(10-30-2015 10:38 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 07:19 AM)The Black Flag Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 10:57 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  I have yet to see a good reason not to extend Idaho's term in the conference.

Apologies for being redundant at this point, but:

1. Again, I'm only talking through 2019, not forever.
2. Your top expansion candidates won't be ready to go by then, and it doesn't make sense to make full, forever commitments to schools you're only lukewarm on.
3. A 12 team conference is better than 10, both for scheduling purposes and as insurance against raids.
4. Idaho is no longer a performance drag on the field. This year we're above the median of the conference so far and probably more helpful than hurtful.

Another short-term extension is good for us and good for you.

I don't care if we keep Idaho forever or not. Just keep Liberty fans out of our conference. They bug the crap out of me.

(10-27-2015 04:58 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 12:10 PM)rbarthle17 Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 11:56 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 11:54 AM)rbarthle17 Wrote:  We already have a school coming in. Who's to say Coastal won't replace one of Idaho or NMSU? Especially if the talk of not going to 12 teams is true it's not hard at all to connect the dots and say their inclusion and a lack of extension for Idaho might be related.

We already pretty much hashed through this in this thread so I'll just say it doesn't make much sense for a G5 conference to go to 10 teams and 9 conference games.

It may not make sense to you, but I know AppManDG and he is rarely wrong when it comes to digging up dirt like this. I don't care for him personally at all but I wouldn't bet against him on his insights being correct. If he says he has insights that point towards 10 football teams by 2018, then we will likely have 10 football teams. The math then becomes simple.

I believe there are people on this board who know how their own schools' administrations may feel on this issue. So when a bunch of App fans all say they're hearing from their people that they're against an extension, I'm prepared to believe that's where App is.

But it's a majority vote, and I really doubt there are any posters wasting their time on this message board who know which way all the schools in the conference lean, or even a majority.

On the merits, the case for another 2-year extension still seems far, far stronger than the case against, for all the reasons that have already been outlined.

FYI, I have not spoken to anyone in the App Athletic Department about this. I don't have a clue what their position is. Having been around this stuff 30+ years I've been fortunate to make a lot of friends in the business. Sometimes people want things to get out, but they can't be known as the one who leaked it. Realize things are most often leaked in a manor that puts the hounds on a totally different scent trail. My sources trust me because, much to the dismay of those who demand their identity to substantiate the info, I won't reveal them. Ironically they include present and former SB AD's as well as people at CUSA schools. As I'm fond of saying, I don't know much, but I know a lot of people who do. I put the info out there, it's your choice to decide whether you agree or not. In this situation my media connections (I majored in Radio and Television Communications) are playing a big part in my position.

(10-27-2015 12:10 PM)rbarthle17 Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 11:56 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 11:54 AM)rbarthle17 Wrote:  We already have a school coming in. Who's to say Coastal won't replace one of Idaho or NMSU? Especially if the talk of not going to 12 teams is true it's not hard at all to connect the dots and say their inclusion and a lack of extension for Idaho might be related.

We already pretty much hashed through this in this thread so I'll just say it doesn't make much sense for a G5 conference to go to 10 teams and 9 conference games.

It may not make sense to you, but I know AppManDG and he is rarely wrong when it comes to digging up dirt like this. I don't care for him personally at all but I wouldn't bet against him on his insights being correct. If he says he has insights that point towards 10 football teams by 2018, then we will likely have 10 football teams. The math then becomes simple.

Couldn't resist the jab could you? ;>) I've moved on. Life is too short. More important things to concern myself with. Hopefully one day you can as well.

(10-30-2015 12:12 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 04:58 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 12:10 PM)rbarthle17 Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 11:56 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 11:54 AM)rbarthle17 Wrote:  We already have a school coming in. Who's to say Coastal won't replace one of Idaho or NMSU? Especially if the talk of not going to 12 teams is true it's not hard at all to connect the dots and say their inclusion and a lack of extension for Idaho might be related.

We already pretty much hashed through this in this thread so I'll just say it doesn't make much sense for a G5 conference to go to 10 teams and 9 conference games.

It may not make sense to you, but I know AppManDG and he is rarely wrong when it comes to digging up dirt like this. I don't care for him personally at all but I wouldn't bet against him on his insights being correct. If he says he has insights that point towards 10 football teams by 2018, then we will likely have 10 football teams. The math then becomes simple.

