(02-16-2016 07:58 AM)rokamortis Wrote:  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.

I would hope so. This isn't Congress (thank God). But it looks like if 3 schools get really stubborn they could block the other 8 if they wanted to.

(02-16-2016 12:21 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 07:58 AM)rokamortis Wrote:  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.

I would hope so. This isn't Congress (thank God). But it looks like if 3 schools get really stubborn they could block the other 8 if they wanted to.

Yeah, I guess you can never be too sure. Coastal wasn't an unanimous add - I don't know if there were schools who just didn't like us or they were making a point to save face with NMSU / EKU.

Anyway, my prediction is you guys are safe unless they have some new schools they are about to add. With the smoke coming from the Big 12 I think the smart play is just to renew you. Heck, I think it would be best if they just renewed each of you indefinitely with a clause that the school or conference can terminate with 2 years notice.

Even if they add 2 more schools I'd be ok with you both still in, 2 7-team divisions isn't a bad setup. I'm not sure if you'd see any CFP money but having a conference home would probably be worth the trade-off.

(02-16-2016 02:45 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 12:21 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 07:58 AM)rokamortis Wrote:  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.

I would hope so. This isn't Congress (thank God). But it looks like if 3 schools get really stubborn they could block the other 8 if they wanted to.

Yeah, I guess you can never be too sure. Coastal wasn't an unanimous add - I don't know if there were schools who just didn't like us or they were making a point to save face with NMSU / EKU.

Anyway, my prediction is you guys are safe unless they have some new schools they are about to add. With the smoke coming from the Big 12 I think the smart play is just to renew you. Heck, I think it would be best if they just renewed each of you indefinitely with a clause that the school or conference can terminate with 2 years notice.

Even if they add 2 more schools I'd be ok with you both still in, 2 7-team divisions isn't a bad setup. I'm not sure if you'd see any CFP money but having a conference home would probably be worth the trade-off.

I would take that deal staying FBS is vital for our program .
The last couple of years has been rough for our fans .
Losing is bad enough the possibility of dropping down is terrible.
Add to that our biggest rival is trying to screw us and won't play us anymore.
We don't even play Boise in basketball this year.
They played at Montana(basketball) and we host every other MWC team in football.
It is dirty politics hoping they can kick us when were down and somehow that will elevate them.Imagine a school you played at their place when they were a junior college now big timing you. A school you beat twelve straight times. Then they have a similar streak and stop playing you 19-22 is the record.

So Yeah I would take a more permanent spot even if no CFP money came with it.
More permanent could be no vote every two years just a two year notice after four years.The papers in Boise run with the uncertainty .

I be said it before-- the easy thing to do is to renew the arrangement for 2 more years thru 2019. I believe a compelling reason will have to be presented for not renewing but if it takes a 3/4 vote to renew that is a high standard.

All I can say is that GS officials have said going forward with a 10 team league is a viable option but they will listen to all arguments.

So I guess we will know in 3-4 weeks

(02-16-2016 05:55 PM)Fredo Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 04:54 PM)MJG Wrote:  I would take that deal staying FBS is vital for our program .
The last couple of years has been rough for our fans .
Losing is bad enough the possibility of dropping down is terrible.
Add to that our biggest rival is trying to screw us and won't play us anymore.
We don't even play Boise in basketball this year.
They played at Montana(basketball) and we host every other MWC team in football.
It is dirty politics hoping they can kick us when were down and somehow that will elevate them.Imagine a school you played at their place when they were a junior college now big timing you. A school you beat twelve straight times. Then they have a similar streak and stop playing you 19-22 is the record.

So Yeah I would take a more permanent spot even if no CFP money came with it.
More permanent could be no vote every two years just a two year notice after four years.The papers in Boise run with the uncertainty .

Mark - you have a few facts wrong.

Idaho never played BSJC. The Vandals first played BSU in Boise in 1971 (four years after BSU became a four year school).

The current record is 17 wins UI, 22 wins BSU and 1 tie.

Of the 12 current MWC teams - New Mexico has never played Idaho, Air Force has never played in Moscow and Hawaii never played in the Moscow - except when they were required to when both were in the WAC (2005-2011).

