(09-05-2014 05:52 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  Spoke with Sun Belt commissioner Karl Benson. The conference will re-evaluate NMSU and Idaho in two years

http://csnbbs.com/thread-701823-post-11074219.html#pid11074219


http://inagist.com/all/507987792794628097/

(09-05-2014 06:08 PM)MJG Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 05:52 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  Spoke with Sun Belt commissioner Karl Benson. The conference will re-evaluate NMSU and Idaho in two years

http://csnbbs.com/thread-701823-post-11074219.html#pid11074219


http://inagist.com/all/507987792794628097/

Nothing new for Idaho but probably pretty alarming to NMSU.

(09-05-2014 06:16 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 06:08 PM)MJG Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 05:52 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  Spoke with Sun Belt commissioner Karl Benson. The conference will re-evaluate NMSU and Idaho in two years

http://csnbbs.com/thread-701823-post-11074219.html#pid11074219


http://inagist.com/all/507987792794628097/

Nothing new for Idaho but probably pretty alarming to NMSU.

Nothing alarming at all. Both Idaho and NMSU accepted membership knowing that the membership would be reviewed after 2 seasons. Even if the Sun Belt didn't retain one or both, or if one or both left of their own accord, it would have been beneficial for both parties. NSMU and Idaho give us the numbers (originally we were at 12 with WKU) and we give them a temp home.

(09-05-2014 06:29 PM)MJG Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 06:16 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 06:08 PM)MJG Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 05:52 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  Spoke with Sun Belt commissioner Karl Benson. The conference will re-evaluate NMSU and Idaho in two years

http://csnbbs.com/thread-701823-post-11074219.html#pid11074219


http://inagist.com/all/507987792794628097/

Nothing new for Idaho but probably pretty alarming to NMSU.

Nothing alarming at all. Both Idaho and NMSU accepted membership knowing that the membership would be reviewed after 2 seasons. Even if the Sun Belt didn't retain one or both, or if one or both left of their own accord, it would have been beneficial for both parties. NSMU and Idaho give us the numbers (originally we were at 12 with WKU) and we give them a temp home.

This is the first I've seen NMSU being reviewed in two years.
Kinda makes sense if football only.
I was Under the impression only adding all sports was an option.

Quote: spartypants @WACspartypants

@JPGroves criteria for evaluation?

Jason Groves @JPGroves


@WACspartypants Benson said its 2 sidedNMSU/Idaho could have a better situation by then The conference could also have other members in mind

Facility upgrades, investment in the sport, ticket sales all things that you would expect.

but he said football only members arent ideal. SBC needed members. NMSU/Idaho needed a conference. will review in 2 years

(09-05-2014 09:25 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  With payouts based on performance, it hurts if Idaho and NMSU are going 1-11. With that said, I'm not sure we want to be exposed with 9 schools as other conference may get the idea they can put us out of business. If we could add JMU and MoSt and dump Idaho and NMSU, the conference would be set.

(09-05-2014 09:55 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 09:25 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  With payouts based on performance, it hurts if Idaho and NMSU are going 1-11. With that said, I'm not sure we want to be exposed with 9 schools as other conference may get the idea they can put us out of business. If we could add JMU and MoSt and dump Idaho and NMSU, the conference would be set.

What I would be worried about is that Benson is basically saying by his comments that they are not going to look at membership for TWO years, and then review Idaho/NMSU.

Two year is a long time with all of the change going on with the NCAA right now to table any expansion you are the SBC. The idea of dropping Idaho/NMSU in 2 years for Mo State all sports sounds great on paper but for security reasons I'd push to 12 FB members now to upgrade a TV deal.

Its an upgraded TV deal that will be key to attracting new members and retaining existing membership. That is what Benson should be aiming for in 2 years, not handing out pink slips when nobody else wants the job right now.

(09-05-2014 09:48 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The simple fact is if the SBC is going to advance beyond a start up conference with a 7 figure TV deal to the point where its signing 9 figure TV deals like the MAC and AAC its going to have to stabilize itself on the membership front.

What I'm afraid may happen is Benson may cut NMSU/Idaho loose, realize they still have no votes for expansion and sit at 9 for a year, then the year after 4 SBC members find homes in CUSA. That would cut the SBC off at the knees and put its survival in question.

Benson should instead be trying to lure NDSU into the SBC as a FB only, get a title game established, and like the MAC redo the TV deal with ESPN. Moving to 12 members in football is a sign of stability that the SBC is going to be around for a while.

(09-05-2014 10:26 PM)DoubleAggie Wrote:  It's a performance review.

Probably should review everything from time to time.

(09-06-2014 07:39 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Heck, wouldn't be such a bad idea to review everyone of us from time to time.
Either get your programs, especially football, going or be put on notice.
Would make some of those slack administrators decide to "get 'er dun"
or get fired.