(10-25-2015 09:46 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 01:43 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 01:40 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 01:33 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Idaho and NMSU hurt the Sun Belt in the chase for CFP performance money

I don't think Idaho is doing that, at least any more than the median of the conference. The entire Belt only has 4 OOC FBS wins, we didn't lose our FCS game, and we're holding our own in-conference.

What are the exact dollar amounts per school in CFP money that we are losing this year because of Idaho and NMSU?

Up to $3 million

Lol yep it's totally Idaho and NMSU's fault that the Sun Belt isn't the number one G5 conference and definitely not the fact that the conference as a whole won a whopping 5 OOC FBS games this year and 4 last year.

(10-26-2015 10:14 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 09:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 11:17 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 09:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Idaho and NMSU do nothing for meeting the minimum numbers.

The NCAA rule is EIGHT FULL members who play in the conference.

Really? I thought if you didn't field 8 football teams for a certain period of time you got your FBS status stripped. It happened to the WAC.

It is eight FULL football members. If you know your trivia, when the NCAA adopted the new rule both Idaho and Utah State accepted full membership in the Sun Belt to keep the league alive, then went to the WAC and we added ULM and FAU as full members and FIU accelerated FBS to get the numbers.

Can you tell me if those rules are available online somewhere?

NCAA.org search for Division I Manual. It is available as a PDF

(10-26-2015 01:43 PM)nsavandal09 Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 09:46 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 01:43 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 01:40 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 01:33 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Idaho and NMSU hurt the Sun Belt in the chase for CFP performance money

I don't think Idaho is doing that, at least any more than the median of the conference. The entire Belt only has 4 OOC FBS wins, we didn't lose our FCS game, and we're holding our own in-conference.

What are the exact dollar amounts per school in CFP money that we are losing this year because of Idaho and NMSU?

Up to $3 million

How much money did 1-11 Georgia State cost the conference? What about 3-9 Troy?

The fact that you guys are complaining about a 2 hour longer flight every other year is mind blowing. Given that ULM freely consented to flying to HAWAII to play an out of conference game they scheduled shows that is a utterly bs argument.

Georgia State and Troy are equity members and contribute in other sports. ULM got a ******* lot more money to Hawaii than to Moscow.

(10-26-2015 02:59 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 10:14 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 09:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 11:17 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 09:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Idaho and NMSU do nothing for meeting the minimum numbers.

The NCAA rule is EIGHT FULL members who play in the conference.

Really? I thought if you didn't field 8 football teams for a certain period of time you got your FBS status stripped. It happened to the WAC.

It is eight FULL football members. If you know your trivia, when the NCAA adopted the new rule both Idaho and Utah State accepted full membership in the Sun Belt to keep the league alive, then went to the WAC and we added ULM and FAU as full members and FIU accelerated FBS to get the numbers.

Can you tell me if those rules are available online somewhere?

NCAA.org search for Division I Manual. It is available as a PDF

Thanks!

(10-26-2015 02:53 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 09:46 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 01:43 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 01:40 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 01:33 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Idaho and NMSU hurt the Sun Belt in the chase for CFP performance money

I don't think Idaho is doing that, at least any more than the median of the conference. The entire Belt only has 4 OOC FBS wins, we didn't lose our FCS game, and we're holding our own in-conference.

What are the exact dollar amounts per school in CFP money that we are losing this year because of Idaho and NMSU?

Up to $3 million

Lol yep it's totally Idaho and NMSU's fault that the Sun Belt isn't the number one G5 conference and definitely not the fact that the conference as a whole won a whopping 5 OOC FBS games this year and 4 last year.

Weak argument.

Which is worse. Four drags on the league or two? Last year w/o Idaho and NMSU Sun Belt is right at the #4 conference instead of #5 just by being the full members only.

(10-26-2015 03:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 02:53 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 09:46 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 01:43 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 01:40 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  I don't think Idaho is doing that, at least any more than the median of the conference. The entire Belt only has 4 OOC FBS wins, we didn't lose our FCS game, and we're holding our own in-conference.

What are the exact dollar amounts per school in CFP money that we are losing this year because of Idaho and NMSU?

