Just like the waivers that were granted to keep the WAC afloat the past couple of years. If the 10-year moratorium is a legitimate possibility, having the WAC in existence is their evidence that they gave everyone ample opportunity before they locked the door.

(05-28-2012 09:30 AM)Kwisatz100 Wrote:  Posted this on another line but it makes sense here also.

All of this WAC expanding with FCS schools is only message board chatter. Mathematicaly it does not work. In the first year of transition, the school moving up has to play 8 games with already existing FBS schools. In addition, there has to be five home games with four of those being FBS schools. The WAC only has two existing FBS schools left. The games with other transitioning schools do not count. If the conference took 6 FCS schools to get to 8, how does each transition school get to the 8 game limit?

A new FBS team is only required to meet the FBS scheduling requirements in the second year of reclassification.

Quote:20.9.7.2.2.1 Reclassifying Opponents. [FBS] A reclassifying institution shall be counted as a
football bowl subdivision opponent in the year the reclassifying institution must meet the football
bowl subdivision scheduling requirements (year two of the reclassifying process). (Adopted: 4/15/97,
Revised: 3/10/04, 12/15/06)

In the second year, the reclassifying FBS team counts for established FBS teams and for reclassifying FBS teams.

If the WAC kept Idaho and NMSU and then added 10 teams, the following would meet the NCAA bylaws without a waiver required:

2013: Idaho and NMSU play an independent schedule to keep their FBS status per NCAA bylaws, the other 10 FCS teams play each other but not Idaho or NMSU
2014: WAC play resumes, but with only two full FBS members (Idaho and NMSU) and 10 teams in the second year of reclassification.
2015: All 12 teams are fully FBS

Conferences like the Sun Belt and CUSA will go to great lengths to avoid two first-year FBS transition teams at once: they are considered FCS. FBS schools only get 1 FCS exemption for bowl qualification, so, for example, ODU and Charlotte will not be part of the same "FBS class", as that would royally mess up the rest of CUSA's bowl chances.

I should also point out that Charlotte and Old Dominion not beginning their transition to FBS until 2013 also hurts Idaho and New Mexico State. If they had begun their transition with the 2012 season, Charlotte and Old Dominion would count as FBS opponents for 2013, and those two schools would not have the benefit of a conference schedule like South Alabama is having during the second year of their transition this fall.

A new WAC with:

Georgia Southern
App State
Liberty
Jax State
Sam Houston St
Lamar
SF Austin
McNeese St
NM State
Idaho

Would be satisfying from my standpoint. Enough schools nearby (NC, VA, LA, TX), so travel costs aren't atrocious. ND State, James Madison, and the Big Sky schools could be potential additions for 2014 and beyond. Depending on when the moratorium starts.

I think people are mis-understanding the nature of the NCAA. Any waiver requires a vote of the FBS conferences.

How will the Sun Belt with one Texas football member and three others that recruit Texas on at least a semi-regular basis vote on a waiver to allow 6 or more schools to join FBS in the WAC with many of those in Texas? What about CUSA with four Texas schools and another couple that recruit there? What is the incentive for the MAC to see BCS revenue split 11 ways rather than 10? MWC might see it as creating a future expansion pool but as CUSA, Sun Belt and MAC have demonstrated, when you need the next member there are FCS willing to go down that road.

We used to be in a world with five very wealthy leagues, one wealthy league, two middle class, and three poor. With a dead WAC we are looking at five wealthy four poor and one in between. As I've seen noted elsewhere if the Big East TV deal is at the top end of estimates it will be the 6th best deal among conferences and if it comes in at the low end of estimates, it will be the 6th best deal among conferences. That is how vast the gap is.

The concern of the five wealthy leagues at this point is they need "major college" opponents they can play at home either buying the game or doing multi-games for a return. They need the system to provide just enough money to the poor to keep Congress and the lawyers off their back but not a penny more to where they actually notice the income they give up. They need to grant just enough post-season access for the same reason but not so much it hurts them.

What they need most is voting allies. NCAA votes rarely split wealthy vs. poor when the issue is football. The FBS leagues don't get along very well because they don't trust each other (and shouldn't for obvious reasons) so it is more likely that the Sun Belt may be the determining vote for an SEC proposal than it is for the Big East to be the swing vote when votes have split rich/poor.

