Interesting.

Generally the decision to offer single sport affiliation is a league wide vote but continuation is usually deferred to the schools playing the sport.

Also interesting that the paper says 3/4ths vote, that should be a majority vote issue because it doesn't fall in the category of votes requiring super majority.

I think you might have the Georgia State delegates as well. I wish it was basketball too. It would raise the level of basketball, especially with CCU coming in as well.

The outcome that makes the majority of our members "happy":

Spring 2016:
- extend NMSU and Idaho through 2019

Spring 2018:
- Give Idaho notice they will not be extended past 2019
- Extend full membership to NMSU and one additional football playing member (Mo. St., EKU, etc.)
- divisions for basketball, baseball, etc.

(02-19-2016 10:54 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  The outcome that makes the majority of our members "happy":

Spring 2016:
- extend NMSU and Idaho through 2019

Spring 2018:
- Give Idaho notice they will not be extended past 2019
- Extend full membership to NMSU and one additional football playing member (Mo. St., EKU, etc.)
- divisions for basketball, baseball, etc.

I'd vote for that.

(02-19-2016 11:01 AM)StanMolsonMan Wrote:  

(02-19-2016 10:54 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  The outcome that makes the majority of our members "happy":

Spring 2016:
- extend NMSU and Idaho through 2019

Spring 2018:
- Give Idaho notice they will not be extended past 2019
- Extend full membership to NMSU and one additional football playing member (Mo. St., EKU, etc.)
- divisions for basketball, baseball, etc.

I'd vote for that.

If you are not going to extend Idaho past 2019, then just not renew right now. No need to keep stringing them along.

I think Idaho would prefer we extend if even for only two years, and it gives the SBC an opportunity to gave a championships game. We may not want one, but it's nice to have options.

(02-19-2016 10:54 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  The outcome that makes the majority of our members "happy":

Spring 2016:
- extend NMSU and Idaho through 2019

Spring 2018:
- Give Idaho notice they will not be extended past 2019
- Extend full membership to NMSU and one additional football playing member (Mo. St., EKU, etc.)
- divisions for basketball, baseball, etc.

I'd be happy. I just want enough time to fix the problems we can fix. What's out of our control can't be helped but there's plenty we can do to make ourselves more of an asset somewhere in FBS. And we're actually on the right track for a change.

(02-19-2016 09:50 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Interesting.

Generally the decision to offer single sport affiliation is a league wide vote but continuation is usually deferred to the schools playing the sport.

Also interesting that the paper says 3/4ths vote, that should be a majority vote issue because it doesn't fall in the category of votes requiring super majority.

I really hope you're right that it's a majority vote, because Idaho & NMSU media have been saying 3/4 for months.

But then again, Idaho media members generally don't know what they're talking about.

(02-19-2016 11:08 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-19-2016 11:01 AM)StanMolsonMan Wrote:  

(02-19-2016 10:54 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  The outcome that makes the majority of our members "happy":

Spring 2016:
- extend NMSU and Idaho through 2019

Spring 2018:
- Give Idaho notice they will not be extended past 2019
- Extend full membership to NMSU and one additional football playing member (Mo. St., EKU, etc.)
- divisions for basketball, baseball, etc.

I'd vote for that.

If you are not going to extend Idaho past 2019, then just not renew right now. No need to keep stringing them along.

Most of that has to do with numbers. If we wanted to keep 12 teams, it would make sense to give Idaho 2 years, which would give us until 2019 to find a member to replace them.

Cut them now, and we probably don't replace them right away. There are FCS teams like EKU that are close to ready, but need a year or two.

(02-19-2016 09:16 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  If we keep NMSU I don't see the point of kicking Idaho unless there is another program we plan to bring in for 2018. That would be the ultimate slap in the face to Idaho.

Was thinking the same.

It's weird:
- Keep one, boot one... Most likely would be NMSU retained, as it would indicate another member was being added in the near future, and indicate that it would be likely that NMSU would get an all sports invite.

- Keep none... Would indicate that two teams are coming into the conference to replace them (either two affiliates or two full members), as I think the only school in favor of 10 teams is Georgia Southern.

- Keep both... All options for the near future are really still on the table.

(02-19-2016 12:45 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(02-19-2016 09:16 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  If we keep NMSU I don't see the point of kicking Idaho unless there is another program we plan to bring in for 2018. That would be the ultimate slap in the face to Idaho.

Was thinking the same.

It's weird:
- Keep one, boot one... Most likely would be NMSU retained, as it would indicate another member was being added in the near future, and indicate that it would be likely that NMSU would get an all sports invite.

- Keep none... Would indicate that two teams are coming into the conference to replace them (either two affiliates or two full members), as I think the only school in favor of 10 teams is Georgia Southern.

- Keep both... All options for the near future are really still on the table.

Or a member might be leaving? ULM could be on the ropes with the state budgets issue and any possible consolidation of colleges in Louisiana.

(02-19-2016 12:57 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-19-2016 12:45 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(02-19-2016 09:16 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  If we keep NMSU I don't see the point of kicking Idaho unless there is another program we plan to bring in for 2018. That would be the ultimate slap in the face to Idaho.

Was thinking the same.

It's weird:
- Keep one, boot one... Most likely would be NMSU retained, as it would indicate another member was being added in the near future, and indicate that it would be likely that NMSU would get an all sports invite.

- Keep none... Would indicate that two teams are coming into the conference to replace them (either two affiliates or two full members), as I think the only school in favor of 10 teams is Georgia Southern.

- Keep both... All options for the near future are really still on the table.

Or a member might be leaving? ULM could be on the ropes with the state budgets issue and any possible consolidation of colleges in Louisiana.

I don't believe anything is going to happen to any of the Louisiana FBS teams but if your theory is correct and the Belt is worried about schools unexpectedly leaving the conference that doesn't seem like incentive to also kick schools out. More likely the reverse -- they'd want to keep schools around to see how things shake out.

The business of college athletics is much like the business of church. It must be done but the process of pitching your university in this manner is quite disturbing. The SB is in no place to boot any team to the curb particularly these two fine universities that both want and need to be here.

(02-19-2016 06:43 PM)Oldyeller Wrote:  The business of college athletics is much like the business of church. It must be done but the process of pitching your university in this manner is quite disturbing. The SB is in no place to boot any team to the curb particularly these two fine universities that both want and need to be here.

They were instrumental in helping the Sun Belt adding FBS football. Keep them!!!

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.

(02-19-2016 10:54 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  The outcome that makes the majority of our members "happy":

Spring 2016:
- extend NMSU and Idaho through 2019

Spring 2018:
- Give Idaho notice they will not be extended past 2019
- Extend full membership to NMSU and one additional football playing member (Mo. St., EKU, etc.)
- divisions for basketball, baseball, etc.

Guys, FYI another expansion candidate may be popping up by 2019 in UTRGV. Please see my post on the realignment board. Before you laugh it off and dismiss it out of hand, understand that UTRGV will have 50,000 students soon, in an area with 1.3 million residents and no football. Mack Brown is leading the feasibility study and they want to follow the UTSA model...FBS football within 2 years. They are currently in the WAC now. This area of TX is very football hungry.

Hm. Have to take a wait and see on this one. Decent location.

(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.

(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.

(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.