(01-04-2017 12:54 PM)NotANewbie Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 10:52 AM)p23570 Wrote:  Lets be real. 26 million $ AD with nearly 70% subsidy to operate. They belong in FCS, not FBS.

103 New Mexico State WAC $26,986,841 $26,874,116 $18,509,552 68.59

And what part of OU's buget is subsidized by the networks? I find your argument somewhat amusing that you should get to choose the sources of funding for others.

This isn't about OU. This is about NMSU. Don't be insecure and change the subject because you won't address the facts I presented.

The reality is NMSU has a 26 million $ AD with a huge taxpayer subsidy to operate. They typically draw around 5-10k fans for home games. That is not even remotely close to meeting FBS minimum standards for attendance and its' clear the $ is not there either.

There is no good reason for NMSU to be playing FBS football. None. They belong in FCS and even there they are not a strong program.

Here is where the coaches salary ranks.
119 New Mexico State Sun Belt Doug Martin $376,044

So the better question is why do you think NMSU belongs in FBS?

(01-04-2017 12:54 PM)NotANewbie Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 10:52 AM)p23570 Wrote:  Lets be real. 26 million $ AD with nearly 70% subsidy to operate. They belong in FCS, not FBS.

103 New Mexico State WAC $26,986,841 $26,874,116 $18,509,552 68.59

And what part of OU's buget is subsidized by the networks? I find your argument somewhat amusing that you should get to choose the sources of funding for others.

I think there is a big difference there.

schools that subsidize from within cannot generate its own revenues to cover expenses.

Yes, OU gets money from networks. But they generate that revenue for themselves due to the status of their program and conference affiliation. it's earned, not subsidized.

(01-04-2017 01:03 PM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 12:54 PM)NotANewbie Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 10:52 AM)p23570 Wrote:  Lets be real. 26 million $ AD with nearly 70% subsidy to operate. They belong in FCS, not FBS.

103 New Mexico State WAC $26,986,841 $26,874,116 $18,509,552 68.59

And what part of OU's buget is subsidized by the networks? I find your argument somewhat amusing that you should get to choose the sources of funding for others.

I think there is a big difference there.

schools that subsidize from within cannot generate its own revenues to cover expenses.

Yes, OU gets money from networks. But they generate that revenue for themselves due to the status of their program and conference affiliation. it's earned, not subsidized.

The real elephant in the room is that no matter how you slice the divisions, there will always be teams that are near the bottom of that division most of the time. If, as some have proposed, the top division is limited to 64 teams, realistically there will be several teams that are between 50 and 64 year after year. There will always be the haves and have nots. Though some liberal thinking says everyone should be equal, I cannot think of an environment in which that is true. In a wolf pack there is the alpha wolf and the omega wolf, and several wolves in between. It only changes witha big, often destructive fight. The same is true in the sports world.

p23570 cited data that showed NMSU as number 103 out of 128 FBS schools. If you extend his logic, there are 25 other schools that should be FCS. Seeking to have teams step down does not change the reality. It only shifts things.

So, although I can see p23570 and duke dawg's arguments, they are self serving arguments from the point of view of privilege. I will not accept the premise of setting things up to ensure the maintenance of privilege. When that premise is not in play, there seems little traction in following those arguments.

A grouping of AD's on finances might lookslike this.
FCS= 20's
G-5= 30-60 million
P-5 = 60+ Million

It's hard to make a case that New Mexico State with a 26 million $ AD belongs in the dame division with Texas making 180 Million. It's not fair to the players who have nothing to play for. Not fair for the AD to waste so much money traveling across the country to play games. Not worth it to taxpayers who are paying for the AD to operate because there is no fan support to generate ticket sales ot TV money. With the shrinking budgets form these states and cuts across the board continually trying to play up a league is not a plan for long term success. There simply isn't enough potential there to warrant what they are trying to do.

The Big Sky already has teams in Colorado and Arizona so it makes perfect sense for New Mexico State. Stop flying to conference games on the Eastern time zone. Stop trying to compete in a division with schools who have 6 times your budget. Compete against schools in your time zone, who have similar AD budgets and resources. Give your kids something to play for other than a paid road beating from a p-5 program every year to keep the AD afloat.

The little bit of bowl and TV money they will get are not even enough to offset the travel costs. It just makes no sense.

