Note to all WAC members:

Save yourselves!

Run as fast and as far away as you can.

And don't look back.

(05-04-2012 03:14 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  I hope for the sake of 1-A football that the NCAA looks at creating some sort of rule that keeps brand new startups from playing at the highest level immediately. What if these schools aren't competitive for a long time and find that they don't have the money for a long-term commitment to 1-A football?

Umm...they do - it's in the NCAA bylaws that new teams in D1 have to start in FCS for at least one year before moving up, and even then they have to provide detailed financial plans, and show they have the capacity to play at the FBS level over a 2-year period. Charlotte isn't playing football in CUSA until 2015 at the earliest, they will play their 1st season in 2013, then become a provisional member in 2014, then a full member in 2015 if they meet all the requirements. UTSA started last year in FCS, and won't be a full FBS member until 2013, as they play a provisional schedule in the WAC (not eligible for bowls) in 2012. The NCAA would not approve of their moving up without accepting their plans.

(05-04-2012 03:11 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 02:31 PM)OwlFamily Wrote:  I think its time to call in the mortician.

http://espn.go.com/dallas/ncf/story/_/id...ource-says

And then, there were 5.

Seattle - doesn't have another conference as a D2 move-up, WCC?
Boise - Big West?
NMSU - return to SBC?
Denver - return to SBC?
Idaho - Big Sky?

Summit for DU, maybe. Even NMSU though less likely for them.

(05-04-2012 03:26 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 03:14 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  I hope for the sake of 1-A football that the NCAA looks at creating some sort of rule that keeps brand new startups from playing at the highest level immediately. What if these schools aren't competitive for a long time and find that they don't have the money for a long-term commitment to 1-A football?

Umm...they do - it's in the NCAA bylaws that new teams in D1 have to start in FCS for at least one year before moving up, and even then they have to provide detailed financial plans, and show they have the capacity to play at the FBS level over a 2-year period. Charlotte isn't playing football in CUSA until 2015 at the earliest, they will play their 1st season in 2013, then become a provisional member in 2014, then a full member in 2015 if they meet all the requirements. UTSA started last year in FCS, and won't be a full FBS member until 2013, as they play a provisional schedule in the WAC (not eligible for bowls) in 2012. The NCAA would not approve of their moving up without accepting their plans.

These are still brand new programs. Playing football for all of two years before fully classifying for 1-A membership is not much time to properly evaluate a program. There should be at least a five-year evaluation period.

A brand new program will have enough new factor to keep fans coming for a little while even if they aren't competitive. But what if this program is still losing 5-10 years later and the fans stop showing up?

(05-04-2012 03:48 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 03:26 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 03:14 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  I hope for the sake of 1-A football that the NCAA looks at creating some sort of rule that keeps brand new startups from playing at the highest level immediately. What if these schools aren't competitive for a long time and find that they don't have the money for a long-term commitment to 1-A football?

Umm...they do - it's in the NCAA bylaws that new teams in D1 have to start in FCS for at least one year before moving up, and even then they have to provide detailed financial plans, and show they have the capacity to play at the FBS level over a 2-year period. Charlotte isn't playing football in CUSA until 2015 at the earliest, they will play their 1st season in 2013, then become a provisional member in 2014, then a full member in 2015 if they meet all the requirements. UTSA started last year in FCS, and won't be a full FBS member until 2013, as they play a provisional schedule in the WAC (not eligible for bowls) in 2012. The NCAA would not approve of their moving up without accepting their plans.

These are still brand new programs. Playing football for all of two years before moving up is not much time to properly evaluate a program.

A brand new program will have enough new factor to keep fans coming for a little while even if they aren't competitive. But what if this program is still losing 5-10 years later and the fans stop showing up?

That's why those schools have to prepare financial plans. If they couldn't prove they had the resources to support FBS football, the NCAA won't allow them to move up. IIRC the NCAA had put a moratorium on moveups that ended last year. That's why we're seeing so many now.

(05-04-2012 03:48 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 03:26 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 03:14 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  I hope for the sake of 1-A football that the NCAA looks at creating some sort of rule that keeps brand new startups from playing at the highest level immediately. What if these schools aren't competitive for a long time and find that they don't have the money for a long-term commitment to 1-A football?

Umm...they do - it's in the NCAA bylaws that new teams in D1 have to start in FCS for at least one year before moving up, and even then they have to provide detailed financial plans, and show they have the capacity to play at the FBS level over a 2-year period. Charlotte isn't playing football in CUSA until 2015 at the earliest, they will play their 1st season in 2013, then become a provisional member in 2014, then a full member in 2015 if they meet all the requirements. UTSA started last year in FCS, and won't be a full FBS member until 2013, as they play a provisional schedule in the WAC (not eligible for bowls) in 2012. The NCAA would not approve of their moving up without accepting their plans.