There is only 1 paper in Boise, The Idaho Statesman - and it is complete garbage.

With the Statesmen being cited as a source I have been leery about "facts" that have been presented. But if it is online it must be true!

Article in Las Cruses paper today says NMSU is making a video presentation to the Sun Belt tomorrow. Says they are asking for permanent football membership and that it will take 9 yes votes of 11 schools- which must include Little Rock and UTA-- to get that accomplished

(02-16-2016 09:09 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  Article in Las Cruses paper today says NMSU is making a video presentation to the Sun Belt tomorrow. Says they are asking for permanent football membership and that it will take 9 yes votes of 11 schools- which must include Little Rock and UTA-- to get that accomplished

Article Link

Hoping for football to have a permanent home. Doubt it will happen. Glad NMSU is done trying to get all sports in. Has become a waste of time.

(02-17-2016 12:12 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 09:09 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  Article in Las Cruses paper today says NMSU is making a video presentation to the Sun Belt tomorrow. Says they are asking for permanent football membership and that it will take 9 yes votes of 11 schools- which must include Little Rock and UTA-- to get that accomplished

Article Link

Hoping for football to have a permanent home. Doubt it will happen. Glad NMSU is done trying to get all sports in. Has become a waste of time.

I wonder what Olympic sports conference's have contacted NMSU?
Asking for permanent membership is smart also being open to any option.

(02-17-2016 06:47 AM)MJG Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 12:12 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 09:09 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  Article in Las Cruses paper today says NMSU is making a video presentation to the Sun Belt tomorrow. Says they are asking for permanent football membership and that it will take 9 yes votes of 11 schools- which must include Little Rock and UTA-- to get that accomplished

Article Link

Hoping for football to have a permanent home. Doubt it will happen. Glad NMSU is done trying to get all sports in. Has become a waste of time.

I wonder what Olympic sports conference's have contacted NMSU?
Asking for permanent membership is smart also being open to any option.

I liked the NMSU president's directness. I think asking for permanent membership is smart also. I understand that the schools are outside the footprint but it is only for football. I don't think a 10-team 9-game conference schedule is going to work so having the extra teams to help fill in the schedule is good. If they go to divisions, split Idaho and NMSU, and guarantee that no school would travel to both of those schools in the same season then I think it makes a lot of sense. So worst case for any full member is every 2 years they are flying to one of the schools and every four years flying to the other.

The Sun Belt is trying to stabilize as well as secure more bowls. Unless they are ready to announce more schools then there really is no benefit in losing a couple of schools that help with scheduling as well as protect the conference from potential attrition. The Big 12 is supposedly going to decide this summer if they will expand and if they do then the AAC is likely losing 2 teams. It may not trickle down to the SBC but I wouldn't be confident in assuming it wouldn't and would want to be prepared.

The only real argument is from a performance standpoint and both schools seem to be heading in the right direction based on last season. With more stability they may have a chance to keep improving as well. If performance is the main issue perhaps there could be some form of financial penalty / reward system. This would hold the schools accountable while providing an incentive for improving. Plus I'm sure there would be a standard "out" clause anyway so the members could be voted out in the future, it just wouldn't be a stressful review every two year requirement.

Anyway - good luck NMSU and Idaho and hope it works out for everyone.

(02-17-2016 12:12 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(02-16-2016 09:09 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  Article in Las Cruses paper today says NMSU is making a video presentation to the Sun Belt tomorrow. Says they are asking for permanent football membership and that it will take 9 yes votes of 11 schools- which must include Little Rock and UTA-- to get that accomplished

Article Link

Hoping for football to have a permanent home. Doubt it will happen. Glad NMSU is done trying to get all sports in. Has become a waste of time.

I wish NMSU the best . . the Aggies are in a bad situation geographically as regards the SBC Footprint. Wish it were not so as Cruces would be a good SBC city.

I want a Western Division core of New Mexico State, Texas State, Arkansas State, and Louisiana for All Sports, but I do not get a vote in the matter.

