(10-26-2016 04:58 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  How does a NM St bball coach hypothesizing that NM St football will eventually join a FCS WAC football conference prove anything?

How does MplsBison saying anything prove anything?

A NMSU bbalL coach may have inside information. MplsBison doesn't.

This board is not all facts, but you get upset at only certain conjectures.

(10-26-2016 04:30 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 04:27 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 02:50 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 12:15 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yes, it is in regard to Idaho joining the Big Sky as a full member, which occurred this year.

Hence why I said that Idaho also wouldn't consider leaving the Big Sky, if UND decides this year to bow out. They'd stay in the Big Sky as a full member, and they'd still join in football in 2018 or 2019 (can't remember which it would be).

Last year Idaho rejoined the BSC, not this.

UND President has already announced an impending move, and there has been no scuttlebutt among Slummit sources. BUT the NMSU bball coach has said that football will return to the WAC, and he added that he probably shouldn't say anything.

When did he say this? Have a link to the source?

They have been posted in this thread, followed by mad ascertains by MplsBison and jackfan29 that I'm delusional.

Ok, well I'm not digging through 20 pages of this crap to find out that this is another one of your wild goose chases.

No, NoDak ... I'm saying, the NM St bball coach was talking about FCS WAC football.

Not FBS.

(10-26-2016 11:48 AM)Bronco85 Wrote:  I am not a conspiracy theorist and I have no inside information, but I wonder if dropping to FCS was the plan all along and this was an edict passed down from the ISBOE when (or shortly after) Staben was hired. NMSU had a very aggressive, financially attractive, and television friendly pitch to the SBC to renew the membership agreement that was delivered in person. UI's presentation was literally and figuratively mailed in and had several errors and was poor in style as well as substance. It was brief and appeared to have been hastily put together. The BSC gave an arbitrary (but it turns out non-binding) acceptance date to UI which was incredibly convenient for Saban as it was expressed (again in error) that UI had to accept FB membership in the BSC by March 4th, or the opportunity would close forever (total BS). There are significant and powerful camps at the UI (faculty and "FCS return to glory" boosters) who have wanted UI to drop down for a long time. The AD at UI has been successful in creating an independent FBS schedule in the past, stated he was nearing completion of doing in again (with loads of time to spare) and there is no explanation as to why being independent for a few years would be demonstrably a poorer position for UI financially (in fact, it would more likely be advantageous financially). NMSU was to meet with the BSC regarding possible FB membership but cancelled that meeting right after they received their audit stating FBS independence was financially better for them than FCS BSC membership despite the precarious status of the WAC (and it appears they believe they could gain membership in the BSC later if needed). NMSU produced a professional audit and report that was financially specific. UIs study meandered and had almost no financial specifics and speculated a great deal about possible future conference alignments but had no specific conclusions or recommendations. I know travel is far different for UI and NMSU in the BSC, but NMSU does not see a risk to FBS Independence in the short term. Like you, if this was a done deal, if the powers in the state or UI wanted to drop down for competitive reasons, then I would prefer they just say so. It appears the financial arguments (other than maybe not being able to fund at desired point where competitive results are more likely) are not true.

That PowerPoint was all the proof anyone would ever need that UI leadership had no interest in remaining in the Sun Belt. If we had teamed with NMSU to offer a serious incentive package to the conference who knows what might have happened. Instead, we made it clear to the Sun Belt members that we didn't want to continue with them and unfortunately likely also grievously wounded NMSU's chances, since both schools were tied together.

If I found out the SBOE had something to do with this it wouldn't shock me, but I'd bet it wasn't anything so overt as a direct order or deal. More likely they just hired the squishiest possible candidate for president and the rest took care of itself.

