Football drives the realignment bus that is clear.
The problem for G5 schools is the extra travel it causes for Olympic sports.
the revenue in the power five conferences means travel really does not matter for them.Maybe all the Texas schools could be in the same G5 conference . Idaho ,UMASS , NMSU and Hawaii are all currently football only . Having football only conferences could put these four in the same conference. Why should schools like Montana and NDSU be locked out and Schools like Georgia State and South Alabama get instant access .

Nothing against the two recent additions but they start football and bam FBS Charlotte is another example. They will probably end up being strong programs . Comparing them to Montana and NDSU with all the success of their football programs and fan support it does not seem right.

I think most conferences would stay the same but who knows.
The MVFC being an FCS football only conference is allowed so why not.
Football is usually four away games a year so travel cost is not a big deal.
The possible G5 national conference that has been debated could work if football only. Maybe Houston and SMU four from the MWC and the top six Eastern G5 Schools.Adding G5 five mouths to feed is a joke when P5 schools get what a G5 conference receives in play off money.I think it could go either way benefiting the football only schools or P5 wannabees .
meaning a national conference to challenge the P5 conferences trickling down and helping the football only schools.

NIU getting in the national conference could open a spot for NDSU in the MAC for football
SDSU,Fresno ,BSU and Air Force would open spots for Idaho and NMSU along with the Montana schools in the MWC for football.
UMASS ,Deleware and JMU would be AAC additions for football

Just possible examples if a national football only conference of top schools was allowed .

The other possibility is a football only conference of the current football only plus schools like NDSU that are hard fits .
Compare NDSU to whoever you feel is the weakest school that is in FBS ( facilities wise that is Idaho) not throwing stones .
One school averages under five thousand another has a budget under ten million some are very poor academically .
I am not an NDSU fan but they make a strong case except for geography

(04-11-2014 09:38 PM)MJG Wrote:  NIU getting in the national conference could open a spot for NDSU in the MAC for football
SDSU,Fresno ,BSU and Air Force would open spots for Idaho and NMSU along with the Montana schools in the MWC for football.
UMASS ,Deleware and JMU would be AAC additions for football

Just possible examples if a national football only conference of top schools was allowed .

The other possibility is a football only conference of the current football only plus schools like NDSU that are hard fits .
Compare NDSU to whoever you feel is the weakest school that is in FBS ( facilities wise that is Idaho) not throwing stones .
One school averages under five thousand another has a budget under ten million some are very poor academically .
I am not an NDSU fan but they make a strong case except for geography

Schools like that had an opportunity when the WAC was collapsing and chose a different path. The WAC was the western gateway conference for western FCS schools. The collapse of WAC football probably effectively ends any hope of most far western FCS schools of every becoming FBS. That said, if the rules are adjusted for FBS conferences---I suspect its far more likely the rules will be adjusted to make it more difficult to become FBS than to make it easier to become FBS. Truth be told, it may be tough for many current FBS schools to remain FBS if the P5 have their way.

NDSU never had an opportunity to join the WAC. Once Montana said no it was over for the WAC, Montana was needed to keep it together.

Limiting FBS like the 300 plus d1 schools hurt the NCAA tournament. Timing is the problem Western FBS candidates had to join a crumbling WAC under the gun. Say ten more FBS schools are added what is that 15 million of the hundreds of millions in play off money. Expanding FBS creates more interest with little down side . Having 38 bowls is effectively the NCAA basketball tournament . Except only 120 schools vs 320 schools .[/align]

(04-11-2014 11:13 PM)MJG Wrote:  Limiting FBS like the 300 plus d1 schools hurt the NCAA tournament. Timing is the problem Western FBS candidates had to join a crumbling WAC under the gun. Say ten more FBS schools are added what is that 15 million of the hundreds of millions in play off money. Expanding FBS creates more interest with little down side . Having 38 bowls is effectively the NCAA basketball tournament . Except only 120 schools vs 320 schools .[/align]

There are plenty of FBS schools--probably too many at this point. The power schools would probably prefer that no more were added. In fact, they would probably like to get rid of some that are already in FBS. If the FBS continues to grow, what will happen is the power schools will just break away--making FBS the new FCS. The historical average size of the top level of football during the modern era has generally been less than 100. Every time it has exceeded 100, shortly thereafter changes have been made to reduce the number. I think we are on course to have 128 FBS members once all the announced transitions are completed---so we are well past the historical markers signaling another culling of the herd. I tend to think the increased number of national and regional sports networks can support more schools than in the past---but the sweet spot is still probably around a 100. That give the networks plenty of inventory, insures the entire country has FBS schools in most every geographic area, and insures that enough top quality athletes are available to the top level to allow most every FBS school the opportunity to field a quality competitive product.

