(03-22-2014 01:54 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(03-22-2014 01:08 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(03-22-2014 01:04 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(03-22-2014 12:32 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 11:50 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  It seems to me the Missouri St FB only might be the best move here.

1. Gives you a 12th school without another mouth to feed in basketball (albeit a nice mouth). The MVC and AAC are also sitting at 11 schools in basketball so I don't see a problem there.

2. Takes Missouri St off the table for the MAC or CUSA because it allows them to be able to keep their olympic sports in the MVC.

3. Out of all the schools with potentially the most upside Missouri St is it. They would be only the second FBS school in Missouri, a state like Arkansas with only one SEC school. As Missouri is forced into recruiting more across SEC country that will open up second tier FBS players for Missouri State.

James Madison has a better football facility but would be the 4th FBS school in Virginia. I don't think CAA bylaws permit football only membership. Its all sports or nothing with these guys.

Why on earth would the SBC invite Missouri State's weakest sport, when the reality is we need the basketball help a lot more than football?

There is zero chance the SBC offers anyone a football only invite. If Missouri State wants to play...they have to bring all their sports and kick the Valley to the curb.

There is a false presumption out there on the sports boards that any FCS school with strong basketball would by its very nature be less likely to be accepted to a conference FB-only because of it.

New Mexico State is FB-only in the SBC and they have a very good basketball program with very weak football. I would think Missouri State has a lot more potential in football than New Mexico State in football. That is pretty obvious.

I don't think the primary goal of adding a 12th football school is to upgrade the basketball conference. The primary goal is to upgrade the football conference.

1. Missouri St, 2nd FBS team in Missouri
2. James Madison, 4th FBS team in Virginia
3. Eastern Kentucky, 4th FBS team in Kentucky
4. Lamar, 13th FBS team in Texas

As you can see, the problem with adding another Texas school to the SBC is that while its a great recruiting state Lamar is too far down the list in the state hierarchy to make a difference. Then you have North Dakota State is the only school in the the Dakota's but doesn't have any recruiting upside.

The reason why Missouri State isn't very good in football right now is because its in the MVC football conference. Facility wise prior to the renovation they've been average for an FCS school. You put that same program in an FBS and the talent base is there to take off.

The SBC has the potential to go head-to-head with any G5 league in football and that is where the main focus of expansion should be. Finish ahead of the MAC and CUSA in the G5 standings and challenge the AAC for the access bowl.

It may make sense to you, but if any team comes to the SBC and asks for a football only, we'll turn them down. Why accept a football only member when we know we could get a few other schools for all sports?

That being said, Missouri State is not very happy with the Valley right now, and not pleased with Wichita State. If given an opportunity to separate themselves from the two entirely, I think they do wso.

the best solution for the SBC Is to take Missouri State and New Mexico State all sports and rebuild the basketball side of the league. Football is going to remain fairly strong either way.

You may not understand it, but I am telling you there is zero chance the SBC extends a football only invitation to anyone. Bring all your sports, or go look elsewhere.

Its not that I don't understand the desire to push beyond 11th olympic members. I just disagree that the SBC would not consider another football only school when they just added Idaho football only last year.

Do you not agree that Missouri St football only is at least better than Idaho or New Mexico State football only?

The ideal situation for the SBC would be if they could add NMSU, MSU and Wichita St for 12 in football/14 in basketball. That would be ideal for the SBC but we are not living in an ideal world.

If I'm Missouri State I would want FB only SBC to grow the football program while keeping the travel footprint to other sports to a minimum. If I'm the SBC I would take Missouri St FB-Only over adding EKU basketball to the conference. Its not ideal for the SBC but its better than being forced into taking EKU or Liberty basketball.

SBC West: Idaho, NMSU, TX State, Missouri St, Ark St, ULM
SBC East: ULL, S.Alabama, Troy, Georgia St, G.Southern, App St

That looks like a pretty decent G5 conference on paper. You get strategic balance by splitting up ASU and ULL into the East/West divisons. It looks on paper like a stronger football conference than the MAC or CUSA.

I think once again you are missing the boat on how important basketball is to this next add. We're losing our most historic basketball program by far July 1, and will be left with a league in which ULL's NCAA bid this year is the only current league to have an NCAA bid in 5 years.

Our basketball league is in serious danger to dropping into also ran status, and leave us fighting to avoid yearly trips to Dayton. Adding Missouri State all sports will not replace WKU...but they do offer at least another program who can come it and compete instantly for the league title.

If Missouri State says no for all sports, I think the play becomes either giving NMSU an all sports bid (Which they have basically already said they would take) or bringing in EKU all sports...and hoping the Colonels can make up football ground at a fast rate.

Truthfully, I already think our current football set up is better than that of CUSA...so its not like Missouri State FB Only is a must or anything.