(02-12-2016 05:34 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  Didn't the WAC also need something like 6 schools to be ready to move up at that moment or close to it? Doesn't make a lot of sense to say the opportunity was there for a couple of schools if in reality there weren't enough of them that wanted to move up with them to make it work. Unless I'm missing something here. I've admitted that I don't follow college football closely at all so I wouldn't be surprised if I'm missing or forgetting something.

They needed between 2 and 4 teams. They got zero takers. I think if someone, say NDSU, had said, "yep - we're jumping up", it would have caused others to take a chance on it.

But no one took the WAC up.

(02-12-2016 05:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 05:34 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  Didn't the WAC also need something like 6 schools to be ready to move up at that moment or close to it? Doesn't make a lot of sense to say the opportunity was there for a couple of schools if in reality there weren't enough of them that wanted to move up with them to make it work. Unless I'm missing something here. I've admitted that I don't follow college football closely at all so I wouldn't be surprised if I'm missing or forgetting something.

They needed between 2 and 4 teams. They got zero takers. I think if someone, say NDSU, had said, "yep - we're jumping up", it would have caused others to take a chance on it.

But no one took the WAC up.

Lamar, Sam Houston, Jacksonville St, and Liberty would have jumped if they had gotten a chance. Idaho and NMSU wanted Cal Poly, UCDavis, Montana and Montana St. The California schools were in a severe budget crisis at the time and the Montana schools didn't want a Transamerica conference. So Idaho and NMSU called off southeast expansion and went with creating a non football league.

E Wash, Port St, Sac St, N Dakota, and NDSU were fundraising for new facilities. The South Dakota schools are now building facilities also.

(02-12-2016 06:00 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 05:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 05:34 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  Didn't the WAC also need something like 6 schools to be ready to move up at that moment or close to it? Doesn't make a lot of sense to say the opportunity was there for a couple of schools if in reality there weren't enough of them that wanted to move up with them to make it work. Unless I'm missing something here. I've admitted that I don't follow college football closely at all so I wouldn't be surprised if I'm missing or forgetting something.

They needed between 2 and 4 teams. They got zero takers. I think if someone, say NDSU, had said, "yep - we're jumping up", it would have caused others to take a chance on it.

But no one took the WAC up.

Lamar, Sam Houston, Jacksonville St, and Liberty would have jumped if they had gotten a chance. Idaho and NMSU wanted Cal Poly, UCDavis, Montana and Montana St. The California schools were in a severe budget crisis at the time and the Montana schools didn't want a Transamerica conference. So Idaho and NMSU called off southeast expansion and went with creating a non football league.

E Wash, Port St, Sac St, N Dakota, and NDSU were fundraising for new facilities. The South Dakota schools are now building facilities also.

You have to be kidding. Other than maybe Liberty, Idaho and NMSU would have taken in any schools that kept the FBS WAC afloat. You think they turned up their nose at an FBS WAC in order to have a non-football WAC with Grand Canyon and Chicago St. and a football-only affiliation with a southern FBS conference that threatens to kick them out every few years?

(02-12-2016 06:17 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 06:00 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 05:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 05:34 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  Didn't the WAC also need something like 6 schools to be ready to move up at that moment or close to it? Doesn't make a lot of sense to say the opportunity was there for a couple of schools if in reality there weren't enough of them that wanted to move up with them to make it work. Unless I'm missing something here. I've admitted that I don't follow college football closely at all so I wouldn't be surprised if I'm missing or forgetting something.

They needed between 2 and 4 teams. They got zero takers. I think if someone, say NDSU, had said, "yep - we're jumping up", it would have caused others to take a chance on it.

But no one took the WAC up.

Lamar, Sam Houston, Jacksonville St, and Liberty would have jumped if they had gotten a chance. Idaho and NMSU wanted Cal Poly, UCDavis, Montana and Montana St. The California schools were in a severe budget crisis at the time and the Montana schools didn't want a Transamerica conference. So Idaho and NMSU called off southeast expansion and went with creating a non football league.

E Wash, Port St, Sac St, N Dakota, and NDSU were fundraising for new facilities. The South Dakota schools are now building facilities also.