In the greater NCAA community (ie. issues beyond football) votes do split rich/poor quite often but the leagues like the Sun Belt and CUSA are generally voting with the wealthy. It is the American East and Southland and Big Sky that are casting the votes that cause heartburn. It is one thing for those sorts of schools to be 1/7th or 1/5th of an FBS conference that votes your way most of the time when it is a conference by conference vote. It is an entirely different matter when those "problem" schools are going to be 3/4ths of a conference that is voting on football matters and all other matters.

Allowing the WAC a waiver very easily can upset a delicate balance that holds Division I together.

(05-28-2012 01:52 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think people are mis-understanding the nature of the NCAA. Any waiver requires a vote of the FBS conferences.

How will the Sun Belt with one Texas football member and three others that recruit Texas on at least a semi-regular basis vote on a waiver to allow 6 or more schools to join FBS in the WAC with many of those in Texas? What about CUSA with four Texas schools and another couple that recruit there? What is the incentive for the MAC to see BCS revenue split 11 ways rather than 10? MWC might see it as creating a future expansion pool but as CUSA, Sun Belt and MAC have demonstrated, when you need the next member there are FCS willing to go down that road.

We used to be in a world with five very wealthy leagues, one wealthy league, two middle class, and three poor. With a dead WAC we are looking at five wealthy four poor and one in between. As I've seen noted elsewhere if the Big East TV deal is at the top end of estimates it will be the 6th best deal among conferences and if it comes in at the low end of estimates, it will be the 6th best deal among conferences. That is how vast the gap is.

The concern of the five wealthy leagues at this point is they need "major college" opponents they can play at home either buying the game or doing multi-games for a return. They need the system to provide just enough money to the poor to keep Congress and the lawyers off their back but not a penny more to where they actually notice the income they give up. They need to grant just enough post-season access for the same reason but not so much it hurts them.

What they need most is voting allies. NCAA votes rarely split wealthy vs. poor when the issue is football. The FBS leagues don't get along very well because they don't trust each other (and shouldn't for obvious reasons) so it is more likely that the Sun Belt may be the determining vote for an SEC proposal than it is for the Big East to be the swing vote when votes have split rich/poor.

In the greater NCAA community (ie. issues beyond football) votes do split rich/poor quite often but the leagues like the Sun Belt and CUSA are generally voting with the wealthy. It is the American East and Southland and Big Sky that are casting the votes that cause heartburn. It is one thing for those sorts of schools to be 1/7th or 1/5th of an FBS conference that votes your way most of the time when it is a conference by conference vote. It is an entirely different matter when those "problem" schools are going to be 3/4ths of a conference that is voting on football matters and all other matters.

Allowing the WAC a waiver very easily can upset a delicate balance that holds Division I together.

A few things-
1- NCAA pushed thru legistlation to try to save the WAC before.
2- MWC won't be able to just call up FCS schools most likely. The FCS likely would have a 10 yr moratorium for call ups.
3- The vote would be between FBS conferences. The power 4 would want it- gives them an extra 10-12 FBS schools. The MWC will want it. The only one that might vote against it is Sun Belt.

If the Sun Belt just went ahead and added App State and Georgia Southern this WAC idea would be dead. Throw in NM State and Liberty for good measure.

(05-28-2012 01:52 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think people are mis-understanding the nature of the NCAA. Any waiver requires a vote of the FBS conferences.

How will the Sun Belt with one Texas football member and three others that recruit Texas on at least a semi-regular basis vote on a waiver to allow 6 or more schools to join FBS in the WAC with many of those in Texas? What about CUSA with four Texas schools and another couple that recruit there? What is the incentive for the MAC to see BCS revenue split 11 ways rather than 10? MWC might see it as creating a future expansion pool but as CUSA, Sun Belt and MAC have demonstrated, when you need the next member there are FCS willing to go down that road.

We used to be in a world with five very wealthy leagues, one wealthy league, two middle class, and three poor. With a dead WAC we are looking at five wealthy four poor and one in between. As I've seen noted elsewhere if the Big East TV deal is at the top end of estimates it will be the 6th best deal among conferences and if it comes in at the low end of estimates, it will be the 6th best deal among conferences. That is how vast the gap is.