I believe there are people on this board who know how their own schools' administrations may feel on this issue. So when a bunch of App fans all say they're hearing from their people that they're against an extension, I'm prepared to believe that's where App is.

But it's a majority vote, and I really doubt there are any posters wasting their time on this message board who know which way all the schools in the conference lean, or even a majority.

On the merits, the case for another 2-year extension still seems far, far stronger than the case against, for all the reasons that have already been outlined.

FYI, I have not spoken to anyone in the App Athletic Department about this. I don't have a clue what their position is. Having been around this stuff 30+ years I've been fortunate to make a lot of friends in the business. Sometimes people want things to get out, but they can't be known as the one who leaked it. Realize things are most often leaked in a manor that puts the hounds on a totally different scent trail. My sources trust me because, much to the dismay of those who demand their identity to substantiate the info, I won't reveal them. Ironically they include present and former SB AD's as well as people at CUSA schools. As I'm fond of saying, I don't know much, but I know a lot of people who do. I put the info out there, it's your choice to decide whether you agree or not. In this situation my media connections (I majored in Radio and Television Communications) are playing a big part in my position.

You certainly may be right and I don't know who you talk to or what the tenor of your conversations might be, but I do wonder how long ago those conversations took place and how much of what people say falls into the realm of wishful thinking. I'm sure most AD's would like to have a better option on the table than extending Idaho.

As the chess pieces stand on the board right now, however, one more 2-year extension seems like the smart play.

(10-30-2015 12:32 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 12:12 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 04:58 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 12:10 PM)rbarthle17 Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 11:56 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  We already pretty much hashed through this in this thread so I'll just say it doesn't make much sense for a G5 conference to go to 10 teams and 9 conference games.

It may not make sense to you, but I know AppManDG and he is rarely wrong when it comes to digging up dirt like this. I don't care for him personally at all but I wouldn't bet against him on his insights being correct. If he says he has insights that point towards 10 football teams by 2018, then we will likely have 10 football teams. The math then becomes simple.

I believe there are people on this board who know how their own schools' administrations may feel on this issue. So when a bunch of App fans all say they're hearing from their people that they're against an extension, I'm prepared to believe that's where App is.

But it's a majority vote, and I really doubt there are any posters wasting their time on this message board who know which way all the schools in the conference lean, or even a majority.

On the merits, the case for another 2-year extension still seems far, far stronger than the case against, for all the reasons that have already been outlined.

FYI, I have not spoken to anyone in the App Athletic Department about this. I don't have a clue what their position is. Having been around this stuff 30+ years I've been fortunate to make a lot of friends in the business. Sometimes people want things to get out, but they can't be known as the one who leaked it. Realize things are most often leaked in a manor that puts the hounds on a totally different scent trail. My sources trust me because, much to the dismay of those who demand their identity to substantiate the info, I won't reveal them. Ironically they include present and former SB AD's as well as people at CUSA schools. As I'm fond of saying, I don't know much, but I know a lot of people who do. I put the info out there, it's your choice to decide whether you agree or not. In this situation my media connections (I majored in Radio and Television Communications) are playing a big part in my position.

You certainly may be right and I don't know who you talk to or what the tenor of your conversations might be, but I do wonder how long ago those conversations took place and how much of what people say falls into the realm of wishful thinking. I'm sure most AD's would like to have a better option on the table than extending Idaho.

As the chess pieces stand on the board right now, however, one more 2-year extension seems like the smart play.

As recently as 3 weeks ago. It is a chess match and everyone's looking out for #1. However, my position is based on economics. If the money to fly the hop scotch team all over the country dries up, something has got to change.

(10-30-2015 12:38 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  As recently as 3 weeks ago. It is a chess match and everyone's looking out for #1. However, my position is based on economics. If the money to fly the hop scotch team all over the country dries up, something has got to change.

I don't get it. What big economic detriment comes with a football-only deal with Idaho? Especially when offset with the opportunity cost of making long-term commitments to middling FCS schools or going to 10 teams.

(10-30-2015 12:44 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 12:38 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  As recently as 3 weeks ago. It is a chess match and everyone's looking out for #1. However, my position is based on economics. If the money to fly the hop scotch team all over the country dries up, something has got to change.

I don't get it. What big economic detriment comes with a football-only deal with Idaho? Especially when offset with the opportunity cost of making long-term commitments to middling FCS schools or going to 10 teams.

Plane tickets count as a big detriment to some people.