You have to be kidding. Other than maybe Liberty, Idaho and NMSU would have taken in any schools that kept the FBS WAC afloat. You think they turned up their nose at an FBS WAC in order to have a non-football WAC with Grand Canyon and Chicago St. and a football-only affiliation with a southern FBS conference that threatens to kick them out every few years?

Liberty, Sam Houston, Lamar, and Jacksonville St showed repeated interest. Idaho and NMSU turned them down because they thought something better would show up. The Sun Belt was alarmed because it did not want another league in its territory. That's part of why NMSU and Idaho were offered affiliation, as the Belt wanted to drive a knife through an FBS WAC.

That's a big reason that I think the NCAA will loosen FCS to FBS rules. Idaho and NMSU were made promises and the Belt didn't want another league encroaching on potential schools and recruits.

The problem with the WAC was that the transitioning schools couldn't count each other as FBS opponents for that second year of the transition - even if 6 schools said yes at once, who would they have played? Idaho and New Mexico State would have essentially been a two-team conference, despite playing seven conference games. Schools like Louisiana Tech and UTSA had no incentive to stay once they were invited to C-USA. Texas State might have depending on who was willing to jump, because they would be on the eastern edge of the WAC or the western edge of the Sun Belt. New Mexico State and Idaho obviously would have stayed. If the WAC did not have to resort to adding Grand Canyon, Bakersfield, and Chicago State, I would expect Denver, and Texas-Arlington, although non-football members, would have stayed as well.

What would have been interesting is what the Sun Belt would have done without NMSU and Idaho, and then WKU leaving - would they have ramped up eastern expansion (Coastal Carolina, James Madison, Eastern Kentucky, etc.) or would they have just stayed at nine?

(02-12-2016 04:47 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Tom, false on both accounts.

Of course they haven't applied. Thu know they have no chance to be admitted to a southern league.

WAC wasn't an option for NDSU back then. You might be thinking of Montana.

Can you elaborate on this position?

(02-12-2016 05:34 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  Didn't the WAC also need something like 6 schools to be ready to move up at that moment or close to it? Doesn't make a lot of sense to say the opportunity was there for a couple of schools if in reality there weren't enough of them that wanted to move up with them to make it work. Unless I'm missing something here. I've admitted that I don't follow college football closely at all so I wouldn't be surprised if I'm missing or forgetting something.

The same dynamic that creates and preserves barriers to FBS entry did everything they could to save the FBS WAC. The NCAA rules on conference continuity were completely changed in the interests of letting the WAC continue as a conference. The WAC got a waiver to operate with 7 members for a year or two. They could not get anyone to move up as their #8 after UTSA and Texas State. UTSA and Texas State agreed to join the WAC in 2010, effective 2012. Idaho, NMSU, USU, SJSU and LT were the holdover members, with Fresno, Hawaii, Nevada and Boise on their way out to the MWC. For two years, Kent Benson frantically tried to recruit an 8th school to join the FBS WAC and save the league.

So now the door is closed. The old FBS WAC members were inside the gates, worthy of protection by the Powers That Be to a large extent. (The Big East got the same members-of-the-club treatment.) NMSU and Idaho got a temporary lifeline.

If you're not a certified member of Club FBS, the Powers That Be are not going to do anything to bring you into the club, until and unless CURRENT members of the club need something from you.

(02-12-2016 06:27 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  The problem with the WAC was that the transitioning schools couldn't count each other as FBS opponents for that second year of the transition

That was the problem in 2012. By then the WAC was down to 2 FBS members and was going under no matter what. The chance was missed in 2010-12, when the WAC had 7 FBS or future FBS members on board and was scrambling for #8 to patch the hole in the hull.

(02-12-2016 06:28 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 05:34 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  Didn't the WAC also need something like 6 schools to be ready to move up at that moment or close to it? Doesn't make a lot of sense to say the opportunity was there for a couple of schools if in reality there weren't enough of them that wanted to move up with them to make it work. Unless I'm missing something here. I've admitted that I don't follow college football closely at all so I wouldn't be surprised if I'm missing or forgetting something.