(10-26-2016 05:40 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 11:48 AM)Bronco85 Wrote:  I am not a conspiracy theorist and I have no inside information, but I wonder if dropping to FCS was the plan all along and this was an edict passed down from the ISBOE when (or shortly after) Staben was hired. NMSU had a very aggressive, financially attractive, and television friendly pitch to the SBC to renew the membership agreement that was delivered in person. UI's presentation was literally and figuratively mailed in and had several errors and was poor in style as well as substance. It was brief and appeared to have been hastily put together. The BSC gave an arbitrary (but it turns out non-binding) acceptance date to UI which was incredibly convenient for Saban as it was expressed (again in error) that UI had to accept FB membership in the BSC by March 4th, or the opportunity would close forever (total BS). There are significant and powerful camps at the UI (faculty and "FCS return to glory" boosters) who have wanted UI to drop down for a long time. The AD at UI has been successful in creating an independent FBS schedule in the past, stated he was nearing completion of doing in again (with loads of time to spare) and there is no explanation as to why being independent for a few years would be demonstrably a poorer position for UI financially (in fact, it would more likely be advantageous financially). NMSU was to meet with the BSC regarding possible FB membership but cancelled that meeting right after they received their audit stating FBS independence was financially better for them than FCS BSC membership despite the precarious status of the WAC (and it appears they believe they could gain membership in the BSC later if needed). NMSU produced a professional audit and report that was financially specific. UIs study meandered and had almost no financial specifics and speculated a great deal about possible future conference alignments but had no specific conclusions or recommendations. I know travel is far different for UI and NMSU in the BSC, but NMSU does not see a risk to FBS Independence in the short term. Like you, if this was a done deal, if the powers in the state or UI wanted to drop down for competitive reasons, then I would prefer they just say so. It appears the financial arguments (other than maybe not being able to fund at desired point where competitive results are more likely) are not true.

That PowerPoint was all the proof anyone would ever need that UI leadership had no interest in remaining in the Sun Belt. If we had teamed with NMSU to offer a serious incentive package to the conference who knows what might have happened. Instead, we made it clear to the Sun Belt members that we didn't want to continue with them and unfortunately likely also grievously wounded NMSU's chances, since both schools were tied together.

If I found out the SBOE had something to do with this it wouldn't shock me, but I'd bet it wasn't anything so overt as a direct order or deal. More likely they just hired the squishiest possible candidate for president and the rest took care of itself.

You are probably correct. It just seems there was little effort made to petition the SBC and then the decision to drop down was rapidly processed in such a short time frame that careful consideration and due diligence were not possible. NMSU took care to address many points and offer the SBC a very good package of financial and television incentives. They took more time to evaluate their position and options and came up with excellent fact based analysis. I am not saying the same process at UI would have yielded the same result as it did at NMSU, it just appears UI made a poor and unenthusiastic effort in ts appeal to the SBC and its "study" on the best direction for UI football post the SBC decision. It was incompetence, intentional, or a bit of both but it I have seen no evidence it was premeditated.

(10-26-2016 05:29 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 04:30 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 04:27 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 02:50 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 12:15 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yes, it is in regard to Idaho joining the Big Sky as a full member, which occurred this year.

Hence why I said that Idaho also wouldn't consider leaving the Big Sky, if UND decides this year to bow out. They'd stay in the Big Sky as a full member, and they'd still join in football in 2018 or 2019 (can't remember which it would be).

Last year Idaho rejoined the BSC, not this.

UND President has already announced an impending move, and there has been no scuttlebutt among Slummit sources. BUT the NMSU bball coach has said that football will return to the WAC, and he added that he probably shouldn't say anything.

When did he say this? Have a link to the source?

They have been posted in this thread, followed by mad ascertains by MplsBison and jackfan29 that I'm delusional.

Ok, well I'm not digging through 20 pages of this crap to find out that this is another one of your wild goose chases.

Google is your friend for UND and a conference change. Go to the WAC site for the BB open house day, and look up NMSU Coach Weir, last minute of his talks.

