• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

New Mexico State Remaining as FBS

ordigger

Well-known member
DONOR
Not such a bad idea as they could possibly be an addition to the MWC with UTEP in the future - although I suspect UNM would oppose the idea. Something may open up for them. This may also suggest that the Big Sky does not have a plan for a FBS division - otherwise NMSU would've joined.

Interesting to read that they are saying the Big Sky did not offer them which is opposite of what Fullerton is saying.

http://www.lcsun-news.com/story/spo...ir-nmsu-football-staying-course-fbs/83978532/

LAS CRUCES - New Mexico State football will look to remain in the top tier of college athletics in 2018, according to Board of Regents Chair Debra Hicks.

The future of the program has been in doubt after the Sun Belt Conference informed NMSU it would not renew the school's football-only membership after the 2017 season. In April, NMSU formed an 18-member Athletic Review Committee to look at the school's options — staying in the Football Bowl Subdivision as an independent, or joining a league in the Football Championship Subdivision, still Division I, but considered a competitive level below FBS.

“In May of 2013, the Board of Regents passed a resolution to stay the course with FBS,” said Hicks, who is part of the review committee. “The committee will continue their work to come up with their proposal in what we should do in regards to conference alignment but we are staying the course with FBS for the foreseeable future.”

Hicks said the issue will not be an action item in front of the regents, but rather the board will reaffirm the 2013 resolution. Hicks said the 2013 resolution and financial considerations were the determining factors in the committee’s consensus to move forward as an independent football program.

"I came on the board a year ago so I was not aware that the resolution was in place," Hicks said. "We are back to that same point."

NMSU’s decision to remain at the FBS level comes after Idaho’s announcement last week that the Vandals were dropping to FCS football and joining the Big Sky Conference in 2018 after their football-only membership in the Sun Belt expires.

“Idaho just happened and that has created a firestorm,” Hicks said. “We have student-athletes who are very interested in what they are playing in the next few years. That was a critical decision that needed to be made so that everyone has a confident feeling about that while we really look at conference alignment.”
Football to remain FBS

Based on the committee’s findings, a move to FCS football in 2018 would cost the university an estimated $2.38 million, mostly stemming from the loss of guaranteed football games (NMSU is set to receive $2.8 million from guaranteed games in 2016 at Texas A&M and Kentucky). The committee's financial estimates for staying in FBS included two money games but Hicks said there was an option for a third.

Committee chairman Mickey Clute will present the committee's complete findings at the May 13 Board of Regents regular meeting.

"We tried to address things that could make a substantive difference and ultimately FBS was the choice from a revenue standpoint," Clute said. "In comparison, the savings in FCS were not dramatic enough to offset the travel costs that those teams would have had. ... Idaho probably looked at it and saw a huge gain in travel costs but that was not the case for us."

Idaho is geographically closer to the teams in the Big Sky Conference than NMSU would be to teams in any FCS conference.

Clute said the committee considered travel costs, guarantee games, ticket sales and the socioeconomic value of keeping rivalry games against UTEP and New Mexico on the schedule, and NCAA distribution and sponsorship agreements with Learfield Sports and Under Armor.

"It was necessary in FBS vs. FCS to not get caught up in conference alignment because we have no control over that right now, but our options are greater in FBS and they (the Big Sky) have not told us they would take us," Clute said. "If there is movement, it creates opportunities for us."

Universities who are playing an independent football schedule in 2016 include Notre Dame, BYU, Army and Massachusetts. The Aggies played an independent football schedule in 2013 before joining the Sun Belt as a football-only member in 2014.

"Football has a foundation with (head football coach Doug Martin) and Chancellor (Garrey) Carruthers, who has improved facilities and all of those things trump the previous 50 years that people go back to because the college football landscape is different than it was then," Clute said.

Other sports

The advisory committee will continue to determine the proper conference affiliation for the school's remaining Olympic sports, which currently compete in the Western Athletic Conference.

Hicks said she hoped for a recommendation regarding Olympic sport conference affiliation within the next few months. The committee is meeting on Tuesday and Clute could present a recommendation sooner than that.

Carruthers sent a short survey to NMSU staff and faculty on Wednesday seeking input from campus personnel regarding football and conference realignment.

The four options were:

NMSU should remain in the WAC for non-football sports and play independent FBS football after our agreement with the Sun Belt Conference expires in 2018.
NMSU should join the Horizon Conference for non-football sports and play independent FBS football after our agreement with the Sun Belt Conference expires in 2018.
NMSU should align with the Big Sky Conference, move all of our sports to this conference, and enjoy FCS football.
None of the above.

