http://www.midmajormadness.com/2017/1/10/14225332/

UVU President's comment

(01-10-2017 03:38 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  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.

I agree. But if the WAC has confirmed they still qualify to invite FCS schools to upgrade to FBS under the formerly sponsoring FBS conference provision, then this is one way to do it. If I was the WAC, I would sell the FBS upgrade to interested schools and make some money, but that is just me.

(01-10-2017 03:52 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(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.

Im not talking about the WAC reestablishing itself as an FBS conference. I am talking solely about the WAC having the "license" so to speak to issue FBS upgrades. If the WAC has that "license" they should put it to good use and make some money until they have it taken away.

(01-10-2017 04:29 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 03:38 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  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.

I agree. But if the WAC has confirmed they still qualify to invite FCS schools to upgrade to FBS under the formerly sponsoring FBS conference provision, then this is one way to do it. If I was the WAC, I would sell the FBS upgrade to interested schools and make some money, but that is just me.

But if the issue is scheduling and the WAC isn't offering FBS football now, even if they have the ability to flip the FBS switch back on, if they're not actually sponsoring FBS football, then would the NCAA then tighten the potential loophole to eliminate this scenario? Because I can't imagine "FCS football program accepts invitation from a conference that has the ability to offer FBS invitations, but since the WAC is not actually sponsoring FBS football, the FCS program gets to be an independent in practice" doesn't play well with the spirit of the rule, which is that FCS programs need invitations from FBS conferences to assure they can create a FBS schedule every year.

Meanwhile, if we're talking about using an FBS conference as a way station to allow FCS moveups to circumvent the rules and be independents, why not have Liberty and whoever else wants to pay the Sun Belt to be part of their conference for a two-year cycle, then drop out and become independent? Because you don't have to be in a conference for X number of years before going indy (see UMass).

There is another rule that a conference could form with 7 members that played each other for 10 years at the least. It did not say now or from the past.

New Mexico State played more than 10 years with these schools.

North Texas
UTEP
Illinois State
Indiana State
West Texas A&M
La. Tech
Idaho
Wichita State
Northern Arizona
Southern Illinois
Western Illinois
Rice
Long Beach State
Fullerton State

Now, with the issues with less money? Could this happen?

UTEP and one other school join the MWC.

Rice, North Texas, La. Tech, UTSA joins New Mexico State and UTRGV for football WAC.

New Mexico State
Rice
North Texas
UTSA
UTRGV
La. Tech

That makes 6.

Wichita State
West Texas A&M
Idaho
Illinois State

You get 8 right there that played each other in the past.

New Mexico State, Idaho, North Texas, Rice, La. Tech, West Texas A&M, Wichita State and Illinois State.

Now, you need to add 2 more schools for a 12 team football conference. Montana, Montana State, North Dakota State, Missouri State, Northern Iowa, South Dakota State, Lamar, Sam Houston State, McNeese State, Arkansas State all could be part of the new WAC.

C-USA could add SBC, MAC and some FCS call ups and UMass. to get back to 12.

Remember the other rule that a conference can be formed by schools that have played each other for more than years together which could also throw a wrench in the works.

(01-10-2017 04:51 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:29 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 03:38 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  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.

I agree. But if the WAC has confirmed they still qualify to invite FCS schools to upgrade to FBS under the formerly sponsoring FBS conference provision, then this is one way to do it. If I was the WAC, I would sell the FBS upgrade to interested schools and make some money, but that is just me.

But if the issue is scheduling and the WAC isn't offering FBS football now, even if they have the ability to flip the FBS switch back on, if they're not actually sponsoring FBS football, then would the NCAA then tighten the potential loophole to eliminate this scenario? Because I can't imagine "FCS football program accepts invitation from a conference that has the ability to offer FBS invitations, but since the WAC is not actually sponsoring FBS football, the FCS program gets to be an independent in practice" doesn't play well with the spirit of the rule, which is that FCS programs need invitations from FBS conferences to assure they can create a FBS schedule every year.

Meanwhile, if we're talking about using an FBS conference as a way station to allow FCS moveups to circumvent the rules and be independents, why not have Liberty and whoever else wants to pay the Sun Belt to be part of their conference for a two-year cycle, then drop out and become independent? Because you don't have to be in a conference for X number of years before going indy (see UMass).

Many P5 conferences would love some of their favorite FCS schools move up to FBS level. The Minnesota/North Dakota State games have become a rivalry in recent years especially in football. With the new rules in place, Big 10 schools can't play FCS schools anymore. I say the Big 10 could sponsor a school like North Dakota State to become FBS to be counted like a P5 type school.

