  Many have stated in this thread that having NMSU and Idaho does not (or has not) affected their schools.

That would be an incorrect statement.

Last year, without those two schools, we would have finished ahead of the MAC when it came to CFP revenue distribution. And, I think the same was true this year, since NMSU did not win a single OOC game and Idaho's only win was over an FCS school.

So, those two schools have cost YOUR program plenty.

While both schools showed some improvement this year, reality is there is no pattern of consistency, especially in the case of New Mexico State. Love Las Cruces, love their fans, love their basketball. But their football has dragged us down financially and there's no indication that will change. History says otherwise.

Idaho had one good season under Rob Akey. Everything else has been Akey Breaky Heart. And, it's a MISERABLE trip for anyone who has to go to Moscow.

Look, I feel for these two schools. I HATE that they are in the situation they are in. But, if we're going to reject NMSU's best sport (by choosing someone else for all sports membership) then why do you keep their WORST sport in your league.

The smart thing to do will be to give the two schools a years grace for scheduling purposes, buy out 2017 and send them on their way.

Then stay with an eight game conference schedule for a set number of years, don't worry about a conference championship game and give the member schools some time to fix their OOC schedules. THEN, if you want a championship game and can show you can make money with it, ONLY then do you go to a round robin and host a title game.

Right now a championship game should be out of the question because we would lose money on it.

Do you have a source for your numbers or are you making stuff up? The Sun Belt as a whole won a grand total of 4 OOC FBS games last year and I believe another 4
OOC FBS games this year (not including the few bowl wins). Even with Idaho and NMSU taken out, you're still dead last in the CFP revenue distribution by a long ways and certainly not passing up the MAC.

I never make stuff up. Its a formula, not an opinion. And, no, I don't have to give you sources. Feel free to not believe it. I really don't care.

And, while the rest of the league hasn't been stellar, the rest are all FULL TIME members of this league. Idaho and NMSU are not.

Look this is personal to you. I get it. But this is a business decision that's going to be made on March 10. And from a business standpoint, it's better for the league to cut the ties.

Simply my opinion, based on the facts I have.

One thing I have learned since Georgia Southern joined the conference is that BirdofPadadise is one of the posters on this message board that when he post on a subject dealing with the conference you need to pay attention to what he posts. In other word he does not post bad information.

(01-14-2016 05:45 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 02:38 PM)BirdofParadise Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 02:29 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 02:04 PM)BirdofParadise Wrote:  Many have stated in this thread that having NMSU and Idaho does not (or has not) affected their schools.

That would be an incorrect statement.

Last year, without those two schools, we would have finished ahead of the MAC when it came to CFP revenue distribution. And, I think the same was true this year, since NMSU did not win a single OOC game and Idaho's only win was over an FCS school.

So, those two schools have cost YOUR program plenty.

While both schools showed some improvement this year, reality is there is no pattern of consistency, especially in the case of New Mexico State. Love Las Cruces, love their fans, love their basketball. But their football has dragged us down financially and there's no indication that will change. History says otherwise.

Idaho had one good season under Rob Akey. Everything else has been Akey Breaky Heart. And, it's a MISERABLE trip for anyone who has to go to Moscow.

Look, I feel for these two schools. I HATE that they are in the situation they are in. But, if we're going to reject NMSU's best sport (by choosing someone else for all sports membership) then why do you keep their WORST sport in your league.

The smart thing to do will be to give the two schools a years grace for scheduling purposes, buy out 2017 and send them on their way.

Then stay with an eight game conference schedule for a set number of years, don't worry about a conference championship game and give the member schools some time to fix their OOC schedules. THEN, if you want a championship game and can show you can make money with it, ONLY then do you go to a round robin and host a title game.

Right now a championship game should be out of the question because we would lose money on it.

Do you have a source for your numbers or are you making stuff up? The Sun Belt as a whole won a grand total of 4 OOC FBS games last year and I believe another 4
OOC FBS games this year (not including the few bowl wins). Even with Idaho and NMSU taken out, you're still dead last in the CFP revenue distribution by a long ways and certainly not passing up the MAC.

I never make stuff up. Its a formula, not an opinion. And, no, I don't have to give you sources. Feel free to not believe it. I really don't care.

And, while the rest of the league hasn't been stellar, the rest are all FULL TIME members of this league. Idaho and NMSU are not.

Look this is personal to you. I get it. But this is a business decision that's going to be made on March 10. And from a business standpoint, it's better for the league to cut the ties.

Simply my opinion, based on the facts I have.

One thing I have learned since Georgia Southern joined the conference is that BirdofPadadise is one of the posters on this message board that when he post on a subject dealing with the conference you need to pay attention to what he posts. In other word he does not post bad information.

I think its the wrong decision. But BoP posting it is not good news for Idaho and NMSU I think.

I really hope it doesnt come back to bute us later.

Idaho and NMSU cost the Sun Belt NOTHING in conference revenue distribution. The G5 teams have agreed to distribute the CFP roughly $1 million per team per conference. The Sunbelt got about $11 Million this year but would have gotten only $9 Million this year if Idaho and NMSU were gone. With Coastal coming in the pot will grow to $12 Mill for the Belt to distribute to the teams.

However there is no value to a G5 by going over 12 teams. 14 teams still only gets you $12 Million from the CFP revenue.

(01-14-2016 04:26 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 11:13 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  What does the conference gain dropping to 10 for football?

That's $10 per team. Sounds about right.

(01-14-2016 07:53 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 04:26 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(01-14-2016 11:13 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  What does the conference gain dropping to 10 for football?

That's $10 per team. Sounds about right.

Then my point is made.

I voted drop them. I want to see Idaho beat North Dakota State for the FCS title in Frisco, Texas!