(06-29-2014 12:23 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Guys,

Barring some change in the NCAA rules regarding FCS moveups or a change in the way the NCAA distributes Playoff money, the only spot available remains in the Sun Belt conference. And there appears to be only one slot available at this time. Although there could be two spots if the Sun Belt wants to exercise Idaho's exist clause.

Unfortunately, the Sun Belt's basketball product isn't as good as the Missouri Valley. That's a decision Missouri State will have to make. UMass has decided to protect its basketball affiliation at the expense of its football program. That's a valid decision, but one that UMass knows may harm or even kill their FBS dreams (and they don't even have to worry about getting sponsored by an existing conference. But I'd like to question if there's really that much difference between a Missouri Valley without Creighton (and with a Wichita State back down to Earth) and a Sun Belt (yes, there's a difference, but how much). And also whether Missouri State's membership in the MVC for men's basketball has produced any dividends such as NCAA tournament bids that they cannot achieve in the Sun Belt Conference. Also note that the Sun Belt could offer a bid to NMSU in basketball as well. One that they would likely accept.

Unfortunately for some schools, most Sun Belt schools focus on providing mass education for the taxpayers supporting those schools. There's no shame in that and there's an argument that what the Sun Belt schools focus on academically is the proper role for a taxpayer supported school. JMU has decided that they do not wish to be associated with such a conference. That's a valid decision on JMU's part, but it will make it unlikely that JMU will ever get an upgrade in football, barring some major realignment in the FBS conferences.

Someone acceptable to the Belt will take the opportunity. Probably next year.

I'd rather stay FCS than be a bad football program in a horrible basketball league and every MSU fan I've talked to feels the same way.

I'd much rather play a double round robin with Indiana State, Wichita state, UNI, SIU, Bradley, Illinois State, etc that all draw 5,000-10,000+/game rather than a bunch of schools that draw 500 per game.

(06-29-2014 12:53 AM)msu_bears Wrote:  

(06-29-2014 12:23 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Guys,

Barring some change in the NCAA rules regarding FCS moveups or a change in the way the NCAA distributes Playoff money, the only spot available remains in the Sun Belt conference. And there appears to be only one slot available at this time. Although there could be two spots if the Sun Belt wants to exercise Idaho's exist clause.

Unfortunately, the Sun Belt's basketball product isn't as good as the Missouri Valley. That's a decision Missouri State will have to make. UMass has decided to protect its basketball affiliation at the expense of its football program. That's a valid decision, but one that UMass knows may harm or even kill their FBS dreams (and they don't even have to worry about getting sponsored by an existing conference. But I'd like to question if there's really that much difference between a Missouri Valley without Creighton (and with a Wichita State back down to Earth) and a Sun Belt (yes, there's a difference, but how much). And also whether Missouri State's membership in the MVC for men's basketball has produced any dividends such as NCAA tournament bids that they cannot achieve in the Sun Belt Conference. Also note that the Sun Belt could offer a bid to NMSU in basketball as well. One that they would likely accept.

Unfortunately for some schools, most Sun Belt schools focus on providing mass education for the taxpayers supporting those schools. There's no shame in that and there's an argument that what the Sun Belt schools focus on academically is the proper role for a taxpayer supported school. JMU has decided that they do not wish to be associated with such a conference. That's a valid decision on JMU's part, but it will make it unlikely that JMU will ever get an upgrade in football, barring some major realignment in the FBS conferences.

Someone acceptable to the Belt will take the opportunity. Probably next year.

I'd rather stay FCS than be a bad football program in a horrible basketball league and every MSU fan I've talked to feels the same way.

I'd much rather play a double round robin with Indiana State, Wichita state, UNI, SIU, Bradley, Illinois State, etc that all draw 5,000-10,000+/game rather than a bunch of schools that draw 500 per game.

Then FCS is the place for you guys. I wish you well. Most Sun Belt teams sacrificed every other sport to pursue football. I suppose its possible that you might get a MAC bid in the future, but I'm not seeing it right now. Many FCS teams appear to have a healthy sense of self worth that doesn't seem to be validated when bid deadlines for moveups pass.

