The Sun Belt screwed up by dropping New Mexico State football, but what else is new

Redwood Forrest · May 8, 2016

So you have the weakest football conference deciding to shrink it's geographic footprint and overall membership in an attempt to boost revenue on a per-team basis, but what if realignment does happen? Suddenly the Sun Belt would lose more of its best teams and have to scramble into FCS to fill the gap, lest they fall further into oblivion as an eight-team conference.

http://www.underdogdynasty.com/2016...w-mexico-state-aggies-conference-championship

I am glad to finally see someone call the Sun Belt and their Commissioner out for being poorly organized and poorly managed. They had the magic #12 and still did not hold a "best record at home" Conference Championship game. I thought at the time they were crazy. That game would have been on TV and made money. So, the solution to being surpassed by the MAC was to not have a CG and to shrink to ten teams. :conf2: As one Idaho fan correctly said, "he sucked as WAC Commish and he sucks as SB Commish." Well Said.

Personally I don't think anyone in SB should be in the FBS, but that is another topic. It looks as if the SB is fast approaching FCS again.

drwho · May 8, 2016

Redwood Forrest said:
Personally I don't think anyone in SB should be in the FBS, but that is another topic. It looks as if the SB is fast approaching FCS again.

I would agree for the most part, but Arkansas State, Troy, ULL, ULM, and USA are (as of now) as FBS worthy as many teams in the American Athletic, Conference USA, Mid America, and Mountain West.

KrAzY3 · May 8, 2016

drwho said:
I would agree for the most part, but Arkansas State, Troy, ULL, ULM, and USA are (as of now) as FBS worthy as many teams in the American Athletic, Conference USA, Mid America, and Mountain West.

What does that really mean though? You could lose 20 FBS programs without 95% of the US even noticing. Also have you checked attendance figures on some of those teams you are naming? Their "fans" don't even care, so does it really matter how they fare against, well other similarly unwanted teams?

Crimson1967 · May 8, 2016

I don't agree with the article. C-USA has 14 members. The AAC has 12. So if the AAC lost two they could sit tight at 10 or grab two from CUSA. They could handle losing two and still be at a safe number of 12. I think the only way the Sun Belt would be in danger would be if CUSA just lost one team and wanted to get back to an even number. But the only SBC worth taking would be Georgia State, which would let them think they get the Atlanta market but would really just be another crap program on an area dominated by P5 school. South Alabama might be on their list as it would be a good regional rival for UAB and Southern Miss.

If the SBC needed one, they'd just grab a FCS school and be back up to ten. Or just stay at nine and decide not to have a playoff game nobody watches anyway.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

selmaborntidefan · May 8, 2016

The sooner everyone accepts that the only reason these schools are FBS is so they can stay in business by going to huge stadiums (like BDS) and walking off with a million bucks to give to the school so they can stay open - the better it will be. There are AT MOST about 30 schools every year with a shot at the national football title.

Redwood Forrest · May 9, 2016

selmaborntidefan said:
The sooner everyone accepts that the only reason these schools are FBS is so they can stay in business by going to huge stadiums (like BDS) and walking off with a million bucks to give to the school so they can stay open - the better it will be. There are AT MOST about 30 schools every year with a shot at the national football title.

Hmmm. I think you could be the PR person for the Sun Belt. No, wait. You could not tell the truth. But I will try it anyway

Selma, PR dude for Sun Belt: "We don't give a rats tail about making the Playoff. We don't care that the MAC has bumped us down to the bottom. We don't want a conference championship game. All we want is the MONEY from playing at those big stadiums!"

I think you have the SB Commissioner's mindset. But ..... he can't say that in public.

B1GTide · May 9, 2016

Redwood Forrest said:
Hmmm. I think you could be the PR person for the Sun Belt. No, wait. You could not tell the truth. But I will try it anyway

Selma, PR dude for Sun Belt: "We don't give a rats tail about making the Playoff. We don't care that the MAC has bumped us down to the bottom. We don't want a conference championship game. All we want is the MONEY from playing at those big stadiums!"

I think you have the SB Commissioner's mindset. But ..... he can't say that in public.

But, even with some of those big games, don't these schools lose money playing football every year? For these schools, it can't be about the money - at least in terms of football profitability. Maybe in terms of attracting students to their schools?