(04-12-2014 01:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 11:13 PM)MJG Wrote:  Limiting FBS like the 300 plus d1 schools hurt the NCAA tournament. Timing is the problem Western FBS candidates had to join a crumbling WAC under the gun. Say ten more FBS schools are added what is that 15 million of the hundreds of millions in play off money. Expanding FBS creates more interest with little down side . Having 38 bowls is effectively the NCAA basketball tournament . Except only 120 schools vs 320 schools .[/align]

There are plenty of FBS schools--probably too many at this point. The power schools would probably prefer that no more were added. In fact, they would probably like to get rid of some that are already in FBS. If the FBS continues to grow, what will happen is the power schools will just break away--making FBS the new FCS. The historical average size of the top level of football during the modern era has generally been less than 100. Every time it has exceeded 100, shortly thereafter changes have been made to reduce the number. I think we are on course to have 128 FBS members once all the announced transitions are completed---so we are well past the historical markers signaling another culling of the herd. I tend to think the increased number of national and regional sports networks can support more schools than in the past---but the sweet spot is still probably around a 100. That give the networks plenty of inventory, insures the entire country has FBS schools in most every geographic area, and insures that enough top quality athletes are available to the top level to allow most every FBS school the opportunity to field a quality competitive product.

FBS is more as years go on becoming the real Division I and not simply a sub classification for football.

Almost any school in Division 1 with the facility and opportunity to move to FBS is doing it. How much that will continue I don't know. The MAC recently downsized to 12, refusing to add an FCS upgrade and push to 14. UMass could face a very real push to move down if they can't find a conference in 2 years.

(04-12-2014 02:14 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 01:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 11:13 PM)MJG Wrote:  Limiting FBS like the 300 plus d1 schools hurt the NCAA tournament. Timing is the problem Western FBS candidates had to join a crumbling WAC under the gun. Say ten more FBS schools are added what is that 15 million of the hundreds of millions in play off money. Expanding FBS creates more interest with little down side . Having 38 bowls is effectively the NCAA basketball tournament . Except only 120 schools vs 320 schools .[/align]

There are plenty of FBS schools--probably too many at this point. The power schools would probably prefer that no more were added. In fact, they would probably like to get rid of some that are already in FBS. If the FBS continues to grow, what will happen is the power schools will just break away--making FBS the new FCS. The historical average size of the top level of football during the modern era has generally been less than 100. Every time it has exceeded 100, shortly thereafter changes have been made to reduce the number. I think we are on course to have 128 FBS members once all the announced transitions are completed---so we are well past the historical markers signaling another culling of the herd. I tend to think the increased number of national and regional sports networks can support more schools than in the past---but the sweet spot is still probably around a 100. That give the networks plenty of inventory, insures the entire country has FBS schools in most every geographic area, and insures that enough top quality athletes are available to the top level to allow most every FBS school the opportunity to field a quality competitive product.

FBS is more as years go on becoming the real Division I and not simply a sub classification for football.

Almost any school in Division 1 with the facility and opportunity to move to FBS is doing it. How much that will continue I don't know. The MAC recently downsized to 12, refusing to add an FCS upgrade and push to 14. UMass could face a very real push to move down if they can't find a conference in 2 years.

Other than ego, what drives all these schools to move up to FBS? Considering how many are already operating in the red in their athletic departments, you would think the additional costs associated with a move - especially when that move requires major additional travel costs for olympic sports - would be a strong deterrent. Instead, many of those schools spend millions in new facilities.

I could see it if there were a P5 slot in the offing, but the conference payouts in most of the G5 can't offset the additional scholarship and traveling costs. Now, if many of the 20+ schools who recently moved up are forced back down, they will face serious financial hardship as they still have to pay the extra costs for those shiny new facilities. Was it worth it?

Schools like Coastal Carolina that are growing May deserve a spot in the future. Coastal is a long way off but they have twice the athletic budget of some schools. Also excellent baseball and soccer . Ten years from now Coastal could be a better candidate than ten or twenty current FBS schools.

How does it hurt Kentucky basketball having Belmont or Charleston Southern in D1 ? The answer is it does not Three of the G5 conferences almost get no media coverage. Sport center will show weekday highlights but only a crazy play from Saturday . Problem is most fans only pay attention to Saturday games. The MWC is probably going to join the other three in being irrelevant . The AAC will get more attention because of its recent status and basketball strength.