For the record, Missouri State's last NCAA bid was 15 years ago. The Sun Belt's basketball average is exactly the same as the MAC (at approx 2500 per game). Creighton is gone. The continuing Missouri Valley has had one at large bid since 2007. For the record, that's the exact same number as the continuing members of the Sun Belt have managed. Exactly what has Missouri State gained from its membership in the Valley's admittedly better basketball conference (but probably not as much of a difference as you think)? At what cost? I suppose you can gain solace from an attendance profile similar to New Mexico State (without the tournament bids) at the cost of playing football at a much lower level.

Trading Creighton for Loyola (Ill.) isn't likely to help the MVC either. Wichita State did well the last two years, but that doesn't mean they'll continue at that pace or that they won't get poached if they do continue to do exceedingly well.

Enjoy your new stadium improvements. It will make a wonderful game day experience for home games with Montana and UNI. Meanwhile, Sun Belt teams will be playing Miami, NC State, Mississippi State, Oklahoma State, Missouri, BYU, Navy, Wake Forest and others at home in the next couple of years. We will be playing multiple games a year on TV, sending 4 teams a year to bowl games.

To be sure, I'm upset that we didn't offer an all sports to NMSU. That would help our profile a bit.

(06-29-2014 12:53 AM)msu_bears Wrote:  

(06-29-2014 12:23 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Guys,

Barring some change in the NCAA rules regarding FCS moveups or a change in the way the NCAA distributes Playoff money, the only spot available remains in the Sun Belt conference. And there appears to be only one slot available at this time. Although there could be two spots if the Sun Belt wants to exercise Idaho's exist clause.

Unfortunately, the Sun Belt's basketball product isn't as good as the Missouri Valley. That's a decision Missouri State will have to make. UMass has decided to protect its basketball affiliation at the expense of its football program. That's a valid decision, but one that UMass knows may harm or even kill their FBS dreams (and they don't even have to worry about getting sponsored by an existing conference. But I'd like to question if there's really that much difference between a Missouri Valley without Creighton (and with a Wichita State back down to Earth) and a Sun Belt (yes, there's a difference, but how much). And also whether Missouri State's membership in the MVC for men's basketball has produced any dividends such as NCAA tournament bids that they cannot achieve in the Sun Belt Conference. Also note that the Sun Belt could offer a bid to NMSU in basketball as well. One that they would likely accept.

Unfortunately for some schools, most Sun Belt schools focus on providing mass education for the taxpayers supporting those schools. There's no shame in that and there's an argument that what the Sun Belt schools focus on academically is the proper role for a taxpayer supported school. JMU has decided that they do not wish to be associated with such a conference. That's a valid decision on JMU's part, but it will make it unlikely that JMU will ever get an upgrade in football, barring some major realignment in the FBS conferences.

Someone acceptable to the Belt will take the opportunity. Probably next year.

I'd rather stay FCS than be a bad football program in a horrible basketball league and every MSU fan I've talked to feels the same way.

I'd much rather play a double round robin with Indiana State, Wichita state, UNI, SIU, Bradley, Illinois State, etc that all draw 5,000-10,000+/game rather than a bunch of schools that draw 500 per game.

As an alumnus and a MO State fan, I would have to disagree. I'd much rather have a football team playing FBS in the Sun Belt...and a basketball team playing a competitive group of like-minded schools. Our basketball arena would almost certainly be among the top 2 or 3 in the Sun Belt, and the conference overlaps much of our recruiting areas.

I just don't get the complacency that some fans have. I honestly think it's a case of ignorance - meaning, they've never had an FBS team, so they don't know what they're missing. Football is a religion in the south, and I think MO State would benefit greatly by teaming up with a conference so passionate about the sport. It would pump some much needed blood into a program that's in a great position to succeed and would create new, better rivalries in all sports.

