(09-28-2015 12:20 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 12:06 PM)THUNDERGround Wrote:  As long as you're keeping Idaho, why not add NDSU while you're at it? Idaho could use a travel partner. lol

If the Sun Belt just wanted to make some noise on the quality front they would try to add NDSU, SDSU, UNI and Illinois State. That would be a pretty remarkable football conference. Doubt those schools would want to switch for basketball though.

You assume that this conference makes rational decisions based on competitiveness. This is the conference that added Georgia State before Georgia Southern and App State, and Idaho and New Mexico State out of fear. Even Liberty or Lamar would be better than UI or NMSU. EKU and Mo State get more pub on here than better programs like the ones you mentioned. Geography favored over the product. I like your Midwestern expansion idea, SIU would be a good add too, but this conference lacks the vision to accomplish anything meaningful. I was surprised they had the guts to add Coastal.

(10-04-2015 10:26 PM)Eagleditka Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 12:20 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 12:06 PM)THUNDERGround Wrote:  As long as you're keeping Idaho, why not add NDSU while you're at it? Idaho could use a travel partner. lol

If the Sun Belt just wanted to make some noise on the quality front they would try to add NDSU, SDSU, UNI and Illinois State. That would be a pretty remarkable football conference. Doubt those schools would want to switch for basketball though.

You assume that this conference makes rational decisions based on competitiveness. This is the conference that added Georgia State before Georgia Southern and App State, and Idaho and New Mexico State out of fear. Even Liberty or Lamar would be better than UI or NMSU. EKU and Mo State get more pub on here than better programs like the ones you mentioned. Geography favored over the product. I like your Midwestern expansion idea, SIU would be a good add too, but this conference lacks the vision to accomplish anything meaningful. I was surprised they had the guts to add Coastal.

Hindsight is 20/20. The decisions made at the time GSU, NMSU and Idaho were added have to be seen in context. Coastal is a great add overall and as far as football quality is concerned, it's hard to argue with thier current FCS ranking, and thier recent history. I think CCU, ASU, and GS are clearly quality PROGRAM adds that anchor the east of this league.

If GSU can get their own venue for football, they could have a chance to be a player in our marquee sport. They need a commitment to the sport. There has been a lot of talk about NMSU and Idaho. The contract will expire on its own, there is no need to vote. The only reason for the football schools to vote on this would be to extend. In complete honesty, neither have done anything to warrant extension. NMSU got yet another chance to impress the committee, and couldn't get enough votes for full membership.

The real question here is if the permanent members decide to hold a championship football game at the highest ranked teams home field. Should they decide to do so, NMSU and Idaho may be extended for a time. If we decide not to or delay the decision, I'm certain NMSU and Idaho are allowed to expire.

Having said all that: I don't see NMSU and Idaho as long term members of this conference. I think we may have a bead on two more members.... And if I were placing bets, I'd bet on that championship game becoming a reality. The acknowledgement of NMSU and Idaho AD's that contingency planning is underway ought to tell you what you need to know.

(10-04-2015 10:26 PM)Eagleditka Wrote:  You assume that this conference makes rational decisions based on competitiveness. This is the conference that added Georgia State before Georgia Southern and App State, and Idaho and New Mexico State out of fear. Even Liberty or Lamar would be better than UI or NMSU. EKU and Mo State get more pub on here than better programs like the ones you mentioned. Geography favored over the product. I like your Midwestern expansion idea, SIU would be a good add too, but this conference lacks the vision to accomplish anything meaningful. I was surprised they had the guts to add Coastal.

I think the problem is your ignorance in how these things work. I use the phrase ignorance not as an insult, but rather as it is intended: factual.

Football success is not the only, nor is it the primary driver in expansion (or replacement... however you want to term it). It has to do with a LAUNDRY LIST of other factors. The overall Athletic Department, the relationships, the location, the Olympic Sports, the financial viabilty, (in the case of NMSU/Idaho) past history with the conference president, the SWAY of the current members on other members, how the candidate would fit in with the rest of the conference... And that's just scratching the surface.

If it were just "who is the best at football" then we'd simply grab the top 10 in FCS and see who's ready to move.

