(09-01-2015 09:12 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 08:56 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The long term plan should be to have the requirement to play football to be a member of the conference. That way the conference mirrors all of the other FBS conferences. So UTA and UALR will have to add football or find another conference.

Many changes are coming up in the FBS conferences and UTA/UALR will find it harder to stay a competitive member later down the road.

I think that makes a lot if sense. UTA could probably pull it off but not UALR.

Personally, I'd probably have put Idaho and NMSU they're in notice at the same time as the CCU (+ another) announcement. 2 transition in as 2 are finding someplace else or SOL. I don't see NMSU hoops/baseball as valuable enough to tolerate their dreadful football.

Insofar as UALR,
War Memorial Stadium is in Little Rock, capacity 54K, that's an asset they would have at their disposal I believe. That's a leg up on building their own. Not much different than South Alabama and Gergia State. Why not ?

(09-01-2015 04:58 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 01:52 PM)Eagleditka Wrote:  I think the long term plan is to add New Mexico State and replace Idaho with Missouri State. But first they have to convince Mo State to leave the Missouri Valley Conference. Adding good basketball programs like Coastal and NMSU, might help entice them. Eventually we get a conference that looks like this:

East
Georgia Southern
Georgia State
Appalachian State
Coastal Carolina
Troy
USA

West
Louisiana
ULM
Arkansas State
Missouri State
New Mexico State
Texas State

Plus: UTA and Little Rock

Which Louisiana school will get put in the east for olympic sports if you keep UTA and UALR? You can't have 8 in the west and 6 in the east.

Tell the NHL you can't have unbalanced conferences :)

(09-01-2015 05:26 PM)Eagleditka Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 04:58 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 01:52 PM)Eagleditka Wrote:  I think the long term plan is to add New Mexico State and replace Idaho with Missouri State. But first they have to convince Mo State to leave the Missouri Valley Conference. Adding good basketball programs like Coastal and NMSU, might help entice them. Eventually we get a conference that looks like this:

East
Georgia Southern
Georgia State
Appalachian State
Coastal Carolina
Troy
USA

West
Louisiana
ULM
Arkansas State
Missouri State
New Mexico State
Texas State

Plus: UTA and Little Rock

Which Louisiana school will get put in the east for olympic sports if you keep UTA and UALR? You can't have 8 in the west and 6 in the east.

Divisions aren't necessary in basketball. If you absolutely have to, shift ULM or Little Rock to the East. But divisions in basketball are a waste of time.

With the addition of Coastal Carolina, the conference games have now drop from 20 games, with uneven travel partners, to 16 games with every member paired up; and possibly 2 division.

"If" the Sun Belt were to explore the idea of expanding the to a 12/14 conference, a two divisions setup wouldn't really be needed in many of the Olympic team sports. In basketball, it appears the SEC has implemented a 18 game conference schedule which consists of each teams playing a select group of 5 teams home-n-home, 5 home, 5 away. And, then the remaining 8 teams being played once either home or away; 4 home, 4 away. Each team plays the other teams in the conference at least once; 5 teams twice. Then their teams are bracketed for the conference tournament based off their finish within the 14 team group standings; no divisions. A 14 team Olympic sports conference is doable with relatively little pain. I just hope NMSU is in those plans if this ever comes to fruition.

Add Missouri State and Eastern Kentucky for all sports, add the rest of New Mexico State, and then add Wichita State for all sports but football. Boot Idaho if UALR, UTA, or WSU starts football. Send multiple teams to the big dance each year.

NMSU/WSU
UTA/TXST
UALR/ARST
ULL/ULM
MSU/EKU
USA/TROY
APP/CCU
GS/GSU

Quote:"The language in the agreement clearly says that after the second year, there will be a review by the Sun Belt Conference and the agreement will either be extended or terminated," Sun Belt Commissioner Karl Benson said.

Benson declined to elaborate on whether wins and losses would enhance NMSU's chances for an extension.

"It's not fair to talk about right now," Benson said. "The season has not even started. I have had conversations with New Mexico State. They are well aware of the conditions and right now, we need to focus on the games at hand and not talk about the what-ifs."