Up to $3 million

Lol yep it's totally Idaho and NMSU's fault that the Sun Belt isn't the number one G5 conference and definitely not the fact that the conference as a whole won a whopping 5 OOC FBS games this year and 4 last year.

Weak argument.

Which is worse. Four drags on the league or two? Last year w/o Idaho and NMSU Sun Belt is right at the #4 conference instead of #5 just by being the full members only.

I'm not arguing that they haven't been drags on the league. I'm trying to establish the dollar amount in CFP money they have cost each school and how much they are likely to cost each school in the future...and weigh that cost against losing the buffer they provide against getting WAC'd.

So far...the CFP money argument is not impressing me.

(10-26-2015 03:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 02:53 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 09:46 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 01:43 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 01:40 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  I don't think Idaho is doing that, at least any more than the median of the conference. The entire Belt only has 4 OOC FBS wins, we didn't lose our FCS game, and we're holding our own in-conference.

What are the exact dollar amounts per school in CFP money that we are losing this year because of Idaho and NMSU?

Up to $3 million

Lol yep it's totally Idaho and NMSU's fault that the Sun Belt isn't the number one G5 conference and definitely not the fact that the conference as a whole won a whopping 5 OOC FBS games this year and 4 last year.

Weak argument.

Which is worse. Four drags on the league or two? Last year w/o Idaho and NMSU Sun Belt is right at the #4 conference instead of #5 just by being the full members only.

I'd say the better argument for Idaho is that we're currently winning games at a better clip than the median Sun Belt member. Plus we're the 5th-youngest team in FBS so it's doubtful we take a step backward next year. So as of this year the drag problem disappears.

(10-26-2015 03:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 02:53 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 09:46 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 01:43 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 01:40 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  I don't think Idaho is doing that, at least any more than the median of the conference. The entire Belt only has 4 OOC FBS wins, we didn't lose our FCS game, and we're holding our own in-conference.

What are the exact dollar amounts per school in CFP money that we are losing this year because of Idaho and NMSU?

Up to $3 million

Lol yep it's totally Idaho and NMSU's fault that the Sun Belt isn't the number one G5 conference and definitely not the fact that the conference as a whole won a whopping 5 OOC FBS games this year and 4 last year.

Weak argument.

Which is worse. Four drags on the league or two? Last year w/o Idaho and NMSU Sun Belt is right at the #4 conference instead of #5 just by being the full members only.

What's the money difference between 4th & 5th? That's a more realistic figure than the difference between 1st & 5th.

(10-26-2015 03:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 02:53 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 09:46 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 01:43 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 01:40 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  I don't think Idaho is doing that, at least any more than the median of the conference. The entire Belt only has 4 OOC FBS wins, we didn't lose our FCS game, and we're holding our own in-conference.

What are the exact dollar amounts per school in CFP money that we are losing this year because of Idaho and NMSU?

Up to $3 million

Lol yep it's totally Idaho and NMSU's fault that the Sun Belt isn't the number one G5 conference and definitely not the fact that the conference as a whole won a whopping 5 OOC FBS games this year and 4 last year.

Weak argument.

Which is worse. Four drags on the league or two? Last year w/o Idaho and NMSU Sun Belt is right at the #4 conference instead of #5 just by being the full members only.

Do you have a source on that? I highly doubt a conference that won only 4 FBS OOC games was even close to getting out of last place.

(10-26-2015 03:28 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 03:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 02:53 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 09:46 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 01:43 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  What are the exact dollar amounts per school in CFP money that we are losing this year because of Idaho and NMSU?

Up to $3 million

Lol yep it's totally Idaho and NMSU's fault that the Sun Belt isn't the number one G5 conference and definitely not the fact that the conference as a whole won a whopping 5 OOC FBS games this year and 4 last year.

Weak argument.

Which is worse. Four drags on the league or two? Last year w/o Idaho and NMSU Sun Belt is right at the #4 conference instead of #5 just by being the full members only.

Do you have a source on that? I highly doubt a conference that won only 4 FBS OOC games was even close to getting out of last place.

I think what others are saying is it is a location thing. And no as has been stated. If you could some how up and move a thousand miles then you'd be a shoe in all sports.

(10-25-2015 11:59 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  FYI, if it were up to me, I would extend Idaho and NMSU through at least 2019, and then make a decision at that point. I believe our TV contract is up for renewal in 2020, so that seems a good point to put it.

