(10-16-2022 12:27 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(10-15-2022 10:57 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-15-2022 09:44 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(10-15-2022 08:54 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  An FBS football proposal that includes Eastern Washington is not credible.

Q: Are Tarleton State and S.F. Austin Univ. more credible than EWU?

No idea because I know very little about those schools. But I know EWU.

It has nothing to do with on-field performance. EWU has absolutely maxed out what they can do and they should be incredibly proud of how well they've played in the revenue sports. But they can't go FBS.

I'll assume that you're right about EWU, and that neither Tarleton State nor SFAU are more credible than EWU.

In that case, these might be the most credible future western FBS programs:

Montana
Montana State
Weber State
Sacramento St.
Idaho
North Dakota St.
South Dakota St.

I have no idea about Tarleton on field performance, but on the credible front, Tarleton is apart of Texas A&M system and A&M BOR has already approved second expansion of the stadium to be hold around 20K or so. A&M has also came out and said they would like as many as their satellite schools to move as high athleticly as possible recently. They have the backing money wise. Even if the on field product doesn’t reflect (again, I have no idea) everyone knows aggies support their team.

But regardless, fcs schools from Texas aren’t teaming up with fcs schools from cold ass weather states to play football at FBS. Not happening. We like the temp 85-105 degrees, not 10-55 degrees

(10-17-2022 08:49 PM)andy98 Wrote:  North Dakota
North Dakota State
South Dakota
South Dakota State
Montana
Montana State
Idaho
Idaho State

This right here.. seriously why is that not already an FCS conference? Could also be a landing spot or Oregon state and Wazzou once the rest of the Pac gets raided. Depending on what remains of MWC if Pac gets heavily raided, could definitely keep MWC viable with those 8 additions.

Play your road games in Montana in September. And Idaho & NDSU play in domes. You'll be fine!

(10-17-2022 10:45 PM)Bobcats2011 Wrote:  

(10-17-2022 08:49 PM)andy98 Wrote:  North Dakota
North Dakota State
South Dakota
South Dakota State
Montana
Montana State
Idaho
Idaho State

This right here.. seriously why is that not already an FCS conference? Could also be a landing spot or Oregon state and Wazzou once the rest of the Pac gets raided. Depending on what remains of MWC if Pac gets heavily raided, could definitely keep MWC viable with those 8 additions.

You'd be amazed by how little interest Idaho and Idaho State have in each other.

(10-17-2022 10:45 PM)Bobcats2011 Wrote:  

(10-17-2022 08:49 PM)andy98 Wrote:  North Dakota
North Dakota State
South Dakota
South Dakota State
Montana
Montana State
Idaho
Idaho State

This right here.. seriously why is that not already an FCS conference? Could also be a landing spot or Oregon state and Wazzou once the rest of the Pac gets raided. Depending on what remains of MWC if Pac gets heavily raided, could definitely keep MWC viable with those 8 additions.

Good question. The simplest answer may be: geography and history.

Geographically, they've typically been thought of as being in two different regions - - the upper great plains (Dakotas) vs. the (northern) Rocky Mountains (Montana & Idaho).

Historically, before it became a common occurrence to travel by plane, it made the most sense for most teams to play vs. nearby conference opponents (and it still makes the most sense for some conferences (e.g. MAC) to do so). However, now that more and more schools are flying their teams around the country, the idea of a "Northern Tier" or "Snow Belt" conference may be a lot more feasible than it was 15 or 20 years ago. It might not be affordable as an FCS conference, but could be affordable as an FBS conference, if a network would provide sufficient broadcasting revenue.

(10-18-2022 12:33 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  Good question. The simplest answer may be: geography and history.

Geographically, they've typically been thought of as being in two different regions - - the upper great plains (Dakotas) vs. the (northern) Rocky Mountains (Montana & Idaho).

Historically, before it became a common occurrence to travel by plane, it made the most sense for most teams to play vs. nearby conference opponents (and it still makes the most sense for some conferences (e.g. MAC) to do so). However, now that more and more schools are flying their teams around the country, the idea of a "Northern Tier" or "Snow Belt" conference may be a lot more feasible than it was 15 or 20 years ago. It might not be affordable as an FCS conference, but could be affordable as an FBS conference, if a network would provide sufficient broadcasting revenue.

Yep. Fun fact -- there's less distance between Portland, Maine and Atlanta than there is between Moscow, Idaho and Fargo, North Dakota.

(10-17-2022 11:08 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  Play your road games in Montana in September. And Idaho & NDSU play in domes. You'll be fine!

North Dakota and South Dakota also play in domes.

(10-17-2022 11:09 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  You'd be amazed by how little interest Idaho and Idaho State have in each other.

Correct. ISU is viewed as a regional teacher's college by that group.
EWU has fiscal issues.
Weber State to make the eight.

