(04-09-2016 11:28 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:27 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:18 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 08:58 AM)PA-GAMECOCK Wrote:  Any more news on Idaho and NMST after they leave the Sunbelt. The last thing I heard was that the Big Sky gave Idaho a date in May to let them know if the were dropping to 1-AA in their conference. NMST would have the better chance at survival as an independent with a 33k seat stadium, and UTEP and New Mexico willing to play them on an annual basis. Throw in annual H and H's with independents BYU, Army, and UMASS, along with an FCS game and a P5 money game or two and they already have a seven or eight game schedule in place. Pick up some MWC games and games from western Sunbelt and CUSA members and they should be alright until the next wave of realignment.

That May 4th date wasn't a Big Sky deadline. It was the date our president said he'd make a decision.

An independent schedule for us would be no worse than our current Sun Belt schedule. This year we're playing 5 home games with a Thursday night game, a Thanksgiving weekend home game and zero home games from Oct. 16 to Nov. 25. We could easily at least replicate that as an independent, and likely play more teams closer to home. If we've been satisfied in the Sun Belt, as we've said we were, we should be satisfied as an independent too.

Can Idaho remain FBS considering you will lose $1.5 million in conference payout?

I think Idaho was spending much of that as a travel subsidy to the Sun Belt Conference.

And what we don't make up on travel savings we could get with one extra money game. So instead of 1-2 per year we'd have 2-3. I don't love it but it's not horrible.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather be in a conference and I'm sure getting mid-October and late-November games scheduled will be complicated. But indy isn't impossible or even totally undesirable and it's better than throwing in the towel.

(04-09-2016 11:39 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:28 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:27 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:18 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 08:58 AM)PA-GAMECOCK Wrote:  Any more news on Idaho and NMST after they leave the Sunbelt. The last thing I heard was that the Big Sky gave Idaho a date in May to let them know if the were dropping to 1-AA in their conference. NMST would have the better chance at survival as an independent with a 33k seat stadium, and UTEP and New Mexico willing to play them on an annual basis. Throw in annual H and H's with independents BYU, Army, and UMASS, along with an FCS game and a P5 money game or two and they already have a seven or eight game schedule in place. Pick up some MWC games and games from western Sunbelt and CUSA members and they should be alright until the next wave of realignment.

That May 4th date wasn't a Big Sky deadline. It was the date our president said he'd make a decision.

An independent schedule for us would be no worse than our current Sun Belt schedule. This year we're playing 5 home games with a Thursday night game, a Thanksgiving weekend home game and zero home games from Oct. 16 to Nov. 25. We could easily at least replicate that as an independent, and likely play more teams closer to home. If we've been satisfied in the Sun Belt, as we've said we were, we should be satisfied as an independent too.

Can Idaho remain FBS considering you will lose $1.5 million in conference payout?

I think Idaho was spending much of that as a travel subsidy to the Sun Belt Conference.

And what we don't make up on travel savings we could get with one extra money game. So instead of 1-2 per year we'd have 2-3. I don't love it but it's not horrible.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather be in a conference and I'm sure getting mid-October and late-November games scheduled will be complicated. But indy isn't impossible or even totally undesirable and it's better than throwing in the towel.

Play 2 FCS schools at home to get more home games. Army has been doing that for a few years now. They are doing it for potential wins though as they do not have any problems putting an independent schedule together with at least 6 home games a year.

(04-09-2016 11:55 AM)PA-GAMECOCK Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:39 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:28 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:27 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:18 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  That May 4th date wasn't a Big Sky deadline. It was the date our president said he'd make a decision.

An independent schedule for us would be no worse than our current Sun Belt schedule. This year we're playing 5 home games with a Thursday night game, a Thanksgiving weekend home game and zero home games from Oct. 16 to Nov. 25. We could easily at least replicate that as an independent, and likely play more teams closer to home. If we've been satisfied in the Sun Belt, as we've said we were, we should be satisfied as an independent too.

Can Idaho remain FBS considering you will lose $1.5 million in conference payout?

I think Idaho was spending much of that as a travel subsidy to the Sun Belt Conference.

And what we don't make up on travel savings we could get with one extra money game. So instead of 1-2 per year we'd have 2-3. I don't love it but it's not horrible.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather be in a conference and I'm sure getting mid-October and late-November games scheduled will be complicated. But indy isn't impossible or even totally undesirable and it's better than throwing in the towel.

