(12-10-2022 06:48 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  There is enough talent to supplement a handful more schools based on NFL players. Very few play for these specific teams though. If every player was ranked their sophomore year, there'd be enough talent for about 80 solid teams. After the 3 star drop off to 2 and Un rated, it's very developmental. The MAC id argue isn't heavy on FBS caliber players. There's enough spread out, but we saw two of our own bowl teams lose to upper half FCS teams. Luckily Toledo plays the bad ones, so we never pull a BG.

Before the Div 1 split in 1976, the only time Toledo played at UMass McGuirk, the Rockets lost 14 to 28 to UMass.

http://www.winsipedia.com/games/toledo/vs/umass

(12-09-2022 10:51 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ources-say

Wonder if this will actually come to fruition.

I predict this TBD conference will pass the MAC within 3 years of moving to FBS.

Not surprisingly, this league is made up of schools out west and down south. Interesting how FCS schools in the Midwest and Northeast are rarely in the conversation of moving up to FBS. But then again, West and South are where the populations are growing. Buffalo kinda feels like an anomaly over the past couple decades.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=New...ORM=HDRSC3

(12-09-2022 11:18 AM)eku05 Wrote:  I'm excited about this possibility. It's unorthodox, but I think a lot of schools were getting tired of being at the mercy of whether or not enough institutions would vote to invite them. This is at least an attempt to write our own story. I hope to see some home and home series with MAC schools a few years down the road.

If CUSA goes belly up, and WKU wants in the new conference, are you going to block them?

(12-11-2022 02:17 PM)AllBronco Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 11:18 AM)eku05 Wrote:  I'm excited about this possibility. It's unorthodox, but I think a lot of schools were getting tired of being at the mercy of whether or not enough institutions would vote to invite them. This is at least an attempt to write our own story. I hope to see some home and home series with MAC schools a few years down the road.

If CUSA goes belly up, and WKU wants in the new conference, are you going to block them?

No, but I'd delay it by a year or two after we invite Kennesaw State first. As the WKU president said...it's all about enrollment and markets right? :)

(12-11-2022 03:55 PM)eku05 Wrote:  

(12-11-2022 02:17 PM)AllBronco Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 11:18 AM)eku05 Wrote:  I'm excited about this possibility. It's unorthodox, but I think a lot of schools were getting tired of being at the mercy of whether or not enough institutions would vote to invite them. This is at least an attempt to write our own story. I hope to see some home and home series with MAC schools a few years down the road.

If CUSA goes belly up, and WKU wants in the new conference, are you going to block them?

No, but I'd delay it by a year or two after we invite Kennesaw State first. As the WKU president said...it's all about enrollment and markets right? :)

(12-11-2022 03:55 PM)eku05 Wrote:  

(12-11-2022 02:17 PM)AllBronco Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 11:18 AM)eku05 Wrote:  I'm excited about this possibility. It's unorthodox, but I think a lot of schools were getting tired of being at the mercy of whether or not enough institutions would vote to invite them. This is at least an attempt to write our own story. I hope to see some home and home series with MAC schools a few years down the road.

If CUSA goes belly up, and WKU wants in the new conference, are you going to block them?

No, but I'd delay it by a year or two after we invite Kennesaw State first. As the WKU president said...it's all about enrollment and markets right? :)

Few thoughts from an EKU fan’s perspective. First of all, thanks for your first class reactions. No belittling of the schools wanting to take this giant leap, and it is a big one. Established programs from the MAC talking rationally, and even if you think it is too big of a jump and will be a major struggle, I’ve not seen any evidence of insults and put downs. It is amazing on the SunBelt Board and C-USA the belittling that’s going on. And speaking of EKU, most were either our former conference mates or we went toe to toe with them in the past. How quickly they forget their humble beginnings. Even JSU and Kennesaw State who have only recently been extended and invite to CUSA questioning how EKU can possibly make a move. Goes without saying hearing the same from many WKU fans.
The second part of this, and if I had my choice, I would like to see EKU in the MAC. Obvious reasons are the established universities and their athletic programs and conference affiliation. The footprint is so obvious it hurts! Maybe there’s still a bit of hope, but looks less so everyday. But who knows where all this is headed?
If nothing else this giant leap of faith EKU is taking should show the seriousness of our athletic department and administration. I would argue we are the most prepared and determined to make this work one way or another.

