(07-01-2016 02:20 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(07-01-2016 11:51 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Or you can do what AState did, be rather successful in FCS make the decision to move just as your FCS program starts crumbling and get even more battered as a new FBS.

Hey, we did that. Must of taking right out of the AState play book.

Knew you guys were more cool than what people thought.

(07-01-2016 11:51 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Or you can do what AState did, be rather successful in FCS make the decision to move just as your FCS program starts crumbling and get even more battered as a new FBS.

Hey, we were proud to call you our conference brethren. Even if it was a football-only deal

(06-28-2016 05:13 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 04:36 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  From a long-term marketing and prestige standpoint it would be good for Idaho, the Montanas and the Dakotas to affiliate with each other. A league of like-minded flagships from small western states makes tons of sense and is far better for marketing and rivalry development than trying to make people understand games with Directional State Tech.

And, if they wanted to, those schools could be the backbone of a really nice little FBS league. Similar states, similar budgets, little chance of a destructive intra-conference arms race between the schools. It would be like the MAC, except those schools would actually be the dominant teams in their geographic territories. And they could all say with a straight face that they were on a level playing field with the other state flagships around the country.

The problem is, most of those schools are wrapped around the axle with FCS and have decided what they have is "good enough." I haven't seen anyone at any of those places with the talent, vision and salesmanship to change people's minds and make a conference like that happen.

In summary, none of us are moving out of Mom's basement anytime soon. Even sadder, Idaho is moving back in.

Wait til the Big Sky media days in July. Our new President is coming aboard July 1st, so protocol insists that he be involved in major "decisions." He a former Minnesota congressman, represented Michelle Bachmann's district before her, and got back into academics after he lost a Minnesota Senatorial race. He's been at most of the major athletics meetings already, including the Frozen Four and Big Sky President meetings recently.

If an FBS WAC isn't announced by the end of July, I'll concede that Idaho is truly going FCS in two years.

If Idaho stays FCS, do you see the FBS WAC conference idea not coming to fruition?

(07-06-2016 09:53 AM)BisonCardinal Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 05:13 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 04:36 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  From a long-term marketing and prestige standpoint it would be good for Idaho, the Montanas and the Dakotas to affiliate with each other. A league of like-minded flagships from small western states makes tons of sense and is far better for marketing and rivalry development than trying to make people understand games with Directional State Tech.

And, if they wanted to, those schools could be the backbone of a really nice little FBS league. Similar states, similar budgets, little chance of a destructive intra-conference arms race between the schools. It would be like the MAC, except those schools would actually be the dominant teams in their geographic territories. And they could all say with a straight face that they were on a level playing field with the other state flagships around the country.

The problem is, most of those schools are wrapped around the axle with FCS and have decided what they have is "good enough." I haven't seen anyone at any of those places with the talent, vision and salesmanship to change people's minds and make a conference like that happen.

In summary, none of us are moving out of Mom's basement anytime soon. Even sadder, Idaho is moving back in.

Wait til the Big Sky media days in July. Our new President is coming aboard July 1st, so protocol insists that he be involved in major "decisions." He a former Minnesota congressman, represented Michelle Bachmann's district before her, and got back into academics after he lost a Minnesota Senatorial race. He's been at most of the major athletics meetings already, including the Frozen Four and Big Sky President meetings recently.

If an FBS WAC isn't announced by the end of July, I'll concede that Idaho is truly going FCS in two years.

If Idaho stays FCS, do you see the FBS WAC conference idea not coming to fruition?

I still believe the WAC will be resurrected with Big Sky teams, Wichita St football, maybe Mo St football, UTRGV football, and maybe a Southland team or two. The western WAC teams could be absorbed by the Big Sky.

Don't see any other league that would entertain swapping teams with the WAC.

If Big Sky teams don't do it, the WAC could monetize it's right to call up FBS teams. Some schools like Liberty, JMU, and Stony Brook would like an FBS bid without switching leagues for its other sports.

(07-06-2016 04:06 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 09:53 AM)BisonCardinal Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 05:13 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 04:36 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  From a long-term marketing and prestige standpoint it would be good for Idaho, the Montanas and the Dakotas to affiliate with each other. A league of like-minded flagships from small western states makes tons of sense and is far better for marketing and rivalry development than trying to make people understand games with Directional State Tech.