The same dynamic that creates and preserves barriers to FBS entry did everything they could to save the FBS WAC. The NCAA rules on conference continuity were completely changed in the interests of letting the WAC continue as a conference. The WAC got a waiver to operate with 7 members for a year or two. They could not get anyone to move up as their #8 after UTSA and Texas State. UTSA and Texas State agreed to join the WAC in 2010, effective 2012. Idaho, NMSU, USU, SJSU and LT were the holdover members, with Fresno, Hawaii, Nevada and Boise on their way out to the MWC. For two years, Kent Benson frantically tried to recruit an 8th school to join the FBS WAC and save the league.

So now the door is closed. The old FBS WAC members were inside the gates, worthy of protection by the Powers That Be to a large extent. (The Big East got the same members-of-the-club treatment.) NMSU and Idaho got a temporary lifeline.

If you're not a certified member of Club FBS, the Powers That Be are not going to do anything to bring you into the club, until and unless CURRENT members of the club need something from you.

A Denver press person says the Montanas were expected to join Denver, UTSA and Texas St, but the Montanas decided not to just a few weeks before that press conference. In the months before, Montana St had arranged funding to go to 20k seats. Both schools would have needed, and still do, to add sports to the FBS minimum of 16.

(02-12-2016 06:24 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 06:17 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 06:00 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 05:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 05:34 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  Didn't the WAC also need something like 6 schools to be ready to move up at that moment or close to it? Doesn't make a lot of sense to say the opportunity was there for a couple of schools if in reality there weren't enough of them that wanted to move up with them to make it work. Unless I'm missing something here. I've admitted that I don't follow college football closely at all so I wouldn't be surprised if I'm missing or forgetting something.

They needed between 2 and 4 teams. They got zero takers. I think if someone, say NDSU, had said, "yep - we're jumping up", it would have caused others to take a chance on it.

But no one took the WAC up.

Lamar, Sam Houston, Jacksonville St, and Liberty would have jumped if they had gotten a chance. Idaho and NMSU wanted Cal Poly, UCDavis, Montana and Montana St. The California schools were in a severe budget crisis at the time and the Montana schools didn't want a Transamerica conference. So Idaho and NMSU called off southeast expansion and went with creating a non football league.

E Wash, Port St, Sac St, N Dakota, and NDSU were fundraising for new facilities. The South Dakota schools are now building facilities also.

You have to be kidding. Other than maybe Liberty, Idaho and NMSU would have taken in any schools that kept the FBS WAC afloat. You think they turned up their nose at an FBS WAC in order to have a non-football WAC with Grand Canyon and Chicago St. and a football-only affiliation with a southern FBS conference that threatens to kick them out every few years?

Liberty, Sam Houston, Lamar, and Jacksonville St showed repeated interest. Idaho and NMSU turned them down because they thought something better would show up. The Sun Belt was alarmed because it did not want another league in its territory. That's part of why NMSU and Idaho were offered affiliation, as the Belt wanted to drive a knife through an FBS WAC.

That's a big reason that I think the NCAA will loosen FCS to FBS rules. Idaho and NMSU were made promises and the Belt didn't want another league encroaching on potential schools and recruits.

Almost none of that is accurate.

Under your scenario, Idaho and NMSU had 2 choices:

1. Full membership in a western FBS conference
2. Temporary football-only affiliate membership in a southern FBS conference.

And chose option #2. Either you believe the administrations at both universities huff a gallon of paint thinner a day or you understand there's no way they'd take #2 if #1 were available.

Actually, both Idaho and NMSU had to endure 2 years of uncertainty and a full year of FBS indy before the Sun Belt lost enough members to other conferences to offer the football-only invites.

(02-12-2016 06:31 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 06:27 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  The problem with the WAC was that the transitioning schools couldn't count each other as FBS opponents for that second year of the transition

That was the problem in 2012. By then the WAC was down to 2 FBS members and was going under no matter what. The chance was missed in 2010-12, when the WAC had 7 FBS or future FBS members on board and was scrambling for #8 to patch the hole in the hull.

