The decades long trend of schools wanting to put all of their sports into one conference ended the day BYU declared for Independence Sep 1 2010. It was the first time an all sport FBS member choose to take the historical step back and place its Olympic sports into a basketball conference while playing Independent in football.

Over the past 4 years there has been a rise in FB-Only arrangements that I believe are a precursor to the formation of new Independent schools. The move to Independence will be driven by the full cost off attendance issue. It is likely some of the non-FBS conferences will not agree to pay full cost of attendance without a revenue source like the G5 has with the CFP coming in to pay for it.

A school such as Hawaii will be faced with the option of either joining the MWC and paying full cost of attendance in all sports OR going Independent from the MWC and not paying the full cost of attendance. Then for Hawaii having a school that is in a unique time zone for TV purposes and a location that can recruit itself does it really need to concern itself with paying football stipends?

Then you have the Idaho and New Mexico State situations where they are probably going to be cut loose to make room for Missouri State all sports and full stipend SBC. They may say to themselves their football is hopeless anyways and the Big Sky/WAC can't afford stipends so why not just hang in as an Independent until a MWC bid comes around? Those schools don't have the recruiting base to think they can be in play for a G5 autobdid.

Brigham Young (West Coast Conference)
Hawaii (Big West Conference)
Idaho (Big Sky Conference)
New Mexico State (Western Athletic Conference)
Massachusetts (Atlantic 10 Conference)
Navy (Patriot League)
Army (Patriot League)

What is going to happen with the Atlantic 10 over the full cost of attendance? Some of the schools in there like St. Bonaventure and St. Joe's don't seem like they have it as a mission to compete in a full cost world. Could they be replaced by a school like Old Dominion which could compete against VCU, GMU, Richmond and GWU in basketball while forging on as an Independent?

What other possibilities exist for FB Independence?

We've heard the idea plenty on this board about Texas going to the ACC as an Olympic Sport member while playing a partial football schedule. It would be a way to balance out Notre Dame for a nice round 16 schools in basketball.

Does it make sense for Texas institutionally to sync its future with the smaller enrollment ACC when they could secure the same deal with the PAC? The PAC could also make room for Oklahoma. Both schools would be an enormous boost to the PAC home schedules and wouldn't interfere with access to the California recruiting grounds if they are accepted as Independents. A nice boost on the bowl front too for the PAC which is challenged by western geography.

In the G5 ranks at least, I don't think there is going to be as much excitement about moving from one G5 conference to another. All are very challenged to earn a spot in the CFP rankings. Some like Old Dominion which don't have other G5 schools in their conference and are on the fringe geographically aren't going to have a lot of incentive to stay in their G5.

UConn once the BE split exit fees run out is probably better served rejoining the BE and going Independent. That way they can bring more P5 into Hartford to help recruiting. Its always been said St. Louis should be added in the West to balance but who would need St. Louis if you could get Memphis?

As the ranks of Independents grow at the G5 level, bowl games would follow to be set up for these schools should they qualify.

Independence driven realignment scenario:

PAC (Texas-Oly, Oklahoma-Oly)
B12 (Houston, Cincinnati)
BE (UConn-Oly, Memphis-Oly)
AAC (Rice, Marshall)-Note AAC reloading only to 10
A10 (Old Dominion Oly)
CUSA (Louisiana)-Note CUSA reloading only to 12
SBC (Missouri St, Wichita St)
BW (New Mexico St-Oly)
Ind (Idaho-FB)

-A mix of schools moving to go to new conferences for Olympic sports and some as all sport members in the future.

-The SBC if they could cut NMSU/BW lose while losing ULL to CUSA could make room for both Missouri State and Wichita, further contributing to their stability.

-The number of schools in G5 conferences would go down. MAC, MWC, CUSA all with 12. AAC with 10. SBC with 9. That is 55 schools that are part of the G5 agreement as opposed to 59 this season. More money for those left behind in a G5.

-An increase in Independent schools could force a movement to an 8 team playoff and an 8 system CFP where the Top 16 Get a New Year's Bowl.

wow. Really?

for one the PAC won't accept any non-football members..

all g5 conferences will be at 12 and that is the ideal number for maximizing revenue for a g5 conference. no way the AAC would sit at 10 or the sun belt at 9

I'd take NMSU back with open arms. Only thing is, talk about the extreme distances between Las Cruces and Honolulu with no regional member nearby for NMSU.