A hidden problem: The Montanas use the BSC schedule to recruit California. They won't step away from that easily.

(10-17-2022 10:11 PM)Bobcats2011 Wrote:  

(10-16-2022 12:27 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(10-15-2022 10:57 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-15-2022 09:44 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(10-15-2022 08:54 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  An FBS football proposal that includes Eastern Washington is not credible.

Q: Are Tarleton State and S.F. Austin Univ. more credible than EWU?

No idea because I know very little about those schools. But I know EWU.

It has nothing to do with on-field performance. EWU has absolutely maxed out what they can do and they should be incredibly proud of how well they've played in the revenue sports. But they can't go FBS.

I'll assume that you're right about EWU, and that neither Tarleton State nor SFAU are more credible than EWU.

In that case, these might be the most credible future western FBS programs:

Montana
Montana State
Weber State
Sacramento St.
Idaho
North Dakota St.
South Dakota St.

I have no idea about Tarleton on field performance, but on the credible front, Tarleton is apart of Texas A&M system and A&M BOR has already approved second expansion of the stadium to be hold around 20K or so. A&M has also came out and said they would like as many as their satellite schools to move as high athleticly as possible recently. They have the backing money wise. Even if the on field product doesn’t reflect (again, I have no idea) everyone knows aggies support their team.

But regardless, fcs schools from Texas aren’t teaming up with fcs schools from cold ass weather states to play football at FBS. Not happening. We like the temp 85-105 degrees, not 10-55 degrees

Given that, it's interesting that West Texas A&M is holding out to save the Lone Star and remain in D-2 instead of joining the WAC.

(10-15-2022 12:23 PM)Utgrizfan Wrote:  

(10-15-2022 01:29 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(10-14-2022 07:16 PM)Poster Wrote:  What’s the NCAA provision that supposedly would allow the WAC to move back up to FBS? Has there been any discussion about closing that loophole?

The rule you’re thinking of is still on the books. What it actually says is that to move up from FCS to FBS, a school must join either a current FBS conference or a conference that previously qualified as an FBS conference.

The WAC is the only conference that meets the latter definition, which gives it an advantage in recruiting new member schools that want to move up from FCS to FBS and haven’t been able to land an invitation from one of the 10 current FBS conferences. I’m unaware of any discussion about taking this advantage away.

However that provision doesn’t exempt the WAC from complying with the other rule that says a D1 conference can only qualify to be considered an FBS conference if it has at least eight full members that are playing football at the FBS level. So to “move back up to FBS” the WAC would have to land at least eight schools that are either already playing FBS football or are fully committed to transitioning from FCS to FBS. The WAC hasn’t come close to bringing aboard that many and so it appears the conference will continue sponsoring football at the FCS level for the foreseeable future.

Unless of course someone can engineer all of the necessary realignment moves to implement something like “Karl Benson’s Revenge”, LOL.

One other rule that’s relevant to this discussion is the one that says any brand new D1 conference — whether it sponsors football or not — will have to wait eight years before receiving auto bids in men’s and women’s basketball. That’s a powerful disincentive to starting new conferences from scratch, and it’s why the notion of eight schools just agreeing to join forces to create a new Snowbelt Conference is pretty unrealistic.

I personally agree and feel the best option would be for the WAC to meet with the Big Sky and Southland Conference and hash things out. Those that can be FBS join the WAC and those that can't move to either of those Conferences. The Mega conference idea I don't understand, ideally the teams thay could form it:

NORTH:
Montana, MSU, NDSU, SDSU, Idaho

SOUTH:
Tarleton State, UTEP, NMSU, SHSU, SFA

(If the Western CUSA schools don't want to move could add instead from the following: Weber State, UND, USD, UNI, Idaho State, NAU)

Granted if I'm being completely honest I would love to see both Montana and Montana state in the Mountain West Conference then this scenario, hope the New Comissioner makes it happen.

MWC won't happen for any FCS school unless the PAC is forced to gut the league, which could happen. My dream, SDSU, NDSU, Montana, MSU, Idaho, Wyoming, NMSU, Air Force, Utah State. Add Denver as a non-FB member. Never happen, but that would be a fun, and a solid G5 league.

(10-18-2022 12:41 PM)jacksfan29! Wrote:  MWC won't happen for any FCS school unless the PAC is forced to gut the league, which could happen. My dream, SDSU, NDSU, Montana, MSU, Idaho, Wyoming, NMSU, Air Force, Utah State. Add Denver as a non-FB member. Never happen, but that would be a fun, and a solid G5 league.

I would love that conference so hard. We might even be able to bring something to the table now, too. We've fired everyone involved in our decade-long tailspin, hired competent administrators, and are turning back into something. Enrollment is up for the 3rd year in a row, football doesn't suck anymore, and we've built a beautiful new basketball facility that unfortunately still houses a crappy men's team. Hopefully we fix that next.