Yes. By 2012 the WAC needed a hail mary, but even then it wasn't totally impossible if enough schools wanted to move up and schedule creatively. Before that it would have been completely doable.

(02-12-2016 06:28 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 04:47 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Tom, false on both accounts.

Of course they haven't applied. Thu know they have no chance to be admitted to a southern league.

WAC wasn't an option for NDSU back then. You might be thinking of Montana.

Can you elaborate on this position?

NDSU was still fundraising for rebuilding their tin shed basketball arena, as they had been doing for the past ten years. It was effectively just a large tin shed without even a entry way to keep out the cold below zero Fargo air. The place was freezing at ground level and ridiculously hot as you climbed the bleachers. A basketball game was just an interruption of a Finnish sauna. They are finally renovating it now.

NDSU also has major Title IX issues which would only get worse at the FBS level. But NDSU posters will deny this.

FBS would be a major cost increase. Even now, they are nearly doubling athletic fees.

(02-12-2016 06:37 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 06:24 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 06:17 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 06:00 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 05:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  They needed between 2 and 4 teams. They got zero takers. I think if someone, say NDSU, had said, "yep - we're jumping up", it would have caused others to take a chance on it.

But no one took the WAC up.

Lamar, Sam Houston, Jacksonville St, and Liberty would have jumped if they had gotten a chance. Idaho and NMSU wanted Cal Poly, UCDavis, Montana and Montana St. The California schools were in a severe budget crisis at the time and the Montana schools didn't want a Transamerica conference. So Idaho and NMSU called off southeast expansion and went with creating a non football league.

E Wash, Port St, Sac St, N Dakota, and NDSU were fundraising for new facilities. The South Dakota schools are now building facilities also.

You have to be kidding. Other than maybe Liberty, Idaho and NMSU would have taken in any schools that kept the FBS WAC afloat. You think they turned up their nose at an FBS WAC in order to have a non-football WAC with Grand Canyon and Chicago St. and a football-only affiliation with a southern FBS conference that threatens to kick them out every few years?

Liberty, Sam Houston, Lamar, and Jacksonville St showed repeated interest. Idaho and NMSU turned them down because they thought something better would show up. The Sun Belt was alarmed because it did not want another league in its territory. That's part of why NMSU and Idaho were offered affiliation, as the Belt wanted to drive a knife through an FBS WAC.

That's a big reason that I think the NCAA will loosen FCS to FBS rules. Idaho and NMSU were made promises and the Belt didn't want another league encroaching on potential schools and recruits.

Almost none of that is accurate.

Under your scenario, Idaho and NMSU had 2 choices:

1. Full membership in a western FBS conference
2. Temporary football-only affiliate membership in a southern FBS conference.

And chose option #2. Either you believe the administrations at both universities huff a gallon of paint thinner a day or you understand there's no way they'd take #2 if #1 were available.

Actually, both Idaho and NMSU had to endure 2 years of uncertainty and a full year of FBS indy before the Sun Belt lost enough members to other conferences to offer the football-only invites.

I actually contacted Commissioner Hurd at the time and he confirmed FBS was still an option. They would have needed an NCAA exemption, but the times demanded it and with the hardship the WAC was going through, it would have been given.

Montana schools were not going to put up with being in a Texas centric conference, especially considering that they want and need California exposure for recruiting.

Stephen F Austin would have had to move up if SHSU and Lamar did. The WAC would have morphed into a Southland FBS conference, and neither Idaho or NMSU wanted that.

(02-12-2016 06:54 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 06:37 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 06:24 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 06:17 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 06:00 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Lamar, Sam Houston, Jacksonville St, and Liberty would have jumped if they had gotten a chance. Idaho and NMSU wanted Cal Poly, UCDavis, Montana and Montana St. The California schools were in a severe budget crisis at the time and the Montana schools didn't want a Transamerica conference. So Idaho and NMSU called off southeast expansion and went with creating a non football league.

E Wash, Port St, Sac St, N Dakota, and NDSU were fundraising for new facilities. The South Dakota schools are now building facilities also.

