I posted this in another thread, but I'll say it again:

I have yet to see a good reason not to extend Idaho's term in the conference.

The program is clearly back on the upswing from the rock-bottom conference turmoil years of 2011-2013 and will likely help the conference football strength going forward. There are no obvious App and Georgia Southern-like FCS candidates available, and we're about to absorb another FCS call-up -- do you want to keep doing that with lesser and lesser schools and cement the conference's reputation as the constant-turnover FCS startup league? Going to 10 teams leaves you vulnerable to raids. Plus, it's football so who cares about one long road trip every 2-4 years?

At some point you may have another more regional school that's clearly a better fit. This is not that point, so why have turnover just for the sake of turnover? Stability is a good thing.

Going back into the wilderness would be horrible for our program, and we're going to help the conference more than any other viable candidate in the near future, both from a football and public perception standpoint. Giving Idaho at least another 4 years in the conference makes abundant good sense for all parties.

For me it was never competition, it was always geography

I respectfully disagree with the original post.

(10-25-2015 10:58 AM)GaSouthern Wrote:  For me it was never competition, it was always geography

I get that argument, but wouldn't it be good to wait until there's actually a great fit who wants to join the conference rather than talk yourselves into lesser schools? Also, this conference needs to go a few years without turnover for a change.

Locking in for 4 years is too long. The conference needs to have the flexibility to replace quickly if preferred regional programs show an interest in moving.

(10-25-2015 11:05 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  Locking in for 4 years is too long. The conference needs to have the flexibility to replace quickly if preferred regional programs show an interest in moving.

You'd still have that. I'm talking about keeping Idaho through 2019, rather than 2017. Unless Mo. St. or JMU change their minds in the next few months then realistically 2019 is the earliest they could become full conference members. Coastal won't be full, bowl-eligible members until 2018.

Competiveness < Geography = Big Sky

This isn't meant to be mean, and I am glad that Idaho has improved.

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.

NO!

(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.

Oh, I'm not taking it personally and I'm grateful for the lifeline. I just think they're wrong. Geography would matter a lot more if we were talking olympic sports, but it's just football.

If you all want to keep reaching deeper and deeper into FCS rather than keep us around until you get the right fit that's your business. I just think it's a bad long-term decision for everybody. Be careful about making forever commitments to schools with little growth potential.

The conference is fine as it is, so the only ting the stability you speak of benefits is Idaho.

On the flip side, the Sun Belt is in no danger of losing Idaho. There are no other suitors out there for them except for the Big Sky which I think we all agree is not going to happen. And, it handcuffs the Sun Belt by limiting flexibility in moving quickly if a better option comes up.

I hate it for Idaho, but that's a one sided deal.

(10-25-2015 11:49 AM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  The conference is fine as it is, so the only ting the stability you speak of benefits is Idaho.

On the flip side, the Sun Belt is in no danger of losing Idaho. There are no other suitors out there for them except for the Big Sky which I think we all agree is not going to happen. And, it handcuffs the Sun Belt by limiting flexibility in moving quickly if a better option comes up.

I hate it for Idaho, but that's a one sided deal.

This is all true if the plan is to drop Idaho/NMSU and replace them with nobody. I'm unclear what the benefit of doing that would be, other than making the conference a little more vulnerable to raids.

If the plan is to replace Idaho/NMSU with FCS schools you all are lukewarm about that seems like a bad decision to me.

Alright, it's time to insert some sanity into the conversation.

The benefit of having Idaho in the SunBelt was a warm body, nothing more. We needed them and they needed us. That crisis has now passed.

Conference realignment is likely over for the foreseeable future. The phenomenal success of both App State and Georgia Southern, who will both go bowling their first year eligible, is a demonstration to those FCS programs who may have been on the fence about moving up to FBS, that the SunBelt is a viable alternative to just staying put. Any number of FCS callups would still be superior from the standpoint of fan-interest, potential rivalry, like-minded regional institutions which is normally the glue that holds together a conference.