Never forget the B1G is as much the BTAA (the research/academic consortium).

In the great plains ... UND, NDSU, SDSU, USD, Wyoming, and Nebraska Omaha, have started collaborating. It's a dream; it's a start.
https://blogs.und.edu/und-today/2022/09/...-benefits/

That's 8 Senators.
I told Armacost (UND) to get the Montanas and Idaho involved (12 Senators).

(10-18-2022 01:00 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-18-2022 12:41 PM)jacksfan29! Wrote:  MWC won't happen for any FCS school unless the PAC is forced to gut the league, which could happen. My dream, SDSU, NDSU, Montana, MSU, Idaho, Wyoming, NMSU, Air Force, Utah State. Add Denver as a non-FB member. Never happen, but that would be a fun, and a solid G5 league.

I would love that conference so hard. We might even be able to bring something to the table now, too. We've fired everyone involved in our decade-long tailspin, hired competent administrators, and are turning back into something. Enrollment is up for the 3rd year in a row, football doesn't suck anymore, and we've built a beautiful new basketball facility that unfortunately still houses a crappy men's team. Hopefully we fix that next.

Whoever hired Eck, GENIUS! I wanted him to take over SDSU but Stig decided to stay.

(10-17-2022 10:45 PM)Bobcats2011 Wrote:  

(10-17-2022 08:49 PM)andy98 Wrote:  North Dakota
North Dakota State
South Dakota
South Dakota State
Montana
Montana State
Idaho
Idaho State

This right here.. seriously why is that not already an FCS conference? Could also be a landing spot or Oregon state and Wazzou once the rest of the Pac gets raided. Depending on what remains of MWC if Pac gets heavily raided, could definitely keep MWC viable with those 8 additions.

The Dakota schools are closer to Murray Kentucky than to Missoula Montana.

The Dakota schools had plenty of D2 schools in the Dakotas, Minnesota and Nebraska to form a conference with.

Still do.

(10-18-2022 03:35 PM)jacksfan29! Wrote:  

(10-18-2022 01:00 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(10-18-2022 12:41 PM)jacksfan29! Wrote:  MWC won't happen for any FCS school unless the PAC is forced to gut the league, which could happen. My dream, SDSU, NDSU, Montana, MSU, Idaho, Wyoming, NMSU, Air Force, Utah State. Add Denver as a non-FB member. Never happen, but that would be a fun, and a solid G5 league.

I would love that conference so hard. We might even be able to bring something to the table now, too. We've fired everyone involved in our decade-long tailspin, hired competent administrators, and are turning back into something. Enrollment is up for the 3rd year in a row, football doesn't suck anymore, and we've built a beautiful new basketball facility that unfortunately still houses a crappy men's team. Hopefully we fix that next.

Whoever hired Eck, GENIUS! I wanted him to take over SDSU but Stig decided to stay.

It's looking like a terrific hire. We kept giving the head job to coordinators who were obviously in over their heads the moment they took the job, but Eck actually acts like a head coach. It's refreshing. Thanks for training him up right over there.

(10-15-2022 01:29 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(10-14-2022 07:16 PM)Poster Wrote:  What’s the NCAA provision that supposedly would allow the WAC to move back up to FBS? Has there been any discussion about closing that loophole?

The rule you’re thinking of is still on the books. What it actually says is that to move up from FCS to FBS, a school must join either a current FBS conference or a conference that previously qualified as an FBS conference.

The WAC is the only conference that meets the latter definition, which gives it an advantage in recruiting new member schools that want to move up from FCS to FBS and haven’t been able to land an invitation from one of the 10 current FBS conferences. I’m unaware of any discussion about taking this advantage away.

However that provision doesn’t exempt the WAC from complying with the other rule that says a D1 conference can only qualify to be considered an FBS conference if it has at least eight full members that are playing football at the FBS level. So to “move back up to FBS” the WAC would have to land at least eight schools that are either already playing FBS football or are fully committed to transitioning from FCS to FBS. The WAC hasn’t come close to bringing aboard that many and so it appears the conference will continue sponsoring football at the FCS level for the foreseeable future.

Unless of course someone can engineer all of the necessary realignment moves to implement something like “Karl Benson’s Revenge”, LOL.

One other rule that’s relevant to this discussion is the one that says any brand new D1 conference — whether it sponsors football or not — will have to wait eight years before receiving auto bids in men’s and women’s basketball. That’s a powerful disincentive to starting new conferences from scratch, and it’s why the notion of eight schools just agreeing to join forces to create a new Snowbelt Conference is pretty unrealistic.

Given that FBS is just a new term for the old 1-A, would the Big West qualify as a conference that could offer FBS football? Obviously, not going to happen with the Big West's current makeup, but just wondering.