Why doesn’t the NCAA ban any more teams from entering FBS?

(09-16-2022 08:31 PM)Poster Wrote:  Why doesn’t the NCAA ban any more teams from entering FBS?

Legally it would be a nightmare. But other than FBS divesting any connection to the NCAA then the FBS is stuck under NCAA rules and limitations.

Because that's just dumb.

I don't think legally you stop a school from upgrading. They tried to stop Liberty and Liberty won.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

(09-16-2022 08:56 PM)hburg Wrote:  I don't think legally you stop a school from upgrading. They tried to stop Liberty and Liberty won.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

That was because Liberty alleged religious discrimination, since the NCAA had allowed basically every previous team under the sun to upgrade, but not Liberty.


If you prevented any more teams from upgrading, that wouldn’t be an issue.

Not sure the powers that be really care about there being more FBS programs.

(09-16-2022 08:52 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  Because that's just dumb.

Why?


What is dumb is that programs can become full FBS members in something like their fourth or fifth year of existence.

(09-16-2022 09:09 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-16-2022 08:52 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  Because that's just dumb.

Why?


What is dumb is that programs can become full FBS members in something like their fourth or fifth year of existence.

Say that to UTSA, who had a double-digit win season last year and is moving up to the AAC in July.

So if Montana State, Montana North Dakota State and South Dakota State were invited to the C-USA, you’d tell them no?

(09-16-2022 09:17 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  So if Montana State, Montana North Dakota State and South Dakota State were invited to the C-USA, you’d tell them no?

Maybe I’d let NDSU join FBS, but that is it.

(09-16-2022 09:18 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-16-2022 09:17 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  So if Montana State, Montana North Dakota State and South Dakota State were invited to the C-USA, you’d tell them no?

Maybe I’d let NDSU join FBS, but that is it.

So you enjoy losing lawsuits

The stupid questions just keep coming…

(09-16-2022 09:12 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(09-16-2022 09:09 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-16-2022 08:52 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  Because that's just dumb.

Why?


What is dumb is that programs can become full FBS members in something like their fourth or fifth year of existence.

Say that to UTSA, who had a double-digit win season last year and is moving up to the AAC in July.

UTSA paid their coach so much a few months ago that he didn't leave for TxTech. Their first coach(Larry Coker) had won a title at Miami a decade before they brought him in. There's no pro sports at all here other than the spurs so UTSA gets a ton of time on the local ESPN affiliate. They're like UH, only with a smaller city but more support from what they have...maybe more like TCU. They are VERY serious about their football.

UTSA is like the poster child for what a school would want to achieve just a decade after starting up their program, and a good reason to not impose a blanket ban on new FBS teams.

(09-16-2022 09:20 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(09-16-2022 09:18 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-16-2022 09:17 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  So if Montana State, Montana North Dakota State and South Dakota State were invited to the C-USA, you’d tell them no?

Maybe I’d let NDSU join FBS, but that is it.

So you enjoy losing lawsuits

What lawsuit could be filed if there was a total ban on new teams entering FBS?

The Liberty lawsuit was because the NCAA allowed essentially every team to upgrade to FBS except for Liberty (which no conference was willing to touch with a 10 foot pole), which Liberty claimed was religious discrimination. That hardly would be applicable if the NCAA had a blanket ban on any new team entering FBS.

(09-16-2022 09:27 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-16-2022 09:12 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(09-16-2022 09:09 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-16-2022 08:52 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  Because that's just dumb.

Why?


What is dumb is that programs can become full FBS members in something like their fourth or fifth year of existence.

Say that to UTSA, who had a double-digit win season last year and is moving up to the AAC in July.

UTSA paid their coach so much a few months ago that he didn't leave for TxTech. Their first coach(Larry Coker) had won a title at Miami a decade before they brought him in. There's no pro sports at all here other than the spurs so UTSA gets a ton of time on the local ESPN affiliate. They're like UH, only with a smaller city but more support from what they have...maybe more like TCU. They are VERY serious about their football.

