(03-26-2014 11:56 AM)panama Wrote:  FBS > FCS period.

And by the way, the Idaho AD saying BCS should create their own Division onto themselves is on an island by himself. We all know the deal. We have thrown our hats in the ring in the hopes that one day (however far off that may be) we will be Boise State, TCU or Louisville.

Based on? Could Georgia State beat NDSU right now? Do you get more press? Make more of a profit? Let's be real here, the line between the top of FCS & the bottom of FBS is pretty thin these days. You can convince yourself otherwise but hey, it is what it is. As I said in another post, you'd be hard pressed to find many people that are more familiar with Sunbelt teams (outside of the immediate area of the school) as does NDSU right now. And, there's a good possibility that if they lined up that they could beat every team in the conference on the field. That's why they're not exactly in a hurry to try to jump for the possibility to play in the New Orleans Bowl.

(03-26-2014 02:01 PM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  

(03-22-2014 03:07 PM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  My $ is that it will be a school that has not been mentioned in this thread.

Just a feeling.

@McMurphyESPN: UMass offered full membership to MAC last month & declined, so now must exit after 2 more years, sources told @ESPN

Hmmmm.....

so where is that JMU to the MAC is imminent thread again?

(03-26-2014 02:15 PM)Check Yosef Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:11 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 01:36 PM)Check Yosef Wrote:  I don't know how many posts I read with outdated information and thoughts... Listen this ain't your daddy's sun belt and it ain't even your 3 years ago sun belt, the difference between the SBC and the other g5 performance wise has narrowed to the point where it may as well not exist, in a couple years the same will be with tv revenue and bowl tie ins, it's really silly also that the other g5 think we will jump on an invite when the majority of teams that left the SBC were par to sub par


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're delusional. There's still quite a big difference... there's the Sunbelt, CUSA & the MAC...and then there's the AAC & the MWC. In a couple of years the tv revenue and bowl tie ins will still be the same as they are now... there isn't going to be any more major shifting so who exactly is going to be giving out more money to conferences? Weren't the bowl tie ins just redone last year too? I think you'll realize the difference when you see a 11-1 Sunbelt team not get in that access game where as a 11-1 AAC or MWC team will. And that's just speaking of football, basketball....that's a wholeeeeeeeeeee different story. When it comes to the G5 on that one there's pretty much the AAC --------------> everyone else.

I will give AAC they are imbetween g and p mwc not really, and the tie ins and tv will indeed change


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let's see...the AAC is losing Rutgers to the Big 10, Louisville to the ACC...may lose Cincinnati and another member to the Big 12...
Connecticut will eventually get in somewhere else...
The distance between the AAC and the other peer conferences is and will continue to decrease.

(03-26-2014 12:36 PM)Campaign4Liberty Wrote:  I see we're all warming up to the JMU invite story, yet I was crucified for breaking the news 3 weeks ago.

Wow. Kinda funny seeing this from a Liberty fan. JF Sr. is rolling in his grave.

JMU to the MAC seems more likely now than ever.

(03-25-2014 07:33 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 04:03 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  Can't see how anyone would object to a plan to get JMU and NMSU all sports and MSU in 2015. I'm not an SBC president... But this plan has something good for everyone in my opinion.

From the Little Rock perspective, we would love it. NM's basketball history is even better than WKUs. Only negative is that we would be back to spreading across most of the continent.

NMST would be a great add to the basketball in the SBC and while their history is impressive I think you are off a little bit on that statement.

Western ranks higher in 20 win seasons, conference championships, total wins, average winning%, NCAA bids, and NCAA tourney winning%

WKU 93 Years, 1692-855, .664 W-L%
NMST 104 Years, 1407-1034, .576 W-L%

WKU NCAA Tournament: 23 Years (19-24), 1 Final Four, 0 Championships
NMST NCAA Tournament: 21 Years (10-23), 1 Final Four, 0 Championships

WKU Conference Champion: 28 Times (Reg. Seas.), 19 Times (Tourn.)
NMST Conference Champion: 15 Times (Reg. Seas.), 8 Times (Tourn.)

