Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
WAC expansion announcement imminent?
Author Message
HawaiiMongoose Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,717
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 446
I Root For: Hawaii
Location: Honolulu
Post: #41
RE: WAC expansion announcement imminent?
(01-10-2017 01:50 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 12:46 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 12:32 PM)Curtisc83 Wrote:  I would love to see that reg about former FBS conference you mention in your post above.

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.

This was dug up by the consultants hired by Idaho to explore their options. The consultant report also says the WAC compliance officer states that he's been told by the NCAA that the WAC meets these criteria.

A bunch of people on this forum don't believe this is true. I keep asking them to show the rule that negates this "previously met" clause. So far I haven't seen it.

If true, why did Idaho leave the WAC? There was no need to move to the Big Sky. I guess the test will be Liberty joining the WAC and transition to FBS....
I guess the Big West can claim the same thing?
I guess UC Davis can become FBS then.

They preferred playing football as an FCS conference member to playing as an FBS independent, and there was no way the Big Sky was going to accept them as a football-only member. Moreover the Big Sky is a better fit for their non-football sports.
01-10-2017 02:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NotANewbie Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 565
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 42
I Root For: Tennesse, NMSU
Location:
Post: #42
RE: WAC expansion announcement imminent?
(01-10-2017 01:50 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  If true, why did Idaho leave the WAC? There was no need to move to the Big Sky. I guess the test will be Liberty joining the WAC and transition to FBS....
I guess the Big West can claim the same thing?
I guess UC Davis can become FBS then.

Not true. At this point only the WAC meets the requirement as written. It is the only conference that was formerly an FBS conference. It would take a very liberal interpretation to include a conference that was formerly Div. I-A. If there were suddenly a need to have more FBS schools, the power schools might support a broader interpretation, but at this point, it isn't likely. Ans, if there were such a need, it is far more likely that they would support a change in the rule.
01-10-2017 02:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MWC Tex Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,850
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 179
I Root For: MW
Location: TX
Post: #43
RE: WAC expansion announcement imminent?
(01-10-2017 02:13 PM)NotANewbie Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 01:50 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  If true, why did Idaho leave the WAC? There was no need to move to the Big Sky. I guess the test will be Liberty joining the WAC and transition to FBS....
I guess the Big West can claim the same thing?
I guess UC Davis can become FBS then.

Not true. At this point only the WAC meets the requirement as written. It is the only conference that was formerly an FBS conference. It would take a very liberal interpretation to include a conference that was formerly Div. I-A. If there were suddenly a need to have more FBS schools, the power schools might support a broader interpretation, but at this point, it isn't likely. Ans, if there were such a need, it is far more likely that they would support a change in the rule.

No...D1-A is FBS...They are using only the current language in the definition.
01-10-2017 02:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HawaiiMongoose Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,717
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 446
I Root For: Hawaii
Location: Honolulu
Post: #44
RE: WAC expansion announcement imminent?
(01-10-2017 02:17 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 02:13 PM)NotANewbie Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 01:50 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  If true, why did Idaho leave the WAC? There was no need to move to the Big Sky. I guess the test will be Liberty joining the WAC and transition to FBS....
I guess the Big West can claim the same thing?
I guess UC Davis can become FBS then.

Not true. At this point only the WAC meets the requirement as written. It is the only conference that was formerly an FBS conference. It would take a very liberal interpretation to include a conference that was formerly Div. I-A. If there were suddenly a need to have more FBS schools, the power schools might support a broader interpretation, but at this point, it isn't likely. Ans, if there were such a need, it is far more likely that they would support a change in the rule.

No...D1-A is FBS...They are using only the current language in the definition.

Exactly. They are using only the current language because their intention is for the by-law to only apply to former FBS conferences (i.e. the WAC) but not former D1-A conferences (e.g. the Big West).

Remember the context in which this provision was added to the FBS eligibility by-law. The WAC had just lost multiple schools to the MWC and was headed in the direction of losing FBS conference status, but still had enough football-playing members to salvage FBS status if it could add a few FCS move-ups. Although the "previously met the definition" language was not advertised as a lifeline for the WAC, the timing of its addition to the by-law makes it clear that it was designed for that purpose. Unfortunately for the WAC the by-law change was only a necessary condition but not a sufficient inducement to convince potential new additions like Montana, Montana State, UC Davis and Sac State to make the jump.
(This post was last modified: 01-10-2017 02:48 PM by HawaiiMongoose.)
01-10-2017 02:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,280
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 217
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #45
RE: WAC expansion announcement imminent?
How many would the WAC need to run the conference at a minimum? Isn't it eight in FBS? Who's legitimately in need of a home out there:

NMSU
UMass

It's not like BYU and Army are joining this. I doubt Idaho's going to throw things into reverse for football when Big Sky would fit.

