(06-20-2014 01:12 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 09:46 AM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 11:12 PM)ARSTATEFAN1986 Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 07:35 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  I agree with that. I think most Sun Belt schools are more for waiting for EKU, JMU (if they change their mind) or Missouri St. than jumping at UMass, Liberty or NMSU.

I doubt the western schools will consider Liberty or JMU. EKU and Missouri State are much more plausible.

I've heard nothing that would suggest West schools think EKU is much more plausible. They may be the discussion on the Astate board, but I haven't that at all. I hear that ULM is one Western member that was not in favor of adding NMST as a full member. They do not have the funds to cover the increased travel cost.

EKU has been mentioned maybe twice on our board. Usually Missouri State gets the most mentions, but even those are few in number. We're just not a bi fan of expansion.

Missouri State has been working hard to improve the remainder of its outdated athletic facilities, including construction on Plaster Stadium's east stands. It's not as impressive as some of the work being done in Lafayette and Statesboro, but it's pretty damn exciting to see the support our administration has thrown in the direction of football over the last 2 years.

http://www.missouristatebears.com/facili...ction.html

that definitely is an upgrade Mo state!

(06-20-2014 07:24 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 01:13 PM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 11:50 AM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  Radio interview just now stAte's AD seems frustrated that the Sun Belt won't agree to add the Aggies as an all-sports member.

He is dead on, but he, Farmer and others should have had an agreement in place with other the other presidents before agreeing to accept Southern Georgia and App. State.

Not so sure App or GaSo opposed NMSU as full member. If had to guess would think it was Georgia State wanting to preserve what motivation they had in basketball success last year if anything. Just guessing though, would like to know every schools position on NMSU as a full member.

You couldn't have done so last year because neither had a vote then.

(06-20-2014 04:51 PM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 07:24 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 01:13 PM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 11:50 AM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  Radio interview just now stAte's AD seems frustrated that the Sun Belt won't agree to add the Aggies as an all-sports member.

He is dead on, but he, Farmer and others should have had an agreement in place with other the other presidents before agreeing to accept Southern Georgia and App. State.

Not so sure App or GaSo opposed NMSU as full member. If had to guess would think it was Georgia State wanting to preserve what motivation they had in basketball success last year if anything. Just guessing though, would like to know every schools position on NMSU as a full member.

You couldn't have done so last year because neither had a vote then.

Talking about this year's vote.

Maybe the Sun Belt should just play better basketball. The majority of SBC schools will get extended trips for olympic sports in return for the addition of NMSU for all-sports.

NMSU has been able to keep their RPI in the top 100 because they play a good non-conference schedule and they win some of these games. For 2014, NMSU already has games lined up at St. Mary's, at Colorado State, at Baylor, at New Mexico and at UTEP. They already have home games lined up with Colorado State, New Mexico and UTEP.

The SBC needs to schedule better and win more. It is that simple. NMSU olympic sports should be added if it fits with whatever strategy the SBC has for building the conference brand and it is a market the SBC wants to be in for olympic sports. They should not be added just to help the men's basketball RPI.

If it is not going to get us more bids do not see the big deal either way.
We need to improve more than go after schools that are already better in basketball.

(06-21-2014 05:24 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Maybe the Sun Belt should just play better basketball. The majority of SBC schools will get extended trips for olympic sports in return for the addition of NMSU for all-sports.

Though for a handful of Olympic sports, and if you go divisions in the full-up Olympic sports, it would be a net travel cost saving for the Eastern schools.

Meet sports are much more flexible about locations ... if you do tri-meets, you can actually have them set up so that the four easternmost schools never travel to meets in Las Cruces.

So its the Olympic team sports (setting aside BBall since that's a clear net win on a per-sport basis ~ most Sunbelt teams would struggle to schedule many home games against a school at NMSU's level): baseball, softball, women's BBall, soccer, and volleyball.

Adding NMSU all-sports alone would put the Sunbelt at 11/12, with baseball, women's BBall and women's volleyball, so they could go to divisions. women's softball and soccer would be 10 and 11, so without an affiliate, they would likely be single round robin.

Adding NMSU all-sports and exercising the Idaho option would put the Sunbelt at 10/12, so Olympic sports is same/same, and an eight game conference FB schedule could involve making a ring of five western schools and a ring of five eastern schools and lining them up to say which is the skipped game. Rotating one ring one tick the next year, those are the skipped games. Works best with a CCG hosted at the school with the best conference record, so works best if full CCG deregulation passes.

Adding NMSU all-sports and two FCS schools all-sports would put the Sunbelt at 12/14, with a likelihood that all Olympic Team sports could be played in six or seven team divisions. If any Olympic Team sport ended up at 13, you'd really want to get an affiliate member for that sport.

(06-21-2014 06:20 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  If it is not going to get us more bids do not see the big deal either way.

We need to improve more than go after schools that are already better in basketball.

Playing better schools doesn't automatically make you better, but you don't get better without playing better schools.

And Go5 schools aren't playing sport in the FBS as a money-making venture, they are playing sport in the FBS to raise their profile. An at-large NIT invite to improve the chance of a Sunbelt school getting to MSG, or schools that make enough of a run into the pay to play tournaments to get onto TV are also pay-offs for a Go5 conference.

Not totally sold on your statement, "you don't get better without playing better schools."
It helps, and will show how much you have improved faster, but definitely believe you can get
better without playing better teams.

(06-22-2014 02:18 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Not totally sold on your statement, "you don't get better without playing better schools."
It helps, and will show how much you have improved faster, but definitely believe you can get
better without playing better teams.

I think it is both winning and playing better teams. That is for the whole conference. Last season CUSA got one school out of sixteen into the NCAA tournament despite having four schools in the top 80 of the RPI rankings. The schools on the bottom end of the conference were killing CUSA.

