U MASS in 2017
Army
BYU
New Mexico State possibly in 2018
Idaho possibly in 2018

Those five could play each other fulfilling half of the five home games rule. So two home and home series would be needed. Along with an FCS home game every other year .

So if the invitation rule was rescinded how many independent programs would it take to make moving up viable ?

My guess is there would be motivation to work together and also help the right candidates. Four of these schools are happy with their Olympic sports homes. Two have their own TV deals .
The other schools could include home games in their Olympic sports conferences media deal.

You would need at least 14 if you didn't have someone coordinating the schedules. I'd think you need a bigger number otherwise because despite your best efforts it is going to be hard to always find mutual dates that address each school's need for home games.

(09-13-2014 09:42 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  You would need at least 14 if you didn't have someone coordinating the schedules. I'd think you need a bigger number otherwise because despite your best efforts it is going to be hard to always find mutual dates that address each school's need for home games.

I hate to see any school on the outside looking in.
Why 14 couldn't they schedule last two weeks of October and first two of November if its five schools ?

Since it would be four years out at the earliest I think it could work. Maybe add a move up or two in 2019 schedule four years at a time. Makes life easier for the A.D.s at these five schools if it turns this way.

BYU would be the least desperate to make this type of arrangement work. After several years of filling twelve game schedules a block of games would be desired.

(09-13-2014 09:24 AM)MJG Wrote:  U MASS in 2017
Army
BYU
New Mexico State possibly in 2018
Idaho possibly in 2018

Those five could play each other fulfilling half of the five home games rule. So two home and home series would be needed. Along with an FCS home game every other year .

So if the invitation rule was rescinded how many independent programs would it take to make moving up viable ?

My guess is there would be motivation to work together and also help the right candidates. Four of these schools are happy with their Olympic sports homes. Two have their own TV deals .
The other schools could include home games in their Olympic sports conferences media deal.

BYU doesn't want to play those teams at the end of the year during a playoff run.

(09-13-2014 02:22 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(09-13-2014 09:24 AM)MJG Wrote:  U MASS in 2017
Army
BYU
New Mexico State possibly in 2018
Idaho possibly in 2018

Those five could play each other fulfilling half of the five home games rule. So two home and home series would be needed. Along with an FCS home game every other year .

So if the invitation rule was rescinded how many independent programs would it take to make moving up viable ?

My guess is there would be motivation to work together and also help the right candidates. Four of these schools are happy with their Olympic sports homes. Two have their own TV deals .
The other schools could include home games in their Olympic sports conferences media deal.

BYU doesn't want to play those teams at the end of the year during a playoff run.

Play off run that's funny
look at their schedule this year three P5 schools.
They have no chance at a play off spot.
Games in the Northeast , Northwest and Southwest to spread the word. Eight games left to play whoever.

The only way that goes down if Hawai'i is involved(as a Independent)

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I don't think it would take that many if they worked in an organized fashion. I'd say if you could get as few as 6 to 8 independents it would make independence much more viable. Its those last 6-8 games of the season that are really tough to get. Having 6-8 schools that have the same issue, provided those schools worked in an organized manner, would take a tremendous amount of scheduling pressure off those AD's.

The cooperation that is needed is (1) making sure all of them have at least 5 home games every year, and (2) making sure that all of them can fill their October-November schedules when teams in conferences are much less likely to play non-con games. There are never going to be as many indies as there were in the 1970s, so with a smaller number of them, football scheduling would be easier if the indies hired a scheduling coordinator tasked with making sure that both of those goals are met every year.

As a practical matter it would probably take at least 8 or 9 just because cooperation wouldn't be perfect -- e.g., BYU isn't going to play Idaho in the Kibbie Dome, and other indies might feel the same, or some might demand travel subsidies for taking their team cross-country, or might not want to play a November road game in a cold-weather venue, etc.

I believe you need at least seven in each side of the country. That way you have at least half of your schedule on your half of the country (assuming all of the independents actually WANT to play each other). While BYU would fairly easily fill a decent schedule, none of the other proposed independents could without an influx of indies. But for argument's sake, say UMass and Army were eastern independents and Southern Miss, Rice, Marshall and UAB decided to go independent as well. Again, assuming they played one another in the second half of the year, that's only five games covered. The more southern teams could probably get as SEC game in the next to last game of the season, but filling the first six games would still be tough -- doable, but tough. Seven indies in the east, with a scheduling understanding and a cooperating SEC, could fill seven games, leaving only five early season games to fill when scheduling OOC games is easier. Then some of those schools could actually put a schedule together better that the one they currently have. The same could be done in the west with Boise State and others going the indy route.

For example, as an independent, Southern Miss could potentially renew old rivalries and continue their longstanding tradition of playing multiple SEC schools each year.

A possible indy USM schedule in this scenario:

Tulane
Memphis
Alabama
Louisville
East Carolina
N. Illinois (possible new indy)
Rice
UMass
Army
UAB
Auburn
Marshall

In some years, USM could get an additional SEC game, or schedule a game with Jackson State or Alcorn State.