(01-04-2017 03:13 PM)p23570 Wrote:  A grouping of AD's on finances might lookslike this.
FCS= 20's
G-5= 30-60 million
P-5 = 60+ Million

It's hard to make a case that New Mexico State with a 26 million $ AD belongs in the dame division with Texas making 180 Million. It's not fair to the players who have nothing to play for. Not fair for the AD to waste so much money traveling across the country to play games. Not worth it to taxpayers who are paying for the AD to operate because there is no fan support to generate ticket sales ot TV money. With the shrinking budgets form these states and cuts across the board continually trying to play up a league is not a plan for long term success. There simply isn't enough potential there to warrant what they are trying to do.

You're making a great argument if NMSU were applying to join the Big 12. But they're in the same situation from a budget and subsidy standpoint as a bunch of G5 teams. Aspiring to a G5 conference is not unreasonable for them and the Big Sky hasn't made an offer.

(01-04-2017 03:34 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 03:13 PM)p23570 Wrote:  A grouping of AD's on finances might lookslike this.
FCS= 20's
G-5= 30-60 million
P-5 = 60+ Million

It's hard to make a case that New Mexico State with a 26 million $ AD belongs in the dame division with Texas making 180 Million. It's not fair to the players who have nothing to play for. Not fair for the AD to waste so much money traveling across the country to play games. Not worth it to taxpayers who are paying for the AD to operate because there is no fan support to generate ticket sales ot TV money. With the shrinking budgets form these states and cuts across the board continually trying to play up a league is not a plan for long term success. There simply isn't enough potential there to warrant what they are trying to do.

You're making a great argument if NMSU were applying to join the Big 12. But they're in the same situation from a budget and subsidy standpoint as a bunch of G5 teams. Aspiring to a G5 conference is not unreasonable for them and the Big Sky hasn't made an offer.

No, this has nothing to do with the Big 12. This is about FBS.

NMSU is the same situation from a budget and worse from a subsidy standpoint as a bunch of the Big Sky teams. Big Sky schools generate more income and require less subsidy unless you drop to a commuter school like Sacramento State.
103 New Mexico State WAC $26,986,841 $26,874,116 $18,509,552 68.59
117 North Dakota Big Sky $24,287,775 $24,295,578 $10,603,550 43.66
121 Montana Big Sky $22,379,177 $23,823,841 $7,969,335 35.61
125 Sacramento State Big Sky $22,205,925 $22,217,565 $18,045,917 81.27
131 Idaho Big Sky $19,950,964 $19,248,132 $10,583,477 53.05
133 Montana State Big Sky $19,317,019 $18,815,514 $10,240,409 53.

(01-04-2017 03:40 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 03:34 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 03:13 PM)p23570 Wrote:  A grouping of AD's on finances might lookslike this.
FCS= 20's
G-5= 30-60 million
P-5 = 60+ Million

It's hard to make a case that New Mexico State with a 26 million $ AD belongs in the dame division with Texas making 180 Million. It's not fair to the players who have nothing to play for. Not fair for the AD to waste so much money traveling across the country to play games. Not worth it to taxpayers who are paying for the AD to operate because there is no fan support to generate ticket sales ot TV money. With the shrinking budgets form these states and cuts across the board continually trying to play up a league is not a plan for long term success. There simply isn't enough potential there to warrant what they are trying to do.

You're making a great argument if NMSU were applying to join the Big 12. But they're in the same situation from a budget and subsidy standpoint as a bunch of G5 teams. Aspiring to a G5 conference is not unreasonable for them and the Big Sky hasn't made an offer.

No, this has nothing to do with the Big 12. This is about FBS.

NMSU is the same situation from a budget and worse from a subsidy standpoint as a bunch of the Big Sky teams. Big Sky schools generate more income and require less subsidy unless you drop to a commuter school like Sacramento State.
103 New Mexico State WAC $26,986,841 $26,874,116 $18,509,552 68.59
117 North Dakota Big Sky $24,287,775 $24,295,578 $10,603,550 43.66
121 Montana Big Sky $22,379,177 $23,823,841 $7,969,335 35.61
125 Sacramento State Big Sky $22,205,925 $22,217,565 $18,045,917 81.27
131 Idaho Big Sky $19,950,964 $19,248,132 $10,583,477 53.05
133 Montana State Big Sky $19,317,019 $18,815,514 $10,240,409 53.

