As expected.

No news yet on whether NMSU will move its other sports out of the WAC.

http://www.lcsun-news.com/story/sports/c.../84332590/

Quote:New Mexico State will play as a Football Bowl Subdivision independent program in 2018 and beyond, following a short-lived football-only membership in the Sun Belt Conference.

Quote:Clute and 18 other committee members were charged with studying a potential drop to FCS football in the past month. The committee unanimously agreed the Aggies should proceed as a FBS program. The financial report was a significant determining factor, in addition to an existing resolution.

Board of Regents Chair Debra Hicks reaffirmed Friday a 2013 resolution that stated the board's "commitment for NMSU to work to create a strong and respected athletic program that competes at the Division 1 FBS level while also stating our commitment that football will continue while being an ongoing focus for improvement."

Quote:Future conference realignment issues regarding the university's Olympic sports will continue to be evaluated while continuing to compete in the Western Athletic Conference.

This is going to be one of those programs folks will study on feasibility, viability, and politics/governance. Just fascinating how they keep this up. How can this help the institution? They wouldn't be the only flagship out in that time zone not playing D1A.

Just by playing 4 buy games a year against P5 schools they can generate over $4 million in revenue a year that is pretty good right there in itself for a G5 team. Plus getting to schedule UTEP and New Mexico each year. Easily be able to schedule BYU every year in November. Them playing four local P5 schools a year plus BYU and UTEP and New Mexico that is 7 games a year that will draw fan interest plus 2 more games against MWC schools would add a little interest, then just a local western FCS school for some interest. That is 10 out of 12 games a year the fan base might be more into then playing Sun Belt schools.

If they can do a schedule like this:

FCS
UTEP
@ Arizona
@ USC
@ Texas Tech
@ Colorado
MWC School
@ MWC School
G5 Or UMass
@ G5 Or UMass
BYU
@ New Mexico

I think New Mexico State will have more fan interest and better schedule this way similar to what you see UMass being able to get more P5 teams at home. Every few years New Mexico State might be able to get a P5 to come play and really boost fan interest. If teams from the American start going P5 and ECU was left behind I hope we would Independent.

We could then schedule App State, Charlotte or ODU, UNC, and NC State each year. Plus three games against SEC teams and three games against other ACC teams.

Glad to hear they're hanging around and giving indy a try...

BYU isn't going to play NMSU annually.

NMSU can get New Mexico and UTEP, which definitely puts them a step ahead of Idaho.

Similarly, UMass has UConn and Boston College to help keep some interest on the football program and a good starting point to fill out some schedules.

Good!!

Come on Idaho!! Pull your head out of your ___ and do the right thing!!

The numbers NMSU is running --- they project getting $2.5MM a year from buy games. That most likely means three separate buy games.

https://twitter.com/JPGroves/status/7311...wsrc%5Etfw

The majority of the $ difference between FBS independent and FCS --- it's coming from those buy games.

I wish NMSU well. But this is going to be tough.

(05-16-2016 01:27 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Good!!

Come on Idaho!! Pull your head out of your ___ and do the right thing!!

Idaho is back to where they belong.

(05-16-2016 01:16 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  Just by playing 4 buy games a year against P5 schools they can generate over $4 million in revenue a year that is pretty good right there in itself for a G5 team. Plus getting to schedule UTEP and New Mexico each year. Easily be able to schedule BYU every year in November. Them playing four local P5 schools a year plus BYU and UTEP and New Mexico that is 7 games a year that will draw fan interest plus 2 more games against MWC schools would add a little interest, then just a local western FCS school for some interest. That is 10 out of 12 games a year the fan base might be more into then playing Sun Belt schools.

If they can do a schedule like this:

FCS
UTEP
@ Arizona
@ USC
@ Texas Tech
@ Colorado
MWC School
@ MWC School
G5 Or UMass
@ G5 Or UMass
BYU
@ New Mexico

I think New Mexico State will have more fan interest and better schedule this way similar to what you see UMass being able to get more P5 teams at home. Every few years New Mexico State might be able to get a P5 to come play and really boost fan interest. If teams from the American start going P5 and ECU was left behind I hope we would Independent.

We could then schedule App State, Charlotte or ODU, UNC, and NC State each year. Plus three games against SEC teams and three games against other ACC teams.

They can't play 4 buy games every year without buying an additional home game from somebody. That would kind of defeat the purpose. It will be tough for them to get the required 5 home games every year.

(05-16-2016 01:27 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Good!!

Come on Idaho!! Pull your head out of your ___ and do the right thing!!

If Idaho had Wazoo and Boise as home and home guarantees every year, the situation would be a little more like NMSU.