Idaho may be turning the corner in football and I'm happy for the fanbase if that's the case. But can anyone honestly say that a single one of our bowl tie-in Grand Muftis would be pleased to learn that they would have Idaho on the venue as their SunBelt rep?

Sorry, but Boise State you're not. Having said that, if everything's as rosy as suggested, perhaps the Pac-12 would be interested.

(10-25-2015 12:29 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  Alright, it's time to insert some sanity into the conversation.

The benefit of having Idaho in the SunBelt was a warm body, nothing more. We needed them and they needed us. That crisis has now passed.

Conference realignment is likely over for the foreseeable future. The phenomenal success of both App State and Georgia Southern, who will both go bowling their first year eligible, is a demonstration to those FCS programs who may have been on the fence about moving up to FBS, that the SunBelt is a viable alternative to just staying put. Any number of FCS callups would still be superior from the standpoint of fan-interest, potential rivalry, like-minded regional institutions which is normally the glue that holds together a conference.

Idaho may be turning the corner in football and I'm happy for the fanbase if that's the case. But can anyone honestly say that a single one of our bowl tie-in Grand Muftis would be pleased to learn that they would have Idaho on the venue as their SunBelt rep?

Sorry, but Boise State you're not. Having said that, if everything's as rosy as suggested, perhaps the Pac-12 would be interested.

I didn't say things were rosy. I said we don't stink and aren't going to drag down the conference on the field.

Who are these "any number of FCS callups"? I'm sure Idaho doesn't compete well with whatever dream candidates you all may have in your heads, but in the real world, what schools are going to be ready, willing and able to be full conference members by 2019 that you all will be excited to welcome into the Belt?

As far as bowl tie-ins, I'm 99% certain that the only bowl we'd ever get invited to is the one in Boise unless the Belt were out of bowl-eligible teams. So what difference does that make? If I'm someone like Texas State I'm just happy I'm not competing for invites with more attractive Belt schools.

(10-25-2015 12:29 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  The phenomenal success of both App State and Georgia Southern, who will both go bowling their first year eligible, is a demonstration to those FCS programs who may have been on the fence about moving up to FBS, that the SunBelt is a viable alternative to just staying put.

Also, if this part is true then don't you want to give those schools you actually want time to get off the fence rather than filling the conference with whoever may be available right now?

(10-25-2015 12:39 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  I didn't say things were rosy. I said we don't stink and aren't going to drag down the conference on the field.

Who are these "any number of FCS callups"? I'm sure Idaho doesn't compete well with whatever dream candidates you all may have in your heads, but in the real world, what schools are going to be ready, willing and able to be full conference members by 2019 that you all will be excited to welcome into the Belt?

As far as bowl tie-ins, I'm 99% certain that the only bowl we'd ever get invited to is the one in Boise unless the Belt were out of bowl-eligible teams. So what difference does that make? If I'm someone like Texas State I'm just happy I'm not competing for invites with more attractive Belt schools.

No need to be offended, I'm not knocking Idaho athletics.

In my view, NMSU as a full member would be a better addition than holding on to Idaho for 4 or more extra years. EKU obviously wants to join the SunBelt and would be a better add in my opinion. JMU would be a solid add and there's no way of knowing with certainty what the future holds from their standpoint. I can think of a Southland Conference team or two that would be solid adds in olympic sports and promote the concept of regional rivalries, which I obviously believe are important.

For the record, I'm not in favor of the Belt adding anyone at this time. But to lobby on behalf of Idaho football as somehow being good for the SunBelt, is an argument I'm incapable of making no matter the turnaround in your football fortunes.

(10-25-2015 10:57 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  I posted this in another thread, but I'll say it again:

I have yet to see a good reason not to extend Idaho's term in the conference.

The program is clearly back on the upswing from the rock-bottom conference turmoil years of 2011-2013 and will likely help the conference football strength going forward. There are no obvious App and Georgia Southern-like FCS candidates available, and we're about to absorb another FCS call-up -- do you want to keep doing that with lesser and lesser schools and cement the conference's reputation as the constant-turnover FCS startup league? Going to 10 teams leaves you vulnerable to raids. Plus, it's football so who cares about one long road trip every 2-4 years?