The concern of the five wealthy leagues at this point is they need "major college" opponents they can play at home either buying the game or doing multi-games for a return. They need the system to provide just enough money to the poor to keep Congress and the lawyers off their back but not a penny more to where they actually notice the income they give up. They need to grant just enough post-season access for the same reason but not so much it hurts them.

What they need most is voting allies. NCAA votes rarely split wealthy vs. poor when the issue is football. The FBS leagues don't get along very well because they don't trust each other (and shouldn't for obvious reasons) so it is more likely that the Sun Belt may be the determining vote for an SEC proposal than it is for the Big East to be the swing vote when votes have split rich/poor.

In the greater NCAA community (ie. issues beyond football) votes do split rich/poor quite often but the leagues like the Sun Belt and CUSA are generally voting with the wealthy. It is the American East and Southland and Big Sky that are casting the votes that cause heartburn. It is one thing for those sorts of schools to be 1/7th or 1/5th of an FBS conference that votes your way most of the time when it is a conference by conference vote. It is an entirely different matter when those "problem" schools are going to be 3/4ths of a conference that is voting on football matters and all other matters.

Allowing the WAC a waiver very easily can upset a delicate balance that holds Division I together.

No waiver would be required. The WAC will lose its FBS status, but once it regains 8 full FBS members (which may take some time if it chooses to add most new FBS schools as affiliates), under NCAA rules, the NCAA has to reauthorize it as an FBS conference.

If the NCAA choose to strip away a "former FBS conference" ability to invite FCS schools to the FBS level, the NCAA is begging for a lawsuit.

The WAC will have to cease FBS play in 2013 to keep Idaho and NMSU qualified as FBS schools. The only scheduling requirement for new FBS reclassifying schools in the first year is for them to have an FCS schedule.

During the first year of FBS reclassification, UMass continued with its CAA schedule and never met the FBS scheduling requirement (it is only required to have an FCS schedule). During the second year of FBS reclassification (this coming year), UMass plays in the MAC and counts as an FBS team.

Same situation for UTSA and Texas St: last year was their first year of FBS reclassification, and neither met the FBS scheduling requirement. Only in their second year (their WAC year), do they need to meet that requirement.

http://www.umassathletics.com/sports/m-f...11aaa.html

Quote:FOXBORO, Mass. - The University of Massachusetts is pleased to announce it will be elevating its football program to the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) and will become a football member of the Mid-American Conference (MAC). The formal announcement was made at Gillette Stadium, where the Minutemen will be playing their home games. UMass will play a full FBS and MAC schedule beginning with the 2012 football season and by 2013 be eligible for the MAC championship and bowl participation. In 2011, UMass will continue to participate in the Colonial Athletic Association (CAA) but will not be eligible NCAA postseason play.

(05-28-2012 03:25 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 01:52 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think people are mis-understanding the nature of the NCAA. Any waiver requires a vote of the FBS conferences.

How will the Sun Belt with one Texas football member and three others that recruit Texas on at least a semi-regular basis vote on a waiver to allow 6 or more schools to join FBS in the WAC with many of those in Texas? What about CUSA with four Texas schools and another couple that recruit there? What is the incentive for the MAC to see BCS revenue split 11 ways rather than 10? MWC might see it as creating a future expansion pool but as CUSA, Sun Belt and MAC have demonstrated, when you need the next member there are FCS willing to go down that road.

We used to be in a world with five very wealthy leagues, one wealthy league, two middle class, and three poor. With a dead WAC we are looking at five wealthy four poor and one in between. As I've seen noted elsewhere if the Big East TV deal is at the top end of estimates it will be the 6th best deal among conferences and if it comes in at the low end of estimates, it will be the 6th best deal among conferences. That is how vast the gap is.

The concern of the five wealthy leagues at this point is they need "major college" opponents they can play at home either buying the game or doing multi-games for a return. They need the system to provide just enough money to the poor to keep Congress and the lawyers off their back but not a penny more to where they actually notice the income they give up. They need to grant just enough post-season access for the same reason but not so much it hurts them.