(10-26-2016 05:40 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 11:48 AM)Bronco85 Wrote:  I am not a conspiracy theorist and I have no inside information, but I wonder if dropping to FCS was the plan all along and this was an edict passed down from the ISBOE when (or shortly after) Staben was hired. NMSU had a very aggressive, financially attractive, and television friendly pitch to the SBC to renew the membership agreement that was delivered in person. UI's presentation was literally and figuratively mailed in and had several errors and was poor in style as well as substance. It was brief and appeared to have been hastily put together. The BSC gave an arbitrary (but it turns out non-binding) acceptance date to UI which was incredibly convenient for Saban as it was expressed (again in error) that UI had to accept FB membership in the BSC by March 4th, or the opportunity would close forever (total BS). There are significant and powerful camps at the UI (faculty and "FCS return to glory" boosters) who have wanted UI to drop down for a long time. The AD at UI has been successful in creating an independent FBS schedule in the past, stated he was nearing completion of doing in again (with loads of time to spare) and there is no explanation as to why being independent for a few years would be demonstrably a poorer position for UI financially (in fact, it would more likely be advantageous financially). NMSU was to meet with the BSC regarding possible FB membership but cancelled that meeting right after they received their audit stating FBS independence was financially better for them than FCS BSC membership despite the precarious status of the WAC (and it appears they believe they could gain membership in the BSC later if needed). NMSU produced a professional audit and report that was financially specific. UIs study meandered and had almost no financial specifics and speculated a great deal about possible future conference alignments but had no specific conclusions or recommendations. I know travel is far different for UI and NMSU in the BSC, but NMSU does not see a risk to FBS Independence in the short term. Like you, if this was a done deal, if the powers in the state or UI wanted to drop down for competitive reasons, then I would prefer they just say so. It appears the financial arguments (other than maybe not being able to fund at desired point where competitive results are more likely) are not true.

That PowerPoint was all the proof anyone would ever need that UI leadership had no interest in remaining in the Sun Belt. If we had teamed with NMSU to offer a serious incentive package to the conference who knows what might have happened. Instead, we made it clear to the Sun Belt members that we didn't want to continue with them and unfortunately likely also grievously wounded NMSU's chances, since both schools were tied together.

If I found out the SBOE had something to do with this it wouldn't shock me, but I'd bet it wasn't anything so overt as a direct order or deal. More likely they just hired the squishiest possible candidate for president and the rest took care of itself.

The only way that the Belt would have extended Idaho is if the Vandals had paid buckets of money every year.

(10-26-2016 07:45 PM)NoDak Wrote:  The only way that the Belt would have extended Idaho is if the Vandals had paid buckets of money every year.

How many buckets? It's already been shown that dropping to FCS will cost Idaho buckets of money vs. being FBS indy, and that's without access to any CFP money. Depending on the number of buckets required in conjunction with NMSU it may have been worth it. I have no idea, and neither does Idaho leadership because they half-assed the entire thing.

(10-26-2016 08:01 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 07:45 PM)NoDak Wrote:  The only way that the Belt would have extended Idaho is if the Vandals had paid buckets of money every year.

How many buckets? It's already been shown that dropping to FCS will cost Idaho buckets of money vs. being FBS indy, and that's without access to any CFP money. Depending on the number of buckets required in conjunction with NMSU it may have been worth it. I have no idea, and neither does Idaho leadership because they half-assed the entire thing.

At least enough to for pay increased travel and allow the other Belt schools to get the maximum CFP payout per school. But the Belt still would come up short, as Idaho doesn't help with regional continuity and gaining better bowl berths.

Unless there is a Vandal that can donate $100 mill to ftball, Idaho has to make friends with similar regional schools it's own size and build up a conference.

(10-26-2016 07:43 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 05:29 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 04:30 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 04:27 PM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 02:50 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Last year Idaho rejoined the BSC, not this.

UND President has already announced an impending move, and there has been no scuttlebutt among Slummit sources. BUT the NMSU bball coach has said that football will return to the WAC, and he added that he probably shouldn't say anything.

When did he say this? Have a link to the source?

They have been posted in this thread, followed by mad ascertains by MplsBison and jackfan29 that I'm delusional.

Ok, well I'm not digging through 20 pages of this crap to find out that this is another one of your wild goose chases.