Play 2 FCS schools at home to get more home games. Army has been doing that for a few years now. They are doing it for potential wins though as they do not have any problems putting an independent schedule together with at least 6 home games a year.

Since there won't be a conference telling us we can't do it I could easily see us playing a regular H&H with Montana. Both fanbases love that series, and it's not happening anymore since Montana won't come to Moscow without a return game. That would scratch whatever Big Sky itch anyone in our fanbase might have, and we could schedule another FCS team at home every year to go along with it.

(04-09-2016 12:00 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:55 AM)PA-GAMECOCK Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:39 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:28 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:27 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  Can Idaho remain FBS considering you will lose $1.5 million in conference payout?

I think Idaho was spending much of that as a travel subsidy to the Sun Belt Conference.

And what we don't make up on travel savings we could get with one extra money game. So instead of 1-2 per year we'd have 2-3. I don't love it but it's not horrible.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather be in a conference and I'm sure getting mid-October and late-November games scheduled will be complicated. But indy isn't impossible or even totally undesirable and it's better than throwing in the towel.

Play 2 FCS schools at home to get more home games. Army has been doing that for a few years now. They are doing it for potential wins though as they do not have any problems putting an independent schedule together with at least 6 home games a year.

Since there won't be a conference telling us we can't do it I could easily see us playing a regular H&H with Montana. Both fanbases love that series, and it's not happening anymore since Montana won't come to Moscow without a return game. That would scratch whatever Big Sky itch anyone in our fanbase might have, and we could schedule another FCS team at home every year to go along with it.

But don't you have to get to a certain number of FBS home games each year? That's the challenge

(04-09-2016 04:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 12:00 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:55 AM)PA-GAMECOCK Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:39 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:28 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I think Idaho was spending much of that as a travel subsidy to the Sun Belt Conference.

And what we don't make up on travel savings we could get with one extra money game. So instead of 1-2 per year we'd have 2-3. I don't love it but it's not horrible.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather be in a conference and I'm sure getting mid-October and late-November games scheduled will be complicated. But indy isn't impossible or even totally undesirable and it's better than throwing in the towel.

Play 2 FCS schools at home to get more home games. Army has been doing that for a few years now. They are doing it for potential wins though as they do not have any problems putting an independent schedule together with at least 6 home games a year.

Since there won't be a conference telling us we can't do it I could easily see us playing a regular H&H with Montana. Both fanbases love that series, and it's not happening anymore since Montana won't come to Moscow without a return game. That would scratch whatever Big Sky itch anyone in our fanbase might have, and we could schedule another FCS team at home every year to go along with it.

But don't you have to get to a certain number of FBS home games each year? That's the challenge

Four true FBS home games and eight total FBS games.

(04-09-2016 04:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 12:00 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:55 AM)PA-GAMECOCK Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:39 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:28 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I think Idaho was spending much of that as a travel subsidy to the Sun Belt Conference.

And what we don't make up on travel savings we could get with one extra money game. So instead of 1-2 per year we'd have 2-3. I don't love it but it's not horrible.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather be in a conference and I'm sure getting mid-October and late-November games scheduled will be complicated. But indy isn't impossible or even totally undesirable and it's better than throwing in the towel.

Play 2 FCS schools at home to get more home games. Army has been doing that for a few years now. They are doing it for potential wins though as they do not have any problems putting an independent schedule together with at least 6 home games a year.

Since there won't be a conference telling us we can't do it I could easily see us playing a regular H&H with Montana. Both fanbases love that series, and it's not happening anymore since Montana won't come to Moscow without a return game. That would scratch whatever Big Sky itch anyone in our fanbase might have, and we could schedule another FCS team at home every year to go along with it.

But don't you have to get to a certain number of FBS home games each year? That's the challenge

It's 5 home games per year minimum, and one of them can be FCS. So 1 per year with an FCS, one each year with either NMSU or UMass, and then we just need to find 3 other home games each year with any of 126 other FBS teams. I think we can figure it out -- there are always Sun Belt, MAC, MWC & CUSA teams looking for OOC FBS home games and we should get enough H&H's out of those schools to make it work. In 2018 we already have one home game with Wyoming, for example. So we'd only need to find 2 more besides the FCS and NMSU or UMass home games.