Much of UND's ticket sales go to a charitable trust, so it doesn't show up in the schools athletic budget. By your definition, we should be a G5 school.

(01-04-2017 03:46 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 03:40 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 03:34 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 03:13 PM)p23570 Wrote:  A grouping of AD's on finances might lookslike this.
FCS= 20's
G-5= 30-60 million
P-5 = 60+ Million

It's hard to make a case that New Mexico State with a 26 million $ AD belongs in the dame division with Texas making 180 Million. It's not fair to the players who have nothing to play for. Not fair for the AD to waste so much money traveling across the country to play games. Not worth it to taxpayers who are paying for the AD to operate because there is no fan support to generate ticket sales ot TV money. With the shrinking budgets form these states and cuts across the board continually trying to play up a league is not a plan for long term success. There simply isn't enough potential there to warrant what they are trying to do.

You're making a great argument if NMSU were applying to join the Big 12. But they're in the same situation from a budget and subsidy standpoint as a bunch of G5 teams. Aspiring to a G5 conference is not unreasonable for them and the Big Sky hasn't made an offer.

No, this has nothing to do with the Big 12. This is about FBS.

NMSU is the same situation from a budget and worse from a subsidy standpoint as a bunch of the Big Sky teams. Big Sky schools generate more income and require less subsidy unless you drop to a commuter school like Sacramento State.
103 New Mexico State WAC $26,986,841 $26,874,116 $18,509,552 68.59
117 North Dakota Big Sky $24,287,775 $24,295,578 $10,603,550 43.66
121 Montana Big Sky $22,379,177 $23,823,841 $7,969,335 35.61
125 Sacramento State Big Sky $22,205,925 $22,217,565 $18,045,917 81.27
131 Idaho Big Sky $19,950,964 $19,248,132 $10,583,477 53.05
133 Montana State Big Sky $19,317,019 $18,815,514 $10,240,409 53.

Much of UND's ticket sales go to a charitable trust, so it doesn't show up in the schools athletic budget. By your definition, we should be a G5 school.

If you think I believe UND belongs playing FBS you are misunderstanding something. What does UND have to do with this anyway? Just you being insecure most likely.

(01-04-2017 03:49 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 03:46 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 03:40 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 03:34 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 03:13 PM)p23570 Wrote:  A grouping of AD's on finances might lookslike this.
FCS= 20's
G-5= 30-60 million
P-5 = 60+ Million

It's hard to make a case that New Mexico State with a 26 million $ AD belongs in the dame division with Texas making 180 Million. It's not fair to the players who have nothing to play for. Not fair for the AD to waste so much money traveling across the country to play games. Not worth it to taxpayers who are paying for the AD to operate because there is no fan support to generate ticket sales ot TV money. With the shrinking budgets form these states and cuts across the board continually trying to play up a league is not a plan for long term success. There simply isn't enough potential there to warrant what they are trying to do.

You're making a great argument if NMSU were applying to join the Big 12. But they're in the same situation from a budget and subsidy standpoint as a bunch of G5 teams. Aspiring to a G5 conference is not unreasonable for them and the Big Sky hasn't made an offer.

No, this has nothing to do with the Big 12. This is about FBS.

NMSU is the same situation from a budget and worse from a subsidy standpoint as a bunch of the Big Sky teams. Big Sky schools generate more income and require less subsidy unless you drop to a commuter school like Sacramento State.
103 New Mexico State WAC $26,986,841 $26,874,116 $18,509,552 68.59
117 North Dakota Big Sky $24,287,775 $24,295,578 $10,603,550 43.66
121 Montana Big Sky $22,379,177 $23,823,841 $7,969,335 35.61
125 Sacramento State Big Sky $22,205,925 $22,217,565 $18,045,917 81.27
131 Idaho Big Sky $19,950,964 $19,248,132 $10,583,477 53.05
133 Montana State Big Sky $19,317,019 $18,815,514 $10,240,409 53.

Much of UND's ticket sales go to a charitable trust, so it doesn't show up in the schools athletic budget. By your definition, we should be a G5 school.

If you think I believe UND belongs playing FBS you are misunderstanding something. What does UND have to do with this anyway? Just you being insecure most likely.