And, if they wanted to, those schools could be the backbone of a really nice little FBS league. Similar states, similar budgets, little chance of a destructive intra-conference arms race between the schools. It would be like the MAC, except those schools would actually be the dominant teams in their geographic territories. And they could all say with a straight face that they were on a level playing field with the other state flagships around the country.

The problem is, most of those schools are wrapped around the axle with FCS and have decided what they have is "good enough." I haven't seen anyone at any of those places with the talent, vision and salesmanship to change people's minds and make a conference like that happen.

In summary, none of us are moving out of Mom's basement anytime soon. Even sadder, Idaho is moving back in.

Wait til the Big Sky media days in July. Our new President is coming aboard July 1st, so protocol insists that he be involved in major "decisions." He a former Minnesota congressman, represented Michelle Bachmann's district before her, and got back into academics after he lost a Minnesota Senatorial race. He's been at most of the major athletics meetings already, including the Frozen Four and Big Sky President meetings recently.

If an FBS WAC isn't announced by the end of July, I'll concede that Idaho is truly going FCS in two years.

If Idaho stays FCS, do you see the FBS WAC conference idea not coming to fruition?

I still believe the WAC will be resurrected with Big Sky teams, Wichita St football, maybe Mo St football, UTRGV football, and maybe a Southland team or two. The western WAC teams could be absorbed by the Big Sky.

Don't see any other league that would entertain swapping teams with the WAC.

If Big Sky teams don't do it, the WAC could monetize it's right to call up FBS teams. Some schools like Liberty, JMU, and Stony Brook would like an FBS bid without switching leagues for its other sports.

Grand Canyon U. and Utah Valley talked about adding football. But, the Big Sky would need more football members. Could a Great West form for non-football schools and a Big Sky football conference formed with the likely call ups of GNAC, Dixie State, Humboldt State and so forth? RMAC schools and some of the California schools could be involved.

" Some schools like Liberty, JMU, and Stony Brook would like an FBS bid without switching leagues for its other sports. "

What??

FBS conf has to have minimum of eight full-sports members.

(07-07-2016 09:27 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  " Some schools like Liberty, JMU, and Stony Brook would like an FBS bid without switching leagues for its other sports. "

What??

FBS conf has to have minimum of eight full-sports members.

That's true, but does it prevent the WAC from offering FBS football to those who aren't full WAC members? I don't know how it's all set up or what the rules are but if they do have the power to still invite FCS teams, does it state that they have to be a full fledged FBS conference before offering football only membership and promoting others?

I'm not sure what the benefit would be for the WAC if they could, other than getting games scheduled and maybe a monetary offer their way.

It's nearly impossible for the WAC to have enough full members unless they can pull from the Big Sky which seems less and less likely. I guess there area couple of WAC schools that could consider football, but they'd still need to find four or five others willing to join for everything at that point which still seems unlikely unless there's a change in the XDSU/Montana camps. Maybe a couple of Texas schools would consider it, I have no idea.

But if they can offer FBS without a full conference, they're essentially calling up FCS teams to be Indy which is risky, but if there were more Indy teams scheduling becomes a little easier for them I would think.

(07-07-2016 09:51 AM)SubGod22 Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 09:27 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  " Some schools like Liberty, JMU, and Stony Brook would like an FBS bid without switching leagues for its other sports. "

What??

FBS conf has to have minimum of eight full-sports members.

That's true, but does it prevent the WAC from offering FBS football to those who aren't full WAC members? I don't know how it's all set up or what the rules are but if they do have the power to still invite FCS teams, does it state that they have to be a full fledged FBS conference before offering football only membership and promoting others?

I'm not sure what the benefit would be for the WAC if they could, other than getting games scheduled and maybe a monetary offer their way.

It's nearly impossible for the WAC to have enough full members unless they can pull from the Big Sky which seems less and less likely. I guess there area couple of WAC schools that could consider football, but they'd still need to find four or five others willing to join for everything at that point which still seems unlikely unless there's a change in the XDSU/Montana camps. Maybe a couple of Texas schools would consider it, I have no idea.