(04-09-2016 05:36 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 04:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 12:00 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:55 AM)PA-GAMECOCK Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:39 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  And what we don't make up on travel savings we could get with one extra money game. So instead of 1-2 per year we'd have 2-3. I don't love it but it's not horrible.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather be in a conference and I'm sure getting mid-October and late-November games scheduled will be complicated. But indy isn't impossible or even totally undesirable and it's better than throwing in the towel.

Play 2 FCS schools at home to get more home games. Army has been doing that for a few years now. They are doing it for potential wins though as they do not have any problems putting an independent schedule together with at least 6 home games a year.

Since there won't be a conference telling us we can't do it I could easily see us playing a regular H&H with Montana. Both fanbases love that series, and it's not happening anymore since Montana won't come to Moscow without a return game. That would scratch whatever Big Sky itch anyone in our fanbase might have, and we could schedule another FCS team at home every year to go along with it.

But don't you have to get to a certain number of FBS home games each year? That's the challenge

It's 5 home games per year minimum, and one of them can be FCS. So 1 per year with an FCS, one each year with either NMSU or UMass, and then we just need to find 3 other home games each year with any of 126 other FBS teams. I think we can figure it out -- there are always Sun Belt, MAC, MWC & CUSA teams looking for OOC FBS home games and we should get enough H&H's out of those schools to make it work. In 2018 we already have one home game with Wyoming, for example. So we'd only need to find 2 more besides the FCS and NMSU or UMass home games.

Actually you could play NMSU twice each year. Then a home and home with UMass. 1 FCS game at home. So you'd need to find 2 or 3 other FBS home games. Doable. Everyone knows where the G5 programs that 'need games' are. I'd get to them before NMSU does if I'm UI.

(04-09-2016 06:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 05:36 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 04:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 12:00 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:55 AM)PA-GAMECOCK Wrote:  Play 2 FCS schools at home to get more home games. Army has been doing that for a few years now. They are doing it for potential wins though as they do not have any problems putting an independent schedule together with at least 6 home games a year.

Since there won't be a conference telling us we can't do it I could easily see us playing a regular H&H with Montana. Both fanbases love that series, and it's not happening anymore since Montana won't come to Moscow without a return game. That would scratch whatever Big Sky itch anyone in our fanbase might have, and we could schedule another FCS team at home every year to go along with it.

But don't you have to get to a certain number of FBS home games each year? That's the challenge

It's 5 home games per year minimum, and one of them can be FCS. So 1 per year with an FCS, one each year with either NMSU or UMass, and then we just need to find 3 other home games each year with any of 126 other FBS teams. I think we can figure it out -- there are always Sun Belt, MAC, MWC & CUSA teams looking for OOC FBS home games and we should get enough H&H's out of those schools to make it work. In 2018 we already have one home game with Wyoming, for example. So we'd only need to find 2 more besides the FCS and NMSU or UMass home games.

Actually you could play NMSU twice each year. Then a home and home with UMass. 1 FCS game at home. So you'd need to find 2 or 3 other FBS home games. Doable. Everyone knows where the G5 programs that 'need games' are. I'd get to them before NMSU does if I'm UI.

So would I, but we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place if our administration actually took initiative and got things done. So we're going to screw around for another month while NMSU fills up their schedule. It's The Idaho Way.

(04-09-2016 06:36 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 06:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 05:36 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 04:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 12:00 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  Since there won't be a conference telling us we can't do it I could easily see us playing a regular H&H with Montana. Both fanbases love that series, and it's not happening anymore since Montana won't come to Moscow without a return game. That would scratch whatever Big Sky itch anyone in our fanbase might have, and we could schedule another FCS team at home every year to go along with it.

But don't you have to get to a certain number of FBS home games each year? That's the challenge

It's 5 home games per year minimum, and one of them can be FCS. So 1 per year with an FCS, one each year with either NMSU or UMass, and then we just need to find 3 other home games each year with any of 126 other FBS teams. I think we can figure it out -- there are always Sun Belt, MAC, MWC & CUSA teams looking for OOC FBS home games and we should get enough H&H's out of those schools to make it work. In 2018 we already have one home game with Wyoming, for example. So we'd only need to find 2 more besides the FCS and NMSU or UMass home games.

