(03-12-2011 11:56 PM)stebo Wrote:  They will need one more football playing member to be recognized by the BCS. Div I rules were changed specifically to address their situation. So they are safe for now as a Div I member, if they lose one more school then they would need a waiver. If they stay at 7 football members, they will basically be a scheduling alliance for football and will not be able to invite newbies up from FCS ranks, that is why it is so important for the WAC to invite one more school before anyone else leaves. Their tv contract will be similar to the Belt and they will be treated as independent schools for BCS payouts, similar to the 100k that Army and Navy get. They also will not be eligible to get the auto invite currently available to the non auto bid conferences. A team would have to get a bonafide at large invite to one of the big bowls which has only happened once before (Boise).

Basically they are recognized by the NCAA but not the BCS.

About 60% of that is wrong. Even if the WAC fails to expand back to at least eight football members, it will:

- still be able to promote FCS schools to FBS status;
- still be viewed as a football conference by the BCS; and
- still be entitled to all of its NCAA auto bids in non-football sports.

The WAC will still be considered a Division 1 multi-sports conference by the NCAA, but with respect to football, the NCAA will view it as a collection of FBS schools rather than an FBS conference. The only impact this will have is administrative, e.g. the WAC will have no vote on NCAA rule changes affecting FBS conferences.

The bottom line is that the WAC's situation isn't as desperate as a lot of folks think, which is why it hasn't already added Lamar. The main concern for the conference is rebuilding its TV value which obviously has taken a huge hit. Lamar doesn't help much in that respect and therefore won't get a WAC invitation so long as the conference thinks it still has a chance of signing up better prospects.

I leave it to all of you to speculate why the WAC thinks it still has a chance of signing up better prospects.

Bottom line: The WAC wasn't as good as most WAC members thought it was in the first place. Now that it's left with mostly the bottom feeders, it will struggle for respect and recognition. You are going to have issues getting into the Top 25. You are going to have issues with bowl bids. You are going to have issues generating tv revenue. I for one don't care what happens to the WAC as long as somehow, after everything is said and done, La Neck suffers horribly. Worst fans, generally speaking, ever from the swamps of Louisiana. That's the important part.

Any school wanting to rely on a WAC invite to become FBS has to be invited before Fresno and Nevada leave. If the invite isn't extended by then the league lacks enough members to extend a bona fide invitation to join an FBS league.

(03-14-2011 02:05 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(03-12-2011 11:56 PM)stebo Wrote:  They will need one more football playing member to be recognized by the BCS. Div I rules were changed specifically to address their situation. So they are safe for now as a Div I member, if they lose one more school then they would need a waiver. If they stay at 7 football members, they will basically be a scheduling alliance for football and will not be able to invite newbies up from FCS ranks, that is why it is so important for the WAC to invite one more school before anyone else leaves. Their tv contract will be similar to the Belt and they will be treated as independent schools for BCS payouts, similar to the 100k that Army and Navy get. They also will not be eligible to get the auto invite currently available to the non auto bid conferences. A team would have to get a bonafide at large invite to one of the big bowls which has only happened once before (Boise).

Basically they are recognized by the NCAA but not the BCS.

About 60% of that is wrong. Even if the WAC fails to expand back to at least eight football members, it will:

- still be able to promote FCS schools to FBS status;
- still be viewed as a football conference by the BCS; and
- still be entitled to all of its NCAA auto bids in non-football sports.

The WAC will still be considered a Division 1 multi-sports conference by the NCAA, but with respect to football, the NCAA will view it as a collection of FBS schools rather than an FBS conference. The only impact this will have is administrative, e.g. the WAC will have no vote on NCAA rule changes affecting FBS conferences.

The bottom line is that the WAC's situation isn't as desperate as a lot of folks think, which is why it hasn't already added Lamar. The main concern for the conference is rebuilding its TV value which obviously has taken a huge hit. Lamar doesn't help much in that respect and therefore won't get a WAC invitation so long as the conference thinks it still has a chance of signing up better prospects.

I leave it to all of you to speculate why the WAC thinks it still has a chance of signing up better prospects.

You are incorrect. The WAC is currently a bonafide FBS conference. That will change in 2012 when Hawaii, UNR, and Fresno leave. At 7 football members they would not be able to invite an FCS up to FBS. Yes, they will be recognized by the NCAA as a Div I conference but not as a BCS football conference. I believe that my post is accurate...confusing but accurate none the less. That is why the WAC will invite a school like Lamar to the conference ...for survival.

You folks need to go read the actual wording of the new NCAA rule pertaining to FCS schools moving up to FBS. It explicitly states that an FCS school can only move up to FBS if it is invited to join an FBS conference OR a conference that "previously qualified" as an FBS conference. The "previously qualified" language was added to the draft rule at a meeting of the NCAA legislative committee in October and I'd be surprised if it wasn't proposed by the WAC. With that language having been formally approved at the NCAA convention in January, the WAC will be able to bring schools up from the FCS level regardless of how many (or few) FBS football playing members are left in the conference.

