I think deregulation will not happen. As I have seen through the realignment, the schools are more interested for themselves and not the strength of the conference. I think many of the G5 schools will vote with the Big 10 hopefully that the Big 12 will be forced to expand while AAC and MWC gets schools taken from them. Which does open spots up for C-USA, Big Sky, Sun Belt, MAC, CAA, OVC, MVFC, Southern, Southland and Big South schools to upgrade in conferences.

If the Sun Belt drops both New Mexico State and Idaho? I could see Lamar and Missouri State to be added to replace them for all sports.

(01-08-2016 05:13 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 04:18 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 03:57 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 03:53 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 03:34 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  Maybe that's what they're holding on for. If one or two MWC schools get Big 12 invites, the MWC may be willing to invite Idaho and New Mexico State to get back to 12/hedge against a possible incursion by the AAC to really hurt them.

The MW will never invite Idaho. They bring no value to the conference. Montana, UC-Davis, Portland St bring much, much more than Idaho.

Montana, obviously. But they've long resisted FBS. So much so that it's apart of their fan culture.

Davis and Portland St? Read: Northridge and Sac St to the Big Sky.

They resisted a down-grade to the WAC.

I think a fair number of schools in the west would seriously consider a call from the MWC, if one ever came.

Maybe. I think their fans are extremely resistant to the idea. You know exactly the type I'm talking about, since I know you've been on AGS.

If the MWC came around, it's possible the conference could be dilapidated to the point that it resembled a WAC.

A good number love the playoffs, and being able to host 7 games a year.
There are many that want to try FBS. A good subset had no interest though, in the old WAC.

Wyoming, CSU, Boise, Nevada, etc would be attractive.

But as you say, who would be gone if the MWC was poached?

(01-08-2016 04:46 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 04:13 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 03:53 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 03:34 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 02:46 PM)rjglassett Wrote:  Neither school could stay as an independent for long. Idaho may have to move some home games to Boise or Pullman to get home games. If the SBC doesn't extend the contract, they probably should drop and join the Big Sky. They really have no home, and even the SunBelt isn't a great long term destination. Barring the MW extending an offer, the big Sky is their only home.

Maybe that's what they're holding on for. If one or two MWC schools get Big 12 invites, the MWC may be willing to invite Idaho and New Mexico State to get back to 12/hedge against a possible incursion by the AAC to really hurt them.

The MW will never invite Idaho. They bring no value to the conference. Montana, UC-Davis, Portland St bring much, much more than Idaho.

As mentioned, Montana has steadfastly refused to move up to FBS, even when the MWC kicked the tires. Cal-Davis (6,121) and Portland State (4,583) will need a lot of work to move up to FBS, even if that's their intent, and will the MWC want them?

If they lose two teams, and the AAC starts making overtures to San Diego State (which almost certainly would be there if Boise didn't back out) and the Front Range schools, then they'll need someone who's ready to go now.

That may still not be enough to prompt invitations to Idaho and New Mexico State, but it increases the chances.

The MW never kicked any tires with Montana. The MW doesn't need any FCS schools. I'm saying there are 10 other schools before Idaho that get in.
Its different scenario to moving up to an unstable WAC and the MW offers much more revenue. But the MW will expand into Texas first, NMSU next, then perhaps drawing up a FCS team or two for the first time before they even get to Idaho.
PSU and Cal-Davis offered a larger metro area than what Idaho offers in there area. Idaho has a much bigger problem than moving to FCS and that is their enrollment is declining while BSU and Idaho St are increasing.

North Dakota State, Eastern Washington, Montana and Portland State would be ahead of New Mexico State. Portland State is a major tv market that New Mexico State can not provide. UTEP and North Dakota State have good football and basketball. Montana and Eastern Washington have good football.

As I see it this way.

UTEP
North Dakota State
Wichita State
Portland State
Eastern Washington
Montana
Montana State
Sacramento State
Cal-Davis
Cal-Poly
Northern Arizona


Low on the list.
New Mexico State
Rice

No chance at all.
Idaho

(01-08-2016 06:34 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  If the Sun Belt drops both New Mexico State and Idaho? I could see Lamar and Missouri State to be added to replace them for all sports.

Wrong. Lamar won't even get a look. EKU will get serious looks, as will JMU. Missouri State still won't entertain the Belt. If EKU and JMU get invites, USA and Troy will be pushed to the west, building two very strong and very tight regional divisions.

(01-08-2016 12:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 11:57 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 11:32 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  The other thing is that this is not the last of these hard conversations that will happen in FBS.

