(12-06-2015 11:51 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 11:24 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I never understood why this was thought to be a slam dunk. What incentive exists for B1G P12 SEC to improve the positioning of ACC and B12 for the CFP?

True.

Keep in mind, the votes cast by the P5 leagues are counted twice, and the votes cast by the G5 leagues are counted once. So if the ACC and Big <XII both voted in favor, and if all 5 of the G5 voted in favor, but the SEC-PAC-B1G voted against, then the deregulation would pass by a vote of 9-6.

You would think that most of the G5 would want it to pass because if it failed....conference raiding time.

(12-07-2015 12:02 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 11:51 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 11:24 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I never understood why this was thought to be a slam dunk. What incentive exists for B1G P12 SEC to improve the positioning of ACC and B12 for the CFP?

True.

Keep in mind, the votes cast by the P5 leagues are counted twice, and the votes cast by the G5 leagues are counted once. So if the ACC and Big <XII both voted in favor, and if all 5 of the G5 voted in favor, but the SEC-PAC-B1G voted against, then the deregulation would pass by a vote of 9-6.

You would think that most of the G5 would want it to pass because if it failed....conference raiding time.

I see that as partly true. If left up to the schools then we all know school X will go for the move that benefits them. I could see a scenario where the mountain west, American and Mac say no to this. Either way u do agree that we need to stop trying to force Idaho and New Mexico State out as this protects the belt cause we all know there are only so many spots available.

(12-07-2015 12:12 AM)RoyK Wrote:  Either way u do agree that we need to stop trying to force Idaho and New Mexico State out as this protects the belt cause we all know there are only so many spots available.

I see no reason to ditch Idaho and NMSU until we have others who are ready to accept an invite.

That said, I see no reason to offer any sort of long term extensions to Idaho and NMSU. I know the uncertainty may impact their recruiting to some extent but that's not something we can afford to worry about.

(12-07-2015 12:30 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 12:12 AM)RoyK Wrote:  Either way u do agree that we need to stop trying to force Idaho and New Mexico State out as this protects the belt cause we all know there are only so many spots available.

I see no reason to ditch Idaho and NMSU until we have others who are ready to accept an invite.

That said, I see no reason to offer any sort of long term extensions to Idaho and NMSU. I know the uncertainty may impact their recruiting to some extent but that's not something we can afford to worry about.

What do you mean when you say "long term extensions"?

The vote in March is to either extend Idaho & NMSU through 2019 or to give notice that 2017 will be their last seasons in the Belt. Are you for Option A or Option B?

Option B means both schools start making alternate plans that likely won't be reversed if the Sun Belt changes its mind.

Why doesn't the Sun Belt have a Championship game? I thought that was the reason NMSU and Idaho are in.

It was one of a few reasons, but then WKU left the conference to knock it back down to 11 teams and unable to hold a championship. Coastal Carolina joins in 2017 to get back to 12 teams. Unless they kick us out.

(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.

(12-07-2015 01:02 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 12:48 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  The vote in March is to either extend Idaho & NMSU through 2019 or to give notice that 2017 will be their last seasons in the Belt. Are you for Option A or Option B?

Option B means both schools start making alternate plans that likely won't be reversed if the Sun Belt changes its mind.

Such as?

I would advise the Sun Belt to keep Idaho and NMSU for the time being, but it's not as if those 2 have some better options out there waiting for the phone to ring.

1. FBS Indy
2. FCS Big Sky
3. Drop football

I think all three choices are almost equally likely. If we make a public announcement that we're doing either #2 or #3 then there's no going back to the Sun Belt.

(12-07-2015 12:48 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  What do you mean when you say "long term extensions"?

The vote in March is to either extend Idaho & NMSU through 2019 or to give notice that 2017 will be their last seasons in the Belt. Are you for Option A or Option B?

Option B means both schools start making alternate plans that likely won't be reversed if the Sun Belt changes its mind.

