Won their game in good fashion. I'd add them to the Belt. Why not? Add them and sign a five year commitment from all current members.

(08-30-2012 11:10 PM)TXSTCAT Wrote:  Won their game in good fashion. I'd add them to the Belt. Why not? Add them and sign a five year commitment from all current members.

Been there. Done that. They didn't like it....we didn't like it.

They beat a fcs team that isn't average at best.

(08-30-2012 11:13 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 11:10 PM)TXSTCAT Wrote:  Won their game in good fashion. I'd add them to the Belt. Why not? Add them and sign a five year commitment from all current members.

Been there. Done that. They didn't like it....we didn't like it.

Yea but they just had a huge helping of humble pie and would probably be greatful to the SBC. Also bring good basketball. I don't care they played an average FBS team they won like they were supposed to. I watched the game and they played well.

"We" as a conference, should be beating FCS teams anyways 10 out of 10 times...we would benefit nothing by adding NMSU to our conference again but a long trip out in the middle of a desert. No thank you.

The eastern programs control the vote in the Sun Belt. You have a better chance of getting UTA to add football then you do of seeing NMSU join. The majority of Belt programs will never agree to add NMSU. The aggies are too far away from the eastern members, many Sun Belt budgets are thin, and the universities can't or are not willing to increase their travel expenses. Texas will remain an island in the Sun Belt.

No thanks. With Denver out of the picture we are a true regional conference. Now universities won't have to spend big bucks sending teams out west any more. The exception being Texas State and FAU, sorry guys/gals.

(08-30-2012 11:34 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  The eastern programs control the vote in the Sun Belt. You have a better chance of getting UTA to add football then you do of seeing NMSU join. The majority of Belt programs will never agree to add NMSU. The aggies are too far away from the eastern members, many Sun Belt budgets are thin, and the universities can't or are not willing to increase their travel expenses. Texas will remain an island in the Sun Belt.

I'd be fine with adding a decent Texas program. New Mexico State just didn't fit.

(08-30-2012 11:40 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(08-30-2012 11:34 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  The eastern programs control the vote in the Sun Belt. You have a better chance of getting UTA to add football then you do of seeing NMSU join. The majority of Belt programs will never agree to add NMSU. The aggies are too far away from the eastern members, many Sun Belt budgets are thin, and the universities can't or are not willing to increase their travel expenses. Texas will remain an island in the Sun Belt.

I'd be fine with adding a decent Texas program. New Mexico State just didn't fit.

Yep. Very happy to have Texas State but NMSU is too far. If we aren't adding App. St. then we might as well sit tight.

I don't care what the eastern block of SBC members say, I am all for NMSU being added. I say add them, App. State and Ga. Southern and then transition UTA to full membership. The divisional arrangements would give all eastern and western schools close divisional partners with each having one far away team - NMSU in the west and FAU in the east.

Subsidize all our travel costs? Welcome aboard then. Otherwise, it makes no sense.

(08-31-2012 10:48 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  I don't care what the eastern block of SBC members say, I am all for NMSU being added. I say add them, App. State and Ga. Southern and then transition UTA to full membership. The divisional arrangements would give all eastern and western schools close divisional partners with each having one far away team - NMSU in the west and FAU in the east.

Unfortunately, this should have never been allowed. The founding members of the Sun Belt Conference Football should have more say in which direction the conference moves over any new member or new FBS program. They do not have the best interest of Western Sun Belt programs in mind. Sadly, Bruno, Savoie and Welch have abdicated their authority to Benson.

(08-30-2012 11:34 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  The eastern programs control the vote in the Sun Belt. You have a better chance of getting UTA to add football then you do of seeing NMSU join. The majority of Belt programs will never agree to add NMSU. The aggies are too far away from the eastern members, many Sun Belt budgets are thin, and the universities can't or are not willing to increase their travel expenses. Texas will remain an island in the Sun Belt.

That's pretty much what I've seen since joining this board several years ago. I understand that part of the Sun Belt's selling point is it's regional footprint.

New Mexico doesn't seem that far away because Texans regularly travel to New Mexico and Colorado for vacations. Its only 8 hours from San Marcos (which is closer than everyone but UL and ULM)
Adding teams in the Carolinas and Virginia does as much for me as adding a New Mexico school does for the eastern schools.

When the argument ends with "Why not?" I think the first problem is identified.

The argument should be Why.

I like NMSU, ASU and the Aggies had some incredible games, but I don't see why ASU should slog a thousand miles out there.

They aren't going to boost us in the ratings, aren't going to sell tickets at our place, don't command an audience that drives TV interest.

If they were a small market program 500 miles closer, they make some sense but I just don't see the benefit.

As long as we don't add Ga Southern, I have heard enough from them.

I would be okay with adding New Mexico State... only when they finally acquire a good football program. I believe if they start getting good in football, the Sun Belt will take them..

(08-31-2012 10:48 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  I don't care what the eastern block of SBC members say, I am all for NMSU being added. I say add them, App. State and Ga. Southern and then transition UTA to full membership. The divisional arrangements would give all eastern and western schools close divisional partners with each having one far away team - NMSU in the west and FAU in the east.

Agreed. They make our basketball product better. They're not transitional FBS either.

(08-31-2012 10:48 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  I don't care what the eastern block of SBC members say, I am all for NMSU being added. I say add them, App. State and Ga. Southern and then transition UTA to full membership. The divisional arrangements would give all eastern and western schools close divisional partners with each having one far away team - NMSU in the west and FAU in the east.

Huh? Close divisonal partners?

Monroe to Las Cruces is about 966 miles. That's almost as far as it is from Monroe to Boca Raton (988 miles).

Monroe to Bowling Green is only 525 miles. Monroe to Atlanta is 502. All of the far flung eastern division schools (except FAU) that You think are too far away to be a "close divisional partner" are closer than NMST.

I like NMSU, but the prospect of UTA starting football in the SBC makes a lot more sense to me and would give SBC football some exposure in the DFW metroplex.

(08-31-2012 05:45 PM)tux Wrote:  I like NMSU, but the prospect of UTA starting football in the SBC makes a lot more sense to me and would give SBC football some exposure in the DFW metroplex.

I agree, but the problem is, if UTA ever added football the MWC would come in and snatch them up. They want back in Texas. They are just waiting for the right addition.