(02-20-2016 10:20 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Idaho and NMSU are owed nothing but adherence to the agreement. Yes they helped get Sun Belt FBS off the ground and they also elected to leave forcing the Sun Belt to scramble and make decisions the league did not wish to make. We are square.

They were brought back not out of a need for survival but to take advantage of the requirements for divisional play and a title game. Those requirements have changed.

That said.

If I were in the commissioner chair charged with giving my candid advice, my advice would be to ditch the current agreement. I would advise that the league should give NMSU and Idaho football only membership indefinitely, terminable at will with two year notice.

The presumption should shift from automatic termination barring drumming up affirmative support to extend to presumed extension absent support to terminate.

My sense is that roughly half the league supports a title game and roughly half wishes to play a 9 game slate if we go to ten.
My opinion is that a title game after playing a full round robin is ridiculous.
As for the 9 game slate, we start from a position where the Sun Belt has to overcome the presumption that winning the league is not a fair measure of being a strong program, out-of-conference play is the only hope to overcome that presumption.
As a ten team circuit there would be 30 OOC opportunities and in most years only 20 OOC vs FBS and probably only around 5 of those at home (assuming a money game and a home/home series).
As a 12 team league playing games there would be 48 OOC opportunities, in most years 36 vs FBS and around 12 at home (again presuming a money game, but two home/home series).
In either instance schools playing more than one money game downgrades the opportunities at home.

Finally retaining both now provides future flexibility.
If the league is at 10 for football and one candidate for membership emerges there will be some opposition based solely on the mess it would create in football to have 11 members rather than on the merit of the candidacy. At 12 the equation gets a little easier extend the offer, send two year notice to the program of your choice and move on.

I think that makes sense obviously it would be great for Idaho and NMSU.
I think waiting to see what opportunities pop up is beneficial to the conference.

Will WSU bring MSU with them and elevate the SBC in basketball in four to five years?
Will UTRVG build a really nice stadium and catch fire as an expansion candidate ?

Two new programs have to offset the negative of fourteen in Olympic sports.
EKU and Liberty probably don't fit that requirement not yet at least ?

(02-20-2016 10:20 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Idaho and NMSU are owed nothing but adherence to the agreement. Yes they helped get Sun Belt FBS off the ground and they also elected to leave forcing the Sun Belt to scramble and make decisions the league did not wish to make. We are square.

They were brought back not out of a need for survival but to take advantage of the requirements for divisional play and a title game. Those requirements have changed.

That said.

If I were in the commissioner chair charged with giving my candid advice, my advice would be to ditch the current agreement. I would advise that the league should give NMSU and Idaho football only membership indefinitely, terminable at will with two year notice.

The presumption should shift from automatic termination barring drumming up affirmative support to extend to presumed extension absent support to terminate.

My sense is that roughly half the league supports a title game and roughly half wishes to play a 9 game slate if we go to ten.
My opinion is that a title game after playing a full round robin is ridiculous.
As for the 9 game slate, we start from a position where the Sun Belt has to overcome the presumption that winning the league is not a fair measure of being a strong program, out-of-conference play is the only hope to overcome that presumption.
As a ten team circuit there would be 30 OOC opportunities and in most years only 20 OOC vs FBS and probably only around 5 of those at home (assuming a money game and a home/home series).
As a 12 team league playing games there would be 48 OOC opportunities, in most years 36 vs FBS and around 12 at home (again presuming a money game, but two home/home series).
In either instance schools playing more than one money game downgrades the opportunities at home.

Finally retaining both now provides future flexibility.
If the league is at 10 for football and one candidate for membership emerges there will be some opposition based solely on the mess it would create in football to have 11 members rather than on the merit of the candidacy. At 12 the equation gets a little easier extend the offer, send two year notice to the program of your choice and move on.

Good post. You hit on a lot of good points related to this topic.

(02-20-2016 12:49 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(02-20-2016 12:35 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-20-2016 12:25 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(02-20-2016 10:20 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Idaho and NMSU are owed nothing but adherence to the agreement. Yes they helped get Sun Belt FBS off the ground and they also elected to leave forcing the Sun Belt to scramble and make decisions the league did not wish to make. We are square.

They were brought back not out of a need for survival but to take advantage of the requirements for divisional play and a title game. Those requirements have changed.

That said.

If I were in the commissioner chair charged with giving my candid advice, my advice would be to ditch the current agreement. I would advise that the league should give NMSU and Idaho football only membership indefinitely, terminable at will with two year notice.