With the completion of our latest round of construction projects, MO State will have first class facilities for each of the sports it offers. Only swimming has a facility more than 10 years old. That, to me, says we're prepared as a university to take a step up. We can be competitive in all sports while putting our football program in a position to succeed over time.

FCS football is a different product than FBS football. I think if MO State makes a move up, everyone will agree it was the best thing that could've happened (and wonder why we didn't do it sooner). Especially the first time we get a name program at home...which will never happen at the FCS level.

When was the last time Mo. State went to the NCAAs? One would think the opportunity to do so again is just as strong if not stronger in the SBC. You could schedule non-conference games with those former conference mates. Baseball is very good in the SBC and your football would be elevated immediately. I don't see the advantage of pouring money into facilities, especially football, if you are going to remain FCS where the big paychecks are already lowere than FBS and may soon go away completely. Makes no economic or competitive sense to stay if you have an invite to join FBS.

(07-01-2014 01:50 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  When was the last time Mo. State went to the NCAAs? One would think the opportunity to do so again is just as strong if not stronger in the SBC. You could schedule non-conference games with those former conference mates. Baseball is very good in the SBC and your football would be elevated immediately. I don't see the advantage of pouring money into facilities, especially football, if you are going to remain FCS where the big paychecks are already lowere than FBS and may soon go away completely. Makes no economic or competitive sense to stay if you have an invite to join FBS.

The last time we went to the NCAA tournament was our sweet 16 run during the 1998-1999 season. Before that, it was the 1991-1992 season. I would think we would be very competitive right out of the bat in basketball.

As far as baseball is concerned we've had some very good teams, including our 2003 CWS appearance. Ironically, we haven't had much luck in the postseason since Hammons Field opened in 2004, but we have managed to churn out some major leaguers on a regular basis.

If MO State leaves the Missouri Valley because of football, I wouldn't think the conference would hold it against them since they don't offer FBS football. I could see us being able to schedule some Valley teams with no hard feelings from them or the commissioner.

The thing that really gets me excited is the prospect of playing football and basketball (plus nearly all other sports) in the same conference. Since the Missouri Valley Football conference is not part of the Valley, some of our conference foes are different. For example, our football league features S. Dakota, S. Dakota State, N. Dakota St., Western Illinois, Youngstown St., which our other sports don't face in conference play. UNI, Illinois St, Indiana St, and SIU are the only football and basketball conference foes we face. Our biggest basketball rival is Wichita St, but they don't even have a team. I'd love to have a consolidated rivalry that carries over from sport to sport.

MO State has been building and improving facilities over the past several years, including what I call the final phase: track/soccer, field hockey/lacrosse, and football stadium improvements. This past year was the first time in 20+ years that our administration finally turned its focus to improving our football facility. Our president, board, and AD are all on the same page and we are finally in a position to focus on fielding a competitive team. I don't think there's any chance they are considering being at the FCS level 2-3 years from now.

(07-01-2014 01:50 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  When was the last time Mo. State went to the NCAAs? One would think the opportunity to do so again is just as strong if not stronger in the SBC. You could schedule non-conference games with those former conference mates. Baseball is very good in the SBC and your football would be elevated immediately. I don't see the advantage of pouring money into facilities, especially football, if you are going to remain FCS where the big paychecks are already lowere than FBS and may soon go away completely. Makes no economic or competitive sense to stay if you have an invite to join FBS.

Missouri State has not been getting invites to the big dance (last was sweet 16 run in 1999). However, they have been consistently decent in basketball. In the last 20 years they have had the single tourney appearance, but they have gone 5-6 in the NIT and 4-1 in the CIT with a championship. That is a pretty good, pretty consistent record.

It could be argued Mo State could be the "Gonzaga of the Sunbelt" and get more tourney bids by moving out of the MVC. However, they have a decent basketball program going, and even if the MVC is down due to defections you may not want to increase your risk to the program by stepping down in competition.

