I say take Idaho between our thumb and index finger and apply pressure until their innerds come out like the cockroaches they are!.....oh the power !....On second thought why raise more insecurity issues regarding our conference as EVERY single conference has schools that are less than ideal.

Be smart...extend the relationship but shorten the leash.Good for conference perception ,good for good faith....just the way to carry ourselves imo

(01-15-2016 07:44 AM)WhitetailWizard Wrote:  I say take Idaho between our thumb and index finger and apply pressure until their innerds come out like the cockroaches they are!.....oh the power !....On second thought why raise more insecurity issues regarding our conference as EVERY single conference has schools that are less than ideal.

Be smart...extend the relationship but shorten the leash.Good for conference perception ,good for good faith....just the way to carry ourselves imo

If they are extended do we really want to have this keep them/let them go debate every year or two. If we extend them make it at least a 4 year extension.

(01-15-2016 08:41 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  If they are extended do we really want to have this keep them/let them go debate every year or two. If we extend them make it at least a 4 year extension.

Uh....no.

Do you think the SBC is hoping that another FBS conference is created? It gives us more G5/6 options to play but would it be seen as more competition?

With this decision, the talk of conference realignment is dead, perhaps for several years. The Big 12 can have a title game. They now gain nothing by expansion.

Conference USA just saw their TV contract money get slashed. They won't be going to sixteen in my lifetime. In fact, I'll venture to say IF they are a domino in expansion, they won't replace the folks who leave.

Given the above, I'll give everyone an opportunity to tell me the value of these two schools in the conference, other than a win or two toward bowl eligibility if they don't get considerably better. Take that and weigh it against the historic lack of success of these programs and the travel costs to go there.

Again, guys, it's nothing personal.

I really thought as a conference we had some pretty smart fan bases.

I guess I was not correct after sifting through this thread.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(01-15-2016 07:44 AM)WhitetailWizard Wrote:  I say take Idaho between our thumb and index finger and apply pressure until their innerds come out like the cockroaches they are!.....oh the power !....On second thought why raise more insecurity issues regarding our conference as EVERY single conference has schools that are less than ideal.

Be smart...extend the relationship but shorten the leash.Good for conference perception ,good for good faith....just the way to carry ourselves imo

I don't know, I'm kinda partial to that watching their innards come out part.

(01-15-2016 11:12 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  I really thought as a conference we had some pretty smart fan bases.

I guess I was not correct after sifting through this thread.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Come on...you didn't really think that...huh?

(01-15-2016 11:27 AM)OsageJ Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 11:12 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  I really thought as a conference we had some pretty smart fan bases.

I guess I was not correct after sifting through this thread.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Come on...you didn't really think that...huh?

Nah, not really.

I'm just being mean now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(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.

Agreed, he's more plugged in than most of us and is not just your average, or in my case, below average, message board poster.

(01-15-2016 08:41 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  If they are extended do we really want to have this keep them/let them go debate every year or two. If we extend them make it at least a 4 year extension.

If we kick them out, we'd kick out NMSU, leaving us at 10.

That would mean instead of annually having the debate of whether to keep them or not, we'd be having the annual debate on if Liberty and JMU/EKU/Missouri State/Sam Houston/Jacksonville State will be admitted that year.

Do you really want that?

Just posted this in a different thread but it occurs to me that it probably belongs more in this one:

I see the fallout from this CCG vote unfolding for the G5 in one of a few ways:

1. Everyone stays unsure of possible realignment above them due to continuing B12 unrest and decides to stand pat for a while. Good for Idaho since it buys time.

2. Everyone decides the P5 is set for a while and notices that TV money is down. In that case, 10 might become the new 12. Conferences with strong teams at the top like the MWC and AAC might take a look at shoving some of the Hawaiis and Wyomings ands Tulanes of the world out the door to help get a better shot at Access Bowls and performance money. CUSA might look at their bloated lineup and decide to trim some fat. We likely also get the boot in that scenario but still good for Idaho since it creates more orphans who can band together.

3. Oklahoma or somebody else in a P5 conference actually makes a move. God only knows what happens in that scenario but probably good for Idaho since we need some chaos right now.

