(10-18-2019 12:43 PM)panama Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 04:40 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(10-17-2019 06:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-17-2019 01:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Not at the FBS level. an FBS conference has to have 8 full members, members who play basketball in that conference.

As the cost of payday games continues to rise I wouldn't bet on that being a rule carved into stone. Creating a larger FBS division creates more competition for said games which drives down the costs.

Not to mention the fact that there's several "marriage by necessity" conferences that could perhaps see a benefit from shedding some of their outpost schools in football while keeping their basketball lineup intact. It's one thing to fly your hoops teams halfway across the continent, it's another to fly your football team and have to ship all of your equipment halfway across the continent.

With laws being passed for pay for play, adding schools to FBS could help football scheduling be simpler for travel cost. Minnesota, Nebraska and Iowa schools could have more schools to move up like North Dakota State, South Dakota State, Northern Iowa and Southern Illinois. Others could move up. The FCS California schools and Northern Arizona could fill schedules in football. Wyoming may need both Montana and Montana State to help with their fiances. The Montana schools would fit the higher academics of the MWC then they did with the WAC. Montana used to be with Utah, BYU, Utah State, Colorado State and Wyoming. I think New Mexico was part of this group.

...and now it's a ridiculous party

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Those rules will discourage anyone from moving up. I suspect FCS will remain schools who want to do less.

(10-18-2019 08:51 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 07:48 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(10-17-2019 09:00 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(10-17-2019 01:29 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(10-17-2019 01:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  an FBS conference has to have 8 full members, members who play basketball in that conference.

The only way to generate an 8-team FBS conference then would be to get the FCS teams to move up all-sports, so something like:

FB only:
1. Army
2. UConn
3. UMass
4. New Mexico St.

All-Sports:
5/1. Liberty
6/2. James Madison
7/3. Delaware
8/4. Stony Brook
(Kennesaw St.? Jacksonville St? Eastern Kentucky?)

Olympic Sports:

Find up to 4 non-football schools who view that conference as an improvement on their current situation. Given that geographic footprint, you might be able to steal some Big South or America East schools (or NJIT at least).

You'd end up with 8 football teams and 8 basketball teams with just 4 schools playing in both sports. Not exactly a tight-knit conference, but it's a conference nevertheless. Interesting thought exercise, but it's not going to happen.

Yes, and if you followed the above, there are 8 core members (basketball schools):

The 4 all-sports members (Liberty, JMU, Stony Brook, and Delaware in that scenario) plus the 4 non-football schools you'd recruit from, for example, the Big South or America East (or NJIT). That gets you the 8 core members you have to have in basketball. But only 4 of those teams would be playing football, so you'd end up with 4 FB-only schools under that scenario.

The rule is that an FBS conference needs 8 full, FB-playing members.

Turns out you are correct. Rule 20.02.6

No chance for a new FBS conference then.

(10-17-2019 06:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-17-2019 01:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Not at the FBS level. an FBS conference has to have 8 full members, members who play basketball in that conference.

As the cost of payday games continues to rise I wouldn't bet on that being a rule carved into stone. Creating a larger FBS division creates more competition for said games which drives down the costs.

Not to mention the fact that there's several "marriage by necessity" conferences that could perhaps see a benefit from shedding some of their outpost schools in football while keeping their basketball lineup intact. It's one thing to fly your hoops teams halfway across the continent, it's another to fly your football team and have to ship all of your equipment halfway across the continent.

The current rule stabilizes G5 conferences. Permitting football-only conferences in FBS (which is already permitted in FCS) introduces a risk of fracturing the existing conferences.

It may happen eventually, but there will be resistance if it is seriously proposed.

(10-18-2019 01:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-17-2019 06:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-17-2019 01:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Not at the FBS level. an FBS conference has to have 8 full members, members who play basketball in that conference.

As the cost of payday games continues to rise I wouldn't bet on that being a rule carved into stone. Creating a larger FBS division creates more competition for said games which drives down the costs.

Not to mention the fact that there's several "marriage by necessity" conferences that could perhaps see a benefit from shedding some of their outpost schools in football while keeping their basketball lineup intact. It's one thing to fly your hoops teams halfway across the continent, it's another to fly your football team and have to ship all of your equipment halfway across the continent.

The current rule stabilizes G5 conferences. Permitting football-only conferences in FBS (which is already permitted in FCS) introduces a risk of fracturing the existing conferences.

It may happen eventually, but there will be resistance if it is seriously proposed.

That rule would have zero chance in court based on history.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Well say this makes zero sense for a UMass or Liberty especially as we have been fine scheduling. Why the heck would we want the competition for more independents going after the same teams we schedule. If being in a conference was a Number 1 priority, we'd be in the MAC today. Will see what happens in the 6 years, but plan B has to be a football only with a conference as CUSA, which would not be giving up a lot of money for two more teams.