I could see a G5 poll similar to mid major polls for basketball.
A school like WICHITA STATE having the ability to be number one in both. The same kind of thing for an undefeated Cincinnati.
The ceiling for a G5 school is the Access bowl or BCS Bowl .
The schools who have one an FCS championship or a BCS Bowl know the Bowl game means more. NIU was the mid major champ two years ago . Limiting or reducing the number of schools is unnecessary . The reason being its already divided and has been BCS and non BCS . Having sixty or eighty lower level FBS schools has little effect on the big programs. Michigan has to pay App St a little more this year that is it. The plus is more lower level schools mean less FCS games for the P5 schools. The future FCS vs FBS match ups will be G5 vs FCS for less money. A team like Boise will get a million to play USA and pay IDAHO St 200k to balance the schedule.

If the powers that be had been able to see the future land scape of college football, and the new post season format, when this all started several moves and additions outside of the 'power conferences' would not have taken place.

I find it funny that the SBC may have benefited greatly by being at the back of the 'knee jerk' line, whereas CUSA and the AAC probably wish there were a redo button.

(04-12-2014 02:14 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 01:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 11:13 PM)MJG Wrote:  Limiting FBS like the 300 plus d1 schools hurt the NCAA tournament. Timing is the problem Western FBS candidates had to join a crumbling WAC under the gun. Say ten more FBS schools are added what is that 15 million of the hundreds of millions in play off money. Expanding FBS creates more interest with little down side . Having 38 bowls is effectively the NCAA basketball tournament . Except only 120 schools vs 320 schools .[/align]

There are plenty of FBS schools--probably too many at this point. The power schools would probably prefer that no more were added. In fact, they would probably like to get rid of some that are already in FBS. If the FBS continues to grow, what will happen is the power schools will just break away--making FBS the new FCS. The historical average size of the top level of football during the modern era has generally been less than 100. Every time it has exceeded 100, shortly thereafter changes have been made to reduce the number. I think we are on course to have 128 FBS members once all the announced transitions are completed---so we are well past the historical markers signaling another culling of the herd. I tend to think the increased number of national and regional sports networks can support more schools than in the past---but the sweet spot is still probably around a 100. That give the networks plenty of inventory, insures the entire country has FBS schools in most every geographic area, and insures that enough top quality athletes are available to the top level to allow most every FBS school the opportunity to field a quality competitive product.

FBS is more as years go on becoming the real Division I and not simply a sub classification for football.

Almost any school in Division 1 with the facility and opportunity to move to FBS is doing it. How much that will continue I don't know. The MAC recently downsized to 12, refusing to add an FCS upgrade and push to 14. UMass could face a very real push to move down if they can't find a conference in 2 years.

Historically how many D1 basketball schools are there.
The population goes up schools grow why limit FBS.
Should we have 38 bowls for 76 teams go bowling.
Over half vs 1 in 5 making the NCAA tournament.
What would 15 million cost the P5 in play off money 200 thousand each. Having home games against these schools easily makes up for that. Especially since future FCS match ups will go away.

(04-12-2014 09:09 AM)MJG Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 02:14 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 01:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 11:13 PM)MJG Wrote:  Limiting FBS like the 300 plus d1 schools hurt the NCAA tournament. Timing is the problem Western FBS candidates had to join a crumbling WAC under the gun. Say ten more FBS schools are added what is that 15 million of the hundreds of millions in play off money. Expanding FBS creates more interest with little down side . Having 38 bowls is effectively the NCAA basketball tournament . Except only 120 schools vs 320 schools .[/align]

There are plenty of FBS schools--probably too many at this point. The power schools would probably prefer that no more were added. In fact, they would probably like to get rid of some that are already in FBS. If the FBS continues to grow, what will happen is the power schools will just break away--making FBS the new FCS. The historical average size of the top level of football during the modern era has generally been less than 100. Every time it has exceeded 100, shortly thereafter changes have been made to reduce the number. I think we are on course to have 128 FBS members once all the announced transitions are completed---so we are well past the historical markers signaling another culling of the herd. I tend to think the increased number of national and regional sports networks can support more schools than in the past---but the sweet spot is still probably around a 100. That give the networks plenty of inventory, insures the entire country has FBS schools in most every geographic area, and insures that enough top quality athletes are available to the top level to allow most every FBS school the opportunity to field a quality competitive product.

