(12-07-2015 01:01 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 01:03 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 12:57 AM)UNM2TIMES Wrote:  Why doesn't the Sun Belt have a Championship game? I thought that was the reason NMSU and Idaho are in.

WKU left right after that, and it turned out there are a few schools in the league who are not as eager for a title game as others. Everyone came to an agreement that a 12th member would only be added when a right fit was found. We turned down Liberty, Jacksonville State, Lamar, and Sam Houston in that time frame. Focused on Coastal Carolina, Missouri State, and James Madison

Coastal got the invite, and will join in Olympic Sports in July and in football for 2017.

I don't understand why the Sun Belt didn't see this coming.

The American had lost Louisville and Rutgers, and Boise State and San Diego State had recently reneged on their decision to join. They replaced L & R with ECU and Tulane, but that would have had them at only 11 for 2015, when Navy joined. C-USA and the SBC knew this for months. Obviously, they were going to take a C-USA school, so they took Tulsa.

After ECU and Tulane had left, C-USA moved quickly and invited FAU and MTSU. When Tulsa was grabbed by the American, that brought them back down to 13 future members. They should have seen this coming because, again, the American was going to be at 11 for 2015, and they were going to add a twelfth school. Where did the Sun Belt think C-USA was going to go to replace Tulsa? Obviously, they went to the Sun Belt and grabbed WKU.

Why would Benson or anyone act as though they didn't see this coming? Short of adding UMass, the SBC was never going to reach 12 unless they added another school from FCS.

Everyone, including Benson, knew this was coming. But (and I'm not a huge Benson fan) I'm not sure that he could have done anything else.

Unless we wanted to take Jacksonville State, Lamar, or Liberty (which we don't).

We will have 12 teams in 2017. There are two obvious spares out there if we need them (UMass being FBS and available to move into the conference immediately), and EKU looking to move up.

And even if realignment gets messy above us, it could end up with resolving itself without us. For example, BYU and Army are independents in football and the realignment loop could stop before it gets to us. Or the AAC could decide that they want UMass all sports.

I don't see realignment involving more than 2 teams. Worst case scenario is that we go to 11 FBS teams in EKU's transition year and have no CCG that one year.

(12-07-2015 12:26 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 11:58 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  Unfortunately we aren't partners. The WAC teams that abandoned you were, but we are just guys with a lifeboat who picked you up.

I think there are some who want to cut Idaho and NMSU loose right now. Going to 1 year extensions might be a compromise that gets enough votes to keep you in the lifeboat.

We're in the conference for football and have the same rights and responsibilities in that sport as everybody else. The Belt held and continues to hold leverage over Idaho & NMSU, so we're currently eating ****. I'm not sure what would happen on our end if the conference told us we had to eat a bigger plate of it.

The Belt already has a heckuva deal with us. If you'd told App, GS, Coastal or any other potential recruit "you can join our league, but it's going to take a majority vote every two years to keep you here. If we find another school that looks better, hit the bricks" you'd have never added another member. So now if you're talking about holding that vote on Idaho/NMSU every single year I don't know what we'd do.

When the guy you rescued from drowning thinks that seats are too hard in the lifeboat.

(12-07-2015 02:46 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 12:26 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 11:58 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  Unfortunately we aren't partners. The WAC teams that abandoned you were, but we are just guys with a lifeboat who picked you up.

I think there are some who want to cut Idaho and NMSU loose right now. Going to 1 year extensions might be a compromise that gets enough votes to keep you in the lifeboat.

We're in the conference for football and have the same rights and responsibilities in that sport as everybody else. The Belt held and continues to hold leverage over Idaho & NMSU, so we're currently eating ****. I'm not sure what would happen on our end if the conference told us we had to eat a bigger plate of it.

The Belt already has a heckuva deal with us. If you'd told App, GS, Coastal or any other potential recruit "you can join our league, but it's going to take a majority vote every two years to keep you here. If we find another school that looks better, hit the bricks" you'd have never added another member. So now if you're talking about holding that vote on Idaho/NMSU every single year I don't know what we'd do.

When the guy you rescued from drowning thinks that seats are too hard in the lifeboat.

When the guy with the lifeboat demands that we kiss his feet or he'll throw us back off the boat, we're going to complain a little. At the very least, we won't view the boat owner the same way as we did when he pulled us out of the water.

Anyway, this analogy doesn't really hold up since the conference thought there was a chance it would go under too at the time. Given that, the Belt negotiated extremely favorable terms for itself.

All I'm saying is, I don't know when our administration and booster base hits its tolerance level. Going through indefinite annual reviews might hit it. Or it might not.

(12-07-2015 03:25 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 02:46 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 12:26 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 11:58 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  Unfortunately we aren't partners. The WAC teams that abandoned you were, but we are just guys with a lifeboat who picked you up.