Benson does expect the NCAA to deregulate it's 12-team requirement to hold a football championship with a vote in January, giving the league the opportunity to host a championship game with 10 teams beginning in 2017.

"The 12-team football league the last 20-plus years has been a threshold to conduct a championship game," Benson said. "When Idaho and New Mexico State were added to the Sun Belt, that was one of the reasons they were added, to get to 12 teams and do a championship game. Whether that policy remains is still unknown and won't be known until January. That is expected to be eliminated, but until it is, it's not fair to speak to something that hasn't happened yet and it's not fair to New Mexico State."

Link

Sun Belt's long term plan?

To win a bunch of OOC games, bowl games, and get into the playoffs.

DUH

(09-01-2015 07:18 PM)DawggoneEagle Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 09:12 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 08:56 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The long term plan should be to have the requirement to play football to be a member of the conference. That way the conference mirrors all of the other FBS conferences. So UTA and UALR will have to add football or find another conference.

Many changes are coming up in the FBS conferences and UTA/UALR will find it harder to stay a competitive member later down the road.

I think that makes a lot if sense. UTA could probably pull it off but not UALR.

Personally, I'd probably have put Idaho and NMSU they're in notice at the same time as the CCU (+ another) announcement. 2 transition in as 2 are finding someplace else or SOL. I don't see NMSU hoops/baseball as valuable enough to tolerate their dreadful football.

Insofar as UALR,
War Memorial Stadium is in Little Rock, capacity 54K, that's an asset they would have at their disposal I believe. That's a leg up on building their own. Not much different than South Alabama and Gergia State. Why not ?

Because in order for UALR to have football...the University of Arkansas would have to approve it.

We're talking about the same school that appealed to the legislature to try and force us out of FBS. They are in no way, shape, or form allowing a 3rd FBS school in state. Especially one they have complete control of...

I really don't see us giving UTA or UALR the boot. I think the solution is NMSU all sports, another full member with football in the west, and drop Idaho. I'm not picky about who, you guys out west can tell me who the best fit is. Then two non-football schools in the east - North Florida, Florida Gulf Coast, College of Charleston, Winthrop, UNC-Greensboro, etc. Pods for Olympic sports. And profit.

Sam Houston State, Stephen F. Austin, or Lamar

(09-02-2015 12:09 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 07:18 PM)DawggoneEagle Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 09:12 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 08:56 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The long term plan should be to have the requirement to play football to be a member of the conference. That way the conference mirrors all of the other FBS conferences. So UTA and UALR will have to add football or find another conference.

Many changes are coming up in the FBS conferences and UTA/UALR will find it harder to stay a competitive member later down the road.

I think that makes a lot if sense. UTA could probably pull it off but not UALR.

Personally, I'd probably have put Idaho and NMSU they're in notice at the same time as the CCU (+ another) announcement. 2 transition in as 2 are finding someplace else or SOL. I don't see NMSU hoops/baseball as valuable enough to tolerate their dreadful football.

Insofar as UALR,
War Memorial Stadium is in Little Rock, capacity 54K, that's an asset they would have at their disposal I believe. That's a leg up on building their own. Not much different than South Alabama and Gergia State. Why not ?

Because in order for UALR to have football...the University of Arkansas would have to approve it.

We're talking about the same school that appealed to the legislature to try and force us out of FBS. They are in no way, shape, or form allowing a 3rd FBS school in state. Especially one they have complete control of...