The presumption should shift from automatic termination barring drumming up affirmative support to extend to presumed extension absent support to terminate.

My sense is that roughly half the league supports a title game and roughly half wishes to play a 9 game slate if we go to ten.
My opinion is that a title game after playing a full round robin is ridiculous.
As for the 9 game slate, we start from a position where the Sun Belt has to overcome the presumption that winning the league is not a fair measure of being a strong program, out-of-conference play is the only hope to overcome that presumption.
As a ten team circuit there would be 30 OOC opportunities and in most years only 20 OOC vs FBS and probably only around 5 of those at home (assuming a money game and a home/home series).
As a 12 team league playing games there would be 48 OOC opportunities, in most years 36 vs FBS and around 12 at home (again presuming a money game, but two home/home series).
In either instance schools playing more than one money game downgrades the opportunities at home.

Finally retaining both now provides future flexibility.
If the league is at 10 for football and one candidate for membership emerges there will be some opposition based solely on the mess it would create in football to have 11 members rather than on the merit of the candidacy. At 12 the equation gets a little easier extend the offer, send two year notice to the program of your choice and move on.

I agree with you completely on this, and even when I haven't agreed with you you've always been logical. That's rare on a message board.

What makes you say that half the league wants to play 9 conference games? That surprises me.

That's the gossip, that "about" half of the full football members want a 9 game slate.

Doesn't bode well for Idaho/NMSU extensions if that's the case and if it's really a 3/4 vote. I'd be curious which schools actually want a 9-game conference schedule because I can't figure out how it's a smart thing to do for anyone in the Belt.

I concur with your questioning the wisdom of going to 9 conference games. Although USA might not be happy with being in the East and not playing ULL, stAte etc. every year.

Of course, there's a fix for USA....move Idaho to the East in any division setup.

East - Idaho, Coastal, Ga Southern, App, Ga State, Troy
West - NMSU, USA, Texas State, ULL, stAte, ULM

It might be the case as well that Arkansas State doesn't want to lose its ties with Alabama as a result of division splitting. Or Troy might want to stay with some of the Western schools.

One point I haven't seen discussed yet on the NMSU-Idaho debate is TV revenue. Obviously, there isn't much of that to go around right now but with the negotiations most likely beginning behind the scenes on our next TV deal, would Idaho and/or NMSU add anything at all to sweeten the new deal? If yes, then it's a no-brainer - renew (I like ArksFan's post). If not, then does it not make more sense to cut them loose so the TV revenues are split between two less schools?

I ask this because I don't know any of the answers to these questions.

(02-20-2016 03:41 PM)airtroop Wrote:  One point I haven't seen discussed yet on the NMSU-Idaho debate is TV revenue. Obviously, there isn't much of that to go around right now but with the negotiations most likely beginning behind the scenes on our next TV deal, would Idaho and/or NMSU add anything at all to sweeten the new deal? If yes, then it's a no-brainer - renew (I like ArksFan's post). If not, then does it not make more sense to cut them loose so the TV revenues are split between two less schools?

I ask this because I don't know any of the answers to these questions.

Good questions. I doubt anyone will know the real answer until the conference starts negotiating the next TV contract.

Idaho is the #2 or #3 school in 2 different midsize media markets (Boise & Spokane), and thanks to being located in a part of the world where there's a lot less competition there are still regions where we're #1 despite 15 years of mostly bad football. I don't know what that's worth.

(02-20-2016 03:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-20-2016 12:49 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(02-20-2016 12:35 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-20-2016 12:25 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(02-20-2016 10:20 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Idaho and NMSU are owed nothing but adherence to the agreement. Yes they helped get Sun Belt FBS off the ground and they also elected to leave forcing the Sun Belt to scramble and make decisions the league did not wish to make. We are square.

They were brought back not out of a need for survival but to take advantage of the requirements for divisional play and a title game. Those requirements have changed.

That said.

If I were in the commissioner chair charged with giving my candid advice, my advice would be to ditch the current agreement. I would advise that the league should give NMSU and Idaho football only membership indefinitely, terminable at will with two year notice.

The presumption should shift from automatic termination barring drumming up affirmative support to extend to presumed extension absent support to terminate.

