From this Denver fan's perspective, the breakaway idea is intriguing...

Assuming BYU does not go to the Big 12 and open it's old spot for Denver in the WCC (giving the Pios coveted private school league mates) it will be interesting to see if something else emerges, like this breakaway conference idea.

Currently, the Pios are acclimating to the Summit League. The conference has really improved in a number of sports. The Summit was #11 in men's hoops RPI last year, which was incredible out of 32 or so D-I conferences. That said, Denver does not really have a real rival in the Summit League as yet, and given that no school is less than an eight hour drive from Denver, it's hard for DU fans to get up for schools that are so far away and have little in common with us (we know we're an odd duck private school with an east-coast sports menu). Of the current Summit teams, there is a chance that DU could move into a greater rivalry with Omaha, given that DU has Omaha in the NCHC hockey conference, and DU has had some good games with the Mavs in several other sports in recent years, but it's not yet really on the fan's radar here.

While DU would love to play other Front Range Schools like CU, CSU and Air Force more often, that seems unlikely given those schools are all in higher level conferences.

What intrigues me about the future of this breakaway idea is North Dakota. The Pioneers have an intense hockey rivalry with UND that could spill into other sports.

bragg,

OK, if that's correct though it just makes it "less impossible". That's still not confidence inspiring...

And there's still always my original, trusty point about the NCAA just rewriting the rules.

swami,

Don't worry, UND will be on your conference schedule in non-hockey sports soon enough!

If the NCAA doesn't one meeting not "clarify" the rule on who can issue an invite to eliminate the WAC, the only way to work it is in stages. Also none of the rules preclude a school playing home/home in the same season

Remember that when Texas State entered the Sun Belt for the 2013 season they had completed transition and that was their first FBS season, while UTSA who had entered the WAC with them spent 2013 in CUSA as a transition year 2 school.

Dealing with Idaho is a weird situation. Strictly by the book, if they went down for 2018 they could resume FBS play in 2019 because they would have met criteria in one of the two prior seasons but the UAB precedent makes things odd.

Honestly though, it's not worth your time to analyze every rule in coordination, to a mathematical precision.

That's not how the giant rule book came to be. It has been built up over many years, addressing many individual situations. And at this level of size and complexity, they're just not going to take the time to sweep through and clean every little thing up perfectly.

A rule is only going to get addressed if and when there's a situation that calls that rule into focus.


So what I mean is: don't waste your time doing an analysis that says something like "AH HA! According to section 23, sub-section 13, bullet point 5, sub-line 2, paragraph 4: we're right!"

Because all that will happen is this. NCAA: "Oh. Well, how about that. The rules do actually say that. Hmm .... well, I guess we'll just have to clarify the language of that particular rule!"

(10-02-2016 08:45 AM)MJG Wrote:  

(10-01-2016 11:24 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(09-30-2016 04:52 AM)MJG Wrote:  idaho with the disadvantages of a small stadium playing teams its fans don't know was better off financially in FBS.
Idaho is fourth in revenue before subsidies in the SBC with poor money generating facilities .
Idaho did not even recieve a full share of conference money and has a big travel budget.
UND and the Montana schools have healthier budgets than Idaho.
Big Sky attendance was 9800 last year that is actual attendance .
Take those numbers to FBS and its 15600 tickets sold .
besides that with the lower attendance schools staying FCS real attendance would be close to 15k anyway.
Idaho is the poster child for not moving up but even Idaho is financially better off in FBS with its current disadvantages.
None of these schools if they moved up would have those disadvantages.

It was enough for an FBS school to meet the attendance minimum of 17,000 or 15,000 at one time to justify its existence at the FBS level.

With median HC pay in the G5 now at 750k it exceeds ticket revenue at schools that are averaging under 20,000 a game.

Board of Directors aren't going to be friendly toward HC's that make more than what the athletic departments rakes in.

If there are deep pockets for athletics than ticket revenue isn't so much of an issue but most sub 20k programs don't have the donors either.

I get what you are saying but your conference averaged under 15k.
The Montana schools and the XDSU schools average over nineteen combined in FCS. The next three in the group Idaho ,NMSU and UND have averaged about 13.5 the last few years. The second group have played in new conferences or no conference and in some cases without rivalry games. So you could reasonably expect a jump in attendance for those programs in such a conference. So these seven would have a average of at least 17k.

What I'm saying is relevant to the MAC. There are programs in the MAC that have the donations to cut it at the G5 level and others who do not.

Those others can try and pay minimal men's basketball, football salaries but once they start to lose coaches to other G5 schools pressure will be on to increase what they pay. However the institutions may be uncomfortable with increasing pay when revenues don't exist.

The G5 should reorganize into 5 regional conferences of 10 and force more schools down to FCS that don't have the means.