I would be very happy with some OOC hone and home series with MAC schools.

We have some aggressive FBS scheduling for future schedules. Next year we play both Cincinnati and UK. 24 has Mississippi St and WKU. 25 UofL. 26 Ole Miss. 27 Vandy.

(12-09-2022 12:56 PM)inductchuck16 Wrote:  Hate this. We don't need anymore teams in the FBS. It's just more mouths to feed at the table while none of those schools move the needle. Are there really that many players good enough for FBS competition? I don't think so. This would just water down the competition even more.

Agreed, don't need any more mouths to feed, will only water down the G5. No thanks.

(12-12-2022 09:30 AM)NIUfilmmaker Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 12:56 PM)inductchuck16 Wrote:  Hate this. We don't need anymore teams in the FBS. It's just more mouths to feed at the table while none of those schools move the needle. Are there really that many players good enough for FBS competition? I don't think so. This would just water down the competition even more.

Agreed, don't need any more mouths to feed, will only water down the G5. No thanks.

Yep we see what sun belt has dine to the MAC now another conference will form stealing more recruits that may have gone to the MAC. Winners again are the p5

(12-12-2022 09:34 AM)cmufanatic Wrote:  

(12-12-2022 09:30 AM)NIUfilmmaker Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 12:56 PM)inductchuck16 Wrote:  Hate this. We don't need anymore teams in the FBS. It's just more mouths to feed at the table while none of those schools move the needle. Are there really that many players good enough for FBS competition? I don't think so. This would just water down the competition even more.

Agreed, don't need any more mouths to feed, will only water down the G5. No thanks.

Yep we see what sun belt has dine to the MAC now another conference will form stealing more recruits that may have gone to the MAC. Winners again are the p5

Yes, it also would likely lower payouts for guarantee games. Right now there is a finite supply of G5 schools for P5 schools to schedule in an effort to pad their win total. The more G5 there are, the less leverage MAC schools have in negotiating a fair price. Particularly because I don't see this new conference really trying to compete. Most of those schools will just try to schedule 3 P5 per year as what they're really after is a check.

(12-12-2022 10:05 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(12-12-2022 09:34 AM)cmufanatic Wrote:  

(12-12-2022 09:30 AM)NIUfilmmaker Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 12:56 PM)inductchuck16 Wrote:  Hate this. We don't need anymore teams in the FBS. It's just more mouths to feed at the table while none of those schools move the needle. Are there really that many players good enough for FBS competition? I don't think so. This would just water down the competition even more.

Agreed, don't need any more mouths to feed, will only water down the G5. No thanks.

Yep we see what sun belt has dine to the MAC now another conference will form stealing more recruits that may have gone to the MAC. Winners again are the p5

Yes, it also would likely lower payouts for guarantee games. Right now there is a finite supply of G5 schools for P5 schools to schedule in an effort to pad their win total. The more G5 there are, the less leverage MAC schools have in negotiating a fair price. Particularly because I don't see this new conference really trying to compete. Most of those schools will just try to schedule 3 P5 per year as what they're really after is a check.

Yep absolutely correct and with MAC trending down its going to be really difficult I think to get a nice pay increase.

Here's the interesting thing. If you guys think this is bad for the MAC you can absolutely limit the damage. If the MAC invited two teams and C-USA invited four (getting both leagues to 14 schools), this plan would be dead in the water. It would water down the pool some, but not as much. You would at least get something out of it if you choose wisely.

I think ultimately you ended up with a group of schools that were tired of other schools having the power to gatekeep them out of FBS. We were only going to sit there and "accept our fate" for so long.

The G5 universities are already hemorrhaging money in football and an entire division of FCS teams are signing up for it. That's a decision.

(12-12-2022 12:49 PM)eku05 Wrote:  Here's the interesting thing. If you guys think this is bad for the MAC you can absolutely limit the damage. If the MAC invited two teams and C-USA invited four (getting both leagues to 14 schools), this plan would be dead in the water. It would water down the pool some, but not as much. You would at least get something out of it if you choose wisely.

I think ultimately you ended up with a group of schools that were tired of other schools having the power to gatekeep them out of FBS. We were only going to sit there and "accept our fate" for so long.