But it isn't, because Idaho had ZERO local FBS teams willing to go to Moscow on a regular basis

(05-16-2016 01:45 PM)reick Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 01:16 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  Just by playing 4 buy games a year against P5 schools they can generate over $4 million in revenue a year that is pretty good right there in itself for a G5 team. Plus getting to schedule UTEP and New Mexico each year. Easily be able to schedule BYU every year in November. Them playing four local P5 schools a year plus BYU and UTEP and New Mexico that is 7 games a year that will draw fan interest plus 2 more games against MWC schools would add a little interest, then just a local western FCS school for some interest. That is 10 out of 12 games a year the fan base might be more into then playing Sun Belt schools.

If they can do a schedule like this:

FCS
UTEP
@ Arizona
@ USC
@ Texas Tech
@ Colorado
MWC School
@ MWC School
G5 Or UMass
@ G5 Or UMass
BYU
@ New Mexico

I think New Mexico State will have more fan interest and better schedule this way similar to what you see UMass being able to get more P5 teams at home. Every few years New Mexico State might be able to get a P5 to come play and really boost fan interest. If teams from the American start going P5 and ECU was left behind I hope we would Independent.

We could then schedule App State, Charlotte or ODU, UNC, and NC State each year. Plus three games against SEC teams and three games against other ACC teams.

They can't play 4 buy games every year without buying an additional home game from somebody. That would kind of defeat the purpose. It will be tough for them to get the required 5 home games every year.

Home
UTEP/New Mexico
Non-Notre Dame indy (BYU, Army, UMass)
MWC team TBA
Sun Belt/CUSA team TBA
FCS team TBA

Away
UTEP/New Mexico
Non-Notre Dame indy
MWC team TBA
Sun Belt/CUSA team TBA
P5
P5
P5/strong G5

The FCS would be the only buy game on the schedule; everyone else would be a home/home or possibly 2-for-1 in BYU's case. Plus there'd be at least a puncher's chance at a 2-for-1 or even home-and-home against a southern Pac 12 team (Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado).

I wouldn't categorize it as easy, per se, but it's certainly doable. Much more so than for Idaho.

(05-16-2016 01:35 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  The numbers NMSU is running --- they project getting $2.5MM a year from buy games. That most likely means three separate buy games.

https://twitter.com/JPGroves/status/7311...wsrc%5Etfw

The majority of the $ difference between FBS independent and FCS --- it's coming from those buy games.

I wish NMSU well. But this is going to be tough.

Also if you look at it, NMSU has no good options of conferences to join if they dropped to FCS. So from a dollars standpoint it is better for them to play as an FBS independent than to drop down to FCS.

(05-16-2016 02:13 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 01:35 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  The numbers NMSU is running --- they project getting $2.5MM a year from buy games. That most likely means three separate buy games.

https://twitter.com/JPGroves/status/7311...wsrc%5Etfw

The majority of the $ difference between FBS independent and FCS --- it's coming from those buy games.

I wish NMSU well. But this is going to be tough.

Also if you look at it, NMSU has no good options of conferences to join if they dropped to FCS. So from a dollars standpoint it is better for them to play as an FBS independent than to drop down to FCS.

Yeah Idaho was in a difference situation they have a very strong FCS conference that is very regional and makes perfect sense for them, aside from the obvious sting of dropping down. NMSU has no good FCS option out there. As an extreme outsider on this situation it looks to me like NMSU needs to either stay FBS or just drop the sport entirely.

(05-16-2016 01:59 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 01:45 PM)reick Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 01:16 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  Just by playing 4 buy games a year against P5 schools they can generate over $4 million in revenue a year that is pretty good right there in itself for a G5 team. Plus getting to schedule UTEP and New Mexico each year. Easily be able to schedule BYU every year in November. Them playing four local P5 schools a year plus BYU and UTEP and New Mexico that is 7 games a year that will draw fan interest plus 2 more games against MWC schools would add a little interest, then just a local western FCS school for some interest. That is 10 out of 12 games a year the fan base might be more into then playing Sun Belt schools.

If they can do a schedule like this:

FCS
UTEP
@ Arizona
@ USC
@ Texas Tech
@ Colorado
MWC School
@ MWC School
G5 Or UMass
@ G5 Or UMass
BYU
@ New Mexico

I think New Mexico State will have more fan interest and better schedule this way similar to what you see UMass being able to get more P5 teams at home. Every few years New Mexico State might be able to get a P5 to come play and really boost fan interest. If teams from the American start going P5 and ECU was left behind I hope we would Independent.

We could then schedule App State, Charlotte or ODU, UNC, and NC State each year. Plus three games against SEC teams and three games against other ACC teams.

They can't play 4 buy games every year without buying an additional home game from somebody. That would kind of defeat the purpose. It will be tough for them to get the required 5 home games every year.