My sense is that roughly half the league supports a title game and roughly half wishes to play a 9 game slate if we go to ten.
My opinion is that a title game after playing a full round robin is ridiculous.
As for the 9 game slate, we start from a position where the Sun Belt has to overcome the presumption that winning the league is not a fair measure of being a strong program, out-of-conference play is the only hope to overcome that presumption.
As a ten team circuit there would be 30 OOC opportunities and in most years only 20 OOC vs FBS and probably only around 5 of those at home (assuming a money game and a home/home series).
As a 12 team league playing games there would be 48 OOC opportunities, in most years 36 vs FBS and around 12 at home (again presuming a money game, but two home/home series).
In either instance schools playing more than one money game downgrades the opportunities at home.

Finally retaining both now provides future flexibility.
If the league is at 10 for football and one candidate for membership emerges there will be some opposition based solely on the mess it would create in football to have 11 members rather than on the merit of the candidacy. At 12 the equation gets a little easier extend the offer, send two year notice to the program of your choice and move on.

I agree with you completely on this, and even when I haven't agreed with you you've always been logical. That's rare on a message board.

What makes you say that half the league wants to play 9 conference games? That surprises me.

That's the gossip, that "about" half of the full football members want a 9 game slate.

Doesn't bode well for Idaho/NMSU extensions if that's the case and if it's really a 3/4 vote. I'd be curious which schools actually want a 9-game conference schedule because I can't figure out how it's a smart thing to do for anyone in the Belt.

I concur with your questioning the wisdom of going to 9 conference games. Although USA might not be happy with being in the East and not playing ULL, stAte etc. every year.

Of course, there's a fix for USA....move Idaho to the East in any division setup.

East - Idaho, Coastal, Ga Southern, App, Ga State, Troy
West - NMSU, USA, Texas State, ULL, stAte, ULM

It might be the case as well that Arkansas State doesn't want to lose its ties with Alabama as a result of division splitting. Or Troy might want to stay with some of the Western schools.

If you move Idaho to the east, expect more eastern schools to be against extending them at all. They only have to make the trip out there every four years or so. Telling them to make that trip every other year might ruffle some feathers.

(02-20-2016 07:05 PM)rknj8993 Wrote:  

(02-20-2016 03:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-20-2016 12:49 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(02-20-2016 12:35 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-20-2016 12:25 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  I agree with you completely on this, and even when I haven't agreed with you you've always been logical. That's rare on a message board.

What makes you say that half the league wants to play 9 conference games? That surprises me.

That's the gossip, that "about" half of the full football members want a 9 game slate.

Doesn't bode well for Idaho/NMSU extensions if that's the case and if it's really a 3/4 vote. I'd be curious which schools actually want a 9-game conference schedule because I can't figure out how it's a smart thing to do for anyone in the Belt.

I concur with your questioning the wisdom of going to 9 conference games. Although USA might not be happy with being in the East and not playing ULL, stAte etc. every year.

Of course, there's a fix for USA....move Idaho to the East in any division setup.

East - Idaho, Coastal, Ga Southern, App, Ga State, Troy
West - NMSU, USA, Texas State, ULL, stAte, ULM

It might be the case as well that Arkansas State doesn't want to lose its ties with Alabama as a result of division splitting. Or Troy might want to stay with some of the Western schools.

If you move Idaho to the east, expect more eastern schools to be against extending them at all. They only have to make the trip out there every four years or so. Telling them to make that trip every other year might ruffle some feathers.

Was that last comment really needed or are we just playing funzies here? Rhetorically of course.

The Sun Belt has all the bargaining power and can keep all the TV revenue.

Idaho and NMSU would happily accept an otherwise bad deal.

I would bet on both doing fine if given a permanent membership .

That is with a two year notice if another direction was decided.

Thank god the SBC saved us for at least four years.

How long has it been since both have been in a stable situation.
Meaning when the WAC's demise was first rumored until now waiting for a vote?

All for NMSU getting in permanently for all sports. Coastal was a good add in the east. NMSU would be a good western add.

I could see the Belt adding NMSU as a full member, informing Idaho that they have two years left in the Sun Belt, and then the Belt approaching EKU, Wichita State, or Missouri State. UTRGV may also be a team to look at in the future now. I just don't see Idaho sticking around permanently. NMSU, on the other hand, would be a solid add across the board, especially being closer to the current footprint.

(02-21-2016 01:16 PM)rknj8993 Wrote:  I could see the Belt adding NMSU as a full member, informing Idaho that they have two years left in the Sun Belt, and then the Belt approaching EKU, Wichita State, or Missouri State. UTRGV may also be a team to look at in the future now. I just don't see Idaho sticking around permanently. NMSU, on the other hand, would be a solid add across the board, especially being closer to the current footprint.