4. The Sun Belt kicks Idaho and NMSU out, nothing else happens, and everyone goes on their merry way. Bad for Idaho. Also unlikely IMO since that little movement after a major rule change is pretty much unprecedented in college football history. There are 128 players in this little game of thrones and someone somewhere always makes a move when the rules change.

Lots of possibilities. Since we're not actually costing you guys any money, it still seems like the Belt's best move is to extend us another 2 years for insurance purposes. But Who knows?

(01-15-2016 10:20 AM)BirdofParadise Wrote:  With this decision, the talk of conference realignment is dead, perhaps for several years. The Big 12 can have a title game. They now gain nothing by expansion.

Conference USA just saw their TV contract money get slashed. They won't be going to sixteen in my lifetime. In fact, I'll venture to say IF they are a domino in expansion, they won't replace the folks who leave.

Given the above, I'll give everyone an opportunity to tell me the value of these two schools in the conference, other than a win or two toward bowl eligibility if they don't get considerably better. Take that and weigh it against the historic lack of success of these programs and the travel costs to go there.

Again, guys, it's nothing personal.

I would agree that conference realignment and conference expansion in FBS football are dead for awhile. But because Idaho and NMSU are here for "football only" and can be sent packing with two years notice, the Sun Belt Conference is sitting on two potential expansion openings. The current entry fee of $2 million can make these openings financially valuable to the conference.

Since there are no decent expansion options at this time, extending NMSU and Idaho for two years gives the conference time to dangle these potential openings to other schools. It gives the conference time to see where the landscape of college football is going, to see if there are improvements in football and basketball within the conference and to see what the conference options are with the TV contract that is expiring in 2018-2019.

Idaho and NMSU are not helping or hurting the Sun Belt at this time. So I think the conference extends them both for two years through 2019 and in January 2018 the conference leadership can decide what changes may need to be made.

(01-15-2016 12:44 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  Just posted this in a different thread but it occurs to me that it probably belongs more in this one:

I see the fallout from this CCG vote unfolding for the G5 in one of a few ways:

1. Everyone stays unsure of possible realignment above them due to continuing B12 unrest and decides to stand pat for a while. Good for Idaho since it buys time.

2. Everyone decides the P5 is set for a while and notices that TV money is down. In that case, 10 might become the new 12. Conferences with strong teams at the top like the MWC and AAC might take a look at shoving some of the Hawaiis and Wyomings ands Tulanes of the world out the door to help get a better shot at Access Bowls and performance money. CUSA might look at their bloated lineup and decide to trim some fat. We likely also get the boot in that scenario but still good for Idaho since it creates more orphans who can band together.

3. Oklahoma or somebody else in a P5 conference actually makes a move. God only knows what happens in that scenario but probably good for Idaho since we need some chaos right now.

4. The Sun Belt kicks Idaho and NMSU out, nothing else happens, and everyone goes on their merry way. Bad for Idaho. Also unlikely IMO since that little movement after a major rule change is pretty much unprecedented in college football history. There are 128 players in this little game of thrones and someone somewhere always makes a move when the rules change.

Lots of possibilities. Since we're not actually costing you guys any money, it still seems like the Belt's best move is to extend us another 2 years for insurance purposes. But Who knows?

I agree with you that it seems likely that SOMETHING will happen as a result of the CCG rule change - but 'what' is going to be hard to predict. And I think it may take a year or better to unfold.

A few random thoughts:
1. College presidents tend to be very - well, "collegial". Voting out a member will be a very personal thing, somewhat attached to personal relationships [so that's probably good for Idaho and NMSU].
2. There is safety in numbers. If you as president know that there are several other possible presidents that could be the villian that voted out your good acquaintance from Idaho or NMSU then you might be more inclined to go ahead and say "no" [so obviously bad for Idaho and NMSU].
3. Voting out a football-only member is a lot easier emotionally than voting out a full member [so, bad].
4. Most other conferences are not going to face a scheduled football-only type vote. If they don't like a member they are going to have to hold a special election to vote out a full member [bad if we think we are going to have any future orphaned friends in independence-land].
5. I don't feel good about this...