This is the likely scenario. It gives all parties more time to determine what the next best move is, if any. I don't see this conference going to a 10 team round robin schedule. A nine game conference schedule makes no sense in a G5 conference.

Even if the Sun Belt eventually hit the eject button on NMSU and Idaho, it would make more sense to bring in two quality FCS football programs to get back to 12. With the current entry fee of $2 million dollars per school, you can bring in two better football schools (hopefully) and add $4 million dollars to the coffers.

But first they need to find the two better football programs that would join and would be acceptable to the rest of the conference. That buys NMSU and Idaho time due to the lack of current candidates that are both acceptable and want to join.

The MWC already has 12 football members, and I just don't see them expanding to 14 or getting poached. BSU isn't getting a P5 invite and none of the other teams are making waves. We're pretty much f#cked if the SBC doesn't give us an extension.

(10-25-2015 03:05 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 02:16 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  In the fall of 2018 the conference will be at 10 football schools and will play a round robin schedule. No need for championship game with the new rules. If the PTB decide one is needed the top two teams will play.

How confident are you on this? I'll gladly place a friendly wager on the "that's not going to happen" side.

Wager can be monetary (personal favorite is a donation to the winner's school of a certain amount) or just for funsies (avatar/signature bet).

I'm down for any wager on it.

I'm very confident. Let's make it a easy $50.

(10-25-2015 03:41 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  If 9 of 11 are required to vote yes to keep them then NMSU and Idaho are on very shaky ground

I think only 10 schools (including Coastal) would be voting. Certainly Idaho & NMSU wouldn't and UALR & UTA have no say in football matters.

(10-26-2015 11:30 AM)eaglewraith Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 02:16 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  In the fall of 2018 the conference will be at 10 football schools and will play a round robin schedule. No need for championship game with the new rules. If the PTB decide one is needed the top two teams will play.

Hmmm....we do only have 3 OOC games currently scheduled for 2018....

Shhhhhhhhhhhh............... I've got a bet with The Rev!

(10-26-2015 12:06 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 11:22 AM)rknj8993 Wrote:  While I totally understand your argument, I don't think the conference is going to go for it.

Yeah, Idaho may be back on track to some degree, that doesn't fix the issue of your location. Idaho is located in the northwest corner of the United States, while a majority of the schools are based in the southeast. It doesn't make geographic sense to keep a school that is that far away from the rest of the conference's footprint. I mean, the closest school to Idaho is UTA, which is still 1426 miles away from Moscow, and y'all don't even play one another.

I think the Sun Belt is going to be looking towards EKU over the next few months, as they had a solid presentation and I'm sure they are Sun Belt bound sooner rather than later. It's nothing personal against Idaho, but I just don't think it all adds up for the conference members to keep it going for another four years.

That last paragraph makes me want to see us go Indy.

Have you been paying any attention to what KB has been saying about playing high stakes OOC games?

(10-26-2015 06:33 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 03:41 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  If 9 of 11 are required to vote yes to keep them then NMSU and Idaho are on very shaky ground

I think only 10 schools (including Coastal) would be voting. Certainly Idaho & NMSU wouldn't and UALR & UTA have no say in football matters.

According to another knowledgeable poster in this thread it's a simple majority vote. There are at least 2 voting members who already have 4 OOC games scheduled for 2018, and it's not exactly unusual to have open OOC dates this far out. I'm not sure why you're so confident about the vote outcome. Unless you're Karl Benson I doubt you know which way all the schools in the conference are leaning.

Actually, I'm not sure Karl knows either.

(10-26-2015 01:57 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  If I'm hearing this right, Idaho and NMSU have not actually cost us any CFP money yet....and if we all get real good and they do somehow cost us...it will be 1 share of $3 million divided by 11.

Which means that some of the posters here want Idaho gone over $136,000. This amount is less than 1% Idaho's athletic budget, I'm sure it's even smaller for the other schools.

(10-26-2015 06:29 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  I'm very confident. Let's make it a easy $50.

So it is written, so shall it be done!

(now one of us has to remember this wager by fall 2018)

why wouldn't t UALR and UTA get a vote? they are basically full conference members.