(02-12-2016 09:54 PM)MJG Wrote:  You don't see many opinions from UTA and UALR fans about this situation.

To me it would be in their interest to extend us.

We are either holding a spot for them if they start football or forming the other half of the 12/12 model.

Adding two new all sports members is risky for the non football members .
Some Arkansas ST fans would happily kick out the football only schools but hate the idea of losing UALR.

Some would like an all sports conference making football a requirement.

I like Idaho's situation more than most BSC/SBC and hope it last a while.

We are recruiting 33% Northwest 33% Southeast 33% California/JC.
Given a little time our weakness can become a strength meaning a dome expansion . Twenty seven million to get to twenty four thousand is the plan.
I know criticism will come from talking about plans but thirty million has been spent in the last few years. We have great support facilities meaning Practice,IPF,Meeting rooms including 120 person full team room and hydrotherapy pools training center all the bells and whistles.

Idaho is located in.... um... Idaho. NMSU is located in - New Mexico. Those are the two most damaging attributes to each of our resumes and our attempt to stay in the Sun Belt.

Everything else about Idaho and NMSU fits the Sun Belt needs and requirements well. If each of us was located in the South - I'm sure we would be in without question.

(02-14-2016 04:22 PM)NuMexAg Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 09:54 PM)MJG Wrote:  You don't see many opinions from UTA and UALR fans about this situation.

To me it would be in their interest to extend us.

We are either holding a spot for them if they start football or forming the other half of the 12/12 model.

Adding two new all sports members is risky for the non football members .
Some Arkansas ST fans would happily kick out the football only schools but hate the idea of losing UALR.

Some would like an all sports conference making football a requirement.

I like Idaho's situation more than most BSC/SBC and hope it last a while.

We are recruiting 33% Northwest 33% Southeast 33% California/JC.
Given a little time our weakness can become a strength meaning a dome expansion . Twenty seven million to get to twenty four thousand is the plan.
I know criticism will come from talking about plans but thirty million has been spent in the last few years. We have great support facilities meaning Practice,IPF,Meeting rooms including 120 person full team room and hydrotherapy pools training center all the bells and whistles.

Idaho is located in.... um... Idaho. NMSU is located in - New Mexico. Those are the two most damaging attributes to each of our resumes and our attempt to stay in the Sun Belt.

Everything else about Idaho and NMSU fits the Sun Belt needs and requirements well. If each of us was located in the South - I'm sure we would be in without question.

Well said and I'm pretty sure all of the Belt presidents feel exactly the same way too.

(02-12-2016 05:03 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 04:45 PM)VandyBen Wrote:  So I was speaking to our AD at the LOI signing day event in Boise and he questioned why the SBC needs to make a decision now (this March)?

We have 2 more years on the original 4 year affiliation agreement. I always thought it was in order to give a team some time to adjust if a change is to occur, but it made me scratch my head when he said it.

Would one year be enough time? I know he (and many UI alumni and fans) are feeling pretty optimistic about going to a bowl game this season with all the players returning and the players coming in, and he wants to have next season to boast about before a decision is made by the SBC members. If UI is not extended and the next step would be FBS independence while things are sorted out then we don't need the two years to plan/adjust?
It just struck me when he said it.

According to this article, http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/...o_new.html , it mentions it being a 4-year deal with an option to renew after the second season. So they have to make a decision now, it is part of the contract and I'm sure it is for scheduling reasons like GaSoEagle said.

So March 10th is the contractual 2 year look in for this the first 4 year term. If both schools are renewed for 4 years then both schools are good for 6 years if I understand the way the contracts are written. If so then the next contractual look in will be in 4 years after the last 2 years of the original contract and then after the first 2 years in the next 4 year contract pass. If both schools pass the litmus test for renewal they will have 1 year of stability in 2016 and 5 years of stability with the Sunbelt in the West Division after Coastal Carolina joins for football in 2017. That would give the Sunbelt plenty of time to explore any realignment in college football at the FBS level over the next 6 years to see if other moves are needed in the conference if any schools shift again at the FBS level.

Correct me if I am wrong on this assessment of the current look in period.

