(05-15-2014 08:13 AM)TStatebobcat Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 05:18 AM)MJG Wrote:  ...
No FBS conference has non football members except the SBC.
The clear top two G5 conferences have football only members.

AAC has Navy as football only, the MWC has Hawaii as football only and the ACC has Notre Dame with non-football sports.

The first two confirms the "top two G5 conferences" statement, but the last one contradicts the basic claim ... the FBS conferences with non football members are the ACC and the Sunbelt.

(05-15-2014 11:58 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:11 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 09:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I have zero qualms about booting UALR, AState would continue to schedule them. The membership of this league sat down seven years ago developed a plan for making the league better for years to come. We've all departed from the plan in some ways but none more than UALR and they've gone backwards by dropping to 14 sports. As to UTA, they've performed pretty well but the Mavs never should have been invited. They don't sponsor football which was supposed to be a criteria for membership and they don't sponsor 15 league sports which is supposedly a membership standard.

I'd cut Idaho and if the votes aren't there for NMSU all-sports, I'd cut them as well.

If you want a conference worth a damn you better start all rowing in the same direction and that isn't happening right now.

It's not going to happen either so all the above mentioned schools can rest easy.

So how do you plan to cut NMSU? Our Contract is not worded like Idaho's. My understanding is that NMSU can only be cut, is if NMSU turns down an all sports invite to the SBC.

If that's the case wiffle bat beatings for everyone in the league for signing the STUPIDEST contract ever.

Even full members can be expelled with a 3/4ths vote.

Part of the agreement was providing our AggieVison feed for free to SBC members. You really think that NMSU would allow that to happen if the SBC could kick us out after two years? four years?

Aggievision feed is not THAT valuable. We have the same capability already in basketball and will have it shortly in football.

(05-15-2014 01:37 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:58 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:11 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 09:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I have zero qualms about booting UALR, AState would continue to schedule them. The membership of this league sat down seven years ago developed a plan for making the league better for years to come. We've all departed from the plan in some ways but none more than UALR and they've gone backwards by dropping to 14 sports. As to UTA, they've performed pretty well but the Mavs never should have been invited. They don't sponsor football which was supposed to be a criteria for membership and they don't sponsor 15 league sports which is supposedly a membership standard.

I'd cut Idaho and if the votes aren't there for NMSU all-sports, I'd cut them as well.

If you want a conference worth a damn you better start all rowing in the same direction and that isn't happening right now.

It's not going to happen either so all the above mentioned schools can rest easy.

So how do you plan to cut NMSU? Our Contract is not worded like Idaho's. My understanding is that NMSU can only be cut, is if NMSU turns down an all sports invite to the SBC.

If that's the case wiffle bat beatings for everyone in the league for signing the STUPIDEST contract ever.

Even full members can be expelled with a 3/4ths vote.

Part of the agreement was providing our AggieVison feed for free to SBC members. You really think that NMSU would allow that to happen if the SBC could kick us out after two years? four years?

Aggievision feed is not THAT valuable. We have the same capability already in basketball and will have it shortly in football.

So Arky State has a TV deal locally and regionally like NMSU? You guys have it with channels similar to ROOT Sports, Altitude, FOX Sports Arizona, Comcast Sports Net Huston? Your TV deal is on cable, satellite and the internet? You guys broadcast in HD like we will next year?

AggieVision is seen mostly in western states and in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas. So if ASU TV-18 does all that then I guess you are right, AggieVision is not that valuable.

We can't even get twelve so why are we kicking everyone out.

(05-15-2014 03:02 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 01:37 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:58 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:11 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  So how do you plan to cut NMSU? Our Contract is not worded like Idaho's. My understanding is that NMSU can only be cut, is if NMSU turns down an all sports invite to the SBC.

If that's the case wiffle bat beatings for everyone in the league for signing the STUPIDEST contract ever.

Even full members can be expelled with a 3/4ths vote.

Part of the agreement was providing our AggieVison feed for free to SBC members. You really think that NMSU would allow that to happen if the SBC could kick us out after two years? four years?

Aggievision feed is not THAT valuable. We have the same capability already in basketball and will have it shortly in football.

So Arky State has a TV deal locally and regionally like NMSU? You guys have it with channels similar to ROOT Sports, Altitude, FOX Sports Arizona, Comcast Sports Net Huston? Your TV deal is on cable, satellite and the internet? You guys broadcast in HD like we will next year?

AggieVision is seen mostly in western states and in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas. So if ASU TV-18 does all that then I guess you are right, AggieVision is not that valuable.

Two totally different matters that you have confused there.

Being Altitude doesn't mean jack for any of us.