UTSA is like the poster child for what a school would want to achieve just a decade after starting up their program, and a good reason to not impose a blanket ban on new FBS teams.

Thanks for the backhanded compliment? (You still proved my point though so I do appreciate that.)

(09-16-2022 08:31 PM)Poster Wrote:  Why doesn’t the NCAA ban any more teams from entering FBS?

First of all, there is no consensus to do so. There would have to be an absolutely overwhelming consensus to impose such a ban, and there simply isn't.

Second, even if they were to vote for a ban, it would be successfully appealed/challenged in the courts. The courts of our nation aren't likely to permit a ban, because America is a nation of opportunity, and any policy that restricts opportunities would be considered discriminatory and fundamentally un-American.

Specifically, it would be overturned as a fundamental violation of our nation's anti-trust laws, which were written to prohibit un-competitive (monopolistic) behavior by corporate entities, such as the NCAA.

The C-USA would be egregiously harmed if there were such a ban, since its future viability probably requires further FBS expansion. They would probably be in a very strong position to file an anti-trust case against the NCAA if a ban were imposed.

. . . . .

That, of course, doesn't mean that membership can't be limited or made more difficult. Currently, to be FBS, a school must meet a list of criteria including sponsorship of at least 16 varsity sports, playing at least 60% of their games vs. FBS schools, certain academic requirements.

The easiest way to limit the number of new FBS schools would be to make the requirements for upgrading to FBS more stringent. That wouldn't be a ban, but it might slow the growth of the FBS ranks somewhat. Some FBS schools would oppose policies making the requirements more stringent, since it would make it more difficult for them to maintain their FBS stature.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

With 358 D1 schools and only 132 FBS schools (less than 3 per U.S. State), it's hard to make a compelling argument that there are too many FBS schools in the nation.

.

(09-16-2022 09:09 PM)FargoBison Wrote:  Not sure the powers that be really care about there being more FBS programs.

Let's take it a step further. If we include networks among the "powers that be," they realize that it's good for them to have more universities represented among the ranks of the FBS.

Why?

Because it creates/opens up new markets for them to exploit. It gives them a chance to expand their viewership.

The only people who seem to be obsessed over making FBS membership more exclusive are the already hyper-exclusive P5 conferences, who mistakenly think that the more exclusive they are, the better off they'll be.

Yet, some of the P5 conferences are now getting to the point at which they realize that their long-term well-being will require them to expand, and expansion of the P5 conferences will cause more FCS schools to upgrade to FBS.

It's going to be an ongoing process, driven by the networks, for whom "more is (always) better" when it comes to expansion - - at both the professional and collegiate level.

.

(09-16-2022 09:12 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  What is dumb is that programs can become full FBS members in something like their fourth or fifth year of existence.

Question: Has that ever really happened, or is it just a "red herring?" - - for example, a school that has no varsity football program of any kind (not even D3), but was able to become a full FBS member in only 4 or 5 years?

If so, can you give any examples?

Or, are you objecting to the ability of an FCS school to make the transition to full FBS conference membership in 4-5 years?

If so, what about a school (such as James Madison), which is only in its first full season, and is not yet eligible for playing for their conference championship, yet has already beaten (FBS) MTSU by a score of 44-7?

What would be "dumb" about the rules permitting them to play as full FBS members of a FBS conference?

. . . . . . . . .

The only argument I could see for it being "dumb" would be if there was a flood of, say D3 teams, suddenly playing games vs. P5 teams, and being absolutely destroyed in completely uncompetitive games, with huge numbers of players sustaining tragic, lifelong injuries (broken necks, etc.).

But that's not what we're seeing.

.

Anti trust laws.

Just change the payout system.

If you don't make the Playoff (or your conference) then no money.

Call yourself FBS and spend as much money as you want otherwise.