Hicks confirmed the Horizon League had expressed interest in NMSU. An NMSU spokesperson informed the Sun-News that there were no scheduled visits to the NMSU campus by other leagues nor has NMSU received an invitation to another conference.

“We are deferring conversations with the Big Sky,” Hicks said. “It is not appropriate to have those conversations. The university needs to be focusing on budget, sources and uses. The committee will continue to work on their proposal for what we should do in conference alignment.”
 
Who isn't broke? I actually think the government should consider stepping in to reign in the costs associated with college football and college athletics in general. The arms race is turning into a fools errand with spending that is just not sustainable for the majority of programs yet nobody will admit it until the bubble bursts.
 
footballdood said:
Who isn't broke? I actually think the government should consider stepping in to reign in the costs associated with college football and college athletics in general. The arms race is turning into a fools errand with spending that is just not sustainable for the majority of programs yet nobody will admit it until the bubble bursts.
Sure, the government is the solution to all woes. Just what they should be doing; forget about the real problems they are not dealing with.
 
HBO Sports did a great documentary on DIV 1 athletics. I wish I could find a link for it. It was a quite amazing documentary. Short summary was, over 300 schools lose money annually in Div 1 athletics.

It is getting to the point where schools need to cut sports, or NCAA reform is needed for the struggling schools (mainly schools not in the Power 5 conferences). Every passing year the Power 5 conferences separate themselves further from the pack. Why haven't they cut ties from rest of the pack? Easy answer is, in time the smaller conference programs will cut their own throats. They will continue to dig their own graves. Hell, the GRIZ athletic programs are actually in good position compared to many other programs. It makes me thankful the powers to be have been patient in remaining in the FCS.

At this stage, either the non power 5 conferences fall flat on their faces, in trying to compete with them, or they become realistic and reconfigure. I have a feeling, Montana is expecting a reconfiguration to occur. The question is, When?
 
Rule, in general I agree. But keep in mind that the vast majority of those "losses" are on paper only. They're not real costs to the school or the state. Many inflate the cost to rent their own facilities, for example. And we all know that the amount stated in scholarship costs are not actually incurred costs. In most instances, despite what the fancy accounting may state, DI athletics is income positive.
 
footballdood said:
Who isn't broke? I actually think the government should consider stepping in to reign in the costs associated with college football and college athletics in general. The arms race is turning into a fools errand with spending that is just not sustainable for the majority of programs yet nobody will admit it until the bubble bursts.


Really? The government? Ive heard it all now!

:lol:
 
kemajic said:
footballdood said:
Who isn't broke? I actually think the government should consider stepping in to reign in the costs associated with college football and college athletics in general. The arms race is turning into a fools errand with spending that is just not sustainable for the majority of programs yet nobody will admit it until the bubble bursts.
Sure, the government is the solution to all woes. Just what they should be doing; forget about the real problems they are not dealing with.


I have hardly ever agreed with what Kemajic has ever said, but this post proves that there is always a first for everything.
 
footballdood said:
I actually think the government should consider stepping in to reign in the costs...
:lol: Right, because the government has a great track record of reigning in costs. :roll:
 
Here is the financial breakdown that NMSU released regarding staying FBS or FCS.

CiWR1EUUYAAnvX0.jpg


Pretty clear here that there are a little over a million reasons to stay FBS.
 
GrizPDX said:
Here is the financial breakdown that NMSU released regarding staying FBS or FCS.

CiWR1EUUYAAnvX0.jpg


Pretty clear here that there are a little over a million reasons to stay FBS.


Assuming those assumptions are all correct.

I noted they didn't show a reduction in women's costs, not sure how they wouldn't - if they dropped 22 men's schollies, they would need to have a reduction in women's.


Also, this assumes they are doing multiple money games, and not having to pay teams to come to Las Cruces to get the 5 needed home games.
 
I noted they didn't show a reduction in women's costs, not sure how they wouldn't - if they dropped 22 men's schollies, they would need to have a reduction in women's.

Not necessarily. Remember that Title IV requires scholarships on a percentage equal to the M/F ratio of the student body. If NMSU has more women than men attending (I didn't take the time to research), they may not be able to drop a women's sport even if they lose 22 FB scholies.
 
EverettGriz said:
I noted they didn't show a reduction in women's costs, not sure how they wouldn't - if they dropped 22 men's schollies, they would need to have a reduction in women's.

Not necessarily. Remember that Title IV requires scholarships on a percentage equal to the M/F ratio of the student body. If NMSU has more women than men attending (I didn't take the time to research), they may not be able to drop a women's sport even if they lose 22 FB scholies.


Then wouldn't they be out of compliance currently for men?

BTW males make up only 46% of NMSU student body. Why is THAT never an issue?
 
Back
Top