UConn will be fine with time scheduling as well and can not comment on NMSU.

(10-18-2019 01:19 PM)panama Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 01:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-17-2019 06:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-17-2019 01:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Not at the FBS level. an FBS conference has to have 8 full members, members who play basketball in that conference.

As the cost of payday games continues to rise I wouldn't bet on that being a rule carved into stone. Creating a larger FBS division creates more competition for said games which drives down the costs.

Not to mention the fact that there's several "marriage by necessity" conferences that could perhaps see a benefit from shedding some of their outpost schools in football while keeping their basketball lineup intact. It's one thing to fly your hoops teams halfway across the continent, it's another to fly your football team and have to ship all of your equipment halfway across the continent.

The current rule stabilizes G5 conferences. Permitting football-only conferences in FBS (which is already permitted in FCS) introduces a risk of fracturing the existing conferences.

It may happen eventually, but there will be resistance if it is seriously proposed.

That rule would have zero chance in court based on history.

What would be challenged in court? The rules don't actually *prohibit* a group of teams from calling themselves a football-only FBS conference. It's more that, in order to have the status and voting rights of an FBS conference, you have to have at least 8 full members that play football in the conference. A conference that doesn't meet that would have the same Division I status as every other D-I conference that doesn't sponsor football.

For example, if CUSA members split football into two 7-team "football only conferences", then CUSA would become a no-football D-I conference. The members of those FBS "football only conferences" would presumably be treated as FBS football independents under the rules. And, presumably, each would only receive an independent's share of CFP money instead of dividing the money each G5 conference gets now, and none would be eligible to be chosen for the G5 place in the CFP bowl games.

(10-17-2019 12:31 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Although Liberty got around it by threatening to sue the pants off the NCAA, there is still a rule in place prohibiting programs from moving up to FBS without a conference invite.

If they could get Army on board, UConn, UMass, and Liberty would be in position to form a new conference if they could get some move-ups. The problem is that they would struggle to have enough full members to sustain a conference, since Army, UConn, nor UMass would agree to move Olympic sports to that conference.

I'm not sure what the rule situation is re: a FB-only conference at the FBS level like the MVFC is in FCS. If that is possible, then sure, that might be something down the road if the new conference could get into the NY6 agreement with the current G5 (forming a G6).

Army doesn't have any problems scheduling. Also, they could be in a conference, if they wanted. No reason for them to help form a new conference.

(10-18-2019 01:59 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 01:19 PM)panama Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 01:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-17-2019 06:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-17-2019 01:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Not at the FBS level. an FBS conference has to have 8 full members, members who play basketball in that conference.

As the cost of payday games continues to rise I wouldn't bet on that being a rule carved into stone. Creating a larger FBS division creates more competition for said games which drives down the costs.

Not to mention the fact that there's several "marriage by necessity" conferences that could perhaps see a benefit from shedding some of their outpost schools in football while keeping their basketball lineup intact. It's one thing to fly your hoops teams halfway across the continent, it's another to fly your football team and have to ship all of your equipment halfway across the continent.

The current rule stabilizes G5 conferences. Permitting football-only conferences in FBS (which is already permitted in FCS) introduces a risk of fracturing the existing conferences.

It may happen eventually, but there will be resistance if it is seriously proposed.

That rule would have zero chance in court based on history.

What would be challenged in court? The rules don't actually *prohibit* a group of teams from calling themselves a football-only FBS conference. It's more that, in order to have the status and voting rights of an FBS conference, you have to have at least 8 full members that play football in the conference. A conference that doesn't meet that would have the same Division I status as every other D-I conference that doesn't sponsor football.

For example, if CUSA members split football into two 7-team "football only conferences", then CUSA would become a no-football D-I conference. The members of those FBS "football only conferences" would presumably be treated as FBS football independents under the rules. And, presumably, each would only receive an independent's share of CFP money instead of dividing the money each G5 conference gets now, and none would be eligible to be chosen for the G5 place in the CFP bowl games.

Makes sense. I still have to go back and look at how CAA football was formed because it's essentially a separate entity from the CAA proper.



Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(10-18-2019 01:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 12:43 PM)panama Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 04:40 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(10-17-2019 06:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-17-2019 01:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Not at the FBS level. an FBS conference has to have 8 full members, members who play basketball in that conference.

As the cost of payday games continues to rise I wouldn't bet on that being a rule carved into stone. Creating a larger FBS division creates more competition for said games which drives down the costs.

Not to mention the fact that there's several "marriage by necessity" conferences that could perhaps see a benefit from shedding some of their outpost schools in football while keeping their basketball lineup intact. It's one thing to fly your hoops teams halfway across the continent, it's another to fly your football team and have to ship all of your equipment halfway across the continent.

