(04-09-2014 01:22 PM)asupatch Wrote: I don't get the adding two teams idea. Unless one is Football only and the other is Olympic sports only. Why have uneven divisions when all four of the schools we are looking at are currently will still be there next year if someone leaves?
If you can add members who improve the league, why would you turn them down in the pursuit of a magic number? Especially since you have two members who are football only and don't fit geographically.
I've been an advocate of NMSU all-sports since the collapse of the WAC but I also understand they are an impractical addition. As remote as JMU is from AState they are 300 miles closer than NMSU. Monroe is equidistant from JMU and NMSU and JMU is only 50 miles further from UL.
For my money, if I'm AD at AState, UALR, ULM, UL, I'd vote for JMU over NMSU because while JMU is a long way, they won't be in my division but NMSU would be.
Idaho's situation is not likely permanent. The last go-round playing a bunch of southern schools in the heart of the season wasn't good for their attendance nor in gaining the interest of western high school athletes. The Sun Belt is simply a waiting room to hope for something to break in the MWC but that's a very, very long shot.
Obviously in college athletics, the book value cost of Sun Belt membership really isn't that significant to Idaho but if fans can't get energized about the games that defeats the entire purpose of football. Over the next six years Idaho currently shows 10 non-conference games against western foes with three of those at home (plus an 8 mile road trip to WashSt). If the fans don't buy into it, staying will be pointless.