Football being the money maker and only eight games a year .
One way for the G5 schools to reduce costs and elevate the top teams.

Makes regional Olympic sports conference's better.

Gives a national conference a chance to compete with the P5.

Gives schools like Umass , NDSU, NMSU , Wyoming and Idaho a better football fit.

UCONN and Cinncy could rejoin the Big East and play in a national G5 conference.

Schools that are possibly locked out after the SBC goes to twelve could find a home.

The NCAA governance structure is such that a football only conference doesn't get a seat at the table to vote on football issues and the underlying leagues the members are in aren't deemed FBS and vote with the rabble like MAAC and A-Sun.

(05-25-2014 10:09 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The NCAA governance structure is such that a football only conference doesn't get a seat at the table to vote on football issues and the underlying leagues the members are in aren't deemed FBS and vote with the rabble like MAAC and A-Sun.

I guess voting with the Big Sky or Missouri Valley or A10 would be fine. The P5 are going to run things anyway. Rules would need to change for such a conference obviously.

The Missouri Valley football conference is it considered equal to other FCS conference's ?

How do the members like the arrangement ?

(05-25-2014 10:42 AM)MJG Wrote:  

(05-25-2014 10:09 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The NCAA governance structure is such that a football only conference doesn't get a seat at the table to vote on football issues and the underlying leagues the members are in aren't deemed FBS and vote with the rabble like MAAC and A-Sun.

I guess voting with the Big Sky or Missouri Valley or A10 would be fine. The P5 are going to run things anyway. Rules would need to change for such a conference obviously.

The Missouri Valley football conference is it considered equal to other FCS conference's ?

How do the members like the arrangement ?

The 8 school full member rule only applies to FBS conferences.

For an FCS football conference all that is required is 6 members which don't even have to be in the same conference for Olympic sports.

UConn wouldn't even bother with the Big East. They have their sites set on the B1G and I think as long as they are in the AAC they'll be able to attract good replacements if Cincinnati for example were to leave.

The sixteen team best of the rest conference would be perfect as football only.

The schools like Umass, Idaho and NDSU would benefit by staying in their Olympic sports conference's.

Keeping the invitation rule and eliminate the 8 full member rule for football.

The whole G5 could benefit with tighter Olympic sports conference's. Giving top football schools more options.

(05-25-2014 02:49 PM)MJG Wrote:  The sixteen team best of the rest conference would be perfect as football only.

The schools like Umass, Idaho and NDSU would benefit by staying in their Olympic sports conference's.

Keeping the invitation rule and eliminate the 8 full member rule for football.

The whole G5 could benefit with tighter Olympic sports conference's. Giving top football schools more options.

One issue I see is that G5 conferences have better voting rights than non-FBS leagues.

Unless the best of the rest grouping could qualify as a G5 conference FB only, those schools wouldn't have G5 voting rights anymore.

A group of 8 schools like UMass, Temple, UConn, Navy, Army, ECU, USF, UCF could play as independents but they would have no CFP money or voting rights. That is why the AAC even exists, IMO because it has to.

Then who is going to vote for elimination of the 8 all member rule. It is a rule that spans all of FBS but only could potentially benefit the G5. You aren't going to find votes for it from the MAC or MWC where the majority of its membership wouldn't want to lose schools to the AAC. The SBC may cease to exist if the rule is repealed since there isn't much regionalization or basketball value to that conference.

(05-25-2014 03:47 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Then who is going to vote for elimination of the 8 all member rule. It is a rule that spans all of FBS but only could potentially benefit the G5.

Obviously, rather than benefiting "the Go5", its something that could benefit a minority of Go5 schools and would obviously hurt the majority. And its obviously not to any particular benefit of any given school and is more a cost than a benefit to any given P5 confernece.

So its a rule change for the benefit of a few among the Go5 and the harm of the majority while, on the other hand, the big money schools have no particular reason to support it.

Seems like one could put a picture of this idea next to "non-starter" in the dictionary.

Why would the conference not count as G5 or G6 rules can be changed. A conference could be allowed to be just football or Olympic sports or both . The path to FBS could stay the same and rules for the non football conferences stay the same.