You have to be kidding. Other than maybe Liberty, Idaho and NMSU would have taken in any schools that kept the FBS WAC afloat. You think they turned up their nose at an FBS WAC in order to have a non-football WAC with Grand Canyon and Chicago St. and a football-only affiliation with a southern FBS conference that threatens to kick them out every few years?

Liberty, Sam Houston, Lamar, and Jacksonville St showed repeated interest. Idaho and NMSU turned them down because they thought something better would show up. The Sun Belt was alarmed because it did not want another league in its territory. That's part of why NMSU and Idaho were offered affiliation, as the Belt wanted to drive a knife through an FBS WAC.

That's a big reason that I think the NCAA will loosen FCS to FBS rules. Idaho and NMSU were made promises and the Belt didn't want another league encroaching on potential schools and recruits.

Almost none of that is accurate.

Under your scenario, Idaho and NMSU had 2 choices:

1. Full membership in a western FBS conference
2. Temporary football-only affiliate membership in a southern FBS conference.

And chose option #2. Either you believe the administrations at both universities huff a gallon of paint thinner a day or you understand there's no way they'd take #2 if #1 were available.

Actually, both Idaho and NMSU had to endure 2 years of uncertainty and a full year of FBS indy before the Sun Belt lost enough members to other conferences to offer the football-only invites.

I actually contacted Commissioner Hurd at the time and he confirmed FBS was still an option. They would have needed an NCAA exemption, but the times demanded it and with the hardship the WAC was going through, it would have been given.

Montana schools were not going to put up with being in a Texas centric conference, especially considering that they want and need California exposure for recruiting.

Montana doesn't really recruit Texas, Montana State hits it hard.

Montana gets players from Arizona, Oregon, Washington and California in pretty even numbers. MSU doesn't get many from Ore, WA or Arizona

(02-12-2016 07:09 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 06:54 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 06:37 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 06:24 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 06:17 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  You have to be kidding. Other than maybe Liberty, Idaho and NMSU would have taken in any schools that kept the FBS WAC afloat. You think they turned up their nose at an FBS WAC in order to have a non-football WAC with Grand Canyon and Chicago St. and a football-only affiliation with a southern FBS conference that threatens to kick them out every few years?

Liberty, Sam Houston, Lamar, and Jacksonville St showed repeated interest. Idaho and NMSU turned them down because they thought something better would show up. The Sun Belt was alarmed because it did not want another league in its territory. That's part of why NMSU and Idaho were offered affiliation, as the Belt wanted to drive a knife through an FBS WAC.

That's a big reason that I think the NCAA will loosen FCS to FBS rules. Idaho and NMSU were made promises and the Belt didn't want another league encroaching on potential schools and recruits.

Almost none of that is accurate.

Under your scenario, Idaho and NMSU had 2 choices:

1. Full membership in a western FBS conference
2. Temporary football-only affiliate membership in a southern FBS conference.

And chose option #2. Either you believe the administrations at both universities huff a gallon of paint thinner a day or you understand there's no way they'd take #2 if #1 were available.

Actually, both Idaho and NMSU had to endure 2 years of uncertainty and a full year of FBS indy before the Sun Belt lost enough members to other conferences to offer the football-only invites.

I actually contacted Commissioner Hurd at the time and he confirmed FBS was still an option. They would have needed an NCAA exemption, but the times demanded it and with the hardship the WAC was going through, it would have been given.

Montana schools were not going to put up with being in a Texas centric conference, especially considering that they want and need California exposure for recruiting.

Montana doesn't really recruit Texas, Montana State hits it hard.

Montana gets players from Arizona, Oregon, Washington and California in pretty even numbers. MSU doesn't get many from Ore, WA or Arizona

Montana has some level of reciprocity with California and the west, but not with Texas. Montana St does recruit Texas, Prukop was an example, but Texas is not a strategic source of students.

There were talks that an FCS conference were in talks with the WAC for a football only merger. It sounded like it was the MVFC. The 3 Dakota schools and Western Illinois could be invited for all sports. Missouri State, Northern Iowa and Illinois State might have gone then, but the others might need a couple of years more to get their stadium up to par. North Dakota could also join for all sports. Lamar, West Texas A&M and Wichita State could join as well. Plus, UTRGV, Grand Canyon U. and Utah Valley hinted football as well.