The likely FCS crew is a very small list:

Liberty
EKU

I sincerely doubt JMU, Stony, and Lamar are the next likely bunch, or that Wichita is going to park football into it.

The other part to this list is who could go and not jeopardize homes for their other sports? That trims those eight down a bit, too, by a few (EKU, Wichy, and maybe Lamar?).
01-10-2017 02:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
LatahCounty Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,242
Joined: Sep 2015
Reputation: 128
I Root For: Idaho
Location:
Post: #46
RE: WAC expansion announcement imminent?
(01-10-2017 01:30 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 12:46 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 12:32 PM)Curtisc83 Wrote:  I would love to see that reg about former FBS conference you mention in your post above.

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.

This was dug up by the consultants hired by Idaho to explore their options. The consultant report also says the WAC compliance officer states that he's been told by the NCAA that the WAC meets these criteria.

A bunch of people on this forum don't believe this is true. I keep asking them to show the rule that negates this "previously met" clause. So far I haven't seen it.

So if a group of schools, some of which were in Idaho's region, approached Idaho with the idea of making the WAC an FBS conference would Idaho join?

Yes. Although if it were 7 southeastern schools and Idaho I'd have to make that a qualified yes. If there were at least a few other western schools there is a 100% chance Idaho would join.
01-10-2017 02:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
LatahCounty Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,242
Joined: Sep 2015
Reputation: 128
I Root For: Idaho
Location:
Post: #47
RE: WAC expansion announcement imminent?
(01-10-2017 01:50 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  If true, why did Idaho leave the WAC? There was no need to move to the Big Sky.

At the time, WAC football had just collapsed after being turned down by every reasonable replacement option. There was no prospect of WAC football starting anytime soon. So, faced with a decade of flying its volleyball and women's soccer teams to Chicago and Kansas City and wherever UTRGV is, Idaho decided to put its Olympic sports in a more geographically reasonable conference.
01-10-2017 02:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NoDak Offline
Jersey Retired
Jersey Retired

Posts: 6,958
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 105
I Root For: UND
Location:
Post: #48
RE: WAC expansion announcement imminent?
(01-10-2017 01:40 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 12:50 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 12:46 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 12:32 PM)Curtisc83 Wrote:  I would love to see that reg about former FBS conference you mention in your post above.

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.

This was dug up by the consultants hired by Idaho to explore their options. The consultant report also says the WAC compliance officer states that he's been told by the NCAA that the WAC meets these criteria.

A bunch of people on this forum don't believe this is true. I keep asking them to show the rule that negates this "previously met" clause. So far I haven't seen it.

OK - that's very interesting. I haven't seen that before. Thanks.

However the point solohawks makes above is an important one. If you're an FCS school, this by-law makes it possible for you to begin the transition to FBS by joining the WAC; however you'd be committing to becoming an FBS independent since the WAC doesn't currently meet the main requirement to be deemed an FBS conference (having eight full members that are FBS). In effect you'd be making the investment to move up to FBS just so you can join NMSU as another FBS independent that plays its other sports in the WAC.

Also those who argue the WAC could return to FBS conference status by inviting seven or more FCS schools to simultaneously join NMSU in the conference and having them all transition to FBS together are ignoring another FBS reclassification requirement (besides the eligibility by-law quoted above): any FCS school moving up to FBS has to play a largely FBS schedule during its transition period. So seven FCS schools could join the WAC tomorrow, but they would all have to play as FBS independents during their transition periods and schedule most of their games against current FBS schools rather than each other. Only after they all succeeded in meeting this huge scheduling challenge over a period of multiple years would they all achieve full FBS status, enabling the WAC to finally reclaim FBS conference status and resume sponsoring football at the FBS level.

The bottom line is that there is a hypothetical path under the current rules for multiple FCS schools to move up to FBS by joining the WAC and for the WAC to become an FBS conference again. However the practical obstacles are huge.

Coastal is in its first year of transition, and it doesn't play an FBS schedule. Next year, it's second and final transition year, it does.

The NCAA allows 2nd year transitional FBS schools to count as FBS. That's how the WAC's UTSA and Texas State got to be FBS with only five other FBS schools.

The Montanas didn't join the WAC previously because the money it would have spent wasn't made up by the increased revenues. Mont St announced a major stadium expansion back then but would have struggled to add women's sports .