No thanks, that would just mean we'd have to split our TV deal, NCAA tournament credits, and other conference revenue more ways. The MAC really isn't the ones gateskeeping. It's the P5 calling the shots and giving the G5 scraps to fight over. If it was advantageous financially for the MAC to add 2 FCS schools to get to 14 teams, they already would have done it by adding a school like James Madison and pairing them with a Charlotte or Appalachian State.

Quote:No thanks, that would just mean we'd have to split our TV deal, NCAA tournament credits, and other conference revenue more ways. The MAC really isn't the ones gateskeeping. It's the P5 calling the shots and giving the G5 scraps to fight over. If it was advantageous financially for the MAC to add 2 FCS schools to get to 14 teams, they already would have done it by adding a school like James Madison and pairing them with a Charlotte or Appalachian State.

I think that's oversimplifying it a bit. The reality is that most of the G5 shouldn't really be in the same "subdivision" as the P5 to begin with (from a competitive standpoint), but the P5 allows it, and the G5 goes for it because there's enough in it promotionally to continue a relationship that doesn't make sense competitively.

The P5 doesn't have a problem with more G5s. In fact, it would work to their advantage on multiple levels already discussed in this thread. It's obviously your prerogative to pass on expanding (and part of me longs for the days when smaller conferences were the norm), but if you make that choice I'm not sure it's reasonable to complain when the schools that want in find another way.

Your whole thing about "would have already done it" is based on the false premise that there isn't another way in. In other words, you don't have to split any more at all if you don't specifically choose to. That may prove to not be as true as G5 conferences were feeling assured it was.

TL: DR

You don't owe us the favor of letting us in. We don't owe you the favor of staying out.

(12-12-2022 02:47 PM)eku05 Wrote:  

Quote:No thanks, that would just mean we'd have to split our TV deal, NCAA tournament credits, and other conference revenue more ways. The MAC really isn't the ones gateskeeping. It's the P5 calling the shots and giving the G5 scraps to fight over. If it was advantageous financially for the MAC to add 2 FCS schools to get to 14 teams, they already would have done it by adding a school like James Madison and pairing them with a Charlotte or Appalachian State.

I think that's oversimplifying it a bit. The reality is that most of the G5 shouldn't really be in the same "subdivision" as the P5 to begin with (from a competitive standpoint), but the P5 allows it, and the G5 goes for it because there's enough in it promotionally to continue a relationship that doesn't make sense competitively.

The P5 doesn't have a problem with more G5s. In fact, it would work to their advantage on multiple levels already discussed in this thread. It's obviously your prerogative to pass on expanding (and part of me longs for the days when smaller conferences were the norm), but if you make that choice I'm not sure it's reasonable to complain when the schools that want in find another way.

Your whole thing about "would have already done it" is based on the false premise that there isn't another way in. In other words, you don't have to split any more at all if you don't specifically choose to. That may prove to not be as true as G5 conferences were feeling assured it was.

TL: DR

You don't owe us the favor of letting us in. We don't owe you the favor of staying out.

Schools already have a way in if they want it bad enough. Liberty joined the FBS by going independent. The G5 isn't blocking anyone from joining. Frankly, they never had the power to as FBS is run by the P5. We're just stating the obvious that further expansion will keep diluting the product. Those schools are free to do as the choose.

I'm not sure why you're so concerned about what MAC fans think.

NCAA sets the requirements for FBS conferences, and if they meet the requirements, they have every right to form their FBS conference. Frankly, I think they have a good idea. I like their creativity.

Quote:Schools already have a way in if they want it bad enough. Liberty joined the FBS by going independent. The G5 isn't blocking anyone from joining. Frankly, they never had the power to as FBS is run by the P5. We're just stating the obvious that further expansion will keep diluting the product. Those schools are free to do as the choose.

I'm not sure why you're so concerned about what MAC fans think.

It's just a discussion board, and I'm giving my thoughts. That's all, my friend.

But as to the specifics of your first paragraph:

There is still technically a rule against doing it as an independent. Liberty got a waiver due to their unique financial situation (READ: Threat of a well-funded lawsuit). Now, you could argue that they broke through the gate and anyone else could follow, and they may technically be true.

However, even if it would technically be allowed, it wouldn't be a smart idea. Liberty is truly unique, and no other FCS school has the resources they do. Scheduling would be tough, and finances would be tougher. So, we're working on finding another way.