FBS is more as years go on becoming the real Division I and not simply a sub classification for football.

Almost any school in Division 1 with the facility and opportunity to move to FBS is doing it. How much that will continue I don't know. The MAC recently downsized to 12, refusing to add an FCS upgrade and push to 14. UMass could face a very real push to move down if they can't find a conference in 2 years.

Historically how many D1 basketball schools are there.
The population goes up schools grow why limit FBS.
Should we have 38 bowls for 76 teams go bowling.
Over half vs 1 in 5 making the NCAA tournament.
What would 15 million cost the P5 in play off money 200 thousand each. Having home games against these schools easily makes up for that. Especially since future FCS match ups will go away.

I believe there will be 128 schools at the FBS level once the announced transitions are completed. That's more than there have ever been at the top level of football by a long shot. FBS is a zero sum game. Every time an FCS school moves up, the inventory of available FBS grows and the value of the existing games falls. The money that the CFP delivers to G5 conferences is set to max out at 12 million---so any G5 addition over 12 members costs each existing member about 100K each. Unless the media dynamic changes, the G5 make little from TV---so adding new FCS schools to G5 conferences tends to lower the cut each member receives from the media contract. Thus, it is not really a net positive for existing FBS schools when an FCS call up occurs. Its generally done in order to save conferences. So, for there to be more FCS call-ups, it almost has to be forced. For there to be a motivation for FBS schools to call up more FCS schools there has to be a catalyst--there has to be more realignment mayhem.

That said, it seems the P5 are interested in breaking away. If the G5 are lucky enough to hang with the P5 and avoid a split---my guess is the FBS herd will be culled. At the very least, I suspect rules making it more difficult to move to FBS will become a reality. That one reason I think JMU would be crazy to say no to any FBS invitation and its possible that UMass might not have made the right decision regarding the MAC (assuming thy care about FBS, which is a whole other debate).

A football only conference would mean one more conference and at least ten more FBS schools. So 138 instead of 128 not a game changer or big deal. Ten extra schools ten million more to the G5 is chump change.

A football only conference is likely the only way a G5 conference can compete with the P5 conferences. The rest know that is unattainable . Look for Liberty to sue for inclusion if the SBC does not invite them. The Dakota and Montana schools might do the same. How many current members would have been locked out if invitation only was always the rule. The MAC and SBC maybe even C USA would not exist. Rice and UTEP would be in a WAC or former WAC like conference.

(04-11-2014 11:09 PM)FargoBison Wrote:  NDSU never had an opportunity to join the WAC. Once Montana said no it was over for the WAC, Montana was needed to keep it together.

Montana, Montana State, Portland state, Sacrament State, etc all said no to the WAC

(04-12-2014 11:47 AM)MJG Wrote:  A football only conference would mean one more conference and at least ten more FBS schools. So 138 instead of 128 not a game changer or big deal. Ten extra schools ten million more to the G5 is chump change.

A football only conference is likely the only way a G5 conference can compete with the P5 conferences. The rest know that is unattainable . Look for Liberty to sue for inclusion if the SBC does not invite them. The Dakota and Montana schools might do the same. How many current members would have been locked out if invitation only was always the rule. The MAC and SBC maybe even C USA would not exist. Rice and UTEP would be in a WAC or former WAC like conference.

Most Montana alumni do not favor moving to the FBS. There is simply no support for it so why would they sue?

Why do people think all top FCS programs want to move up?

(04-12-2014 11:28 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 09:09 AM)MJG Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 02:14 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 01:11 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 11:13 PM)MJG Wrote:  Limiting FBS like the 300 plus d1 schools hurt the NCAA tournament. Timing is the problem Western FBS candidates had to join a crumbling WAC under the gun. Say ten more FBS schools are added what is that 15 million of the hundreds of millions in play off money. Expanding FBS creates more interest with little down side . Having 38 bowls is effectively the NCAA basketball tournament . Except only 120 schools vs 320 schools .[/align]

There are plenty of FBS schools--probably too many at this point. The power schools would probably prefer that no more were added. In fact, they would probably like to get rid of some that are already in FBS. If the FBS continues to grow, what will happen is the power schools will just break away--making FBS the new FCS. The historical average size of the top level of football during the modern era has generally been less than 100. Every time it has exceeded 100, shortly thereafter changes have been made to reduce the number. I think we are on course to have 128 FBS members once all the announced transitions are completed---so we are well past the historical markers signaling another culling of the herd. I tend to think the increased number of national and regional sports networks can support more schools than in the past---but the sweet spot is still probably around a 100. That give the networks plenty of inventory, insures the entire country has FBS schools in most every geographic area, and insures that enough top quality athletes are available to the top level to allow most every FBS school the opportunity to field a quality competitive product.

