I think it should, the FBS is diluted enough as it is.

No. And based on what?

That's cute, coming from someone from a school that only recently was able to move up to Div1A status. Now is concerned about diluting the product.

Any team/conference that meets the requirements for FBS should not be restricted from moving up, or staying there. also, the BCS should be destroyed, and have a playoff without the arbitrary glass ceiling.

Other recommendations:
limit scholarships to 70, a reduction from 85.
realign conferences to be purely regional to promote rivalry, and reduce travel costs.
No credit for playing FCS teams when determining bowl eligibility

No conference or school will ever be FORCED down. That is why the NCAA re-wrote the rule to allow an FBS conference to pay with 6 members. Think of it this way, if they wanted to force anyone down they could have years ago by enforcing the 15k attendance rule. Also it's pretty disingenuous for someone whose school just happens to be on the upswing to be stating who they think should be forced down. I can still remember when you guys were rivals of ours and when UCF sports was nothing special.

(04-08-2011 08:14 AM)panama Wrote:  No conference or school will ever be FORCED down.

Tell that to the schools forced down in 1978.

No

(04-08-2011 08:14 AM)panama Wrote:  No conference or school will ever be FORCED down. That is why the NCAA re-wrote the rule to allow an FBS conference to pay with 6 members. Think of it this way, if they wanted to force anyone down they could have years ago by enforcing the 15k attendance rule. Also it's pretty disingenuous for someone whose school just happens to be on the upswing to be stating who they think should be forced down. I can still remember when you guys were rivals of ours and when UCF sports was nothing special.

They are going to have to rewrite the rules because they will only have three FBS members.

(04-08-2011 08:16 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(04-08-2011 08:14 AM)panama Wrote:  No conference or school will ever be FORCED down.

Tell that to the schools forced down in 1978.

This, the difference between then and now is that the NCAA actually enforced their rules. The rules are already in place to move declassify what's left of the conference. The NCAA is getting good at ignoring their own rules just check out Ohio State and half of the SEC with this pay for play. Interesting that the same fans who are up in arms about the NCAA ignoring those rules are the same fans who would have the NCAA ignore the NCAA minimum FBS attendance standards and the requirements of maintaining FBS conference status.

(04-08-2011 08:19 AM)UCF-ENG Wrote:  

(04-08-2011 08:14 AM)panama Wrote:  No conference or school will ever be FORCED down. That is why the NCAA re-wrote the rule to allow an FBS conference to pay with 6 members. Think of it this way, if they wanted to force anyone down they could have years ago by enforcing the 15k attendance rule. Also it's pretty disingenuous for someone whose school just happens to be on the upswing to be stating who they think should be forced down. I can still remember when you guys were rivals of ours and when UCF sports was nothing special.

They are going to have to rewrite the rules because they will only have three FBS members.

We have been through raiding and realignment before. There are plenty of FCS schools to call up. There always have been and always will be. Ask the Sun Belt. They only did it twice. FCS schools will not be ready in time? Ha! Accelerate the time line. You better than anyone knows what happens to alumni purse strings when you say you're going FBS. Plus lets face it, it could be La Tech that is moving to the Sun Belt but maybe not. Even if they do the WAC will take a couple of TX FCS schools. Karl Benson is not going to let his legacy be the death of WAC Football. I am sure they have contingency plans A though F.

Quote:limit scholarships to 70, a reduction from 85.
realign conferences to be purely regional to promote rivalry, and reduce travel costs.
No credit for playing FCS teams when determining bowl eligibility

Those policies openly favor the Mid-Majors by spreading more talent to them, and forcing their bigger brothers to play them annually...which is exactly what all MM's want and exactly why they won't get them. There isn't going to be an annual game between Texas and Houston, Ohio State and Ohio, PSU and Temple and NCST is thankful their contract with ECU is over.

The old powers aren't going to welcome the johnny come late-lies with open arms, join a regional conference with them and offer them a big slice of their revenue pie or do anything that recognizes them as their equals.

Instead, they'll just do what they always do and break off, form a new country club and this time make it by invitation only.