Maybe, but the conference could have easily made EKU or NMSU full members during the last expansion when CCU was added and they passed. UTRGV to the Sun Belt is a lot more than 2 years away, if ever, and Mo. St. and Wichita St. don't seem interested. Wichita St. maybe football-only, but that's a terrible deal for the Sun Belt.

(02-21-2016 01:21 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 01:16 PM)rknj8993 Wrote:  I could see the Belt adding NMSU as a full member, informing Idaho that they have two years left in the Sun Belt, and then the Belt approaching EKU, Wichita State, or Missouri State. UTRGV may also be a team to look at in the future now. I just don't see Idaho sticking around permanently. NMSU, on the other hand, would be a solid add across the board, especially being closer to the current footprint.

Maybe, but the conference could have easily made EKU or NMSU full members during the last expansion when CCU was added and they passed. UTRGV to the Sun Belt is a lot more than 2 years away, if ever, and Mo. St. and Wichita St. don't seem interested. Wichita St. maybe football-only, but that's a terrible deal for the Sun Belt.

I think the Belt is still waiting for EKU to finish their stadium improvements and expansion before pulling the trigger on them. I do think EKU is in the lineup, though. UTRGV is some time off, but if they have their ducks in a row in two years, the Sun Belt would entertain that conversation. With Wichita State bringing back football, I would not be surprised if Missouri State tried to beat them to the punch and jump into the FBS before WSU has the chance to get on their feet. There are a lot of variables to this entire situation. We'll all see soon, though.

(02-21-2016 01:16 PM)rknj8993 Wrote:  I could see the Belt adding NMSU as a full member, informing Idaho that they have two years left in the Sun Belt, and then the Belt approaching EKU, Wichita State, or Missouri State. UTRGV may also be a team to look at in the future now. I just don't see Idaho sticking around permanently. NMSU, on the other hand, would be a solid add across the board, especially being closer to the current footprint.

There's no need to give Idaho a 2 year warning. Just extend them for 2 years. Giving them a 2 year warning would be almost as bad for UI as simply expelling them.

----

For me, the decision to retain or not retain Idaho/NMSU turns on the question of 'and then what'?

Its not like we've got a bunch of teams (or even 1 team) that is a slam dunk for the league.

I see exactly one team that might (just might) have the votes to gain membership that is ready to roll right now...EKU. And I'm not even sure about that EKU actually has the votes to get in.

Missouri State isn't interested at this time. JMU isn't interested at this time. Who else is going to be on the radar in the next 2 years? And the state of Kentucky has funding problems too, which could might impact EKU.

Wichita State is fools gold for the Belt. Trading a football only FBS team for a greenfield moveup football only is not a good trade for the Belt IMHO. I'd rather keep Idaho.

---

Unless Missouri State or JMU call us up and say 'yep, we're ready to move NOW on a full membership bid to the Sun Belt conference', I see no valid reason to eject either NMSU or Idaho at this time.

(02-21-2016 02:00 PM)rknj8993 Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 01:21 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(02-21-2016 01:16 PM)rknj8993 Wrote:  I could see the Belt adding NMSU as a full member, informing Idaho that they have two years left in the Sun Belt, and then the Belt approaching EKU, Wichita State, or Missouri State. UTRGV may also be a team to look at in the future now. I just don't see Idaho sticking around permanently. NMSU, on the other hand, would be a solid add across the board, especially being closer to the current footprint.

Maybe, but the conference could have easily made EKU or NMSU full members during the last expansion when CCU was added and they passed. UTRGV to the Sun Belt is a lot more than 2 years away, if ever, and Mo. St. and Wichita St. don't seem interested. Wichita St. maybe football-only, but that's a terrible deal for the Sun Belt.

I think the Belt is still waiting for EKU to finish their stadium improvements and expansion before pulling the trigger on them. I do think EKU is in the lineup, though. UTRGV is some time off, but if they have their ducks in a row in two years, the Sun Belt would entertain that conversation. With Wichita State bringing back football, I would not be surprised if Missouri State tried to beat them to the punch and jump into the FBS before WSU has the chance to get on their feet. There are a lot of variables to this entire situation. We'll all see soon, though.