(02-14-2016 04:58 PM)airtroop Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 04:22 PM)NuMexAg Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 09:54 PM)MJG Wrote:  You don't see many opinions from UTA and UALR fans about this situation.

To me it would be in their interest to extend us.

We are either holding a spot for them if they start football or forming the other half of the 12/12 model.

Adding two new all sports members is risky for the non football members .
Some Arkansas ST fans would happily kick out the football only schools but hate the idea of losing UALR.

Some would like an all sports conference making football a requirement.

I like Idaho's situation more than most BSC/SBC and hope it last a while.

We are recruiting 33% Northwest 33% Southeast 33% California/JC.
Given a little time our weakness can become a strength meaning a dome expansion . Twenty seven million to get to twenty four thousand is the plan.
I know criticism will come from talking about plans but thirty million has been spent in the last few years. We have great support facilities meaning Practice,IPF,Meeting rooms including 120 person full team room and hydrotherapy pools training center all the bells and whistles.

Idaho is located in.... um... Idaho. NMSU is located in - New Mexico. Those are the two most damaging attributes to each of our resumes and our attempt to stay in the Sun Belt.

Everything else about Idaho and NMSU fits the Sun Belt needs and requirements well. If each of us was located in the South - I'm sure we would be in without question.

Well said and I'm pretty sure all of the Belt presidents feel exactly the same way too.

uta and ualr dont have a say in this matter, but at uta we have history with nmsu that goes pretty far back and I dont think our leaders mind the travel as much as they consider nmsu a quality school to be in a conference with. we differ a little from ualr in that we had football for many years and in fact have played many games against current sbc members. as far as I know, neither of us gets to vote in football matters.

(02-15-2016 01:31 AM)PA-GAMECOCK Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 05:03 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 04:45 PM)VandyBen Wrote:  So I was speaking to our AD at the LOI signing day event in Boise and he questioned why the SBC needs to make a decision now (this March)?

We have 2 more years on the original 4 year affiliation agreement. I always thought it was in order to give a team some time to adjust if a change is to occur, but it made me scratch my head when he said it.

Would one year be enough time? I know he (and many UI alumni and fans) are feeling pretty optimistic about going to a bowl game this season with all the players returning and the players coming in, and he wants to have next season to boast about before a decision is made by the SBC members. If UI is not extended and the next step would be FBS independence while things are sorted out then we don't need the two years to plan/adjust?
It just struck me when he said it.

According to this article, http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/...o_new.html , it mentions it being a 4-year deal with an option to renew after the second season. So they have to make a decision now, it is part of the contract and I'm sure it is for scheduling reasons like GaSoEagle said.

So March 10th is the contractual 2 year look in for this the first 4 year term. If both schools are renewed for 4 years then both schools are good for 6 years if I understand the way the contracts are written. If so then the next contractual look in will be in 4 years after the last 2 years of the original contract and then after the first 2 years in the next 4 year contract pass. If both schools pass the litmus test for renewal they will have 1 year of stability in 2016 and 5 years of stability with the Sunbelt in the West Division after Coastal Carolina joins for football in 2017. That would give the Sunbelt plenty of time to explore any realignment in college football at the FBS level over the next 6 years to see if other moves are needed in the conference if any schools shift again at the FBS level.

Correct me if I am wrong on this assessment of the current look in period.

The decision will be made to extend for another 2 years which would be the 2018 and 2019 football seasons or to not renew whereas NMSU and Idaho last football season with the Sun Belt would be the 2017 football season. If either is extended thru the 2019 season, the next look window would be after 2017 season to extend another 2 years or not to extend.

Mike Prater ‏@IDS_Prater · 5h5 hours ago

Vandals Prez Staben has completed his 45-min. video presentation to Sun Belt leaders. Commish Benson: "It was well done and well received.''

When does NMSU give their presentation?

I could be wrong but I suspect Benson supports keeping Idaho and NMSU as football playing members. What the 9 ( well 10 with Coastal) presidents think is anyone's guess

(02-15-2016 04:57 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Mike Prater ‏@IDS_Prater · 5h5 hours ago

Vandals Prez Staben has completed his 45-min. video presentation to Sun Belt leaders. Commish Benson: "It was well done and well received.''