And really, when you take the time to think about it, it's a far more rational methodology than "ooh, they're good at football, we should add them!"

I agree with your premise that adding members is about more than football, but you can't use football only members to justify it.

While not ignorant, that is illogical.

(10-05-2015 09:32 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  I agree with your premise that adding members is about more than football, but you can't use football only members to justify it.

While not ignorant, that is illogical.

In the case of NMSU/Idaho, it was still more than about football.

It was about getting to 12 (remember, at the time, WKU hadn't left). It was about taking the teams that were ready.

So, no, I disagree. Even the football only adds (at the time, now if they do something else in the future, I can't control their stupidity) were more than just football.

In that case, it was less about performance on the field, and more about getting to 12, reducing travel, implementing a CCG, and being a "whole" conference.

(10-05-2015 09:28 AM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 10:26 PM)Eagleditka Wrote:  You assume that this conference makes rational decisions based on competitiveness. This is the conference that added Georgia State before Georgia Southern and App State, and Idaho and New Mexico State out of fear. Even Liberty or Lamar would be better than UI or NMSU. EKU and Mo State get more pub on here than better programs like the ones you mentioned. Geography favored over the product. I like your Midwestern expansion idea, SIU would be a good add too, but this conference lacks the vision to accomplish anything meaningful. I was surprised they had the guts to add Coastal.

I think the problem is your ignorance in how these things work. I use the phrase ignorance not as an insult, but rather as it is intended: factual.

Football success is not the only, nor is it the primary driver in expansion (or replacement... however you want to term it). It has to do with a LAUNDRY LIST of other factors. The overall Athletic Department, the relationships, the location, the Olympic Sports, the financial viabilty, (in the case of NMSU/Idaho) past history with the conference president, the SWAY of the current members on other members, how the candidate would fit in with the rest of the conference... And that's just scratching the surface.

If it were just "who is the best at football" then we'd simply grab the top 10 in FCS and see who's ready to move.

And really, when you take the time to think about it, it's a far more rational methodology than "ooh, they're good at football, we should add them!"

This is the mentality I'm talking about.^

It's not ignorance, just an unwillingness to accept your conventional "wisdom." I've heard all the arguments. Same "wisdom" that keeps the Sun Belt where it is, at the bottom of FBS football. Not willing to take chances or think outside the box.

Adding NDSU/SDSU and Illinois State/Missouri State would give everyone travel partners and significantly improve football and basketball. NDSU and SDSU have said that they will support FCOA. Illinois St and Missouri St have made facility improvements recently which signal some interest in a jump. The conference won't get better than its peers unless it starts adding quality. That quality isn't in the SE in FCS now that Coastal has been added. But the conference lacks the political will for a move that bold.

(10-04-2015 10:26 PM)Eagleditka Wrote:  I was surprised they had the guts to add Coastal.

Me too, but equally surprised that our administration had the vision and confidence to go to the Sun Belt / FBS.

I say that also knowing that Coastal wasn't a perfect solution. We literally were in the right place (location to other SBC schools in a new state) at the right time (SBC needing an olympics sports member, Coastal having nowhere to go with FCS, and Coastal being very good in a number of sports) and even then it seemed like we had a bit of an uphill battle.

I'm glad we are about to join the conference and think looking at some out of the box options could really help out.

If we want to keep NMSU and Idaho then I think looking at adding a number of other schools to fortify those options would help. Even if we don't care about NMSU and Idaho, those schools I listed and perhaps a few others would help raise the profile of the conference.

When I hear that the school presidents are concerned about diluting the conference shares too much I wonder if they are being penny-wise and dollar-foolish. The goal should be to make some noise in the conference rankings, bowls and access bowl. Money should follow.

(10-05-2015 10:29 AM)Eagleditka Wrote:  This is the mentality I'm talking about.^

It's not ignorance, just an unwillingness to accept your conventional "wisdom." I've heard all the arguments. Same "wisdom" that keeps the Sun Belt where it is, at the bottom of FBS football. Not willing to take chances or think outside the box.

