(09-12-2013 09:53 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 03:34 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Now we have some credible tidbits to chew on here....

1) If D4 is going to be an FBS only division, how does it impact schools like BYU (West Coast), Hawaii (Big West), Army & Navy (Patriot), UMass (A10) will there be a D4 exemption for Olympic Sports?

2) What do you do with the NCAA tournament? Is this how the P5 ultimately gets back at all the mid majors reaching Final Fours?

3) Would D4 allow a limited amount of basketball only conferences like the WCC, BW, BE, A10 to retain the core value of the hoops schools for a new NCAA tournament and ease travel for Olympic sports?

4) Could you see something like the Big East going back to a hybrid BB/FB model just to survive at the top level? How about raiding 7-8 MAC schools and upgrading Villanova to FBS to make numbers?

UMass, Villanova, Buffalo, Ohio, Marshall, Toledo, NIU, WMU, CMU

The remaining MAC schools could then add Illinios St, Missouri St, JMU, Delaware, App State, Northern Iowa ect.

How does it effect Notre Dame, if there are no independents in football?

Notre Dame is in the ACC so they are covered for Olympic sports. Its almost like they new that D4 was coming and they had to get out of the BE as fast as they could.

You miss my point, what if you have to play football in the conference you belong to?

(09-12-2013 10:00 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  You miss my point, what if you have to play football in the conference you belong to?

I did.....that would be a stupid rule since Texas is chomping at the bit to do the same thing. A limited ACC football schedule and continue to play Oklahoma and BYU yearly.

(09-12-2013 09:41 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 08:31 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 08:09 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 10:56 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  If you assume that the weights are simple 1 vote G5 and 2 votes P5 then you have 5 against 10 with the American getting a G5 vote or 6 against 10 if you give the American a weighted vote.

If you had a hypothetical vote split along G5/P5 lines it'd take one P5 conference changing stances to flip the vote in favor of the G5 if you give the American a weighted vote. If the American has no weighted vote then it'd take two P5 conferences flipping to overrule.

Thus explaining why the AAC is unlikely to get a weighted vote.

Well C-USA got a weighted vote when the BCS was formed when it likely wasn't required to win any vote. Not sure about what caused that but the AAC is basically the 1997 version of C-USA.

Who knows, there could have been some politics by the scene that allowed CUSA to gain equity conference status.

The biggest thing to remember on the AAC voting issue is that quite honestly it really doesn't matter if they have 1 vote or 2 votes.

I expect the AAC is going to vote on $$$ issues with the P5 either way because while they don't have the TV contracts of the P5 in many cases they have the budgets and desire to separate from the mid major G5 schools.

The debate is more that should have all conferences have 1 vote or should there be some conferences with weighted votes. I don't think weighted votes are necessary or beneficial for any party in FBS.

Sun Belt invariably votes with the SEC and MAC invariably votes with the Big 10.

Might as well weight everyone.

CUSA got a weighted vote on the Management Council. Different creature from the Board of Directors.

The MAC and Sun Belt at one time got 1.5 votes each on the Management Council. The Management Council had over 30 members from across Division I.

We are talking about a very different animal from the weighted vote then when the six AQ leagues needed not only weighted votes themselves but needed CUSA, MWC, Sun Belt, MAC and WAC to have weighted votes in order to maintain a voting majority on the larger Management Council.

The CUSA analogy fails because of that difference.

(09-12-2013 10:15 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 09:41 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 08:31 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 08:09 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 10:56 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  If you assume that the weights are simple 1 vote G5 and 2 votes P5 then you have 5 against 10 with the American getting a G5 vote or 6 against 10 if you give the American a weighted vote.

If you had a hypothetical vote split along G5/P5 lines it'd take one P5 conference changing stances to flip the vote in favor of the G5 if you give the American a weighted vote. If the American has no weighted vote then it'd take two P5 conferences flipping to overrule.

Thus explaining why the AAC is unlikely to get a weighted vote.

Well C-USA got a weighted vote when the BCS was formed when it likely wasn't required to win any vote. Not sure about what caused that but the AAC is basically the 1997 version of C-USA.

Who knows, there could have been some politics by the scene that allowed CUSA to gain equity conference status.

The biggest thing to remember on the AAC voting issue is that quite honestly it really doesn't matter if they have 1 vote or 2 votes.