It shouldn't be the last such conversation, but the only other two are likely to be at NMSU and UMass.

Any school that is a full member of an FBS conference has the security blanket of a full conference schedule, so can satisfy the 5-home-game requirement without difficulty, and full members are in virtually no danger of ever being kicked out of their conference.

UMass messed up taking so long to move up. They should have figured out a way to do it 10 years earlier and they would have found a home by now. UConn also messed up by not moving up in 1991 when the BE was formed. They would have had a much better chance to be in the P5 now.

Both schools had stadium issues to overcome. Seating capacity wasn't sufficient when the requirement was to have 30,000 on campus seats.

UMass if they had joined MAC football around the time that Temple was added it would have helped. The problem for UMass is the NCAA had a ban on FCS to FBS upgrades for several years while it was studied by management council. They moved up not long after they were first permitted to do so by accepting an invite to an existing FBS conference.

Fullerton doesn't want Idaho at the FCS level. Whomever is spouting such nonsense doesn't take his past statements into context.

Contrary to what is posted here, both Montanas like the idea of FBS, but many of the school's in the MWC have three times the budget. If presented a regional league and similar budgets, the Montanas would be interested.

This is just the first in a series of statements from Staben and Fullerton over the next several months. Staben has stated that a regional conference has advantages. He didn't say anything about FCS.

Why hasn't the WAC and Atlantic Sun taken more DII moveups in the past several years? It's because they know there will be a major reorganization of lower conferences over the next several years. The Summit will disband because it will get poached to death, the WAC will takeep remaining Big Sky FCS teams, and the ASUN will get the homeless Summit and WAC midwest teams and put them in a separate division.

(01-08-2016 05:20 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 03:55 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 03:34 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  Maybe that's what they're holding on for. If one or two MWC schools get Big 12 invites, the MWC may be willing to invite Idaho and New Mexico State to get back to 12/hedge against a possible incursion by the AAC to really hurt them.

Or, maybe the third tier Western FBS conference gets restarted. That, truly, is where Idaho and NM St belong.

That hope died when the WAC voted not to invite FCS teams to replenish themselves a couple of years ago. They had the chance to invite FCS schools to replace Fresno, Nevada, and Hawaii. Louisiana Tech and Utah State would've still left for sure, probably SJSU too. But the WAC could've survived if they backfilled with schools like Montana and Eastern Washington to go along with castaways like Idaho and NMSU. It would be weak, but it would still be around.

They didn't vote to not take FCS teams. FCS teams kept saying they were not interested. The WAC only had a narrow window to rebuild (the FCS teams had to transition in 2 years to survive). In the end, the same Big Sky schools every thinks want to move up were not interested. That's why I maintain the administrations of these schools don't really want to move up.

They have run the numbers and have come to the conclusion FBS would cost far more than it would be worth to them. Those schools have figured out that in their lightly populated states, their crowds and viewership are already about as big as they can get. The crowds will not get much bigger, and the TV audiences will not grow by much as a result of the move to FBS---but the costs would balloon due to adding more scholarships and the matching title 9 requirements and increased coaching costs.

The WAC was the FBS feeder conference for the west and the lack of decisive action on the part of the move-up ready western FCS schools ultimately relegated these same schools to a long long future in FCS. On the up side, those Big Sky schools are probably going to get a solid new FCS member and rival for their conference.

Actually Lamar could be a travel partner for Texas State. It could help make a bridge to San Marcos that route.

There are some D2 candidates in some large tv markets that could be called up.

Cal-San Diego
East Bay State
Azusa Pacific
Western Washington
Alaska twins
Metro State
West Texas A&M
Washburn
Tampa
Columbus State
Valdosta State
Angelo State
Midwestern State
Central Oklahoma
Missouri Southern


That is only a sample.

Some of the west coast and central football schools could fall into WAC football and so forth. If WAC brings back football with FCS schools that can't move up? Schools like Azusa Pacific, East Bay State, Western Oregon, Central Washington, Colorado State-Pueblo, Montana State-Billings, Washburn and several others could be brought up.
Bakersfield State, UT-RGV, Grand Canyon, Utah Valley all could start football up.

(01-08-2016 06:34 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I think deregulation will not happen. As I have seen through the realignment, the schools are more interested for themselves and not the strength of the conference. I think many of the G5 schools will vote with the Big 10 hopefully that the Big 12 will be forced to expand while AAC and MWC gets schools taken from them. Which does open spots up for C-USA, Big Sky, Sun Belt, MAC, CAA, OVC, MVFC, Southern, Southland and Big South schools to upgrade in conferences.

