(08-29-2015 04:07 PM)Usajags Wrote:  Good but not great basketball is probably still better then what half the Belt did last season.

We sucked as a conference in basketball, just saying.

That's actually being generous too!

(08-29-2015 02:17 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I'm sure Jay is right that there will be no first vote addition. The question becomes whether some of the not going to vote for X is symbolic so a school can keep its word to push for a school and then turn pragmatic and vote someone in or whether we go into horse trade mode or there just isn't the right combination of need and desired target.

What do you mean by this? Can you vote on a team twice?

I think he's talking about a second round of voting.

First run: (in theory) everyone sticks to their guns. West teams vote down EKU and CCU. East teams vote down NMSU.

Then someone asks for a revote. Kind of like in Survivor, when there is a tie.

Second run: X team in the east (or west) realizes it will be an impasse unless someone relents, and says "screw this! I'm crossing the 'party' line"

(08-29-2015 06:45 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  I think he's talking about a second round of voting.

First run: (in theory) everyone sticks to their guns. West teams vote down EKU and CCU. East teams vote down NMSU.

Then someone asks for a revote. Kind of like in Survivor, when there is a tie.

Second run: X team in the east (or west) realizes it will be an impasse unless someone relents, and says "screw this! I'm crossing the 'party' line"

I'm thinking the west and east split into teams for a round of golf, winner gets their choice invited.

(08-29-2015 06:53 PM)slycat Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 06:45 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  I think he's talking about a second round of voting.

First run: (in theory) everyone sticks to their guns. West teams vote down EKU and CCU. East teams vote down NMSU.

Then someone asks for a revote. Kind of like in Survivor, when there is a tie.

Second run: X team in the east (or west) realizes it will be an impasse unless someone relents, and says "screw this! I'm crossing the 'party' line"

I'm thinking the west and east split into teams for a round of golf, winner gets their choice invited.

It always comes back to golf . . .

(08-29-2015 06:56 PM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 06:53 PM)slycat Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 06:45 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  I think he's talking about a second round of voting.

First run: (in theory) everyone sticks to their guns. West teams vote down EKU and CCU. East teams vote down NMSU.

Then someone asks for a revote. Kind of like in Survivor, when there is a tie.

Second run: X team in the east (or west) realizes it will be an impasse unless someone relents, and says "screw this! I'm crossing the 'party' line"

I'm thinking the west and east split into teams for a round of golf, winner gets their choice invited.

It always comes back to golf . . .

Always

(08-29-2015 06:57 PM)slycat Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 06:56 PM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 06:53 PM)slycat Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 06:45 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  I think he's talking about a second round of voting.

First run: (in theory) everyone sticks to their guns. West teams vote down EKU and CCU. East teams vote down NMSU.

Then someone asks for a revote. Kind of like in Survivor, when there is a tie.

Second run: X team in the east (or west) realizes it will be an impasse unless someone relents, and says "screw this! I'm crossing the 'party' line"

I'm thinking the west and east split into teams for a round of golf, winner gets their choice invited.

It always comes back to golf . . .

Always

If it comes down to golf to get EKU in just let me know where and when!

Short of brokered deal I don't see NMSU in.

That will make AState's Hudson a critical player. He was on the visit group and committee has three ways it could go.
1. Make a recommendation for a school endorsing them.
2. Make no recommendation but rate schools 1-3.
3. Simply provide pros cons of each.

If committee goes with option 1 and it isn't unanimous that could backfire because it puts the dissenters in the position of having to defend their dissent. If committee agrees to a unanimous name game is over, we add that school.

Strategy and procedure matters.

The normal way to do it is simply open the floor and await motions and then vote each individually but that isn't required. They can tweak the procedure and use any sort of voting method they want. They can (by a three-fourths vote) if they choose simply put all three up or two up and add the one receiving the most votes. In the past they have (by three fourths vote) permitted an expansion committee to issue invites without a vote on the team to be added.

Remember deal making isn't limited to who to add. Getting concessions on scheduling or championship sites can easily be part of dealing.

What I don't get is timing.

Voting now normally would not make sense because an FCS can't start transition until 2016-17, won't count as an FBS until 2017 and can't be full FBS until 2018. No reason to vote now unless either you have someone ready to buy their way out and join in sports other than football for 2016-17 and can play an FCS slate in 2016 maybe in the league they will have left or you are going to add a school that needs the extra head start for stadium expansion.