With laws being passed for pay for play, adding schools to FBS could help football scheduling be simpler for travel cost. Minnesota, Nebraska and Iowa schools could have more schools to move up like North Dakota State, South Dakota State, Northern Iowa and Southern Illinois. Others could move up. The FCS California schools and Northern Arizona could fill schedules in football. Wyoming may need both Montana and Montana State to help with their fiances. The Montana schools would fit the higher academics of the MWC then they did with the WAC. Montana used to be with Utah, BYU, Utah State, Colorado State and Wyoming. I think New Mexico was part of this group.

...and now it's a ridiculous party

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Those rules will discourage anyone from moving up. I suspect FCS will remain schools who want to do less.

With pay for play laws being passed by states and in the feds? The rules will make them unlikely to escape the laws. NAIA's Menlo will have to follow the same laws as UCLA. Break MWC into two, and you could have MWC be Rocky Mountain schools and Big Sky would be west coast schools. I could see the rest of the west coast schools that have football part of this. You could then have something like Big Sky sponsoring both FBS and FCS just like MWC. D3 schools could be Pioneer MWC and Pioneer Big Sky. As it is, the NCAA voting panel consist of schools from D1, D2 and D3. They all voted on these rules that governed at all 3 levels.

(10-18-2019 09:13 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 01:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 12:43 PM)panama Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 04:40 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(10-17-2019 06:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  As the cost of payday games continues to rise I wouldn't bet on that being a rule carved into stone. Creating a larger FBS division creates more competition for said games which drives down the costs.

Not to mention the fact that there's several "marriage by necessity" conferences that could perhaps see a benefit from shedding some of their outpost schools in football while keeping their basketball lineup intact. It's one thing to fly your hoops teams halfway across the continent, it's another to fly your football team and have to ship all of your equipment halfway across the continent.

With laws being passed for pay for play, adding schools to FBS could help football scheduling be simpler for travel cost. Minnesota, Nebraska and Iowa schools could have more schools to move up like North Dakota State, South Dakota State, Northern Iowa and Southern Illinois. Others could move up. The FCS California schools and Northern Arizona could fill schedules in football. Wyoming may need both Montana and Montana State to help with their fiances. The Montana schools would fit the higher academics of the MWC then they did with the WAC. Montana used to be with Utah, BYU, Utah State, Colorado State and Wyoming. I think New Mexico was part of this group.

...and now it's a ridiculous party

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Those rules will discourage anyone from moving up. I suspect FCS will remain schools who want to do less.

With pay for play laws being passed by states and in the feds? The rules will make them unlikely to escape the laws. NAIA's Menlo will have to follow the same laws as UCLA. Break MWC into two, and you could have MWC be Rocky Mountain schools and Big Sky would be west coast schools. I could see the rest of the west coast schools that have football part of this. You could then have something like Big Sky sponsoring both FBS and FCS just like MWC. D3 schools could be Pioneer MWC and Pioneer Big Sky. As it is, the NCAA voting panel consist of schools from D1, D2 and D3. They all voted on these rules that governed at all 3 levels.

Wut?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

The current band of FBS indies, sans ND, BYU, and Army, would never be able to form an actual conference due to the NCAA rules requiring 8 full members of the Olympic league participating in the fb league. Anything they formed would be a scheduling alliance in the eyes of the NCAA but I can’t see why they couldn’t thumb their noses at the NCAA, negotiate a joint media contract, name conference players of the week, host a media day, award a conference championship (albeit without a CCG), etc.

(10-18-2019 09:41 PM)panama Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 09:13 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 01:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 12:43 PM)panama Wrote:  

(10-18-2019 04:40 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  With laws being passed for pay for play, adding schools to FBS could help football scheduling be simpler for travel cost. Minnesota, Nebraska and Iowa schools could have more schools to move up like North Dakota State, South Dakota State, Northern Iowa and Southern Illinois. Others could move up. The FCS California schools and Northern Arizona could fill schedules in football. Wyoming may need both Montana and Montana State to help with their fiances. The Montana schools would fit the higher academics of the MWC then they did with the WAC. Montana used to be with Utah, BYU, Utah State, Colorado State and Wyoming. I think New Mexico was part of this group.

...and now it's a ridiculous party

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Those rules will discourage anyone from moving up. I suspect FCS will remain schools who want to do less.

With pay for play laws being passed by states and in the feds? The rules will make them unlikely to escape the laws. NAIA's Menlo will have to follow the same laws as UCLA. Break MWC into two, and you could have MWC be Rocky Mountain schools and Big Sky would be west coast schools. I could see the rest of the west coast schools that have football part of this. You could then have something like Big Sky sponsoring both FBS and FCS just like MWC. D3 schools could be Pioneer MWC and Pioneer Big Sky. As it is, the NCAA voting panel consist of schools from D1, D2 and D3. They all voted on these rules that governed at all 3 levels.