Idaho left the WAC for two reasons: to align with the Montanas and to gain possession of the WAC exits fees left by FBS schools. Idaho knows that WAC membership is available again for only the asking. It will take the Montanas with it when they are ready.
01-10-2017 02:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NoDak Offline
Jersey Retired
Jersey Retired

Posts: 6,958
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 105
I Root For: UND
Location:
Post: #49
RE: WAC expansion announcement imminent?
(01-10-2017 02:47 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  How many would the WAC need to run the conference at a minimum? Isn't it eight in FBS? Who's legitimately in need of a home out there:

NMSU
UMass

It's not like BYU and Army are joining this. I doubt Idaho's going to throw things into reverse for football when Big Sky would fit.

The likely FCS crew is a very small list:

Liberty
EKU

I sincerely doubt JMU, Stony, and Lamar are the next likely bunch, or that Wichita is going to park football into it.

The other part to this list is who could go and not jeopardize homes for their other sports? That trims those eight down a bit, too, by a few (EKU, Wichy, and maybe Lamar?).

I posted this several times.

New WAC

Southern Division

NMSU
UTRGV- has Mack Brown leading a football committee to start it, has a minor league soccer stadium that will be expanded for FBS
Lamar
Sam Houston St
S F Austin
UMKC - no football
Wichita St - FB only - gets fb started while it gains a bid to the AAC
Mo St - FB only

North
UND
Montana
Montana St
Idaho
EWU
Weber St
Liberty - fb only

The western WAC teams, UVU, GCU, Seattle, and Bake get entry into the Big Sky - making it a Pacific Coast centric league

Sac St, UCDAVIS, Cal Poly and Portland St would be on the top of the list for future expansion.

If everybody but NMSU is transitioning at the same time, it works. But they need at least nine transitions happening simultaneously.

The Southland added Abilene Christian and Incarnate Word because Lamar etc gave the word that they would leave for aN FBS opportunity.

The WAC should have been adding one DII school a year if it thought it was going to continue with those members.

The WAC is cheaper for UMKC because the Summit would have had it add baseball.
(This post was last modified: 01-10-2017 03:11 PM by NoDak.)
01-10-2017 02:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,351
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 633
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #50
RE: WAC expansion announcement imminent?
im·mi·nent
ˈimənənt/Submit
adjective
1.
about to happen.
"they were in imminent danger of being swept away"
synonyms: impending, close (at hand), near, (fast) approaching, coming, forthcoming, on the way, in the offing, in the pipeline, on the horizon, in the air, just around the corner, coming down the pike, expected, anticipated, brewing, looming, threatening, menacing; informalin the cards
"a ceasefire was imminent"
2.
archaic
overhanging.
01-10-2017 03:01 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HawaiiMongoose Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,717
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 446
I Root For: Hawaii
Location: Honolulu
Post: #51
RE: WAC expansion announcement imminent?
(01-10-2017 02:51 PM)NoDak Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 01:40 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 12:50 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 12:46 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 12:32 PM)Curtisc83 Wrote:  I would love to see that reg about former FBS conference you mention in your post above.

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.

This was dug up by the consultants hired by Idaho to explore their options. The consultant report also says the WAC compliance officer states that he's been told by the NCAA that the WAC meets these criteria.

A bunch of people on this forum don't believe this is true. I keep asking them to show the rule that negates this "previously met" clause. So far I haven't seen it.

OK - that's very interesting. I haven't seen that before. Thanks.

However the point solohawks makes above is an important one. If you're an FCS school, this by-law makes it possible for you to begin the transition to FBS by joining the WAC; however you'd be committing to becoming an FBS independent since the WAC doesn't currently meet the main requirement to be deemed an FBS conference (having eight full members that are FBS). In effect you'd be making the investment to move up to FBS just so you can join NMSU as another FBS independent that plays its other sports in the WAC.

Also those who argue the WAC could return to FBS conference status by inviting seven or more FCS schools to simultaneously join NMSU in the conference and having them all transition to FBS together are ignoring another FBS reclassification requirement (besides the eligibility by-law quoted above): any FCS school moving up to FBS has to play a largely FBS schedule during its transition period. So seven FCS schools could join the WAC tomorrow, but they would all have to play as FBS independents during their transition periods and schedule most of their games against current FBS schools rather than each other. Only after they all succeeded in meeting this huge scheduling challenge over a period of multiple years would they all achieve full FBS status, enabling the WAC to finally reclaim FBS conference status and resume sponsoring football at the FBS level.

The bottom line is that there is a hypothetical path under the current rules for multiple FCS schools to move up to FBS by joining the WAC and for the WAC to become an FBS conference again. However the practical obstacles are huge.