I expect the AAC is going to vote on $$$ issues with the P5 either way because while they don't have the TV contracts of the P5 in many cases they have the budgets and desire to separate from the mid major G5 schools.

The debate is more that should have all conferences have 1 vote or should there be some conferences with weighted votes. I don't think weighted votes are necessary or beneficial for any party in FBS.

Sun Belt invariably votes with the SEC and MAC invariably votes with the Big 10.

Might as well weight everyone.

Yes the voting dynamics are not going to be simply G5/P5.

I think the fact that they want to do this new governance model right with FAR's and senior women's administrators that it makes sense to start everything off on democratic footing and make it a 1 vote one conference system in FBS.

Back when the votes in management council were set up to tilt in favor of BCS/FBS leagues the G5 didn't have the status of junior partners as they do now in the big football machine. Thinking has become even more integrated within FBS.

(09-12-2013 10:26 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Yes the voting dynamics are not going to be simply G5/P5.

I think the fact that they want to do this new governance model right with FAR's and senior women's administrators that it makes sense to start everything off on democratic footing and make it a 1 vote one conference system in FBS.

Back when the votes in management council were set up to tilt in favor of BCS/FBS leagues the G5 didn't have the status of junior partners as they do now in the big football machine. Thinking has become even more integrated within FBS.

And junior partner is an apt description.

The battles on the Board of Directors and even among the BCS board of directors don't break G5/P5. That just doesn't happen. Normally votes break one of two ways. All of FBS supports it and the rest of Division I fights it or the P5 split and the G5 split as well.

Historically the wild cards have been CUSA and MWC (when CUSA was more like today's AAC). And they have tended to take positions regarding post-season that old AQ6 disagreed with and were also opposed by the MAC and Sun Belt with WAC swinging between the MWC/CUSA position and the everyone else position based on what their mood was that day.

The old CUSA and MWC were never as likely to line up with their geographic AQ neighbors as Sun Belt, MAC and WAC were. The MWC and CUSA tended to be rather ineffective in BCS meetings because they typically had two proposals.
1. Let us have an equal share of money and access
2. We'll take less money if we get identical access.

Before the last four year renewal of the BCS the six AQ leagues, Sun Belt, and MAC agreed to a guaranteed every year spot in the BCS to be determined by a game played the first Saturday in December between the two highest rated non-AQ champs. The AQ said they'd support if there was unanimous support and CUSA, MWC, and WAC said no.

(09-12-2013 10:41 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 10:26 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Yes the voting dynamics are not going to be simply G5/P5.

I think the fact that they want to do this new governance model right with FAR's and senior women's administrators that it makes sense to start everything off on democratic footing and make it a 1 vote one conference system in FBS.

Back when the votes in management council were set up to tilt in favor of BCS/FBS leagues the G5 didn't have the status of junior partners as they do now in the big football machine. Thinking has become even more integrated within FBS.

And junior partner is an apt description.

The battles on the Board of Directors and even among the BCS board of directors don't break G5/P5. That just doesn't happen. Normally votes break one of two ways. All of FBS supports it and the rest of Division I fights it or the P5 split and the G5 split as well.

Historically the wild cards have been CUSA and MWC (when CUSA was more like today's AAC). And they have tended to take positions regarding post-season that old AQ6 disagreed with and were also opposed by the MAC and Sun Belt with WAC swinging between the MWC/CUSA position and the everyone else position based on what their mood was that day.

The old CUSA and MWC were never as likely to line up with their geographic AQ neighbors as Sun Belt, MAC and WAC were. The MWC and CUSA tended to be rather ineffective in BCS meetings because they typically had two proposals.
1. Let us have an equal share of money and access
2. We'll take less money if we get identical access.

Before the last four year renewal of the BCS the six AQ leagues, Sun Belt, and MAC agreed to a guaranteed every year spot in the BCS to be determined by a game played the first Saturday in December between the two highest rated non-AQ champs. The AQ said they'd support if there was unanimous support and CUSA, MWC, and WAC said no.

Wow. What a truly stupid decision. That would have been a significant upgrade and would have given the non-AQ not one--but TWO--nationally significant games. Instead, since then, we have years where NO non-AQ team played in a nationally significant BCS bowl.

(09-12-2013 11:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 10:41 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 10:26 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Yes the voting dynamics are not going to be simply G5/P5.

I think the fact that they want to do this new governance model right with FAR's and senior women's administrators that it makes sense to start everything off on democratic footing and make it a 1 vote one conference system in FBS.