You'd think they'd be concerned with getting enough teams into bowls - that's where schools stand to lose money. Keep Idaho and you either:

a.) Have one more team capable of making a bowl

-or-

b.) Have one more win to pad your record with

(10-30-2015 12:38 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 12:32 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 12:12 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 04:58 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 12:10 PM)rbarthle17 Wrote:  It may not make sense to you, but I know AppManDG and he is rarely wrong when it comes to digging up dirt like this. I don't care for him personally at all but I wouldn't bet against him on his insights being correct. If he says he has insights that point towards 10 football teams by 2018, then we will likely have 10 football teams. The math then becomes simple.

I believe there are people on this board who know how their own schools' administrations may feel on this issue. So when a bunch of App fans all say they're hearing from their people that they're against an extension, I'm prepared to believe that's where App is.

But it's a majority vote, and I really doubt there are any posters wasting their time on this message board who know which way all the schools in the conference lean, or even a majority.

On the merits, the case for another 2-year extension still seems far, far stronger than the case against, for all the reasons that have already been outlined.

FYI, I have not spoken to anyone in the App Athletic Department about this. I don't have a clue what their position is. Having been around this stuff 30+ years I've been fortunate to make a lot of friends in the business. Sometimes people want things to get out, but they can't be known as the one who leaked it. Realize things are most often leaked in a manor that puts the hounds on a totally different scent trail. My sources trust me because, much to the dismay of those who demand their identity to substantiate the info, I won't reveal them. Ironically they include present and former SB AD's as well as people at CUSA schools. As I'm fond of saying, I don't know much, but I know a lot of people who do. I put the info out there, it's your choice to decide whether you agree or not. In this situation my media connections (I majored in Radio and Television Communications) are playing a big part in my position.

You certainly may be right and I don't know who you talk to or what the tenor of your conversations might be, but I do wonder how long ago those conversations took place and how much of what people say falls into the realm of wishful thinking. I'm sure most AD's would like to have a better option on the table than extending Idaho.

As the chess pieces stand on the board right now, however, one more 2-year extension seems like the smart play.

As recently as 3 weeks ago. It is a chess match and everyone's looking out for #1. However, my position is based on economics. If the money to fly the hop scotch team all over the country dries up, something has got to change.

Just out of curiosity, what's the justification you are hearing for playing a round robin schedule with 10 teams? I can see why dropping Idaho/NMSU might make sense but taking away the extra OOC game that you get with an 8 game conference slate seems like the Sun Belt would be giving up on ever seriously competing with the other G5 conferences.

(10-30-2015 11:38 AM)ThaGinga Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 10:38 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 07:19 AM)The Black Flag Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 10:57 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  I have yet to see a good reason not to extend Idaho's term in the conference.

Apologies for being redundant at this point, but:

1. Again, I'm only talking through 2019, not forever.
2. Your top expansion candidates won't be ready to go by then, and it doesn't make sense to make full, forever commitments to schools you're only lukewarm on.
3. A 12 team conference is better than 10, both for scheduling purposes and as insurance against raids.
4. Idaho is no longer a performance drag on the field. This year we're above the median of the conference so far and probably more helpful than hurtful.

Another short-term extension is good for us and good for you.

I don't care if we keep Idaho forever or not. Just keep Liberty fans out of our conference. They bug the crap out of me.

looking at that map, there are just no schools to add between nmsu and idaho except maybe n. arizona. a pretty good school.

(10-30-2015 11:35 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 10:46 AM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  According to the wager... No.

AppManDG is saying we will be a 10 team football league.

Now, should realignment come and we lose teams, OBVIOUSLY that throws his prediction out of the window (or I would think so... maybe he thinks in 2017, we lose 2 teams to expansion!)

Correct. Ultimately I think there will be a reshuffling of schools between the Sunbelt and CUSA. It's been my opinion, since the Big East football schools morphed into the AAC and robbed CUSA of their marquee schools, their new TV contract will be significantly less than now and force many of their members to rethink the cost associated with playing in such a far flung conference. Big markets won't mean anything, but close conference mates will.

Think any such shuffle is a decade away when the next CFP deal is taking shape, unless the CUSA TV deal craters and I'm not going to speculate on that because I've yet to figure out what exactly Fox has in mind with their future deals. CBS may come in lower because they are getting MAC and AAC content so cheap.

The problem for Idaho and NMSU is the same problem UMass had when the MAC was negotiating its TV deal.
Their presence is revenue neutral and arguably departure is revenue neutral based on the claim the league withholds part of the CFP money to offset the travel cost going there.