There is absolutely no reason to add EKU. There is no need, there is no opening, there is really nothing that they will add at this point. They are in the Liberty category...we will call you if we need you.

Wichita State is the kind of basketball program you want to add. This past week they beat NMSU by 30 points and Missouri State by 31 points.
But it is still about football and they have to want to add football and then want to move to FBS football and then want to join the Sun Belt. I don't think there is a chance that all of that is going to happen with Wichita State.

Missouri State had the worst FCS football program in the country last season. They are going through another losing season in basketball. If they fixed those two important athletic programs, then they would need to show some interest in moving up. I just don't see the attraction in a school that is struggling on the field and never shows any interest in moving up.

UTRGV has to build a football stadium and find the money to start a football program. It cost Houston Baptist $10 million to start their football program that is now in the Southland Conference. So it will not be inexpensive. Also, UTRGV has a really bad basketball program. They are 26-64 since they joined the WAC. They are not an attractive candidate for expansion.

If NMSU were a FCS team looking to move up, they'd be easily the best candidate out of EKU, Jacksonville State, Liberty, UTRGV, Lamar, etc. We'd have any number of people talking about their good basketball, their position in a large metro area (Las Cruces/El Paso), their flagship status, and the fact that they don't have to build new facilities, etc.

Why toss a FBS school in order to take a FCS school with less going for it?

I have some old timer sympathy for EKU because they used to a I-AA power but I hate their situation far too close to Lexington and nearly all of the population near them is as close or closer to Lexington and they are stuck in UK's market to try to get local media attention. There is very little population south of Richmond in Kentucky to draw from.

If given a vote I wouldn't vote for EKU unless we were desperate for numbers.

As for Wichita, if they want to be viable for AAC or MWC they have to have FBS football (otherwise they would have already been brought in, both leagues are at 11 in hoops).

They are a huge outlier for MAC and CUSA is already at 14 once UAB football returns. Their choices are stay Valley or join the Sun Belt and hope to parlay that into MWC or AAC membership down the road.

The Sunbelt is in an extremely good position here to be choosy. The league should do right by its core members and be lean and mean. Cut travel costs, split more revenue between fewer schools, and have a strong position from which to bargain in the future IF a slam dunk expansion option is available (ala App and GA Southern).

The only way the Sunbelt will stop being perceived as a "move up conference" is to stop being the move up conference.

twitter.com/DieselOnRadio

(02-21-2016 07:18 PM)APPdiesel Wrote:  The Sunbelt is in an extremely good position here to be choosy. We do not (now, with conference championship deregulation) NEED more members. So the league should do right by its core members and be lean and mean. Cut travel costs, split more revenue between fewer schools, and have a strong position from which to bargain in the future IF a slam dunk expansion option is available.

The only way the Sunbelt will stop being perceived as a "move up conference" is to stop being the move up conference.

twitter.com/DieselOnRadio

What costs are you cutting by eliminating Idaho & NMSU as football-only affiliates? We pay travel subsidies, we're at least revenue-neutral in performance money, and the base playoff shares per team are the same whether there are 10 teams in the conference or 12. The current TV contract is peanuts anyway and I'm not even sure whether Idaho & NMSU get any of it -- I know there is some other revenue the full members are getting that we're not.

10 teams with divisions is goofy and a 9-game conference round-robin is a bad idea for the Sun Belt. It would be expensive if we were asking you all to send your volleyball and soccer teams up here, but it's just football and we're paying for the travel.

(02-21-2016 07:18 PM)APPdiesel Wrote:  The Sunbelt is in an extremely good position here to be choosy. The league should do right by its core members and be lean and mean. Cut travel costs, split more revenue between fewer schools, and have a strong position from which to bargain in the future IF a slam dunk expansion option is available (ala App and GA Southern).

The only way the Sunbelt will stop being perceived as a "move up conference" is to stop being the move up conference.

twitter.com/DieselOnRadio

The way we avoid more move ups...is to extend NMSU and Idaho at this time.

(02-21-2016 07:18 PM)APPdiesel Wrote:  The only way the Sunbelt will stop being perceived as a "move up conference" is to stop being the move up conference.

twitter.com/DieselOnRadio

The key is to stop giving a damn about that.

If we get raided again, you know what we will do? Invite a couple of move-ups. 100% guaranteed.

People moaned and cried about having to let WKU move up in football and being associated with their horrific losing streak. Then just a few years later...lol....everyone was crying and moaning about "losing such a key member" like WKU.