I have no problem with NMSU and Idaho remaining but let s be realistic. If it is going to take 9 yes votes of 11 for them to stay I would say the odds are against it. Our AD has said on several occasions he thinks a 10 team football league is viable. If you read between the lines that says he would be fine without NMSU and Idaho. He has also said he is open to arguments from other schools but if I m a betting person I would not be betting much on extensions for NMSU and Idaho.

Personally I would extend both thru 2019 but I don t have a vote

(02-17-2016 07:34 AM)rokamortis Wrote:  I liked the NMSU president's directness. I think asking for permanent membership is smart also. I understand that the schools are outside the footprint but it is only for football. I don't think a 10-team 9-game conference schedule is going to work so having the extra teams to help fill in the schedule is good. If they go to divisions, split Idaho and NMSU, and guarantee that no school would travel to both of those schools in the same season then I think it makes a lot of sense. So worst case for any full member is every 2 years they are flying to one of the schools and every four years flying to the other.

The Sun Belt is trying to stabilize as well as secure more bowls. Unless they are ready to announce more schools then there really is no benefit in losing a couple of schools that help with scheduling as well as protect the conference from potential attrition. The Big 12 is supposedly going to decide this summer if they will expand and if they do then the AAC is likely losing 2 teams. It may not trickle down to the SBC but I wouldn't be confident in assuming it wouldn't and would want to be prepared.

The only real argument is from a performance standpoint and both schools seem to be heading in the right direction based on last season. With more stability they may have a chance to keep improving as well. If performance is the main issue perhaps there could be some form of financial penalty / reward system. This would hold the schools accountable while providing an incentive for improving. Plus I'm sure there would be a standard "out" clause anyway so the members could be voted out in the future, it just wouldn't be a stressful review every two year requirement.

Anyway - good luck NMSU and Idaho and hope it works out for everyone.

Thanks. I agree with all of this. If the concern is that Idaho will hurt the conference from a performance standpoint then I think we should be willing to put our money where our mouths are and bet on ourselves. Petrino has built a good foundation and I'd be willing to put money on at the very least not totally sucking in the near future.

http://www.lcsun-news.com/story/sports/c.../80477236/

NMSU asking for permanent status. That is probably wise, because you can't just keep going on a temporary basis. Seems like all options are on the table from Indy FBS to FCS.

(02-17-2016 01:17 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  http://www.lcsun-news.com/story/sports/c.../80477236/

NMSU asking for permanent status. That is probably wise, because you can't just keep going on a temporary basis. Seems like all options are on the table from Indy FBS to FCS.

This is a clever play by NMSU basically saying we understand we are too far to travel to for Olympic sports (which is the reason they did not get in last round). But we'd like to be a permanent football member. It's clever, but not likely to change the course. So, we're at 12 all sports. And 12 football. Keeping NMSU and dumping Idaho opens the door to an unbalanced league. No doubt most schools would opt to replace with full members in the footprint. I'm afraid NMSU and Idaho are joined at the hip if a full membership vote for NMSU is no longer in the mix.

Just gathering all the separate pieces of information on this it really feels as if the affiliates will not have enough votes to extend. There are enough interested potential full members in the footprint to replace losses should the SBC finds itself at risk. There is no need for an insurance policy. There seems to be nothing imminent for a championship game and the new regs allow us to have one anyway without 6 team divisions.

Can't find too many rays of hope for our football affiliates. Good news is the wait will be over soon.

(02-17-2016 05:14 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  

(02-17-2016 01:17 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  http://www.lcsun-news.com/story/sports/c.../80477236/

NMSU asking for permanent status. That is probably wise, because you can't just keep going on a temporary basis. Seems like all options are on the table from Indy FBS to FCS.

This is a clever play by NMSU basically saying we understand we are too far to travel to for Olympic sports (which is the reason they did not get in last round). But we'd like to be a permanent football member. It's clever, but not likely to change the course. So, we're at 12 all sports. And 12 football. Keeping NMSU and dumping Idaho opens the door to an unbalanced league. No doubt most schools would opt to replace with full members in the footprint. I'm afraid NMSU and Idaho are joined at the hip if a full membership vote for NMSU is no longer in the mix.