You placed them in the conversation. I didnt.

When your own pet theories are blown out of the water, it's time to surrender.

(01-04-2017 03:40 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 03:34 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 03:13 PM)p23570 Wrote:  A grouping of AD's on finances might lookslike this.
FCS= 20's
G-5= 30-60 million
P-5 = 60+ Million

It's hard to make a case that New Mexico State with a 26 million $ AD belongs in the dame division with Texas making 180 Million. It's not fair to the players who have nothing to play for. Not fair for the AD to waste so much money traveling across the country to play games. Not worth it to taxpayers who are paying for the AD to operate because there is no fan support to generate ticket sales ot TV money. With the shrinking budgets form these states and cuts across the board continually trying to play up a league is not a plan for long term success. There simply isn't enough potential there to warrant what they are trying to do.

You're making a great argument if NMSU were applying to join the Big 12. But they're in the same situation from a budget and subsidy standpoint as a bunch of G5 teams. Aspiring to a G5 conference is not unreasonable for them and the Big Sky hasn't made an offer.

No, this has nothing to do with the Big 12. This is about FBS.

NMSU is the same situation from a budget and worse from a subsidy standpoint as a bunch of the Big Sky teams. Big Sky schools generate more income and require less subsidy unless you drop to a commuter school like Sacramento State.
103 New Mexico State WAC $26,986,841 $26,874,116 $18,509,552 68.59
117 North Dakota Big Sky $24,287,775 $24,295,578 $10,603,550 43.66
121 Montana Big Sky $22,379,177 $23,823,841 $7,969,335 35.61
125 Sacramento State Big Sky $22,205,925 $22,217,565 $18,045,917 81.27
131 Idaho Big Sky $19,950,964 $19,248,132 $10,583,477 53.05
133 Montana State Big Sky $19,317,019 $18,815,514 $10,240,409 53.

If I cared enough about this debate I would go find the list of comparable G5 schools. Yes, there is a gray area where the bottom of the G5 and the top of FCS merge together. Why do you care which side of the line NMSU, Eastern Michigan, the F_Us, Montana, Idaho, ULM, or NDSU want to stand on? If they want to pay for it, what difference does it make to you? The entire G5 already isn't functionally in the same division as the P5 schools.

If this were a discussion about whether there should be a separation of FBS into two divisions, I could easily see your point. At this time, such a separation has not occurred, and I suspect is several years from happening. If it occurs, I would readily agree that NMSU belongs in the FBS G5 and not the FBS P5. Until that happens, there is value to NMSU to remain in FBS.

You argued about travel savings. That is erroneous. When you look at the travel involved for NMSU in either the Big Sky or Southland, the nearest FCS conferences, there is little if any travel savings to be realized. The greater savings would be realized in the MWC, or even greater with a reorganization of the G5 to establish regionally cohesive conferences of from 10 to 12 schools. Then the new G6 could negotiate a series of regional TV packages that would split the G5/6 into several games on a given weekend that would collectively attract an economically viable viewership.

No one is ready to take on that logical, but currently unpopular change. The G5 goofed in trying to get a national look to each conference, but when they did that no G5 conference could compete with the national level conferences. In the meantime, it is foolish to argue against NMSU, Idaho, Florida International or any school arguing that they should step down to FCS.

Now that we've gone completely off topic, why should an Oklahoma fan care about whether or not NMSU remains an FBS school? Don't they make enough money already? A few dollars won't make any difference

Typical Sooners crying foul because someone dares to take the field. But then again, you can't spell foul without "OU."

(01-04-2017 04:08 PM)NotANewbie Wrote:  If this were a discussion about whether there should be a separation of FBS into two divisions, I could easily see your point. At this time, such a separation has not occurred, and I suspect is several years from happening. If it occurs, I would readily agree that NMSU belongs in the FBS G5 and not the FBS P5. Until that happens, there is value to NMSU to remain in FBS.

You argued about travel savings. That is erroneous. When you look at the travel involved for NMSU in either the Big Sky or Southland, the nearest FCS conferences, there is little if any travel savings to be realized. The greater savings would be realized in the MWC, or even greater with a reorganization of the G5 to establish regionally cohesive conferences of from 10 to 12 schools. Then the new G6 could negotiate a series of regional TV packages that would split the G5/6 into several games on a given weekend that would collectively attract an economically viable viewership.