New Mexico State's best bet is hope for no invitation, prove itself to Sun Belt on football field

(08-28-2015 04:50 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  If we are going to add a school then add Coastal Carolina and NMSU for all sports. Then put the full court press on Mizzou St and dump Idaho as soon as Missouri State commits to coming into the Sun Belt.

Several have said it will be a one school add. I think Coastal gets the invite.
But as more of the P5 conferences stop playing FCS schools I think the number of schools
To pick from will increase. No money games mean schools like James Madison, Missouri State. Deleware, and many more will be availble,

If only one is added, I place the odds at:

Coastal Carolina- 44%
NMSU- 35%
EKU- 20%
Notre Dame- 1%

Coastal clearly has more upside than the others. The $64K question is can they get their facilities and budget act together in 2-3 years?

(08-29-2015 04:23 AM)David Krysakowski Wrote:  I hope Eastern Kentucky gets in to the Sun Belt so that Ohio Valley can replace them with Northern Kentucky.

NKU won't head to the OVC unless if they plan on adding FCS football. The OVC snubbed them earlier, which is how they wound up in the Atlantic Sun. Now that they are in the Horizon League, the OVC is likely a lateral move at best.

(08-29-2015 12:08 PM)BirdofParadise Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 07:30 AM)EKUSteve Wrote:  http://www.theadvertiser.com/story/sport.../71349570/

So the meeting is tomorrow in Dallas according to this article.

That is correct.

Things may change tomorrow...and someone, after several ballots, may be added. But as I type this, no one has enough votes.

This isn't so much about who schools favor as much as it is who they will not accept. These votes will be more against a school than for one.

I do think sooner or later, schools will be persuaded to change their votes. And we may add someone tomorrow.

But if we do there will have been some serious arm twisting.

Troy and Arkansas StAte on board. All eastern schools. Don't know about Texas State but probably vote with majority. LaLa will get lay of the land and vote yes for Coastal. This will be out of the way quick to allow time to discuss other matters.

I'm sure whatever gets 75% will be revoted so it can be a unanimous decision. Unanimous looks good on a press release.

(08-30-2015 08:05 AM)T-Dog Wrote:  I'm sure whatever gets 75% will be revoted so it can be a unanimous decision. Unanimous looks good on a press release.

I would be for that type thing when it comes to adds. On the other hand, I want my AD to not be a consensus on things like exit fees. To me if he voted to harm my university by a burdensome exit fee he hurt my university. I do not care if someone else's university leaves, I do not want it punished beyond what the real harm they create by early withdrawal.

(08-30-2015 08:13 AM)CajunExpress Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 08:05 AM)T-Dog Wrote:  I'm sure whatever gets 75% will be revoted so it can be a unanimous decision. Unanimous looks good on a press release.

I would be for that type thing when it comes to adds. On the other hand, I want my AD to not be a consensus on things like exit fees. To me if he voted to harm my university by a burdensome exit fee he hurt my university. I do not care if someone else's university leaves, I do not want it punished beyond what the real harm they create by early withdrawal.

Your AD doesn't get a say on that stuff, your President does

The more this has drug out the more I'm okay with standing pat. The SB literally holds the last tix into FBS, there were no realignment moves from the big dogs this year, but there might be next. Big 12 expansion and any trickle down moves, more P5 conferences going away from FcS games, etc. can increase our potential pool of call ups. And if it doesn't, the extra time still gives our current short list more time to put shovels in the ground and step up marketing and donor efforts to ensure readiness.

(08-30-2015 10:00 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 08:13 AM)CajunExpress Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 08:05 AM)T-Dog Wrote:  I'm sure whatever gets 75% will be revoted so it can be a unanimous decision. Unanimous looks good on a press release.

I would be for that type thing when it comes to adds. On the other hand, I want my AD to not be a consensus on things like exit fees. To me if he voted to harm my university by a burdensome exit fee he hurt my university. I do not care if someone else's university leaves, I do not want it punished beyond what the real harm they create by early withdrawal.

Your AD doesn't get a say on that stuff, your President does

Correct....the Presidents vote. And you can apply everything that Cajun Express stated to our President as far as I am concerned

(08-30-2015 08:13 AM)CajunExpress Wrote:  I would be for that type thing when it comes to adds. On the other hand, I want my AD to not be a consensus on things like exit fees. To me if he voted to harm my university by a burdensome exit fee he hurt my university. I do not care if someone else's university leaves, I do not want it punished beyond what the real harm they create by early withdrawal.

ULL is only interested in checking the windows and doors to make sure they are unlocked and their parachute is on tightly. The rest of the meeting they won't be paying any attention.