(08-23-2017 12:54 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 11:30 AM)HoustonCajun Wrote:  CUSA
West - UTEP, NMSU, UTSA, TX State, Rice, UNT
East - Louisiana, S. Miss, S. Alabama, Troy, LA Tech, Ark State

SBC
North - Marshall, MTSU, WKU, ODU, Charlotte, App State
South - GA Southern, GA State, CCU, UAB, FIU, FAU

Since UTEP is already present, NMSU offers very little beyond serving as a travel partner. UTEP doesn't have one now and is in a conference which stretches to southern Florida and Hampton Roads.

Exactly my point. UTEP is a stone's throw from New Mexico. Why is it in a conference with schools in Florida and West Virginia? NMSU offers as much as half of the current CUSA schools and some SBC schools. They and Idaho were on an island that did not fit the geographic landscape of the SBC. Idaho is going FCS. NMSU needs a home and is a perfect partner and rival for UTEP. UTEP and NMSU really belong in the MWC. If not, it makes much more sense that they are in the same CUSA alignment with other more western based schools.

(08-23-2017 01:04 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 12:42 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  You grossly over-estimate the value of JMU to the Sun Belt. They want membership on trial basis with no entry fee or departure fee they can call CUSA.

JMU is better than everyone in the Sun Belt except maybe Georgia and Texas State, at least as an overall package. They should be welcomed with open arms, burned bridges notwithstanding.

Well then I'm sure CUSA will quickly offer a good new entry fee / no exit fee deal.
Sounds like a steal for Judy and the gang.

Stony Brook, whice has not been shy about declaring FBS ambitions in print, added a couple thousand seats and now has a LaValle Stadium capacity of 12k. It needs one more significant addition to make an FBS move possible. Coastal had a much smaller stadium when the Belt picked it, so attendance and ready facilities doesn't have much to do about wanting FBS.

Albany is at 8.4k, and Albany seems to do whatever Stony Brook does. See those two plus Delaware being tied together with JMU.

(08-23-2017 02:51 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Stony Brook, whice has not been shy about declaring FBS ambitions in print, added a couple thousand seats and now has a LaValle Stadium capacity of 12k. It needs one more significant addition to make an FBS move possible.

The goal is 25K, apparently. And it's an easy lift to get them to FBS with its current venue.

(08-23-2017 01:29 PM)HoustonCajun Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 12:54 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 11:30 AM)HoustonCajun Wrote:  CUSA
West - UTEP, NMSU, UTSA, TX State, Rice, UNT
East - Louisiana, S. Miss, S. Alabama, Troy, LA Tech, Ark State

SBC
North - Marshall, MTSU, WKU, ODU, Charlotte, App State
South - GA Southern, GA State, CCU, UAB, FIU, FAU

Since UTEP is already present, NMSU offers very little beyond serving as a travel partner. UTEP doesn't have one now and is in a conference which stretches to southern Florida and Hampton Roads.

Exactly my point. UTEP is a stone's throw from New Mexico. Why is it in a conference with schools in Florida and West Virginia? NMSU offers as much as half of the current CUSA schools and some SBC schools. They and Idaho were on an island that did not fit the geographic landscape of the SBC. Idaho is going FCS. NMSU needs a home and is a perfect partner and rival for UTEP. UTEP and NMSU really belong in the MWC. If not, it makes much more sense that they are in the same CUSA alignment with other more western based schools.

Conferences aren't charitable enough to take in a school just because it doesn't have a home. NMSU is better off in FCS than as an FBS indy. Re: UTEP, my point was that if they can do without a travel partner now, why give them one when the conference itself is getting a lot closer?

(08-23-2017 03:46 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 01:29 PM)HoustonCajun Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 12:54 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 11:30 AM)HoustonCajun Wrote:  CUSA
West - UTEP, NMSU, UTSA, TX State, Rice, UNT
East - Louisiana, S. Miss, S. Alabama, Troy, LA Tech, Ark State

SBC
North - Marshall, MTSU, WKU, ODU, Charlotte, App State
South - GA Southern, GA State, CCU, UAB, FIU, FAU

Since UTEP is already present, NMSU offers very little beyond serving as a travel partner. UTEP doesn't have one now and is in a conference which stretches to southern Florida and Hampton Roads.