Inform them that the current agreement will end in 2017 and then offer one year extensions one year in advance. In 2016 we extend to 2018, 2017 we extend to 2019, 2018 we extend to 2020. The Belt gets maximum flexibility that way.

Essentially...move to one year extensions rather than two.

If that isn't acceptable to Idaho and NMSU then they can make alternate plans for 2018 and beyond and the Belt can try to accelerate new members.

But I'm not sure what Idaho and NMSU's alternate plans would be.

(12-07-2015 01:15 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 12:48 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  What do you mean when you say "long term extensions"?

The vote in March is to either extend Idaho & NMSU through 2019 or to give notice that 2017 will be their last seasons in the Belt. Are you for Option A or Option B?

Option B means both schools start making alternate plans that likely won't be reversed if the Sun Belt changes its mind.

Inform them that the current agreement will end in 2017 and then offer one year extensions one year in advance. In 2016 we extend to 2018, 2017 we extend to 2019, 2018 we extend to 2020. The Belt gets maximum flexibility that way.

Essentially...move to one year extensions rather than two.

If that isn't acceptable to Idaho and NMSU then they can make alternate plans for 2018 and beyond and the Belt can try to accelerate new members.

But I'm not sure what Idaho and NMSU's alternate plans would be.

I guess that's a possibility. I'm not sure what the two schools would do if given that offer. At some point, if you structure an offer to wring every last drop of advantage out of a partner, pride kicks in and that partner walks away. I don't know if we're anywhere near that point.

(12-07-2015 01:37 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 01:15 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 12:48 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  What do you mean when you say "long term extensions"?

The vote in March is to either extend Idaho & NMSU through 2019 or to give notice that 2017 will be their last seasons in the Belt. Are you for Option A or Option B?

Option B means both schools start making alternate plans that likely won't be reversed if the Sun Belt changes its mind.

Inform them that the current agreement will end in 2017 and then offer one year extensions one year in advance. In 2016 we extend to 2018, 2017 we extend to 2019, 2018 we extend to 2020. The Belt gets maximum flexibility that way.

Essentially...move to one year extensions rather than two.

If that isn't acceptable to Idaho and NMSU then they can make alternate plans for 2018 and beyond and the Belt can try to accelerate new members.

But I'm not sure what Idaho and NMSU's alternate plans would be.

I guess that's a possibility. I'm not sure what the two schools would do if given that offer. At some point, if you structure an offer to wring every last drop of advantage out of a partner, pride kicks in and that partner walks away. I don't know if we're anywhere near that point.

my personal opinion is that Idaho will find a more geographically viable option for themselves and nmsu will bring the rest of their sports over to the sbc. the conference will split into east and west divisions and they will the westernmost of the footprint.

I would like a conference championship game.

As far as NCAA regulation of it goes, though, I don't see the harm in just letting every conference figure out their champion however the heck they want to. If conferences want to figure playoff implications into their plans, go for it.

(12-07-2015 08:45 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 01:37 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 01:15 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 12:48 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  What do you mean when you say "long term extensions"?

The vote in March is to either extend Idaho & NMSU through 2019 or to give notice that 2017 will be their last seasons in the Belt. Are you for Option A or Option B?

Option B means both schools start making alternate plans that likely won't be reversed if the Sun Belt changes its mind.

Inform them that the current agreement will end in 2017 and then offer one year extensions one year in advance. In 2016 we extend to 2018, 2017 we extend to 2019, 2018 we extend to 2020. The Belt gets maximum flexibility that way.

Essentially...move to one year extensions rather than two.

If that isn't acceptable to Idaho and NMSU then they can make alternate plans for 2018 and beyond and the Belt can try to accelerate new members.

But I'm not sure what Idaho and NMSU's alternate plans would be.