These are still brand new programs. Playing football for all of two years before fully classifying for 1-A membership is not much time to properly evaluate a program. There should be at least a five-year evaluation period.

A brand new program will have enough new factor to keep fans coming for a little while even if they aren't competitive. But what if this program is still losing 5-10 years later and the fans stop showing up?

Mister,

The horse is out of the barn. Rookie quarterbacks don't sit anymore and start up football programs don't have to pay dues anymore. And it doesn't matter if they suck, because they have a lot of tv sets in their geographic area. Sure you couldn't pay people to watch them, but that doesn't matter.

(05-04-2012 03:53 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 03:48 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 03:26 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 03:14 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  I hope for the sake of 1-A football that the NCAA looks at creating some sort of rule that keeps brand new startups from playing at the highest level immediately. What if these schools aren't competitive for a long time and find that they don't have the money for a long-term commitment to 1-A football?

Umm...they do - it's in the NCAA bylaws that new teams in D1 have to start in FCS for at least one year before moving up, and even then they have to provide detailed financial plans, and show they have the capacity to play at the FBS level over a 2-year period. Charlotte isn't playing football in CUSA until 2015 at the earliest, they will play their 1st season in 2013, then become a provisional member in 2014, then a full member in 2015 if they meet all the requirements. UTSA started last year in FCS, and won't be a full FBS member until 2013, as they play a provisional schedule in the WAC (not eligible for bowls) in 2012. The NCAA would not approve of their moving up without accepting their plans.

These are still brand new programs. Playing football for all of two years before moving up is not much time to properly evaluate a program.

A brand new program will have enough new factor to keep fans coming for a little while even if they aren't competitive. But what if this program is still losing 5-10 years later and the fans stop showing up?

That's why those schools have to prepare financial plans. If they couldn't prove they had the resources to support FBS football, the NCAA won't allow them to move up. IIRC the NCAA had put a moratorium on moveups that ended last year. That's why we're seeing so many now.

I'm interested in these "financial plans". Do they forecast 5-10 years down the road or do they only show short-term (3-5 years)?

I think all the moveups have less to do with the moratorium and more about conferences getting raided and having to reach down to get their numbers back up. If all this ACC/BE raiding didn't happen i don't think you'd see Charlotte, UTSA, ODU, Texas St, etc. competing in 1-A football for a while, if at all.

(05-04-2012 03:57 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 03:48 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 03:26 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 03:14 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  I hope for the sake of 1-A football that the NCAA looks at creating some sort of rule that keeps brand new startups from playing at the highest level immediately. What if these schools aren't competitive for a long time and find that they don't have the money for a long-term commitment to 1-A football?

Umm...they do - it's in the NCAA bylaws that new teams in D1 have to start in FCS for at least one year before moving up, and even then they have to provide detailed financial plans, and show they have the capacity to play at the FBS level over a 2-year period. Charlotte isn't playing football in CUSA until 2015 at the earliest, they will play their 1st season in 2013, then become a provisional member in 2014, then a full member in 2015 if they meet all the requirements. UTSA started last year in FCS, and won't be a full FBS member until 2013, as they play a provisional schedule in the WAC (not eligible for bowls) in 2012. The NCAA would not approve of their moving up without accepting their plans.

These are still brand new programs. Playing football for all of two years before fully classifying for 1-A membership is not much time to properly evaluate a program. There should be at least a five-year evaluation period.

A brand new program will have enough new factor to keep fans coming for a little while even if they aren't competitive. But what if this program is still losing 5-10 years later and the fans stop showing up?

Mister,

The horse is out of the barn. Rookie quarterbacks don't sit anymore and start up football programs don't have to pay dues anymore. And it doesn't matter if they suck, because they have a lot of tv sets in their geographic area. Sure you couldn't pay people to watch them, but that doesn't matter.

Once advertisers wise up to this, you will see TV payouts drop tremendously.

This is a bubble right now - irrationally based behaviour that is not sustainable.

C-USA is going to be left with a lot of deadweight

(05-04-2012 04:25 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 03:57 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 03:48 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 03:26 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 03:14 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  I hope for the sake of 1-A football that the NCAA looks at creating some sort of rule that keeps brand new startups from playing at the highest level immediately. What if these schools aren't competitive for a long time and find that they don't have the money for a long-term commitment to 1-A football?

Umm...they do - it's in the NCAA bylaws that new teams in D1 have to start in FCS for at least one year before moving up, and even then they have to provide detailed financial plans, and show they have the capacity to play at the FBS level over a 2-year period. Charlotte isn't playing football in CUSA until 2015 at the earliest, they will play their 1st season in 2013, then become a provisional member in 2014, then a full member in 2015 if they meet all the requirements. UTSA started last year in FCS, and won't be a full FBS member until 2013, as they play a provisional schedule in the WAC (not eligible for bowls) in 2012. The NCAA would not approve of their moving up without accepting their plans.