Coastal is in its first year of transition, and it doesn't play an FBS schedule. Next year, it's second and final transition year, it does.

The NCAA allows 2nd year transitional FBS schools to count as FBS. That's how the WAC's UTSA and Texas State got to be FBS with only five other FBS schools.

The Montanas didn't join the WAC previously because the money it would have spent wasn't made up by the increased revenues. Mont St announced a major stadium expansion back then but would have struggled to add women's sports .

Idaho left the WAC for two reasons: to align with the Montanas and to gain possession of the WAC exits fees left by FBS schools. Idaho knows that WAC membership is available again for only the asking. It will take the Montanas with it when they are ready.

If true that obviously makes a big difference as transitional schools actually could meet the FBS scheduling requirement by playing each other.

Can you cite the specific NCAA rule that permits this? (It's not enough in my view to just point to UTSA and Texas State as the evidence. They had OOC games against FBS opponents that in combination with their games against WAC FBS opponents made it possible for them to meet the scheduling requirement without having to count their games against each other.)
01-10-2017 03:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
solohawks Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,782
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 810
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Wilmington, NC
Post: #52
RE: WAC expansion announcement imminent?
(01-10-2017 01:40 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  However the point solohawks makes above is an important one. If you're an FCS school, this by-law makes it possible for you to begin the transition to FBS by joining the WAC; however you'd be committing to becoming an FBS independent since the WAC doesn't currently meet the main requirement to be deemed an FBS conference (having eight full members that are FBS). In effect you'd be making the investment to move up to FBS just so you can join NMSU as another FBS independent that plays its other sports in the WAC.

Also those who argue the WAC could return to FBS conference status by inviting seven or more FCS schools to simultaneously join NMSU in the conference and having them all transition to FBS together are ignoring another FBS reclassification requirement (besides the eligibility by-law quoted above): any FCS school moving up to FBS has to play a largely FBS schedule during its transition period. So seven FCS schools could join the WAC tomorrow, but they would all have to play as FBS independents during their transition periods and schedule most of their games against current FBS schools rather than each other. Only after they all succeeded in meeting this huge scheduling challenge over a period of multiple years would they all achieve full FBS status, enabling the WAC to finally reclaim FBS conference status and resume sponsoring football at the FBS level.

The bottom line is that there is a hypothetical path under the current rules for multiple FCS schools to move up to FBS by joining the WAC and for the WAC to become an FBS conference again. However the practical obstacles are huge.

One thing I dont think has been established and that I would argue is that the WAC could offer "Football only" FBS upgrades. I'm looking at the MAC invite to UMass as a precedent as the MAC issued an FBS football only invite to UMass. If the MAC could do it then the WAC should be able to as well.

Take NDSU for example. The WAC could theoretically invite them the FBS and the Summit would not care because the Summit is a non football conference. So if NDSU wanted they could pay the WAC to offer them an FBS invite, participate in FBS as an independent, and then play all other sports in the Summit as they are now.

This would not likely work for a school like Liberty as I imagine the Big South would not like them playing FBS football and not FCS Big South Football. However, an interesting test case would be to move their non football sports to the Atlantic Sun and pay the WAC issue them an FBS invite.
(This post was last modified: 01-10-2017 03:18 PM by solohawks.)
01-10-2017 03:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NoDak Offline
Jersey Retired
Jersey Retired

Posts: 6,958
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 105
I Root For: UND
Location:
Post: #53
RE: WAC expansion announcement imminent?
(01-10-2017 03:04 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 02:51 PM)NoDak Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 01:40 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 12:50 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 12:46 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  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.

This was dug up by the consultants hired by Idaho to explore their options. The consultant report also says the WAC compliance officer states that he's been told by the NCAA that the WAC meets these criteria.

A bunch of people on this forum don't believe this is true. I keep asking them to show the rule that negates this "previously met" clause. So far I haven't seen it.

OK - that's very interesting. I haven't seen that before. Thanks.

However the point solohawks makes above is an important one. If you're an FCS school, this by-law makes it possible for you to begin the transition to FBS by joining the WAC; however you'd be committing to becoming an FBS independent since the WAC doesn't currently meet the main requirement to be deemed an FBS conference (having eight full members that are FBS). In effect you'd be making the investment to move up to FBS just so you can join NMSU as another FBS independent that plays its other sports in the WAC.