(07-01-2014 02:56 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  

(07-01-2014 01:50 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  When was the last time Mo. State went to the NCAAs? One would think the opportunity to do so again is just as strong if not stronger in the SBC. You could schedule non-conference games with those former conference mates. Baseball is very good in the SBC and your football would be elevated immediately. I don't see the advantage of pouring money into facilities, especially football, if you are going to remain FCS where the big paychecks are already lowere than FBS and may soon go away completely. Makes no economic or competitive sense to stay if you have an invite to join FBS.

Missouri State has not been getting invites to the big dance (last was sweet 16 run in 1999). However, they have been consistently decent in basketball. In the last 20 years they have had the single tourney appearance, but they have gone 5-6 in the NIT and 4-1 in the CIT with a championship. That is a pretty good, pretty consistent record.

It could be argued Mo State could be the "Gonzaga of the Sunbelt" and get more tourney bids by moving out of the MVC. However, they have a decent basketball program going, and even if the MVC is down due to defections you may not want to increase your risk to the program by stepping down in competition.

Its all about priorities. They'll have to downgrade basketball to upgrade football (even if they move to the MAC). UMass was faced with the same decision and made the basketball-first decision. But at least they found a way to get a FBS ticket from the MAC before making that decision. Neither the Sun Belt nor the MAC will offer the same deal to Missouri State. CUSA is full.

Lets get real. The Sun Belt is the only conference willing to consider moveups at this point. And they do have an out if they have to get to 12 (UMass as a football only). And remember that Army and BYU are still out there as indys. Those two teams could cause any future realignment to be contained before it gets to the MAC or Sun Belt.

The best 'deal' for Missouri State is as probably as follows. Go to the Sun Belt and the Belt offers a basketball bid to NMSU. And I'm not sure the Belt will even go that far. I don't know why they haven't given an 'all sports' to NMSU, but there's apparently some opposition.

If Missouri State's priority is to protect their position as a competitive but not particularly successful member of a better basketball conference, then that's a valid decision. But if that's the case, I don't see why any football improvements in Springfield are relevant to conference realignment at this time.

When we talk about protecting basketball interests in the MVC for Missouri State it is hard to understand that when the conference was just raided by the Big East for Creighton and the potential exists for even more raiding.

Both Wichita St and Mo State could probably do better at this point by making a move to the SBC to ensure they will be represented in the future governance structure of the NCAA. The MVC is stronger than the SBC with those two schools but without them the MVC isn't much right now in basketball. The profile of the SBC however would be enhanced if they could couple that with an all sport add of New Mexico State.

I can kind of see why JMU didn't want to move to the SBC on the edge of the conference and they play in the colonial football conference which as far as FCS conferences go is pretty top notch. MSU is in a different situation located in the middle of SBC territory from an East to West perspective and the most southern school in its football conference. The potential of the Springfield market is huge. I'm talking ECU potential with the distance they are from Mizzou and few D1 schools in that state.

As of today, its all potential.

We will probably never know because Missouri State has to actually join FBS for us to find out. And they're going to have to sacrifice some basketball positioning to do so.

(06-28-2014 10:07 PM)MSUBear42 Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 12:27 AM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 06:57 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 06:29 PM)msu_bears Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 09:06 AM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  I'll tell you what Missouri State should not do; Spend 70 million dollars upgrading a stadium only to reject their only FBS option possibly ever becuase of some BS notion of not joining a weak academic conferences....I mean that would just be stupid, right?

The only reason ANY Missouri State fan is against a move to the Sun Belt is because of basketball and nothing else. The Missouri Valley is clearly the better hoops conference and most fans don't want to give that up.

What do you think about the MAC?

Square hole......square peg?....

MAC is fine for most fans. We already are members in field hockey and swimming, but geography is the major concern.

Yes, most would accept MAC tomorrow if they called.

Still don't see any other good reason to build a brand new field hockey stadium with state-of-the-art hyrdo-field.

I am actually slightly surprised only because while I know that the MAC tends to get a worse rep in basketball here than may be warranted it is still a 1 bid league (that has not gotten lucky in having its best team lose in the tournament when they would have been taken as an at large to get a second bid) and so the positive reaction was unexpected.