I think there are some who want to cut Idaho and NMSU loose right now. Going to 1 year extensions might be a compromise that gets enough votes to keep you in the lifeboat.

We're in the conference for football and have the same rights and responsibilities in that sport as everybody else. The Belt held and continues to hold leverage over Idaho & NMSU, so we're currently eating ****. I'm not sure what would happen on our end if the conference told us we had to eat a bigger plate of it.

The Belt already has a heckuva deal with us. If you'd told App, GS, Coastal or any other potential recruit "you can join our league, but it's going to take a majority vote every two years to keep you here. If we find another school that looks better, hit the bricks" you'd have never added another member. So now if you're talking about holding that vote on Idaho/NMSU every single year I don't know what we'd do.

When the guy you rescued from drowning thinks that seats are too hard in the lifeboat.

When the guy with the lifeboat demands that we kiss his feet or he'll throw us back off the boat, we're going to complain a little. At the very least, we won't view the boat owner the same way as we did when he pulled us out of the water.

Anyway, this analogy doesn't really hold up since the conference thought there was a chance it would go under too at the time. Given that, the Belt negotiated extremely favorable terms for itself.

All I'm saying is, I don't know when our administration and booster base hits its tolerance level. Going through indefinite annual reviews might hit it. Or it might not.

False analogy.

Nobody is asking for a foot kissing.

If the membership thinks you aren't doing enough paddling in the boat vs the consumption of supplies, they may pick family over stranger.

This isn't about having Idaho and NMSU bring doughnuts to the meeting and serving coffee, it is about whether or not the membership thinks the business arrangement makes good business sense.

Someone owes you nothing but gives you $2.

Then they offer you $1.

Then you get huffy because it was $2 last time.

Then they offer you $0.

The contract Idaho and NMSU signed in 2013 was a 4-year agreement with a mutual option to extend for 2 more years. You're proposing to tear up those terms and instead subject those two schools, and only those two schools, to an annual review process where they have to be renewed by a majority of the other schools in the conference. Every single year. Do you really not see how massively different that is from our perspective? I doubt there's been another agreement like that in NCAA history.

I love FBS football and I want Idaho to compete at the highest level it can, but I wouldn't blame our administration if it rejected a deal like that. We're not really drowning and you're not really a lifeboat. It's just football. Idaho and NMSU are both flagship, land grant universities with a lot more going on than athletics. I love football, but its basic value to a good university is as PR. Once we start groveling just to play FBS football the PR value becomes negative. So from the University's perspective, what's the point?

Extend us through 2019 or don't, but don't try to make us put on a dog and pony show every year to convince you to keep us around. It looks bad for us all.

(12-07-2015 04:29 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 03:25 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 02:46 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 12:26 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 11:58 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  Unfortunately we aren't partners. The WAC teams that abandoned you were, but we are just guys with a lifeboat who picked you up.

I think there are some who want to cut Idaho and NMSU loose right now. Going to 1 year extensions might be a compromise that gets enough votes to keep you in the lifeboat.

We're in the conference for football and have the same rights and responsibilities in that sport as everybody else. The Belt held and continues to hold leverage over Idaho & NMSU, so we're currently eating ****. I'm not sure what would happen on our end if the conference told us we had to eat a bigger plate of it.

The Belt already has a heckuva deal with us. If you'd told App, GS, Coastal or any other potential recruit "you can join our league, but it's going to take a majority vote every two years to keep you here. If we find another school that looks better, hit the bricks" you'd have never added another member. So now if you're talking about holding that vote on Idaho/NMSU every single year I don't know what we'd do.

When the guy you rescued from drowning thinks that seats are too hard in the lifeboat.

When the guy with the lifeboat demands that we kiss his feet or he'll throw us back off the boat, we're going to complain a little. At the very least, we won't view the boat owner the same way as we did when he pulled us out of the water.

Anyway, this analogy doesn't really hold up since the conference thought there was a chance it would go under too at the time. Given that, the Belt negotiated extremely favorable terms for itself.

All I'm saying is, I don't know when our administration and booster base hits its tolerance level. Going through indefinite annual reviews might hit it. Or it might not.

False analogy.

Nobody is asking for a foot kissing.

If the membership thinks you aren't doing enough paddling in the boat vs the consumption of supplies, they may pick family over stranger.

This isn't about having Idaho and NMSU bring doughnuts to the meeting and serving coffee, it is about whether or not the membership thinks the business arrangement makes good business sense.

Just FYI, I think you've made valid points in other threads about ending the contract after 2017. I still think the stronger argument is for extending the agreement 2 more years, but if that's not the way the vote goes so be it.

My reaction was only to the idea of trying to do annual reviews and annual votes. That would look bad for all concerned.

