(01-29-2014 09:42 PM)CatMom Wrote:  Betcha NDSU would block UND

The State Board of Education has taken a hands off approach to conference affiliation. UND could not get into the Summit because of the excuse of the Sioux name. Somehow, NDSU's stance on the nickname by the Summit was never brought into play by the media.

The State wouldn't interfere on what the Big Sky did. The Big Sky has 12 members and two affiliates (UC Davis and Cal Poly), so the FCS schools remaining could still have six teams. With existing cable contracts, they would make a good partner.

(01-29-2014 10:00 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 09:55 PM)CatMom Wrote:  Isn't there some kind of NCAA rule about X # of teams that are FBS have to have been together for X (I think it's 7) amount of years, in the same conference, to invite FCS teams and/or start a new conference?

I'm trying to find that NCAA bylaw right now. I may be wrong but I think this was a point of contention a few years ago when some CAA schools thought they could just up and start a new FBS conference on their own.

NCAA rules say that a conference must have 7 current FBS members to start, and a league must have 5 members who have stayed at least 5 years and 8 members total to be viable.

Karl Benson proposed both rules.

The beauty of it is that the Big Sky would meet the requirement now, but they only lack the ability to invite schools to FBS. The Sun Belt could be the sugar daddy, helping Idaho and NMSU find a new league, minimizing their geography problems, and opening additional bowls for their teams.

(01-29-2014 10:57 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 09:42 PM)CatMom Wrote:  Betcha NDSU would block UND

The State Board of Education has taken a hands off approach to conference affiliation. UND could not get into the Summit because of the excuse of the Sioux name. Somehow, NDSU's stance on the nickname by the Summit was never brought into play by the media.

The State wouldn't interfere on what the Big Sky did. The Big Sky has 12 members and two affiliates (UC Davis and Cal Poly), so the FCS schools remaining could still have six teams. With existing cable contracts, they would make a good partner.

They can't move up to an FBS conference that only has 3 members because, in the first place, there can be no conference with only 3 FBS members; especially ones that haven't even been in the same conference for even 1 year yet (TXST, Idaho and NMSU being in the WAC together 1 year would not count). BSC teams can not move up en mass without that invite.

Did you not understand the NCAA rule?

I know all about the BSC. We were FCS just 3 years ago, in case you forgot.

(01-29-2014 11:01 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 10:00 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 09:55 PM)CatMom Wrote:  Isn't there some kind of NCAA rule about X # of teams that are FBS have to have been together for X (I think it's 7) amount of years, in the same conference, to invite FCS teams and/or start a new conference?

I'm trying to find that NCAA bylaw right now. I may be wrong but I think this was a point of contention a few years ago when some CAA schools thought they could just up and start a new FBS conference on their own.

NCAA rules say that a conference must have 7 current FBS members to start, and a league must have 5 members who have stayed at least 5 years and 8 members total to be viable.

Karl Benson proposed both rules.

The beauty of it is that the Big Sky would meet the requirement now, but they only lack the ability to invite schools to FBS. The Sun Belt could be the sugar daddy, helping Idaho and NMSU find a new league, minimizing their geography problems, and opening additional bowls for their teams.

The only problem is the rule about playing FBS schools at home. I don't know if you guys could all count each other as your home games all being transitional schools.

(01-29-2014 11:03 PM)CatMom Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 10:57 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 09:42 PM)CatMom Wrote:  Betcha NDSU would block UND

The State Board of Education has taken a hands off approach to conference affiliation. UND could not get into the Summit because of the excuse of the Sioux name. Somehow, NDSU's stance on the nickname by the Summit was never brought into play by the media.

The State wouldn't interfere on what the Big Sky did. The Big Sky has 12 members and two affiliates (UC Davis and Cal Poly), so the FCS schools remaining could still have six teams. With existing cable contracts, they would make a good partner.

They can't move up to an FBS conference that only has 3 members because, in the first place, there can be no conference with only 3 FBS members; especially ones that haven't even been in the same conference for even 1 year yet (TXST, Idaho and NMSU being in the WAC together 1 year would not count). BSC teams can not move up en mass without that invite.

Did you not understand the NCAA rule?

I know all about the BSC. We were FCS just 3 years ago, in case you forgot.

First year: seven or eight teams move to a western division of the Sun Belt as affiliates. No interplay with transitional teams required as they would play among themselves (need 8 games). Big Sky still exists as all sports.

Second year: play Idaho and NMSU.

Third year: Move all the teams back to the Big Sky, including NMSU as an affiliate. Big Sky could still offer FCS division.