Wut?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(10-17-2019 11:23 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Call me crazy, but if I’m an AD at UMass, UConn, Liberty, or NMSU I’m going to be out there trying to convince 3 FCS programs to join FBS as independents.

Here is why that makes sense; I’ll use JMU, Delaware, and Stony Brook for my example:

the 3 new comers and 4 aforementioned FBS schools enter a scheduling agreement that would give each school 3 Home games and 3 Away games annually.

This would mean that each of those 7 schools would only need to host 1 additional FBS school, 1 FCS school, and find 4 more opponents, Home or Away (with only 3 being FBS), to be in NCAA scheduling compliance.

This scheduling alliance could probably manage to get a bowl tie in or 2. Maybe NMSU can host the Las Cruces Bowl.

If they ever got an 8th member they could technically be a conference but would need an actual conference to be affiliated with.

This is something similar to what poster NoDak has been hinting at for more than two years.

My thinking would be for the ASUN to keep the current 9 members plus Bellarmine.

Stoney Brook, Albany, Delaware, James Madison, Eastern Kentucky, and Jacksonville State all get together at the same time to approach the ASUN about being members. The ASUN accepts them and then those 6 schools plus Kennesaw State announce that their football is going FBS and will play an independent schedule. Those teams would try to schedule Mostly teams from the SunBelt and MAC Conferences plus play themselves.

After 2 years, Those 7 schools plus Liberty would make the ASUN have 8 schools playing an independent FBS schedule. Then the ASUN could petition the NCAA to become an FBS Conference. Then Massachusetts and Connecticut could become Affiliate Members.

Most likely it would be veto by the Current FBS Conferences, but you’ll never know until that time comes.

Time is of the essence, because those 7 FCS teams would need time to leave their current Conference and play two years as independents plus the ASUN becoming an fully qualified FBS before the 2025 - 2026 Season.

The ASUN currently is AQ is other sports, so this isn’t like a complete new conference.

For basketball there would be a total of 16 teams.
Have two completely separate divisions, During the season those teams don’t play teams from the opposite division. At the end of the season either take the top 4 or top 2 from each separate division and play for the Conference Championship.

According to the Rules the ASUN only has 6 current members that would satisfy the rules for another Non-AQ Conference not the required number of 7. That is the reason for the ASUN to keep their current members. North Alabama still play FCS in the Big South for the time being.

(10-18-2019 10:07 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The current band of FBS indies, sans ND, BYU, and Army, would never be able to form an actual conference due to the NCAA rules requiring 8 full members of the Olympic league participating in the fb league. Anything they formed would be a scheduling alliance in the eyes of the NCAA but I can’t see why they couldn’t thumb their noses at the NCAA, negotiate a joint media contract, name conference players of the week, host a media day, award a conference championship (albeit without a CCG), etc.

Call themselves the P6 conference .

(10-18-2019 03:34 PM)panama Wrote:  Makes sense. I still have to go back and look at how CAA football was formed because it's essentially a separate entity from the CAA proper.



Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

It was formed from the Yankee Conference when was told a football only conference was no longer allowed. The A10 reluctantly took over the Yankee Conference and allowed it to go to CAA after the CAA invite Northeastern and Hofstra from the American East and Richmond that had joined the A10 was allowed to be the swing vote and voted to have football go to the CAA.

UMass was very successful in the Yankee Conference, especially under Dick McPherson. McPherson left UMass for Syracuse when UMass elected to stay with the Yankee Conference instead of staying 1-A during the split in the late 70's to 1-AA.


Season Conference Overall record Conference record
1960† Yankee Conference 7–2 3–1
1963 Yankee Conference 8–0–1 5–0
1964 Yankee Conference 8–2 5–0
1966 Yankee Conference 6–3 5–0
1967 Yankee Conference 7–2 5–0
1969 Yankee Conference 6–3 5–0
1971† Yankee Conference 4–4–1 3–1–1
1972 Yankee Conference 9–2 5–0
1974† Yankee Conference 5–6 4–2
1977 Yankee Conference 8–3 5–0
1978 Yankee Conference 9–4 5–0
1979† Yankee Conference 6–4 4–1
1981† Yankee Conference 6–3 4–1
1982† Yankee Conference 5–6 3–2
1986† Yankee Conference 8–3 5–2
1988† Yankee Conference 8–4 6–2
1990 Yankee Conference 8–2–1 7–1
1998† Atlantic 10 Conference 12–3 6–2
1999† Atlantic 10 Conference 9–4 7–1
2003† Atlantic 10 Conference 10–3 8–1
2006 Atlantic 10 Conference 13–2 8–0
2007† Colonial Athletic Association 10–3 7–1
† Co-champions`