(01-10-2017 05:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 01:30 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The rule exists to ensure that teams that call themselves FBS are actually playing nearly all of their football games against FBS opponents, per the rules that apply to all FBS teams. Conference membership ensures a large number of annual games against FBS opponents.

No one has come forward with a legitimate alternative means to guarantee that an FBS newcomer competes nearly exclusively against FBS opponents. The alternative would have to be something like, "Here are the signed and binding contracts that our school has entered into with existing FBS schools for at least 10 FBS games each year, including at least 5 home games each year, for the next 5 years."

Until a school puts documents like that on the table, a threat to challenge the rule can't be taken seriously. The argument, "We want to call ourselves FBS but we don't want to be required to play nearly all our games against FBS teams," would be laughable, and I'd be surprised if any university argues that in court.

From 1978 to around 2010 we had a system.
Teams had to play X% of games vs FBS/I-A opponents and to show contracts or memorandum of understanding showing they had scheduled the requisite number of games covering the next four years.

In reality, when the NCAA mandated five home games in 2004 (those of us in the poor neighborhoods call it the save us from ourselves rule), the possibility someone could successfully schedule enough games as a reclassifying independent became a true longshot.

If Liberty wants to be FBS in 2018 and can dig up five countable home games and get them contracted each year for 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 I say welcome aboard.

I'd be ok with that, as long as they also contract at least the minimum number of total FBS opponents for each year and meet all the other FBS requirements by the time they reclassify.

As an aside, I have no problem with the home-game requirement. IMO it's not saving the schools from themselves, it's saving the athletes from the possibility of having an AD so hellbent on grabbing money games that he sends the players out to play 6 or more money games a year. That would be a real possibility at FBS indie programs that are short on money.

In my "perfect" world, you'd basically have two factions within FBS: independents and conference teams.

Being in a conf would have to be earned, and supply would be controlled. No new FBS confs would be allowed to form without approval of the current FBS confs.

The reward, if you get invited to a conf, is you get: stability, conf games, bowl ties, CFP money, and a shot at the access slot.

On the other hand, the indy pool would be like the Wild West. Any team would be able to move up into the FBS Indy pool to test the waters. No conf invite would be required to move into the Indy pool, but it wouldn't necessarily get you much other than ability to offer more scholarships.

And so, such a structure would basically render the FBS scheduling requirements moot: any FBS conf teams will easily meet it, while those in the FBS Indy pool can do whatever they want. Want to schedule all FCS games?? Fine. No one cares. It doesn't really do much for you, but that's your business.

(01-10-2017 05:42 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 05:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 01:30 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The rule exists to ensure that teams that call themselves FBS are actually playing nearly all of their football games against FBS opponents, per the rules that apply to all FBS teams. Conference membership ensures a large number of annual games against FBS opponents.

No one has come forward with a legitimate alternative means to guarantee that an FBS newcomer competes nearly exclusively against FBS opponents. The alternative would have to be something like, "Here are the signed and binding contracts that our school has entered into with existing FBS schools for at least 10 FBS games each year, including at least 5 home games each year, for the next 5 years."

Until a school puts documents like that on the table, a threat to challenge the rule can't be taken seriously. The argument, "We want to call ourselves FBS but we don't want to be required to play nearly all our games against FBS teams," would be laughable, and I'd be surprised if any university argues that in court.

From 1978 to around 2010 we had a system.
Teams had to play X% of games vs FBS/I-A opponents and to show contracts or memorandum of understanding showing they had scheduled the requisite number of games covering the next four years.

In reality, when the NCAA mandated five home games in 2004 (those of us in the poor neighborhoods call it the save us from ourselves rule), the possibility someone could successfully schedule enough games as a reclassifying independent became a true longshot.

If Liberty wants to be FBS in 2018 and can dig up five countable home games and get them contracted each year for 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 I say welcome aboard.

I'd be ok with that, as long as they also contract at least the minimum number of total FBS opponents for each year and meet all the other FBS requirements by the time they reclassify.

As an aside, I have no problem with the home-game requirement. IMO it's not saving the schools from themselves, it's saving the athletes from the possibility of having an AD so hellbent on grabbing money games that he sends the players out to play 6 or more money games a year. That would be a real possibility at FBS indie programs that are short on money.

Pacific records got worse, attendance went down. They added more money games. Record got worse. Finally became unsustainable.

Their last year they played at Arizona, Nebraska and Oregon, but they did host Oregon State.

The NCAA is a voluntary organization. There are other organizations. They provide due process.

The rule may be hard but it is not impossible. I think both the MWC and MAC would accept North Dakota State if they wanted to move up.

(01-11-2017 01:11 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  The NCAA is a voluntary organization. There are other organizations. They provide due process.

The rule may be hard but it is not impossible. I think both the MWC and MAC would accept North Dakota State if they wanted to move up.

NCAA argued in one of the Tarkanian cases that schools don't have to be members.
Court laughed that off saying there is no alternative to NCAA membership for high level intercollegiate basketball and forced the NCAA to apply some due process to their sanctions.