No one is ready to take on that logical, but currently unpopular change. The G5 goofed in trying to get a national look to each conference, but when they did that no G5 conference could compete with the national level conferences. In the meantime, it is foolish to argue against NMSU, Idaho, Florida International or any school arguing that they should step down to FCS.

Discussing NMSU moving to FCS is absolutely valid in this situation. They literally have no choice at this point. You can pretend that waiting around will change things but it's very unlikely at this point that any "spots" open up for NMSU.

BYU struggles as an indy and you think NMSU is going to make it as one?

There are absolutely benefits for travel in the Big Sky. Playing games in your time zone might be nice as opposed to going to the Eastern time zone to play. Games in Colorado, Utah, and Arizona are at least neighboring states.

Do you think it's foolish to argue that Idaho belongs in FCS?
This situation is very similar.

(01-04-2017 05:41 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Now that we've gone completely off topic, why should an Oklahoma fan care about whether or not NMSU remains an FBS school? Don't they make enough money already? A few dollars won't make any difference

Typical Sooners crying foul because someone dares to take the field. But then again, you can't spell foul without "OU."

Great response. Very typical of an insecure fan who wants to change the subject because you are upset.

Why should you care about NMSU you bla bla bla bla! LOL. So predictable.

BTW we are stil talking NMSU conference affiliation so still on topic. Another fail but nice try.

(01-04-2017 05:44 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 05:41 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Now that we've gone completely off topic, why should an Oklahoma fan care about whether or not NMSU remains an FBS school? Don't they make enough money already? A few dollars won't make any difference

Typical Sooners crying foul because someone dares to take the field. But then again, you can't spell foul without "OU."

Great response. Very typical of an insecure fan who wants to change the subject because you are upset.

Why should you care about NMSU you bla bla bla bla! LOL. So predictable.

BTW we are stil talking NMSU conference affiliation so still on topic. Another fail but nice try.

I'm not a fan of NMSU. I just wonder why you are preaching that "they belong in FCS." They have been at this 1-A / FBS level for a long time. They want to keep going, then okay. Let them sink or swim. Don't drag them down.

(01-04-2017 05:42 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 04:08 PM)NotANewbie Wrote:  If this were a discussion about whether there should be a separation of FBS into two divisions, I could easily see your point. At this time, such a separation has not occurred, and I suspect is several years from happening. If it occurs, I would readily agree that NMSU belongs in the FBS G5 and not the FBS P5. Until that happens, there is value to NMSU to remain in FBS.

You argued about travel savings. That is erroneous. When you look at the travel involved for NMSU in either the Big Sky or Southland, the nearest FCS conferences, there is little if any travel savings to be realized. The greater savings would be realized in the MWC, or even greater with a reorganization of the G5 to establish regionally cohesive conferences of from 10 to 12 schools. Then the new G6 could negotiate a series of regional TV packages that would split the G5/6 into several games on a given weekend that would collectively attract an economically viable viewership.

No one is ready to take on that logical, but currently unpopular change. The G5 goofed in trying to get a national look to each conference, but when they did that no G5 conference could compete with the national level conferences. In the meantime, it is foolish to argue against NMSU, Idaho, Florida International or any school arguing that they should step down to FCS.

Discussing NMSU moving to FCS is absolutely valid in this situation. They literally have no choice at this point. You can pretend that waiting around will change things but it's very unlikely at this point that any "spots" open up for NMSU.

BYU struggles as an indy and you think NMSU is going to make it as one?

There are absolutely benefits for travel in the Big Sky. Playing games in your time zone might be nice as opposed to going to the Eastern time zone to play. Games in Colorado, Utah, and Arizona are at least neighboring states.

Do you think it's foolish to argue that Idaho belongs in FCS?
This situation is very similar.

They do have a choice. They can play indy and get H&H's with their actual historic rivals, UNM and UTEP. Neither of those schools will come to Las Cruces to play an FCS NMSU. It's not just proximity that generates fan interest, it's history and familiarity. NMSU has zero history with any of the schools in the Big Sky other than Idaho, which isn't exactly a short trip from Las Cruces. Even if they're in neighboring states, Southern Utah and Northern Colorado aren't going to draw more interest than UNM and UTEP.