At some point you may have another more regional school that's clearly a better fit. This is not that point, so why have turnover just for the sake of turnover? Stability is a good thing.

Going back into the wilderness would be horrible for our program, and we're going to help the conference more than any other viable candidate in the near future, both from a football and public perception standpoint. Giving Idaho at least another 4 years in the conference makes abundant good sense for all parties.

Not even a SBC member and already giving advice. You sure CCU isn't a Gaso extension school?

(10-25-2015 01:12 PM)JoeJag Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 10:57 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  I posted this in another thread, but I'll say it again:

I have yet to see a good reason not to extend Idaho's term in the conference.

The program is clearly back on the upswing from the rock-bottom conference turmoil years of 2011-2013 and will likely help the conference football strength going forward. There are no obvious App and Georgia Southern-like FCS candidates available, and we're about to absorb another FCS call-up -- do you want to keep doing that with lesser and lesser schools and cement the conference's reputation as the constant-turnover FCS startup league? Going to 10 teams leaves you vulnerable to raids. Plus, it's football so who cares about one long road trip every 2-4 years?

At some point you may have another more regional school that's clearly a better fit. This is not that point, so why have turnover just for the sake of turnover? Stability is a good thing.

Going back into the wilderness would be horrible for our program, and we're going to help the conference more than any other viable candidate in the near future, both from a football and public perception standpoint. Giving Idaho at least another 4 years in the conference makes abundant good sense for all parties.

Not even a SBC member and already giving advice. You sure CCU isn't a Gaso extension school?

You know the guy you quoted is an Idaho guy, right?

I don't think any fan from Coastal has posted on this thread.

(10-25-2015 01:11 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 12:39 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  I didn't say things were rosy. I said we don't stink and aren't going to drag down the conference on the field.

Who are these "any number of FCS callups"? I'm sure Idaho doesn't compete well with whatever dream candidates you all may have in your heads, but in the real world, what schools are going to be ready, willing and able to be full conference members by 2019 that you all will be excited to welcome into the Belt?

As far as bowl tie-ins, I'm 99% certain that the only bowl we'd ever get invited to is the one in Boise unless the Belt were out of bowl-eligible teams. So what difference does that make? If I'm someone like Texas State I'm just happy I'm not competing for invites with more attractive Belt schools.

No need to be offended, I'm not knocking Idaho athletics.

In my view, NMSU as a full member would be a better addition than holding on to Idaho for 4 or more extra years. EKU obviously wants to join the SunBelt and would be a better add in my opinion. JMU would be a solid add and there's no way of knowing with certainty what the future holds from their standpoint. I can think of a Southland Conference team or two that would be solid adds in olympic sports and promote the concept of regional rivalries, which I obviously believe are important.

For the record, I'm not in favor of the Belt adding anyone at this time. But to lobby on behalf of Idaho football as somehow being good for the SunBelt, is an argument I'm incapable of making no matter the turnaround in your football fortunes.

It's obviously not a match made in heaven. I'm saying keeping Idaho a while longer is the best way to keep your options open and it helps us in the process.

I don't know enough about EKU to make a firm judgment, but location, resources and track record don't seem to suggest they're a slam dunk invite. There must be an internal reason why NMSU isn't already a full member -- they've certainly been available. And as far as JMU goes, keeping Idaho until 2019 seems like it would be good for their timetable.

I'm just saying why invite someone as a full member unless you're absolutely sure? You seem to agree with that.

(10-25-2015 11:44 AM)LatahCounty 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.

Oh, I'm not taking it personally and I'm grateful for the lifeline. I just think they're wrong. Geography would matter a lot more if we were talking olympic sports, but it's just football.

If you all want to keep reaching deeper and deeper into FCS rather than keep us around until you get the right fit that's your business. I just think it's a bad long-term decision for everybody. Be careful about making forever commitments to schools with little growth potential.

Apologies to CCU fans, Must still be hungover from last night's drubbing of South Alabama and all of that wind, rain and emply seats at Bobcat Stadium.