(01-10-2017 04:51 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:29 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 03:38 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  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.

I agree. But if the WAC has confirmed they still qualify to invite FCS schools to upgrade to FBS under the formerly sponsoring FBS conference provision, then this is one way to do it. If I was the WAC, I would sell the FBS upgrade to interested schools and make some money, but that is just me.

But if the issue is scheduling and the WAC isn't offering FBS football now, even if they have the ability to flip the FBS switch back on, if they're not actually sponsoring FBS football, then would the NCAA then tighten the potential loophole to eliminate this scenario? Because I can't imagine "FCS football program accepts invitation from a conference that has the ability to offer FBS invitations, but since the WAC is not actually sponsoring FBS football, the FCS program gets to be an independent in practice" doesn't play well with the spirit of the rule, which is that FCS programs need invitations from FBS conferences to assure they can create a FBS schedule every year.

Meanwhile, if we're talking about using an FBS conference as a way station to allow FCS moveups to circumvent the rules and be independents, why not have Liberty and whoever else wants to pay the Sun Belt to be part of their conference for a two-year cycle, then drop out and become independent? Because you don't have to be in a conference for X number of years before going indy (see UMass).

The Sun Belt could make money stamping out FBS independents, but there is a cost which is lowering the conference difficulty, which bowls and even the CFP payments take into account.

The WAC wouldn't be so inhibited for now, as it would need the money it could make in fees from Liberty et al.

(01-10-2017 05:01 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:51 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:29 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 03:38 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  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.

I agree. But if the WAC has confirmed they still qualify to invite FCS schools to upgrade to FBS under the formerly sponsoring FBS conference provision, then this is one way to do it. If I was the WAC, I would sell the FBS upgrade to interested schools and make some money, but that is just me.

But if the issue is scheduling and the WAC isn't offering FBS football now, even if they have the ability to flip the FBS switch back on, if they're not actually sponsoring FBS football, then would the NCAA then tighten the potential loophole to eliminate this scenario? Because I can't imagine "FCS football program accepts invitation from a conference that has the ability to offer FBS invitations, but since the WAC is not actually sponsoring FBS football, the FCS program gets to be an independent in practice" doesn't play well with the spirit of the rule, which is that FCS programs need invitations from FBS conferences to assure they can create a FBS schedule every year.

Meanwhile, if we're talking about using an FBS conference as a way station to allow FCS moveups to circumvent the rules and be independents, why not have Liberty and whoever else wants to pay the Sun Belt to be part of their conference for a two-year cycle, then drop out and become independent? Because you don't have to be in a conference for X number of years before going indy (see UMass).

Many P5 conferences would love some of their favorite FCS schools move up to FBS level. The Minnesota/North Dakota State games have become a rivalry in recent years especially in football. With the new rules in place, Big 10 schools can't play FCS schools anymore. I say the Big 10 could sponsor a school like North Dakota State to become FBS to be counted like a P5 type school.

Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa St, Wisconsin, Nebraska need MAC type opponents like Ohio St, Michigan, Mich St have in their backyard. Minn and Iowa St even play games at MAC venues. If a Dakota school stepped up and built a 20k+ venue, they could actually venture there, like Minnesota does for hockey.

Is there a minimum requirement for a conference in FBS of teams?

NMSU would be a yes....Also I imagine Grand Canyon Education, Inc., might be interested. Idaho, MIGHT be interested. I assume Liberty would jump.

Would UMass? They have a full schedule and would have to pay a lot of money to dump games. And to join a conference where they'll be an extreme outlier, with huge travel costs, and would still be in a very unstable position.

(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.

There isn't a rule. It's an NCAA interpretation of the rule. The way rules read and how the NCAA applies them doesn't always match up.

(01-10-2017 05:26 PM)arkstfan 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.

There isn't a rule. It's an NCAA interpretation of the rule. The way rules read and how the NCAA applies them doesn't always match up.

So basically what you're saying is that there isn't a rule to negate it but there would be a lawsuit filed by one party or another if anyone tried it. I agree with that.

(01-10-2017 04:12 PM)NoDak Wrote:  http://www.midmajormadness.com/2017/1/10/14225332/

UVU President's comment

I heard him mention in a few weeks but then probably by the end of the season. Looking to hear actual realignment/conference expansion news for the WAC. It'll be quite interesting to know who is being added.
Maybe the WAC has convinced UC- San Diego to make the jump to the WAC instead of waiting for the Big West to make a decision.

