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.

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).

(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).

I believe you can have a football only conference but I could be wrong.

(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.

It's not up to the FCS schools. The rules say you need an invitation from an FBS conference. Liberty got a waiver because they could prove both A) they had the financial commitment to secure an FBS schedule, throwing money around to get games scheduled and B) a pretty good case in court that Liberty was kept out of FBS (and out of every FBS conference) for religious reasons, namely that public school administrators see Liberty as a huckstering bunch of snakehandling neanderthals, with a thick file of public comments supporting it.

So yes, UMass would love to see more eastern FBS indies. It's not up to UMass.

(10-17-2019 12:46 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  I believe you can have a football only conference but I could be wrong.

Not at the FBS level. an FBS conference has to have 8 full members, members who play basketball in that conference.

(10-17-2019 01:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(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.

It's not up to the FCS schools. The rules say you need an invitation from an FBS conference. Liberty got a waiver because they could prove both A) they had the financial commitment to secure an FBS schedule, throwing money around to get games scheduled and B) a pretty good case in court that Liberty was kept out of FBS (and out of every FBS conference) for religious reasons, namely that public school administrators see Liberty as a huckstering bunch of snakehandling neanderthals, with a thick file of public comments supporting it.

So yes, UMass would love to see more eastern FBS indies. It's not up to UMass.

(10-17-2019 12:46 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  I believe you can have a football only conference but I could be wrong.

Not at the FBS level. 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.

Army is going to want scheduling flexibility and would probably prefer to not be a full member but would probably be open to playing some of the FBS Indy Conference schools.

If a football only conference will fly with the NCAA then all they have to do is say they are founding members of the East Atlantic Football Conference.

I believe that if in their petition to the NCAA if they can demonstrate their a conference/ scheduling alliance is in place and they will be able to meet scheduling requirements the NCAA will be compelled to let them in. Liberty set a precedent—they can’t go back in that now.

If they absolutely need an all sports conference to be affiliated with they could claim affiliation with CAA or the A-Sun. If the A-Sun is the host then Kennesaw St might jump in the game.

(10-17-2019 01:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(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.

It's not up to the FCS schools. The rules say you need an invitation from an FBS conference. Liberty got a waiver because they could prove both A) they had the financial commitment to secure an FBS schedule, throwing money around to get games scheduled and B) a pretty good case in court that Liberty was kept out of FBS (and out of every FBS conference) for religious reasons, namely that public school administrators see Liberty as a huckstering bunch of snakehandling neanderthals, with a thick file of public comments supporting it.

So yes, UMass would love to see more eastern FBS indies. It's not up to UMass.

(10-17-2019 12:46 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  I believe you can have a football only conference but I could be wrong.

Not at the FBS level. an FBS conference has to have 8 full members, members who play basketball in that conference.

If you left out NMSU, I would imagine KSU, UNA, JSU, JMU, would maybe do it. Would love to see FGCU start a program and get in the mix as well.

(10-17-2019 02:05 PM)lion1983 Wrote:  

(10-17-2019 01:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(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.

It's not up to the FCS schools. The rules say you need an invitation from an FBS conference. Liberty got a waiver because they could prove both A) they had the financial commitment to secure an FBS schedule, throwing money around to get games scheduled and B) a pretty good case in court that Liberty was kept out of FBS (and out of every FBS conference) for religious reasons, namely that public school administrators see Liberty as a huckstering bunch of snakehandling neanderthals, with a thick file of public comments supporting it.

So yes, UMass would love to see more eastern FBS indies. It's not up to UMass.

(10-17-2019 12:46 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  I believe you can have a football only conference but I could be wrong.

Not at the FBS level. an FBS conference has to have 8 full members, members who play basketball in that conference.

If you left out NMSU, I would imagine KSU, UNA, JSU, JMU, would maybe do it. Would love to see FGCU start a program and get in the mix as well.

And if you could find a few more schools, you could have a North South division conference.

(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.

Create a "football league" like the CAA only at the FBS level.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

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

(10-17-2019 01:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(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.

It's not up to the FCS schools. The rules say you need an invitation from an FBS conference. Liberty got a waiver because they could prove both A) they had the financial commitment to secure an FBS schedule, throwing money around to get games scheduled and B) a pretty good case in court that Liberty was kept out of FBS (and out of every FBS conference) for religious reasons, namely that public school administrators see Liberty as a huckstering bunch of snakehandling neanderthals, with a thick file of public comments supporting it.

So yes, UMass would love to see more eastern FBS indies. It's not up to UMass.

(10-17-2019 12:46 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  I believe you can have a football only conference but I could be wrong.

Not at the FBS level. 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.

Move up? They already play Div I Olympic Sports right? Look to the CAA model.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(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.

(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.

I don't think any of them want to schedule that way. UConn, UMass, Army can all get plenty of regional teams and supplement with the other indies-BYU, NMSU, Liberty.

LOL, I just figured it out.*

UConn is going to get the Big East to sponsor FB again, but it'll be UConn + 7 FB-only schools.

(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.

(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.

(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.

I disagree. The existing FBS conferences have almost all of the CFP revenue to themselves and I see minimal incentive for them to support a rule change that would make it easier to create new FBS conferences that would come looking for a share of that money. In fact the rule changes over the past few years have further discouraged new FBS conference creation, e.g. by not only requiring such a conference to have eight all-sports members but also requiring it to exist for eight years before qualifying for an NCAA basketball tournament auto bid.

(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.

(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.

(10-18-2019 06:16 AM)HawaiiMongoose 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.

I disagree. The existing FBS conferences have almost all of the CFP revenue to themselves and I see minimal incentive for them to support a rule change that would make it easier to create new FBS conferences that would come looking for a share of that money. In fact the rule changes over the past few years have further discouraged new FBS conference creation, e.g. by not only requiring such a conference to have eight all-sports members but also requiring it to exist for eight years before qualifying for an NCAA basketball tournament auto bid.

The current system was developed under circumstances that no longer exist. There are forces at play that will result in a paradigm shift in the way that FBS schools do business from top to bottom. It's a fool's errand to think that just because it's done like this now it's going to continue to be done like this. Eventually someone with some power in the FBS world is going to look at a schedule like this year and say "Why do we have two conferences essentially sharing the same footprint and have teams virtually passing each other flying cross continent to play football? Wouldn't it be more economical to regionalize the most expensive sport?"

(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