Also those who argue the WAC could return to FBS conference status by inviting seven or more FCS schools to simultaneously join NMSU in the conference and having them all transition to FBS together are ignoring another FBS reclassification requirement (besides the eligibility by-law quoted above): any FCS school moving up to FBS has to play a largely FBS schedule during its transition period. So seven FCS schools could join the WAC tomorrow, but they would all have to play as FBS independents during their transition periods and schedule most of their games against current FBS schools rather than each other. Only after they all succeeded in meeting this huge scheduling challenge over a period of multiple years would they all achieve full FBS status, enabling the WAC to finally reclaim FBS conference status and resume sponsoring football at the FBS level.

The bottom line is that there is a hypothetical path under the current rules for multiple FCS schools to move up to FBS by joining the WAC and for the WAC to become an FBS conference again. However the practical obstacles are huge.

Coastal is in its first year of transition, and it doesn't play an FBS schedule. Next year, it's second and final transition year, it does.

The NCAA allows 2nd year transitional FBS schools to count as FBS. That's how the WAC's UTSA and Texas State got to be FBS with only five other FBS schools.

The Montanas didn't join the WAC previously because the money it would have spent wasn't made up by the increased revenues. Mont St announced a major stadium expansion back then but would have struggled to add women's sports .

Idaho left the WAC for two reasons: to align with the Montanas and to gain possession of the WAC exits fees left by FBS schools. Idaho knows that WAC membership is available again for only the asking. It will take the Montanas with it when they are ready.

If true that obviously makes a big difference as transitional schools actually could meet the FBS scheduling requirement by playing each other.

Can you cite the specific NCAA rule that permits this? (It's not enough in my view to just point to UTSA and Texas State as the evidence. They had OOC games against FBS opponents that in combination with their games against WAC FBS opponents made it possible for them to meet the scheduling requirement without having to count their games against each other.)

App St and Ga Southern counted among Belt schools.. I saw a newspaper article on it back then.
01-10-2017 03:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NoDak Offline
Jersey Retired
Jersey Retired

Posts: 6,958
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 105
I Root For: UND
Location:
Post: #54
RE: WAC expansion announcement imminent?
(01-10-2017 03:14 PM)solohawks Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 01:40 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  However the point solohawks makes above is an important one. If you're an FCS school, this by-law makes it possible for you to begin the transition to FBS by joining the WAC; however you'd be committing to becoming an FBS independent since the WAC doesn't currently meet the main requirement to be deemed an FBS conference (having eight full members that are FBS). In effect you'd be making the investment to move up to FBS just so you can join NMSU as another FBS independent that plays its other sports in the WAC.

Also those who argue the WAC could return to FBS conference status by inviting seven or more FCS schools to simultaneously join NMSU in the conference and having them all transition to FBS together are ignoring another FBS reclassification requirement (besides the eligibility by-law quoted above): any FCS school moving up to FBS has to play a largely FBS schedule during its transition period. So seven FCS schools could join the WAC tomorrow, but they would all have to play as FBS independents during their transition periods and schedule most of their games against current FBS schools rather than each other. Only after they all succeeded in meeting this huge scheduling challenge over a period of multiple years would they all achieve full FBS status, enabling the WAC to finally reclaim FBS conference status and resume sponsoring football at the FBS level.

The bottom line is that there is a hypothetical path under the current rules for multiple FCS schools to move up to FBS by joining the WAC and for the WAC to become an FBS conference again. However the practical obstacles are huge.

One thing I dont think has been established and that I would argue is that the WAC could offer "Football only" FBS upgrades. Take NDSU for example. The WAC could theoretically invite them the FBS and the Summit would not care because the Summit is a non football conference. So if NDSU wanted they could pay the WAC to offer them an FBS invite, participate in FBS as an independent, and then play all other sports in the Summit as they are now.

This would not likely work for a school like Liberty as I imagine the Big South would not like them playing FBS football and not FCS Big South Football. However, an interesting test case would be to move their non football sports to the Atlantic Sun and pay the WAC issue them an FBS invite.

The Big Sky (i.E. Montana schools) has since recanted their rejection of NDSU and wanted them last year as Fullerton offered them openly in a ND paper last year. NDSU said no. The Summit has upped their exit fees and needs to keep six baseball teams, one of which is NDSU to keep their autobid.
01-10-2017 03:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
solohawks Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 20,782
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 810
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Wilmington, NC
Post: #55
RE: WAC expansion announcement imminent?
(01-10-2017 03:20 PM)NoDak Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 03:14 PM)solohawks Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 01:40 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  However the point solohawks makes above is an important one. If you're an FCS school, this by-law makes it possible for you to begin the transition to FBS by joining the WAC; however you'd be committing to becoming an FBS independent since the WAC doesn't currently meet the main requirement to be deemed an FBS conference (having eight full members that are FBS). In effect you'd be making the investment to move up to FBS just so you can join NMSU as another FBS independent that plays its other sports in the WAC.