Exactly my point. UTEP is a stone's throw from New Mexico. Why is it in a conference with schools in Florida and West Virginia? NMSU offers as much as half of the current CUSA schools and some SBC schools. They and Idaho were on an island that did not fit the geographic landscape of the SBC. Idaho is going FCS. NMSU needs a home and is a perfect partner and rival for UTEP. UTEP and NMSU really belong in the MWC. If not, it makes much more sense that they are in the same CUSA alignment with other more western based schools.

Conferences aren't charitable enough to take in a school just because it doesn't have a home. NMSU is better off in FCS than as an FBS indy. Re: UTEP, my point was that if they can do without a travel partner now, why give them one when the conference itself is getting a lot closer?

I think it's a money thing. You do see it fairly often at the FCS level---there really isn't any money to split.

(08-23-2017 03:46 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 01:29 PM)HoustonCajun Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 12:54 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 11:30 AM)HoustonCajun Wrote:  CUSA
West - UTEP, NMSU, UTSA, TX State, Rice, UNT
East - Louisiana, S. Miss, S. Alabama, Troy, LA Tech, Ark State

SBC
North - Marshall, MTSU, WKU, ODU, Charlotte, App State
South - GA Southern, GA State, CCU, UAB, FIU, FAU

Since UTEP is already present, NMSU offers very little beyond serving as a travel partner. UTEP doesn't have one now and is in a conference which stretches to southern Florida and Hampton Roads.

Exactly my point. UTEP is a stone's throw from New Mexico. Why is it in a conference with schools in Florida and West Virginia? NMSU offers as much as half of the current CUSA schools and some SBC schools. They and Idaho were on an island that did not fit the geographic landscape of the SBC. Idaho is going FCS. NMSU needs a home and is a perfect partner and rival for UTEP. UTEP and NMSU really belong in the MWC. If not, it makes much more sense that they are in the same CUSA alignment with other more western based schools.

NMSU is better off in FCS than as an FBS indy.

No they are not.

But..but..where is your TV market? Geographically you guys make more sense in CUSA or the Funbelt to start. You will take your lumps moving up to CUSA or the SunBelt. Much different scenario than playing CAA competition 11 weeks a season. Apps St made the transition to FBS in 2014. They won the Sunbelt (Tied Arkansas State) in 2016 (2 years after being in the conference). They also made a bowl in 2015 and 2016 against MAC teams both years and won close games over Ohio and Toledo. My point, the Sunbelt would be a good place to get established and adjust to life with 85 full scholarships. Good Luck with that!

(08-23-2017 03:46 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 01:29 PM)HoustonCajun Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 12:54 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 11:30 AM)HoustonCajun Wrote:  CUSA
West - UTEP, NMSU, UTSA, TX State, Rice, UNT
East - Louisiana, S. Miss, S. Alabama, Troy, LA Tech, Ark State

SBC
North - Marshall, MTSU, WKU, ODU, Charlotte, App State
South - GA Southern, GA State, CCU, UAB, FIU, FAU

Since UTEP is already present, NMSU offers very little beyond serving as a travel partner. UTEP doesn't have one now and is in a conference which stretches to southern Florida and Hampton Roads.

Exactly my point. UTEP is a stone's throw from New Mexico. Why is it in a conference with schools in Florida and West Virginia? NMSU offers as much as half of the current CUSA schools and some SBC schools. They and Idaho were on an island that did not fit the geographic landscape of the SBC. Idaho is going FCS. NMSU needs a home and is a perfect partner and rival for UTEP. UTEP and NMSU really belong in the MWC. If not, it makes much more sense that they are in the same CUSA alignment with other more western based schools.

Conferences aren't charitable enough to take in a school just because it doesn't have a home. NMSU is better off in FCS than as an FBS indy. Re: UTEP, my point was that if they can do without a travel partner now, why give them one when the conference itself is getting a lot closer?

No NMSU wouldn't.