But if they can offer FBS without a full conference, they're essentially calling up FCS teams to be Indy which is risky, but if there were more Indy teams scheduling becomes a little easier for them I would think.

Again, the WAC loophole bylaw:

NCAA Bylaw 20.4.2.1.1
Eligibility for Reclassification - Before a Football Championship Subdivision institution may apply for reclassification to the Football Bowl Subdivision, the institution must receive a bona fide invitation for membership from a Football Bowl Subdivision conference or a conference that previously met the definition of a Football Bowl Subdivision conference.

As I read it this requires an invitation for membership into the conference. I don't think the WAC can take it upon itself to invite FCS schools to become FBS football-only affiliates without an underlying FBS conference of 8 full members playing football.

(07-07-2016 11:03 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 09:51 AM)SubGod22 Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 09:27 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  " Some schools like Liberty, JMU, and Stony Brook would like an FBS bid without switching leagues for its other sports. "

What??

FBS conf has to have minimum of eight full-sports members.

That's true, but does it prevent the WAC from offering FBS football to those who aren't full WAC members? I don't know how it's all set up or what the rules are but if they do have the power to still invite FCS teams, does it state that they have to be a full fledged FBS conference before offering football only membership and promoting others?

I'm not sure what the benefit would be for the WAC if they could, other than getting games scheduled and maybe a monetary offer their way.

It's nearly impossible for the WAC to have enough full members unless they can pull from the Big Sky which seems less and less likely. I guess there area couple of WAC schools that could consider football, but they'd still need to find four or five others willing to join for everything at that point which still seems unlikely unless there's a change in the XDSU/Montana camps. Maybe a couple of Texas schools would consider it, I have no idea.

But if they can offer FBS without a full conference, they're essentially calling up FCS teams to be Indy which is risky, but if there were more Indy teams scheduling becomes a little easier for them I would think.

Again, the WAC loophole bylaw:

NCAA Bylaw 20.4.2.1.1
Eligibility for Reclassification - Before a Football Championship Subdivision institution may apply for reclassification to the Football Bowl Subdivision, the institution must receive a bona fide invitation for membership from a Football Bowl Subdivision conference or a conference that previously met the definition of a Football Bowl Subdivision conference.

As I read it this requires an invitation for membership into the conference. I don't think the WAC can take it upon itself to invite FCS schools to become FBS football-only affiliates without an underlying FBS conference of 8 full members playing football.

If I remember correctly, there is more to this rule. There is also a section that indicates an FBS conference has a finite window (grace period) to return to FBS status or it loses that status. The wording in the "loop hole" was designed to allow a FBS conference that had fallen below the minimum 8 all-sports members to still call up an FCS school in order to survive. The wording was not designed to allow a conference that hasn't maintained FBS status for more than 2 years to call up 8 FCS teams and magically resume play as an FBS conference.

(07-07-2016 09:27 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  " Some schools like Liberty, JMU, and Stony Brook would like an FBS bid without switching leagues for its other sports. "

What??

FBS conf has to have minimum of eight full-sports members.

It's like arguing the WAC was never FBS.

The MAC invited UCF, Temple, and UMASS as associate FBS members in the past 20 years. The NCAA could have closed the associate FBS membership if it wanted, but has not.

(07-07-2016 11:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 11:03 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 09:51 AM)SubGod22 Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 09:27 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  " Some schools like Liberty, JMU, and Stony Brook would like an FBS bid without switching leagues for its other sports. "

What??

FBS conf has to have minimum of eight full-sports members.

That's true, but does it prevent the WAC from offering FBS football to those who aren't full WAC members? I don't know how it's all set up or what the rules are but if they do have the power to still invite FCS teams, does it state that they have to be a full fledged FBS conference before offering football only membership and promoting others?

I'm not sure what the benefit would be for the WAC if they could, other than getting games scheduled and maybe a monetary offer their way.

It's nearly impossible for the WAC to have enough full members unless they can pull from the Big Sky which seems less and less likely. I guess there area couple of WAC schools that could consider football, but they'd still need to find four or five others willing to join for everything at that point which still seems unlikely unless there's a change in the XDSU/Montana camps. Maybe a couple of Texas schools would consider it, I have no idea.