The capacity to send that signal out is what matters and most have it or will soon.

(05-15-2014 03:38 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 03:02 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 01:37 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:58 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If that's the case wiffle bat beatings for everyone in the league for signing the STUPIDEST contract ever.

Even full members can be expelled with a 3/4ths vote.

Part of the agreement was providing our AggieVison feed for free to SBC members. You really think that NMSU would allow that to happen if the SBC could kick us out after two years? four years?

Aggievision feed is not THAT valuable. We have the same capability already in basketball and will have it shortly in football.

So Arky State has a TV deal locally and regionally like NMSU? You guys have it with channels similar to ROOT Sports, Altitude, FOX Sports Arizona, Comcast Sports Net Huston? Your TV deal is on cable, satellite and the internet? You guys broadcast in HD like we will next year?

AggieVision is seen mostly in western states and in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas. So if ASU TV-18 does all that then I guess you are right, AggieVision is not that valuable.

Two totally different matters that you have confused there.

Being Altitude doesn't mean jack for any of us.

The capacity to send that signal out is what matters and most have it or will soon.

You can send out a signal all you want, but need to have the signal received. Having deals with channels gets you greater coverage. Being on Locally is a good start, maybe Arky State can build on it.

(05-15-2014 03:57 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 03:38 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 03:02 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 01:37 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 11:58 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  Part of the agreement was providing our AggieVison feed for free to SBC members. You really think that NMSU would allow that to happen if the SBC could kick us out after two years? four years?

Aggievision feed is not THAT valuable. We have the same capability already in basketball and will have it shortly in football.

So Arky State has a TV deal locally and regionally like NMSU? You guys have it with channels similar to ROOT Sports, Altitude, FOX Sports Arizona, Comcast Sports Net Huston? Your TV deal is on cable, satellite and the internet? You guys broadcast in HD like we will next year?

AggieVision is seen mostly in western states and in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas. So if ASU TV-18 does all that then I guess you are right, AggieVision is not that valuable.

Two totally different matters that you have confused there.

Being Altitude doesn't mean jack for any of us.

The capacity to send that signal out is what matters and most have it or will soon.

You can send out a signal all you want, but need to have the signal received. Having deals with channels gets you greater coverage. Being on Locally is a good start, maybe Arky State can build on it.

Arky State? NMSU really want to get into the cutesy nickname slinging?

(05-15-2014 05:18 AM)MJG Wrote:  Just kidding we would be first and NMSU second.

I read kick out Idaho from fans of schools who have not won an FBS game or played a season yet. I doubt what message boards fans think matters it does get old though.

It's really too bad Idaho and NMST are in this predicament. These two universities bring huge institutional success that many don't seem to appreciate.

Speaking of peer universities, a lot of SBC schools are on the Carnegie Foundation's list, Georgia State at the highest level. This is one of three benchmark classifications for tier-one and emerging top-tier institutions (other two are the Association of American Universities and Center for Measuring University Performance). Looking at this list I believe there is a strong correlation between conference alignments and institutional priorities. I don't think you can isolate one from the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_res...ted_States

(05-15-2014 09:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I have zero qualms about booting UALR, AState would continue to schedule them. The membership of this league sat down seven years ago developed a plan for making the league better for years to come. We've all departed from the plan in some ways but none more than UALR and they've gone backwards by dropping to 14 sports. As to UTA, they've performed pretty well but the Mavs never should have been invited. They don't sponsor football which was supposed to be a criteria for membership and they don't sponsor 15 league sports which is supposedly a membership standard.

I'd cut Idaho and if the votes aren't there for NMSU all-sports, I'd cut them as well.

If you want a conference worth a damn you better start all rowing in the same direction and that isn't happening right now.

It's not going to happen either so all the above mentioned schools can rest easy.

Who would you have invited instead? UTA's men finished first in the men's points all-sports, without football and our women's teams preformed historically bad by their standards, which cost us big time in the all-sports standings.

EDIT:The volleyball team has winning records against nine of ten members of next year's SBC, the women's basketball is bad, with a winning record against only one team, but only ULM is beyond ten games better and softball out of eight teams has a winning record against four teams and is tied with two other.

Is there any other school out there, that has football, that was willing to join the SBC, that brings value in basketball, baseball and has preformed historically well in softball, women's basketball, volleyball and the other olympic sports? Texas State was already taken, UTSA went to C-USA and any SLC not named SFA school would be a warm body in football and less than desirable in most sports.

The link you listed about 15 conference sports and football members changed when FIU, FAU, MTSU, UNT and WKU decided to leave. It was non-binding then and out of date in the latest round of realignment.