My only point was that the MAC and C-USA could probably limit the dilution damage if they wanted to. I don't expect them to (at least not the MAC), so I'm assuming this plan will go forward for now. There are plenty of hurdles left to clear, but I'm cautiously optimistic.

(12-12-2022 08:34 PM)eku05 Wrote:  ... so I'm assuming this plan will go forward for now. ...

Note that at present it's a plan to adopt a goal to develop a plan.

There does seem to be a clear path, which is for those schools that are in the WAC to be invited to step up to FBS when ready, and those not in the WAC to be given a bona-fide invitation to join the WAC as an FBS school. That uses the rule cited in the article itself.

At one time, this would have been trickier, because games against a transitioning school meeting FBS schedule rules counted as an FBS game for schools already in FBS, but did not count as an FBS game for a transitioning school. But that distinction seems to have been removed, make it much easier for a group to be invited up at once, meeting FBS schedule requirements mostly by playing each other.

Then if the WAC meets the requirements of being an FBS conference by virtue of having eight core members covering the sports requirement, they apply for that status to be recognize by the NCAA.

The fact that the participants are passing around the spin that there is no path and so a path needs to be sorted out suggests that they want to step up but would rather not follow the path that presently exist in the rulebook.

One challenge is that even the "paid attendance" approach to meeting the 15,000 attendance requirement does need something around 15,000 seats in your stadium, even if many are being bought by a sponsor to let you meet paid attendance rules. So facilities upgraded would be the first order of business in sorting out a group of eight schools ready to make the step up.

I presume that ESPN would be happy to give them an ESPN+ / September #WACtion broadcast deal, to match their Octber #CUSAction and November #MACtion.

Quote:The reality is that most of the G5 shouldn't really be in the same "subdivision" as the P5 to begin with (from a competitive standpoint), but the P5 allows it, and the G5 goes for it because there's enough in it promotionally to continue a relationship that doesn't make sense competitively.

As said before, it's the NCAA that Sets it that way. It's better for the G5s. But things are always going to be wonky. I mean, P5 conferences with TOO MANY teams is one of them (for conference-TV-channel $$).

The other issue is, with 95% of the G5s having their own sub-division, then you have *3* D1 sub-divisions for college football. Geezus. That's not good. Not going to happen. So yeah, there's going to be imbalance. You can say the same for D1AA/FCS, most certainly there's an imbalance within, is there not? :) So you'd just be Adding More to that end if keeping 2 sub-divisions. Just piling it onto one of them.

The best balance would require 3. But that's wack; won't happen. 3 post-season schemes?

IMO, this would be the best for the best balance (fantasy, not going to happen):

- 3 sub-divisions D1A, D1AA, D1AAA (highest to lowest).
- Take the best G5s and put 12 of them in 1 conference in D1A (FBS). Remember that Cinci, Houston, BYU are going to B12 already anyway.
- Take the rest of G5s and put them in D1AA (FCS), along with 3-4 best conferences in FCS.
- Take the rest ie the most of the FCS and put them in D1AAA.
- D1A cannot play D1AAA (won't count at all toward # of wins; not even for a tie-breaker for an open bowl slot)
- D1A can only play 2 games against D1AA (otherwise won't count at all toward # of wins; not even for a tie-breaker)
- D1AA cannot play more than 1 game against D1AAA (a 2nd would count toward # wins but not for post-season, except as a possible tie-breaker)

- D1A has a 12-team playoff, as is set for in immediate future. They'll have 6 Conferences now, so no "G5" auto-entry, just any conf-champ auto-entries. They still have bowls, but fewer, obviously.
- D1AA has an 8-team playoff. The rest with 9W+ or division/conf champs can enter D1A bowl open slots, and will override any D1A team at .500 or less, if one of their wins includes a D1A team; also exist bowls for D1AA based on estimated amt of teams who would have 8W+ year-to-year.
- D1AAA has an 8-team playoff. The rest with 9W+ or division/conf champs can enter D1AA bowl openings; no bowls exist here

So basically, you still keep a few Top "G5" (D1AA) teams playing in a few "P5" (D1A) bowls, but who have 9W. Otherwise, bowls for the D1AA would pretty much require 8W, although on shortages, a few 7-5's could show thru (not 5-7s!).

And D1AAA would just have their playoff but not any bowls. But they could, on 9W jump into the D1AA open bowl selection.