AAC 2.0 (loses UC and UH to B12)
MWC 2.0 (No Wyoming or SJSU)
MAC 2.0 (No EMU or KSU)
CUSA 2.0 (No Charlotte, UAB, FAU, FIU)
SBC 2.0 (No NMSU or Idaho)

Trim the top level down by 10 schools.

Questions for the folks saying the NCAA would automatically change the rules to prohibit this -- who would actually get to vote on this sort of rule change? The whole NCAA? Just the FBS schools? A committee within the NCAA? Does everyone's vote count equally? Do all the schools vote individually, or does each conference get a vote, or what?

I'm asking these questions because I suspect nobody here actually knows the answers. I also suspect that no matter what the by-the-book answers might be, in reality the P5 would actually make the decision. And I'm not so sure they care all that much whether the G5 crumbs they throw out eventually get shared by a few more schools. It would be bad PR for them and possibly a lawsuit if they tell schools who would be willing and able to meet FBS requirements that they can't join the cartel just because, well, they say so. At that point they really might as well split off from the NCAA entirely.

I realize I'm fairly far down a rabbit hole here because I agree with the general sentiment that there aren't nearly enough schools who might want to do this, but if there were I don't see why people are so confident the NCAA would immediately kill the plan.

Would the Division I Board of Directors vote?

here

Besides the permanent seats, I think each of the FBS conferences had more votes compared to FCS which had more than non football conferences. Not sure how it currently works since it was reorganized but I suspect the weighting of votes hasn't changed

As posted several times, the P5 wouldn't have a problem and would in fact like the WAC to return. The B1G, B12, and PAC12 all would vote to afirm the WAC return to FBS as it wI'll gI've them defacto FCS games for a time that are rsally FBS. The G5 and some FCS conferences like the MVC would have their conniptions, like the posters here.

(10-02-2016 01:14 PM)puck swami Wrote:  From this Denver fan's perspective, the breakaway idea is intriguing...

Assuming BYU does not go to the Big 12 and open it's old spot for Denver in the WCC (giving the Pios coveted private school league mates) it will be interesting to see if something else emerges, like this breakaway conference idea.

Currently, the Pios are acclimating to the Summit League. The conference has really improved in a number of sports. The Summit was #11 in men's hoops RPI last year, which was incredible out of 32 or so D-I conferences. That said, Denver does not really have a real rival in the Summit League as yet, and given that no school is less than an eight hour drive from Denver, it's hard for DU fans to get up for schools that are so far away and have little in common with us (we know we're an odd duck private school with an east-coast sports menu). Of the current Summit teams, there is a chance that DU could move into a greater rivalry with Omaha, given that DU has Omaha in the NCHC hockey conference, and DU has had some good games with the Mavs in several other sports in recent years, but it's not yet really on the fan's radar here.

While DU would love to play other Front Range Schools like CU, CSU and Air Force more often, that seems unlikely given those schools are all in higher level conferences.

What intrigues me about the future of this breakaway idea is North Dakota. The Pioneers have an intense hockey rivalry with UND that could spill into other sports.

While we "hate" the Pios, we respect.them immensely. UND has to do something unique and unexpected with regards to football, to get out of the shadow of bizon football. We dominated them in the last years in DII and they intensely hate us for it. As said earlier, believe NDSU was a force to make our football team homeless by blocking the MVC from expanding to include us. Going with a WAC FBS will immensely change the landscape and perceptions. NDSU fans and players still chant "Sioux Suck Sh**" after their chanpionships as a way of celebrating. That goes to show their hatred for us and why in part the Sioux wanted us to drop the name.

We have alumni that have very deep pockets, including a near billionaire former football player and others.

Happen to believe that the Montanas, Idaho, and certainly UND want to be associated with Denver in a conference. It was the other Big Sky schools that insisted that you sponsor football to get in.

(10-02-2016 05:54 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Honestly though, it's not worth your time to analyze every rule in coordination, to a mathematical precision.

That's not how the giant rule book came to be. It has been built up over many years, addressing many individual situations. And at this level of size and complexity, they're just not going to take the time to sweep through and clean every little thing up perfectly.

A rule is only going to get addressed if and when there's a situation that calls that rule into focus.


So what I mean is: don't waste your time doing an analysis that says something like "AH HA! According to section 23, sub-section 13, bullet point 5, sub-line 2, paragraph 4: we're right!"

Because all that will happen is this. NCAA: "Oh. Well, how about that. The rules do actually say that. Hmm .... well, I guess we'll just have to clarify the language of that particular rule!"

That's very much what happened with continuity when it threatened to kill the WAC as a result of conference realignment. Enough Division 1 members seemed to have said to themselves ... "Am I confident that conference realignment will never put my conference in the same boat?" and answered, at least internally "Hell no, who in the hell knows what conference realignment may bring!", for them to vote to amend the rule in a way which meant that existing conferences don't get killed even if they have next to no continuity in any meaningful sense.