Once Coastal is in the league has 10 countable members. A raid or some odd loss of a school (ie. UAB style) has to cost the league 3 members to invoke the grace period and has to take six to be a critical issue because Liberty, EKU, and Jacksonville State are already to go.

Critical thing to remember. Full members are equity members, they are your business partners you join with to associate with financially and competitive. This year AState does not play our partners Georgia Southern and Troy in football because we play NMSU and Idaho. That's two dates on our football schedule that do not reinforce the marketing of our basketball, baseball, volleyball schedules.

This isn't an SEC situation where there are more partners than there are reasonable playing dates, we are giving up 14 contests each year between equity partners to supply NMSU and Idaho with opponents.

Ignore the travel issue. It is annoying but it isn't going to drive the bus if there is benefit.

While I think the relationship isn't positive for CFP revenue sharing, that isn't going to drive the decision either.

It boils down to what we give up for what we receive.

This year and last AState gave up playing Troy, a game our fans normally care about. We gave up playing Georgia Southern, a game our fans don't care about and as a result that is bad, we are trying to build the conference brand with our fans and it won't be until GaSo's third year in the conference that our fans even see GaSo in the most followed sport. Next two years we give up App.

Now do I think a 9 game schedule is inevitable? No I don't. AState has no trouble scheduling four non-conference games and we are pretty comfortable with one for money, one buy at home and a pair of home/home. Going to 9 takes away a chance to do something notable in non-conference because we will keep one for money and likely keep an FCS giving us one date for a home/home series a date we have filled with Missouri, Miami, Iowa State, UNLV, Utah State, Tulsa, and SMU.

Going to 9 before 2020 puts us in a crack, so I don't expect AState to support a nine game schedule and I expect that if championship deregulation passes there were will be some interesting debates if we go to 10 over whether to play a title game or a 9 game schedule, I really doubt we would ever do both.

I expect the NMSU/Idaho agreement to end simply because there is no compelling reason for the Sun Belt to retain it.

(10-31-2015 12:10 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The problem for Idaho and NMSU is the same problem UMass had when the MAC was negotiating its TV deal.
Their presence is revenue neutral and arguably departure is revenue neutral based on the claim the league withholds part of the CFP money to offset the travel cost going there.

Once Coastal is in the league has 10 countable members. A raid or some odd loss of a school (ie. UAB style) has to cost the league 3 members to invoke the grace period and has to take six to be a critical issue because Liberty, EKU, and Jacksonville State are already to go.

Critical thing to remember. Full members are equity members, they are your business partners you join with to associate with financially and competitive. This year AState does not play our partners Georgia Southern and Troy in football because we play NMSU and Idaho. That's two dates on our football schedule that do not reinforce the marketing of our basketball, baseball, volleyball schedules.

This isn't an SEC situation where there are more partners than there are reasonable playing dates, we are giving up 14 contests each year between equity partners to supply NMSU and Idaho with opponents.

Ignore the travel issue. It is annoying but it isn't going to drive the bus if there is benefit.

While I think the relationship isn't positive for CFP revenue sharing, that isn't going to drive the decision either.

It boils down to what we give up for what we receive.

This year and last AState gave up playing Troy, a game our fans normally care about. We gave up playing Georgia Southern, a game our fans don't care about and as a result that is bad, we are trying to build the conference brand with our fans and it won't be until GaSo's third year in the conference that our fans even see GaSo in the most followed sport. Next two years we give up App.

Now do I think a 9 game schedule is inevitable? No I don't. AState has no trouble scheduling four non-conference games and we are pretty comfortable with one for money, one buy at home and a pair of home/home. Going to 9 takes away a chance to do something notable in non-conference because we will keep one for money and likely keep an FCS giving us one date for a home/home series a date we have filled with Missouri, Miami, Iowa State, UNLV, Utah State, Tulsa, and SMU.

Going to 9 before 2020 puts us in a crack, so I don't expect AState to support a nine game schedule and I expect that if championship deregulation passes there were will be some interesting debates if we go to 10 over whether to play a title game or a 9 game schedule, I really doubt we would ever do both.

I expect the NMSU/Idaho agreement to end simply because there is no compelling reason for the Sun Belt to retain it.

Thoughtful post. Thanks.