(02-12-2016 06:37 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 06:24 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 06:17 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 06:00 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 05:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  They needed between 2 and 4 teams. They got zero takers. I think if someone, say NDSU, had said, "yep - we're jumping up", it would have caused others to take a chance on it.

But no one took the WAC up.

Lamar, Sam Houston, Jacksonville St, and Liberty would have jumped if they had gotten a chance. Idaho and NMSU wanted Cal Poly, UCDavis, Montana and Montana St. The California schools were in a severe budget crisis at the time and the Montana schools didn't want a Transamerica conference. So Idaho and NMSU called off southeast expansion and went with creating a non football league.

E Wash, Port St, Sac St, N Dakota, and NDSU were fundraising for new facilities. The South Dakota schools are now building facilities also.

You have to be kidding. Other than maybe Liberty, Idaho and NMSU would have taken in any schools that kept the FBS WAC afloat. You think they turned up their nose at an FBS WAC in order to have a non-football WAC with Grand Canyon and Chicago St. and a football-only affiliation with a southern FBS conference that threatens to kick them out every few years?

Liberty, Sam Houston, Lamar, and Jacksonville St showed repeated interest. Idaho and NMSU turned them down because they thought something better would show up. The Sun Belt was alarmed because it did not want another league in its territory. That's part of why NMSU and Idaho were offered affiliation, as the Belt wanted to drive a knife through an FBS WAC.

That's a big reason that I think the NCAA will loosen FCS to FBS rules. Idaho and NMSU were made promises and the Belt didn't want another league encroaching on potential schools and recruits.

Almost none of that is accurate.

Under your scenario, Idaho and NMSU had 2 choices:

1. Full membership in a western FBS conference
2. Temporary football-only affiliate membership in a southern FBS conference.

And chose option #2. Either you believe the administrations at both universities huff a gallon of paint thinner a day or you understand there's no way they'd take #2 if #1 were available.

Actually, both Idaho and NMSU had to endure 2 years of uncertainty and a full year of FBS indy before the Sun Belt lost enough members to other conferences to offer the football-only invites.

Exactly, NMSU/Idaho were desperate. They'd take Jacksonville State. They'd take NDSU. They'd take Lamar. They'd take UTPA. They'd take Grand Canyon (which isn't even a real college - its for profit and someone's personal private property). And I'd bet dollars against donuts they called Lamar and Jacksonville State, NDSU, and JMU, and were told 'no thanks' by all of them. The NCAA would have granted a waiver for them to try to save a conference. But they're not going to grant a waiver to CREATE a conference.

Basically what we have here are a bunch of schools that want to move up, but who expect the NCAA to compel the existing teams in FBS to create their desired moveup scenario. We in FBS have a collective name for such schools. We call them "FCS Institutions".

Again, you guys had your chance to move up within the rules. But virtually all of you guys said 'no thanks' when the rubber met the road. Its not our fault you guys weren't ready when the time came. Or didn't want to join the place you had a slot in.

Perhaps at some future point, another opening will present itself to you guys. I'd advise taking any ticket to FBS more seriously.

(02-12-2016 09:49 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 06:37 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 06:24 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 06:17 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 06:00 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Lamar, Sam Houston, Jacksonville St, and Liberty would have jumped if they had gotten a chance. Idaho and NMSU wanted Cal Poly, UCDavis, Montana and Montana St. The California schools were in a severe budget crisis at the time and the Montana schools didn't want a Transamerica conference. So Idaho and NMSU called off southeast expansion and went with creating a non football league.

E Wash, Port St, Sac St, N Dakota, and NDSU were fundraising for new facilities. The South Dakota schools are now building facilities also.

You have to be kidding. Other than maybe Liberty, Idaho and NMSU would have taken in any schools that kept the FBS WAC afloat. You think they turned up their nose at an FBS WAC in order to have a non-football WAC with Grand Canyon and Chicago St. and a football-only affiliation with a southern FBS conference that threatens to kick them out every few years?