(12-07-2015 06:18 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  The contract Idaho and NMSU signed in 2013 was a 4-year agreement with a mutual option to extend for 2 more years. You're proposing to tear up those terms and instead subject those two schools, and only those two schools, to an annual review process where they have to be renewed by a majority of the other schools in the conference. Every single year. Do you really not see how massively different that is from our perspective? I doubt there's been another agreement like that in NCAA history.

I love FBS football and I want Idaho to compete at the highest level it can, but I wouldn't blame our administration if it rejected a deal like that. We're not really drowning and you're not really a lifeboat. It's just football. Idaho and NMSU are both flagship, land grant universities with a lot more going on than athletics. I love football, but its basic value to a good university is as PR. Once we start groveling just to play FBS football the PR value becomes negative. So from the University's perspective, what's the point?

Extend us through 2019 or don't, but don't try to make us put on a dog and pony show every year to convince you to keep us around. It looks bad for us all.

Okay, then my answer is "don't".

I'm interested in maintaining maximum flexibility for the Sun Belt and not getting locked into multiple years. It looks like we need to part ways since the interests don't coincide.

The only reason I suggested it was as a compromise because of rumblings that some schools aren't really interested in extending the two year deal anyway.

(12-07-2015 06:29 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 06:18 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  The contract Idaho and NMSU signed in 2013 was a 4-year agreement with a mutual option to extend for 2 more years. You're proposing to tear up those terms and instead subject those two schools, and only those two schools, to an annual review process where they have to be renewed by a majority of the other schools in the conference. Every single year. Do you really not see how massively different that is from our perspective? I doubt there's been another agreement like that in NCAA history.

I love FBS football and I want Idaho to compete at the highest level it can, but I wouldn't blame our administration if it rejected a deal like that. We're not really drowning and you're not really a lifeboat. It's just football. Idaho and NMSU are both flagship, land grant universities with a lot more going on than athletics. I love football, but its basic value to a good university is as PR. Once we start groveling just to play FBS football the PR value becomes negative. So from the University's perspective, what's the point?

Extend us through 2019 or don't, but don't try to make us put on a dog and pony show every year to convince you to keep us around. It looks bad for us all.

Okay, then my answer is "don't".

I'm interested in maintaining maximum flexibility for the Sun Belt and not getting locked into multiple years. It looks like we need to part ways since the interests don't coincide.

The only reason I suggested it was as a compromise because of rumblings that some schools aren't really interested in extending the two year deal anyway.

Sorry I jumped on you a little bit there. I'm sure it was a good faith idea and it seems workable at first but once you start thinking about putting it into practice it would be tough on everybody. I really do think the right answer is either 2 more years or 4 more years. I personally believe 4 more preserves the Sun Belt's flexibility and maximizes its members' security, and it's obviously best for Idaho/NMSU. But we'll see what the schools do. From hearing our AD I'm not all that optimistic.

I think you go option A.

Since we aren't at any sort of security point to maintain 12 teams once we host a CCG, I don't think it hurts us in the least to have those guys around a few more years even if they allow a CCG with 10 Members.

Also, should we find the perfect two replacements for them - what does it hurt to have 14 (I know, we are dividing revenue by 2 more teams - But it would be temporary) for a couple of years.

I just think that we need to be aware that their administration is going to need some time to make whatever transition that they need to make if they are let go form the conference. Maybe an option that is voted on every year.. BUT doesn't release them the very next season, but rather is a vote on two seasons away? This would give them a reasonable time frame to make adjustments within their Athletics department. REAL students and scholarships are being affected here, I'd rather us keep that in mind. This would give us the ability to start the count down clock at any time and them time to prepare. Maybe even have that be a 4 year clock - that might be what is best for student athletes. Do we really want to be creating a conference member with nearly zero recruting ability? That's not rising together, and it certainly isn't going to help the perception or ranking of the Sun Belt.

(12-07-2015 07:23 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  I think you go option A.

Since we aren't at any sort of security point to maintain 12 teams once we host a CCG, I don't think it hurts us in the least to have those guys around a few more years even if they allow a CCG with 10 Members.

Also, should we find the perfect two replacements for them - what does it hurt to have 14 (I know, we are dividing revenue by 2 more teams - But it would be temporary) for a couple of years.

I just think that we need to be aware that their administration is going to need some time to make whatever transition that they need to make if they are let go form the conference. Maybe an option that is voted on every year.. BUT doesn't release them the very next season, but rather is a vote on two seasons away? This would give them a reasonable time frame to make adjustments within their Athletics department. REAL students and scholarships are being affected here, I'd rather us keep that in mind. This would give us the ability to start the count down clock at any time and them time to prepare. Maybe even have that be a 4 year clock - that might be what is best for student athletes. Do we really want to be creating a conference member with nearly zero recruting ability? That's not rising together, and it certainly isn't going to help the perception or ranking of the Sun Belt.