If some NMSU fan jumped on this board to demand that OU move to the AAC to take advantage of proximity with Houston, SMU and Tulsa you'd likely call him an idiot and tell him to mind his own business. And you'd be right.

(01-04-2017 05:58 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 05:44 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 05:41 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Now that we've gone completely off topic, why should an Oklahoma fan care about whether or not NMSU remains an FBS school? Don't they make enough money already? A few dollars won't make any difference

Typical Sooners crying foul because someone dares to take the field. But then again, you can't spell foul without "OU."

Great response. Very typical of an insecure fan who wants to change the subject because you are upset.

Why should you care about NMSU you bla bla bla bla! LOL. So predictable.

BTW we are stil talking NMSU conference affiliation so still on topic. Another fail but nice try.

I'm not a fan of NMSU. I just wonder why you are preaching that "they belong in FCS." They have been at this 1-A / FBS level for a long time. They want to keep going, then okay. Let them sink or swim. Don't drag them down.

I'n not dragging anyone down. I'm being realistic. I do not see a spot for them in FBS moving forward and I do not think they can sustain independence. I see a conference nearby that covers the Western US with peer schools that have similar budgets.

(01-04-2017 06:04 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 05:42 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 04:08 PM)NotANewbie Wrote:  If this were a discussion about whether there should be a separation of FBS into two divisions, I could easily see your point. At this time, such a separation has not occurred, and I suspect is several years from happening. If it occurs, I would readily agree that NMSU belongs in the FBS G5 and not the FBS P5. Until that happens, there is value to NMSU to remain in FBS.

You argued about travel savings. That is erroneous. When you look at the travel involved for NMSU in either the Big Sky or Southland, the nearest FCS conferences, there is little if any travel savings to be realized. The greater savings would be realized in the MWC, or even greater with a reorganization of the G5 to establish regionally cohesive conferences of from 10 to 12 schools. Then the new G6 could negotiate a series of regional TV packages that would split the G5/6 into several games on a given weekend that would collectively attract an economically viable viewership.

No one is ready to take on that logical, but currently unpopular change. The G5 goofed in trying to get a national look to each conference, but when they did that no G5 conference could compete with the national level conferences. In the meantime, it is foolish to argue against NMSU, Idaho, Florida International or any school arguing that they should step down to FCS.

Discussing NMSU moving to FCS is absolutely valid in this situation. They literally have no choice at this point. You can pretend that waiting around will change things but it's very unlikely at this point that any "spots" open up for NMSU.

BYU struggles as an indy and you think NMSU is going to make it as one?

There are absolutely benefits for travel in the Big Sky. Playing games in your time zone might be nice as opposed to going to the Eastern time zone to play. Games in Colorado, Utah, and Arizona are at least neighboring states.

Do you think it's foolish to argue that Idaho belongs in FCS?
This situation is very similar.

They do have a choice. They can play indy and get H&H's with their actual historic rivals, UNM and UTEP. Neither of those schools will come to Las Cruces to play an FCS NMSU. It's not just proximity that generates fan interest, it's history and familiarity. NMSU has zero history with any of the schools in the Big Sky other than Idaho, which isn't exactly a short trip from Las Cruces. Even if they're in neighboring states, Southern Utah and Northern Colorado aren't going to draw more interest than UNM and UTEP.

If some NMSU fan jumped on this board to demand that OU move to the AAC to take advantage of proximity with Houston, SMU and Tulsa you'd likely call him an idiot and tell him to mind his own business. And you'd be right.

Not really. Getting a H&H with UTEP and UNM is hardly a reason to try to be an FBS Indy long term. If you prefer fling 2 time zones to go play over games in neighboring states you are entitled to your opinion, I see some advantage to playing in AZ, UT, and CO.

This has nothing to do with OU and I'm not demanding NMSU do anything. Just calm down, take a deep breath. It's going to be OK.

I'm simply pointing out that playing in the Big Sky might be better for NMSU. First off the games are in your time zone which is nice. Games in neighboring states which is nice. Playing against schools with similar resources is nice. Feeling like you are wanted as part of a conference might be nice as well as opposed to this weird limbo NMSU has been in for many years playing conference games for various sports across the entire country in 2 different conferences.