Adding NDSU/SDSU and Illinois State/Missouri State would give everyone travel partners and significantly improve football and basketball. NDSU and SDSU have said that they will support FCOA. Illinois St and Missouri St have made facility improvements recently which signal some interest in a jump. The conference won't get better than its peers unless it starts adding quality. That quality isn't in the SE in FCS now that Coastal has been added. But the conference lacks the political will for a move that bold.

I think the key point you are missing is the willingness of others to move up. Missouri State knows it can move up whenever it wants (sadly) but has yet to jump. NDSU/SDSU have made NO noise about wanting to move up, and there is a question on if their budgets can sustain a move up AND if they can reap significant benefits from a move up (in terms of donations/season ticket sales) to make the move justifiable from their perspective.

In Texas and Georgia (our two home states, I imagine), it's a no-brainer: You play at the top level, you will get more donors and season ticket sales. Maybe not enough to offset the costs, but pretty damn near it. That justifies the move.

A place like North Dakota? Not so sure. Plus, there's the additional travel costs involved with shipping your Olympic teams literally to the other side of the country. And it involves them playing teams that the majority of their fan base is not in tune with, and makes for difficult travel for their fans (furthering the difficulty in "getting up" for the games).

So, while in the XBox world, it really is as simple as "They are good, add them, and everything else falls into place", the reality is there is MUCH more to it than that.

Adding because they are good at football is not thinking outside the box. It's just not thinking at all.

(09-28-2015 08:06 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Whoever said CCU would be next has better sources than those that had NMSU being added for all sports. Anyone remember who know that first, I honestly can't recall.

I don't know who was first with real info from sources, but I remember making idle speculation on here that Coastal would be a good add back before App and GaSouthern were announced officially. I recall the idea being pooh-poohed but I don't think I was the only one mentioning them back then.

(10-05-2015 10:12 AM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 09:32 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  I agree with your premise that adding members is about more than football, but you can't use football only members to justify it.

While not ignorant, that is illogical.

In the case of NMSU/Idaho, it was still more than about football.

It was about getting to 12 (remember, at the time, WKU hadn't left). It was about taking the teams that were ready.

So, no, I disagree. Even the football only adds (at the time, now if they do something else in the future, I can't control their stupidity) were more than just football.

In that case, it was less about performance on the field, and more about getting to 12, reducing travel, implementing a CCG, and being a "whole" conference.

All of those items relate to football. Now the decision to not renew their terms will be about football but also more than football.

(10-05-2015 10:29 AM)Eagleditka Wrote:  Adding NDSU/SDSU and Illinois State/Missouri State would give everyone travel partners and significantly improve football and basketball. NDSU and SDSU have said that they will support FCOA. Illinois St and Missouri St have made facility improvements recently which signal some interest in a jump. The conference won't get better than its peers unless it starts adding quality. That quality isn't in the SE in FCS now that Coastal has been added. But the conference lacks the political will for a move that bold.

I can't believe anyone here thinks the Dakota schools are even an option given the way Idaho is talked about on this board. If I were NDSU/UND/SDSU/Montana/MSU and even considering a Sun Belt invite I'd assume there'll be a big faction trying to kick me out of the conference at the first sign of a downturn. Thanks but no thanks.

while eku is known primarily for football, basketball is now very competitive and would do well in the sunbelt or mac. also, improvements to baseball facilities and promising new coach has that program moving in right direction. Having said that, year in year out eku is a football winner.

(10-06-2015 02:35 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  I can't believe anyone here thinks the Dakota schools are even an option given the way Idaho is talked about on this board. If I were NDSU/UND/SDSU/Montana/MSU and even considering a Sun Belt invite I'd assume there'll be a big faction trying to kick me out of the conference at the first sign of a downturn. Thanks but no thanks.

Not trying to kick your school while it's down... But surely you see the on field difference in Idaho and NDSU/UND/SDSU/Montana/MSU...

The problem most have with Idaho is that it's a game MOST fans will not travel to (while there are routinely a couple of thousand fans from other schools traveling to the other conference games), and no wins to help the image of the conference.

If Idaho was winning 7-8-9 games per year, this wouldn't even be a discussion point.