Gotcha !
Hypotheticals, they are what they are, and as the saying goes "it ain't a perfect world. I guess it hinges on the NCAA decision on whether or not to deregulate the CCG. As far as the SBC is concerned it may not matter either way if the members decide not to have it. Just my twelve program all sports conference conventional thinking, and being completely insensitive to the wants/needs/feelings of others for a moment.
What if the SBC gets on the horn to y'all's neighbors to the north and have a two-for-one drop-add. Drop Idaho & UALR and add MoState. Problem solved on that end. Would they be as efficient as UALR as a travel partner for stAte as UALR is ?
Insofar as UTA, depending on what they do with respect to football, and how long does the conference wait to find out; if they do then all is roses, if they don't then the twofer drop-add for whoever the most favored Southland Conference member is, Lamar I suppose.
Otherwise we've got twelve football members, and twelve Olympic sports members. If that works, leave Idaho & NMSU in their current status, football only.
I think they leave on their own eventually anyway.
It seems to me there are just more options in the East, but that may just be because I'm familiar with those programs.
If we ever lose USA then replace them with JAX, if we lose Georgia State then replace them with Kennesaw State. There's UTC right up the road too if they ever get better support. TheCitadel would be an odd ball in size, but they have an acceptable size though ugly stadium and for their size have fairly good support. Like CCU they're in a destination market. They certainly wouldn't be the "who ?" school add, people know who they are and their academics are good. If JMU ever changes leasership, I'd still take them in a NY minute, and move USA to the West.
JMU or EKU as well as MoState if we lose Idaho & NMSU, and put USA in the West.
That's my two cents worth.

Future plan?

(09-01-2015 05:01 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 02:41 PM)APPrising Wrote:  I believe it is a foregone conclusion that Idaho is on its way out. Otherwise, there would be a push for a travel partner for Idaho. I also don't see NMSU being added in Olympic sports unless they find a travel partner for them as well, and who would be close enough to be considered a partner to them? Northern Arizona? Sam Houston? Although I like both those schools, I think they would be a stretch to add. I think we still add one more to replace Idaho, but not sure EKU is now the best option since CCU has been added. I believe it would be someone between the states of Texas and Alabama.

If we didn't want to add NMSU for all sports now why would we keep them as football only after dropping Idaho? No reason to keep them for 11 football schools with no intention of adding them as all sport. Either keep both or drop both.

From what I hear neither school will be renewed. Of course that is as of now so who knows what happens by the deadline.

I agree, I believe both will be dropped eventually.

(09-01-2015 06:12 PM)slycat Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 02:41 PM)APPrising Wrote:  I believe it is a foregone conclusion that Idaho is on its way out. Otherwise, there would be a push for a travel partner for Idaho. I also don't see NMSU being added in Olympic sports unless they find a travel partner for them as well, and who would be close enough to be considered a partner to them? Northern Arizona? Sam Houston? Although I like both those schools, I think they would be a stretch to add. I think we still add one more to replace Idaho, but not sure EKU is now the best option since CCU has been added. I believe it would be someone between the states of Texas and Alabama.

Well I doubt they add anyone if they drop Idaho and NMSU. Otherwise, the easiest and only smart thing to do would have been drop Idaho and add EKU and NMSU oly Then it balances the league and everyone is happy. But you kick NMSU to the curb and waste a chance at what be the best or second best basketball team in the league.

Southland schools will be blocked from being added. JSU won't be added with two Alabama schools already existing.

Missouri St is a great add but don't seem interested. We have enough eastern schools now, add a western one.

I agree with this as well, we have created quite a conundrum

(09-02-2015 07:30 AM)APPrising Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 05:01 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 02:41 PM)APPrising Wrote:  I believe it is a foregone conclusion that Idaho is on its way out. Otherwise, there would be a push for a travel partner for Idaho. I also don't see NMSU being added in Olympic sports unless they find a travel partner for them as well, and who would be close enough to be considered a partner to them? Northern Arizona? Sam Houston? Although I like both those schools, I think they would be a stretch to add. I think we still add one more to replace Idaho, but not sure EKU is now the best option since CCU has been added. I believe it would be someone between the states of Texas and Alabama.

If we didn't want to add NMSU for all sports now why would we keep them as football only after dropping Idaho? No reason to keep them for 11 football schools with no intention of adding them as all sport. Either keep both or drop both.

From what I hear neither school will be renewed. Of course that is as of now so who knows what happens by the deadline.

I agree, I believe both will be dropped eventually.

they will both probably have the last laugh on the sbc by moving up to the mwc while we are busy adding fgcu and jaxstate.