Also those who argue the WAC could return to FBS conference status by inviting seven or more FCS schools to simultaneously join NMSU in the conference and having them all transition to FBS together are ignoring another FBS reclassification requirement (besides the eligibility by-law quoted above): any FCS school moving up to FBS has to play a largely FBS schedule during its transition period. So seven FCS schools could join the WAC tomorrow, but they would all have to play as FBS independents during their transition periods and schedule most of their games against current FBS schools rather than each other. Only after they all succeeded in meeting this huge scheduling challenge over a period of multiple years would they all achieve full FBS status, enabling the WAC to finally reclaim FBS conference status and resume sponsoring football at the FBS level.

The bottom line is that there is a hypothetical path under the current rules for multiple FCS schools to move up to FBS by joining the WAC and for the WAC to become an FBS conference again. However the practical obstacles are huge.

One thing I dont think has been established and that I would argue is that the WAC could offer "Football only" FBS upgrades. Take NDSU for example. The WAC could theoretically invite them the FBS and the Summit would not care because the Summit is a non football conference. So if NDSU wanted they could pay the WAC to offer them an FBS invite, participate in FBS as an independent, and then play all other sports in the Summit as they are now.

This would not likely work for a school like Liberty as I imagine the Big South would not like them playing FBS football and not FCS Big South Football. However, an interesting test case would be to move their non football sports to the Atlantic Sun and pay the WAC issue them an FBS invite.

The Big Sky (i.E. Montana schools) has since recanted their rejection of NDSU and wanted them last year as Fullerton offered them openly in a ND paper last year. NDSU said no. The Summit has upped their exit fees and needs to keep six baseball teams, one of which is NDSU to keep their autobid.

Ok. But that doesn't mean that NDSU could pay the WAC for an FBS upgrade and stay in the Summit if that is the route they wanted to take
01-10-2017 03:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NoDak Offline
Jersey Retired
Jersey Retired

Posts: 6,958
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 105
I Root For: UND
Location:
Post: #56
RE: WAC expansion announcement imminent?
(01-10-2017 03:21 PM)solohawks Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 03:20 PM)NoDak Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 03:14 PM)solohawks Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 01:40 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  However the point solohawks makes above is an important one. If you're an FCS school, this by-law makes it possible for you to begin the transition to FBS by joining the WAC; however you'd be committing to becoming an FBS independent since the WAC doesn't currently meet the main requirement to be deemed an FBS conference (having eight full members that are FBS). In effect you'd be making the investment to move up to FBS just so you can join NMSU as another FBS independent that plays its other sports in the WAC.

Also those who argue the WAC could return to FBS conference status by inviting seven or more FCS schools to simultaneously join NMSU in the conference and having them all transition to FBS together are ignoring another FBS reclassification requirement (besides the eligibility by-law quoted above): any FCS school moving up to FBS has to play a largely FBS schedule during its transition period. So seven FCS schools could join the WAC tomorrow, but they would all have to play as FBS independents during their transition periods and schedule most of their games against current FBS schools rather than each other. Only after they all succeeded in meeting this huge scheduling challenge over a period of multiple years would they all achieve full FBS status, enabling the WAC to finally reclaim FBS conference status and resume sponsoring football at the FBS level.

The bottom line is that there is a hypothetical path under the current rules for multiple FCS schools to move up to FBS by joining the WAC and for the WAC to become an FBS conference again. However the practical obstacles are huge.

One thing I dont think has been established and that I would argue is that the WAC could offer "Football only" FBS upgrades. Take NDSU for example. The WAC could theoretically invite them the FBS and the Summit would not care because the Summit is a non football conference. So if NDSU wanted they could pay the WAC to offer them an FBS invite, participate in FBS as an independent, and then play all other sports in the Summit as they are now.

This would not likely work for a school like Liberty as I imagine the Big South would not like them playing FBS football and not FCS Big South Football. However, an interesting test case would be to move their non football sports to the Atlantic Sun and pay the WAC issue them an FBS invite.

The Big Sky (i.E. Montana schools) has since recanted their rejection of NDSU and wanted them last year as Fullerton offered them openly in a ND paper last year. NDSU said no. The Summit has upped their exit fees and needs to keep six baseball teams, one of which is NDSU to keep their autobid.