But if they can offer FBS without a full conference, they're essentially calling up FCS teams to be Indy which is risky, but if there were more Indy teams scheduling becomes a little easier for them I would think.

Again, the WAC loophole bylaw:

NCAA Bylaw 20.4.2.1.1
Eligibility for Reclassification - Before a Football Championship Subdivision institution may apply for reclassification to the Football Bowl Subdivision, the institution must receive a bona fide invitation for membership from a Football Bowl Subdivision conference or a conference that previously met the definition of a Football Bowl Subdivision conference.

As I read it this requires an invitation for membership into the conference. I don't think the WAC can take it upon itself to invite FCS schools to become FBS football-only affiliates without an underlying FBS conference of 8 full members playing football.

If I remember correctly, there is more to this rule. There is also a section that indicates an FBS conference has a finite window (grace period) to return to FBS status or it loses that status. The wording in the "loop hole" was designed to allow a FBS conference that had fallen below the minimum 8 all-sports members to still call up an FCS school in order to survive. The wording was not designed to allow a conference that hasn't maintained FBS status for more than 2 years to call up 8 FCS teams and magically resume play as an FBS conference.

The Idaho consultant's report disagrees, and so does the WAC, but carry on like you have been carrying on here for more than a year.

(07-07-2016 03:44 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 11:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 11:03 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 09:51 AM)SubGod22 Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 09:27 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  " Some schools like Liberty, JMU, and Stony Brook would like an FBS bid without switching leagues for its other sports. "

What??

FBS conf has to have minimum of eight full-sports members.

That's true, but does it prevent the WAC from offering FBS football to those who aren't full WAC members? I don't know how it's all set up or what the rules are but if they do have the power to still invite FCS teams, does it state that they have to be a full fledged FBS conference before offering football only membership and promoting others?

I'm not sure what the benefit would be for the WAC if they could, other than getting games scheduled and maybe a monetary offer their way.

It's nearly impossible for the WAC to have enough full members unless they can pull from the Big Sky which seems less and less likely. I guess there area couple of WAC schools that could consider football, but they'd still need to find four or five others willing to join for everything at that point which still seems unlikely unless there's a change in the XDSU/Montana camps. Maybe a couple of Texas schools would consider it, I have no idea.

But if they can offer FBS without a full conference, they're essentially calling up FCS teams to be Indy which is risky, but if there were more Indy teams scheduling becomes a little easier for them I would think.

Again, the WAC loophole bylaw:

NCAA Bylaw 20.4.2.1.1
Eligibility for Reclassification - Before a Football Championship Subdivision institution may apply for reclassification to the Football Bowl Subdivision, the institution must receive a bona fide invitation for membership from a Football Bowl Subdivision conference or a conference that previously met the definition of a Football Bowl Subdivision conference.

As I read it this requires an invitation for membership into the conference. I don't think the WAC can take it upon itself to invite FCS schools to become FBS football-only affiliates without an underlying FBS conference of 8 full members playing football.

If I remember correctly, there is more to this rule. There is also a section that indicates an FBS conference has a finite window (grace period) to return to FBS status or it loses that status. The wording in the "loop hole" was designed to allow a FBS conference that had fallen below the minimum 8 all-sports members to still call up an FCS school in order to survive. The wording was not designed to allow a conference that hasn't maintained FBS status for more than 2 years to call up 8 FCS teams and magically resume play as an FBS conference.

The Idaho consultant's report disagrees, and so does the WAC, but carry on like you have been carrying on here for more than a year.

I cant help it if the consultant knows less than me. The problem for the WAC is that it no longer is considered as being an FBS conference. The portion of the bylaws the consultant is basing their theory on was written to contain language allowing a conference that has lost a member and fallen below the existing 8-member requirement to still retain its ability to invite FCS members. However, that power has an expiration date which is spelled out in the immediately following subsection.

20.02.6.2 Grace Period.
A conference shall continue to be considered a Football Bowl Subdivision conference
for two years following the date when it fails to satisfy the eight full Football Bowl Subdivision member
requirement due to one or more of its member’s failure to comply with the bowl subdivision membership requirements.


http://www.ncaapublications.com/productd...116APR.pdf

The 2 year grace period has long passed. The WAC is no longer classified as an FBS conference. That ship has sailed.

