Dumping Idaho, adding Mo St, JMU, and NMSU for all sports would be my vote.

It would still leave an unbalanced league for basketball, so maybe we could also look at a couple eastern schools with about a much a chance of adding football as UTA or UALR - assuming we couldn't get anyone to leave the A10 or MVC then perhaps Belmont, College of Charleston, UNC Greensboro, UNC Wilmington, Winthrop, North Florida, FGCU, or Northern Kentucky. 16 may be too big but it would cut down on travel for the non-revenue sports.

(10-18-2013 09:54 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(10-18-2013 09:45 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(10-18-2013 09:41 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  Ha, I doubt the MAC would let us take the two gems and dump the leftovers on them.

Benson is going to use his mind control powers on them.

Idaho is Benson's home state baby.....he as been looking out for them from day one.

Isn't Benson a Boise State guy? No love lost there at all.

Idaho will be in the SBC for a few years, not very long. They'll either find a way to make it into the Mountain West or move football into the Big Sky. Their athletic dept. wisely made this move to buy time. And Benson made this move because we needed FBS members.

I'm gonna say it(post it) because we are all feeling this way. I HATE our conference footprint in football. It is ridiculous that we cover all 4 time zones and that is only a recipe for failure. We need to get out of Idaho, and I'm not completely sold on NMSU. Drop them too and we are only in two time zones. I understand that NMSU has benefit in other sports, but currently they are not in the SBC in other sports. They were a bandaid for us and we were a bandaid for them. The current relationship needs to be very temporary. And this is being posted before they actually are in the conference. Once they are here, we won't need them anymore. It was a bad idea when it happened, and it's a worse idea when it goes into effect.

(10-19-2013 12:22 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(10-18-2013 11:44 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(10-18-2013 10:23 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  I would agree 13 teams would not be ideal, but if Missouri St and JMU are ready to move to the SBC I could see the conference taking both, especially with the incessant comments by Louisiana people that they want out of the SBC to CUSA. Who knows if that will happen or not but to have 13 gives the SBC the ability to absorb 1 more defection.

Let's be fair... Everyone wants out of the Sun Belt.

The only reason some want out is because of the Prisoner's Dilemma of others wanting out.

some want out because of the never ending talk of adding more regional low rated schools with little or no substance to further dilute the image of the conference. It should not be a surprise to anyone that a school trying to elevate it's image would want to associate itself with schools of the highest caliber possible not schools from the lower levels.

(10-19-2013 08:47 AM)Usajags Wrote:  I'm gonna say it(post it) because we are all feeling this way. I HATE our conference footprint in football. It is ridiculous that we cover all 4 time zones and that is only a recipe for failure. We need to get out of Idaho, and I'm not completely sold on NMSU. Drop them too and we are only in two time zones. I understand that NMSU has benefit in other sports, but currently they are not in the SBC in other sports. They were a bandaid for us and we were a bandaid for them. The current relationship needs to be very temporary. And this is being posted before they actually are in the conference. Once they are here, we won't need them anymore. It was a bad idea when it happened, and it's a worse idea when it goes into effect.

Actually, it can be argued that being in 4 time zones provides an incentive when negotiating a better television contract. We can have games start early or late depending upon where the game is being played. This allows the networks to add us into the fold from an inventory standpoint. Ijs.....

I've got no beef with Idaho, but they are a perfect example of WHY you don't add teams to reach a number. Ditto UMass in the MAC. They were added to balance Temple and then Temple left.

YOU DON'T ADD TEAMS TO REACH A NUMBER UNLESS IT IS THE NUMBER NEEDED TO SURVIVE.

The reality of the situation is this. If they can get in AAC (right) or CUSA or MAC, JMU is going FBS. I don't think they join the Sun Belt unless the administration is so committed to the idea of FBS that they look at the Sun Belt and say "We can get to where we want to go by joining." The reality probably is that AAC with a TV deal through 2020 isn't likely to expand unless they lose someone. CUSA and MAC aren't likely to expand unless they learn in their TV negotiations that they can come out ahead of what they would get without expanding or they lose someone.

So either JMU gets lucky or they have to make the decision regarding how important FBS is.

I think Missouri State is going through a similar thought process but probably more inclined toward Sun Belt than JMU is because of A-State and UALR.

Of course if I were commissioner of the Missouri Valley, I'd be using this time to lobby my membership for a game-changing expansion.

With Missouri State now taking an affirmative step toward FBS with the stadium expansion I would be concerned that they may defect. With Northern Iowa, Illinois State, and Indiana State having all made at least a little noise about FBS I would be concerned that the league could be in real danger.