NMSU cannot fix the 2013-2014 RPI rankings of the following schools:

App State - 335
Texas State - 307
Georgia Southern - 304
Troy -287
South Alabama -281
ULM - 246
UTA - 204
UALR - 186
Arkansas State - 181

As CUSA proved last season, another school in the top 80 of the RPI rankings does not assure a 2nd bid. The SBC just needs to play better basketball and schedule better opponents. That includes every school.

Add NMSU, EKU, and Missouri State for all sports to get to 14/14 an actually have a shot at 2 bids.

(06-22-2014 04:07 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Add NMSU, EKU, and Missouri State for all sports to get to 14/14 an actually have a shot at 2 bids.

That would improve the basketball rating. Could also have a 2 bid shot if Louisville
decided to join two of those and go to the Sun Belt instead of the ACC. Not a
sure thing, but most likely the SBC would consider it. No promises.

(06-20-2014 03:53 PM)MO State Alum Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 01:12 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 09:46 AM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 11:12 PM)ARSTATEFAN1986 Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 07:35 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  I agree with that. I think most Sun Belt schools are more for waiting for EKU, JMU (if they change their mind) or Missouri St. than jumping at UMass, Liberty or NMSU.

I doubt the western schools will consider Liberty or JMU. EKU and Missouri State are much more plausible.

I've heard nothing that would suggest West schools think EKU is much more plausible. They may be the discussion on the Astate board, but I haven't that at all. I hear that ULM is one Western member that was not in favor of adding NMST as a full member. They do not have the funds to cover the increased travel cost.

EKU has been mentioned maybe twice on our board. Usually Missouri State gets the most mentions, but even those are few in number. We're just not a bi fan of expansion.

Missouri State has been working hard to improve the remainder of its outdated athletic facilities, including construction on Plaster Stadium's east stands. It's not as impressive as some of the work being done in Lafayette and Statesboro, but it's pretty damn exciting to see the support our administration has thrown in the direction of football over the last 2 years.

http://www.missouristatebears.com/facili...ction.html

What will capacity be when finished? Since you guys are building a track & soccer complex I'm guess the track in Plaster Stadium will be removed.

(06-22-2014 04:07 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Add NMSU, EKU, and Missouri State for all sports to get to 14/14 an actually have a shot at 2 bids.

Ya - if there are divisions, I'd think adding NMSU would be a no brainer.

And I think that's what our administration would want as well.

No need to impose travel burden on the league -or- NMSU - that's what we're all working to lessen.

(06-22-2014 04:07 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Add NMSU, EKU, and Missouri State for all sports to get to 14/14 an actually have a shot at 2 bids.

No to EKU!

The Sun Belt is obviously in no great hurry to add a 12th member. To me it seems wise to just wait and see what happens with the requirements for a CCG, and how Missouri State and maybe EKU develop (plus give JMU time to rethink).

NMSU is not going anywhere so there is little risk in waiting to see what else develops. And IMO the Sun Belt will not want to be adding any more FB only members like UMass if they can help it. Probably trying to get out of having any FB-only schools long term.

(06-22-2014 07:59 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 03:53 PM)MO State Alum Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 01:12 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 09:46 AM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 11:12 PM)ARSTATEFAN1986 Wrote:  I doubt the western schools will consider Liberty or JMU. EKU and Missouri State are much more plausible.

I've heard nothing that would suggest West schools think EKU is much more plausible. They may be the discussion on the Astate board, but I haven't that at all. I hear that ULM is one Western member that was not in favor of adding NMST as a full member. They do not have the funds to cover the increased travel cost.

EKU has been mentioned maybe twice on our board. Usually Missouri State gets the most mentions, but even those are few in number. We're just not a bi fan of expansion.

Missouri State has been working hard to improve the remainder of its outdated athletic facilities, including construction on Plaster Stadium's east stands. It's not as impressive as some of the work being done in Lafayette and Statesboro, but it's pretty damn exciting to see the support our administration has thrown in the direction of football over the last 2 years.

http://www.missouristatebears.com/facili...ction.html

What will capacity be when finished? Since you guys are building a track & soccer complex I'm guess the track in Plaster Stadium will be removed.

The stadium capacity will be right at 17,000 once construction is completed before the fall 2014 semester. This phase has been built with expansion in mind. Also, we've heard there may be a football operations building/seating expansion in the south endzone at some point.

Yes, the track has been removed from the stadium and the east stands, currently under construction, were moved closer to the west stands to make this a football-only facility with new turf to be layed in August. The new track is currently under construction to the northwest of the stadium and will be part of our track/soccer complex.

Our biggest problem with attendance in the past has been the lack of students going to games. The east stands were dangerous and antiquated, to say the least. Now...our students won't have that excuse because they'll be new with better amenities. Also, they have a vested interest (a student fee was passed to build the new student section and other athletic/recreation facilities).

(06-19-2014 02:46 PM)CAJUNNATION Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 02:20 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Even though I am in favor of adding NMSU, I imagine they would equate addding
NMSU to adding UMass just for football. Imagine Western schools do not want
to do that, so are they stupid as you put it for that?

I'll rephrase.

They're short sighted.

New Mexico State is already a FB member. UMASS is not.

New Mexico State basketball will probably generate revenue for the league and replace an important departing basketball revenue generator.

The present situation means that no one will be added, until the Eastern teams agree to add NMSU in all sports, and then the Western teams might agree to an Eastern addition, but not Liberty.

NMSU would definitely make the Sun Belt better. Even if the down WAC, NMSU is recruiting at a high level. Anthony January, 4-Star Recruit rated 63rd best player in 2012 according to rivals.com will play for NMSU this season. He played at a junior college last season.