These are still brand new programs. Playing football for all of two years before fully classifying for 1-A membership is not much time to properly evaluate a program. There should be at least a five-year evaluation period.

A brand new program will have enough new factor to keep fans coming for a little while even if they aren't competitive. But what if this program is still losing 5-10 years later and the fans stop showing up?

Mister,

The horse is out of the barn. Rookie quarterbacks don't sit anymore and start up football programs don't have to pay dues anymore. And it doesn't matter if they suck, because they have a lot of tv sets in their geographic area. Sure you couldn't pay people to watch them, but that doesn't matter.

Once advertisers wise up to this, you will see TV payouts drop tremendously.

This is a bubble right now - irrationally based behaviour that is not sustainable.

C-USA is going to be left with a lot of deadweight

You apparently didn't see what the Big East added. So there is going to be plenty of deadweight to go around.

(05-04-2012 04:34 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 04:25 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 03:57 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 03:48 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 03:26 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Umm...they do - it's in the NCAA bylaws that new teams in D1 have to start in FCS for at least one year before moving up, and even then they have to provide detailed financial plans, and show they have the capacity to play at the FBS level over a 2-year period. Charlotte isn't playing football in CUSA until 2015 at the earliest, they will play their 1st season in 2013, then become a provisional member in 2014, then a full member in 2015 if they meet all the requirements. UTSA started last year in FCS, and won't be a full FBS member until 2013, as they play a provisional schedule in the WAC (not eligible for bowls) in 2012. The NCAA would not approve of their moving up without accepting their plans.

These are still brand new programs. Playing football for all of two years before fully classifying for 1-A membership is not much time to properly evaluate a program. There should be at least a five-year evaluation period.

A brand new program will have enough new factor to keep fans coming for a little while even if they aren't competitive. But what if this program is still losing 5-10 years later and the fans stop showing up?

Mister,

The horse is out of the barn. Rookie quarterbacks don't sit anymore and start up football programs don't have to pay dues anymore. And it doesn't matter if they suck, because they have a lot of tv sets in their geographic area. Sure you couldn't pay people to watch them, but that doesn't matter.

Once advertisers wise up to this, you will see TV payouts drop tremendously.

This is a bubble right now - irrationally based behaviour that is not sustainable.

C-USA is going to be left with a lot of deadweight

You apparently didn't see what the Big East added. So there is going to be plenty of deadweight to go around.

The hope is that these market grabs and up and coming schools pan out. So we don't know if they're dead weight until they have 5-10 years in the conf. higher level you are usually means the better the recruit you can land.

(05-04-2012 04:34 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 04:25 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 03:57 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 03:48 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 03:26 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Umm...they do - it's in the NCAA bylaws that new teams in D1 have to start in FCS for at least one year before moving up, and even then they have to provide detailed financial plans, and show they have the capacity to play at the FBS level over a 2-year period. Charlotte isn't playing football in CUSA until 2015 at the earliest, they will play their 1st season in 2013, then become a provisional member in 2014, then a full member in 2015 if they meet all the requirements. UTSA started last year in FCS, and won't be a full FBS member until 2013, as they play a provisional schedule in the WAC (not eligible for bowls) in 2012. The NCAA would not approve of their moving up without accepting their plans.

These are still brand new programs. Playing football for all of two years before fully classifying for 1-A membership is not much time to properly evaluate a program. There should be at least a five-year evaluation period.

A brand new program will have enough new factor to keep fans coming for a little while even if they aren't competitive. But what if this program is still losing 5-10 years later and the fans stop showing up?

Mister,

The horse is out of the barn. Rookie quarterbacks don't sit anymore and start up football programs don't have to pay dues anymore. And it doesn't matter if they suck, because they have a lot of tv sets in their geographic area. Sure you couldn't pay people to watch them, but that doesn't matter.

Once advertisers wise up to this, you will see TV payouts drop tremendously.

This is a bubble right now - irrationally based behaviour that is not sustainable.

C-USA is going to be left with a lot of deadweight

You apparently didn't see what the Big East added. So there is going to be plenty of deadweight to go around.

That there is - the Big East didn't take the best programs from the C-USA, just biggest markets. But the C-USA went down the same path in restocking.

Like I have said, ECU and USM are among the big losers in all this - both deserve a better fate

(05-04-2012 04:39 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 04:34 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 04:25 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 03:57 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 03:48 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  These are still brand new programs. Playing football for all of two years before fully classifying for 1-A membership is not much time to properly evaluate a program. There should be at least a five-year evaluation period.

A brand new program will have enough new factor to keep fans coming for a little while even if they aren't competitive. But what if this program is still losing 5-10 years later and the fans stop showing up?