(05-15-2014 08:17 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  I think the problem with Idaho lies less with being football only and more with being a dramatic geographic outlier football only that really isn't all that good at football.

I don't expect a primarily pacific northwest conference would be thrilled about having a football only member in the southeast that has averaged 3 wins a season for the last decade and plays in a 16,000 seat facility either.

This is my exact line of thought, verbatim.

(05-15-2014 08:36 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 09:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I have zero qualms about booting UALR, AState would continue to schedule them. The membership of this league sat down seven years ago developed a plan for making the league better for years to come. We've all departed from the plan in some ways but none more than UALR and they've gone backwards by dropping to 14 sports. As to UTA, they've performed pretty well but the Mavs never should have been invited. They don't sponsor football which was supposed to be a criteria for membership and they don't sponsor 15 league sports which is supposedly a membership standard.

I'd cut Idaho and if the votes aren't there for NMSU all-sports, I'd cut them as well.

If you want a conference worth a damn you better start all rowing in the same direction and that isn't happening right now.

It's not going to happen either so all the above mentioned schools can rest easy.

Who would you have invited instead? UTA's men finished first in the men's points all-sports, without football and our women's teams preformed historically bad by their standards, which cost us big time in the all-sports standings.

EDIT:The volleyball team has winning records against nine of ten members of next year's SBC, the women's basketball is bad, with a winning record against only one team, but only ULM is beyond ten games better and softball out of eight teams has a winning record against four teams and is tied with two other.

Is there any other school out there, that has football, that was willing to join the SBC, that brings value in basketball, baseball and has preformed historically well in softball, women's basketball, volleyball and the other olympic sports? Texas State was already taken, UTSA went to C-USA and any SLC not named SFA school would be a warm body in football and less than desirable in most sports.

The link you listed about 15 conference sports and football members changed when FIU, FAU, MTSU, UNT and WKU decided to leave. It was non-binding then and out of date in the latest round of realignment.

No it became out of date when the new commissioner didn't want to follow it.

Sit down craft a new declaration of who we are and aspire to be that is congruent with what our membership looks like and I'll shut my yap.

I've still got a problem with what's going on at UALR but set out who we are, where we want to go and a road map for getting there.

(05-15-2014 07:52 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  We would probably have a problem with kicking out our in-state basketball rival.

I would not want to be in a conference without a state either.

There is a lot to be said for bragging rights games even if both teams are bad in a sport that year they still circle that game.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

(05-16-2014 08:29 AM)insideualr Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 07:52 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  We would probably have a problem with kicking out our in-state basketball rival.

I would not want to be in a conference without a state either.

There is a lot to be said for bragging rights games even if both teams are bad in a sport that year they still circle that game.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I guess there will be that question why uta was invited without having football. uta is a very good school with large student body and lots of top level degree programs but not much of a sports powerhouse..we all thought the wac would make a pretty good home just didnt see it falling apart so soon. the commish must have thought that uta would eventually restart football or he should have suggested we check into mo valley membership. maybe that is where we fit the best if basketball and baseball are going to be the focus or maybe in the c-usa with unt and utsa. I think the administration is doing the best with what they have. we are just moving slower than some folks want.

(05-16-2014 10:17 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 08:29 AM)insideualr Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 07:52 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  We would probably have a problem with kicking out our in-state basketball rival.

I would not want to be in a conference without a state either.

There is a lot to be said for bragging rights games even if both teams are bad in a sport that year they still circle that game.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I guess there will be that question why uta was invited without having football. uta is a very good school with large student body and lots of top level degree programs but not much of a sports powerhouse..we all thought the wac would make a pretty good home just didnt see it falling apart so soon. the commish must have thought that uta would eventually restart football or he should have suggested we check into mo valley membership. maybe that is where we fit the best if basketball and baseball are going to be the focus or maybe in the c-usa with unt and utsa. I think the administration is doing the best with what they have. we are just moving slower than some folks want.

I still wonder that myself why UTA was invited unless it was for a 'travel partner' for Texas St. However, I think UTA would be better in the WAC even now as part of the Metro Conference rather than being in a conference refocusing on football.
UTA could travel to KC, Chicago, Seattle, Phoenix, SLC, S. Cal and have UT-RGV(now w/ their new Med school). Have the Dallas are would help the WAC get a TV contract that is on par anything they'd get from the Sunbelt.

(05-16-2014 08:29 AM)insideualr Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 07:52 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  We would probably have a problem with kicking out our in-state basketball rival.

I would not want to be in a conference without a state either.

There is a lot to be said for bragging rights games even if both teams are bad in a sport that year they still circle that game.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Id fully support UALR if they would fire Chris Peterson. I was frustrated with ULM for years, and they made an AD change and suddenly I see encouraging signs out of Monroe.