Home
UTEP/New Mexico
Non-Notre Dame indy (BYU, Army, UMass)
MWC team TBA
Sun Belt/CUSA team TBA
FCS team TBA

Away
UTEP/New Mexico
Non-Notre Dame indy
MWC team TBA
Sun Belt/CUSA team TBA
P5
P5
P5/strong G5

The FCS would be the only buy game on the schedule; everyone else would be a home/home or possibly 2-for-1 in BYU's case. Plus there'd be at least a puncher's chance at a 2-for-1 or even home-and-home against a southern Pac 12 team (Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado).

I wouldn't categorize it as easy, per se, but it's certainly doable. Much more so than for Idaho.

I agree that this is what they will try and do. Basically 3 road pay days and 1 home FCS with the other 8 games (4 home and 4 road) coming from home/home series. It helps that they have NM and UTEP already filling 2 of those. But finding 6 others on a consistent basis will be tough. Even if they get lucky and have a couple 2 for 1s fall in their lap, they aren't exactly going to be at the top of anyone's list of desirable home/home series.

They've been at the top level for a long time. I'm pulling for them.

(05-16-2016 02:36 PM)reick Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 01:59 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 01:45 PM)reick Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 01:16 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  Just by playing 4 buy games a year against P5 schools they can generate over $4 million in revenue a year that is pretty good right there in itself for a G5 team. Plus getting to schedule UTEP and New Mexico each year. Easily be able to schedule BYU every year in November. Them playing four local P5 schools a year plus BYU and UTEP and New Mexico that is 7 games a year that will draw fan interest plus 2 more games against MWC schools would add a little interest, then just a local western FCS school for some interest. That is 10 out of 12 games a year the fan base might be more into then playing Sun Belt schools.

If they can do a schedule like this:

FCS
UTEP
@ Arizona
@ USC
@ Texas Tech
@ Colorado
MWC School
@ MWC School
G5 Or UMass
@ G5 Or UMass
BYU
@ New Mexico

I think New Mexico State will have more fan interest and better schedule this way similar to what you see UMass being able to get more P5 teams at home. Every few years New Mexico State might be able to get a P5 to come play and really boost fan interest. If teams from the American start going P5 and ECU was left behind I hope we would Independent.

We could then schedule App State, Charlotte or ODU, UNC, and NC State each year. Plus three games against SEC teams and three games against other ACC teams.

They can't play 4 buy games every year without buying an additional home game from somebody. That would kind of defeat the purpose. It will be tough for them to get the required 5 home games every year.

Home
UTEP/New Mexico
Non-Notre Dame indy (BYU, Army, UMass)
MWC team TBA
Sun Belt/CUSA team TBA
FCS team TBA

Away
UTEP/New Mexico
Non-Notre Dame indy
MWC team TBA
Sun Belt/CUSA team TBA
P5
P5
P5/strong G5

The FCS would be the only buy game on the schedule; everyone else would be a home/home or possibly 2-for-1 in BYU's case. Plus there'd be at least a puncher's chance at a 2-for-1 or even home-and-home against a southern Pac 12 team (Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado).

I wouldn't categorize it as easy, per se, but it's certainly doable. Much more so than for Idaho.

I agree that this is what they will try and do. Basically 3 road pay days and 1 home FCS with the other 8 games (4 home and 4 road) coming from home/home series. It helps that they have NM and UTEP already filling 2 of those. But finding 6 others on a consistent basis will be tough. Even if they get lucky and have a couple 2 for 1s fall in their lap, they aren't exactly going to be at the top of anyone's list of desirable home/home series.

What helps them is the large number of G5 and lower-tier P5 programs in the Southwest and Rockies. I'd think many of the MWC programs would be amiable to doing a home-and-home, particularly the Mountain Division teams. CUSA and the Sun Belt has to varying degrees their western members (UTSA and Texas State would be more interested than Southern Miss or Louisiana-Lafayette, presumably). SMU and Tulsa might be up for a series.

It's definitely going to be a challenge, especially since in most of those seasons, they'll be happy to get the five home games, and the sexiest one will probably be whoever between UTEP and New Mexico is coming in that year. And it probably isn't a long-term solution. But in terms on treading water until conference realignment/expansion breaks in such a way that they have a home again, it's not the worst plan in the world.

(05-16-2016 02:31 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 02:13 PM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 01:35 PM)NittanyLion Wrote:  The numbers NMSU is running --- they project getting $2.5MM a year from buy games. That most likely means three separate buy games.

https://twitter.com/JPGroves/status/7311...wsrc%5Etfw

The majority of the $ difference between FBS independent and FCS --- it's coming from those buy games.

I wish NMSU well. But this is going to be tough.

Also if you look at it, NMSU has no good options of conferences to join if they dropped to FCS. So from a dollars standpoint it is better for them to play as an FBS independent than to drop down to FCS.