(10-06-2015 08:14 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 02:35 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  I can't believe anyone here thinks the Dakota schools are even an option given the way Idaho is talked about on this board. If I were NDSU/UND/SDSU/Montana/MSU and even considering a Sun Belt invite I'd assume there'll be a big faction trying to kick me out of the conference at the first sign of a downturn. Thanks but no thanks.

Not trying to kick your school while it's down... But surely you see the on field difference in Idaho and NDSU/UND/SDSU/Montana/MSU...

The problem most have with Idaho is that it's a game MOST fans will not travel to (while there are routinely a couple of thousand fans from other schools traveling to the other conference games), and no wins to help the image of the conference.

If Idaho was winning 7-8-9 games per year, this wouldn't even be a discussion point.

Sure, those schools might look better to you right now, but fundamentally we're all western public universities in sparsely populated areas far outside the Sun Belt footprint, and historically Idaho has been better at football than all of them.

I promise you, all of those schools look at Idaho as a cautionary tale. 20 years ago we were exactly where they are now -- a 1-AA power. And when we moved up, we even got to move into a conference (Big West) that made geographic sense. It wasn't until that conference was pulled out from under us a few years later that things started to go haywire.

The idea that any of those schools would rush to join a conference where they'd be geographic outliers replacing very similar schools kicked out by that same conference is laughable.

(10-06-2015 09:50 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 08:14 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 02:35 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  I can't believe anyone here thinks the Dakota schools are even an option given the way Idaho is talked about on this board. If I were NDSU/UND/SDSU/Montana/MSU and even considering a Sun Belt invite I'd assume there'll be a big faction trying to kick me out of the conference at the first sign of a downturn. Thanks but no thanks.

Not trying to kick your school while it's down... But surely you see the on field difference in Idaho and NDSU/UND/SDSU/Montana/MSU...

The problem most have with Idaho is that it's a game MOST fans will not travel to (while there are routinely a couple of thousand fans from other schools traveling to the other conference games), and no wins to help the image of the conference.

If Idaho was winning 7-8-9 games per year, this wouldn't even be a discussion point.

Sure, those schools might look better to you right now, but fundamentally we're all western public universities in sparsely populated areas far outside the Sun Belt footprint, and historically Idaho has been better at football than all of them.

I promise you, all of those schools look at Idaho as a cautionary tale. 20 years ago we were exactly where they are now -- a 1-AA power. And when we moved up, we even got to move into a conference (Big West) that made geographic sense. It wasn't until that conference was pulled out from under us a few years later that things started to go haywire.

The idea that any of those schools would rush to join a conference where they'd be geographic outliers replacing very similar schools kicked out by that same conference is laughable.

So where do you see Idaho in the future? The Sun Belt isn't a good fit, amd the MWC doesn't look like it has plans to expand. I wouldn't be real comfortable if I were an Idaho fan. Same goes for NMSU.

(10-06-2015 10:23 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 09:50 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 08:14 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 02:35 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  I can't believe anyone here thinks the Dakota schools are even an option given the way Idaho is talked about on this board. If I were NDSU/UND/SDSU/Montana/MSU and even considering a Sun Belt invite I'd assume there'll be a big faction trying to kick me out of the conference at the first sign of a downturn. Thanks but no thanks.

Not trying to kick your school while it's down... But surely you see the on field difference in Idaho and NDSU/UND/SDSU/Montana/MSU...

The problem most have with Idaho is that it's a game MOST fans will not travel to (while there are routinely a couple of thousand fans from other schools traveling to the other conference games), and no wins to help the image of the conference.

If Idaho was winning 7-8-9 games per year, this wouldn't even be a discussion point.

Sure, those schools might look better to you right now, but fundamentally we're all western public universities in sparsely populated areas far outside the Sun Belt footprint, and historically Idaho has been better at football than all of them.

I promise you, all of those schools look at Idaho as a cautionary tale. 20 years ago we were exactly where they are now -- a 1-AA power. And when we moved up, we even got to move into a conference (Big West) that made geographic sense. It wasn't until that conference was pulled out from under us a few years later that things started to go haywire.

The idea that any of those schools would rush to join a conference where they'd be geographic outliers replacing very similar schools kicked out by that same conference is laughable.

