(08-25-2015 02:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-25-2015 02:04 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-25-2015 01:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  FWIW, I think there's a strong chance there will be as many as 6 indies (not counting Boise) soon: ND, BYU, Army, UMass, Idaho and New Mexico St.

Get Hawaii and Boise St. in the mix and you could have something. Bonus if Texas joins - at the ND level.

BYU, Boise St., and Hawaii could play each other annually in November. These three could supplement 1-2 games against Umass, Idaho, and NMSU and an occasional game (once in 3-4 years) against ND, Army, or Texas. That gets you a solid foundation of 4-5 games each year. Fill in the gaps with some PAC and MWC and random opponents and you're set.

NMSU and Idaho play each other. Add UMass to the trio and 1-2 games against BYU, Boise St., Hawaii and Army. That's 3-4 games. Fill in the gaps with some CUSA, Sun Belt, MAC, and FCS and a payday trip or two to P5 opponents and you're set.

Army already occasionally plays UMass and Hawaii. Business as usual, with perhaps a little NMSU, Idaho, BYU, and Boise St. occasionally sprinkled in there.

Texas could grab 5 ACC games plus Notre Dame and an occasional late-season BYU, Boise St., Hawaii, or Army. Regardless, the Longhorns would have little trouble filling the schedule.

I've wondered if Hawaii could make a deal with the MWC where they get six home games a year (each of which gives the MWC visitor a 13th game) in exchange for visiting four MWC teams a year. Throw in annual away games against BYU and Boise (which both would want to give them 7 home games) and Hawaii's schedule is full and geographically sensible.

There is something special with Hawaii when you get to have PAC 12 and Big 10 schools come to Hawaii to play an away game. Hawaii might do much better if they are in the PAC 12 than where they are at right now.

The past 15 years, Boise St. has almost done exactly what BYU did in the '80, 90's, and early 2000's. Dominate the WAC and MWC. This is when BYU won its National Championship and had other top-5 and top-10 finishes.

In 22 years from 1977 to 1998, BYU was WAC champ or co-champ 16 times. BYU was MWC champ or co-champ 4 times in 11 years from 1999 to 2010. That's 20 championships in 33 years. BYU was also ranked in the top-25 12 times in the WAC and 5 times in the MWC.

[Side note: BYU's run in the WAC and MWC really gained steam after Arizona St. left the WAC for the PAC 10. ASU was WAC champ or co-champ in 7 out of 10 years from 1969 to 1977.]

Boise St. was WAC champ or co-champ 8 times in 10 years from 2001 to 2010 and MWC champ or co-champ in 2 out of 4 years from 2011 to 2014. That's 10 championships in 14 years. During this time, Boise St. has ranked in the top-25 10 times, including top-5 and top-10 finishes.

Both BYU's past and Boise St.'s current dominance are propped up by the WAC and MWC affiliations.

The best way for Boise St. to remain as a candidate for consistent national rankings is to remain in MWC.

(08-25-2015 02:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  I've wondered if Hawaii could make a deal with the MWC where they get six home games a year (each of which gives the MWC visitor a 13th game) in exchange for visiting four MWC teams a year. Throw in annual away games against BYU and Boise (which both would want to give them 7 home games) and Hawaii's schedule is full and geographically sensible.

10 games with the MWC is too many. IMO, 8 games is too many.

As an independent, Hawaii could get at least 2 or 3 PAC opponents, 3 or 4 MWC opponents, plus annual or at least frequent games against BYU and Army. I actually wouldn't be surprised if Hawaii could get 4-5 game deals with BOTH the PAC and MWC. The rest of the schedule would be fairly easy to fill.

(08-25-2015 02:02 PM)ken d Wrote:  That may be true. But historically, Boise doesn't have nearly as many mediocre years. BYU has only been the highest rated non-P5 once in 25 years. Boise has done it five times in the last ten and been closer than BYU in 3 more of those years.

They did that in the context of winning championships in the WAC and then the MWC.

