(10-25-2015 11:31 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 11:29 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 11:22 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 11:17 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 09:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Idaho and NMSU do nothing for meeting the minimum numbers.

The NCAA rule is EIGHT FULL members who play in the conference.

Really? I thought if you didn't field 8 football teams for a certain period of time you got your FBS status stripped. It happened to the WAC.

You have to have 8 full members to be a viable league. You have to have 8 FBS football members to have FBS football. The thing is on Football is that there is a grace period to allow an existing FBS league time to reach the needed membership numbers. Even in a 10 team situation in which the SBC lost 3 football playing members to another league...the Conference would have a grace period in which to find an 8th member, and there are plenty of FCS schools still willing to move.

What killed the WAC was not just the MWC expanding and taking most of the members, it was the FCS teams in the area like Montana and Montana State deciding not to accept the open invitation to join. That's not an issue in the South where there are multiple schools who have openly talked about moving up.

You might be right, but the FCS schools in the WAC area were a lot more interested in moving into a healthy WAC than they were when the WAC became unstable. I know we talked to some of the same Texas schools that get mentioned here and they said no.

I think the difference is the geographic stability of the league. Lets say Arkansas State, ULL, and Texas State were to leave for another league. Than the Eastern schools like Liberty and Eastern Kentucky are being invited to join a conference of former FCS members, who happen to be likeminded schools in a tight Geographical alignment.

The WAC near its demise was a mess Geographically, Schools were playing games in California, Texas, Idaho, and Louisiana. Such a scenario doesn't exist here.

I agree, the Belt is in a lot less danger than the WAC was but if you drop down to 10 football and then get raided you'll be in a position of weakness where you're forced to make a much more permanent arrangement than you have with Idaho with a school you may not really want, like Liberty (not picking on Liberty but it's been amply demonstrated that Belt schools aren't interested). A fencesitter like JMU is not going to come down off the fence during a raid situation.

I'm not saying Idaho and the Belt should get married. I'm just saying there's no reason to stop dating.

(10-25-2015 11:26 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 11:18 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 11:13 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 10:51 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 09:49 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  So each school in the SBC lost $3 million in CFP money this year because Idaho and NMSU are members?

No, every time NMSU or Idaho has a poor year (Which is almost every year) we get hurt in the race for the Top G5 conference. Potentially, that could cost us up to 3 million.

Putting aside the fact that Idaho is currently 4th in the conference standings, this statement puts waaaay too much responsibility on 2 schools.

So the difference between 1st and 5th is $3 million per conference, correct? 2 bad schools can hurt in the standings, but I seriously doubt any 2 schools, all by themselves, are ever going to be capable of dragging any conference from the top all the way to the bottom. So it's never going to be $3 million.

And forgive me, but this conference doesn't consist of Alabama, Auburn, Ohio State, Notre Dame, USC, Idaho and NMSU. The Sun Belt is a few schools that just moved up from FCS, a few schools that just started their football programs, and a few schools that have been hanging around the lower levels of D1 a long time. Idaho has no reason to hang its head in this company and I don't expect to hurt the conference on the field.

I'm more or less discussing the theory behind it. NMSU hasn't made a bowl since the Cold War was still a thing. We can pretty much guess they are going to be terrible almost every year. While schools like Georgia State and in recent years Troy and ULM have had some terrible years, the potential is far greater for all of those schools based on their location in a hot recruiting market, and in the case of Troy, a history of success.

We're going to have bad teams every year...but would the rest of the leagues full members be able to achieve a bowl at a more often interval than an Idaho or NMSU is the real question here.

I like Idaho's capacity for growth better than NMSU's at this point, but Idaho has a slight problem in that it is well...in Idaho. That's a lot of money SBC schools are spending on travel, and in a divisional alignment when every Western School is guaranteed a trip to Idaho every other year...I could see a lot more complaints than the current round robin where everybody rotates off Idaho at some point.

I'll leave it to someone else to defend NMSU's football product, but Idaho wins when it's in stable situations. And we have plenty of alumni who remember what winning is like and want to get back there.

I get the travel issue. If costs are really a big deal I'd think something could be worked out with Idaho.

Nothing to defend on NMSU's end. Regardless of NMSU's record this year, the current HC will be here next year, our AD announced it today.

FYI, if it were up to me, I would extend Idaho and NMSU through at least 2019, and then make a decision at that point. I believe our TV contract is up for renewal in 2020, so that seems a good point to put it.