We seem to agree that a 9-game schedule for a 10-team league doesn't make sense. In a 10-team league with an 8-game schedule you're still skipping teams every year. If you have 12 teams and go to divisions with a CCG you can guarantee playing every team in your division every year. That seems like an offset to the marketing issue.

I may be in the minority, but I do like playing StAte. We've played you guys 10 times since 1998. There are a few Belt schools like that and I enjoy those games.

I also think you're discounting possible raids too much. WAC raids sure didn't stop at 3 schools. The WAC bled schools, year after year, until there was no one left to call up. The Belt has been doing that too, but so far the well hasn't run dry. It might.

(10-31-2015 11:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 11:35 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 10:46 AM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  According to the wager... No.

AppManDG is saying we will be a 10 team football league.

Now, should realignment come and we lose teams, OBVIOUSLY that throws his prediction out of the window (or I would think so... maybe he thinks in 2017, we lose 2 teams to expansion!)

Correct. Ultimately I think there will be a reshuffling of schools between the Sunbelt and CUSA. It's been my opinion, since the Big East football schools morphed into the AAC and robbed CUSA of their marquee schools, their new TV contract will be significantly less than now and force many of their members to rethink the cost associated with playing in such a far flung conference. Big markets won't mean anything, but close conference mates will.

Think any such shuffle is a decade away when the next CFP deal is taking shape, unless the CUSA TV deal craters and I'm not going to speculate on that because I've yet to figure out what exactly Fox has in mind with their future deals. CBS may come in lower because they are getting MAC and AAC content so cheap.

At this point, CBS at best will come in as a secondary to Fox on a new CUSA TV deal. Your right, they are getting MAC and AAC content at a very good price and they have their deal with the MWC.

I think Fox needs content, it is just a question of what price they pay for CUSA content? Probably not as much as CUSA is getting today from both Fox and CBS. But probably enough to make it work.

I don't see the reshuffling of the Sun Belt and CUSA. It sounds good in theory, but it would be very difficult to implement. Convincing a school to move to another conference and the affect on TV contracts are just a few hurdles. Part of moving up from FCS to FBS is increased travel and it is just something that a school has to adjust to.

(10-31-2015 12:10 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The problem for Idaho and NMSU is the same problem UMass had when the MAC was negotiating its TV deal.
Their presence is revenue neutral and arguably departure is revenue neutral based on the claim the league withholds part of the CFP money to offset the travel cost going there.

Once Coastal is in the league has 10 countable members. A raid or some odd loss of a school (ie. UAB style) has to cost the league 3 members to invoke the grace period and has to take six to be a critical issue because Liberty, EKU, and Jacksonville State are already to go.

Critical thing to remember. Full members are equity members, they are your business partners you join with to associate with financially and competitive. This year AState does not play our partners Georgia Southern and Troy in football because we play NMSU and Idaho. That's two dates on our football schedule that do not reinforce the marketing of our basketball, baseball, volleyball schedules.

This isn't an SEC situation where there are more partners than there are reasonable playing dates, we are giving up 14 contests each year between equity partners to supply NMSU and Idaho with opponents.

Ignore the travel issue. It is annoying but it isn't going to drive the bus if there is benefit.

While I think the relationship isn't positive for CFP revenue sharing, that isn't going to drive the decision either.

It boils down to what we give up for what we receive.

This year and last AState gave up playing Troy, a game our fans normally care about. We gave up playing Georgia Southern, a game our fans don't care about and as a result that is bad, we are trying to build the conference brand with our fans and it won't be until GaSo's third year in the conference that our fans even see GaSo in the most followed sport. Next two years we give up App.

Now do I think a 9 game schedule is inevitable? No I don't. AState has no trouble scheduling four non-conference games and we are pretty comfortable with one for money, one buy at home and a pair of home/home. Going to 9 takes away a chance to do something notable in non-conference because we will keep one for money and likely keep an FCS giving us one date for a home/home series a date we have filled with Missouri, Miami, Iowa State, UNLV, Utah State, Tulsa, and SMU.

Going to 9 before 2020 puts us in a crack, so I don't expect AState to support a nine game schedule and I expect that if championship deregulation passes there were will be some interesting debates if we go to 10 over whether to play a title game or a 9 game schedule, I really doubt we would ever do both.

I expect the NMSU/Idaho agreement to end simply because there is no compelling reason for the Sun Belt to retain it.

You're saying people go to volleyball and basketball games because of football? If that's true I have to assume the lady Red Wolves volleyball team is drawing at least half the crowd as a football game which would put it on par with attendance with national powerhouse Hawaii at like 9k a game.

