(04-11-2016 10:10 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 09:29 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 09:22 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 04:22 PM)NuMexAg Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 10:42 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  They're providing it out of our share of conference payout.

No real news out of NMSU lately.

The President has spoken semi-favorably of FCS in the past, and has apparently talked with just about every FBS and FCS conference around. But still weighing the decision. As one would expect, the AD is strongly in favor of staying at FBS.

One aspect that NMSU has to consider that Idaho does not is the condition of our Olympic sports conference. The WAC hasn't been very stable since everyone bolted a few years ago, and now with Chicago State having extreme financial difficulties - things are even less stable.

NMSU has to address that issue as well as football.

Have to think the Summit League would be interested, not sure if their sports sponsored matches up. Sure looks like a better combination of schools.

Valley would be great but they don't seem to be particularly aggressive on expansion.

I don't think the Summit is any better than the WAC. The WAC is easier for travel and has a couple of good teams, but would NMSU be more interested in playing in the Dakotas and Indiana than around the current region they play in the WAC?

The Summit is far more stable and has a much better lineup. If youre in Las Cruces, you're not going to have much of a 'bus' schedule anyway. The problem with the WAC is that one team might not even be an academic institution next year (Chicago State), one is a non-traditional institution (Grand Canyon, Inc.), and the others can't find another place to play. The WAC right now is the 'land of the misfit toys'. No one wants to be there.

NMSU is a valuable product in Oly sports.

Exactly, Summit is more stable and arguably as good or better as the WAC if you take NMSU out of the equation.