Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)


Poll: Should NMSU and Idaho remain Football Only Members of the Sun Belt Conference after 2017?
This poll is closed.
Yes, Extend them. 48.85% 64 48.85%
No, 10 teams is the better approach 26.72% 35 26.72%
Grant a 2 year extension, but remove after 2019 24.43% 32 24.43%
Total 131 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Post Reply 
The Great Idaho and NMSU debate thread
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
chiefsfan Offline
No Seriously, they let me be a mod
*

Posts: 43,711
Joined: Sep 2007
Reputation: 1061
I Root For: ASU
Location:
Post: #1
The Great Idaho and NMSU debate thread
Alright, so we've got roughly 2 months before the March 10th vote is taken on the future of the football only membership of NMSU and Idaho. The cards are in front of us. We know as a league that we can still hold a title game without NMSU and Idaho, and without a 9 game league schedule. We also know as a league that the Big 12 is still sniffing around the expansion ladder.

Should the Sun Belt renew Idaho and NMSU until 2019? I threw in a 3rd option for renewing for 2 more years, but booting them after that since it's been discussed a few times as an option.
(This post was last modified: 01-13-2016 11:11 PM by chiefsfan.)
01-13-2016 11:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


LatahCounty Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,242
Joined: Sep 2015
Reputation: 128
I Root For: Idaho
Location:
Post: #2
RE: The Great Idaho and NMSU debate thread
Guess which way I voted.
01-13-2016 11:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chiefsfan Offline
No Seriously, they let me be a mod
*

Posts: 43,711
Joined: Sep 2007
Reputation: 1061
I Root For: ASU
Location:
Post: #3
RE: The Great Idaho and NMSU debate thread
(01-13-2016 11:13 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  Guess which way I voted.

We all know you've secretly wanted to start that fresh rivalry with Southern Utah and Idaho State all along!
01-13-2016 11:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ark30inf Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,639
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation: 588
I Root For: Arkansas State
Location:
Post: #4
RE: The Great Idaho and NMSU debate thread
I'd prefer we renew them every year for one year ahead. So they have two years warning, but we can pull the trigger any year.
01-13-2016 11:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DoubletapWolf Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 718
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation: 71
I Root For: Red Wolves and SBC
Location: Doty Island WI
Post: #5
RE: The Great Idaho and NMSU debate thread
Extend them . . they were in the SBC previously and both left on good terms . . I like the security of having them and I think they will get better in Football.
01-14-2016 12:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WolfBird Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,909
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 83
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #6
The Great Idaho and NMSU debate thread
Leave them alone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
01-14-2016 04:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


DawggoneEagle Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 863
Joined: Jun 2011
Reputation: 14
I Root For: GeorgiaSouthern
Location: Winder, Georgia
Post: #7
RE: The Great Idaho and NMSU debate thread
If either UALR or UTSA withdraw from the conference, then invite NMSU for all sports and drop Idaho. If both withdraw, then drop both football only schools, and either stay at ten or add EKU, and MOState.
I guess I'm stuck in the old way of thinking, nine or twelve are the magic numbers for an eight game conference schedule. Nine means everyone plays all members, and twelve means/meant divisions.
Ten would be OK IMO if we played a nine game conference schedule, and agreed to drop the FCS OOC games and keep the payouts. and home & homes with other non conference G5 program .
Eleven members, drop the OOC G5 opponents and keep the payouts.



Sent from my KYOCERA-E6560 using Tapatalk
01-14-2016 05:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OsageJ Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 7,934
Joined: May 2002
Reputation: 417
I Root For: stAte
Location:
Post: #8
RE: The Great Idaho and NMSU debate thread
(01-14-2016 05:23 AM)DawggoneEagle Wrote:  If either UALR or UTSA withdraw from the conference, then invite NMSU for all sports and drop Idaho. If both withdraw, then drop both football only schools, and either stay at ten or add EKU, and MOState.
I guess I'm stuck in the old way of thinking, nine or twelve are the magic numbers for an eight game conference schedule. Nine means everyone plays all members, and twelve means/meant divisions.
Ten would be OK IMO if we played a nine game conference schedule, and agreed to drop the FCS OOC games and keep the payouts. and home & homes with other non conference G5 program .
Eleven members, drop the OOC G5 opponents and keep the payouts.