And when they decided not to continue with the Big East of Reno experiment as the prospective Big East media revenue plus the promised uneven FB revenue distribution from the MWC eliminated the financial advantage of the move ... they elected to return to the MWC, when going independent was already an option, with their Olympic Sports already having an agreed to home.

No way Boise tries independence with the current TV deal.

Now if the MWC decides to go back to a normal TV contract where
everyone gets an even share.
Then Boise might jump from the MWC and try independence.
They only get one vote and have nowhere else to go.
The UNLV AD is not alone in calling for a change in the TV money pay outs.

Colorado ST received no money from the performance part of the TV contract last year. Despite having a big year they didn't have any ESPN home games.

Say Boise has a bad year before the new contract 2020 is the last year. They still receive the most money aggravating other conference members. Then Boise pick it up again feeling pretty good. The conference kills their special deal so Boise goes independent.

Not likely but a thousand times more likely than the PAC 12 lowering their standards . A hundred times more likely than the Big Twelve lowering theirs.

(08-25-2015 12:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-25-2015 10:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  I would argue that the best approach, in the interest of fairness (whatever that is), is that the guaranteed spot for non-P5s should go to the highest ranked team among all G5 schools and independents (including Notre Dame).

I agree, that is the right way to do it, but I think the G5 conferences wanted it the way it is because they wanted to keep BYU (and anyone else who might go indy) from access to that bowl bid. The MWC, in particular, because they are ticked at BYU for leaving (and for the way BYU did it, which included an ill-fated plan to park BYU's other sports in the WAC and help the WAC swipe UNLV and SDSU from the MWC). The G5 conferences would strongly object to changing the setup now to allow access to BYU et al.

As for Boise becoming a football indy -- I've said before that it could work well if there was a critical mass of indies. I think to work well there should be at least six or seven who would agree to schedule each other regularly and whenever necessary to fill holes in each other's schedules.

Notre Dame wouldn't be one of that group; ND has many existing obligations and won't even play the BYU-ND games they already agreed to play. I doubt that Army could be counted on to be part of this informal "indy group", though I suppose it's possible.

That means that from Boise's point of view, it could work now with some difficulty, as it does for BYU, but to make it a smooth transition they'd want about five more new football indies, plus BYU, to make it work well.

Agree that indy is only viable if a critical mass of other indy schools is reached. You probably need that number to be 8-10 at a minimum (of course, at that point, your schedule would not be that much different than being in a conference with those teams). I don't see the CFP changing the indy rules for Boise or BYU.

The best option for BYU---assuming nothing changes, is to eventually create its own 8 team conference that is part of the G5 CFP portion of the deal (couldnt happen until the current deal is about to expire). That would allow BYU to pick and choose its own partners and have a great deal of control over its structure (meaning Sunday play and how media deals would handled by the conference would be decided prior to its formation). With a 8 team conference, BYU would still have 5 open games for P5 teams (just 2 less than Notre Dame) and all the advantages of G5 access to a NYD bowl. Being part of BYU's conference would be the best option for Boise (short of P5 membership).

Of course, by the time that happens, the CFP could expand to 8---and that would likely change everyones view of indy, G5, and the absolute P5 stranglehold on playoff slots.

(08-25-2015 01:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  I think there's a strong chance there will be as many as 6 indies (not counting Boise) soon: ND, BYU, Army, UMass, Idaho and New Mexico St.

Some gossip that NMSU will join Sun Belt for all-sports in the next few weeks/months. But whether that happens or not, those 3 teams (UMass, Idaho, NMSU) would not so much "choose" to be Independent as they would simply try to survive for a few years until a hoped-for chance to join a conference is forthcoming.

ND, BYU and Army can all survive as Independents for as long as they want to. I will predict that if Navy has a positive experience as a football-member of the AAC over the next few years, then you'll see Army join them on the same football-only basis.