(10-25-2015 11:59 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  FYI, if it were up to me, I would extend Idaho and NMSU through at least 2019, and then make a decision at that point. I believe our TV contract is up for renewal in 2020, so that seems a good point to put it.

Works for me.

(10-25-2015 11:17 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 09:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Idaho and NMSU do nothing for meeting the minimum numbers.

The NCAA rule is EIGHT FULL members who play in the conference.

Really? I thought if you didn't field 8 football teams for a certain period of time you got your FBS status stripped. It happened to the WAC.

It is eight FULL football members. If you know your trivia, when the NCAA adopted the new rule both Idaho and Utah State accepted full membership in the Sun Belt to keep the league alive, then went to the WAC and we added ULM and FAU as full members and FIU accelerated FBS to get the numbers.

(10-26-2015 09:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If you know your trivia, when the NCAA adopted the new rule both Idaho and Utah State accepted full membership in the Sun Belt to keep the league alive, then went to the WAC........

Interesting. So when a better offer came along, Idaho promptly kicked us to the curb.

Note to self: remind Karl of the above factoid when we next meet for a round of golf.

(10-26-2015 09:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 11:17 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 09:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Idaho and NMSU do nothing for meeting the minimum numbers.

The NCAA rule is EIGHT FULL members who play in the conference.

Really? I thought if you didn't field 8 football teams for a certain period of time you got your FBS status stripped. It happened to the WAC.

It is eight FULL football members. If you know your trivia, when the NCAA adopted the new rule both Idaho and Utah State accepted full membership in the Sun Belt to keep the league alive, then went to the WAC and we added ULM and FAU as full members and FIU accelerated FBS to get the numbers.

Can you tell me if those rules are available online somewhere?

(10-25-2015 11:59 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  FYI, if it were up to me, I would extend Idaho and NMSU through at least 2019, and then make a decision at that point. I believe our TV contract is up for renewal in 2020, so that seems a good point to put it.

Getting to divisions makes it more tolerable to keep them. I would rather give them a chance until 2020 rather than roll the dice on a FCS. Every conference has its better and no so good teams but for me to continue to want them to stay they have to do better than being at the very bottom of the FBS. At that point you have nothing to lose rolling the dice on a MSU, JMU or EKU or some random team out of Fla or TX that nobody is even thinking about right now.

(10-26-2015 10:26 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 11:59 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  FYI, if it were up to me, I would extend Idaho and NMSU through at least 2019, and then make a decision at that point. I believe our TV contract is up for renewal in 2020, so that seems a good point to put it.

Getting to divisions makes it more tolerable to keep them. I would rather give them a chance until 2020 rather than roll the dice on a FCS. Every conference has its better and no so good teams but for me to continue to want them to stay they have to do better than being at the very bottom of the FBS. At that point you have nothing to lose rolling the dice on a MSU, JMU or EKU or some random team out of Fla or TX that nobody is even thinking about right now.

The league is in also in a nice spot with travel partners right now, and Idaho/NMSU do balance out the non-football members. As has been pointed out (maybe by FJ most recently), maybe UTA football comes along as a replacement before long.

(10-25-2015 11:45 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 11:31 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 11:29 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 11:22 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 11:17 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  Really? I thought if you didn't field 8 football teams for a certain period of time you got your FBS status stripped. It happened to the WAC.

You have to have 8 full members to be a viable league. You have to have 8 FBS football members to have FBS football. The thing is on Football is that there is a grace period to allow an existing FBS league time to reach the needed membership numbers. Even in a 10 team situation in which the SBC lost 3 football playing members to another league...the Conference would have a grace period in which to find an 8th member, and there are plenty of FCS schools still willing to move.

What killed the WAC was not just the MWC expanding and taking most of the members, it was the FCS teams in the area like Montana and Montana State deciding not to accept the open invitation to join. That's not an issue in the South where there are multiple schools who have openly talked about moving up.

You might be right, but the FCS schools in the WAC area were a lot more interested in moving into a healthy WAC than they were when the WAC became unstable. I know we talked to some of the same Texas schools that get mentioned here and they said no.

I think the difference is the geographic stability of the league. Lets say Arkansas State, ULL, and Texas State were to leave for another league. Than the Eastern schools like Liberty and Eastern Kentucky are being invited to join a conference of former FCS members, who happen to be likeminded schools in a tight Geographical alignment.

The WAC near its demise was a mess Geographically, Schools were playing games in California, Texas, Idaho, and Louisiana. Such a scenario doesn't exist here.