Choices like NIU to a national football conference and Summit for all sports might happen.

Having to have twelve for a championship game means it probably would effect only the top and bottom teams. The playoff money is hush money for the G5 anyway it can increase.
Army deserves at least what a bottom conference team gets.

Giving schools better options would be the result .

(05-25-2014 08:19 PM)MJG Wrote:  Why would the conference not count as G5 or G6 rules can be changed.

I don't know what this sentence is attempting to ask.

Quote: A conference could be allowed to be just football or Olympic sports or both.

It could be, if the current rules were changed.

There is, obviously, a general interest among all P5 conference to avoid wide open access to the FBS. A new FBS conference is either a potential pathway into the FBS by new schools, or else if built by raiding the existing Go5 conferences, taking away a large number of their highest value schools, which is essentially the proposal for this football only conference, it turns the raided existing Go5 conferences into potential pathways into the FBS.

There has to be a quite strong push to overcome that P5 reluctance, so the question is, who would perceive a benefit from the current rules being changed in order to allow an FBS FB-only conference other than schools who believe that they could be a member of that conference and also perceive such a conference to be a dramatic improvement to where they are now.

Those schools on board the rule change because they expect to be in the new conference plus expect that to be a substantial benefit are not likely to be enough clout on their own to push the rule change through, so who else has reason to be enthusiastic?

It is not likely that it would happen even though it would benefit some schools.

The national conference would be workable.

I think a change might happen because of the locked out schools. Liberty wants FBS bad they may sue to rescind the invitation rule . Unless a new path opens up to become FBS.
The G5 conferences being devalued also drops the FCS down a notch. The G5 conferences would probably be the G2 if invitation only was always the rule. Some of those members would even be eliminated or never invited.

All rules can be changed but there needs to be a compelling reason to change the rule.

About 10 years ago the consensus became that 6 FBS members with only some being full members was not sufficient to allow a league a seat at the big boy table. It was primarily aimed at the Sun Belt. The league had 11 members for basketball, 8 for football but only 5 of the football members were all-sports members. The thinking was that Sun Belt as constituted, where more than half of the membership wasn't playing FBS football should not have an FBS vote on the Management Council or Board of Directors.

I don't think things have changed to a point where the majority of FBS leagues want to share the table with a conference that has football as its sole business concern nor do they want to grant FBS voting status to a league where football isn't at least 50% of the operation.

(05-26-2014 10:48 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  All rules can be changed but there needs to be a compelling reason to change the rule.

About 10 years ago the consensus became that 6 FBS members with only some being full members was not sufficient to allow a league a seat at the big boy table. It was primarily aimed at the Sun Belt. The league had 11 members for basketball, 8 for football but only 5 of the football members were all-sports members. The thinking was that Sun Belt as constituted, where more than half of the membership wasn't playing FBS football should not have an FBS vote on the Management Council or Board of Directors.

I don't think things have changed to a point where the majority of FBS leagues want to share the table with a conference that has football as its sole business concern nor do they want to grant FBS voting status to a league where football isn't at least 50% of the operation.

And this is the underlying problem with proposals that just flippantly assume a rule change to allow a flight of fancy to take place ... the rules that are in place are the result of some previous political fight, so changing the rule normally requires some shift in the landscape that changes the balance of forces on different sides of the issue.

And there are only so many rules fights that a President is going to get involved in as an advocate, or else they are spending all of their time on NCAA politics and have no time available to do any of their other jobs as President, most of which are higher priority than being one vote in some division of the NCAA. So not only does it require a shift of the landscape, but its something that has to rise up to a certain level of priority among some University Presidents willing to tackle the often thankless task of getting the NCAA to change course.

Looking forward say ten years or more and a deserving candidate is locked out.

I'll throw one out for argument sake Liberty is double the size.
Drawing 35K and winning
FBS membership may be closed as in no conference needs members.

The argument might be they are better at that point than most of the G5.

This is not about Liberty just a convenient example because they want FBS. Could be a school like NDSU in a new stadium still killing it.

I get the rules won't get changed
Locking deserving schools out indefinitely is just like the P5 and G5 crap. School X fifteen years from now deserves admission to the club or the possibility of FBS.