Actually you could play NMSU twice each year. Then a home and home with UMass. 1 FCS game at home. So you'd need to find 2 or 3 other FBS home games. Doable. Everyone knows where the G5 programs that 'need games' are. I'd get to them before NMSU does if I'm UI.

So would I, but we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place if our administration actually took initiative and got things done. So we're going to screw around for another month while NMSU fills up their schedule. It's The Idaho Way.

Your tone's changed a bit. Is there a reason for this? Have you heard some positive news about remaining FBS as an independent lately?

(04-09-2016 10:49 PM)airtroop Wrote:  Your tone's changed a bit. Is there a reason for this? Have you heard some positive news about remaining FBS as an independent lately?

Nothing new. I was just reacting to the idea that anyone in our administration would see value in moving quickly or decisively on anything. They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. And I was posting my own wishful thinking on FBS scheduling. I still just don't believe it would be all that difficult to go independent.

But the facts on the ground are the same as far as I know. The boosters have made their FBS desires well known, our AD still says he's working on a 2018 FBS independent schedule, and our president still says nice things about the Big Sky. Since the president makes the final decision, it still seems likely to me we'll do the stupid thing and throw away our last chip (FBS status) for nothing.

I hope I'm wrong. But Staben has talked about an increase in student fees to make up for the loss in alumni support, so he seems to be digging in on being a moron.

Did I mention that enrollment has declined the past few years? To fight that, our president's plan appears to be to drive away alumni and make it more expensive to attend the school. Brilliant!

Sorry to hear this. I was and am STILL crossing my fingers for you guys. Thanks for the update.

(04-09-2016 11:51 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 10:49 PM)airtroop Wrote:  Your tone's changed a bit. Is there a reason for this? Have you heard some positive news about remaining FBS as an independent lately?

Nothing new. I was just reacting to the idea that anyone in our administration would see value in moving quickly or decisively on anything. They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. And I was posting my own wishful thinking on FBS scheduling. I still just don't believe it would be all that difficult to go independent.

But the facts on the ground are the same as far as I know. The boosters have made their FBS desires well known, our AD still says he's working on a 2018 FBS independent schedule, and our president still says nice things about the Big Sky. Since the president makes the final decision, it still seems likely to me we'll do the stupid thing and throw away our last chip (FBS status) for nothing.

I hope I'm wrong. But Staben has talked about an increase in student fees to make up for the loss in alumni support, so he seems to be digging in on being a moron.

Did I mention that enrollment has declined the past few years? To fight that, our president's plan appears to be to drive away alumni and make it more expensive to attend the school. Brilliant!

Seems that your president - the decision maker for the FB team's future has thrown in the towel for FB independence - reading between the lines from your recent replies. Too bad for Idaho if that is the problem. Sounds like Temple of old in the Big East when their president not only tired to move the team down to 1-AA, he actually tried to kill the program all together. Sounds like you need a new president to turn things around like Temple did when they put a new president in office in Philadelphia. Good luck.

(04-09-2016 11:28 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:27 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:18 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 08:58 AM)PA-GAMECOCK Wrote:  Any more news on Idaho and NMST after they leave the Sunbelt. The last thing I heard was that the Big Sky gave Idaho a date in May to let them know if the were dropping to 1-AA in their conference. NMST would have the better chance at survival as an independent with a 33k seat stadium, and UTEP and New Mexico willing to play them on an annual basis. Throw in annual H and H's with independents BYU, Army, and UMASS, along with an FCS game and a P5 money game or two and they already have a seven or eight game schedule in place. Pick up some MWC games and games from western Sunbelt and CUSA members and they should be alright until the next wave of realignment.

That May 4th date wasn't a Big Sky deadline. It was the date our president said he'd make a decision.

An independent schedule for us would be no worse than our current Sun Belt schedule. This year we're playing 5 home games with a Thursday night game, a Thanksgiving weekend home game and zero home games from Oct. 16 to Nov. 25. We could easily at least replicate that as an independent, and likely play more teams closer to home. If we've been satisfied in the Sun Belt, as we've said we were, we should be satisfied as an independent too.

Can Idaho remain FBS considering you will lose $1.5 million in conference payout?