(09-02-2015 07:35 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 07:30 AM)APPrising Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 05:01 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 02:41 PM)APPrising Wrote:  I believe it is a foregone conclusion that Idaho is on its way out. Otherwise, there would be a push for a travel partner for Idaho. I also don't see NMSU being added in Olympic sports unless they find a travel partner for them as well, and who would be close enough to be considered a partner to them? Northern Arizona? Sam Houston? Although I like both those schools, I think they would be a stretch to add. I think we still add one more to replace Idaho, but not sure EKU is now the best option since CCU has been added. I believe it would be someone between the states of Texas and Alabama.

If we didn't want to add NMSU for all sports now why would we keep them as football only after dropping Idaho? No reason to keep them for 11 football schools with no intention of adding them as all sport. Either keep both or drop both.

From what I hear neither school will be renewed. Of course that is as of now so who knows what happens by the deadline.

I agree, I believe both will be dropped eventually.

they will both probably have the last laugh on the sbc by moving up to the mwc while we are busy adding fgcu and jaxstate.

NMSU, maybe. Idaho, that's a long shot.

https://twitter.com/TroySchulteADG

Relaying from a post on the Main board from Wedge. Sounds like NMSU and Idaho may be seeking other football conferences or independence. Judging from the prior comments, there isn't much support for a title game.

Troy Schulte ‏@TroySchulteADG · 16h16 hours ago
Benson leaving the door open for a SBC without Idaho and New Mexico State as football members. Agreements are up for renewal after this yr.

Troy Schulte ‏@TroySchulteADG · 16h16 hours ago
Benson: Football title game will be decided after season, when learn of NCAA ruling/status of Idaho/NM State.

Troy Schulte ‏@TroySchulteADG · 16h16 hours ago
Benson: We need to determine if we're going to be a 10-team league or a 12-team league.

Troy Schulte ‏@TroySchulteADG · 16h16 hours ago
Odd turn in that teleconference. Karl said he was pleased to be done with questions about who would be the SBC's 12th member ...

Troy Schulte ‏@TroySchulteADG · 16h16 hours ago
Then, leaves in doubt future football membership of Idaho and NM State. That will lead to more questions.

(09-01-2015 08:56 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The long term plan should be to have the requirement to play football to be a member of the conference. That way the conference mirrors all of the other FBS conferences. So UTA and UALR will have to add football or find another conference.

Many changes are coming up in the FBS conferences and UTA/UALR will find it harder to stay a competitive member later down the road.

Not right to kick out members who have honored the terms of the agreement they made to join the league, IMHO.

But yes any new members will have to join on an all-sports basis, football included.

Seem like the NMSU/Idaho deal will go on a while longer. I'm guessing the SBC wants to stay at 12 members for football, and if you kick out Idaho you'll have to bring in UMASS or an FCS start-up. Presumably the Belt would've done that already if it wanted to.

Drop Idaho, bring in UMass (with agreement to play 4 SBC schools in basketball each year).

USA moves to the west division for football, which they prefer.

(09-02-2015 08:17 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Not right to kick out members who have honored the terms of the agreement they made to join the league, IMHO.

From what I understand, them joining was for a set period (apparently through this season), with the option to renew in future years.

I think that is VERY different than kicking them out. Both sides honored the agreement, and will now be sitting down to discuss future endeavors. If it doesn't work, then there's no need to sign up for it.

In this case, I think the Sun Belt handled it fairly and appropriately.

(09-02-2015 08:17 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 08:56 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The long term plan should be to have the requirement to play football to be a member of the conference. That way the conference mirrors all of the other FBS conferences. So UTA and UALR will have to add football or find another conference.

Many changes are coming up in the FBS conferences and UTA/UALR will find it harder to stay a competitive member later down the road.

Not right to kick out members who have honored the terms of the agreement they made to join the league, IMHO.

But yes any new members will have to join on an all-sports basis, football included.

Seem like the NMSU/Idaho deal will go on a while longer. I'm guessing the SBC wants to stay at 12 members for football, and if you kick out Idaho you'll have to bring in UMASS or an FCS start-up. Presumably the Belt would've done that already if it wanted to.

We adopted the requirement of having 15 league sports and all new members having football several years ago. We added UTA after that and did nothing when UALR dropped to 14 sports.

Color me skeptical that we re-adopt that and are serious about it.