Ok. But that doesn't mean that NDSU could pay the WAC for an FBS upgrade and stay in the Summit if that is the route they wanted to take

The NDSU president is a finalist for Ohio's job. They wont be making drastic changes for some time. NDSU has been very financially harmful to UND football. Members in the Big Sky will get first priority from the WAC unless they have big bucks to spend like Liberty.
01-10-2017 03:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Columbia Blue Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 78
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #57
RE: WAC expansion announcement imminent?
Up until now the WAC seemed to be having a problem getting any schools interested in joining, so the UVU Presidents comments were a bit of a surprise. The WAC FBS resurrection conversations are interesting to read, although I suspect that the addition(s) will likely be basketball/Olympic sports only (at least for now).

Could be a Division 2 moveup such as Cal Baptist and/or Cal San Diego. But at the same time the WAC is almost certainly trying to find a travel partner for UMKC, considering the rapidly deteriorating situation at Chicago State. I've no idea who might be interested though. SIUe perhaps? They did travel to Grand Canyon this year for basketball. Maybe they liked what they saw and had some conversations with WAC officials. Either way it will be interesting to see what develops.
(This post was last modified: 01-10-2017 03:37 PM by Columbia Blue.)
01-10-2017 03:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
LatahCounty Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,242
Joined: Sep 2015
Reputation: 128
I Root For: Idaho
Location:
Post: #58
RE: WAC expansion announcement imminent?
(01-10-2017 03:14 PM)solohawks Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 01:40 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  However the point solohawks makes above is an important one. If you're an FCS school, this by-law makes it possible for you to begin the transition to FBS by joining the WAC; however you'd be committing to becoming an FBS independent since the WAC doesn't currently meet the main requirement to be deemed an FBS conference (having eight full members that are FBS). In effect you'd be making the investment to move up to FBS just so you can join NMSU as another FBS independent that plays its other sports in the WAC.

Also those who argue the WAC could return to FBS conference status by inviting seven or more FCS schools to simultaneously join NMSU in the conference and having them all transition to FBS together are ignoring another FBS reclassification requirement (besides the eligibility by-law quoted above): any FCS school moving up to FBS has to play a largely FBS schedule during its transition period. So seven FCS schools could join the WAC tomorrow, but they would all have to play as FBS independents during their transition periods and schedule most of their games against current FBS schools rather than each other. Only after they all succeeded in meeting this huge scheduling challenge over a period of multiple years would they all achieve full FBS status, enabling the WAC to finally reclaim FBS conference status and resume sponsoring football at the FBS level.

The bottom line is that there is a hypothetical path under the current rules for multiple FCS schools to move up to FBS by joining the WAC and for the WAC to become an FBS conference again. However the practical obstacles are huge.

One thing I dont think has been established and that I would argue is that the WAC could offer "Football only" FBS upgrades. I'm looking at the MAC invite to UMass as a precedent as the MAC issued an FBS football only invite to UMass. If the MAC could do it then the WAC should be able to as well.

Take NDSU for example. The WAC could theoretically invite them the FBS and the Summit would not care because the Summit is a non football conference. So if NDSU wanted they could pay the WAC to offer them an FBS invite, participate in FBS as an independent, and then play all other sports in the Summit as they are now.

This would not likely work for a school like Liberty as I imagine the Big South would not like them playing FBS football and not FCS Big South Football. However, an interesting test case would be to move their non football sports to the Atlantic Sun and pay the WAC issue them an FBS invite.

NoDak's objections to all things NDSU aside, that's an interesting point and could make life somewhat easier on everyone with a lot less shuffling around. It would help to do something like this without creating a giant unwieldy basketball conference.
01-10-2017 03:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Cyniclone Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,302
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 813
I Root For: ODU
Location:
Post: #59
RE: WAC expansion announcement imminent?
(01-10-2017 03:21 PM)solohawks Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 03:20 PM)NoDak Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 03:14 PM)solohawks Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 01:40 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  However the point solohawks makes above is an important one. If you're an FCS school, this by-law makes it possible for you to begin the transition to FBS by joining the WAC; however you'd be committing to becoming an FBS independent since the WAC doesn't currently meet the main requirement to be deemed an FBS conference (having eight full members that are FBS). In effect you'd be making the investment to move up to FBS just so you can join NMSU as another FBS independent that plays its other sports in the WAC.

Also those who argue the WAC could return to FBS conference status by inviting seven or more FCS schools to simultaneously join NMSU in the conference and having them all transition to FBS together are ignoring another FBS reclassification requirement (besides the eligibility by-law quoted above): any FCS school moving up to FBS has to play a largely FBS schedule during its transition period. So seven FCS schools could join the WAC tomorrow, but they would all have to play as FBS independents during their transition periods and schedule most of their games against current FBS schools rather than each other. Only after they all succeeded in meeting this huge scheduling challenge over a period of multiple years would they all achieve full FBS status, enabling the WAC to finally reclaim FBS conference status and resume sponsoring football at the FBS level.