Liberty, Sam Houston, Lamar, and Jacksonville St showed repeated interest. Idaho and NMSU turned them down because they thought something better would show up. The Sun Belt was alarmed because it did not want another league in its territory. That's part of why NMSU and Idaho were offered affiliation, as the Belt wanted to drive a knife through an FBS WAC.

That's a big reason that I think the NCAA will loosen FCS to FBS rules. Idaho and NMSU were made promises and the Belt didn't want another league encroaching on potential schools and recruits.

Almost none of that is accurate.

Under your scenario, Idaho and NMSU had 2 choices:

1. Full membership in a western FBS conference
2. Temporary football-only affiliate membership in a southern FBS conference.

And chose option #2. Either you believe the administrations at both universities huff a gallon of paint thinner a day or you understand there's no way they'd take #2 if #1 were available.

Actually, both Idaho and NMSU had to endure 2 years of uncertainty and a full year of FBS indy before the Sun Belt lost enough members to other conferences to offer the football-only invites.

Exactly, NMSU/Idaho were desperate. They'd take Jacksonville State. They'd take NDSU. They'd take Lamar. They'd take UTPA. They'd take Grand Canyon (which isn't even a real college - its for profit and someone's personal private property). And I'd bet dollars against donuts they called Lamar and Jacksonville State, NDSU, and JMU, and were told 'no thanks' by all of them. The NCAA would have granted a waiver for them to try to save a conference. But they're not going to grant a waiver to CREATE a conference.

Basically what we have here are a bunch of schools that want to move up, but who expect the NCAA to compel the existing teams in FBS to create their desired moveup scenario. We in FBS have a collective name for such schools. We call them "FCS Institutions".

Again, you guys had your chance to move up within the rules. But virtually all of you guys said 'no thanks' when the rubber met the road. Its not our fault you guys weren't ready when the time came. Or didn't want to join the place you had a slot in.

Perhaps at some future point, another opening will present itself to you guys. I'd advise taking any ticket to FBS more seriously.

Ive said it over and over. While the fans of many of these Big Sky and MVC schools have dreams of FBS, their administrations are not really interested. They have looked at the numbers and don't like what they see. These administrations had a once in a lifetime opportunity to move up handed to them on a platter and not one of them showed the slightest interest. All this talk of the Big Sky moving up as a conference---yet not a single Big Sky or MVC school responded aggressively to the 2011-2012 WAC situation?

That tells you all you need to know. These schools obviously looked at the numbers and said---"Nah, Im good."

(02-12-2016 10:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 09:49 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 06:37 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 06:24 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 06:17 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  You have to be kidding. Other than maybe Liberty, Idaho and NMSU would have taken in any schools that kept the FBS WAC afloat. You think they turned up their nose at an FBS WAC in order to have a non-football WAC with Grand Canyon and Chicago St. and a football-only affiliation with a southern FBS conference that threatens to kick them out every few years?

Liberty, Sam Houston, Lamar, and Jacksonville St showed repeated interest. Idaho and NMSU turned them down because they thought something better would show up. The Sun Belt was alarmed because it did not want another league in its territory. That's part of why NMSU and Idaho were offered affiliation, as the Belt wanted to drive a knife through an FBS WAC.

That's a big reason that I think the NCAA will loosen FCS to FBS rules. Idaho and NMSU were made promises and the Belt didn't want another league encroaching on potential schools and recruits.

Almost none of that is accurate.

Under your scenario, Idaho and NMSU had 2 choices:

1. Full membership in a western FBS conference
2. Temporary football-only affiliate membership in a southern FBS conference.

And chose option #2. Either you believe the administrations at both universities huff a gallon of paint thinner a day or you understand there's no way they'd take #2 if #1 were available.

Actually, both Idaho and NMSU had to endure 2 years of uncertainty and a full year of FBS indy before the Sun Belt lost enough members to other conferences to offer the football-only invites.

