(11-11-2017 04:41 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(11-11-2017 04:20 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-11-2017 04:10 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Stony Brook and Albany might be on a higher up for accessing a bowl bid even if the conference do not have an access bid or autobid.

I think some people are looking at having to create a new conference to have a bid? You need 7 schools that have played with each other for several years together.

James Madison, UMass., Delaware, Towson, Old Dominion, Charlotte, New Hampshire and maybe a Maine, URI or Richmond as the seventh. Stony Brook and Albany are new to the CAA and may not count yet.

Neither Albany nor Stony Brook have much of a history of competing for at large bids to the NCAA tournament. And that's just one tournament.

The rule isn't 'played together in some former conference in the past', but IIRC, you have to play together in THAT conference consecutively for six years.

Yes, the new Big East did get a waiver, but I think that was a one off, which was provided because the winner of the Big East men's basketball, women's basketball, and baseball conference crowns would get a bid anyway. This collection isn't anywhere near that level.

What I mean is that Stony Brook and Albany could get a bowl bid if there were not enough 6-6 and above winning teams.

Sure, the winner of that conference will get a bowl bid somewhere. Maybe in Idaho or Tucson. They might even get a new bowl game certified somewhere. But that's the least of the hurdles, but remains one anyway.

And the bowl tie in comment was really more of an issue for the teams that some posters think might jump from the Belt or CUSA. Its just another reason why any new conference will likely be for FCS only moveups (plus NMSU, LU and UMass).