WKU Ranked in AP Poll: 4 Times (Preseason), 11 Times (Final), 111 Weeks (Total)
NMST Ranked in AP Poll: 2 Times (Preseason), 5 Times (Final), 64 Weeks (Total)

WKU 7 NCAA wins since NMST last won 1

If we are only going by the last 2 to 4 years I could see that but I think you know that was a historical down period for Western that has since been corrected. But like I said NMST and their history would be a great add to the SBC for basketball. As a matter of fact the SBC couldn't get a better add.

(03-26-2014 02:19 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 11:56 AM)panama Wrote:  FBS > FCS period.

And by the way, the Idaho AD saying BCS should create their own Division onto themselves is on an island by himself. We all know the deal. We have thrown our hats in the ring in the hopes that one day (however far off that may be) we will be Boise State, TCU or Louisville.

Based on? Could Georgia State beat NDSU right now? Do you get more press? Make more of a profit? Let's be real here, the line between the top of FCS & the bottom of FBS is pretty thin these days. You can convince yourself otherwise but hey, it is what it is. As I said in another post, you'd be hard pressed to find many people that are more familiar with Sunbelt teams (outside of the immediate area of the school) as does NDSU right now. And, there's a good possibility that if they lined up that they could beat every team in the conference on the field. That's why they're not exactly in a hurry to try to jump for the possibility to play in the New Orleans Bowl.

Being FBS is better than being FCS. Period. I believe the top of FCS and bottom of FBS are virtually the same, but being the top of FCS has little payoff, and you have to start the climb of being relevant in FBS somewhere.

(03-26-2014 02:35 PM)knucklehead Wrote:  JMU to the MAC seems more likely now than ever.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...er-sources

(03-26-2014 02:01 PM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  

(03-22-2014 03:07 PM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  My $ is that it will be a school that has not been mentioned in this thread.

Just a feeling.

@McMurphyESPN: UMass offered full membership to MAC last month & declined, so now must exit after 2 more years, sources told @ESPN

Hmmmm.....

So in '15, NMSU gets full membership and JMU gets football only; And in '16, MoSt gets full membership w/ UMass as football only?

Why does the SB want 14 or 15 fooball teams?

Quote from http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...015-season

Sources told ESPN it is unlikely the MAC would seek additional members.

(03-26-2014 03:49 PM)TardisCaptain Wrote:  Quote from http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...015-season

Sources told ESPN it is unlikely the MAC would seek additional members.

Which makes sense since they are back at 12 members.

Where would UMASS go now? Does the AAC invite UMASS and JMU to get to 12?


East

Central Florida
Connecticut
East Carolina
James Madison
Massachussets
South Florida
Temple


West

Cincinnati
Houston
Southern Methodist
Tulane
Tulsa
Memphis

(03-26-2014 03:49 PM)TardisCaptain Wrote:  Quote from http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...015-season

Sources told ESPN it is unlikely the MAC would seek additional members.

All this does is give us the "why" JMU is talking with the SBC about membership. MAC has no reason to take move ups and will stay at 12. We however, need a 12th team and UMASS needs a home for football. JMU is at risk of losing out. I've said all along that JMU's decision was FBS or stay where they are. I honestly don't know what that ultimate decison will be, but the are now smoked out of their hole and we will know soon enough.

Like all the G5 conferences, there is little value in going more than 12, now, we have a good all-sports candidate and an FBS team to choose from, tables are turned and we have some juice. My thought is you take the all-sports option, as UMASS could be a temporary relationship should the AAC decide to add them all-sports... I'd think they would leave the A10 for that. Maybe.

(03-26-2014 04:27 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 03:49 PM)TardisCaptain Wrote:  Quote from http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...015-season

Sources told ESPN it is unlikely the MAC would seek additional members.

Which makes sense since they are back at 12 members.

