CSNbbs

Full Version: Football only invites unlikely
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
I just talked to someone in the Ga.Southern athletic department--not the AD but someone AD talks to. This person refused to give names of schools under consideration, saying several are in delicate positions in their present conference and would not like the information to become public. Here is basically what this person told me:

1. The Sun Belt is very reluctant to give anymore football only invites. It is not ruled out completely but very unlikely.
2. No guarantee but the Sun Belt is trying hard to get to 12 before June 1. That is the goal.
3. Talks are presently underway with at least 4 schools on joining the Sun Belt.
4. It is a balancing act getting the eastern and western schools to vote a new member in as each school has preferences, but it would not be unexpected to have 2 teams brought in this year.

Maybe that does not tell you much but it is all I could get.
(04-09-2014 01:20 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote: [ -> ]I just talked to someone in the Ga.Southern athletic department--not the AD but someone AD talks to. This person refused to give names of schools under consideration, saying several (Read: JMU) are in delicate positions in their present conference and would not like the information to become public. Here is basically what this person told me:

1. The Sun Belt is very reluctant to give anymore football only invites. It is not ruled out completely but very unlikely.
2. No guarantee but the Sun Belt is trying hard to get to 12 before June 1. That is the goal.
3. Talks are presently underway with at least 4 schools on joining the Sun Belt.
4. It is a balancing act getting the eastern and western schools to vote a new member in as each school has preferences, but it would not be unexpected to have 2 teams brought in this year.

Maybe that does not tell you much but it is all I could get.

Fixed for accuracy
I don't get the adding two teams idea. Unless one is Football only and the other is Olympic sports only. Why have uneven divisions when all four of the schools we are looking at are currently will still be there next year if someone leaves?
(04-09-2014 01:22 PM)asupatch Wrote: [ -> ]I don't get the adding two teams idea. Unless one is Football only and the other is Olympic sports only. Why have uneven divisions when all four of the schools we are looking at are currently will still be there next year if someone leaves?


Because you are not likely to get the Western half of the league to agree to only inviting an Eastern Member.
This "JMU to Sun Belt" just will not die.
(04-09-2014 01:26 PM)chiefsfan Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2014 01:22 PM)asupatch Wrote: [ -> ]I don't get the adding two teams idea. Unless one is Football only and the other is Olympic sports only. Why have uneven divisions when all four of the schools we are looking at are currently will still be there next year if someone leaves?


Because you are not likely to get the Western half of the league to agree to only inviting an Eastern Member.

They agreed to inviting two last year. And JMU or EKU or LU are all closer than Idaho to even the majority of the west schools.
(04-09-2014 01:37 PM)asupatch Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2014 01:26 PM)chiefsfan Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2014 01:22 PM)asupatch Wrote: [ -> ]I don't get the adding two teams idea. Unless one is Football only and the other is Olympic sports only. Why have uneven divisions when all four of the schools we are looking at are currently will still be there next year if someone leaves?


Because you are not likely to get the Western half of the league to agree to only inviting an Eastern Member.

They agreed to inviting two last year. And JMU or EKU or LU are all closer than Idaho to even the majority of the west schools.

That was because both App and GSU were replacing the Florida Schools...and frankly you guys make more sense than both teams.

Keep in mind the ultimate goal is go have 12 football playing schools, with no football only members. To do that, something has to be done about our two football only members. That means bringing in a West school at some point.
(04-09-2014 01:22 PM)asupatch Wrote: [ -> ]I don't get the adding two teams idea. Unless one is Football only and the other is Olympic sports only. Why have uneven divisions when all four of the schools we are looking at are currently will still be there next year if someone leaves?

If you can add members who improve the league, why would you turn them down in the pursuit of a magic number? Especially since you have two members who are football only and don't fit geographically.

I've been an advocate of NMSU all-sports since the collapse of the WAC but I also understand they are an impractical addition. As remote as JMU is from AState they are 300 miles closer than NMSU. Monroe is equidistant from JMU and NMSU and JMU is only 50 miles further from UL.

For my money, if I'm AD at AState, UALR, ULM, UL, I'd vote for JMU over NMSU because while JMU is a long way, they won't be in my division but NMSU would be.

Idaho's situation is not likely permanent. The last go-round playing a bunch of southern schools in the heart of the season wasn't good for their attendance nor in gaining the interest of western high school athletes. The Sun Belt is simply a waiting room to hope for something to break in the MWC but that's a very, very long shot.

Obviously in college athletics, the book value cost of Sun Belt membership really isn't that significant to Idaho but if fans can't get energized about the games that defeats the entire purpose of football. Over the next six years Idaho currently shows 10 non-conference games against western foes with three of those at home (plus an 8 mile road trip to WashSt). If the fans don't buy into it, staying will be pointless.
(04-09-2014 01:37 PM)asupatch Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2014 01:26 PM)chiefsfan Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2014 01:22 PM)asupatch Wrote: [ -> ]I don't get the adding two teams idea. Unless one is Football only and the other is Olympic sports only. Why have uneven divisions when all four of the schools we are looking at are currently will still be there next year if someone leaves?


Because you are not likely to get the Western half of the league to agree to only inviting an Eastern Member.

They agreed to inviting two last year. And JMU or EKU or LU are all closer than Idaho to even the majority of the west schools.

And we also added two western football only members at the same time and by all accounts the votes were contentious because of a western push for NMSU.
(04-09-2014 01:41 PM)chiefsfan Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2014 01:37 PM)asupatch Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2014 01:26 PM)chiefsfan Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-09-2014 01:22 PM)asupatch Wrote: [ -> ]I don't get the adding two teams idea. Unless one is Football only and the other is Olympic sports only. Why have uneven divisions when all four of the schools we are looking at are currently will still be there next year if someone leaves?


Because you are not likely to get the Western half of the league to agree to only inviting an Eastern Member.

They agreed to inviting two last year. And JMU or EKU or LU are all closer than Idaho to even the majority of the west schools.

That was because both App and GSU were replacing the Florida Schools...and frankly you guys make more sense than both teams.

Keep in mind the ultimate goal is go have 12 football playing schools, with no football only members. To do that, something has to be done about our two football only members. That means bringing in a West school at some point.

I agree with that. But why go to 13 now unless NMSU or IDAHO are getting their walking papers imminently? Who else is going to grab up Mo State or SHSU or (insert your favorite west option)?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Reference URL's