You have way to much time on your hands.

(11-23-2014 12:24 PM)billings Wrote:  wow. Really?

for one the PAC won't accept any non-football members.. what were you on when you dreamt this one up?

all g5 will be at 12 and that is the ideal number for maximizing revenue for a g5 conference. I do agree with that. now way the AAC would sit at 10 or the sun belt at 9

I think the PAC might make an exception if said non-football member were say, UCSD or UCSB...

(11-23-2014 12:24 PM)billings Wrote:  wow. Really?

for one the PAC won't accept any non-football members.. what were you on when you dreamt this one up?

-The same was said about the ACC, a conference that wouldn't accept football only members.

-The PAC is having a hard time getting the votes to expand from Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State who don't want to give up their California recruiting grounds for games against Texas and Oklahoma. Going the partial member route is one way the PAC can get around this so instead of hurting Cali access you are beefing up non-conference scheduling.

-The PAC has more room than the ACC. They are smaller than the B1G, SEC and ACC so I could see where getting up to 14 in Olympic Sports would put them in that same size category.

-AAC if they really wanted a 16th school would be better served in getting Georgetown, a true replacement for Maryland and Syracuse's main basketball rival than farting around with Texas in a partial basketball situation. Notre Dame olympic to the ACC made sense as a smaller private institution. Texas doesn't fit in with ACC schools outside of the endowment numbers.

(11-23-2014 12:36 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(11-23-2014 12:24 PM)billings Wrote:  wow. Really?

for one the PAC won't accept any non-football members.. what were you on when you dreamt this one up?

-The same was said about the ACC, a conference that wouldn't accept football only members.

-The PAC is having a hard time getting the votes to expand from Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State who don't want to give up their California recruiting grounds for games against Texas and Oklahoma. Going the partial member route is one way the PAC can get around this so instead of hurting Cali access you are beefing up non-conference scheduling.

-The PAC has more room than the ACC. They are smaller than the B1G, SEC and ACC so I could see where getting up to 14 in Olympic Sports would put them in that same size category.

-AAC if they really wanted a 16th school would be better served in getting Georgetown, a true replacement for Maryland and Syracuse's main basketball rival than farting around with Texas in a partial basketball situation. Notre Dame olympic to the ACC made sense as a smaller private institution. Texas doesn't fit in with ACC schools outside of the endowment numbers.

Why would the Pac12 accept Texas and Oklahoma without their only important sport?

(11-23-2014 06:54 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(11-23-2014 12:36 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(11-23-2014 12:24 PM)billings Wrote:  wow. Really?

for one the PAC won't accept any non-football members.. what were you on when you dreamt this one up?

-The same was said about the ACC, a conference that wouldn't accept football only members.

-The PAC is having a hard time getting the votes to expand from Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State who don't want to give up their California recruiting grounds for games against Texas and Oklahoma. Going the partial member route is one way the PAC can get around this so instead of hurting Cali access you are beefing up non-conference scheduling.

-The PAC has more room than the ACC. They are smaller than the B1G, SEC and ACC so I could see where getting up to 14 in Olympic Sports would put them in that same size category.

-AAC if they really wanted a 16th school would be better served in getting Georgetown, a true replacement for Maryland and Syracuse's main basketball rival than farting around with Texas in a partial basketball situation. Notre Dame olympic to the ACC made sense as a smaller private institution. Texas doesn't fit in with ACC schools outside of the endowment numbers.

Why would the Pac12 accept Texas and Oklahoma without their only important sport?

1) High profile non-conference games for schools like Utah and Oregon State that wouldn't otherwise get them.

2) Help on the bowl front with Texas and Oklahoma as part of the package.

3) Texas and Oklahoma have good basketball an could help in that area for the PAC.

Why not a pool of independents who can negotiate individual media deals that agree to schedule one another.
some schools have a larger draw and could make more money alone rather than share with a group.

(11-23-2014 07:32 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  Why not a pool of independents who can negotiate individual media deals that agree to schedule one another.
some schools have a larger draw and could make more money alone rather than share with a group.

Yes. Exactly my point.

Now if this G5 deal turned out to be sweet with schools highly respected in the CFP poll it would be a different story. Since they are going to ridicule the G5 schedule then you may as well try and play a heavier schedule as an Independent that would be worthy of a NYD6 bowl on its own merit if undefeated.