The point missed is even if someone sues the NCAA to interpret the rule the way it seems to read (ie. they believe previously met only applies to a conference still in the grace period) there are three big problems.
One. You still have to reclassify and play a qualifying schedule.
Two. The new league gets $0 from the CFP contract so that revenue source is cut off until the next deal is signed and then only if they are allowed to join.
Three. There aren't 8 willing schools. The WAC and a third party both explored the option of Liberty, Jacksonville State, Eastern Kentucky and numerous others in the west joining the WAC with Idaho and NMSU to become an FBS league. There simply were not SIX schools interested. Now the bar is at 7 with Idaho reclassifying.

As always, this hinges on the Montanas. Idaho definitely does want to help this happen and they want to do it with those schools. If you talk to people at Idaho they will tell you there may be some softening to the idea at Montana St. How much of that is true and how much of it is to keep the alumni from stabbing them with pitchforks I have no idea.

(01-10-2017 05:16 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 05:01 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:51 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:29 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 03:38 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  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.

I agree. But if the WAC has confirmed they still qualify to invite FCS schools to upgrade to FBS under the formerly sponsoring FBS conference provision, then this is one way to do it. If I was the WAC, I would sell the FBS upgrade to interested schools and make some money, but that is just me.

But if the issue is scheduling and the WAC isn't offering FBS football now, even if they have the ability to flip the FBS switch back on, if they're not actually sponsoring FBS football, then would the NCAA then tighten the potential loophole to eliminate this scenario? Because I can't imagine "FCS football program accepts invitation from a conference that has the ability to offer FBS invitations, but since the WAC is not actually sponsoring FBS football, the FCS program gets to be an independent in practice" doesn't play well with the spirit of the rule, which is that FCS programs need invitations from FBS conferences to assure they can create a FBS schedule every year.

Meanwhile, if we're talking about using an FBS conference as a way station to allow FCS moveups to circumvent the rules and be independents, why not have Liberty and whoever else wants to pay the Sun Belt to be part of their conference for a two-year cycle, then drop out and become independent? Because you don't have to be in a conference for X number of years before going indy (see UMass).

Many P5 conferences would love some of their favorite FCS schools move up to FBS level. The Minnesota/North Dakota State games have become a rivalry in recent years especially in football. With the new rules in place, Big 10 schools can't play FCS schools anymore. I say the Big 10 could sponsor a school like North Dakota State to become FBS to be counted like a P5 type school.

Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa St, Wisconsin, Nebraska need MAC type opponents like Ohio St, Michigan, Mich St have in their backyard. Minn and Iowa St even play games at MAC venues. If a Dakota school stepped up and built a 20k+ venue, they could actually venture there, like Minnesota does for hockey.

North Dakota State does have a 20,000 + venue and they could expand it some more. The others need to build up to get there accept for Montana and Montana State. Northern Colorado, Washburn and Lindenwood could go to the local pro-football stadiums while their new stadiums could be ready to meet FBS specs. Azusa Pacific could go to Pasadena to play in the Rose Bowl for home games until they could bring their 10,000 seat stadium up there over 16,000. Bakersfield also have a stadium that they built that is very large.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorial_S...kersfield)

20,000 seat stadium that is being used by the local JC college there. If California do what other states have done? Bakersfield College and Cal-State-Bakersfield could merge, and Bakersfield State could inherit the Bakersfield College's football team. Bakersfield College have over 17,000 students.

(01-10-2017 05:30 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:12 PM)NoDak Wrote:  http://www.midmajormadness.com/2017/1/10/14225332/

UVU President's comment

I heard him mention in a few weeks but then probably by the end of the season. Looking to hear actual realignment/conference expansion news for the WAC. It'll be quite interesting to know who is being added.
Maybe the WAC has convinced UC- San Diego to make the jump to the WAC instead of waiting for the Big West to make a decision.

UCSD has joined the Big West for men's VBall for the 2018 season. The Big West will sponsor it's first season then and get an autobid. That's a pretty good commitment.

(01-10-2017 05:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 05:16 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 05:01 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:51 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:29 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I agree. But if the WAC has confirmed they still qualify to invite FCS schools to upgrade to FBS under the formerly sponsoring FBS conference provision, then this is one way to do it. If I was the WAC, I would sell the FBS upgrade to interested schools and make some money, but that is just me.

But if the issue is scheduling and the WAC isn't offering FBS football now, even if they have the ability to flip the FBS switch back on, if they're not actually sponsoring FBS football, then would the NCAA then tighten the potential loophole to eliminate this scenario? Because I can't imagine "FCS football program accepts invitation from a conference that has the ability to offer FBS invitations, but since the WAC is not actually sponsoring FBS football, the FCS program gets to be an independent in practice" doesn't play well with the spirit of the rule, which is that FCS programs need invitations from FBS conferences to assure they can create a FBS schedule every year.