Its time for UALR to do the same. A forward thinking administration changes a lot of minds.

(05-15-2014 12:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  No hate on Idaho. But... y'all really need to fix your stadium situation.

The Kibbie Dome is a symptom of Idaho's problems, not a cause. It's hard to justify expanding seating when the program isn't drawing that big of a crowd in the first place. The only reason I want us to expand the Dome is to look good on paper and get Wazzu and BSU to come play here again.

(05-16-2014 02:46 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 12:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  No hate on Idaho. But... y'all really need to fix your stadium situation.

The Kibbie Dome is a symptom of Idaho's problems, not a cause. It's hard to justify expanding seating when the program isn't drawing that big of a crowd in the first place. The only reason I want us to expand the Dome is to look good on paper and get Wazzu and BSU to come play here again.

I just +3'd you for that.

Nothing frustrates me more than fans who blame the symptom rather than the underlying cause of those symptoms.

One of our fans who passed away a few years ago in his later years stayed on a near permanent rant about fund-raising at AState. Finally I went and pulled the booster club tax records and found that over the period of a decade fund-raising in raw numbers looked OK but had actually barely kept pace with inflation except for the first partial year our then AD was there before he fired the people raising that money.

When the AD was fired two different media outlets contacted me, one looking for a quote which I didn't give and the other wanting insight on why the guy who hired Freeze and Malzahn was let go. I sent each a link the fund-raising chart and it became part of their stories.

Over that guy's tenure an incredible year would be raising $2 million. We've raised enough money in six months to do a press box renovation/rebuild that will cost $7 million to $8 million and they expect before the summer is out to have raised enough to build the football ops center with a price tag in the low 8 figures.

Past administrations just assumed that since it hadn't been done, it couldn't be done.

(05-16-2014 01:56 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 10:17 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 08:29 AM)insideualr Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 07:52 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  We would probably have a problem with kicking out our in-state basketball rival.

I would not want to be in a conference without a state either.

There is a lot to be said for bragging rights games even if both teams are bad in a sport that year they still circle that game.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I guess there will be that question why uta was invited without having football. uta is a very good school with large student body and lots of top level degree programs but not much of a sports powerhouse..we all thought the wac would make a pretty good home just didnt see it falling apart so soon. the commish must have thought that uta would eventually restart football or he should have suggested we check into mo valley membership. maybe that is where we fit the best if basketball and baseball are going to be the focus or maybe in the c-usa with unt and utsa. I think the administration is doing the best with what they have. we are just moving slower than some folks want.

I still wonder that myself why UTA was invited unless it was for a 'travel partner' for Texas St. However, I think UTA would be better in the WAC even now as part of the Metro Conference rather than being in a conference refocusing on football.
UTA could travel to KC, Chicago, Seattle, Phoenix, SLC, S. Cal and have UT-RGV(now w/ their new Med school). Have the Dallas are would help the WAC get a TV contract that is on par anything they'd get from the Sunbelt.

except for Idaho and nmsu, the wac is made up of pretty cheesey schools and those two are leaving. with uta striving for tier one status, I doubt if those are the schools we want to call our peers..mo valley would be better class of schools .

Yeah, UTA, other than joining other non-football schools, just doesn't fit the WAC. Academically, we are superior. Of the new adds, only UMKC is ranked nationally, and most aren't even ranked regionally. Poor NMSU was left holding the bag.

Athletically, we are superior too. Seattle is going to finish third in the Commish Cup. Last year, they were last. The same teams (Idaho, NMSU) that finished ahead of them last year will this year too. It is just a weaker league than last year's and almost every sport has 2-3 teams out of usually ten with a winning record. It wasn't the conference we signed up for and even the SLC is better than they are.

I still like the WAC and root for them, but it just is what it is.

(05-15-2014 09:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I have zero qualms about booting UALR, AState would continue to schedule them. The membership of this league sat down seven years ago developed a plan for making the league better for years to come. We've all departed from the plan in some ways but none more than UALR and they've gone backwards by dropping to 14 sports. As to UTA, they've performed pretty well but the Mavs never should have been invited. They don't sponsor football which was supposed to be a criteria for membership and they don't sponsor 15 league sports which is supposedly a membership standard.

I'd cut Idaho and if the votes aren't there for NMSU all-sports, I'd cut them as well.

If you want a conference worth a damn you better start all rowing in the same direction and that isn't happening right now.

It's not going to happen either so all the above mentioned schools can rest easy.

In your opinion, should Georgia Southern have been invited? They only sponsor 14 of the conferences 17, below the 15 mark set by the conference.