FBS is more as years go on becoming the real Division I and not simply a sub classification for football.

Almost any school in Division 1 with the facility and opportunity to move to FBS is doing it. How much that will continue I don't know. The MAC recently downsized to 12, refusing to add an FCS upgrade and push to 14. UMass could face a very real push to move down if they can't find a conference in 2 years.

Historically how many D1 basketball schools are there.
The population goes up schools grow why limit FBS.
Should we have 38 bowls for 76 teams go bowling.
Over half vs 1 in 5 making the NCAA tournament.
What would 15 million cost the P5 in play off money 200 thousand each. Having home games against these schools easily makes up for that. Especially since future FCS match ups will go away.

I believe there will be 128 schools at the FBS level once the announced transitions are completed. That's more than there have ever been at the top level of football by a long shot. FBS is a zero sum game. Every time an FCS school moves up, the inventory of available FBS grows and the value of the existing games falls. The money that the CFP delivers to G5 conferences is set to max out at 12 million---so any G5 addition over 12 members costs each existing member about 100K each. Unless the media dynamic changes, the G5 make little from TV---so adding new FCS schools to G5 conferences tends to lower the cut each member receives from the media contract. Thus, it is not really a net positive for existing FBS schools when an FCS call up occurs. Its generally done in order to save conferences. So, for there to be more FCS call-ups, it almost has to be forced. For there to be a motivation for FBS schools to call up more FCS schools there has to be a catalyst--there has to be more realignment mayhem.

That said, it seems the P5 are interested in breaking away. If the G5 are lucky enough to hang with the P5 and avoid a split---my guess is the FBS herd will be culled. At the very least, I suspect rules making it more difficult to move to FBS will become a reality. That one reason I think JMU would be crazy to say no to any FBS invitation and its possible that UMass might not have made the right decision regarding the MAC (assuming thy care about FBS, which is a whole other debate).

Pretty sure that is the last thing the P5 wants, and they could care less how many schools are in the G5 Conferences.

Do think they care about how many FBS Conferences there are, but so do the existing G5's.

(04-12-2014 11:47 AM)MJG Wrote:  A football only conference would mean one more conference and at least ten more FBS schools. So 138 instead of 128 not a game changer or big deal. Ten extra schools ten million more to the G5 is chump change.

A football only conference is likely the only way a G5 conference can compete with the P5 conferences. The rest know that is unattainable . Look for Liberty to sue for inclusion if the SBC does not invite them. The Dakota and Montana schools might do the same. How many current members would have been locked out if invitation only was always the rule. The MAC and SBC maybe even C USA would not exist. Rice and UTEP would be in a WAC or former WAC like conference.

True---10 extra FBS schools is not a game changer. But that's not the number. Like I said---around 100 is the point that the top level of football typically gets culled. So you are suggesting 38 above that number. Who knows--maybe we get there. But it won't stay that high for long.

FCS is getting worse and with most power five schools moving away from playing them . The Southern was a strong conference it and the Southland are weak now. The CAA is a lot weaker. The Big Sky might still be strong but who will they play against for exciting games. Playing G5 schools for smaller paychecks is going to get old. Having schools you feel like you are better than getting two and a half to three million more per year will get old. That is what the typical one money game plus play off money brings G5 teams.

Here is my football only conference.

Army
Idaho
Umass
NMSU
Montana
Montana ST
NDSU
Delaware
JMU
SDSU
Stonybrook
UND

National enough for Army and strong academic schools

(04-12-2014 08:39 AM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  If the powers that be had been able to see the future land scape of college football, and the new post season format, when this all started several moves and additions outside of the 'power conferences' would not have taken place.

I find it funny that the SBC may have benefited greatly by being at the back of the 'knee jerk' line, whereas CUSA and the AAC probably wish there were a redo button.

What really could we have done differently? We tried to get Air Force, Army, Boise St, BYU, Fresno St, SDSU, TCU, and UNLV. The only thing that could have been done differently is attempting to create a western all-sports division after finding out which MWC schools would generate the most $$$ and then approaching them with the idea—instability would still have hindered this proposal. We were only offering fball only memberships to the MWC schools. If the $$$ was right, some of them might have considered the idea.….