Also there is nothing in the BCS contract with the WAC and the other conferences playing FBS football that requires a conference to have a minimum number of FBS football schools. (That contract is between the BCS and the WAC as corporate entities and has nothing to do with the NCAA.) Benson stated this in a press conference after the announcement that Fresno State and Nevada would be leaving the WAC.

(03-14-2011 03:58 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  You folks need to go read the actual wording of the new NCAA rule pertaining to FCS schools moving up to FBS. It explicitly states that an FCS school can only move up to FBS if it is invited to join an FBS conference OR a conference that "previously qualified" as an FBS conference. The "previously qualified" language was added to the draft rule at a meeting of the NCAA legislative committee in October and I'd be surprised if it wasn't proposed by the WAC. With that language having been formally approved at the NCAA convention in January, the WAC will be able to bring schools up from the FCS level regardless of how many (or few) FBS football playing members are left in the conference.

Also there is nothing in the BCS contract with the WAC and the other conferences playing FBS football that requires a conference to have a minimum number of FBS football schools. (That contract is between the BCS and the WAC as corporate entities and has nothing to do with the NCAA.) Benson stated this in a press conference after the announcement that Fresno State and Nevada would be leaving the WAC.

Mongoose, I appreciate you posting in the forum. Maybe this entire board and all the other forums are wrong - but even Karl Benson has put the timeline on invitations (I would assume) to meet/beat the deadline.

You are correct that the WAC can issue invitations for up to two years after the defections. But the timeline is two years to get "whole" again. And it takes two years for a school to move up to FBS. So since the conference will fall below the criteria next summer, the invite needs to be extended and accepted pretty soon so that the school can attempt the move. Will the WAC be a BCS school during the transition? That is murky. One of the board members wrote to the commisioner of the Southern Conference and this is what he said:

Quote: Subject: Upgrading to FBS

Commissioner Iamario

As you are aware, new NCAA rule 20.4.2.1.1 on page 275 (http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/AMA/legislative_...ements.pdf) allows for a Conference that previously met the definition of an FBS conference to issue an invitation to an institution interested in upgrading to FBS. My question is that since the Southern Conference was a 1-A/FBS Conference in the early 80's, would that ability to extend invitations apply to the Southern Conference and would a school like Appalachian State be able to upgrade without having to leave the Southern Conference?

Thank you,

HIS RESPONSE

Thank you for your interest in the Southern Conference. The legislation you refer to deals specifically with conferences that were established – and named -- as FBS conferences (I-A at the time) when the NCAA reorganized its governance structure in 1998. If one of them falls below the minimum standards for the subdivision, it has two years to get itself “whole” and that process would allow invitations to FCS institutions.



As recently as last month, it was reiterated by the NCAA staff that current FCS conferences are not permitted to move to the FBS as a group. FCS institutions may move to the FBS only with an invitation from a current FBS conference that meets all subdivision standards, or one that is in the temporary condition I described in the paragraph above.


I hope this answer is helpful to you.



John P. Iamarino

Commissioner

Southern Conference

So the conference commisioner confirms that only a conference that meets all criteria of the subdivision or previously met the criteria can invite an FCS school. But if it takes 2 years to move up - and the grace period is 2 years - it is a reasonable assumption that the conference would need to issue those invites before the 3 MWC defections occur. If they wait, yes - the invitations can take place (you are correct about that) - but the WAC will not be a BCS conference for a period of time while those schools attempt to qualify for FBS.

http://www.ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=480747

Stebo, thank you for posting the response from Iamarino. That does put the issue in a different light. And I'm just a dumb message board poster, not a conference commissioner. Having said that, there's nothing in the actual language of the FCS move-up provision that actually requires a conference to re-qualify or be in the process of re-qualifying as an FBS conference to bring schools up from the FCS to the FBS level. It just reserves that power to an FBS conference or a conference that formerly qualified as an FBS conference, period. I suppose it could be a matter of interpretation.

In any case the discussion is somewhat moot since I'm sure the WAC will add at least one more football-playing school by the end of June to ensure it has eight football-playing members in the 2012 season. The interesting question to all of us is, who will it be?

I apologize if I came across as contentious, that wasn't my objective. It's just that I've seen a lot of "the WAC is dead" or "the WAC is dying" threads on various message boards written by people who don't know the facts, and I feel compelled to try to set the record straight. Even though Hawaii is leaving the conference, the WAC has been a great home for us for over 30 years and most Hawaii fans want to see it rebuild and return to challenging the BCS ba$tards that are doing their best to keep all of the non-AQ conferences and schools down.

