Here's the issue. I actually support NMSU being added as a full sport, but there's a problem with who would be the 12th member in such a scenario. I think you can blame the lack of a credible appropriate program to join with you as to why your candidacy for all sports admission was denied.

It was clear that there was little appetite to retain Idaho, and now we'd need a 12th to keep you. And there's just no one there. And it would be better if that school was an Eastern school, because that would balance the conference in a way where everyone would be happiest with their division.

And no, the school that shall not be named isn't going to be the 12th team.

I think a JMU/NMSU scenario would be favorable to pretty much everyone. The West schools would be good with NMSU. The East schools get JMU (and they only have to travel to Las Cruces once or twice a decade). The Texas teams get a rival. Basketball is helped. App gets the rival they want.

Win for everyone. But JMU would rather hang out in the Colonial.

(11-07-2017 01:02 AM)GoBigRed26 Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 11:54 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The irony of A-State's support was that if the divisions were purely geographic Sun Belt East would have been App, GaSo, GaSt, Troy, USA, A-State in most sports. In football with 10 Sun Belt East would have been App, GaSo, GaSt, Troy, USA and there would have been no need for a protected crossover.

If we would have kept things as they are, Idaho and NMSU were willing to forego CFP money and even throw out some money for travel. Staying at a 12-Team League, the eastern schools would have only had to visit Idaho and NMSU once each, every four years. I don’t see anything wrong with that. I don’t like having a CCG with only 10 teams, and we can’t stay like we are this year since Idaho is dropping down. Looks like now, our only option is to add NMSU back with the addition of Liberty as football only members, and in doing so, would split up Troy and USA.

Continuing football only required a simple majority vote and there was not interest in continuing football only. Rumor was there were zero votes for football only.

(11-07-2017 12:01 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  Obviously Georgia Southern wanted NMSU because we scheduled a Home/home with y’all immediately after it was announced y’all were leaving.

That's not really a logical conclusion.

Whether it is a 10 or 12 team league in football, if NMSU is a member, GaSo has to fly past someone they don't play that year in order to play NMSU. Quite possible GaSo also wanted NMSU out for ratings purposes.

Playing home and home in non-conference is a different creature. It's not eating up one of the 8 conference slots, it takes one of the four non-conference slots and my understanding is Ga So has had some struggles finding home and home FBS.

Arkansas State was a strong advocate for NMSU but as yet has not announced any games with the Aggies. The Eagles maybe did vote for them but playing in non-conference really isn't evidence the Eagles wanted them in.

Wow. Overwhelming support from the majority of Sun Belt fans. Bummer. Well, looks like we will still have some Sun Belt teams playing us as an independent in football. Our Olympic sports are all in the WAC still. I think basketball would have done well in the Sun Belt.

Two questions:

Does NMSU want to be an all-sports member of the SBC?

Couldn't we pick them up at a later date if needed?

(11-07-2017 04:01 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Two questions:

Does NMSU want to be an all-sports member of the SBC?

Couldn't we pick them up at a later date if needed?

You beat me to it. For some reason, I was thinking that NMSU had indicated that didn't WANT to be an all sports member of the SBC. Would they accept it if it were offered?

(11-07-2017 04:13 PM)Yosef84 Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 04:01 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Two questions:

Does NMSU want to be an all-sports member of the SBC?

Couldn't we pick them up at a later date if needed?

You beat me to it. For some reason, I was thinking that NMSU had indicated that didn't WANT to be an all sports member of the SBC. Would they accept it if it were offered?

Yes they would accept in a heart beat. Even offered travel subs!

(11-07-2017 04:13 PM)Yosef84 Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 04:01 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Two questions:

Does NMSU want to be an all-sports member of the SBC?

Couldn't we pick them up at a later date if needed?

You beat me to it. For some reason, I was thinking that NMSU had indicated that didn't WANT to be an all sports member of the SBC. Would they accept it if it were offered?

I couldn't imagine why anyone with any option to go somewhere else would choose to be in the WAC. Chicago State, Grand Canyon Education, Inc., d/b/a "Grand Canyon University", California Baptist, UM-Kansas City, UT-RGV, Seattle, and Cal Bakersfield.

They'd probably take a bid to the Belt without football. They play in the WAC, which is a horrible, unstable conference that has more travel than the Belt.

(11-07-2017 04:13 PM)Yosef84 Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 04:01 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Two questions:

Does NMSU want to be an all-sports member of the SBC?

Couldn't we pick them up at a later date if needed?

You beat me to it. For some reason, I was thinking that NMSU had indicated that didn't WANT to be an all sports member of the SBC. Would they accept it if it were offered?