What they need most is voting allies. NCAA votes rarely split wealthy vs. poor when the issue is football. The FBS leagues don't get along very well because they don't trust each other (and shouldn't for obvious reasons) so it is more likely that the Sun Belt may be the determining vote for an SEC proposal than it is for the Big East to be the swing vote when votes have split rich/poor.

In the greater NCAA community (ie. issues beyond football) votes do split rich/poor quite often but the leagues like the Sun Belt and CUSA are generally voting with the wealthy. It is the American East and Southland and Big Sky that are casting the votes that cause heartburn. It is one thing for those sorts of schools to be 1/7th or 1/5th of an FBS conference that votes your way most of the time when it is a conference by conference vote. It is an entirely different matter when those "problem" schools are going to be 3/4ths of a conference that is voting on football matters and all other matters.

Allowing the WAC a waiver very easily can upset a delicate balance that holds Division I together.

No waiver would be required. The WAC will lose its FBS status, but once it regains 8 full FBS members (which may take some time if it chooses to add most new FBS schools as affiliates), under NCAA rules, the NCAA has to reauthorize it as an FBS conference.

If the NCAA choose to strip away a "former FBS conference" ability to invite FCS schools to the FBS level, the NCAA is begging for a lawsuit.

The WAC will have to cease FBS play in 2013 to keep Idaho and NMSU qualified as FBS schools. The only scheduling requirement for new FBS reclassifying schools in the first year is for them to have an FCS schedule.

During the first year of FBS reclassification, UMass continued with its CAA schedule and never met the FBS scheduling requirement (it is only required to have an FCS schedule). During the second year of FBS reclassification (this coming year), UMass plays in the MAC and counts as an FBS team.

Same situation for UTSA and Texas St: last year was their first year of FBS reclassification, and neither met the FBS scheduling requirement. Only in their second year (their WAC year), do they need to meet that requirement.

http://www.umassathletics.com/sports/m-f...11aaa.html

Quote:FOXBORO, Mass. - The University of Massachusetts is pleased to announce it will be elevating its football program to the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) and will become a football member of the Mid-American Conference (MAC). The formal announcement was made at Gillette Stadium, where the Minutemen will be playing their home games. UMass will play a full FBS and MAC schedule beginning with the 2012 football season and by 2013 be eligible for the MAC championship and bowl participation. In 2011, UMass will continue to participate in the Colonial Athletic Association (CAA) but will not be eligible NCAA postseason play.

I don't know how all the rules would break down on it. I think it would probably be possible but not easy.

I think a lot of people at Idaho and NMSU are still in denial though, and think a MWC invite is just around the corner. It's possible that it is if the Beast is able to raid the MWC, but even then TxSt and Montana would still be ahead of them. Pulling this off would take a major commitment from Idaho and NMSU, and I would be surprised if they will do it. Boston seems more pro WAC than Spear from what I have read.

(05-28-2012 01:57 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 01:52 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think people are mis-understanding the nature of the NCAA. Any waiver requires a vote of the FBS conferences.

How will the Sun Belt with one Texas football member and three others that recruit Texas on at least a semi-regular basis vote on a waiver to allow 6 or more schools to join FBS in the WAC with many of those in Texas? What about CUSA with four Texas schools and another couple that recruit there? What is the incentive for the MAC to see BCS revenue split 11 ways rather than 10? MWC might see it as creating a future expansion pool but as CUSA, Sun Belt and MAC have demonstrated, when you need the next member there are FCS willing to go down that road.

We used to be in a world with five very wealthy leagues, one wealthy league, two middle class, and three poor. With a dead WAC we are looking at five wealthy four poor and one in between. As I've seen noted elsewhere if the Big East TV deal is at the top end of estimates it will be the 6th best deal among conferences and if it comes in at the low end of estimates, it will be the 6th best deal among conferences. That is how vast the gap is.

The concern of the five wealthy leagues at this point is they need "major college" opponents they can play at home either buying the game or doing multi-games for a return. They need the system to provide just enough money to the poor to keep Congress and the lawyers off their back but not a penny more to where they actually notice the income they give up. They need to grant just enough post-season access for the same reason but not so much it hurts them.