Last I heard we were giving it today. Doubt Benson will make any comment on it.

(02-15-2016 05:24 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  I could be wrong but I suspect Benson supports keeping Idaho and NMSU as football playing members. What the 9 ( well 10 with Coastal) presidents think is anyone's guess

If NMSU and Idaho count as part of the nine, then 7 more votes are needed...unless there is some confusion about who votes since why would NMSU and Idaho be allowed to vote?

(02-15-2016 05:38 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-15-2016 05:24 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  I could be wrong but I suspect Benson supports keeping Idaho and NMSU as football playing members. What the 9 ( well 10 with Coastal) presidents think is anyone's guess

If NMSU and Idaho count as part of the nine, then 7 more votes are needed...unless there is some confusion about who votes since why would NMSU and Idaho be allowed to vote?

As I understand it all the full members get a vote. Which means UTA and UALR can vote too. Idaho & NMSU don't vote.

(02-15-2016 05:41 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  As I understand it all the full members get a vote. Which means UTA and UALR can vote too. Idaho & NMSU don't vote.

I don't think that's accurate, as UTA & UALR aren't affected by having them in the conference.

It doesn't make sense to me at least to have them vote on it, at least.

(02-15-2016 05:41 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(02-15-2016 05:38 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-15-2016 05:24 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  I could be wrong but I suspect Benson supports keeping Idaho and NMSU as football playing members. What the 9 ( well 10 with Coastal) presidents think is anyone's guess

If NMSU and Idaho count as part of the nine, then 7 more votes are needed...unless there is some confusion about who votes since why would NMSU and Idaho be allowed to vote?

As I understand it all the full members get a vote. Which means UTA and UALR can vote too. Idaho & NMSU don't vote.

I think only full-football playing members could vote on football-only members. Meaning TXST, ULL, ULM, ASU, USA, Troy, GSU, GS, and App (add CCU to this group). I think NMSU and Idaho only control if they still want to be in the SBC. Little Rock and UTA only vote on full-membership.

UTA & Little Rock, as others have pointed out, have no official vote on the matter. OTOH, don't think for a second their opinions are unwelcomed and "on ignore" either. Frankly, I'd be surprised if our two non-football members' thoughts aren't solicited and greatly respected behind the scenes by our other full-member schools.

This interview with Idaho's AD says all 11 full members have a vote, which would mean UTA & UALR have votes and CCU doesn't. I've seen that in other media sources as well: http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/sportslin...belt-vote/

Once again, info is all over the map. On a related topic, recent reports have said it's a 3/4 vote required to extend, but other knowledgeable people have said majority rules.

Can anyone confirm for an absolute certainty who votes and what the threshhold is?

Personally, I can see why UTA & UALR might very much want to vote on this since we're basically holding their spots in football and what happens seriously impacts the expansion decisions the conference might make in the future.

I do not believe Little Rock and UTA get a vote although their input would certainly be solicited. On Coastal I m not sure since they are not officially a member until July 1.

So that is 9 votes or 10 if Coastal gets a vote

(02-15-2016 10:07 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  I do not believe Little Rock and UTA get a vote although their input would certainly be solicited. On Coastal I m not sure since they are not officially a member until July 1.

So that is 9 votes or 10 if Coastal gets a vote

Do you really think Idaho and NMSU will get to vote on whether they are retained?

No but GS, GaSt, App St. Troy, USA, ULM, Texas St, Louisiana, and Ark St will. That s 9 and if Coastal gets a vote 10

Idaho beat writer insists that it's 3/4 vote and that UTA & UALR can vote:

Sean Kramer ‏@SKramerWrites 4h4 hours ago

Idaho needs nine out of 11 votes, or over 75 percent, to get extended. Little Rock and Arlington get to vote.

https://twitter.com/SKramerWrites?ref_sr...wgr^author

Although I understand the technical reasons why schools receive a vote, isn't it more of a technicality? Meaning, I assume the school presidents / ads are going to get together and come up with a consensus as to the best strategic plan for the conference. Then they'll take a vote knowing the outcome, unless a school or two decide to go rogue and flip at the last minute.