When NMSU and Idaho made their cases to extend the football agreement last spring, NMSU pushed hard for all-sports membership and offered financial incentives to the conference. Unfortunately, Idaho offered nothing but an insulting PowerPoint created by (I assume) Chuck Staben's 4th-grade niece. Not saying they necessarily would have gotten in either way, but NMSU's fate was somewhat tied to Idaho at the time and I'd bet some schools found it less complicated to just deny both.

But NMSU clearly wants into the Sun Belt for all sports. I hope they get in.

(11-07-2017 06:35 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 04:13 PM)Yosef84 Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 04:01 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  Two questions:

Does NMSU want to be an all-sports member of the SBC?

Couldn't we pick them up at a later date if needed?

You beat me to it. For some reason, I was thinking that NMSU had indicated that didn't WANT to be an all sports member of the SBC. Would they accept it if it were offered?

When NMSU and Idaho made their cases to extend the football agreement last spring, NMSU pushed hard for all-sports membership and offered financial incentives to the conference. Unfortunately, Idaho offered nothing but an insulting PowerPoint created by (I assume) Chuck Staben's 4th-grade niece. Not saying they necessarily would have gotten in either way, but NMSU's fate was somewhat tied to Idaho at the time and I'd bet some schools found it less complicated to just deny both.

But NMSU clearly wants into the Sun Belt for all sports. I hope they get in.

sold! bring back NMSU

(11-07-2017 07:36 AM)Golota Wrote:  I wouldn’t mind NMSU as a football only member. It’s just too much to travel the Olympic sports.

Didn’t Idaho and Ga Southern have some drama because of a football start time? The Idaho AD was trying to start it at either a super late or early time to have the Ga Southern team play at time they normally don’t play?

I've never heard this (not saying it is false info).

Our 2015 game was a 9pm (EST), 6pm local kickoff. Over the years, we've had a number of games in Alabama and New Mexico which had a 8pm (EST) start ... doubt an hour makes a major difference.

Due to the distance, time change and altitude differences, it isn't like we'd fly out Friday morning for a Saturday game. Pretty sure we went Thursday after classes last time we played out there to acclimate.

UA Little Rock has looked into possibly getting a football team. If they do I am not sure if NMSU or Liberty would be offered an invite to even out the conferences.

(11-07-2017 08:59 PM)NeptunianEmp Wrote:  UA Little Rock has looked into possibly getting a football team. If they do I am not sure if NMSU or Liberty would be offered an invite to even out the conferences.

I would like to bring you guys in but I just can't see Little Rock starting football.

(11-08-2017 06:22 AM)OsageJ Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 08:59 PM)NeptunianEmp Wrote:  UA Little Rock has looked into possibly getting a football team. If they do I am not sure if NMSU or Liberty would be offered an invite to even out the conferences.

I would like to bring you guys in but I just can't see Little Rock starting football.

I think UALR can find the start-up capital, securing the added operating revenue to the satisfaction of the UA Board is an entirely different matter.

(11-08-2017 09:12 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 06:22 AM)OsageJ Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 08:59 PM)NeptunianEmp Wrote:  UA Little Rock has looked into possibly getting a football team. If they do I am not sure if NMSU or Liberty would be offered an invite to even out the conferences.

I would like to bring you guys in but I just can't see Little Rock starting football.

I think UALR can find the start-up capital, securing the added operating revenue to the satisfaction of the UA Board is an entirely different matter.

http://m.nwaonline.com/news/2017/oct/17/...tudy-2017/
This is an article about UALR conducting a study about whether or not to bring back football. It will be interesting to see the results of this study.

(11-08-2017 09:30 AM)NeptunianEmp Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 09:12 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-08-2017 06:22 AM)OsageJ Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 08:59 PM)NeptunianEmp Wrote:  UA Little Rock has looked into possibly getting a football team. If they do I am not sure if NMSU or Liberty would be offered an invite to even out the conferences.

I would like to bring you guys in but I just can't see Little Rock starting football.

I think UALR can find the start-up capital, securing the added operating revenue to the satisfaction of the UA Board is an entirely different matter.

http://m.nwaonline.com/news/2017/oct/17/...tudy-2017/
This is an article about UALR conducting a study about whether or not to bring back football. It will be interesting to see the results of this study.

Results will be a recommendation that they add football. Only question is whether they bury or downplay the costs.

The company doing the study is the same company hired by the stadium to determine how to keep the facility viable and get it into the black.

The outcome is known.

Seriously the only thing left to be seen is how honest they are about the costs and whether UALR can get the cash in hand to get UA Board approval.

(11-08-2017 11:46 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Seriously the only thing left to be seen is how honest they are about the costs and whether UALR can get the cash in hand to get UA Board approval.

I think this gets approved. Big brother hog will see it as a way to dilute your talent reservoir.