Your piece about equity partners is flawed because football is a completely different animal than the other sports and it is handled differently. Football doesn't drive the bus, it paid for it, the maintenance and the terminal as well. It has driven the expansion and turmoil for all the conference moves thus far. You are willing to keep extra football teams around because if you kick the 2 western schools out then realignment starts up again the sun belt is going to get picked clean and every other sport is going to be at football's mercy, possibly leaving the SBC as the new WAC.

You can talk about Jax State and Liberty as ready, but if they were ready why didn't the Sun Belt grab them over CCU? There's only so many FCS programs that can move up and the SBC has already grabbed what, 4 teams, CUSA has grabbed 3, we're starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel how much lower do you want to go for the SBC to bet the conference's future on?

(11-01-2015 09:54 PM)nsavandal09 Wrote:  You're saying people go to volleyball and basketball games because of football? If that's true I have to assume the lady Red Wolves volleyball team is drawing at least half the crowd as a football game which would put it on par with attendance with national powerhouse Hawaii at like 9k a game.

Is that what I said? No it isn't you guys are so wound about the issue you are making really desperate stretches of arguments.

I said it it helps market those schedules, but if the best argument you have is to twist my argument to something else, y'all are really screwed.

Quote:Your piece about equity partners is flawed because football is a completely different animal than the other sports and it is handled differently. Football doesn't drive the bus, it paid for it, the maintenance and the terminal as well. It has driven the expansion and turmoil for all the conference moves thus far. You are willing to keep extra football teams around because if you kick the 2 western schools out then realignment starts up again the sun belt is going to get picked clean and every other sport is going to be at football's mercy, possibly leaving the SBC as the new WAC.

Unless you are joining as a full member you do NOTHING for us in a raid. NOTHING. Survival post raid hinges on having eight full members who are FBS. At least NMSU offers the potential to become a full member, Idaho does not.

Quote:You can talk about Jax State and Liberty as ready, but if they were ready why didn't the Sun Belt grab them over CCU? There's only so many FCS programs that can move up and the SBC has already grabbed what, 4 teams, CUSA has grabbed 3, we're starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel how much lower do you want to go for the SBC to bet the conference's future on?

Sun Belt isn't in survival mode. It is not our obligation to take any and everyone who knocks on the door. Nor is it our obligation to provide a home to institutions that previously indicated that they no longer desired membership and left for the better conference. If Sun Belt membership had been important back in 2004, the WAC would have gone out of the football membership much earlier and we all know that if something changes in the MWC that Idaho and NMSU will be off the Sun Belt bus as quickly as possible, I'm not sure how it is supposedly to our benefit to be a lifeline to one school that absolutely doesn't want to be here but for the fact there are no other choices for them and the other would like full membership again but can't get the votes.

(11-02-2015 12:10 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If Sun Belt membership had been important back in 2004, the WAC would have gone out of the football membership much earlier and we all know that if something changes in the MWC that Idaho and NMSU will be off the Sun Belt bus as quickly as possible, I'm not sure how it is supposedly to our benefit to be a lifeline to one school that absolutely doesn't want to be here but for the fact there are no other choices for them and the other would like full membership again but can't get the votes.

This bit isn't exactly fair since every other member of the conference would be out the door the second CUSA called. We may be here because we have "no other choices," but so are you.

Also, I'd bet in a raid situation if you forced our hands we'd become full members. It just isn't necessary now since the current arrangement is less expensive and more convenient for both parties.

I would say if you aren't in a solvent, strong prestigious conference you have to be in survival mode.

Also correct me if I'm wrong but the base number of conference teams doesn't matter if it is football or basketball, but the key is what is harder to find? Let's say next week another shift comes and we lose 5 football teams including the western teams. Now you need a FBS football team and those don't exactly grow on trees. Let's say you lose 5 programs but NMSU and Idaho stays, now you have a solvent football league and instead of picking from a pool of 128 FBS teams you need to grab one of 350 D1 teams. That's why I think the SBC is smart to hang on to some extra football teams. It's not costing you any money but it does greatly reduce the risk of losing a ton of money. I wish my insurance policy worked the same way.

Given the dire situation the Sun Belt faces Idaho fans are gluttons for danger.

(11-03-2015 12:12 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Given the dire situation the Sun Belt faces Idaho fans are gluttons for danger.