Redwood Forrest · May 9, 2016

B1GTide said:
But, even with some of those big games, don't these schools lose money playing football every year? For these schools, it can't be about the money - at least in terms of football profitability. Maybe in terms of attracting students to their schools?

You know what, it depends on whose stats you use. Too bad there are not some real world numbers out there. I have never understood why that is. Only the IRS, I guess, knows the real profit or loss.

mittman · May 9, 2016

B1GTide said:
But, even with some of those big games, don't these schools lose money playing football every year? For these schools, it can't be about the money - at least in terms of football profitability. Maybe in terms of attracting students to their schools?

Yes, and giving alumni a reason to stay connected. I have heard that specific reason repeatedly. Those that think this way can accept ledger losses in every sports program, but they can't lose the alumni.

afadam07 · May 9, 2016

B1GTide said:
But, even with some of those big games, don't these schools lose money playing football every year? For these schools, it can't be about the money - at least in terms of football profitability. Maybe in terms of attracting students to their schools?

I don't see how anyone can lose money and still have a job in this market. Everything is money driven in almost any job. Not trying to discredit your statement, just my personal opinion of the playing for money.

selmaborntidefan · May 9, 2016

Redwood Forrest said:
Hmmm. I think you could be the PR person for the Sun Belt. No, wait. You could not tell the truth. But I will try it anyway

Selma, PR dude for Sun Belt: "We don't give a rats tail about making the Playoff. We don't care that the MAC has bumped us down to the bottom. We don't want a conference championship game. All we want is the MONEY from playing at those big stadiums!"

I think you have the SB Commissioner's mindset. But ..... he can't say that in public.

I'm just telling you reality. Places where football does NOT bring in something cancel their programs. And proof I'm right? Wichita State, who dropped football thirty years ago - may just bring it back.

allybama2009 · May 9, 2016

Coastal Carolina University(where i graduated from) has made the jump this upcoming year to the Sun belt conference. Im not so sure this was the best idea. We are very good at baseball, basketball, and football. But this jump will set us back big time in my opinion. Only time will tell if this was a good idea. I do agree that this a money grab more than anything else. rtr

KrAzY3 · May 9, 2016

I'll add this, I'm enrolled at South Alabama, I'm born and raised in the area. The entire practice of adding a FBS program seems to consist of a few powerful people getting behind the idea and then trying to sell it on a still fairly limited number of people. It never felt like it was by popular demand, it never felt like it was a necessity or had a tangible benefit. It was more like we want a football team so let's make one.

They also are fairly deceptive in how they went about it. For instance, they had the initial prices and projections and all that nonsense, but there was 0 talk about needing a stadium. None, within a couple years of putting things into motion though they then started talking about their new stadium, a massive expense with nothing to fund it. Like the UAB situation, I don't see a lot of evidence that these are really financially viable enterprises, but rather that they are basically like special interest groups in politics. They have enough power and influence that they can get large sums of money spent on indulgences, and that's what FBS programs a for a lot of these schools. I can't come up with any meaningful way in with South Alabama has been improved by the addition of the football team.

RobK · May 9, 2016

To me, Sun Belt football (at most programs there) is all about a few college administrators and wealthy donors who love the road trips to elite Power 5 schools and to the lesser bowls. The bottom 2/3rd's of the Group of 5 conferences have much more in common with the top 3rd of the FCS than they do with the Power 5. And the gap will only get wider.

mittman · May 10, 2016

KrAzY3 said:
I'll add this, I'm enrolled at South Alabama, I'm born and raised in the area. The entire practice of adding a FBS program seems to consist of a few powerful people getting behind the idea and then trying to sell it on a still fairly limited number of people. It never felt like it was by popular demand, it never felt like it was a necessity or had a tangible benefit. It was more like we want a football team so let's make one.

They also are fairly deceptive in how they went about it. For instance, they had the initial prices and projections and all that nonsense, but there was 0 talk about needing a stadium. None, within a couple years of putting things into motion though they then started talking about their new stadium, a massive expense with nothing to fund it. Like the UAB situation, I don't see a lot of evidence that these are really financially viable enterprises, but rather that they are basically like special interest groups in politics. They have enough power and influence that they can get large sums of money spent on indulgences, and that's what FBS programs a for a lot of these schools. I can't come up with any meaningful way in with South Alabama has been improved by the addition of the football team.