I guess that's a possibility. I'm not sure what the two schools would do if given that offer. At some point, if you structure an offer to wring every last drop of advantage out of a partner, pride kicks in and that partner walks away. I don't know if we're anywhere near that point.

my personal opinion is that Idaho will find a more geographically viable option for themselves and nmsu will bring the rest of their sports over to the sbc. the conference will split into east and west divisions and they will the westernmost of the footprint.

I agree that's part of my theory too, but dropping Idaho puts us back to 11, so another east team is added. I have to think some team out of the following get us back to 12: UTC, JMU, EKU, Liberty. We all agree I think that MSU is also a possible candidate... But that seems more remote than JMU.

Coastal fans: what is your SCHOOL'S stance on Liberty as a 12th team in the east. Leave politics out of it please. Your chancellor could be the swing vote.

(12-07-2015 12:12 AM)RoyK Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 12:02 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 11:51 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 11:24 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I never understood why this was thought to be a slam dunk. What incentive exists for B1G P12 SEC to improve the positioning of ACC and B12 for the CFP?

True.

Keep in mind, the votes cast by the P5 leagues are counted twice, and the votes cast by the G5 leagues are counted once. So if the ACC and Big <XII both voted in favor, and if all 5 of the G5 voted in favor, but the SEC-PAC-B1G voted against, then the deregulation would pass by a vote of 9-6.

You would think that most of the G5 would want it to pass because if it failed....conference raiding time.

I see that as partly true. If left up to the schools then we all know school X will go for the move that benefits them. I could see a scenario where the mountain west, American and Mac say no to this. Either way u do agree that we need to stop trying to force Idaho and New Mexico State out as this protects the belt cause we all know there are only so many spots available.

Yeah I can totally see Cincinnati, Houston, Memphis saying let's help make sure the Big XII doesn't expand.

As far as expansion. Right now I don't see any FCS I'm itching to add, if we want a title game, roll with the 12 we have.

(12-07-2015 01:37 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 01:15 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 12:48 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  What do you mean when you say "long term extensions"?

The vote in March is to either extend Idaho & NMSU through 2019 or to give notice that 2017 will be their last seasons in the Belt. Are you for Option A or Option B?

Option B means both schools start making alternate plans that likely won't be reversed if the Sun Belt changes its mind.

Inform them that the current agreement will end in 2017 and then offer one year extensions one year in advance. In 2016 we extend to 2018, 2017 we extend to 2019, 2018 we extend to 2020. The Belt gets maximum flexibility that way.

Essentially...move to one year extensions rather than two.

If that isn't acceptable to Idaho and NMSU then they can make alternate plans for 2018 and beyond and the Belt can try to accelerate new members.

But I'm not sure what Idaho and NMSU's alternate plans would be.

I guess that's a possibility. I'm not sure what the two schools would do if given that offer. At some point, if you structure an offer to wring every last drop of advantage out of a partner, pride kicks in and that partner walks away. I don't know if we're anywhere near that point.

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.

(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.

(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.

(12-05-2015 12:28 AM)Dman Wrote:  

(12-04-2015 11:40 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Why care?
Unless we are booting someone or lose someone, we have 12 teams and divisions starting with the 2017 season.

because "The amendment calls for conference title games to only be held between division winners in a given league. That essentially leaves in place the current NCAA by-law requiring division winners to play.

However, the ACC and Big 12 long ago developed legislation that would allow conferences to basically self-determine their championship games."

The amendment doesn't stop the Big 12 from holding a CCG or expanding. If they want a CCG they have to split into 2 5 team divisions. Sunbelt would be able to do the same thing under the Big 10 amendment.

(12-07-2015 09:05 AM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  Coastal fans: what is your SCHOOL'S stance on Liberty as a 12th team in the east. Leave politics out of it please. Your chancellor could be the swing vote.

I don't know - it could go either way. On one hand you have a school dedicated to athletics that has good fan support. On the other hand I could see distancing ourselves from a former rival at a lower level. They more or less defined their success largely on how they did vs Coastal. My opinion is their administration is a bit of a bull in a china closet and we may not want to deal with it.