Their options are stay FBS indy and hope for realignment or drop football.

As it stands they get New Mexico and UTEP pretty reliably as home/home opponents. In FCS they give that up.

The closest FCS schools are: Northern Arizona (Big Sky) 475 miles away, Abilene Christian (Southland) 500 miles, Incarnate Word (Southland) 600 miles, Northern Colorado (Big Sky) 677 miles.

Neither league would likely want to take on the costs and NMSU probably can't afford it without giving up the bigger paydays available in FBS.

(08-23-2017 04:51 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  No NMSU wouldn't.

Their options are stay FBS indy and hope for realignment or drop football.

As it stands they get New Mexico and UTEP pretty reliably as home/home opponents. In FCS they give that up.

The closest FCS schools are: Northern Arizona (Big Sky) 475 miles away, Abilene Christian (Southland) 500 miles, Incarnate Word (Southland) 600 miles, Northern Colorado (Big Sky) 677 miles.

Neither league would likely want to take on the costs and NMSU probably can't afford it without giving up the bigger paydays available in FBS.

What I mean is that no one in FBS wants them. The MWC has no interest in them. They're more likely to take UTEP than NMSU, not that such a move is likely to begin with. And if C-USA loses UTEP, they're not going back out on a limb for NMSU. C-USA will be glad to tighten their footprint a little and reduce their numbers.

So the question is if FBS independence is financially sustainable for a school that's more or less out in the middle of nowhere. I think Idaho was wise to return to the Big Sky for football. NMSU could still play UNM and UTEP as an FCS school. They're one of the few schools anywhere nearby, and they're an easy win.

This is what needs to happen

CUSA
NORTH
UMass
James Madison
Liberty
Old Dominion
Marshall
Western Kentucky
Middle Tennessee

SOUTH
Appalachian State
Charlotte
Coastal Carolina
Georgia State
Georgia Southern
FAU
FIU

SUN BELT
EAST
UAB
Troy
South Alabama
Southern Miss
Louisiana Tech
Louisiana
ULM

WEST
Missouri State
Arkansas State
Rice
Texas State
North State
UTSA
UTEP

(08-23-2017 05:44 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  This is what needs to happen

CUSA
NORTH
UMass
James Madison
Liberty
Old Dominion
Marshall
Western Kentucky
Middle Tennessee

SOUTH
Appalachian State
Charlotte
Coastal Carolina
Georgia State
Georgia Southern
FAU
FIU

SUN BELT
EAST
UAB
Troy
South Alabama
Southern Miss
Louisiana Tech
Louisiana
ULM

WEST
Missouri State
Arkansas State
Rice
Texas State
North State
UTSA
UTEP

This would be better, each with 8 schools.

CAA
UMASS
Albany
Stony Brook
Delaware
ODU
JMU
Liberty
Army


Sun Belt
Appy St
Charlotte
Coastal
Ga St
G Southern
Marshall
FIU
FAU

CUSA
MTSU
WKU
UAB
Troy
USA
USM
La-La
ULM

New Southwest Conference
Rice
Texas St
UTSA
N Texas
La Tech
UTEP
Ark St
Mo St

(08-23-2017 05:44 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  This is what needs to happen

CUSA
NORTH
UMass
James Madison
Liberty
Old Dominion
Marshall
Western Kentucky
Middle Tennessee

SOUTH
Appalachian State
Charlotte
Coastal Carolina
Georgia State
Georgia Southern
FAU
FIU

SUN BELT
EAST
UAB
Troy
South Alabama
Southern Miss
Louisiana Tech
Louisiana
ULM

WEST
Missouri State
Arkansas State
Rice
Texas State
North State
UTSA
UTEP

Nice to see a new idea.

Liberty and JMU to the SBC as FB only affiliates--it keeps them from going to 14 all sports members

FB divisions:
East-JMU, Liberty, App St, Coastal, GA St, GA Southern
West-Troy, USA, ULL, ULM, Ark St, Texas St

Why in the world would the Sun Belt do anything with CUSA. The Sunbelt is already a regional conference. Unless UALR expands why would the SBC need to expand any time in the near future? They make more money at 10. I am sorry, JMU missed the Sunbelt train.

