Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)


Post Reply 
NMSU position on Sun Belt and football
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
CrazyCajun Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,317
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 60
I Root For: Louisiana
Location:
Post: #21
RE: NMSU position on Sun Belt and football
(12-28-2012 03:28 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  
(12-28-2012 02:44 PM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  
(12-28-2012 02:27 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  
(12-28-2012 01:42 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  
(12-28-2012 02:23 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  So we may invite a program whose AD does not believe his football program can either win...or make money. Smart way to re-build a league and keep it moving up in the power rankings don't you think?

Smarter than inviting moveups.

That is hilarious. Why did Conference USA take UTSA instead of NMSU? I guess it is because they are dumb.

It is smarter to invite a moribund FBS school that nobody else wants, who's AD has no confidence in it.........over a school that packs its stadium for every game and has a history of winning at the FCS level.

Stoopid.

No, stupid would be not accepting one of the few FBS programs available at this time. Sorry, very few care about winning FCS programs beyond then the fans that support those schools. If that's your vision of the next SBC, then you are welcome to it. Small time vision!


Then you would select nmsu and Idaho before you get to the FCS teams? Fortunately the Sun Belt Presidents are not that foolish. They have worked too hard for too long to improve the conference on the field only to spend tons of travel money to add the two worst football programs in FBS with no upside just for the sake of being able to say we added FBS teams.

Foolish? Yep, that is why Sun Belt programs are jumping at the opportunity to get out as quickly as possible. You may not like it, but perception is reality.
12-28-2012 03:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Vobserver Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 2,048
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 62
I Root For: Louisiana
Location:
Post: #22
RE: NMSU position on Sun Belt and football
I didn't say we should add NMSU. I said better them than moveups. I am not in favor of adding anyone at this time.
12-28-2012 03:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MTPiKapp Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 15,333
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation: 477
I Root For: MiddleTennessee
Location: Roswell, GA
Post: #23
RE: NMSU position on Sun Belt and football
(12-28-2012 03:39 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  I didn't say we should add NMSU. I said better them than moveups. I am not in favor of adding anyone at this time.

So playing with eight members is the answer? That's your reality for 2014 if you don't announce any new members before the deadline this summer.
12-28-2012 03:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Vobserver Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 2,048
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 62
I Root For: Louisiana
Location:
Post: #24
RE: NMSU position on Sun Belt and football
yes
12-28-2012 04:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Crump1 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,474
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 71
I Root For: stAte
Location:
Post: #25
RE: NMSU position on Sun Belt and football
Staying at eight is not prudent in my opinion. With all of the changes going on, it would be really awful if any additional teams left the conference without voting to add teams beforehand. We should get back to 10 in my opinion which leaves room to add more if attractive teams become available.
12-28-2012 04:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 23,699
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 739
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #26
RE: NMSU position on Sun Belt and football
(12-28-2012 03:26 PM)asumike83 Wrote:  
(12-28-2012 02:44 PM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  No, stupid would be not accepting one of the few FBS programs available at this time. Sorry, very few care about winning FCS programs beyond then the fans that support those schools. If that's your vision of the next SBC, then you are welcome to it. Small time vision!

Do you honestly think anyone outside the fans/alumni care about that 1-11 WAC team down the road just because they are FBS? If that were the case, they'd get more than 14K per home game.

With the exception of the big boys, very few people care about any football program they have no connection to, whether FCS or FBS. We all thrive on alumni support, not casual fans.

I disagree, Arkansas State has survived with alumni support. Success has given us a chance to thrive and and a significant amount of the money we had available to pay Malzahn $850,000 with a $600,000 slush fund for paying assistants above statutory line item or added recruiting costs which is now $700,000 for Harsin with a $750,000 slush fund has come from people with no tie to the school who have "bought in" to what we are doing.
12-28-2012 04:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Cat79 Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 741
Joined: Jan 2007
Reputation: 14
I Root For: Texas State
Location: Pearland, Texas
Post: #27
RE: NMSU position on Sun Belt and football
The WAC had made the fatal decision to not add teams and you see the end result. WAC-RIP
12-28-2012 04:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Dukes09 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,386
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 59
I Root For: James Madison
Location: Richmond, VA
Post: #28
RE: NMSU position on Sun Belt and football
(12-28-2012 01:33 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  NMSU football would struggle to win several FCS leagues.

given their performance and attendance the past decade, i would say both nmsu and idaho are two programs that need to realize they should be among the fcs ranks. replace those two with two high end fcs programs and the fbs level will actually gain more respectability.
12-28-2012 04:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CrazyCajun Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,317
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 60
I Root For: Louisiana
Location:
Post: #29
RE: NMSU position on Sun Belt and football
(12-28-2012 03:26 PM)asumike83 Wrote:  
(12-28-2012 02:44 PM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  No, stupid would be not accepting one of the few FBS programs available at this time. Sorry, very few care about winning FCS programs beyond then the fans that support those schools. If that's your vision of the next SBC, then you are welcome to it. Small time vision!

