CSNbbs

Is currently scheduled to take place during the typical meetings that will take place around the Conference Basketball Tournament in New Orleans.

So Says the NMSU board.

The way they played this year, I say extend them.

I'd vote to extend them two more years and vote again 1/1/18.

(11-22-2015 01:22 PM)Saint3333 Wrote: [ -> ]I'd vote to extend them two more years and vote again 1/1/18.

I agree. By 2018 there could be a team or two interested in joining the Sun Belt that looks like a good addition along the lines of Georgia Southern and App State. Right now there is really not a school out there.

I think extending them for 2 more years is the easiest decision, but as recently as 3 weeks ago I was hearing that support for extending them was minimal. We will see

I think they get a stay of execution at least until Coastal joins.

Awwwwww. Thanks, guys. This is the nicest I've ever seen an Idaho/NMSU extension thread start.

The Idaho rebuild is progressing on schedule and I expect we'll be an asset to the conference going forward. Seems like NMSU is turning the corner too.

My only gripe is about timing. It would be nice to get this out of the way before March so recruiting doesn't get fouled up. But if you're going to vote to extend us 2 more years we'll take what we can get. Our AD didn't sound all that positive about it last week.

Kick it down the road 2 years.

See what a CCG feels like.

This tells me that the SBC is waiting to see what the NCAA will do into regards of how many a conference needs for a conference championship game. I see it as follows: If the required number stays at 12 NMSU and Idaho get extended. If it goes to 10, NMSU and Idaho are gone.

Regardless of what the SBC decides NMSU will be looking to move its Oly sports into another conference. The WAC was not pleased with NMSU being considered for SBC membership.

W's and L's really don't have a lot to with the teams staying or going, but it sounds good on paper.

(11-22-2015 05:49 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote: [ -> ]Regardless of what the SBC decides NMSU will be looking to move its Oly sports into another conference. The WAC was not pleased with NMSU being considered for SBC membership.

Seriously? Then the WAC is nuts.

(11-22-2015 05:51 PM)timber Wrote: [ -> ]W's and L's really don't have a lot to with the teams staying or going, but it sounds good on paper.

Agreed, it's all about geography, and Idaho is just to far outside the footprint. NMSU is closer, but still not enough to really help. But I do think it all hinges on the CCG rules.

Good luck to both schools either way.

(11-22-2015 05:51 PM)timber Wrote: [ -> ]W's and L's really don't have a lot to with the teams staying or going, but it sounds good on paper.

Wins might not keep us in but a ton of losses sure as hell will get us kicked out. The challenge with the SBC right now is who is a better bet, an Idaho/NMSU who are each showing signs of life and are threatening to be bowl eligible, or rolling the dice on a FCS call up? Sure some programs have been okay and the SBC has done really well with GSU and App, but look at the others. Mass and Ga state are on the other side of the coin, and remember that pool isn't getting any deeper. So is a gamble on a 4th/5th/6th choice in the FCS vs 2 established programs who might be able to be competitive sooner. Not only that you have to balance the inconvenience of one slightly longer road trip every 2-3 years versus the benefit of having safety in numbers now.

IMO the most likely situation is both schools are renewed for another 4 years while a pair of FCS schools are groomed to transition. Anything else seems rushed.

(11-22-2015 05:49 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote: [ -> ]This tells me that the SBC is waiting to see what the NCAA will do into regards of how many a conference needs for a conference championship game. I see it as follows: If the required number stays at 12 NMSU and Idaho get extended. If it goes to 10, NMSU and Idaho are gone.

Regardless of what the SBC decides NMSU will be looking to move its Oly sports into another conference. The WAC was not pleased with NMSU being considered for SBC membership.

I think the WAC is thrilled to have you in the league. They are desperately trying to find D1 Western schools to join and they really need NMSU. They have to hope that you guys stay as long as you can. You guys are the Big Dog in the WAC and they need you for survival.

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but what are these two year renewals for Idaho and NMSU for SBC membership? So the SBC can wait for a better team to add to the conference? If so, and I were Idaho and NMSU, I'd tell the SBC to stick it!!

(11-22-2015 08:24 PM)Green Menace Wrote: [ -> ]I don't have a dog in this hunt, but what are these two year renewals for Idaho and NMSU for SBC membership? So the SBC can wait for a better team to add to the conference? If so, and I were Idaho and NMSU, I'd tell the SBC to stick it!!

I don't know about NMSU, but in Idaho's case I view the SBC as the good guy here, and I think both parties are doing the right thing. We got screwed by a bunch of schools that are now in the Mountain West and the Belt gave us a soft landing. It still makes sense to the conference for Idaho to stick around for the time being because of strength in numbers and the lack of a good alternative, but unless the landscape radically shifts and the SBC needs to create a western division I think everyone on all sides knows the conference probably isn't a forever home for us.

Honestly I think one more extension through 2019 makes sense for both sides. Past that, who knows, but I don't believe either side should commit.

(11-22-2015 08:24 PM)Green Menace Wrote: [ -> ]I don't have a dog in this hunt, but what are these two year renewals for Idaho and NMSU for SBC membership? So the SBC can wait for a better team to add to the conference? If so, and I were Idaho and NMSU, I'd tell the SBC to stick it!!

You act as if both parties come to the table on equal footing. This is like North Texas's Oline vs pretty much any FBS program, it's a matter of leverage.

(11-22-2015 08:24 PM)Green Menace Wrote: [ -> ]I don't have a dog in this hunt, but what are these two year renewals for Idaho and NMSU for SBC membership? So the SBC can wait for a better team to add to the conference? If so, and I were Idaho and NMSU, I'd tell the SBC to stick it!!

North Texas football fans are used to getting told to stick it...so I can see the attraction to the word.

The reality is, Idaho and NMSU were brought in to provide us with the numbers to host a title game. In exchange, we helped the two of them keep a conference home during a period in their history when they could be stuck as an independent.

The problem is, the NCAA looks set to eliminate the 12 team CCG requirement for next season, and at that point, we would be sending our teams across the country for football games without any benefit on our end.

Idaho and NMSU aren't going to complain about it because the alternative is they become an FBS independent and look ever close to dropping to FCS. Something neither want to do. I'd like to hold onto them for a couple more years, but if a strong FCS came along that wasn't located in Lynchburg, VA, or in the state of Alabama, it would be a fairly easy decision.

I know Benson has pushed hard for a championship game but there appears to be some real reluctance from a number of schools to go down that road without some guarantee it will generate revenue.

(11-22-2015 08:24 PM)Green Menace Wrote: [ -> ]I don't have a dog in this hunt, but what are these two year renewals for Idaho and NMSU for SBC membership? So the SBC can wait for a better team to add to the conference? If so, and I were Idaho and NMSU, I'd tell the SBC to stick it!!

To what purpose? No chance for players to win conference honors. Scrambling to fill schedules? No path to the access bowl? Posting a winning season and hoping there are enough vacancies to slide into a bowl? Take a smaller cut of CFP money?