(07-07-2016 04:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 03:44 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 11:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 11:03 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 09:51 AM)SubGod22 Wrote:  That's true, but does it prevent the WAC from offering FBS football to those who aren't full WAC members? I don't know how it's all set up or what the rules are but if they do have the power to still invite FCS teams, does it state that they have to be a full fledged FBS conference before offering football only membership and promoting others?

I'm not sure what the benefit would be for the WAC if they could, other than getting games scheduled and maybe a monetary offer their way.

It's nearly impossible for the WAC to have enough full members unless they can pull from the Big Sky which seems less and less likely. I guess there area couple of WAC schools that could consider football, but they'd still need to find four or five others willing to join for everything at that point which still seems unlikely unless there's a change in the XDSU/Montana camps. Maybe a couple of Texas schools would consider it, I have no idea.

But if they can offer FBS without a full conference, they're essentially calling up FCS teams to be Indy which is risky, but if there were more Indy teams scheduling becomes a little easier for them I would think.

Again, the WAC loophole bylaw:

NCAA Bylaw 20.4.2.1.1
Eligibility for Reclassification - Before a Football Championship Subdivision institution may apply for reclassification to the Football Bowl Subdivision, the institution must receive a bona fide invitation for membership from a Football Bowl Subdivision conference or a conference that previously met the definition of a Football Bowl Subdivision conference.

As I read it this requires an invitation for membership into the conference. I don't think the WAC can take it upon itself to invite FCS schools to become FBS football-only affiliates without an underlying FBS conference of 8 full members playing football.

If I remember correctly, there is more to this rule. There is also a section that indicates an FBS conference has a finite window (grace period) to return to FBS status or it loses that status. The wording in the "loop hole" was designed to allow a FBS conference that had fallen below the minimum 8 all-sports members to still call up an FCS school in order to survive. The wording was not designed to allow a conference that hasn't maintained FBS status for more than 2 years to call up 8 FCS teams and magically resume play as an FBS conference.

The Idaho consultant's report disagrees, and so does the WAC, but carry on like you have been carrying on here for more than a year.

I cant help it if the consultant knows less than me.

20.02.6.2 Grace Period.
A conference shall continue to be considered a Football Bowl Subdivision conference
for two years following the date when it fails to satisfy the eight full Football Bowl Subdivision member
requirement due to one or more of its member’s failure to comply with the bowl subdivision membership requirements.


http://www.ncaapublications.com/productd...116APR.pdf

I don't think that matters. The other bylaw says a conference that previously met the definition of an FBS conference can invite members to be reclassified as FBS. The 2 year grace period doesn't have anything to do with that.

(07-07-2016 04:49 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 04:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 03:44 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 11:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 11:03 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  Again, the WAC loophole bylaw:

NCAA Bylaw 20.4.2.1.1
Eligibility for Reclassification - Before a Football Championship Subdivision institution may apply for reclassification to the Football Bowl Subdivision, the institution must receive a bona fide invitation for membership from a Football Bowl Subdivision conference or a conference that previously met the definition of a Football Bowl Subdivision conference.

As I read it this requires an invitation for membership into the conference. I don't think the WAC can take it upon itself to invite FCS schools to become FBS football-only affiliates without an underlying FBS conference of 8 full members playing football.

If I remember correctly, there is more to this rule. There is also a section that indicates an FBS conference has a finite window (grace period) to return to FBS status or it loses that status. The wording in the "loop hole" was designed to allow a FBS conference that had fallen below the minimum 8 all-sports members to still call up an FCS school in order to survive. The wording was not designed to allow a conference that hasn't maintained FBS status for more than 2 years to call up 8 FCS teams and magically resume play as an FBS conference.

The Idaho consultant's report disagrees, and so does the WAC, but carry on like you have been carrying on here for more than a year.

I cant help it if the consultant knows less than me.