The bottom line is that there is a hypothetical path under the current rules for multiple FCS schools to move up to FBS by joining the WAC and for the WAC to become an FBS conference again. However the practical obstacles are huge.

One thing I dont think has been established and that I would argue is that the WAC could offer "Football only" FBS upgrades. Take NDSU for example. The WAC could theoretically invite them the FBS and the Summit would not care because the Summit is a non football conference. So if NDSU wanted they could pay the WAC to offer them an FBS invite, participate in FBS as an independent, and then play all other sports in the Summit as they are now.

This would not likely work for a school like Liberty as I imagine the Big South would not like them playing FBS football and not FCS Big South Football. However, an interesting test case would be to move their non football sports to the Atlantic Sun and pay the WAC issue them an FBS invite.

The Big Sky (i.E. Montana schools) has since recanted their rejection of NDSU and wanted them last year as Fullerton offered them openly in a ND paper last year. NDSU said no. The Summit has upped their exit fees and needs to keep six baseball teams, one of which is NDSU to keep their autobid.

Ok. But that doesn't mean that NDSU could pay the WAC for an FBS upgrade and stay in the Summit if that is the route they wanted to take

Isn't the reason that an invitation from an FBS conference is a requirement for an FCS move-up because of scheduling concerns -- by being associated with a conference immediately, they are assured of having enough FBS games on their schedule every year? Because "inviting" a school to what's in effect a shell conference for FBS purposes and allowing them to be an independent would defeat the purpose of the rule.

Of course, I think the NCAA should drop the affiliation requirement and let whoever can meet the other standards for FBS do so as an independent. Create scheduling requirements or enforce the ones already there, but if Liberty or JMU or Eastern Kentucky think they can forge a path as an independent, let them already.
01-10-2017 03:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
LatahCounty Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,242
Joined: Sep 2015
Reputation: 128
I Root For: Idaho
Location:
Post: #60
RE: WAC expansion announcement imminent?
(01-10-2017 03:35 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 03:14 PM)solohawks Wrote:  
(01-10-2017 01:40 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  However the point solohawks makes above is an important one. If you're an FCS school, this by-law makes it possible for you to begin the transition to FBS by joining the WAC; however you'd be committing to becoming an FBS independent since the WAC doesn't currently meet the main requirement to be deemed an FBS conference (having eight full members that are FBS). In effect you'd be making the investment to move up to FBS just so you can join NMSU as another FBS independent that plays its other sports in the WAC.

Also those who argue the WAC could return to FBS conference status by inviting seven or more FCS schools to simultaneously join NMSU in the conference and having them all transition to FBS together are ignoring another FBS reclassification requirement (besides the eligibility by-law quoted above): any FCS school moving up to FBS has to play a largely FBS schedule during its transition period. So seven FCS schools could join the WAC tomorrow, but they would all have to play as FBS independents during their transition periods and schedule most of their games against current FBS schools rather than each other. Only after they all succeeded in meeting this huge scheduling challenge over a period of multiple years would they all achieve full FBS status, enabling the WAC to finally reclaim FBS conference status and resume sponsoring football at the FBS level.

The bottom line is that there is a hypothetical path under the current rules for multiple FCS schools to move up to FBS by joining the WAC and for the WAC to become an FBS conference again. However the practical obstacles are huge.

One thing I dont think has been established and that I would argue is that the WAC could offer "Football only" FBS upgrades. I'm looking at the MAC invite to UMass as a precedent as the MAC issued an FBS football only invite to UMass. If the MAC could do it then the WAC should be able to as well.

Take NDSU for example. The WAC could theoretically invite them the FBS and the Summit would not care because the Summit is a non football conference. So if NDSU wanted they could pay the WAC to offer them an FBS invite, participate in FBS as an independent, and then play all other sports in the Summit as they are now.

This would not likely work for a school like Liberty as I imagine the Big South would not like them playing FBS football and not FCS Big South Football. However, an interesting test case would be to move their non football sports to the Atlantic Sun and pay the WAC issue them an FBS invite.

NoDak's objections to all things NDSU aside, that's an interesting point and could make life somewhat easier on everyone with a lot less shuffling around. It would help to do something like this without creating a giant unwieldy basketball conference.

Wait -- now that I think about it I'm not sure FB-only members are particularly helpful. Pretty sure the rules for FBS conferences require 8 FULL members playing football, so FB-only schools don't help a conference meet that requirement.

Of course, if a school has a little name value like NDSU or wants to pay through the nose for the privilege like Liberty something like that might still happen.
01-10-2017 03:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.