(08-25-2015 07:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The best option for BYU---assuming nothing changes, is to eventually create its own 8 team conference that is part of the G5 CFP portion of the deal (couldnt happen until the current deal is about to expire). That would allow BYU to pick and choose its own partners and have a great deal of control over its structure (meaning Sunday play and how media deals would handled by the conference would be decided prior to its formation). With a 8 team conference, BYU would still have 5 open games for P5 teams (just 2 less than Notre Dame) and all the advantages of G5 access to a NYD bowl. Being part of BYU's conference would be the best option for Boise (short of P5 membership).

Such a scenario would definitively lock in BYU athletics at a level subordinate to Utah. I really, really doubt they would agree to that, barring financial imperative. Plus, where is BYU going to find 7 other FBS programs willing to join a prospective "BYU Conference"?

(08-25-2015 08:38 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-25-2015 07:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The best option for BYU---assuming nothing changes, is to eventually create its own 8 team conference that is part of the G5 CFP portion of the deal (couldnt happen until the current deal is about to expire). That would allow BYU to pick and choose its own partners and have a great deal of control over its structure (meaning Sunday play and how media deals would handled by the conference would be decided prior to its formation). With a 8 team conference, BYU would still have 5 open games for P5 teams (just 2 less than Notre Dame) and all the advantages of G5 access to a NYD bowl. Being part of BYU's conference would be the best option for Boise (short of P5 membership).

Such a scenario would definitively lock in BYU athletics at a level subordinate to Utah. I really, really doubt they would agree to that, barring financial imperative. Plus, where is BYU going to find 7 other FBS programs willing to join a prospective "BYU Conference"?

Boise
SDSU
Fresno
Houston
SMU
AF
Cinci
Memphis
Colorado St
New Mexico
UNLV
Tulsa

My guess is any of those would join in an instant.

SMU and Tulsa know first-hand the joys of a western-oriented conference dominated by BYU and its satellites. I'm sure they can't wait to do it all over again.

As for the programs that are currently in the MWC, what you're suggesting would basically (in net-effect) be the equivalent of "Airport Meeting II" in which:
Air Force
BYU
Boise State
Colorado State
Fresno State
Nevada/Las Vegas
New Mexico
San Diego State

say adios to:
Hawaii
Nevada
San Jose State
Utah State
Wyoming

I don't really think that will happen, but I suppose it's possible.

(08-25-2015 11:02 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  SMU and Tulsa know first-hand the joys of a western-oriented conference dominated by BYU and its satellites. I'm sure they can't wait to do it all over again.

As for the programs that are currently in the MWC, what you're suggesting would basically (in net-effect) be the equivalent of "Airport Meeting II" in which:
Air Force
BYU
Boise State
Colorado State
Fresno State
Nevada/Las Vegas
New Mexico
San Diego State

say adios to:
Hawaii
Nevada
San Jose State
Utah State
Wyoming

I don't really think that will happen, but I suppose it's possible.

The 6 schools I bolded above have already been through this. BYU essentially hand-picked the original Mountain West members (those 6 schools plus BYU and Utah) and left the other 8 WAC schools high and dry after their famous Denver airport meeting, which was conveniently timed for when the WAC commissioner (Benson) was on medical leave recovering from eye surgery.

Then 15 years later BYU left those 6 behind after Utah's departure, and on their way out BYU tried to help the WAC poach UNLV and SDSU, which would have left the MWC down 5 schools within less than a year (the other three being Utah, TCU, and BYU). The MWC thwarted that plan only by swiping Fresno and Nevada from the WAC in a hurried conference call of school presidents that was followed by phone-call invitations to join the MWC. (IIRC, Hair Thompson said afterward that he'd never been to either Fresno's or Nevada's campus.)

It's might take either a lot of convincing or a lot of failing memories for those schools to want to jump into that kind of melodrama again, if BYU is going to be the driving force behind another new conference.

(08-25-2015 11:02 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  SMU and Tulsa know first-hand the joys of a western-oriented conference dominated by BYU and its satellites. I'm sure they can't wait to do it all over again.

As for the programs that are currently in the MWC, what you're suggesting would basically (in net-effect) be the equivalent of "Airport Meeting II" in which:
Air Force
BYU
Boise State
Colorado State
Fresno State
Nevada/Las Vegas
New Mexico
San Diego State

say adios to:
Hawaii
Nevada
San Jose State
Utah State
Wyoming

I don't really think that will happen, but I suppose it's possible.