20.02.6.2 Grace Period.
A conference shall continue to be considered a Football Bowl Subdivision conference
for two years following the date when it fails to satisfy the eight full Football Bowl Subdivision member
requirement due to one or more of its member’s failure to comply with the bowl subdivision membership requirements.


http://www.ncaapublications.com/productd...116APR.pdf

I don't think that matters. The other bylaw says a conference that previously met the definition of an FBS conference can invite members to be reclassified as FBS. The 2 year grace period doesn't have anything to do with that.

Then why is it there? I might add that both sections were revised at the exact same time.

(07-07-2016 05:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 04:49 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 04:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I cant help it if the consultant knows less than me.

20.02.6.2 Grace Period.
A conference shall continue to be considered a Football Bowl Subdivision conference
for two years following the date when it fails to satisfy the eight full Football Bowl Subdivision member
requirement due to one or more of its member’s failure to comply with the bowl subdivision membership requirements.


http://www.ncaapublications.com/productd...116APR.pdf

I don't think that matters. The other bylaw says a conference that previously met the definition of an FBS conference can invite members to be reclassified as FBS. The 2 year grace period doesn't have anything to do with that.

Then why is it there? I might add that both sections were revised at the exact same time.

I have no idea. I just know the WAC compliance officer says the NCAA has told him they maintain grandfathered FBS status. And according to these bylaws it seems they do.

(07-07-2016 05:07 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 05:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 04:49 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 04:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I cant help it if the consultant knows less than me.

20.02.6.2 Grace Period.
A conference shall continue to be considered a Football Bowl Subdivision conference
for two years following the date when it fails to satisfy the eight full Football Bowl Subdivision member
requirement due to one or more of its member’s failure to comply with the bowl subdivision membership requirements.


http://www.ncaapublications.com/productd...116APR.pdf

I don't think that matters. The other bylaw says a conference that previously met the definition of an FBS conference can invite members to be reclassified as FBS. The 2 year grace period doesn't have anything to do with that.

Then why is it there? I might add that both sections were revised at the exact same time.

I have no idea. I just know the WAC compliance officer says the NCAA has told him they maintain grandfathered FBS status. And according to these bylaws it seems they do.

If thats the case, then why haven't New Mexico St and Idaho rebuilt WAC football?. Why havent they invited Wichita and University of Texas Rio Grande Valley? lol....Im sure David St will be happy to forward them a list of potential candidates.

Frankly, as desperate as the WAC was in those final days of football sponsorship, I find it hard to believe they wouldn't have elevated 6 schools to save themselves if it were possible. When the WAC invites 6 FCS schools to transition to FBS or produces a written document from the NCAA saying they are grandfathered---I'll believe it. Until then, its just unsubstantiated talk.

(07-07-2016 05:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 05:07 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 05:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 04:49 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 04:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I cant help it if the consultant knows less than me.

20.02.6.2 Grace Period.
A conference shall continue to be considered a Football Bowl Subdivision conference
for two years following the date when it fails to satisfy the eight full Football Bowl Subdivision member
requirement due to one or more of its member’s failure to comply with the bowl subdivision membership requirements.


http://www.ncaapublications.com/productd...116APR.pdf

I don't think that matters. The other bylaw says a conference that previously met the definition of an FBS conference can invite members to be reclassified as FBS. The 2 year grace period doesn't have anything to do with that.

Then why is it there? I might add that both sections were revised at the exact same time.

I have no idea. I just know the WAC compliance officer says the NCAA has told him they maintain grandfathered FBS status. And according to these bylaws it seems they do.

If thats the case, then why haven't New Mexico St and Idaho rebuilt WAC football?. lol....I sure David St will be happy to forward them a list of potential candidates.

There was about a 250 post thread on this last month. Idaho's AD will tell you this is all true and he's working on it if you email him. The problem is that you need 6 more schools to go along (hasn't happened) and trying to call up a bunch of FCS schools and get them to meet FBS scheduling requirements in the first couple years is really complicated.

The key, as always, is Arkansas Tech.

(07-07-2016 05:17 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 05:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 05:07 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 05:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 04:49 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  I don't think that matters. The other bylaw says a conference that previously met the definition of an FBS conference can invite members to be reclassified as FBS. The 2 year grace period doesn't have anything to do with that.

Then why is it there? I might add that both sections were revised at the exact same time.