If the Sun Belt drops both New Mexico State and Idaho? I could see Lamar and Missouri State to be added to replace them for all sports.

The funny thing is, voting "yes" for deregulation likely is GOOD for G5 conference stability. Only a few G5 members (who would already have a good idea who they are) would benefit by voting "no" on deregulation. In other words, the majority of the members in these G5 conferences already would know they are likely NOT the target to "improve" their current conference situation. So, logically, the majority of each G5 would vote for conference stability---the alternative would mean voting for a measure that would weaken the conference that the majority of teams would still be left behind in.

So, I honestly think the majority of each G5 conference would be more likely to vote for deregulation than against it. I also think they would be more likely to vote against the Big-10 amendment for the same reason.

(01-08-2016 10:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Only a few G5 members (who would already have a good idea who they are) would benefit by voting "no" on deregulation. So, I honestly think the G5 would be more likely to vote for deregulation than against it. I also think they would be more likely to vote against the Big-10 amendment for the same reason.

Right. The handful of G5 teams who would have a potential chance at benefitting from the Big 12 going hunting for new members are probably outvoted in each of their own conferences. So maybe all 5 G5 conferences would support the Big 12's deregulation position. On the other hand, the MAC and SBC are unlikely to be touched by Big 12 expansion, and CUSA would only have the possibility of losing a couple of teams when the AAC or MWC backfill, so maybe those conferences don't care much about it either way.

The Sun Belt is really in an awkward position due to Texas-Arlington and Little Rock. If the conference replaces Idaho or New Mexico State with another full member (or two), the Sun Belt will have 13 or 14 members for basketball. That itself isn't a huge problem, but it means everyone is taking a pay cut by admitting another member. Unless if the travel savings are enough to offset that, then it would be best to keep the status quo.

I do feel that if Texas-Arlington announces it is starting football, Idaho is gone. The same would apply to Little Rock starting football, but the Fayetteville campus dominates the University of Arkansas System.

(01-08-2016 11:08 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  The Sun Belt is really in an awkward position due to Texas-Arlington and Little Rock. If the conference replaces Idaho or New Mexico State with another full member (or two), the Sun Belt will have 13 or 14 members for basketball. That itself isn't a huge problem, but it means everyone is taking a pay cut by admitting another member. Unless if the travel savings are enough to offset that, then it would be best to keep the status quo.

I do feel that if Texas-Arlington announces it is starting football, Idaho is gone. The same would apply to Little Rock starting football, but the Fayetteville campus dominates the University of Arkansas System.

It's my opinion that UTA and UALR should also be shown the door. The Sun Belt is the only G5 or P5 conference with football-less schools as full members. If Idaho and NMSU are gone, then UTA and UALR should be gone, too. Bring in two other members that can bring the full package and not just a part of it.

(01-08-2016 10:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 06:34 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I think deregulation will not happen. As I have seen through the realignment, the schools are more interested for themselves and not the strength of the conference. I think many of the G5 schools will vote with the Big 10 hopefully that the Big 12 will be forced to expand while AAC and MWC gets schools taken from them. Which does open spots up for C-USA, Big Sky, Sun Belt, MAC, CAA, OVC, MVFC, Southern, Southland and Big South schools to upgrade in conferences.

If the Sun Belt drops both New Mexico State and Idaho? I could see Lamar and Missouri State to be added to replace them for all sports.

The funny thing is, voting "yes" for deregulation likely is GOOD for G5 conference stability. Only a few G5 members (who would already have a good idea who they are) would benefit by voting "no" on deregulation. In other words, the majority of the members in these G5 conferences already would know they are likely NOT the target to "improve" their current conference situation. So, logically, the majority of each G5 would vote for conference stability---the alternative would mean voting for a measure that would weaken the conference that the majority of teams would still be left behind in.

So, I honestly think the majority of each G5 conference would be more likely to vote for deregulation than against it. I also think they would be more likely to vote against the Big-10 amendment for the same reason.

9 of the 12 MWC schools have been rumored as expansion candidates. San Jose State, Utah State and Wyoming are the ones that might vote with the Big 12.

All of the AAC except for Tulsa could swing in the Big 10 way. That is 20 out of 24 schools that could vote with the Big 10.

Old Dominion, Rice, Northern Illinois, Toledo, Ohio U., Southern Mississippi and UTSA are also rumor as expansion candidates to either P5 ot to a better G5 Conference. You can add UTEP for MWC. That is 8 more schools. Plus U. Mass. on the list, and BYU as well. That makes 30.