But if you see a path of going INDY which will end up in C-USA or Sun Belt so be it. You are entitled to your opinion, and I won't even tell you that you're stupid. All it would take is Rice getting called up for a spot to open up.

(01-04-2017 05:42 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 04:08 PM)NotANewbie Wrote:  If this were a discussion about whether there should be a separation of FBS into two divisions, I could easily see your point. At this time, such a separation has not occurred, and I suspect is several years from happening. If it occurs, I would readily agree that NMSU belongs in the FBS G5 and not the FBS P5. Until that happens, there is value to NMSU to remain in FBS.

You argued about travel savings. That is erroneous. When you look at the travel involved for NMSU in either the Big Sky or Southland, the nearest FCS conferences, there is little if any travel savings to be realized. The greater savings would be realized in the MWC, or even greater with a reorganization of the G5 to establish regionally cohesive conferences of from 10 to 12 schools. Then the new G6 could negotiate a series of regional TV packages that would split the G5/6 into several games on a given weekend that would collectively attract an economically viable viewership.

No one is ready to take on that logical, but currently unpopular change. The G5 goofed in trying to get a national look to each conference, but when they did that no G5 conference could compete with the national level conferences. In the meantime, it is foolish to argue against NMSU, Idaho, Florida International or any school arguing that they should step down to FCS.

Discussing NMSU moving to FCS is absolutely valid in this situation. They literally have no choice at this point. You can pretend that waiting around will change things but it's very unlikely at this point that any "spots" open up for NMSU.

BYU struggles as an indy and you think NMSU is going to make it as one?

There are absolutely benefits for travel in the Big Sky. Playing games in your time zone might be nice as opposed to going to the Eastern time zone to play. Games in Colorado, Utah, and Arizona are at least neighboring states.

Do you think it's foolish to argue that Idaho belongs in FCS?
This situation is very similar.

UH

The Big Sky has teams in three time zones.
The Sun Belt has teams in three time zones.
The WAC has teams in three time zones.

You are making arguments that contradict yourself. Go back to the Big 12 board. I'm not surprised you only have 10 teams based on the logic you have shown.

(01-04-2017 06:53 PM)p23570 Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 06:04 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  They do have a choice. They can play indy and get H&H's with their actual historic rivals, UNM and UTEP. Neither of those schools will come to Las Cruces to play an FCS NMSU. It's not just proximity that generates fan interest, it's history and familiarity. NMSU has zero history with any of the schools in the Big Sky other than Idaho, which isn't exactly a short trip from Las Cruces. Even if they're in neighboring states, Southern Utah and Northern Colorado aren't going to draw more interest than UNM and UTEP.

If some NMSU fan jumped on this board to demand that OU move to the AAC to take advantage of proximity with Houston, SMU and Tulsa you'd likely call him an idiot and tell him to mind his own business. And you'd be right.

Not really. Getting a H&H with UTEP and UNM is hardly a reason to try to be an FBS Indy long term. If you prefer fling 2 time zones to go play over games in neighboring states you are entitled to your opinion, I see some advantage to playing in AZ, UT, and CO.

This has nothing to do with OU and I'm not demanding NMSU do anything. Just calm down, take a deep breath. It's going to be OK.

I'm simply pointing out that playing in the Big Sky might be better for NMSU. First off the games are in your time zone which is nice. Games in neighboring states which is nice. Playing against schools with similar resources is nice. Feeling like you are wanted as part of a conference might be nice as well as opposed to this weird limbo NMSU has been in for many years playing conference games for various sports across the entire country in 2 different conferences.

But if you see a path of going INDY which will end up in C-USA or Sun Belt so be it. You are entitled to your opinion, and I won't even tell you that you're stupid. All it would take is Rice getting called up for a spot to open up.

This is the west. "Neighboring states" doesn't mean the same thing as "close." The 3 Big Sky schools you mention are the southern geographic outliers in the conference, and they're 475, 680 and 750 miles away from Las Cruces. Nobody is driving to those games. And for all the talk about East Coast trips, it's about the same distance to Atlanta as it is to Missoula, and with a much easier flight. NMSU wouldn't realize any travel savings in the Big Sky.

Anyway, there's no evidence an invitation is forthcoming. The Big Sky is too big already and probably doesn't see any advantage in adding to their own travel budgets by bringing in NMSU. The conference is more likely to shed schools than grow at this point.