Is there any chance that UTEP would be interested in a Football Only membership with the SBC, while their Olympics move to a more Western based conference? (WAC, WCC, Big Sky, Big West).

This would mean dropping Idaho in football. From what I understand UTEP would make more money on the CFP payout because they would be in a 12 team league instead of 14, they would make similar TV money, have a great in conference rival in NMSU, and would save money on travel for their Olympic sports in their new conference. Makes sense to me, but I'm sure others may disagree.

No interest in that deal on either side.

(02-25-2016 11:28 AM)prisonmike Wrote:  Is there any chance that UTEP would be interested in a Football Only membership with the SBC, while their Olympics move to a more Western based conference? (WAC, WCC, Big Sky, Big West).

This would mean dropping Idaho in football. From what I understand UTEP would make more money on the CFP payout because they would be in a 12 team league instead of 14, they would make similar TV money, have a great in conference rival in NMSU, and would save money on travel for their Olympic sports in their new conference. Makes sense to me, but I'm sure others may disagree.

I don't think the Sun Belt should entertain any new football only members. All or nothing should be our philosophy including with UALR and UTA. (both given plenty of time to add football)

(02-25-2016 11:31 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  No interest in that deal on either side.

This. Plus UTEP and Rice are joined at the hip. Now if the MWC came calling...They'd listen.

(02-25-2016 11:28 AM)prisonmike Wrote:  Is there any chance that UTEP would be interested in a Football Only membership with the SBC, while their Olympics move to a more Western based conference? (WAC, WCC, Big Sky, Big West).

This would mean dropping Idaho in football. From what I understand UTEP would make more money on the CFP payout because they would be in a 12 team league instead of 14, they would make similar TV money, have a great in conference rival in NMSU, and would save money on travel for their Olympic sports in their new conference. Makes sense to me, but I'm sure others may disagree.

utep would not consider many of the sbc schools a peer and the increase of a few dollars of cfp revenue would not offset the loss of ticket sales for football and basketball games against the sbc lineup of teams. they would more than likely prefer to be in the mwc with western oriented schools in their timezone.

Yeah UTEP wants to go to the MWC. If for some chance in Hades they'd jump to the Belt, I'm sure CUSA, would just invite a Belt Member to join them. So we'd lose a full member to add a football only member.

(02-25-2016 11:49 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  I don't think the Sun Belt should entertain any new football only members. All or nothing should be our philosophy including with UALR and UTA. (both given plenty of time to add football)

This is one of the soundest ideas ever posted with regards to adds, and deletions.

As long as we are dreaming let's invite UTEP, Rice, ODU and Marshall.

(02-26-2016 02:11 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  As long as we are dreaming let's invite UTEP, Rice, ODU and Marshall.

The OP wasn't laying out a dream scenario, but rather an honest question about how UTEP would feel about that deal.

Besides the fact that you are kicking out Idaho for a mostly bad football only replacement this doesn't make sense.

Why not invite them to be NMSU's travel partner and upgrade basketball and the Sub belt.

I don't really understand the idea that NMSU is better for football only.
Idaho is 15-7 vs NMSU with two bowl wins since 98 NMSU has not played a bowl game in fifty plus years. Now full member they make sense and only a travel partner is holding them back. CUSA does have four Texas schools so its not all that bad of a fit for UTEP.

I think Idaho and NMSU will go bowling in 2016.
Winning six is all it takes these days.
So NMSU's lack of bowls is misleading they would have played with today's standards.