Do you honestly think anyone outside the fans/alumni care about that 1-11 WAC team down the road just because they are FBS? If that were the case, they'd get more than 14K per home game.

With the exception of the big boys, very few people care about any football program they have no connection to, whether FCS or FBS. We all thrive on alumni support, not casual fans.

What our alumni think or feel and the perception of the conference to a potential student athlete are two different matters. Do you actually think a winning FCS program matters to the average college football fan or student athlete today? That is the bigger picture that you and others just don't get. Again, any existing FBS program would be a better choice short term for the Sun Belt Conference from the standpoint of perception.
12-28-2012 04:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Cat79 Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 741
Joined: Jan 2007
Reputation: 14
I Root For: Texas State
Location: Pearland, Texas
Post: #30
RE: NMSU position on Sun Belt and football
I would add Georgia Southern, App State and New Mexico State so we can split into divisions.
12-28-2012 04:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Crump1 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,474
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 71
I Root For: stAte
Location:
Post: #31
RE: NMSU position on Sun Belt and football
(12-28-2012 04:37 PM)Dukes09 Wrote:  
(12-28-2012 01:33 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  NMSU football would struggle to win several FCS leagues.

given their performance and attendance the past decade, i would say both nmsu and idaho are two programs that need to realize they should be among the fcs ranks. replace those two with two high end fcs programs and the fbs level will actually gain more respectability.
I agree. People should get beyond labels and temporary feelings and think long term. The first time that a team like App. St., Ga. So. or JMU upsets a "name" team or makes a bowl appearance it won't matter one single bit that they were FCS in 2013. People will see a program filling the stands and winning and that erases any negatives very quickly.

People forget how quickly Troy and to some extent WKU moved up recently and were competing at the top of the conference and beating BCS programs/
12-28-2012 04:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MTPiKapp Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 15,333
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation: 477
I Root For: MiddleTennessee
Location: Roswell, GA
Post: #32
RE: NMSU position on Sun Belt and football
(12-28-2012 04:42 PM)Cat79 Wrote:  I would add Georgia Southern, App State and New Mexico State so we can split into divisions.

That would make 11 for football and 13 for other sports, you need another add for football divisions.
12-28-2012 04:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 23,699
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 739
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #33
RE: NMSU position on Sun Belt and football
In the past decade, the Big East and CUSA have taken straight from FCS schools so I can't put my finger on any reason why we are so superior that we would not consider it.

What I do know is this. Success at the FCS level is no guarantee of future success (sounds like a mutual fund ad) but at some point in time a period of stability or something like it will emerge and those we are associated with at that point are likely to be those we associate with for some extended period.

What evidence I have to look at is this.

I know that NMSU has had four of their last five conferences shot out from under them at least as a football home. In the case of the Valley, Big West and WAC they only had the opportunity to join because those conferences had become desperate for members.

I can look at the last three decades of NMSU football and see only two winning seasons. Any reasonable observer of the college football scene would say they spent at least 22 years playing in I-A/FBS's worst conferences and posted two winning seasons against the easy competition.

I can look at Idaho and see that in the past 12 seasons they've posted three one win seasons, four two win seasons and an 8-5 and 6-7 season have been the high water mark. Three times they've had a two year span of 20 or more losses.

I know what the travel is like to Idaho.

If those are my choices, then give me an FCS move up that has shown that they have some awareness of how to run a program. That's not SFA, Jax St, or Lamar and recent results have me questioning whether that's James Madison or Liberty.
12-28-2012 04:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Journeyman22 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 343
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 6
I Root For: South Alabama
Location:
Post: #34
NMSU position on Sun Belt and football
(12-28-2012 01:41 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  NMSU can't "use" the Sun Belt for anything if they don't get invited.

Right now, we need them as an FBS school (plus their good hoops), and they need us. So they can "use" each other.
12-28-2012 05:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YouCanUseaMint Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 437
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 20
I Root For: Texas State
Location:
Post: #35
RE: NMSU position on Sun Belt and football
Yep. I hate the idea that we are discussing decisions based on "perception" and not what's best for the conference. I don't want to add more perennial losers just because they are already FBS. Lay the ground work now so that five years down the road, the newbies are competing for conference championships.

And as much as it pains me to say it, I would add Sam Houston over Idaho.
(This post was last modified: 12-28-2012 05:11 PM by YouCanUseaMint.)
12-28-2012 05:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Journeyman22 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 343
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 6
I Root For: South Alabama
Location:
Post: #36
NMSU position on Sun Belt and football
(12-28-2012 04:33 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  Staying at eight is not prudent in my opinion. With all of the changes going on, it would be really awful if any additional teams left the conference without voting to add teams beforehand. We should get back to 10 in my opinion which leaves room to add more if attractive teams become available.