Exactly, NMSU/Idaho were desperate. They'd take Jacksonville State. They'd take NDSU. They'd take Lamar. They'd take UTPA. They'd take Grand Canyon (which isn't even a real college - its for profit and someone's personal private property). And I'd bet dollars against donuts they called Lamar and Jacksonville State, NDSU, and JMU, and were told 'no thanks' by all of them. The NCAA would have granted a waiver for them to try to save a conference. But they're not going to grant a waiver to CREATE a conference.

Basically what we have here are a bunch of schools that want to move up, but who expect the NCAA to compel the existing teams in FBS to create their desired moveup scenario. We in FBS have a collective name for such schools. We call them "FCS Institutions".

Again, you guys had your chance to move up within the rules. But virtually all of you guys said 'no thanks' when the rubber met the road. Its not our fault you guys weren't ready when the time came. Or didn't want to join the place you had a slot in.

Perhaps at some future point, another opening will present itself to you guys. I'd advise taking any ticket to FBS more seriously.

Ive said it over and over. While the fans of many of these Big Sky and MVC schools have dreams of FBS, their administrations are not really interested. They have looked at the numbers and don't like what they see. These administrations had a once in a lifetime opportunity to move up handed to them on a platter and not one of them showed the slightest interest. All this talk of the Big Sky moving up as a conference---yet not a single Big Sky or MVC school responded aggressively to the 2011-2012 WAC situation?

That tells you all you need to know. These schools obviously looked at the numbers and said---"Nah, Im good."

Or, they want to stay together as a whole.

(02-12-2016 11:40 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 10:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 09:49 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 06:37 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 06:24 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Liberty, Sam Houston, Lamar, and Jacksonville St showed repeated interest. Idaho and NMSU turned them down because they thought something better would show up. The Sun Belt was alarmed because it did not want another league in its territory. That's part of why NMSU and Idaho were offered affiliation, as the Belt wanted to drive a knife through an FBS WAC.

That's a big reason that I think the NCAA will loosen FCS to FBS rules. Idaho and NMSU were made promises and the Belt didn't want another league encroaching on potential schools and recruits.

Almost none of that is accurate.

Under your scenario, Idaho and NMSU had 2 choices:

1. Full membership in a western FBS conference
2. Temporary football-only affiliate membership in a southern FBS conference.

And chose option #2. Either you believe the administrations at both universities huff a gallon of paint thinner a day or you understand there's no way they'd take #2 if #1 were available.

Actually, both Idaho and NMSU had to endure 2 years of uncertainty and a full year of FBS indy before the Sun Belt lost enough members to other conferences to offer the football-only invites.

Exactly, NMSU/Idaho were desperate. They'd take Jacksonville State. They'd take NDSU. They'd take Lamar. They'd take UTPA. They'd take Grand Canyon (which isn't even a real college - its for profit and someone's personal private property). And I'd bet dollars against donuts they called Lamar and Jacksonville State, NDSU, and JMU, and were told 'no thanks' by all of them. The NCAA would have granted a waiver for them to try to save a conference. But they're not going to grant a waiver to CREATE a conference.

Basically what we have here are a bunch of schools that want to move up, but who expect the NCAA to compel the existing teams in FBS to create their desired moveup scenario. We in FBS have a collective name for such schools. We call them "FCS Institutions".

Again, you guys had your chance to move up within the rules. But virtually all of you guys said 'no thanks' when the rubber met the road. Its not our fault you guys weren't ready when the time came. Or didn't want to join the place you had a slot in.

Perhaps at some future point, another opening will present itself to you guys. I'd advise taking any ticket to FBS more seriously.

Ive said it over and over. While the fans of many of these Big Sky and MVC schools have dreams of FBS, their administrations are not really interested. They have looked at the numbers and don't like what they see. These administrations had a once in a lifetime opportunity to move up handed to them on a platter and not one of them showed the slightest interest. All this talk of the Big Sky moving up as a conference---yet not a single Big Sky or MVC school responded aggressively to the 2011-2012 WAC situation?

That tells you all you need to know. These schools obviously looked at the numbers and said---"Nah, Im good."

Or, they want to stay together as a whole.

If they are looking for the NCAA to create their optimal moveup scenario, and the NCAA refuses to do so....its different than the NCAA barring them from moving up.