The individual schools will be Independents more than anything.

Adding non-football membership with good hoops schools makes more sense for the WAC than anyone else right now. Opportunity to cut travel cost (divisions) and potentially boost RPI to help with NCAA payouts.

Has to be the right teams though.

(04-08-2011 09:27 AM)animus Wrote:  The individual schools will be Independents more than anything.

First good point in this thread.

(04-08-2011 07:54 AM)UCF-ENG Wrote:  I think it should, the FBS is diluted enough as it is.

The WAC can play as a football conference as long as it has 6 members.

The question is more will the WAC lose its non-AQ rights to the BCS payout membrer and the right to participate in a BCS game with a top 12 ranking.

Also I have to agree with some of the comments in here that the WAC would be best served focusing on basketball/academics.

I would be looking at Lamar, Seattle, Cal Poly to try and keep things at an 8/10 basketball/football ratio in the short term.

Just like having Hawaii hit the road and its expensive travel costs assumed by WAC members, La Tech leaving will also benefit the league as Ruston is a damn difficult place to get to and LA recruiting is of limited value.

Losing La Tech will limit the WAC to a Texas or points west membership strategy. However that is probably not a bad thing. Western members like SJSU and Idaho are probably breathing a sign of relief.

(04-08-2011 08:32 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

Quote:limit scholarships to 70, a reduction from 85.
realign conferences to be purely regional to promote rivalry, and reduce travel costs.
No credit for playing FCS teams when determining bowl eligibility

Those policies openly favor the Mid-Majors by spreading more talent to them, and forcing their bigger brothers to play them annually...which is exactly what all MM's want and exactly why they won't get them. There isn't going to be an annual game between Texas and Houston, Ohio State and Ohio, PSU and Temple and NCST is thankful their contract with ECU is over.

The old powers aren't going to welcome the johnny come late-lies with open arms, join a regional conference with them and offer them a big slice of their revenue pie or do anything that recognizes them as their equals.

Instead, they'll just do what they always do and break off, form a new country club and this time make it by invitation only.

Completely agree.

No. If the WAC falls below eight football-playing members for an extended period then the remaining football-playing members will function as FBS independents and play each other in a scheduling alliance. Also because the WAC "previously qualified" as an FBS conference it will still be empowered to promote FCS schools to FBS until it can build back up to eight or more football-playing members.

(04-08-2011 06:38 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  No. If the WAC falls below eight football-playing members for an extended period then the remaining football-playing members will function as FBS independents and play each other in a scheduling alliance. Also because the WAC "previously qualified" as an FBS conference it will still be empowered to promote FCS schools to FBS until it can build back up to eight or more football-playing members.

I don't think so. The 8 member rule for FBS teams only has to do with governance issues. The WAC can continue to play and crown championships for football, the NCAA recognizes a sponsored conference when that conference has 6 participants.

What I have been saying with regard to the CAA, the only way that the league has a shot at ascending to the FBS level is if it can recruit 6 current FBS schools to do so, allowing another 2-4 schools to move up. This is the only way a conference can begin to sponsor football, by having a large group of schools move up and into your conference.

The SBC made a similar migration over a great number of years:

1976: South Alabama (Football 2013)
1982: Western Ky (Football 2009)
1991: Ark State
1991: ULL
1998: Florida International (Football 2005)
2001: Middle Tenn.
2001: ULM
2005: Troy
2005: Florida International

New Mexico State was over joyed to get into the WAC back in 2005 but now has to be kicking themselves for leaving the SBC as they have very little chance at gettting back in.

The SBC unbalanced at 11 members, 10 football may provide La Tech a way back in. It would be a smart move at this point if available. The WAC has maybe 1 decent football year left in 2011 with Fresno, Nevada, and Hawaii still in the conference so it will be perfect timing for LT to head back east.

If LT leaves, it may not be a bad strategy for the WAC to set temporarily at 6/8 until better members become available.

UTSA/TX St
NMSU/Denver
USU/SJSU
Idaho/Seattle

A west coast strategy featuring a small BB conference would allow schools to schedule local rivals to make up for travel costs.