(03-14-2011 11:10 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  In any case the discussion is somewhat moot since I'm sure the WAC will add at least one more football-playing school by the end of June to ensure it has eight football-playing members in the 2012 season. The interesting question to all of us is, who will it be?

The sheer lack of possible candidates is daunting, I've seen nothing to suggest anyone other than Lamar is in serious consideration on both ends of the equation, but with as long as Lamar has been speculated publicly and with no invited issued as of yet, I find that somewhat troubling for the WAC. Perhaps they're holding out for someone better till closer to end of June, but what's the harm in inviting them now? If someone else better comes along, all that will do is push the WAC beyond 8, which would be a wise move in my estimation. There's something holding up the Lamar move, I just don't know what and again, outside of Lamar, who is the WAC seriously considering that they have a chance at landing?

I have no clue, but if the WAC were convinced it had no other options, Lamar would already be in.

(03-15-2011 02:21 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I have no clue, but if the WAC were convinced it had no other options, Lamar would already be in.

Just please God, don't call NT yet again. While it is possible NT could end up in a conference with some of the schools scheduled to be in the 2012 WAC somewhere down the road, it IS NOT going to be in 2012. (Unless someone scheduled to be in the WAC in 2012 defects...)

(03-15-2011 11:53 AM)VideoGreenEagle Wrote:  

(03-15-2011 02:21 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I have no clue, but if the WAC were convinced it had no other options, Lamar would already be in.

Just please God, don't call NT yet again. While it is possible NT could end up in a conference with some of the schools scheduled to be in the 2012 WAC somewhere down the road, it IS NOT going to be in 2012. (Unless someone scheduled to be in the WAC in 2012 defects...)

In response to your first statement? What does it matter? Let him keep calling. I'm sure Villareal enjoys standing behind his secretary and listening to her say things like "Oh, Mr. Benson, I'm so sorry he actually just stepped out. Can I take a message? What's that? He hasn't returned your last ten messages? Well I'll make sure he gets this one."

In response to the last bit, by that are you implying that if the WAC is dealt a knockout punch we may be inviting some of them to the SBC?

(03-15-2011 12:14 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(03-15-2011 11:53 AM)VideoGreenEagle Wrote:  

(03-15-2011 02:21 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I have no clue, but if the WAC were convinced it had no other options, Lamar would already be in.

Just please God, don't call NT yet again. While it is possible NT could end up in a conference with some of the schools scheduled to be in the 2012 WAC somewhere down the road, it IS NOT going to be in 2012. (Unless someone scheduled to be in the WAC in 2012 defects...)

In response to your first statement? What does it matter? Let him keep calling. I'm sure Villareal enjoys standing behind his secretary and listening to her say things like "Oh, Mr. Benson, I'm so sorry he actually just stepped out. Can I take a message? What's that? He hasn't returned your last ten messages? Well I'll make sure he gets this one."

In response to the last bit, by that are you implying that if the WAC is dealt a knockout punch we may be inviting some of them to the SBC?

As to the last bit, I'm simply saying "never say never ever." (Well, writing it.) In the short run, the WAC can't offer any Belt school an advantage although the Belt can offer some of the WAC schools what they have now, plus stability, better existing bowl contracts and in the CTZ better local media coverage. In the long run, we're all dead anyway.

(03-15-2011 12:37 PM)VideoGreenEagle Wrote:  

(03-15-2011 12:14 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(03-15-2011 11:53 AM)VideoGreenEagle Wrote:  

(03-15-2011 02:21 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I have no clue, but if the WAC were convinced it had no other options, Lamar would already be in.

Just please God, don't call NT yet again. While it is possible NT could end up in a conference with some of the schools scheduled to be in the 2012 WAC somewhere down the road, it IS NOT going to be in 2012. (Unless someone scheduled to be in the WAC in 2012 defects...)

In response to your first statement? What does it matter? Let him keep calling. I'm sure Villareal enjoys standing behind his secretary and listening to her say things like "Oh, Mr. Benson, I'm so sorry he actually just stepped out. Can I take a message? What's that? He hasn't returned your last ten messages? Well I'll make sure he gets this one."

In response to the last bit, by that are you implying that if the WAC is dealt a knockout punch we may be inviting some of them to the SBC?

As to the last bit, I'm simply saying "never say never ever." (Well, writing it.) In the short run, the WAC can't offer any Belt school an advantage although the Belt can offer some of the WAC schools what they have now, plus stability, better existing bowl contracts and in the CTZ better local media coverage. In the long run, we're all dead anyway.

Oh I wasn't questioning that as a possibility, I was simply making sure I understood what you were saying as the wording was a little vague. Even though it would have made no sense whatsoever, it still could have been read as, if the WAC loses another member, then maybe we'll join.