(08-23-2017 03:46 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Conferences aren't charitable enough to take in a school just because it doesn't have a home. NMSU is better off in FCS than as an FBS indy. Re: UTEP, my point was that if they can do without a travel partner now, why give them one when the conference itself is getting a lot closer?

NMSU is better off dropping football than going FCS. There is no conference close enough to accommodate them except maybe the Big Sky. And given travel distances out west, there's only about two teams in that conference that are a legit bus ride away.

They might as well drop football, it's been a mess the last 40-50 years, no more than 7 wins in a season and IIRC only 4 winning seasons overall.

(08-23-2017 05:41 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 04:51 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  No NMSU wouldn't.

Their options are stay FBS indy and hope for realignment or drop football.

As it stands they get New Mexico and UTEP pretty reliably as home/home opponents. In FCS they give that up.

The closest FCS schools are: Northern Arizona (Big Sky) 475 miles away, Abilene Christian (Southland) 500 miles, Incarnate Word (Southland) 600 miles, Northern Colorado (Big Sky) 677 miles.

Neither league would likely want to take on the costs and NMSU probably can't afford it without giving up the bigger paydays available in FBS.

What I mean is that no one in FBS wants them. The MWC has no interest in them. They're more likely to take UTEP than NMSU, not that such a move is likely to begin with. And if C-USA loses UTEP, they're not going back out on a limb for NMSU. C-USA will be glad to tighten their footprint a little and reduce their numbers.

So the question is if FBS independence is financially sustainable for a school that's more or less out in the middle of nowhere. I think Idaho was wise to return to the Big Sky for football. NMSU could still play UNM and UTEP as an FCS school. They're one of the few schools anywhere nearby, and they're an easy win.

Implausible they'd get those games home and home. Unlikely Big Sky or Southland would take them. Their circumstances are very different from Idaho.

Here is my thinking. Since the NCAA allowed Liberty to move up, I suspect that James Madison people might do the same by challenging the NCAA to go Independent so that they can get noticed to be attractive for a conference in the future. James Madison may get a tv contract with ESPN which would have been more than where they were at in FCS. They are able to be competitive to be FBS.

If the NCAA decides to avoid a lawsuit? You might see Youngstown State, Jacksonville State, Eastern Kentucky, Stony Brook, Lamar, Sam Houston State, North Alabama, Northern Iowa, Missouri State and some others including future schools who decides to add football like Wichita State, UTRGV, Grand Canyon U., Long Beach State, Fullerton State, Milwaukee, North Florida, FGCU and so forth.

Liberty have opened the can of worms if James Madison also go the same route.

They have no legal ground to stand on, they turned down an invitation and it's public. They now have to hope the WAC is revised or hope the NCAA lightens its standards and removes the conference invitation standard. Or they and the SBC can kiss and make up.

JMU can make the same argument Liberty did and if they can comply with everything they can move up as an independent.

The "must have an invite" rule was adopted to deal with Division II to Division I. Some FCS commissioners contended that the way the rule had been written it would also apply to FCS to FBS, NCAA interpretations staff agreed, but that wasn't really what was intended when it was adopted.

From an NCAA standpoint, the interpretation was helpful to them. Monitoring scheduling compliance for upcoming years was a pain for them. If an FCS transitioning had a game at LSU for 2018 and was using that toward their schedule needs then LSU wanted to shift the game to 2020, the FCS school had to notify the NCAA of the change and they were left with a degree of uncertainty from the rules as to exactly what the association should do and when they should do something because the transition schools were required to show enough compliant future games. They finally settled on just reviewing on I believe August 1 of each year.

The worry that always loomed was what to do if a game was scheduled in good faith but something happened to break the contract. If a game doesn't get played because of a hurricane or lightning that's an easy case to waive EXCEPT the rule says NO WAIVERS SHALL BE GRANTED.

Really a pain for the NCAA with the potential to be messy. So they were more than happy to say yeah the must invite rule applies and then they didn't have to sweat out many details.