Wanna be left with 6 (or even 4) schools in the conference? Then "stand pay" with 8. We need real FBS members, and I'm good with NMSU long-term for all sports and a football-only Idaho short-term -- with the understanding it will be under 5 years. If they don't have a conference home by then, they're out.
12-28-2012 05:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Dukes09 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,386
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 59
I Root For: James Madison
Location: Richmond, VA
Post: #37
RE: NMSU position on Sun Belt and football
(12-28-2012 02:07 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  
(12-28-2012 02:02 PM)Rik Flair Wrote:  Really don't want to see NMSU in the conference. Middle and NT made a mistake leaving. F_U, nobody really cares. App State and Georgia Southern are ready to go. Just wish the rest of the belt would all pinky-swear to stay together and sign those two up so we can move forward and forget all this garbage

I really prefer NMSU to any of our other viable options.

It's not the be all end all, but it lets you know the general relevance of a football program.... attendance in 2012:
Appalachian State - 26,358
James Madison - 22,783
Georgia Southern - 18,487
Liberty - 16,318
New Mexico State - 14,247
Lamar - 11,119
Sam Houston State - 8,782

Congrats, they're better than Lamar and Sam Houston State...

Can you really convince yourself they're the "best option"?
12-28-2012 05:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
asumike83 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 410
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation: 35
I Root For: App State
Location: Raleigh, NC
Post: #38
RE: NMSU position on Sun Belt and football
(12-28-2012 04:42 PM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  What our alumni think or feel and the perception of the conference to a potential student athlete are two different matters. Do you actually think a winning FCS program matters to the average college football fan or student athlete today? That is the bigger picture that you and others just don't get. Again, any existing FBS program would be a better choice short term for the Sun Belt Conference from the standpoint of perception.

The key phrase there is "short term" and in that case, I agree. There are certainly advantages to adding an existing FBS program for scheduling purposes. I know I am biased but I believe that Appalachian and Georgia Southern would be better fits for the SBC in the long run. In my opinion, adding a drastic geographical outlier with a track record of subpar performance as a temporary stop gap would be very short-sighted on the part of the conference.

To answer your question, no. I don't think even a winning FCS program matters to the average fan/student athlete. Trust me, nobody gets that more than us. We struggle with the perception of FCS every day and the lack of coverage is a primary reason that ASU wants out of the SoCon. I just think the difference in perception between NMSU and an FCS program is either non-existent or negligible. I'd wager that the average fan couldn't tell you whether NMSU football competes at the FCS or FBS level because they have not been to a bowl game since 1960.
12-28-2012 05:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Journeyman22 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 343
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 6
I Root For: South Alabama
Location:
Post: #39
NMSU position on Sun Belt and football
(12-28-2012 05:10 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  Yep. I hate the idea that we are discussing decisions based on "perception" and not what's best for the conference. I don't want to add more perennial losers just because they are already FBS. Lay the ground work now so that five years down the road, the newbies are competing for conference championships.

And as much as it pains me to say it, I would add Sam Houston over Idaho.

You can lay the groundwork now by inviting move-ups. We will need them, and I think both App State and GA Southern make sense. But adding FCS teams and throwing them into conference schedules immediately is a recipe for Sun Belt disaster. They'll need seasoning first -- a chance to recruit at the FBS level for a couple of years. Meanwhile, Idaho and NMSU are here now. Plus, both add regional fan bases. Lots of Vandals shirts in Boise and Spokane -- even a few in Seattle.
(This post was last modified: 12-28-2012 05:17 PM by Journeyman22.)
12-28-2012 05:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Dukes09 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,386
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 59
I Root For: James Madison
Location: Richmond, VA
Post: #40
RE: NMSU position on Sun Belt and football
(12-28-2012 03:26 PM)asumike83 Wrote:  
(12-28-2012 02:44 PM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  No, stupid would be not accepting one of the few FBS programs available at this time. Sorry, very few care about winning FCS programs beyond then the fans that support those schools. If that's your vision of the next SBC, then you are welcome to it. Small time vision!

Do you honestly think anyone outside the fans/alumni care about that 1-11 WAC team down the road just because they are FBS? If that were the case, they'd get more than 14K per home game.

With the exception of the big boys, very few people care about any football program they have no connection to, whether FCS or FBS. We all thrive on alumni support, not casual fans.

AMEN! JMU is 98% supported by persons directly associated with the school. No one outside of a BCS program has bandwagon support. No one.
12-28-2012 05:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.