30 could vote the Big 10 way, 30 could vote the Big 12 way. So, it could be half and half on the G5 schools. Lets say the SEC, PAC 12 and Big 10 vote against both the Big 12 and ACC. 70 votes in favor with the Big 10, and 55 for the Big 12. Big 10 could get the majority of the votes.

(01-08-2016 11:27 PM)rknj8993 Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 11:08 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  The Sun Belt is really in an awkward position due to Texas-Arlington and Little Rock. If the conference replaces Idaho or New Mexico State with another full member (or two), the Sun Belt will have 13 or 14 members for basketball. That itself isn't a huge problem, but it means everyone is taking a pay cut by admitting another member. Unless if the travel savings are enough to offset that, then it would be best to keep the status quo.

I do feel that if Texas-Arlington announces it is starting football, Idaho is gone. The same would apply to Little Rock starting football, but the Fayetteville campus dominates the University of Arkansas System.

It's my opinion that UTA and UALR should also be shown the door. The Sun Belt is the only G5 or P5 conference with football-less schools as full members. If Idaho and NMSU are gone, then UTA and UALR should be gone, too. Bring in two other members that can bring the full package and not just a part of it.

UTA was brought in to replace the market that they lost in Dallas when North Texas left. If they lose UTA? They need to replace another Texas school with someone else. Lamar is near Houston in Beaumont. That is one thing they got for them going.

I do think there is beginning to be pressure on Little Rock to add football which also put pressure on Arkansas at Fayetteville.

(01-08-2016 11:59 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 10:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 06:34 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I think deregulation will not happen. As I have seen through the realignment, the schools are more interested for themselves and not the strength of the conference. I think many of the G5 schools will vote with the Big 10 hopefully that the Big 12 will be forced to expand while AAC and MWC gets schools taken from them. Which does open spots up for C-USA, Big Sky, Sun Belt, MAC, CAA, OVC, MVFC, Southern, Southland and Big South schools to upgrade in conferences.

If the Sun Belt drops both New Mexico State and Idaho? I could see Lamar and Missouri State to be added to replace them for all sports.

The funny thing is, voting "yes" for deregulation likely is GOOD for G5 conference stability. Only a few G5 members (who would already have a good idea who they are) would benefit by voting "no" on deregulation. In other words, the majority of the members in these G5 conferences already would know they are likely NOT the target to "improve" their current conference situation. So, logically, the majority of each G5 would vote for conference stability---the alternative would mean voting for a measure that would weaken the conference that the majority of teams would still be left behind in.

So, I honestly think the majority of each G5 conference would be more likely to vote for deregulation than against it. I also think they would be more likely to vote against the Big-10 amendment for the same reason.

9 of the 12 MWC schools have been rumored as expansion candidates. San Jose State, Utah State and Wyoming are the ones that might vote with the Big 12.

All of the AAC except for Tulsa could swing in the Big 10 way. That is 20 out of 24 schools that could vote with the Big 10.

Old Dominion, Rice, Northern Illinois, Toledo, Ohio U., Southern Mississippi and UTSA are also rumor as expansion candidates to either P5 ot to a better G5 Conference. You can add UTEP for MWC. That is 8 more schools. Plus U. Mass. on the list, and BYU as well. That makes 30.

30 could vote the Big 10 way, 30 could vote the Big 12 way. So, it could be half and half on the G5 schools. Lets say the SEC, PAC 12 and Big 10 vote against both the Big 12 and ACC. 70 votes in favor with the Big 10, and 55 for the Big 12. Big 10 could get the majority of the votes.

The thing is, when you are IN negotiations to become part of another conference, you know it. If your are not in negotiations, then you know that as well. At this point, the Big-12 has a good idea of who they are really interested in and those schools are well aware of that interest. At this point, talks have likely progressed beyond the early feeling out stage and will have become more detailed and substantial.

So, for instance, there may indeed have beem realignment rumors floating around about 9 MW schools---but of the 9 mentioned over the last year, only the ones with a legit chance of moving are currently having ACTUAL meaningful talks. Those schools having meaningful talks obviously know who they are. On the other hand, the schools that are not having meaningful talks KNOW they are NOT having meaningful talks---which means they are not serious realignment targets at this time and are going to be left behind to pick up the pieces. All Im saying is that school administrations are not like fans---they have the information. They already know at this point if they are a real target or not and will vote accordingly.

So, we know that conferences already picked schools as a P5 opponents.