I agree, the Belt is in a lot less danger than the WAC was but if you drop down to 10 football and then get raided you'll be in a position of weakness where you're forced to make a much more permanent arrangement than you have with Idaho with a school you may not really want, like Liberty (not picking on Liberty but it's been amply demonstrated that Belt schools aren't interested). A fencesitter like JMU is not going to come down off the fence during a raid situation.

I'm not saying Idaho and the Belt should get married. I'm just saying there's no reason to stop dating.

I don't think the 'belt drops you guys until it finds replacements, but in fairness, if we did really need two members quickly, we could still just invite you fully at that point in time and you would accept without hesitation. But i don't see us doing that unless there are no other options, and it would appear that that isn't the case. There is no WAC for you guys to defect to, it's us, unsustainable independents, or FCS (or i suppose shutting it down altogether, which i believe NMSU had flirted with if not for a second).

(10-25-2015 02:16 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  In the fall of 2018 the conference will be at 10 football schools and will play a round robin schedule. No need for championship game with the new rules. If the PTB decide one is needed the top two teams will play.

Hmmm....we do only have 3 OOC games currently scheduled for 2018....

Hopefully your new found strength will carry over to your new conference.

If it takes 9 schools to vote to keep Idaho and NMSU then I think they need to start planning on 2017 being their last year in the Belt

(10-25-2015 02:16 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  In the fall of 2018 the conference will be at 10 football schools and will play a round robin schedule. No need for championship game with the new rules. If the PTB decide one is needed the top two teams will play.

It would be incredibly stupid for the Sun Belt to play a 9 game conference schedule. It's already seen as the worst FBS conference and having 1 less OOC game would cement itself there as there would be 1 less game each year to prove themselves against other G5 teams. I could see the possibility of the conference going to 10 teams but playing a round robin schedule with that would be a disaster.

(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.

That last paragraph makes me want to see us go Indy.

(10-25-2015 09:46 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 01:43 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 01:40 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 01:33 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Idaho and NMSU hurt the Sun Belt in the chase for CFP performance money

I don't think Idaho is doing that, at least any more than the median of the conference. The entire Belt only has 4 OOC FBS wins, we didn't lose our FCS game, and we're holding our own in-conference.

What are the exact dollar amounts per school in CFP money that we are losing this year because of Idaho and NMSU?

Up to $3 million

How much money did 1-11 Georgia State cost the conference? What about 3-9 Troy?

The fact that you guys are complaining about a 2 hour longer flight every other year is mind blowing. Given that ULM freely consented to flying to HAWAII to play an out of conference game they scheduled shows that is a utterly bs argument.

If I'm hearing this right, Idaho and NMSU have not actually cost us any CFP money yet....and if we all get real good and they do somehow cost us...it will be 1 share of $3 million divided by 11.

(10-26-2015 01:57 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  If I'm hearing this right, Idaho and NMSU have not actually cost us any CFP money yet....and if we all get real good and they do somehow cost us...it will be 1 share of $3 million divided by 11.

I'm interested in the $3 million number, as well. Seems like a lot. An unlikely lot.

(10-26-2015 01:57 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  If I'm hearing this right, Idaho and NMSU have not actually cost us any CFP money yet....and if we all get real good and they do somehow cost us...it will be 1 share of $3 million divided by 11.

Right. And that 1/11th of $3 million is only if Idaho and NMSU, all by themselves, drag the conference all the way from best G5 to worst G5. Since Idaho is currently doing better than the average Sun Belt member that seems unlikely.

(10-26-2015 01:43 PM)nsavandal09 Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 09:46 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 01:43 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 01:40 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 01:33 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Idaho and NMSU hurt the Sun Belt in the chase for CFP performance money

I don't think Idaho is doing that, at least any more than the median of the conference. The entire Belt only has 4 OOC FBS wins, we didn't lose our FCS game, and we're holding our own in-conference.

What are the exact dollar amounts per school in CFP money that we are losing this year because of Idaho and NMSU?

Up to $3 million

How much money did 1-11 Georgia State cost the conference? What about 3-9 Troy?

The fact that you guys are complaining about a 2 hour longer flight every other year is mind blowing. Given that ULM freely consented to flying to HAWAII to play an out of conference game they scheduled shows that is a utterly bs argument.

GA St didn't cost the Sunbelt anything, because they actually made it up during the NCAA tournament. Just as Kansas isn't costing the Big 12 anything but make up for it in the NCAA tourney.