Latah,

I'm sure it would be the FBS schools voting. It doesn't make sense for non-football and FCS DI teams to vote about a matter that only pertains to FBS.

Despite what NoDak says, most of FBS would vote against allowing another FBS conference to be formed, because even though it technically wouldn't be required -- there would be a presumption of inclusion for the new league in the CFP. Even if it wasn't until the next contract.

I'm sure it would take more than a simple majority --> more G5 than P5, and the G5 vote no at the behest of their conferences.

NoDak,

Perhaps some of the older fans make that chant. Highly doubt the players do -- most of them don't know or care about the Sioux. And now that nickname is dead.

Now I will say that I'm sure the players still sing the song that has been a tradition in NDSU football since long ago: "Far across the plains of Fargo there for all to see. Stands an old, abandoned out-house called the University."

(10-03-2016 06:52 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  NoDak,

Perhaps some of the older fans make that chant. Highly doubt the players do -- most of them don't know or care about the Sioux. And now that nickname is dead.

Now I will say that I'm sure the players still sing the song that has been a tradition in NDSU football since long ago: "Far across the plains of Fargo there for all to see. Stands an old, abandoned out-house called the University."

Players have been caught on video recently with the SSS chant. Since we're no longer Sioux, that is now plainly a racist chant, but NDSU just considers it fun and tradition.

(10-03-2016 06:48 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Latah,

I'm sure it would be the FBS schools voting. It doesn't make sense for non-football and FCS DI teams to vote about a matter that only pertains to FBS.

Despite what NoDak says, most of FBS would vote against allowing another FBS conference to be formed, because even though it technically wouldn't be required -- there would be a presumption of inclusion for the new league in the CFP. Even if it wasn't until the next contract.

I'm sure it would take more than a simple majority --> more G5 than P5, and the G5 vote no at the behest of their conferences.

So if it's an FBS vote then the P5 votes count double, correct? That's the way the CCG dereg vote worked, anyway.

If the P5 are OK with it, or at least don't care enough to bother to change the rules, then it wouldn't matter what the G5 thought, right? And I don't see why the P5 would care all that much -- they're going to take whatever they want in the next CFP contract and what does it matter to them how many ways the remaining crumbs get split up?

Ah, I don't know off the top of my head if P5 would get double votes. Not impossible. I thought that was more for the autonomy votes. This wouldn't be that. Those are things where if it's something the P5 want to do, it's a speed-lane to get the vote passed and just make it "optional" for the rest of the DI body to implement or not. Like FCoA scholarships, for example.

So if it were the case where only FBS voted and P5 got double vote, then I can't say for certain that G5 would vote it down.


The simple argument would be: the CFP seems to work well with 11 owners right now (10 FBS confs + Notre Dame). Why do they want to expand ownership to 12 seats?? That would tip the balance of G5 vs P5 to 6 G5 vs 5 P5. The P5 may not want that.

(10-03-2016 12:19 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  The simple argument would be: the CFP seems to work well with 11 owners right now (10 FBS confs + Notre Dame). Why do they want to expand ownership to 12 seats?? That would tip the balance of G5 vs P5 to 6 G5 vs 5 P5. The P5 may not want that.

The CFP contract is set through January 2026. You can make all the conferences you want, but only the 11 parties to the current contract get paid.

What the P5 have to watch is to make sure they have a simple majority of FBS membership. Big 12 expansion should take care of that. Even if FBS expands to 136, adding four schools to the Big 12 makes it 69:67 in favor of the P5. Even if the WAC balloons to 12, then the Pac 12 just grabs two schools to make it 71:69. And if Army, BYU, or UMass find G6 homes, then that keeps the total population of FBS down.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seems to me it would be at least as easy to change the rules to make sure P5 votes are weighted enough continue to dominate decision-making as it would to change the rules to exclude a qualifying conference for no valid reason.

(10-03-2016 12:19 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Ah, I don't know off the top of my head if P5 would get double votes. Not impossible. I thought that was more for the autonomy votes. This wouldn't be that. Those are things where if it's something the P5 want to do, it's a speed-lane to get the vote passed and just make it "optional" for the rest of the DI body to implement or not. Like FCoA scholarships, for example.

So if it were the case where only FBS voted and P5 got double vote, then I can't say for certain that G5 would vote it down.


The simple argument would be: the CFP seems to work well with 11 owners right now (10 FBS confs + Notre Dame). Why do they want to expand ownership to 12 seats?? That would tip the balance of G5 vs P5 to 6 G5 vs 5 P5. The P5 may not want that.

Nothing is going to tip the balance of G5 v P5, the P5 will always make the decisions. The G5 getting one extra conference won't change anything.

Charge, it's conferences, not schools, that have the seats in the CFP. And I would say member schools generally vote as the conference decides to vote, in matters.

I don't see how it's any benefit to the P5 to have more FBS conferences. And for the G5, it could be a concern.