BYU
Boise State
New mexico
Hawaii
UNR
Utah State
Fresno State
Air Force
Colorado State
San Diego State

Adios to:
Wyoming
UNLV
San Jose State

I would not leave out 2 strong FCS schools in the area like Eastern Washington and North Dakota State. Those two are very attractive to be an addition for a western FBS conference.

I would think Montana and North Dakota State would make they're way into the MWC one of these days.

(08-25-2015 02:41 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-25-2015 02:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  I've wondered if Hawaii could make a deal with the MWC where they get six home games a year (each of which gives the MWC visitor a 13th game) in exchange for visiting four MWC teams a year. Throw in annual away games against BYU and Boise (which both would want to give them 7 home games) and Hawaii's schedule is full and geographically sensible.

10 games with the MWC is too many. IMO, 8 games is too many.

As an independent, Hawaii could get at least 2 or 3 PAC opponents, 3 or 4 MWC opponents, plus annual or at least frequent games against BYU and Army. I actually wouldn't be surprised if Hawaii could get 4-5 game deals with BOTH the PAC and MWC. The rest of the schedule would be fairly easy to fill.

Hawaii has zero interest in independence. None. Our scheduling has become much more difficult with the advent of conference championship weekend, which has almost completely eliminated the value of the Hawaii exemption. Very few schools are interested in adding a 13th game now that it means playing 13 weeks in a row without a bye. Without the benefit of an extra home game to recoup travel costs there's much less incentive to sign a straight home-and-home deal with Hawaii, and consequently we're finding it harder every year to line up just 2 OOC home games per season, much less 6.

With respect to TV revenue, Hawaii already has a PPV deal with the local cable operator that pays $2.6 million annually (all of which we keep in lieu of receiving any MWC TV money, because the amount is higher than what we'd get if we threw that money in the overall MWC TV revenue pot and took back a 1/12th share). That $2.6 million is about a third of what BYU gets from ESPN, and comparing the respective TV audiences for Hawaii and BYU football, it's doubtful Hawaii would land more than that amount from any network as an independent and it's possible Hawaii could earn less.

It's true that as an independent we'd no longer have to pay travel subsidies to conference opponents (roughly $0.6 million per year), but we'd be giving up our share of MWC CFP money (over $1.5 million last season) and would lose our eligibility for the Access Bowl. Not a good trade. Hawaii would no longer have divisional or conference championships to play for, and we would lose our guaranteed annual matchups with the MWC Western Division schools whom we've played for many years and have longstanding rivalries with. And finally, we'd probably end up with fewer away games in California and Nevada where there are lots of former Island residents who are Hawaii fans and where we do most of our recruiting.

In my view independence would be a huge gamble for Hawaii football with very little likelihood of paying off. We like being in the MWC (except for the travel subsidies) and we aren't leaving.

(08-25-2015 11:02 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  SMU and Tulsa know first-hand the joys of a western-oriented conference dominated by BYU and its satellites. I'm sure they can't wait to do it all over again.

As for the programs that are currently in the MWC, what you're suggesting would basically (in net-effect) be the equivalent of "Airport Meeting II" in which:
Air Force
BYU
Boise State
Colorado State
Fresno State
Nevada/Las Vegas
New Mexico
San Diego State

say adios to:
Hawaii
Nevada
San Jose State
Utah State
Wyoming

I don't really think that will happen, but I suppose it's possible.

A lot has changed since the Airport Meeting days. NCAA rules now strongly discourage forming new D-I all-sports conferences, which have to wait 8 years to qualify for auto-bids in men's and women's basketball unless they can justify an exemption. And a new FBS conference wouldn't be a signatory to the CFP contract and wouldn't get CFP money or be eligible for the CFP-sponsored bowls or playoff games. Under those circumstances it's hard to see BYU convincing any schools to break away from the MWC or AAC to form a new conference.