Yeah Idaho was in a difference situation they have a very strong FCS conference that is very regional and makes perfect sense for them, aside from the obvious sting of dropping down. NMSU has no good FCS option out there. As an extreme outsider on this situation it looks to me like NMSU needs to either stay FBS or just drop the sport entirely.

NMSU is in a decidedly different position than UI. NMSU has two very important regional rivals who do play them home and home every year, i.e. UTEP and UNM. These home games would go away if NMSU dropped to FCS. UI has two historical rivals who will never play in Moscow (BSU and WSU) and will likely only play the vandals in Boise and Pullman once in a blue moon regardless if UI is FCS or FBS (the WSU AD is on record as saying they will play UI as an FCS school in Pullman). UI has old FCS rivals who they will now play home and home again, e.g. UM, MSU, ISU. There are other schools in the BSC which UI has a past and a recent history, i.e. Weber, NAU, PSU. NMSU has really no relationship to any BSC team other than UI (and long ago, NAU) who is too far away to have any real visiting fans. The nearest BSC school is NAU about 650 miles away. UI has regional rivals that make travel easier (UM, MSU, EWU, ISU, PSU) and a few have fans who may travel to Moscow (UM, MSU, EWU). It is unlikely any BSC fans will travel to Las Cruces. There is no decent FCS option for NMSU. The Southland, MVFC, and Big Sky would make the Aggies a distant outlier and travel would be difficult and expensive (lack of airports, more bus travel at that level). NMSU is a southwest team with little contact with the northwest and California teams in the BSC. They are far from any Texas FCS schools despite being on the Texas border. They really fit in the MWC best but that is an unlikely destination. NMSU has never played at any level but the highest in the NCAA while UI has bounced around a few times. NMSU has legitimate FBS facilities (30,000+ seat stadium and D1 basketball arena) and is much more likely to get other FBS teams to travel to Las Cruces than UI is to get teams to Moscow (15,200 seats in the Kibbie Dome as per UI official website). Budgeting may be easier if they have a couple of payday games against the P5 but wins are likely to be even harder to come by for the Aggies. The real problem is getting 5 FBS teams to visit Las Cruces every year. It appears NMSU is hoping to hang on long enough to be the last available school for a conference so desperate to hang onto FBS status they would be willing to take on the Aggies so the conference won't disappear. It is a strategy that has worked for them in the past but may not succeed this time around. NMSU has no options for a cost effective regional D1 conference for all sports (FBS or FCS) but is in a better position to make FBS independence work for awhile. UI really has little hope to make FBS independence work long enough to make a difference and they have a stable and truly regional D1 conference willing (and enthusiastic) to have the Vandals as a member. I hope something can happen for NMSU as they are in a conference which appears to be on its last legs (WAC), have no good realistic regional options for a new conference, and may have to drop football to save their athletic department. It would be nice to have another FBS conference in the west as there has been historically three and this provides more regional opportunities for all us and a bit of a safety net. I just do not see a WAC/BSC/others FBS conference on the horizon. NMSU and UI might really fit in the MWC best but that is an unlikely destination.

New Mexico: ~ 2M people (36th rank), two flagship public FBS schools (though one is clearly higher), no major private schools
Utah: ~3M people (31st rank), two flagship public FBS schools (though one is clearly much higher), but also a major private school

Idaho: ~1.65M people (39th rank), one flagship public FBS school, plus an urban non-flagship FBS public school


Zero reason Idaho, Utah St and NM St shouldn't be FBS and in the same conference. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

New Mexico State needs to work with their WAC members about restarting football sponsorship. UTRGV could be the first to come up as an FBS independent if they decides to add football. They could be on New Mexico State's future schedules. Utah Valley and Grand Canyon were also thinking of adding football as well. They could be WAC members as FBS independent. Grand Canyon could use the University of Phoenix as their home stadium until they figure out what they do for their own.
Wichita State could garner a WAC football only invite to help build their football up to join another G5 conference.
By the time there are enough teams join the FBS level? The WAC would be formed in a slow matter until the next CFP contract to include them.

(05-16-2016 04:27 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  New Mexico: ~ 2M people (36th rank), two flagship public FBS schools (though one is clearly higher), no major private schools
Utah: ~3M people (31st rank), two flagship public FBS schools (though one is clearly much higher), but also a major private school

Idaho: ~1.65M people (39th rank), one flagship public FBS school, plus an urban non-flagship FBS public school


Zero reason Idaho, Utah St and NM St shouldn't be FBS and in the same conference. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Idaho and NM State can't join Utah State's current conference because of the presence of Boise State and New Mexico. Shoot, Utah State didn't get into their current conference until BYU and Utah left.

Idaho and NMSU's in-state schools are the real roadblock. As was once the case for Utah State.

While there have been times where Utah State, Idaho, and Boise State were in the same conference together ---- there has NEVER a time where Utah State, New Mexico State and New Mexico were in the same conference together.

Is what it is.