(03-22-2014 12:32 AM)chiefsfan Wrote: (03-21-2014 11:50 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: (03-21-2014 11:32 PM)chiefsfan Wrote: (03-21-2014 11:14 PM)Libertygrad01 Wrote: (03-21-2014 10:59 PM)chiefsfan Wrote: Its nothing against you guys. If a UTC or JMU was ready and willing, this wouldn't be a discussion. The problem is they are not, so our options are not exactly the greatest in the world. Meanwhile, you've got a West team with strong Olympic sports flirting with the SBC after snubbing our advances for years.
It changes things.
Who is the West team that's has such strong Olympic sports? MSU hasn't been to the NCAA tourney in basketball in 15 years. They have a rich history, but 15 years is a long time. MSU baseball is 8-11 this year dropping 3 straight to Dallas Baptist. Liberty is 17-6 on the year. Football averages less than 9,000. Really?? All common sense would say JMU or Liberty.
Missouri State has the unfortunate problem of competing in a league with Wichita State. The reality is, if their Olympics even remotely match Liberty, they'll get the nod because they have such a strong relationship with many of the West teams in the league.
If Liberty wants in, they are going to have to convince ASU and ULL to change their minds.
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.