(01-15-2016 12:59 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 10:20 AM)BirdofParadise Wrote:  With this decision, the talk of conference realignment is dead, perhaps for several years. The Big 12 can have a title game. They now gain nothing by expansion.

Conference USA just saw their TV contract money get slashed. They won't be going to sixteen in my lifetime. In fact, I'll venture to say IF they are a domino in expansion, they won't replace the folks who leave.

Given the above, I'll give everyone an opportunity to tell me the value of these two schools in the conference, other than a win or two toward bowl eligibility if they don't get considerably better. Take that and weigh it against the historic lack of success of these programs and the travel costs to go there.

Again, guys, it's nothing personal.

I would agree that conference realignment and conference expansion in FBS football are dead for awhile. But because Idaho and NMSU are here for "football only" and can be sent packing with two years notice, the Sun Belt Conference is sitting on two potential expansion openings. The current entry fee of $2 million can make these openings financially valuable to the conference.

Since there are no decent expansion options at this time, extending NMSU and Idaho for two years gives the conference time to dangle these potential openings to other schools. It gives the conference time to see where the landscape of college football is going, to see if there are improvements in football and basketball within the conference and to see what the conference options are with the TV contract that is expiring in 2018-2019.

Idaho and NMSU are not helping or hurting the Sun Belt at this time. So I think the conference extends them both for two years through 2019 and in January 2018 the conference leadership can decide what changes may need to be made.

Your observations reminded me. I need to check out the JMU fourm. I wonder if the Belt is looking any sexier these days? LOL

I say give another two years to see what happens if things dont improve on the field especially OOC I am fine either way.

(01-14-2016 02:22 PM)rknj8993 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.

I agree with this. Extend them on a year-to-year basis until they can figure out their problem. Both programs knew this wasn't a permanent thing, so let's not act like it is. NMSU and Idaho both knew that when they accepted the football-only invite that it was a saving grace from the Belt. Now that some time has passed, both should have their ducks in a row a bit more and be looking to what's next for their program overall.

If it weren't for NMSU and Idaho along with ULM...the Sun Belt could not have started FBS football when they did. When they were added a second time as football only it helped both parties. If say UALR and or UTA were to leave...I am all for adding NMSU as a full member.

(01-15-2016 06:43 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 12:59 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 10:20 AM)BirdofParadise Wrote:  With this decision, the talk of conference realignment is dead, perhaps for several years. The Big 12 can have a title game. They now gain nothing by expansion.

Conference USA just saw their TV contract money get slashed. They won't be going to sixteen in my lifetime. In fact, I'll venture to say IF they are a domino in expansion, they won't replace the folks who leave.

Given the above, I'll give everyone an opportunity to tell me the value of these two schools in the conference, other than a win or two toward bowl eligibility if they don't get considerably better. Take that and weigh it against the historic lack of success of these programs and the travel costs to go there.

Again, guys, it's nothing personal.

I would agree that conference realignment and conference expansion in FBS football are dead for awhile. But because Idaho and NMSU are here for "football only" and can be sent packing with two years notice, the Sun Belt Conference is sitting on two potential expansion openings. The current entry fee of $2 million can make these openings financially valuable to the conference.

Since there are no decent expansion options at this time, extending NMSU and Idaho for two years gives the conference time to dangle these potential openings to other schools. It gives the conference time to see where the landscape of college football is going, to see if there are improvements in football and basketball within the conference and to see what the conference options are with the TV contract that is expiring in 2018-2019.

Idaho and NMSU are not helping or hurting the Sun Belt at this time. So I think the conference extends them both for two years through 2019 and in January 2018 the conference leadership can decide what changes may need to be made.

Your observations reminded me. I need to check out the JMU fourm. I wonder if the Belt is looking any sexier these days? LOL

The boat has sailed for JMU and they chose to miss it.

(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 !!

And your pigs lost to G5 Toledo.

Talked to a member of our athletic department yesterday (not our AD) and asked him about what he thought about Idaho and NMSU. He said he could not speak for other schools but it was his understanding that both would likely be exited after 2017. He went on to say that nothing is in concrete right now and things could change but he expected the Belt to be 10 teams after 2017.

Take that for what it is worth. I will try to actually talk to our AD in the next week.