What they need most is voting allies. NCAA votes rarely split wealthy vs. poor when the issue is football. The FBS leagues don't get along very well because they don't trust each other (and shouldn't for obvious reasons) so it is more likely that the Sun Belt may be the determining vote for an SEC proposal than it is for the Big East to be the swing vote when votes have split rich/poor.

In the greater NCAA community (ie. issues beyond football) votes do split rich/poor quite often but the leagues like the Sun Belt and CUSA are generally voting with the wealthy. It is the American East and Southland and Big Sky that are casting the votes that cause heartburn. It is one thing for those sorts of schools to be 1/7th or 1/5th of an FBS conference that votes your way most of the time when it is a conference by conference vote. It is an entirely different matter when those "problem" schools are going to be 3/4ths of a conference that is voting on football matters and all other matters.

Allowing the WAC a waiver very easily can upset a delicate balance that holds Division I together.

A few things-
1- NCAA pushed thru legistlation to try to save the WAC before.
2- MWC won't be able to just call up FCS schools most likely. The FCS likely would have a 10 yr moratorium for call ups.
3- The vote would be between FBS conferences. The power 4 would want it- gives them an extra 10-12 FBS schools. The MWC will want it. The only one that might vote against it is Sun Belt.

No they did not push legislation to save the WAC. It was proposed to save the Big East. It just ended up helping the WAC and wasn't needed by Big East.

Even if that had been the intent there are only so many times you can call in favors.

The membership is fine with not letting people fail but to survive WAC has to be a conduit for six more move ups on top of the two they just lost. FBS has to be increased by 5% just to let them live. That is asking a lot.

(05-28-2012 03:25 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 01:52 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think people are mis-understanding the nature of the NCAA. Any waiver requires a vote of the FBS conferences.

How will the Sun Belt with one Texas football member and three others that recruit Texas on at least a semi-regular basis vote on a waiver to allow 6 or more schools to join FBS in the WAC with many of those in Texas? What about CUSA with four Texas schools and another couple that recruit there? What is the incentive for the MAC to see BCS revenue split 11 ways rather than 10? MWC might see it as creating a future expansion pool but as CUSA, Sun Belt and MAC have demonstrated, when you need the next member there are FCS willing to go down that road.

We used to be in a world with five very wealthy leagues, one wealthy league, two middle class, and three poor. With a dead WAC we are looking at five wealthy four poor and one in between. As I've seen noted elsewhere if the Big East TV deal is at the top end of estimates it will be the 6th best deal among conferences and if it comes in at the low end of estimates, it will be the 6th best deal among conferences. That is how vast the gap is.

The concern of the five wealthy leagues at this point is they need "major college" opponents they can play at home either buying the game or doing multi-games for a return. They need the system to provide just enough money to the poor to keep Congress and the lawyers off their back but not a penny more to where they actually notice the income they give up. They need to grant just enough post-season access for the same reason but not so much it hurts them.

What they need most is voting allies. NCAA votes rarely split wealthy vs. poor when the issue is football. The FBS leagues don't get along very well because they don't trust each other (and shouldn't for obvious reasons) so it is more likely that the Sun Belt may be the determining vote for an SEC proposal than it is for the Big East to be the swing vote when votes have split rich/poor.

In the greater NCAA community (ie. issues beyond football) votes do split rich/poor quite often but the leagues like the Sun Belt and CUSA are generally voting with the wealthy. It is the American East and Southland and Big Sky that are casting the votes that cause heartburn. It is one thing for those sorts of schools to be 1/7th or 1/5th of an FBS conference that votes your way most of the time when it is a conference by conference vote. It is an entirely different matter when those "problem" schools are going to be 3/4ths of a conference that is voting on football matters and all other matters.

Allowing the WAC a waiver very easily can upset a delicate balance that holds Division I together.

No waiver would be required. The WAC will lose its FBS status, but once it regains 8 full FBS members (which may take some time if it chooses to add most new FBS schools as affiliates), under NCAA rules, the NCAA has to reauthorize it as an FBS conference.

If the NCAA choose to strip away a "former FBS conference" ability to invite FCS schools to the FBS level, the NCAA is begging for a lawsuit.