Sent from my KYOCERA-E6560 using Tapatalk

When did UTSA join and no.
01-14-2016 06:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawggoneEagle Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 863
Joined: Jun 2011
Reputation: 14
I Root For: GeorgiaSouthern
Location: Winder, Georgia
Post: #9
RE: The Great Idaho and NMSU debate thread
My bad, UTA

Sent from my KYOCERA-E6560 using Tapatalk
01-14-2016 06:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OsageJ Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 7,934
Joined: May 2002
Reputation: 417
I Root For: stAte
Location:
Post: #10
RE: The Great Idaho and NMSU debate thread
(01-14-2016 06:43 AM)DawggoneEagle Wrote:  My bad, UTA

Sent from my KYOCERA-E6560 using Tapatalk

I know...just pulling your chain.
01-14-2016 06:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ValleyBoy Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 2,169
Joined: Oct 2010
Reputation: 56
I Root For: GaSo,Troy
Location: Alabama
Post: #11
RE: The Great Idaho and NMSU debate thread
I look at it this way. The conference had a plan to get to a 12/12 make up when GS and AppSt were added along with Idaho and NMSU as football only. What has changed since that time except WKU leaving right after this addition to the conference was made then the conference waiting for the right addition to replace WKU.

I say leave the conference make up as is due to the fact that if we want to add a football conference championship game the conference can with 12 football members. If Idaho and NMSU are booted out the conference will not have that option just due to the fact that a round robin scheadule is not in the best interest of the conference. Also the conference membership is more stable that it has ever been since football was added to the conference and that is a good thing to have.

Just learned the confernce could hold a championship game with 10 football members with 2 divisions. But that would mean USA would have to move to the west. Even with this I still like the conference to stay at 12 football playing members.
(This post was last modified: 01-14-2016 09:17 AM by ValleyBoy.)
01-14-2016 09:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Georgia_Power_Company Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,481
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: GA Southern
Location: Statesboro GA
Post: #12
RE: The Great Idaho and NMSU debate thread
(01-14-2016 09:07 AM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  I look at it this way. The conference had a plan to get to a 12/12 make up when GS and AppSt were added along with Idaho and NMSU as football only. What has changed since that time except WKU leaving right after this addition to the conference was made then the conference waiting for the right addition to replace WKU.

I say leave the conference make up as is due to the fact that if we want to add a football conference championship game the conference can with 12 football members. If Idaho and NMSU are booted out the conference will not have that option just due to the fact that a round robin scheadule is not in the best interest of the conference. Also the conference membership is more stable that it has ever been since football was added to the conference and that is a good thing to have.

+1 and I will add that if we ever want to get a 5th guaranteed bowl game we had better stay at 12 for football.
01-14-2016 09:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MWC Tex Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,850
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 179
I Root For: MW
Location: TX
Post: #13
RE: The Great Idaho and NMSU debate thread
(01-14-2016 09:07 AM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  I look at it this way. The conference had a plan to get to a 12/12 make up when GS and AppSt were added along with Idaho and NMSU as football only. What has changed since that time except WKU leaving right after this addition to the conference was made then the conference waiting for the right addition to replace WKU.

I say leave the conference make up as is due to the fact that if we want to add a football conference championship game the conference can with 12 football members. If Idaho and NMSU are booted out the conference will not have that option just due to the fact that a round robin scheadule is not in the best interest of the conference. Also the conference membership is more stable that it has ever been since football was added to the conference and that is a good thing to have.

Split into 2 5 team divisions:
West: Tex St., ULM, ULL, Ark St, USA
East: Troy, App St, Ga St, Ga So, Coastal

I think it will happen since the Sunbelt whole heartily voted for the dereg.
Nobody is going to poach the Sunbelt. If the AAC still loses 2 to the Big 12 and pull from CUSA, CUSA isn't going to care about going to 14. Not with their TV contract. They stay at 12 and hope 2 more are taken to get to 10 and still have a CCG.