Where would UMASS go now? Does the AAC invite UMASS and JMU to get to 12?


East

Central Florida
Connecticut
East Carolina
James Madison
Massachussets
South Florida
Temple


West

Cincinnati
Houston
Southern Methodist
Tulane
Tulsa
Memphis

Army and Umass make more sense.

(03-26-2014 04:27 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 03:49 PM)TardisCaptain Wrote:  Quote from http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...015-season

Sources told ESPN it is unlikely the MAC would seek additional members.

Which makes sense since they are back at 12 members.

Where would UMASS go now? Does the AAC invite UMASS and JMU to get to 12?


East

Central Florida
Connecticut
East Carolina
James Madison
Massachussets
South Florida
Temple


West

Cincinnati
Houston
Southern Methodist
Tulane
Tulsa
Memphis

Navy is joining the AAC in 2015.

I still dont understand why some people think WKU kept NMST out as a full member when WKU voted for them to join as a basketball program in 2000. As a basketball first school it makes very little sense for WKU to vote against them. On the other hand when you look at the direction the NMST basketball program took after joining the SBC (wins while in the SBC 14, 20, 20, 13 and 6) and the direction they took after joining the WAC 6 out of 9 seasons with 22+ wins (4 out of last 5) there is a reason they might not want to be in the SBC for all sports. But either way it makes zero sense (at least to me) for WKU to vote against adding another basketball first program...and a strong one at that.

(03-26-2014 04:56 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  I still dont understand why some people think WKU kept NMST out as a full member when WKU voted for them to join as a basketball program in 2000. As a basketball first school it makes very little sense for WKU to vote against them. On the other hand when you look at the direction the NMST basketball program took after joining the SBC (wins while in the SBC 14, 20, 20, 13 and 6) and the direction they took after joining the WAC 6 out of 9 seasons with 22+ wins (4 out of last 5) there is a reason they might not want to be in the SBC for all sports. But either way it makes zero sense (at least to me) for WKU to vote against adding another basketball first program...and a strong one at that.

I can tell you several WKU fans were very much against bringing NMSU in at all when they were originally discussed on here.

From your President's perspective. Why bring in another team that you are going to have to fly to, that would immediately challenge you for top team in the conference?

(03-26-2014 04:56 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  I still dont understand why some people think WKU kept NMST out as a full member when WKU voted for them to join as a basketball program in 2000. As a basketball first school it makes very little sense for WKU to vote against them. On the other hand when you look at the direction the NMST basketball program took after joining the SBC (wins while in the SBC 14, 20, 20, 13 and 6) and the direction they took after joining the WAC 6 out of 9 seasons with 22+ wins (4 out of last 5) there is a reason they might not want to be in the SBC for all sports. But either way it makes zero sense (at least to me) for WKU to vote against adding another basketball first program...and a strong one at that.

Heard from more than one insider that WKU balked at NMSU all-sports. WKU did vote to add them last time, maybe the WKU position was that the boost was insufficent to warrant the travel?

But speaking against wouldn't matter if everyone else voted yes. At least two others voted no.

(03-26-2014 04:27 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 03:49 PM)TardisCaptain Wrote:  Quote from http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...015-season

Sources told ESPN it is unlikely the MAC would seek additional members.

Which makes sense since they are back at 12 members.

Where would UMASS go now? Does the AAC invite UMASS and JMU to get to 12?


East

Central Florida
Connecticut
East Carolina
James Madison
Massachussets
South Florida
Temple


West

Cincinnati
Houston
Southern Methodist
Tulane
Tulsa
Memphis

AAC already has 12 members starting in 2015. Adding UMASS and JMU would bring them to 14.

(03-26-2014 11:43 PM)SpiritCymbal Wrote:  AAC already has 12 members starting in 2015. Adding UMASS and JMU would bring them to 14.

Banowsky has publicly said he wants more, so I could see AAC at 14. Also could see the MAC at 14 by 2016 and that time frame might line up with JMU's. JMU doesn't seem in a hurry.