BYU
Army
Navy
Cincinnati

That is all we know for sure.

Maybe the PAC 12 considers BYU, MWC and some Big Sky schools who compete with them as worthy Strong opponents? They could go ahead and deemed that the MWC and AAC to be considered as part of the P5 schools. That makes 79 schools. Plus add BYU, Army, Stony Brook, Buffalo, Toledo, Northern Illinois and North Dakota State as part of that group. That makes 86 schools total. Maybe they will add some more to the list.

(01-09-2016 02:01 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  So, we know that conferences already picked schools as a P5 opponents.

BYU
Army
Navy
Cincinnati

That is all we know for sure.

Maybe the PAC 12 considers BYU, MWC and some Big Sky schools who compete with them as worthy Strong opponents? They could go ahead and deemed that the MWC and AAC to be considered as part of the P5 schools. That makes 79 schools. Plus add BYU, Army, Stony Brook, Buffalo, Toledo, Northern Illinois and North Dakota State as part of that group. That makes 86 schools total. Maybe they will add some more to the list.

What are you even saying?

(01-08-2016 09:57 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Fullerton doesn't want Idaho at the FCS level. Whomever is spouting such nonsense doesn't take his past statements into context.

Contrary to what is posted here, both Montanas like the idea of FBS, but many of the school's in the MWC have three times the budget. If presented a regional league and similar budgets, the Montanas would be interested.

This is just the first in a series of statements from Staben and Fullerton over the next several months. Staben has stated that a regional conference has advantages. He didn't say anything about FCS.

Why hasn't the WAC and Atlantic Sun taken more DII moveups in the past several years? It's because they know there will be a major reorganization of lower conferences over the next several years. The Summit will disband because it will get poached to death, the WAC will takeep remaining Big Sky FCS teams, and the ASUN will get the homeless Summit and WAC midwest teams and put them in a separate division.

-OR-

Idaho stays FBS and joins the MWC as a full member, along with Montana and Montana St.

The remaining Big Sky schools stay FCS, where they belong, and vote to kick UND out, since they're tired of traveling all the way to Grand Forks, which had no business being in a western conference in the first place.

UND then joins the Summit as a full member and the MVFC for football, where they belong (for both). They also get Denver and Omaha as all sports rivals in the Summit.


Works for me.

(01-08-2016 11:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 10:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Only a few G5 members (who would already have a good idea who they are) would benefit by voting "no" on deregulation. So, I honestly think the G5 would be more likely to vote for deregulation than against it. I also think they would be more likely to vote against the Big-10 amendment for the same reason.

Right. The handful of G5 teams who would have a potential chance at benefitting from the Big 12 going hunting for new members are probably outvoted in each of their own conferences. So maybe all 5 G5 conferences would support the Big 12's deregulation position. On the other hand, the MAC and SBC are unlikely to be touched by Big 12 expansion, and CUSA would only have the possibility of losing a couple of teams when the AAC or MWC backfill, so maybe those conferences don't care much about it either way.

Your other hand looks right to me.

MAC is already set at 12/2 divisions. Sun Belt won't be affected. CUSA might actually benefit from going down to 12, from 14 (more money for each team). XII won't take any MWC teams, so they're unaffected and already set at 12/2div.

AAC is the only conference that might worry about losing two.


So that's the XII, ACC and AAC vs the other seven.

(01-08-2016 11:27 PM)rknj8993 Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 11:08 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  The Sun Belt is really in an awkward position due to Texas-Arlington and Little Rock. If the conference replaces Idaho or New Mexico State with another full member (or two), the Sun Belt will have 13 or 14 members for basketball. That itself isn't a huge problem, but it means everyone is taking a pay cut by admitting another member. Unless if the travel savings are enough to offset that, then it would be best to keep the status quo.

I do feel that if Texas-Arlington announces it is starting football, Idaho is gone. The same would apply to Little Rock starting football, but the Fayetteville campus dominates the University of Arkansas System.

It's my opinion that UTA and UALR should also be shown the door. The Sun Belt is the only G5 or P5 conference with football-less schools as full members. If Idaho and NMSU are gone, then UTA and UALR should be gone, too. Bring in two other members that can bring the full package and not just a part of it.

Arlington is one thing, but UALR has been in the Sun Belt since 1991. You don't think other teams have proposed getting rid of them? Good luck.

Generally speaking, "showing teams the door" is not how it works in conferences. Teams leave of their own circumstances.


That said, if it turns out that the Sun Belt could host a CCG with only 10 football members ... why add any more teams?? Where is the benefit?