Meanwhile, if we're talking about using an FBS conference as a way station to allow FCS moveups to circumvent the rules and be independents, why not have Liberty and whoever else wants to pay the Sun Belt to be part of their conference for a two-year cycle, then drop out and become independent? Because you don't have to be in a conference for X number of years before going indy (see UMass).

Many P5 conferences would love some of their favorite FCS schools move up to FBS level. The Minnesota/North Dakota State games have become a rivalry in recent years especially in football. With the new rules in place, Big 10 schools can't play FCS schools anymore. I say the Big 10 could sponsor a school like North Dakota State to become FBS to be counted like a P5 type school.

Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa St, Wisconsin, Nebraska need MAC type opponents like Ohio St, Michigan, Mich St have in their backyard. Minn and Iowa St even play games at MAC venues. If a Dakota school stepped up and built a 20k+ venue, they could actually venture there, like Minnesota does for hockey.

North Dakota State does have a 20,000 + venue and they could expand it some more. The others need to build up to get there accept for Montana and Montana State. Northern Colorado, Washburn and Lindenwood could go to the local pro-football stadiums while their new stadiums could be ready to meet FBS specs. Azusa Pacific could go to Pasadena to play in the Rose Bowl for home games until they could bring their 10,000 seat stadium up there over 16,000. Bakersfield also have a stadium that they built that is very large.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorial_S...kersfield)

20,000 seat stadium that is being used by the local JC college there. If California do what other states have done? Bakersfield College and Cal-State-Bakersfield could merge, and Bakersfield State could inherit the Bakersfield College's football team. Bakersfield College have over 17,000 students.

The Fargo Dome seats nearly 19k. A change would be highly cost prohibitive and would mean Fargo cancelling more than a years worth of events and conventions.

The Montanas already have 20k+ venues. Montana St didn't when the WAC dropped fb and Montana has made additions too.

(01-10-2017 04:58 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  There is another rule that a conference could form with 7 members that played each other for 10 years at the least. It did not say now or from the past.

That provision was changed years ago.

The current requirement that must be met for a D-I conference to also be deemed an FBS conference is to have at least eight members that (a) play football at the FBS level and (b) play not only football in the conference but also some Olympic sports (which must include both men's and women's basketball).

However there is no requirement for the FBS members to have been together in the conference or played each other for any period of time. Theoretically an existing D-I FBS conference could lose most or all of its FBS members today and add other FBS schools as replacements for them tomorrow and continue to be considered FBS, provided that the total count of its FBS members stayed above eight. That's why if the Big 12 were raided and reduced to as few as one or two remaining members, it could still rebuild if FBS schools from other conferences were willing to join it.

This doesn't mean though that it's easy to form brand new D-I FBS conferences on the fly. The reason is that there is a separate rule requiring any newly-formed D-I conference to sponsor a minimum number of sports (again including men's and women's basketball) for at least eight consecutive years before the conference is awarded post-season NCAA tournament auto bids.

(01-10-2017 11:28 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  You would know better than I do here - from what I've seen, I don't see how the WAC has that right at all at least in a unilateral sense. AFAIK, it can't just unilaterally declare itself to be a FBS conference and start moving up FCS schools to the FBS level.

I actually did a deep dive through the NCAA manual a few weeks ago, and was pretty surprised that the black-letter rules say that former FBS conferences can give out FBS invites.

You still have a massive problem of putting together an FBS schedule without an existing FBS conference though. Any schools west of Liberty had a chance already to step up and join the 2012-or-so WAC, which had a lot more going for it than the 2017 WAC.

(01-10-2017 05:38 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 05:30 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:12 PM)NoDak Wrote:  http://www.midmajormadness.com/2017/1/10/14225332/

UVU President's comment

I heard him mention in a few weeks but then probably by the end of the season. Looking to hear actual realignment/conference expansion news for the WAC. It'll be quite interesting to know who is being added.
Maybe the WAC has convinced UC- San Diego to make the jump to the WAC instead of waiting for the Big West to make a decision.

UCSD has joined the Big West for men's VBall for the 2018 season. The Big West will sponsor it's first season then and get an autobid. That's a pretty good commitment.

UCSD joining in men's volleyball doesn't mean a full membership is coming for them. Sac State is an affiliate in beach volleyball and men's soccer. No one is calling for them to join in all sports.

Regardless, good for the WAC to at least look like it's finally taking charge. It can't wait for Chicago State to stop playing sports, or for the Big West to poach NMSU or Grand Canyon. The WAC needs to find new members now.