I'd start talking to the members of the MAC and Sun Belt to see if I could come up with 8 FBS schools willing to join the Valley in one big shock announcement. I'd start with NMSU and work my around to Texas State, Louisiana, ULM, USA, Troy, A-State, Northern Illinois, Ball State, Western Michigan, Central Michigan, Toledo, Bowling Green, and Miami (OH) to see I could find 8 that would come in that my presidents would support.

Let the football schools keep the CFP money and require a majority vote of football members before a current FCS can reclassify FBS within the league. 18 for hoops and a seat at the big boy table.

(10-19-2013 09:36 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I've got no beef with Idaho, but they are a perfect example of WHY you don't add teams to reach a number. Ditto UMass in the MAC. They were added to balance Temple and then Temple left.

YOU DON'T ADD TEAMS TO REACH A NUMBER UNLESS IT IS THE NUMBER NEEDED TO SURVIVE.

The reality of the situation is this. If they can get in AAC (right) or CUSA or MAC, JMU is going FBS. I don't think they join the Sun Belt unless the administration is so committed to the idea of FBS that they look at the Sun Belt and say "We can get to where we want to go by joining." The reality probably is that AAC with a TV deal through 2020 isn't likely to expand unless they lose someone. CUSA and MAC aren't likely to expand unless they learn in their TV negotiations that they can come out ahead of what they would get without expanding or they lose someone.

So either JMU gets lucky or they have to make the decision regarding how important FBS is.

I think Missouri State is going through a similar thought process but probably more inclined toward Sun Belt than JMU is because of A-State and UALR.

Of course if I were commissioner of the Missouri Valley, I'd be using this time to lobby my membership for a game-changing expansion.

With Missouri State now taking an affirmative step toward FBS with the stadium expansion I would be concerned that they may defect. With Northern Iowa, Illinois State, and Indiana State having all made at least a little noise about FBS I would be concerned that the league could be in real danger.

I'd start talking to the members of the MAC and Sun Belt to see if I could come up with 8 FBS schools willing to join the Valley in one big shock announcement. I'd start with NMSU and work my around to Texas State, Louisiana, ULM, USA, Troy, A-State, Northern Illinois, Ball State, Western Michigan, Central Michigan, Toledo, Bowling Green, and Miami (OH) to see I could find 8 that would come in that my presidents would support.

Let the football schools keep the CFP money and require a majority vote of football members before a current FCS can reclassify FBS within the league. 18 for hoops and a seat at the big boy table.

There was some talk awhile back about the CAA moving as a conference to the FBS (before ODU and Ga St left), but I've always felt the Missouri Valley was the FCS conference most likely to move up as a unit. With the four you mentioned plus the Dakota States, I could see it - setting aside NCAA rules on the matter and the fact that the Valley football conference is a separate entity from the MVC, of course - so it would require a rules change from the NCAA.

(10-19-2013 10:47 AM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  There was some talk awhile back about the CAA moving as a conference to the FBS (before ODU and Ga St left), but I've always felt the Missouri Valley was the FCS conference most likely to move up as a unit. With the four you mentioned plus the Dakota States, I could see it - setting aside NCAA rules on the matter and the fact that the Valley football conference is a separate entity from the MVC, of course - so it would require a rules change from the NCAA.

Except you can't set aside the NCAA rules.
To be an FBS league you have to have eight full members who are FBS. There is a two year grace period but it is only applicable if you are already FBS.
You can't reclassify unless you have invitation from an existing FBS league that either meets the criteria or is in the grace period.
Then in year 2 of transition you have to play 5 FBS countable games (either 5 FBS or 4 FBS and 1 high scholie FCS) and while the rule is not clear, there is an interpretation from the NCAA (ie. they were asked what the rule meant and this was how they said it works) indicating that a transition school can count another transition as a high scholie FCS but as if they are FBS, that counting a transition school as an FBS is only available to schools already classified FBS.

So the only way to do it is to add at least 8 schools already classified FBS. CAA if they could find 8 or 9 FBS to join could become FBS and have 17 or 18 full members with 8 or 9 FBS. Valley could add 8 and be at 18.

What the league does about current members wanting to reclassify within the league is an internal matter. C-USA at least under the old bylaws required a majority vote of the FBS members for it to happen. Sun Belt bylaws provide that you are in as soon as you reclassify, the invite is presumed under the bylaws.

The Sun Belt has By Laws? I thought the only rule is that Benson gets what he wants?

(10-19-2013 11:49 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  The Sun Belt has By Laws? I thought the only rule is that Benson gets what he wants?

If we don't have a 12th member by the time the the new payout system starts, benson has some explaining to do as we will be giving ~ $3 million to Idaho and NMSU, which would have gone to the other 9 members. Not to mention the additional travel cost they bring. Huge, huge mistake if we don't have a 12th member soon.