5th year: Big Sky becomes an FBS conference.

(01-29-2014 11:06 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 11:01 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 10:00 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 09:55 PM)CatMom Wrote:  Isn't there some kind of NCAA rule about X # of teams that are FBS have to have been together for X (I think it's 7) amount of years, in the same conference, to invite FCS teams and/or start a new conference?

I'm trying to find that NCAA bylaw right now. I may be wrong but I think this was a point of contention a few years ago when some CAA schools thought they could just up and start a new FBS conference on their own.

NCAA rules say that a conference must have 7 current FBS members to start, and a league must have 5 members who have stayed at least 5 years and 8 members total to be viable.

Karl Benson proposed both rules.

The beauty of it is that the Big Sky would meet the requirement now, but they only lack the ability to invite schools to FBS. The Sun Belt could be the sugar daddy, helping Idaho and NMSU find a new league, minimizing their geography problems, and opening additional bowls for their teams.

The only problem is the rule about playing FBS schools at home. I don't know if you guys could all count each other as your home games all being transitional schools.

The way the rule is written 8 schools can move up en masse and never play a full FBS school. The more schools the better. The Sun Belt runs into problems with only two transitioning schools.

Isn't the WAC technically still an FBS conference. I think there is a two year grace period before the FBS moniker could be taken off. So you guys still have one year to put it together. Get the Montana schools, NDSU, UND, SDSU, Eastern Washington could all Join the WAC and declare their FBS intentions. Then Idaho and NMSU all go back. This is eight schools, with almost all going. Things might be tough for the first few years with no bowl affilitation and/or media contract, but, in the long term, it would be a nice little conference.

I think they did away with the 5 members who have stayed 5 years rule when the WAC was on its death bed.

Second year would be FBS transitional and at least 5 FBS games are required. Scenario does not work.

Conference games are required if you have that many teams (And nobody wants to have a conference of 16-18 teams). If NMSU, Idaho and/or TXST are in the west they would/should be playing all 8 games vs west teams. However, that does not give the (suggested) move-ups 5 FBS games.

TXST would only have 2 (true) FBS counters and still would have to find 4 other FBS games to fill out their schedule.


Next.....................

(01-29-2014 11:18 PM)txstatebobcat Wrote:  Isn't the WAC technically still an FBS conference. I think there is a two year grace period before the FBS moniker could be taken off. So you guys still have one year to put it together. Get the Montana schools, NDSU, UND, SDSU, Eastern Washington could all Join the WAC and declare their FBS intentions. Then Idaho and NMSU all go back. This is eight schools, with almost all going. Things might be tough for the first few years with no bowl affilitation and/or media contract, but, in the long term, it would be a nice little conference.

No - there are no FBS playing teams left and even if NMSU and UI went back it's not enough members that were together for the required # of years.

The WAC is a non-football conference and is losing out to the Summit in several sports. It's a dying conference in more than just football. (I think it has 9 members left - I could be wrong there, though)

(01-29-2014 11:20 PM)CatMom Wrote:  Second year would be FBS transitional and at least 5 FBS games are required. Scenario does not work.

Conference games are required if you have that many teams (And nobody wants to have a conference of 16-18 teams). If NMSU, Idaho and/or TXST are in the west they would/should be playing all 8 games vs west teams. However, that does not give the (suggested) move-ups 5 FBS games.

TXST would only have 2 (true) FBS counters and still would have to find 4 other FBS games to fill out their schedule.


Next.....................

I believe TxSt and UTSA set a precedent for transitionals counting as a home game vs FBS for conference members when we joined the WAC. At this stage there would probably be lawsuits if this isn't allowed again.

(01-29-2014 11:28 PM)txstatebobcat Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 11:20 PM)CatMom Wrote:  Second year would be FBS transitional and at least 5 FBS games are required. Scenario does not work.

Conference games are required if you have that many teams (And nobody wants to have a conference of 16-18 teams). If NMSU, Idaho and/or TXST are in the west they would/should be playing all 8 games vs west teams. However, that does not give the (suggested) move-ups 5 FBS games.

TXST would only have 2 (true) FBS counters and still would have to find 4 other FBS games to fill out their schedule.


Next.....................

I believe TxSt and UTSA set a precedent for transitionals counting as a home game vs FBS for conference members when we joined the WAC. At this stage there would probably be lawsuits if this isn't allowed again.