I think Idaho was spending much of that as a travel subsidy to the Sun Belt Conference.

It is my understanding the SB is providing the travel subsidy.

(04-10-2016 10:18 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:28 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:27 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:18 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 08:58 AM)PA-GAMECOCK Wrote:  Any more news on Idaho and NMST after they leave the Sunbelt. The last thing I heard was that the Big Sky gave Idaho a date in May to let them know if the were dropping to 1-AA in their conference. NMST would have the better chance at survival as an independent with a 33k seat stadium, and UTEP and New Mexico willing to play them on an annual basis. Throw in annual H and H's with independents BYU, Army, and UMASS, along with an FCS game and a P5 money game or two and they already have a seven or eight game schedule in place. Pick up some MWC games and games from western Sunbelt and CUSA members and they should be alright until the next wave of realignment.

That May 4th date wasn't a Big Sky deadline. It was the date our president said he'd make a decision.

An independent schedule for us would be no worse than our current Sun Belt schedule. This year we're playing 5 home games with a Thursday night game, a Thanksgiving weekend home game and zero home games from Oct. 16 to Nov. 25. We could easily at least replicate that as an independent, and likely play more teams closer to home. If we've been satisfied in the Sun Belt, as we've said we were, we should be satisfied as an independent too.

Can Idaho remain FBS considering you will lose $1.5 million in conference payout?

I think Idaho was spending much of that as a travel subsidy to the Sun Belt Conference.

It is my understanding the SB is providing the travel subsidy.

They're providing it out of our share of conference payout.

(04-10-2016 10:42 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 10:18 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:28 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:27 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:18 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  That May 4th date wasn't a Big Sky deadline. It was the date our president said he'd make a decision.

An independent schedule for us would be no worse than our current Sun Belt schedule. This year we're playing 5 home games with a Thursday night game, a Thanksgiving weekend home game and zero home games from Oct. 16 to Nov. 25. We could easily at least replicate that as an independent, and likely play more teams closer to home. If we've been satisfied in the Sun Belt, as we've said we were, we should be satisfied as an independent too.

Can Idaho remain FBS considering you will lose $1.5 million in conference payout?

I think Idaho was spending much of that as a travel subsidy to the Sun Belt Conference.

It is my understanding the SB is providing the travel subsidy.

They're providing it out of our share of conference payout.

No real news out of NMSU lately.

The President has spoken semi-favorably of FCS in the past, and has apparently talked with just about every FBS and FCS conference around. But still weighing the decision. As one would expect, the AD is strongly in favor of staying at FBS.

One aspect that NMSU has to consider that Idaho does not is the condition of our Olympic sports conference. The WAC hasn't been very stable since everyone bolted a few years ago, and now with Chicago State having extreme financial difficulties - things are even less stable.

NMSU has to address that issue as well as football.

(04-10-2016 04:22 PM)NuMexAg Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 10:42 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 10:18 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:28 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:27 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  Can Idaho remain FBS considering you will lose $1.5 million in conference payout?

I think Idaho was spending much of that as a travel subsidy to the Sun Belt Conference.

It is my understanding the SB is providing the travel subsidy.

They're providing it out of our share of conference payout.

No real news out of NMSU lately.

The President has spoken semi-favorably of FCS in the past, and has apparently talked with just about every FBS and FCS conference around. But still weighing the decision. As one would expect, the AD is strongly in favor of staying at FBS.

One aspect that NMSU has to consider that Idaho does not is the condition of our Olympic sports conference. The WAC hasn't been very stable since everyone bolted a few years ago, and now with Chicago State having extreme financial difficulties - things are even less stable.

NMSU has to address that issue as well as football.

Yea. That's a potential problem. Has the Summit and Big Sky turned you guys down for 'all but football' membership?

(04-10-2016 09:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 04:22 PM)NuMexAg Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 10:42 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 10:18 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:28 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I think Idaho was spending much of that as a travel subsidy to the Sun Belt Conference.

It is my understanding the SB is providing the travel subsidy.

They're providing it out of our share of conference payout.

No real news out of NMSU lately.

The President has spoken semi-favorably of FCS in the past, and has apparently talked with just about every FBS and FCS conference around. But still weighing the decision. As one would expect, the AD is strongly in favor of staying at FBS.