Any particular reason that Missouri State fans find the MAC palatable (though of course not preferable to the MVC in basketball)?

(07-01-2014 09:41 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  I am actually slightly surprised only because while I know that the MAC tends to get a worse rep in basketball here than may be warranted it is still a 1 bid league (that has not gotten lucky in having its best team lose in the tournament when they would have been taken as an at large to get a second bid) and so the positive reaction was unexpected.

Any particular reason that Missouri State fans find the MAC palatable (though of course not preferable to the MVC in basketball)?

Honestly, many of us would be happy just to get a bid and move our football team up. I'm not a fan of the MAC at all, but if it came to getting an offer from them or staying FCS...then MAC it is.

I'm a huge Sun Belt fan because of our geography and because of the schools in the conference. That's where I'd love to see MO State. It doesn't excite me nearly as much to play teams like EMU, CMU, WMU, Ball State, etc.

(07-01-2014 09:41 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 10:07 PM)MSUBear42 Wrote:  

(06-25-2014 12:27 AM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 06:57 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 06:29 PM)msu_bears Wrote:  The only reason ANY Missouri State fan is against a move to the Sun Belt is because of basketball and nothing else. The Missouri Valley is clearly the better hoops conference and most fans don't want to give that up.

What do you think about the MAC?

Square hole......square peg?....

MAC is fine for most fans. We already are members in field hockey and swimming, but geography is the major concern.

Yes, most would accept MAC tomorrow if they called.

Still don't see any other good reason to build a brand new field hockey stadium with state-of-the-art hyrdo-field.

I am actually slightly surprised only because while I know that the MAC tends to get a worse rep in basketball here than may be warranted it is still a 1 bid league (that has not gotten lucky in having its best team lose in the tournament when they would have been taken as an at large to get a second bid) and so the positive reaction was unexpected.

Any particular reason that Missouri State fans find the MAC palatable (though of course not preferable to the MVC in basketball)?

MAC traditionally is 12 to 15 in the conference rankings when it comes to hoops, where the Sun Belt is normally 15 to 20 range. Personally I would be happy in either. We really just need to get to FBS and then see where the chips fall from there.

(07-07-2014 04:28 PM)msu_bears Wrote:  

Nice. The next step is to put more than 8,700 fans per game in it... consistently. Double that and the Sun Belt will almost surely come knocking.

(07-07-2014 04:28 PM)msu_bears Wrote:  

Remind me what the capacity will be?

Remind me what the capacity will be?
[/quote]

around 17-18,000 is what I've heard. The new stand is suppose to only have a capacity of 4,000 which is the same as the old stand even though this one is much larger looking.

I think it would be about 21,000 if they horseshoe the new stand around the south endzone. It would almost certainly need an upper deck on the new side to reach the FBS 30,000 mark and I've heard the footings on the new stand were designed with an upper deck in mind.

I really like how it's looking, it seems hard to believe from the size that it only holds 17,000, but I'll trust the numbers. The issue I see with adding an upper deck on the east wide is that it looks like it would take some creative engineering without knocking down the buildings behind it, which I have been told we don't really want to do.

I would love if on the sound end zone we could create stands that literally go over grand. I would be visually quite cool.

Is this the old SW Mo State?

(07-10-2014 10:31 AM)westwolf Wrote:  Is this the old SW Mo State?

Missouri State originally had Southwest before thier name.

It is my understanding that this first phase of the stadium upgrades for football really wasn't about drastic increases to seating capacity. Missouri State has had at least the minimum requirement for FBS since around 1990. This upgrade got the infrastructure in place for future upgrades. They removed the track around the stadium, moved where the field would be so the stadium could be upgraded further in the future, and put better infrastructure in place to support more seating in the future. They also improved seating for now. There will be the possibility for more upgrades in the future as almost all of our other facilities have been upgraded recently.

Some new updates:







Ding dong the track is dead. THANK GOD.