(08-26-2015 03:50 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(08-25-2015 11:02 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  SMU and Tulsa know first-hand the joys of a western-oriented conference dominated by BYU and its satellites. I'm sure they can't wait to do it all over again.

As for the programs that are currently in the MWC, what you're suggesting would basically (in net-effect) be the equivalent of "Airport Meeting II" in which:
Air Force
BYU
Boise State
Colorado State
Fresno State
Nevada/Las Vegas
New Mexico
San Diego State

say adios to:
Hawaii
Nevada
San Jose State
Utah State
Wyoming

I don't really think that will happen, but I suppose it's possible.

A lot has changed since the Airport Meeting days. NCAA rules now strongly discourage forming new D-I all-sports conferences, which have to wait 8 years to qualify for auto-bids in men's and women's basketball unless they can justify an exemption. And a new FBS conference wouldn't be a signatory to the CFP contract and wouldn't get CFP money or be eligible for the CFP-sponsored bowls or playoff games. Under those circumstances it's hard to see BYU convincing any schools to break away from the MWC or AAC to form a new conference.

The only rule that a conference could be formed is for an ex BCS conference that could restart football back in FBS. Big West, WAC, MVC and SWC might be exemptions. some people say years have gone by and that they can't have it back. From what I read, these conferences can sponser football again, and regain bowl eligibility.

(08-26-2015 03:42 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(08-25-2015 02:41 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-25-2015 02:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  I've wondered if Hawaii could make a deal with the MWC where they get six home games a year (each of which gives the MWC visitor a 13th game) in exchange for visiting four MWC teams a year. Throw in annual away games against BYU and Boise (which both would want to give them 7 home games) and Hawaii's schedule is full and geographically sensible.

10 games with the MWC is too many. IMO, 8 games is too many.

As an independent, Hawaii could get at least 2 or 3 PAC opponents, 3 or 4 MWC opponents, plus annual or at least frequent games against BYU and Army. I actually wouldn't be surprised if Hawaii could get 4-5 game deals with BOTH the PAC and MWC. The rest of the schedule would be fairly easy to fill.

Hawaii has zero interest in independence. None. Our scheduling has become much more difficult with the advent of conference championship weekend, which has almost completely eliminated the value of the Hawaii exemption. Very few schools are interested in adding a 13th game now that it means playing 13 weeks in a row without a bye. Without the benefit of an extra home game to recoup travel costs there's much less incentive to sign a straight home-and-home deal with Hawaii, and consequently we're finding it harder every year to line up just 2 OOC home games per season, much less 6.

With respect to TV revenue, Hawaii already has a PPV deal with the local cable operator that pays $2.6 million annually (all of which we keep in lieu of receiving any MWC TV money, because the amount is higher than what we'd get if we threw that money in the overall MWC TV revenue pot and took back a 1/12th share). That $2.6 million is about a third of what BYU gets from ESPN, and comparing the respective TV audiences for Hawaii and BYU football, it's doubtful Hawaii would land more than that amount from any network as an independent and it's possible Hawaii could earn less.

It's true that as an independent we'd no longer have to pay travel subsidies to conference opponents (roughly $0.6 million per year), but we'd be giving up our share of MWC CFP money (over $1.5 million last season) and would lose our eligibility for the Access Bowl. Not a good trade. Hawaii would no longer have divisional or conference championships to play for, and we would lose our guaranteed annual matchups with the MWC Western Division schools whom we've played for many years and have longstanding rivalries with. And finally, we'd probably end up with fewer away games in California and Nevada where there are lots of former Island residents who are Hawaii fans and where we do most of our recruiting.

In my view independence would be a huge gamble for Hawaii football with very little likelihood of paying off. We like being in the MWC (except for the travel subsidies) and we aren't leaving.

In addition, the P5 conferences upping the conference games to 9 really limit Hawaii for any scheduling purposes.
But if all things were like they were before, I can see Hawaii being Indy in football and successful. But, the times have changed to which Indy isn't the best option for any school except ND....and possibly BYU, that is still to be determined.