Sounds a little like the UNA push to go DI, and I think it would have happened if they could have secured a conference invite.

UNA is certainly better off with their football program. Very few around the area thought that would be the case if they left DII. But the ones that wanted that status had enough power and influence over enough people to push it to the brink of happening. To be fair at the time there were enough programs making the jump to appear that they may run out of teams to play.

RTR91 · May 13, 2016

Committee: Drop to FCS football would have cost NMSU $1.4 million

New Mexico State will play as a Football Bowl Subdivision independent program in 2018 and beyond, following a short-lived football-only membership in the Sun Belt Conference.

New Mexico State University regents heard a report on the financial differences between FBS football and Football Championship Subdivision programs on Friday. According to an Athletic Advisory Committee report, presented by the group's chairman Mickey Clute, a drop to FCS football would have cost NMSU an estimated $1,444,153, most of which came from the opportunity to play "money" games in the FBS.

Clute and 18 other committee members were charged with studying a potential drop to FCS football in the past month. The committee unanimously agreed the Aggies should proceed as a FBS program. The financial report was a significant determining factor, in addition to an existing resolution.

Redwood Forrest · May 13, 2016

There will be only BYU, UMass, N Mex St and Army (I think) who are true independents. Those four should have "easy picking" of the P5 conferences and have several money games if they want them.

KrAzY3 · May 14, 2016

RTR91 said:
Committee: Drop to FCS football would have cost NMSU $1.4 million

I suppose dropping football altogether wasn't a consideration, though it should have been. I could get into the FBS vs. FCS debate a bit, but this is simpler than that really.

New Mexico State's athletic department gets 18 million dollars annually in subsidies. This puts them in the UAB/South Alabama class of walking around with your hand out while your revenue doesn't justify the expenses. Idaho on the other hand gets ten million in subsidies. Now that's still a lot, but it's half what UAB and South Alabama get (I guess we're rich in Alabama so we can afford to lavish those athletic departments with revenue they don't actually earn). Now, which department do you think made the more responsible economic choice? The one getting 18 million annually or the one getting 10 million annually?

Oh by the way, as has been mentioned Coastal Carolina is moving up to the FBS. Their subsidies make up a disgusting 83% of their revenue, not exactly an athletic department that cares one tiny bit about living within their means.

Redwood Forrest · May 14, 2016

KrAzY3 said:
I suppose dropping football altogether wasn't a consideration, though it should have been. I could get into the FBS vs. FCS debate a bit, but this is simpler than that really.

New Mexico State's athletic department gets 18 million dollars annually in subsidies. This puts them in the UAB/South Alabama class of walking around with your hand out while your revenue doesn't justify the expenses. Idaho on the other hand gets ten million in subsidies. Now that's still a lot, but it's half what UAB and South Alabama get (I guess we're rich in Alabama so we can afford to lavish those athletic departments with revenue they don't actually earn). Now, which department do you think made the more responsible economic choice? The one getting 18 million annually or the one getting 10 million annually?

Oh by the way, as has been mentioned Coastal Carolina is moving up to the FBS. Their subsidies make up a disgusting 83% of their revenue, not exactly an athletic department that cares one tiny bit about living within their means.

If P5 only scheduled P5 then a lot of this would go away with the money shrinkage.

KrAzY3 · May 14, 2016

Redwood Forrest said:
If P5 only scheduled P5 then a lot of this would go away with the money shrinkage.

To some extent, but you could also argue that if the Power 5 conferences made more a point of scheduling FCS programs and less a point of indulging cupcake FBS programs, that more responsible choices could be encouraged as well. What good did the Big 10 choice not to schedule FCS schools do other than help keep New Mexico St. around? To me the best thing to do is to encourage these guys to play at an appropriate level, and I don't see how to do that while demonizing the FCS games.

Of course, I'd argue that the 12th game probably should be dropped altogether. But the whole P5 only P5 thing is easy to argue for when it's conferences playing soft conference schedules that come up with the idea. I want some of these programs gone, but I darn sure don't want to do it at the expense of the SEC fielding contenders.

The Sun Belt screwed up by dropping New Mexico State football, but what else is new

Hall of Fame

Suspended

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

All-American

1st Team

TideFans Legend

1st Team

Hall of Fame

All-SEC

All-American

Super Moderator

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!