Just gathering all the separate pieces of information on this it really feels as if the affiliates will not have enough votes to extend. There are enough interested potential full members in the footprint to replace losses should the SBC finds itself at risk. There is no need for an insurance policy. There seems to be nothing imminent for a championship game and the new regs allow us to have one anyway without 6 team divisions.

Can't find too many rays of hope for our football affiliates. Good news is the wait will be over soon.

#12 for football could be kept for UTA to restart football. Unless the Sun Belt would take a football only invite from Wichita State?
Since the Sun Belt isn't going to hold a CCG, even 11 members work out fine with 8 conference games and it gives the Sun Belt enough members to fulfill the bowl slots.

Jason Groves @JPGroves

According to NMSU spokesperson, Garrey Carruthers Sun Belt presentation lasted 25 minutes. Reps from 11 schools on the call.


Jason Groves @JPGroves

I'll have more tomorrow I'm hoping. But NMSU folks felt it went well on their end, but you just don't know for sure

(02-17-2016 11:48 AM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  I have no problem with NMSU and Idaho remaining but let s be realistic. If it is going to take 9 yes votes of 11 for them to stay I would say the odds are against it. Our AD has said on several occasions he thinks a 10 team football league is viable. If you read between the lines that says he would be fine without NMSU and Idaho. He has also said he is open to arguments from other schools but if I m a betting person I would not be betting much on extensions for NMSU and Idaho.

Personally I would extend both thru 2019 but I don t have a vote

Idaho's AD & Prez haven't exactly been bubbling with optimism about the vote lately, especially in booster meetings. I don't think anyone is under any illusions about the challenge in getting 9 votes.

Notes from Mohajir on this:

Idaho and NMSU are by no means lumped together. It could absolutely be possible for one school to get extended and one dropped. He did not elaborate if he saw this happening.

Both Presentations were very good, and he feels both schools have strong plans in place

10 teams is very problematic for scheduling purposes. Feels we would end up having to go to 9 league games in such a scenario, and he is dead against that. He likes the 12 teams in football format

He still believes that a Championship game would be more of a hindrance than a help for the SBC in terms of making a contract bowl, however he is absolutely open to studies to check the numbers. Said if App State and AState had been forced to play again this past year for the title, that he could see where that could help both teams ranking wise, but he's worried that a weak division champ could destroy those numbers.

All 11 AD's are united in staying at 8 football league games.

(02-17-2016 11:09 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Notes from Mohajir on this:

Idaho and NMSU are by no means lumped together. It could absolutely be possible for one school to get extended and one dropped. He did not elaborate if he saw this happening.

Both Presentations were very good, and he feels both schools have strong plans in place

10 teams is very problematic for scheduling purposes. Feels we would end up having to go to 9 league games in such a scenario, and he is dead against that. He likes the 12 teams in football format

He still believes that a Championship game would be more of a hindrance than a help for the SBC in terms of making a contract bowl, however he is absolutely open to studies to check the numbers. Said if App State and AState had been forced to play again this past year for the title, that he could see where that could help both teams ranking wise, but he's worried that a weak division champ could destroy those numbers.

All 11 AD's are united in staying at 8 football league games.

This should surprise no one... GS fans have stated their leadership would be in favor of 9 conference games, but the reality is we need the money games in the league and 9 conference games means uneven home/away conference schedules.

(02-17-2016 11:09 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Notes from Mohajir on this:

Idaho and NMSU are by no means lumped together. It could absolutely be possible for one school to get extended and one dropped. He did not elaborate if he saw this happening.

Both Presentations were very good, and he feels both schools have strong plans in place

10 teams is very problematic for scheduling purposes. Feels we would end up having to go to 9 league games in such a scenario, and he is dead against that. He likes the 12 teams in football format

He still believes that a Championship game would be more of a hindrance than a help for the SBC in terms of making a contract bowl, however he is absolutely open to studies to check the numbers. Said if App State and AState had been forced to play again this past year for the title, that he could see where that could help both teams ranking wise, but he's worried that a weak division champ could destroy those numbers.

All 11 AD's are united in staying at 8 football league games.

Was this on the radio show or at a boosters banquet or something?