The WAC will have to cease FBS play in 2013 to keep Idaho and NMSU qualified as FBS schools. The only scheduling requirement for new FBS reclassifying schools in the first year is for them to have an FCS schedule.

During the first year of FBS reclassification, UMass continued with its CAA schedule and never met the FBS scheduling requirement (it is only required to have an FCS schedule). During the second year of FBS reclassification (this coming year), UMass plays in the MAC and counts as an FBS team.

Same situation for UTSA and Texas St: last year was their first year of FBS reclassification, and neither met the FBS scheduling requirement. Only in their second year (their WAC year), do they need to meet that requirement.

http://www.umassathletics.com/sports/m-f...11aaa.html

Quote:FOXBORO, Mass. - The University of Massachusetts is pleased to announce it will be elevating its football program to the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) and will become a football member of the Mid-American Conference (MAC). The formal announcement was made at Gillette Stadium, where the Minutemen will be playing their home games. UMass will play a full FBS and MAC schedule beginning with the 2012 football season and by 2013 be eligible for the MAC championship and bowl participation. In 2011, UMass will continue to participate in the Colonial Athletic Association (CAA) but will not be eligible NCAA postseason play.

A waiver would be needed because they couldn't meet the schedule requirement in year two.

(05-28-2012 04:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  A waiver would be needed because they couldn't meet the schedule requirement in year two.

Not to belabor the point, but the NCAA bylaws allow a second-year reclassifying school to count as an FBS school, even if the majority of its opponents are also second-year FBS schools.

If the WAC was down to 4 FBS schools and could only add 3 FCS schools, that is actually a much worse scenario than being down to 2 FBS schools and adding 8. With 10 schools, the reclassifying schools have a much easier time obtaining 5 FBS home games - even though most of those games are against other reclassifying schools.

If Appy St joins the WAC as well as seven other FCS schools by the June 1st deadline, then its schedule for next year could actually meet the FBS requirements for a second year school if enough FCS schools are added:

Example only:

Appy St (home)
Liberty (FBS 2nd year - counts as FBS)
NMSU - FBS
Ga Southern (FBS 2nd year - counts as FBS)
Sam Houston (FBS 2nd year - counts as FBS)
McNeese St (FBS 2nd year - counts as FBS)
FCS opponent

Appy St (away)
Michigan
E Carolina
Jacksonville St (FBS 2nd year - counts as FBS)
Idaho
Lamar (FBS 2nd year - counts as FBS)
S F Austin (FBS 2nd year - counts as FBS)

If any WAC expansion happens after June 1st, then the schedules get pushed out another year. In that case, NMSU and Idaho have to play as independents for one year.

If the WAC only adds five or six FCS schools, getting the FCS schools through the reclassification process is much more difficult, as the reclassifying schools likely won't meet the home scheduling requirement.

The NCAA rules actually make it easy to add a massive number of FCS schools, but difficult to add three or four depending on how many full FBS members remain.

In fact, if the WAC can only get five FCS schools to move up, then its FCS plans likely won't work and none of them can move up. For example, with only five FCS moveups, Appy St would only be guaranteed three FBS homes games and would need to find two more - which is basically impossible on this short time frame and with the cash outlays required. If Appy St didn't meet the minimum, then it would have a domino effect on the other four. Simply put, the WAC needs at least six FCS moveups, preferably 8, to get all 2nd year schools a proper FBS schedule.

(05-28-2012 05:08 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(05-28-2012 04:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  A waiver would be needed because they couldn't meet the schedule requirement in year two.

Not to belabor the point, but the NCAA bylaws allow a second-year reclassifying school to count as an FBS school, even if the majority of its opponents are also second-year FBS schools.

The rule regarding counting a second year transitional as an FBS is in the section dealing with scheduling rules for existing FBS schools. On its face the rules are not cut and dried that a transition school can avail itself of the rule, it is written with just enough doubt to be construed to only apply to existing FBS.

I have been told that in the private section of the NCAA web site there is a rules interpretation that has been issued where the NCAA stated that they interpret that provision to only be available to existing FBS schools.

Technically speaking, it is impossible to get a waiver from the schedule requirements because the NCAA Bylaws specifically state there can be no waivers for meeting FBS criteria. But a new interpretation isn't a waiver, and a new interpretation would be required.