One aspect that NMSU has to consider that Idaho does not is the condition of our Olympic sports conference. The WAC hasn't been very stable since everyone bolted a few years ago, and now with Chicago State having extreme financial difficulties - things are even less stable.

NMSU has to address that issue as well as football.

Yea. That's a potential problem. Has the Summit and Big Sky turned you guys down for 'all but football' membership?

Supposedly NMSU has had several discussions with the Big Sky - presumably about full membership. But no hard information that I've heard about. The Summit and Horizon are reportedly both interested. Mo. Valley not so much.

(04-10-2016 04:22 PM)NuMexAg Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 10:42 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 10:18 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:28 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:27 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  Can Idaho remain FBS considering you will lose $1.5 million in conference payout?

I think Idaho was spending much of that as a travel subsidy to the Sun Belt Conference.

It is my understanding the SB is providing the travel subsidy.

They're providing it out of our share of conference payout.

No real news out of NMSU lately.

The President has spoken semi-favorably of FCS in the past, and has apparently talked with just about every FBS and FCS conference around. But still weighing the decision. As one would expect, the AD is strongly in favor of staying at FBS.

One aspect that NMSU has to consider that Idaho does not is the condition of our Olympic sports conference. The WAC hasn't been very stable since everyone bolted a few years ago, and now with Chicago State having extreme financial difficulties - things are even less stable.

NMSU has to address that issue as well as football.

Have to think the Summit League would be interested, not sure if their sports sponsored matches up. Sure looks like a better combination of schools.

Valley would be great but they don't seem to be particularly aggressive on expansion.

(04-11-2016 09:22 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 04:22 PM)NuMexAg Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 10:42 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 10:18 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 11:28 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I think Idaho was spending much of that as a travel subsidy to the Sun Belt Conference.

It is my understanding the SB is providing the travel subsidy.

They're providing it out of our share of conference payout.

No real news out of NMSU lately.

The President has spoken semi-favorably of FCS in the past, and has apparently talked with just about every FBS and FCS conference around. But still weighing the decision. As one would expect, the AD is strongly in favor of staying at FBS.

One aspect that NMSU has to consider that Idaho does not is the condition of our Olympic sports conference. The WAC hasn't been very stable since everyone bolted a few years ago, and now with Chicago State having extreme financial difficulties - things are even less stable.

NMSU has to address that issue as well as football.

Have to think the Summit League would be interested, not sure if their sports sponsored matches up. Sure looks like a better combination of schools.

Valley would be great but they don't seem to be particularly aggressive on expansion.

I don't think the Summit is any better than the WAC. The WAC is easier for travel and has a couple of good teams, but would NMSU be more interested in playing in the Dakotas and Indiana than around the current region they play in the WAC?

(04-11-2016 09:29 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-11-2016 09:22 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 04:22 PM)NuMexAg Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 10:42 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(04-10-2016 10:18 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  It is my understanding the SB is providing the travel subsidy.

They're providing it out of our share of conference payout.

No real news out of NMSU lately.

The President has spoken semi-favorably of FCS in the past, and has apparently talked with just about every FBS and FCS conference around. But still weighing the decision. As one would expect, the AD is strongly in favor of staying at FBS.

One aspect that NMSU has to consider that Idaho does not is the condition of our Olympic sports conference. The WAC hasn't been very stable since everyone bolted a few years ago, and now with Chicago State having extreme financial difficulties - things are even less stable.

NMSU has to address that issue as well as football.

Have to think the Summit League would be interested, not sure if their sports sponsored matches up. Sure looks like a better combination of schools.

Valley would be great but they don't seem to be particularly aggressive on expansion.

I don't think the Summit is any better than the WAC. The WAC is easier for travel and has a couple of good teams, but would NMSU be more interested in playing in the Dakotas and Indiana than around the current region they play in the WAC?

The Summit is far more stable and has a much better lineup. If youre in Las Cruces, you're not going to have much of a 'bus' schedule anyway. The problem with the WAC is that one team might not even be an academic institution next year (Chicago State), one is a non-traditional institution (Grand Canyon, Inc.), and the others can't find another place to play. The WAC right now is the 'land of the misfit toys'. No one wants to be there.

NMSU is a valuable product in Oly sports.