Google is your friend for UND and a conference change. Go to the WAC site for the BB open house day, and look up NMSU Coach Weir, last minute of his talks.

Ok, thanks for at least stating your source so I could find it. He was asked what the conference membership would look like in the future and he said he wasn't sure what he could say. Then said he hopes all of the football teams come back and they become a football conference again. So definitely not declaring that NMSU football is going back to the WAC. Also, would be interesting to know which teams he references as "coming back" to the WAC.

roka,

As you can probably already tell, NoDak will stretch any pigeon to impossible lengths and call it a turkey, with regards to his FBS WAC theory.

To be fair, that turkey would have some legs if Idaho returned to the WAC. But they'd have to be the ones who move first. Otherwise nothing will happen as nobody else will take the plunge until they do

Well, NoDak's idea is that Idaho, Montana, Montana St, UND, and maybe others are all going to announce a move as a block to the WAC in the next couple years.


Any sane person knows -- now -- that such a thing will never happen, and that the idea is absurd.

NoDak's response is: "just you wait!!"

(10-27-2016 01:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Well, NoDak's idea is that Idaho, Montana, Montana St, UND, and maybe others are all going to announce a move as a block to the WAC in the next couple years.


Any sane person knows -- now -- that such a thing will never happen, and that the idea is absurd.

NoDak's response is: "just you wait!!"

That's hilarious that you test posters for sanity. The bizon board that evicted you would be roflol. You'll have to provide all the posters scores, and yours.

I don't think it's absurd or an insane idea that a splinter group from the Big Sky could split off and join the WAC. The Big Sky is obviously too big and unwieldy as is and that's one possible solution to the problem. It's just that that's a big leap, and then there'd be about 4 more big leaps before you had an FBS conference. So the smart money is against it. NoDak is like the guy in Vegas putting his money on Butler to win the NCAA basketball tournament. It's probably not going to happen but it pays off at 150/1 if it does.

Insane, no of course not. It's plausible. It's even plausible to think that if the thing actually got momentum, that the XDSU's and maybe USD/UNI/others would be interested (though probably less so on the MVC-MVFC schools).

It's just never going to happen.


The linchpin to the idea of FBS WAC (or a new third tier western FBS conf) has always been, and always will be, the Montanas. They had as free and clear a chance as any western FCS teams will ever get, in 2013. Could've moved to the WAC and done it. They said no then.

They say no now. And they'll continue to say no.


And that means: everyone else is out. No Montanas, no conf.

What I'm saying is Idaho has to generate the momentum. Idaho has to prove they are willing to do whatever it takes, including moving all sports out of the Big Sky. That's the only way the Montanas would reverse course. Because as it stands right now, Idaho has one more year at the FBS level and then the Montanas will play them again in football in the Big Sky.

Meanwhile, UMKC is waiting to host a conference tournament - which may never happen in the WAC like they were supposedly promised - NMSU is looking at all options and Chicago State is gasping for air as an institution. And did I mention Grand Canyon will have completed their D1 transition after this year? If Idaho wants a WAC revival they better move soon. Othwerwide there may not even be a WAC at all.

UMKC should be in the Summit. We'd take NM St too, if the WAC faltered.

Chicago St should be merged with NEIU, which has already dropped athletics. No athletics for the merged institution.


Idaho will do OK in the Big Sky. I see them about like Montana St, and I hope the rivalry with Montana gets ramped back up and is a big deal for them every year.

Oh, it's all on us? Great! I have every confidence that our President and AD will perform their due diligence and make the best possible decision for all parties.

Oh, wait. No I don't. We're the school with the president who has baldfaced lied about everything related to athletics for 18 months, fudged enrollment numbers to make a decline look like an increase, and, in another unrelated display of his PR wizardry and people skills, has now somehow managed to fan the flames into a 3-alarm fire on campus over feral cats. Chuck Staben is truly something to behold.

So in summary, if it's on Idaho to save it the WAC is screwed.