(08-26-2015 03:50 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(08-25-2015 11:02 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  SMU and Tulsa know first-hand the joys of a western-oriented conference dominated by BYU and its satellites. I'm sure they can't wait to do it all over again.

As for the programs that are currently in the MWC, what you're suggesting would basically (in net-effect) be the equivalent of "Airport Meeting II" in which:
Air Force
BYU
Boise State
Colorado State
Fresno State
Nevada/Las Vegas
New Mexico
San Diego State

say adios to:
Hawaii
Nevada
San Jose State
Utah State
Wyoming

I don't really think that will happen, but I suppose it's possible.

A lot has changed since the Airport Meeting days. NCAA rules now strongly discourage forming new D-I all-sports conferences, which have to wait 8 years to qualify for auto-bids in men's and women's basketball unless they can justify an exemption. And a new FBS conference wouldn't be a signatory to the CFP contract and wouldn't get CFP money or be eligible for the CFP-sponsored bowls or playoff games. Under those circumstances it's hard to see BYU convincing any schools to break away from the MWC or AAC to form a new conference.

Yeah, the MW schools know too much about BYU to follow them again. The MW is more stable without BYU than with them. Just the fact that they couldn't get any MW schools to join them to the WAC is very telling.

(08-26-2015 10:27 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  A lot has changed since the Airport Meeting days. NCAA rules now strongly discourage forming new D-I all-sports conferences, which have to wait 8 years to qualify for auto-bids in men's and women's basketball unless they can justify an exemption.

Or if they have an autobid number of schools that have competed together in conference play ... which AFAIU is a general cross-division rule, and is used much more often in the lower divisions. However, I think I recall that the BBall autobid number is 7, and as already discussed, it does not seem likely that BYU could find 7 schools from a single conference that would be interested in joining a BYU-led conference.

(08-25-2015 10:22 AM)ken d Wrote:  It may be a long shot, but I believe it may be possible to persuade the CFP to amend its contract with respect to the way it awards what is now the G5 bid to the NY6. There exists a perception (based in reality) that Notre Dame is treated too deferentially by the CFP. There is also a somewhat lesser perception that other independents, notably BYU, are unfairly cut out of the process entirely, both with respect to access as well as financially.

If Boise State were to also become an independent in football, would the CFP want to permanently deny them access to an NY6 bowl despite their clear dominance of the non-P5 universe? I would argue that the best approach, in the interest of fairness (whatever that is), is that the guaranteed spot for non-P5s should go to the highest ranked team among all G5 schools and independents (including Notre Dame).

Based on the last 10 years of BCS/CFP rankings, that spot would have gone to Boise 5 times, Notre Dame twice, and UCF, Cincinnati and Hawaii once each. That happens to be as often as Notre Dame would have qualified based on their current sweetheart status. If Notre Dame were given the same status as every other independent, I believe that would be perceived as fair, as long as they aren't just Snow White to the Seven Dwarfs. As one of three P5 quality indies (plus perhaps as many as four not-so-quality ones), who have 15 Top 25 appearances combined in the past ten years, they would collectively be "worthy" of the same treatment as any member of a G5 conference.

BYU has found a suitable home for their Olympic sports in the WCC. But while Boise would fit that league geographically and competitively, they don't fit it culturally in the way BYU does. If they are not an option, and the MWC refuses to let them keep their membership for all besides FB despite the screwing that Boise just gave them, then where would they go? And how important would it be to Boise where they wind up?

Didn't read the rest of the thread, but the main problem with your argument is that the CFP is a contract/partnership with the ten conferences and Notre Dame.

The access slot goes to the G5 conferences' best team. That was the deal.

Notre Dame doesn't get in on that, in exchange for special treatment (defacto P5 treatment).



And of course, the reason for that is because Bowl games, other than the semi-finals and championship, aren't in it to pair two teams with the best on-field performance. They're in it to make money. That means tickets sold, air/hotel/rental booked and TV viewership.

Notre Dame brings that like a P5. None of the other independents, including BYU or an indy Boise, do at the same level.