I have no idea. I just know the WAC compliance officer says the NCAA has told him they maintain grandfathered FBS status. And according to these bylaws it seems they do.

If thats the case, then why haven't New Mexico St and Idaho rebuilt WAC football?. lol....I sure David St will be happy to forward them a list of potential candidates.

There was about a 250 post thread on this last month. Idaho's AD will tell you this is all true and he's working on it if you email him. The problem is that you need 6 more schools to go along (hasn't happened) and trying to call up a bunch of FCS schools and get them to meet FBS scheduling requirements in the first couple years is really complicated.

The key, as always, is Arkansas Tech.

lol. Nice line.

Who knows. I will leave you with this----just remember, AD's sometimes will say things they know are not really accurate. For instance, I believe several CUSA AD's were trying to pass off their new media deal as paying 9 million a year until they got shown up by a FOIA request. They knew the information they were passing on was misleading---but they did it anyway. Maybe that's happening here--maybe a little hope helps him with fund raising. Maybe he was initially told by a compliance officer it was possible, but then it was corrected, and he just leaves out that detail. Who knows? The reality is a subsection in a contract operates as an exception or a modifier. I don't think that grace period section can just be ignored. lol...Maybe the WAC is confident because they know they have a really really good attorney. Good lawyers have won with less on their side.

Big West, MVC, WAC, Southern and Southland all should be considered FBS still. You have to take into account that they all were 1A, and still have 8 + members to still be considered FBS.

WAC:
New Mexico State
Idaho
UTRGV
Grand Canyon U.
Utah Valley
Seattle U. ? (rumored that they could add football)

All these teams include Bakersfield State, Chicago State and UMKC were called in at the time of them being FBS. Lamar, Sam Houston State, SFA could become FBS. Lamar was considered FBS in the early 1980s until they dropped football. West Texas A&M used to be FBS, and could be considered from a major power conference with the Border in the early days.
Many of the Southern Conference schools were FBS at one time.
East Tennessee State, Samford, Furman, VMI and The Citadel were ones.
Southland had McNeese State, UTA, North Texas and Lamar at FBS.
MVC had Illinois State, Indiana State, Southern Illinois, West Texas A&M, Wichita State, and Southern Illinois at the FBS level.
Tennessee State from the Ohio Valley, Villanova from the CAA, Richmond and William and Mary from the CAA, Holy Cross, Lafayette, Lehigh from the Patriot and so forth. Idaho and Montana were former PAC 12 members.
Long Beach State, Las Angeles State, Santa Clara, Pacific, Fullerton State, Cal.-Santa Barbara, Cal-Riverside and some others from the Big West were others.
Southern is the parent conference to SEC and the ACC conferences.
MVC is the parent conference to the Big 8 and now the Big 12.

SWC is a dead conference since there is no members in it.

(07-07-2016 05:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 04:49 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 04:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 03:44 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 11:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If I remember correctly, there is more to this rule. There is also a section that indicates an FBS conference has a finite window (grace period) to return to FBS status or it loses that status. The wording in the "loop hole" was designed to allow a FBS conference that had fallen below the minimum 8 all-sports members to still call up an FCS school in order to survive. The wording was not designed to allow a conference that hasn't maintained FBS status for more than 2 years to call up 8 FCS teams and magically resume play as an FBS conference.

The Idaho consultant's report disagrees, and so does the WAC, but carry on like you have been carrying on here for more than a year.

I cant help it if the consultant knows less than me.

20.02.6.2 Grace Period.
A conference shall continue to be considered a Football Bowl Subdivision conference
for two years following the date when it fails to satisfy the eight full Football Bowl Subdivision member
requirement due to one or more of its member’s failure to comply with the bowl subdivision membership requirements.


http://www.ncaapublications.com/productd...116APR.pdf

I don't think that matters. The other bylaw says a conference that previously met the definition of an FBS conference can invite members to be reclassified as FBS. The 2 year grace period doesn't have anything to do with that.

Then why is it there? I might add that both sections were revised at the exact same time.

There is a big difference between being an FBS conference needing a grace period and a former FBS conference, which still has FBS inviting rights. That is what the NCAA is trying to distinguish, but you and others do not get it.