Mister,

The horse is out of the barn. Rookie quarterbacks don't sit anymore and start up football programs don't have to pay dues anymore. And it doesn't matter if they suck, because they have a lot of tv sets in their geographic area. Sure you couldn't pay people to watch them, but that doesn't matter.

Once advertisers wise up to this, you will see TV payouts drop tremendously.

This is a bubble right now - irrationally based behaviour that is not sustainable.

C-USA is going to be left with a lot of deadweight

You apparently didn't see what the Big East added. So there is going to be plenty of deadweight to go around.

That there is - the Big East didn't take the best programs from the C-USA, just biggest markets. But the C-USA went down the same path in restocking.

Like I have said, ECU and USM are among the big losers in all this - both deserve a better fate

Boise, not the best and a big market? Sure they added markets but they took 3 of the best teams in BSU, Houston, UCF. Tulsa, ECU, S.Miss are better than SDSU, Temple, SMU, Memphis, but BSU needed a western school. Bball schools wanted good bball full members(Memphis, Temple)

(05-04-2012 05:03 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 04:39 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 04:34 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 04:25 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 03:57 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  Mister,

The horse is out of the barn. Rookie quarterbacks don't sit anymore and start up football programs don't have to pay dues anymore. And it doesn't matter if they suck, because they have a lot of tv sets in their geographic area. Sure you couldn't pay people to watch them, but that doesn't matter.

Once advertisers wise up to this, you will see TV payouts drop tremendously.

This is a bubble right now - irrationally based behaviour that is not sustainable.

C-USA is going to be left with a lot of deadweight

You apparently didn't see what the Big East added. So there is going to be plenty of deadweight to go around.

That there is - the Big East didn't take the best programs from the C-USA, just biggest markets. But the C-USA went down the same path in restocking.

Like I have said, ECU and USM are among the big losers in all this - both deserve a better fate

Boise, not the best and a big market? Sure they added markets but they took 3 of the best teams in BSU, Houston, UCF. Tulsa, ECU, S.Miss are better than SDSU, Temple, SMU, Memphis, but BSU needed a western school. Bball schools wanted good bball full members(Memphis, Temple)

I must have missed when Boise was in the C-USA

UCF? Wake me up when they have back-to-back winning seasons

(05-04-2012 05:15 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 05:03 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 04:39 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 04:34 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 04:25 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Once advertisers wise up to this, you will see TV payouts drop tremendously.

This is a bubble right now - irrationally based behaviour that is not sustainable.

C-USA is going to be left with a lot of deadweight

You apparently didn't see what the Big East added. So there is going to be plenty of deadweight to go around.

That there is - the Big East didn't take the best programs from the C-USA, just biggest markets. But the C-USA went down the same path in restocking.

Like I have said, ECU and USM are among the big losers in all this - both deserve a better fate

Boise, not the best and a big market? Sure they added markets but they took 3 of the best teams in BSU, Houston, UCF. Tulsa, ECU, S.Miss are better than SDSU, Temple, SMU, Memphis, but BSU needed a western school. Bball schools wanted good bball full members(Memphis, Temple)

I must have missed when Boise was in the C-USA

UCF? Wake me up when they have back-to-back winning seasons

I thought you said BE and CUSA went after markets. UCF belongs in BE, you can't leave them out. They'll be able to recruit on the same level as USF finally.

I said BYEEEE BYEEEE MRS. American Pie!

If Boise State leaves then the WAC could hang on by adding Chicago State, who probably will never be welcomed back to their former home, the Summit League (f/k/a Mid-Continent Conference). NJIT likely will wind up in America East once the CAA is done reconfiguring itself.

If the WAC disintegrates, the Big Sky would be wise to pick up Seattle as it would get them to 12 in all sports except football, which would still be at 13. If North Dakota leaves they could always pick up Denver. Other than Sacramento and Portland, the Big Sky really doesn't have much in its way of native DMAs.

Portland State/Sacramento State
Eastern Washington/Seattle (non-football)
Montana/Montana State
Idaho State/Weber State
Southern Utah/Northern Arizona
Northern Colorado/North Dakota (or Denver (non-football))

I

WAC SURVIVAL OPTION KEEPING FOOTBALL
Seattle \ Idaho
Boise State \ Utah Valley
Montana \ Montana State
North Dakota \ North Dakota State
South Dakota \ South Dakota State
Denver \ New Mexico State

WAC SURVIVAL OPTION WITHOUT FOOTBALL
Seattle \ Idaho
Boise State \ Utah Valley
Denver \ New Mexico State
San Diego State \ Fresno State or Air Force ... or Cal State Bakersfield \ Grand Canyon ... and\or Texas Pan-Am \ Dallas Baptist

(05-04-2012 05:15 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  UCF? Wake me up when they have back-to-back winning seasons

2009: 8-5
2010: 11-3

I guess you hit the snooze button.

What was UCF last year? 4-8?

5-7