UTSA was 1 team and there were enough FBS teams for 1 non FBS team to work. We were FBS transitional in 2012 and full FBS in 2013. There were the required number of "teams that had been together" for it to work. (5)

As an FCS transitional - UTSA played 1 FCS, 1 FBS transitional and 2 sub DI teams in 2012 in OOC. We played 1 FCS and 1 FCS transitional - UTSA

(01-29-2014 04:39 PM)bamaEagle Wrote:  So we should split the group of 5 to a group of 6 and get less money?

LOL, no kidding. Big Sky schools had their chance with the WAC and they blew it like fools. Its hard to feel sorry for them. They shouldn't have listened to that used car salesman of a commish they have.

(01-29-2014 11:56 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 04:39 PM)bamaEagle Wrote:  So we should split the group of 5 to a group of 6 and get less money?

LOL, no kidding. Big Sky schools had their chance with the WAC and they blew it like fools. Its hard to feel sorry for them. They shouldn't have listened to that used car salesman of a commish they have.

If they were smart? They would have moved up en masse, preserved the WAC, then voted Benson out and hired the used car salesman.

(01-29-2014 11:59 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 11:56 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 04:39 PM)bamaEagle Wrote:  So we should split the group of 5 to a group of 6 and get less money?

LOL, no kidding. Big Sky schools had their chance with the WAC and they blew it like fools. Its hard to feel sorry for them. They shouldn't have listened to that used car salesman of a commish they have.

If they were smart? They would have moved up en masse, preserved the WAC, then voted Benson out and hired the used car salesman.

The WAC demands were too much. IMHO, the Sun Belt made a deal.with Idaho for this to happen when the Big Sky was ready. Idaho served a purpose for a time, but that time is ending when App St, Ga St, and Ga S are full FBS. Its time for Idaho to.depart.gracefully with the Big Sky at FBS.

Having Idaho and NMSU just hurts the Sunbelts ability to.attract and maintain members. The goodwill that the Sun Belt would gain among prospective FBS schools would be immeasurable.

(01-30-2014 08:44 PM)NoDak Wrote:  The WAC demands were too much. IMHO, the Sun Belt made a deal.with Idaho for this to happen when the Big Sky was ready. Idaho served a purpose for a time, but that time is ending when App St, Ga St, and Ga S are full FBS. Its time for Idaho to.depart.gracefully with the Big Sky at FBS.

Who cares what the WAC demands were? The idea would have been to move up, then vote Benson out (Benson was the WAC at that point). They would have had the numbers to remove him.

(01-30-2014 08:56 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(01-30-2014 08:44 PM)NoDak Wrote:  The WAC demands were too much. IMHO, the Sun Belt made a deal.with Idaho for this to happen when the Big Sky was ready. Idaho served a purpose for a time, but that time is ending when App St, Ga St, and Ga S are full FBS. Its time for Idaho to.depart.gracefully with the Big Sky at FBS.

Who cares what the WAC demands were? The idea would have been to move up, then vote Benson out (Benson was the WAC at that point). They would have had the numbers to remove him.

At the time, the wac included Denver and Seattle, which were making demands that were unsatisfactory. Montana hadn't even started softball and only had 14 sports. MSU had only begun their stadium expansion. BIG Sky schools were not ready for FBS at the time.

The Sun Belt IMHO made a deal with Idaho for it to have a long term home if it stayed FBS. The deal included the Big Sky. It only makes sense for it was in the best interest of the Sun Belt, Idaho, and the Big Sky.

The Big Fluffy conference is horrible, a pass happy, no defense conference, with garbage teams and university's.....except maybe Montana. The res average about 6000-7000 fans. They will not be FBS.

NDSU & MONTANA together to the mountain west has the best chance of actually happening

(01-31-2014 12:26 AM)lakesbison Wrote:  The Big Fluffy conference is horrible, a pass happy, no defense conference, with garbage teams and university's.....except maybe Montana. The res average about 6000-7000 fans. They will not be FBS.

NDSU & MONTANA together to the mountain west has the best chance of actually happening

When it can pick off a bunch of FBS Teams if needed, the MWC has no need to pick up two FCS move ups.

(01-31-2014 12:26 AM)lakesbison Wrote:  The Big Fluffy conference is horrible, a pass happy, no defense conference, with garbage teams and university's.....except maybe Montana. The res average about 6000-7000 fans. They will not be FBS.

NDSU & MONTANA together to the mountain west has the best chance of actually happening

NDSU doesn't have a prayer of a chance to get into the MWC. NEVER mind the MAC, CUSA or Sun Belt. If they joined the Big Sky that is there only shot, but the BIg Sky is full.

NDSU fans think college college.football realignment is about.performance promotion and.relegation. Not.true.