So where do you see Idaho in the future? The Sun Belt isn't a good fit, amd the MWC doesn't look like it has plans to expand. I wouldn't be real comfortable if I were an Idaho fan. Same goes for NMSU.

"Not real comfortable" is an understatement. I actually enjoy the Sun Belt but I'm not so sure the feeling is mutual. The MWC would be ideal but we'd need another wave of realignment for that to be a real possibility. There's also been a cockamamie theory lately about the Dakotas, Montanas, Idaho & NMSU forming a new FBS conference using the Big West as a shell -- I would love that, but I doubt it flies for a whole host of reasons.

Honestly? I just want to be able to stay in the game of musical chairs until someone finally lets us sit down. And it makes more sense to drop football altogether than to drop back down to FCS.

(10-06-2015 10:41 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  And it makes more sense to drop football altogether than to drop back down to FCS.

This thanking I just have never been able to wrap my head around. I understand the thought of going back to IAA would be bad to anyone but losing the whole program or drop down I would rather drop back down.

I see a few problems on why the MWC would not pick Idaho up and one of those isn't your record since you've joined IA. The most glairing problem is the Kibbie Dome. When built in the early 70s it might have been the right size and the state of the art. But by the time Idaho started rumblings in the early to mid 90s about moving up a new stadium really needed to be in place, either built or in the process of being built. The 16,000 airport hanger is way out of date. The other 2 problems I see are marketing, every good program has a great marketing program. And the last problem Ive always seen is Idaho fell further and further behind on all facilities without keeping them up to date.

(10-06-2015 10:41 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 10:23 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 09:50 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 08:14 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 02:35 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  I can't believe anyone here thinks the Dakota schools are even an option given the way Idaho is talked about on this board. If I were NDSU/UND/SDSU/Montana/MSU and even considering a Sun Belt invite I'd assume there'll be a big faction trying to kick me out of the conference at the first sign of a downturn. Thanks but no thanks.

Not trying to kick your school while it's down... But surely you see the on field difference in Idaho and NDSU/UND/SDSU/Montana/MSU...

The problem most have with Idaho is that it's a game MOST fans will not travel to (while there are routinely a couple of thousand fans from other schools traveling to the other conference games), and no wins to help the image of the conference.

If Idaho was winning 7-8-9 games per year, this wouldn't even be a discussion point.

Sure, those schools might look better to you right now, but fundamentally we're all western public universities in sparsely populated areas far outside the Sun Belt footprint, and historically Idaho has been better at football than all of them.

I promise you, all of those schools look at Idaho as a cautionary tale. 20 years ago we were exactly where they are now -- a 1-AA power. And when we moved up, we even got to move into a conference (Big West) that made geographic sense. It wasn't until that conference was pulled out from under us a few years later that things started to go haywire.

The idea that any of those schools would rush to join a conference where they'd be geographic outliers replacing very similar schools kicked out by that same conference is laughable.

So where do you see Idaho in the future? The Sun Belt isn't a good fit, amd the MWC doesn't look like it has plans to expand. I wouldn't be real comfortable if I were an Idaho fan. Same goes for NMSU.

"Not real comfortable" is an understatement. I actually enjoy the Sun Belt but I'm not so sure the feeling is mutual. The MWC would be ideal but we'd need another wave of realignment for that to be a real possibility. There's also been a cockamamie theory lately about the Dakotas, Montanas, Idaho & NMSU forming a new FBS conference using the Big West as a shell -- I would love that, but I doubt it flies for a whole host of reasons.

Honestly? I just want to be able to stay in the game of musical chairs until someone finally lets us sit down. And it makes more sense to drop football altogether than to drop back down to FCS.

you are right to see Idaho as an outlier and that fans of other schools would not travel that far for games. no sbc football schools have enough alumni to generate a fanbase that far out of the footprint. that Idaho should be in a western conference is a given. they are just trying to hang on till a better spot for them opens up. the best case scenario might be that the big sky schools move up and Idaho joins them.

So some of the eastern schools get accused by people on here of having an FCS mentality for not wanting NMSU for all sports.

If the western schools would seriously turn away JMU for football-only membership but fight to keep NMSU or Idaho for football only then that's even worse without question.

I don't want JMU football only, I want them for all sports along with Mo. St.