Speaking of by-laws when a vote is taken on a new proposed member what percent is required for that team to be invited? If a vote is taken in the Spring on new members I wonder if App., us., Idaho and NMSU will get a vote since we won't technically be joining the conference until July 1. If we all get votes that is 11 football playing votes. How many would have to vote "yes" to add a new member.

(10-19-2013 12:37 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  Speaking of by-laws when a vote is taken on a new proposed member what percent is required for that team to be invited? If a vote is taken in the Spring on new members I wonder if App., us., Idaho and NMSU will get a vote since we won't technically be joining the conference until July 1. If we all get votes that is 11 football playing votes. How many would have to vote "yes" to add a new member.

The 2014 membership has voting rights on matters of expansion. So yes, you will get a vote. Keep in mind that both UALR and UTA have voting rights even though it is football expansion.

I think its 75 percent or something like that to pass

(10-19-2013 12:37 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  Speaking of by-laws when a vote is taken on a new proposed member what percent is required for that team to be invited? If a vote is taken in the Spring on new members I wonder if App., us., Idaho and NMSU will get a vote since we won't technically be joining the conference until July 1. If we all get votes that is 11 football playing votes. How many would have to vote "yes" to add a new member.

3/4ths vote as a general rule so it would require 9 affirmative from the current 11.

There is a way around it. You can have an expansion committee authorized to extend to extend invites that are binding but still takes the same vote to authorize it. You can do that if you agree there is a need to expand but don't have a consensus on who to invite. Basically you charge the committee with the responsibility of sorting it out. An unusual situation because if you are deadlocked with no one getting 75% vote you aren't likely to pass the decision on to a committee and be bound by it.

The Missouri Valley Conference (the all-sports entity) could invite eight to twelve FBS members tomorrow and begin FBS play in 2014.

The Missouri Valley Football Conference is a separate legal entity. The Missouri Valley Conference would likely seek to terminate the marketing agreement, and the Summit League would probably be glad to take it off their hands. The WAC could even try to take it if no one wants to rebuild the Summit League.

The minimum FBS scenario for the Missouri Valley:

Arkansas State (from SBC)
New Mexico State (from SBC/WAC)
Texas State (from SBC)
Louisiana (from SBC)
Ball State (from MAC)
Western Michigan (from MAC)
Northern Illinois (from MAC)
Central Michigan (from MAC)
Missouri State (FBS upgrade)
Northern Iowa (FBS upgrade)

... Plus non football-members:
Wichita State
Southern Illinois
Illinois State
Indiana State
Evansville
Drake
Bradley
Loyola-IL

With the MAC down four, it adds USA, Troy, Georgia State, and Georgia Southern for all sports. App State, Louisiana, and Idaho are added for football only.

(10-19-2013 02:09 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  The Missouri Valley Conference (the all-sports entity) could invite eight to twelve FBS members tomorrow and begin FBS play in 2014.

The Missouri Valley Football Conference is a separate legal entity. The Missouri Valley Conference would likely seek to terminate the marketing agreement, and the Summit League would probably be glad to take it off their hands. The WAC could even try to take it if no one wants to rebuild the Summit League.

The minimum FBS scenario for the Missouri Valley:

Arkansas State (from SBC)
New Mexico State (from SBC/WAC)
Texas State (from SBC)
Louisiana (from SBC)
Ball State (from MAC)
Western Michigan (from MAC)
Northern Illinois (from MAC)
Central Michigan (from MAC)
Missouri State (FBS upgrade)
Northern Iowa (FBS upgrade)

... Plus non football-members:
Wichita State
Southern Illinois
Illinois State
Indiana State
Evansville
Drake
Bradley
Loyola-IL

With the MAC down four, it adds USA, Troy, Georgia State, and Georgia Southern for all sports. App State, Louisiana, and Idaho are added for football only.

I think if they were to pursue the Dr. Evil plan, they want USA. They happen to share a stadium with a bowl game.

Good luck with pulling that off. Not even sure that could be done on the playstation.

What happened to the Ark St and ULL to the MAC scenario? Lol

Back to the original post....this student fee cannot be used by the athletic department. It's for student body enhancements only. It might help them expand the stadium, but it won't go towards anything else relating to them moving up to I-A.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIt_XXITfQc

That is not the way it was reported on the MSU website. Something like 20% of the fees will be used to "enhance the student athlete" experience. But the great majority will be used to build or expand facilities.

Just playing along. If you add both JMU and Missouri State then the next spot is UTA football. That gets us even.

(10-19-2013 04:12 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  Just playing along. If you add both JMU and Missouri State then the next spot is UTA football. That gets us even.

Sometimes I wonder what world you live.