Anyway, seven indies per side of the country makes being independent easy, but as few as four would probably be viable.

If you had 6 or 7 committed to cooperating to make independence work, you have something.

If 2-3 years ago BYU, Army, Navy, Hawaii, ECU and Boise State had put together a scheduling alliance, committing to play each other every year, you could sneak UMass and Idaho and NMSU into that group and it would work out. Possibly UConn goes to the C7 Big EAst and joins that group with UMass.

The problem now is that none of the prospective independents is an attractive opponent for BYU's fan base. Bringing UMass to Provo every other October isn't any more attractive than bringing in San Jose State or Troy as a buy game. BYU became independent because they saw themselves as above the rest of the MWC/WAC. They didn't want Air Force, SDSU, CSU, UNM as an athletic peer group, they're not going to bed down with the homelesss flotsam and jetsam of FBS.

So your "independent alliance" is starting with Army and UMass, then maybe NMSU and Idaho, and then FCS callups.

(09-13-2014 05:48 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  If you had 6 or 7 committed to cooperating to make independence work, you have something.

If 2-3 years ago BYU, Army, Navy, Hawaii, ECU and Boise State had put together a scheduling alliance, committing to play each other every year, you could sneak UMass and Idaho and NMSU into that group and it would work out. Possibly UConn goes to the C7 Big EAst and joins that group with UMass.

The problem now is that none of the prospective independents is an attractive opponent for BYU's fan base. Bringing UMass to Provo every other October isn't any more attractive than bringing in San Jose State or Troy as a buy game. BYU became independent because they saw themselves as above the rest of the MWC/WAC. They didn't want Air Force, SDSU, CSU, UNM as an athletic peer group, they're not going to bed down with the homelesss flotsam and jetsam of FBS.

So your "independent alliance" is starting with Army and UMass, then maybe NMSU and Idaho, and then FCS callups.

BYU might join an alliance short term .
The other four for survival.
The invitation rule if rescinded could result in teams moving up.

Say year one the four independent schools would play at the transitioning team or teams.
They could schedule four FBS and one FCS year two at home.
Then the alliance goes to five or six teams.
Might be more desirable for a JMU or Delaware type program.
The schools like NDSU it might be the only way in.

an annual army umass game makes sense. BYU - Umass not so much.

(09-13-2014 06:07 PM)MJG Wrote:  BYU might join an alliance short term .

Why? Why would BYU commit to play @UMass, @Idaho, @NMSU on a regular basis? BYU's scheduling problem isn't getting opponents in October-November, it's getting quality opponents. Army, @UMass, Idaho, @NMSU is not a better October or November than Utah STate, @UCF, Nevada, @Boise State (October 2014) or @MTSU, UNLV, Savannah State, @Cal (November 2014).

This project has zero advantages for BYU, and significant disadvantages. It is worse than what BYU has now. Worse.

(09-13-2014 06:23 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-13-2014 06:07 PM)MJG Wrote:  BYU might join an alliance short term .

Why? Why would BYU commit to play @UMass, @Idaho, @NMSU on a regular basis? BYU's scheduling problem isn't getting opponents in October-November, it's getting quality opponents. Army, @UMass, Idaho, @NMSU is not a better October or November than Utah STate, @UCF, Nevada, @Boise State (October 2014) or @MTSU, UNLV, Savannah State, @Cal (November 2014).

This project has zero advantages for BYU, and significant disadvantages. It is worse than what BYU has now. Worse.

BYU would look to them for late season filler. Im not sure how committed they would be. Maybe they would be willing to commit to play 3 or 4 games against that group in exchange for late season cover.

What I could see is schools like Cinci, UConn, and S Miss being interested in independence under certain condiions. That might make the group a litlle more attractive. Cinci and UConn might decide they can put together more attractive P5 looking schedule as an Indy than as a G5 member. If UConn and Cinci could place thier basketball in the Big East--and have some cover for late season scheduling---Indy might be an interesting option for them. Ark State and UL-L are two others for whom something like this might be interesting. The down side is your bowl access as an Indy is very linmited--and access to the major access bowls is virtually zero.

I'm an Army fan and I know that BYU would not want to play them in a yearly series and I do not want to play Idaho, NMSU, and UMASS every year.

Navy, Army, BYU, Connecticut, Cincinnati and Boise State should all go independent!!!

(09-13-2014 06:57 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  I'm an Army fan and I know that BYU would not want to play them in a yearly series and I do not want to play Idaho, NMSU, and UMASS every year.

Army has a scheduling agreement with the MAC how is that different. Besides the point of it is to make independence easier. Since Army likes being independent it makes sense.
Besides it isn't like joining a conference and being stuck.
A four year commitment followed by a four year commitment opt out. Nothing to lose maybe something to gain if you can help the right school advance. Like a Delaware for Army

Possibly adding two close yearly opponents to go with Navy and Air Force.