BYU is thinking this way. UConn should be thinking this way too. For some like NMSU and Idaho Independence is more of a way to stay in the game.

Several on this realignment board have commented interesting possibilities about a Texas shift and perhaps Oklahome... I for the most part don't foresee such movement from those two programs especially Texas.

UT currently receives great revenue $$$, outstanding National tv coverage, schedules anyone they want... I mean, what else are they after that they already have and why abandon a comfort (B12) zone they extremely worked hard for!?! If anything, I see Texas adding 2 - 4 programs to their league and call it a day or perhaps goes the Indi route but leaves their other sports in the B12.

Ut football may be worth more on its own, rather than the share they get with less valued conference mates.
It could also open the door for fcs move ups who find themselve geographically challenged.

It could be that Texas stays in the B12.

It wanted to generate some discussion because I feel like there is a legit chance at some movement here in the G5 ranks over the full cost of attendance issue.

It won't be the kind of movement that some of the posters on here want which is some SBC and some MAC schools forced down to FCS. What I see is more splintering of conference members if they can advantages themselves with another arrangement.

The biggest independent, Notre Dame has a deal for a handful of football games in the ACC along with its olympic sports.
Navy is joining the American for football and keeping its olympics where they've been.
Army and BYU have both been approached to join the American.... I can see both in (or in a Notre Dame like agreement with) the American too - if BYU doesn't get a Big 12 invite.

That doesn't sound like a booming rise of independents.

BYU and NMSU may be in a bind if their other conferences decide not to follow the FBS conferences.

(11-23-2014 10:19 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  The biggest independent, Notre Dame has a deal for a handful of football games in the ACC along with its olympic sports.
Navy is joining the American for football and keeping its olympics where they've been.
Army and BYU have both been approached to join the American.... I can see both in (or in a Notre Dame like agreement with) the American too - if BYU doesn't get a Big 12 invite.

That doesn't sound like a booming rise of independents.

ND doesn't have a problem they have that partial arrangement Ive espoused for UT and OU.

How will academy handle full cost of attendance? Does that idea mesh with their institutional concept of athletic? I see it as a question.

1994.

People forget that until 1994 television contracts were negotiated by either the NCAA or a consortium of conferences with the exception of Notre Dame who cut their deal starting in 1990. The B1G and Pac-10 had jointly down their deal.

That's when the first deal was struck between a single conference and a TV network.

That's when the SWC was no longer viable because the only competitors for their services were CBS (who had signed SEC and Big East), NBC (who had Notre Dame), ABC (who already had Big 10 and Pac-10). ESPN was not at the point where they could tote a large note and be the primary despite having the reached the point of launching ESPN2.

Conferences being the economic unit of college football is only about 20 years old. There is no reason this recent innovation will always be the model.

(11-23-2014 07:07 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(11-23-2014 06:54 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(11-23-2014 12:36 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(11-23-2014 12:24 PM)billings Wrote:  wow. Really?

for one the PAC won't accept any non-football members.. what were you on when you dreamt this one up?

-The same was said about the ACC, a conference that wouldn't accept football only members.

-The PAC is having a hard time getting the votes to expand from Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State who don't want to give up their California recruiting grounds for games against Texas and Oklahoma. Going the partial member route is one way the PAC can get around this so instead of hurting Cali access you are beefing up non-conference scheduling.

-The PAC has more room than the ACC. They are smaller than the B1G, SEC and ACC so I could see where getting up to 14 in Olympic Sports would put them in that same size category.

-AAC if they really wanted a 16th school would be better served in getting Georgetown, a true replacement for Maryland and Syracuse's main basketball rival than farting around with Texas in a partial basketball situation. Notre Dame olympic to the ACC made sense as a smaller private institution. Texas doesn't fit in with ACC schools outside of the endowment numbers.

Why would the Pac12 accept Texas and Oklahoma without their only important sport?

1) High profile non-conference games for schools like Utah and Oregon State that wouldn't otherwise get them.

2) Help on the bowl front with Texas and Oklahoma as part of the package.

3) Texas and Oklahoma have good basketball an could help in that area for the PAC.

the Pac-12 doesn't need or want partials - they have a nice conference of like-minded schools, in all sports. They don't need Texas divas. If anyone joins the Pac-12, it is on the PAC-12's terms, not the other way around.