The only thing that can happen is a reorganization between CUSA and the Sunbelt to be more regional
01-14-2016 09:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Eagleditka Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 919
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 22
I Root For: GS Eagles
Location:
Post: #14
RE: The Great Idaho and NMSU debate thread
Voted for 2019. Let's see how 12 works out for a couple years before making the decision.
01-14-2016 09:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ark30inf Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,639
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation: 588
I Root For: Arkansas State
Location:
Post: #15
RE: The Great Idaho and NMSU debate thread
I've said many times that we owe Idaho and NMSU nothing. We picked them up in a lifeboat and saved them.

But we are really going to ruin the sports programs at two universities when there is no real need?

They aren't hurting my school THAT badly that I can tell.
01-14-2016 10:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rokamortis Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,981
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 160
I Root For: Coastal
Location:
Post: #16
RE: The Great Idaho and NMSU debate thread
I voted to extend them.

1) I feel like the SBC needs the membership numbers to protect from raids and for bowls. Even if the SBC wants to add another 2 all sports members at some point I don't see how a 14 team league is all that bad. It dilutes the CFP money somewhat but not enough to be a major issue for any school.

2) Both programs are trying to improve. If they were not then I'd say cut them off since they aren't adding anything to the league, but looks like they are really trying and have made some strides - especially Idaho. NMSUs AD seems like the right person to bring them back up to speed.
01-14-2016 10:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


TrueBlueDrew Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,551
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 486
I Root For: Jawjuh Suthen
Location: Enemy Turf
Post: #17
RE: The Great Idaho and NMSU debate thread
Drop Idaho

Extend full membership to NMSU

Add Liberty or J'ville St
01-14-2016 10:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Farmer Jack Offline
Banned

Posts: 365
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: Univ of Houston
Location:
Post: #18
RE: The Great Idaho and NMSU debate thread
Neither NMSU nor Idaho have any business playing FBS football.
01-14-2016 10:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,859
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 302
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #19
RE: The Great Idaho and NMSU debate thread
(01-14-2016 09:29 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(01-14-2016 09:07 AM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  I look at it this way. The conference had a plan to get to a 12/12 make up when GS and AppSt were added along with Idaho and NMSU as football only. What has changed since that time except WKU leaving right after this addition to the conference was made then the conference waiting for the right addition to replace WKU.

I say leave the conference make up as is due to the fact that if we want to add a football conference championship game the conference can with 12 football members. If Idaho and NMSU are booted out the conference will not have that option just due to the fact that a round robin scheadule is not in the best interest of the conference. Also the conference membership is more stable that it has ever been since football was added to the conference and that is a good thing to have.

Split into 2 5 team divisions:
West: Tex St., ULM, ULL, Ark St, USA
East: Troy, App St, Ga St, Ga So, Coastal

I think it will happen since the Sunbelt whole heartily voted for the dereg.
Nobody is going to poach the Sunbelt. If the AAC still loses 2 to the Big 12 and pull from CUSA, CUSA isn't going to care about going to 14. Not with their TV contract. They stay at 12 and hope 2 more are taken to get to 10 and still have a CCG.

The only thing that can happen is a reorganization between CUSA and the Sunbelt to be more regional

There is no reason to drop to 10. If the reason is performance, then why pick on them? Eight of the eleven teams in the SBC this season had losing records. NMSU and Idaho were improved this season. NMSU had a 3rd team All-american running back that is only a sophomore. Idaho has a sophomore QB with 22 starts that threw for just under 3,000 yards last season.

The only reason to drop them is that the conference has two better candidates to add. A new school means a $2 million entry fee to the conference. Two new schools would be $4 million in entry fees. The conference may also want to keep NMSU for "football only" just in case there is a desire or need to add them for all-sports down the road.

What does the conference gain dropping to 10 for football?
(This post was last modified: 01-14-2016 11:14 AM by SoCalBobcat78.)
01-14-2016 11:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ThaGinga Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 324
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 9
I Root For: TxSt/FSU/CFB
Location: Nacogdoches, Tx
Post: #20
RE: The Great Idaho and NMSU debate thread
(01-14-2016 10:53 AM)Farmer Jack Wrote:  Neither NMSU nor Idaho have any business playing FBS football.

And you have no business being on this forum. Now kindly take your troll bridge back over to the AAC board. 07-coffee3
01-14-2016 11:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.