No, they would get extended for a year... one year in advance. That would give a full season for them to transition out if not extended.

And no, it is not an ideal situation no matter what you do.

The real villains of the piece are those that put two peers into this position.

The Sun Belt isn't going to do anything less than the 2 year thing. If we were to boot either program, they are likely looking at becoming an independent. That requires a gigantic OOC slate, and with OOC scheduled so far in advance now, it would be unfair to expect them to create a 12 team schedule in one year.

It may not be our fault they are in this position, but the Presidents and Chancellors of this league are not heartless.

(12-07-2015 07:33 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 07:23 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  I think you go option A.

Since we aren't at any sort of security point to maintain 12 teams once we host a CCG, I don't think it hurts us in the least to have those guys around a few more years even if they allow a CCG with 10 Members.

Also, should we find the perfect two replacements for them - what does it hurt to have 14 (I know, we are dividing revenue by 2 more teams - But it would be temporary) for a couple of years.

I just think that we need to be aware that their administration is going to need some time to make whatever transition that they need to make if they are let go form the conference. Maybe an option that is voted on every year.. BUT doesn't release them the very next season, but rather is a vote on two seasons away? This would give them a reasonable time frame to make adjustments within their Athletics department. REAL students and scholarships are being affected here, I'd rather us keep that in mind. This would give us the ability to start the count down clock at any time and them time to prepare. Maybe even have that be a 4 year clock - that might be what is best for student athletes. Do we really want to be creating a conference member with nearly zero recruting ability? That's not rising together, and it certainly isn't going to help the perception or ranking of the Sun Belt.

No, they would get extended for a year... one year in advance. That would give a full season for them to transition out if not extended.

And no, it is not an ideal situation no matter what you do.

The real villains of the piece are those that put two peers into this position.

I appreciate that you guys are trying to do the right thing here and I agree that no matter what happens, the Sun Belt is not remotely one of the bad guys in this situation. That said --

Annual votes two years in advance won't work for anybody. Football scheduling is done years ahead of time, so once a school is on a two-year countdown it absolutely has to start making other plans. Annual votes would put Idaho & NMSU on a perpetual two-year countdown. That's untenable.

I also think you guys are seriously underestimating the perception hit the conference would take in holding these votes annually. Do you really want other potential recruits to watch you jerk fellow league members around like that every single year? How do you think that looks to all but the most desperate FCS schools?

It may make sense to do blocs of time and then reassess, but those blocs need to be longer than one year.

(12-07-2015 06:22 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 04:29 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 03:25 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 02:46 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 12:26 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  We're in the conference for football and have the same rights and responsibilities in that sport as everybody else. The Belt held and continues to hold leverage over Idaho & NMSU, so we're currently eating ****. I'm not sure what would happen on our end if the conference told us we had to eat a bigger plate of it.

The Belt already has a heckuva deal with us. If you'd told App, GS, Coastal or any other potential recruit "you can join our league, but it's going to take a majority vote every two years to keep you here. If we find another school that looks better, hit the bricks" you'd have never added another member. So now if you're talking about holding that vote on Idaho/NMSU every single year I don't know what we'd do.

When the guy you rescued from drowning thinks that seats are too hard in the lifeboat.

When the guy with the lifeboat demands that we kiss his feet or he'll throw us back off the boat, we're going to complain a little. At the very least, we won't view the boat owner the same way as we did when he pulled us out of the water.

Anyway, this analogy doesn't really hold up since the conference thought there was a chance it would go under too at the time. Given that, the Belt negotiated extremely favorable terms for itself.

All I'm saying is, I don't know when our administration and booster base hits its tolerance level. Going through indefinite annual reviews might hit it. Or it might not.

False analogy.

Nobody is asking for a foot kissing.

If the membership thinks you aren't doing enough paddling in the boat vs the consumption of supplies, they may pick family over stranger.

This isn't about having Idaho and NMSU bring doughnuts to the meeting and serving coffee, it is about whether or not the membership thinks the business arrangement makes good business sense.

Just FYI, I think you've made valid points in other threads about ending the contract after 2017. I still think the stronger argument is for extending the agreement 2 more years, but if that's not the way the vote goes so be it.

My reaction was only to the idea of trying to do annual reviews and annual votes. That would look bad for all concerned.

I don't get a vote, if I had a vote NMSU would have received it for full membership and I would vote to end football only for reasons I've stated.

Reality is AState doesn't matter much in this league so might vote wouldn't likely carry the day.

If the membership wants to have a title game, then we need 12 football members and if we are going to have 12, I'd rather have Idaho and NMSU than two more FCS schools, again my vote wouldn't carry much weight.