Back when the votes in management council were set up to tilt in favor of BCS/FBS leagues the G5 didn't have the status of junior partners as they do now in the big football machine. Thinking has become even more integrated within FBS.

And junior partner is an apt description.

The battles on the Board of Directors and even among the BCS board of directors don't break G5/P5. That just doesn't happen. Normally votes break one of two ways. All of FBS supports it and the rest of Division I fights it or the P5 split and the G5 split as well.

Historically the wild cards have been CUSA and MWC (when CUSA was more like today's AAC). And they have tended to take positions regarding post-season that old AQ6 disagreed with and were also opposed by the MAC and Sun Belt with WAC swinging between the MWC/CUSA position and the everyone else position based on what their mood was that day.

The old CUSA and MWC were never as likely to line up with their geographic AQ neighbors as Sun Belt, MAC and WAC were. The MWC and CUSA tended to be rather ineffective in BCS meetings because they typically had two proposals.
1. Let us have an equal share of money and access
2. We'll take less money if we get identical access.

Before the last four year renewal of the BCS the six AQ leagues, Sun Belt, and MAC agreed to a guaranteed every year spot in the BCS to be determined by a game played the first Saturday in December between the two highest rated non-AQ champs. The AQ said they'd support if there was unanimous support and CUSA, MWC, and WAC said no.

Wow. What a truly stupid decision. That would have been a significant upgrade and would have given the non-AQ not one--but TWO--nationally significant games. Instead, since then, we have years where NO non-AQ team played in a nationally significant BCS bowl.

The WAC is now out of business because of stupid decisions.

(09-12-2013 11:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 10:41 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 10:26 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Yes the voting dynamics are not going to be simply G5/P5.

I think the fact that they want to do this new governance model right with FAR's and senior women's administrators that it makes sense to start everything off on democratic footing and make it a 1 vote one conference system in FBS.

Back when the votes in management council were set up to tilt in favor of BCS/FBS leagues the G5 didn't have the status of junior partners as they do now in the big football machine. Thinking has become even more integrated within FBS.

And junior partner is an apt description.

The battles on the Board of Directors and even among the BCS board of directors don't break G5/P5. That just doesn't happen. Normally votes break one of two ways. All of FBS supports it and the rest of Division I fights it or the P5 split and the G5 split as well.

Historically the wild cards have been CUSA and MWC (when CUSA was more like today's AAC). And they have tended to take positions regarding post-season that old AQ6 disagreed with and were also opposed by the MAC and Sun Belt with WAC swinging between the MWC/CUSA position and the everyone else position based on what their mood was that day.

The old CUSA and MWC were never as likely to line up with their geographic AQ neighbors as Sun Belt, MAC and WAC were. The MWC and CUSA tended to be rather ineffective in BCS meetings because they typically had two proposals.
1. Let us have an equal share of money and access
2. We'll take less money if we get identical access.

Before the last four year renewal of the BCS the six AQ leagues, Sun Belt, and MAC agreed to a guaranteed every year spot in the BCS to be determined by a game played the first Saturday in December between the two highest rated non-AQ champs. The AQ said they'd support if there was unanimous support and CUSA, MWC, and WAC said no.

Wow. What a truly stupid decision. That would have been a significant upgrade and would have given the non-AQ not one--but TWO--nationally significant games. Instead, since then, we have years where NO non-AQ team played in a nationally significant BCS bowl.

Yes but you have to remember that these are the conferences that thought that they could do it all alone and that they were too good to have to do something like this with conferences like THEM. Granted one of those conferences never did send a school to a BCS game and one of the conferences that wanted to do this got a school sent. Such is life.

(09-11-2013 05:08 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 04:29 PM)SMUfrat Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 04:22 PM)Blackhawk-eye Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 03:07 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  That last tweet is the most interesting... it would be a Christmas miracle for the AAC.

No way Aresco can pull that off, no way.

If it is some kind of Christmas miracle, then one of the "A's" of the AAC would need to be changed to reflect Mike's name.

Aresco Athletic Conference.

Think about it in this way...

So this new division is all FBS. So MAC, MWC, SBC, and CUSA are in too. Big East is out, as is a-10, etc...

So within this new division, to hold power - a majority could be needed. 10 conferences, 5 v 5 is a flat split. Majority would be with 6 conferences... AAC would probably be used as a pawn / feeder / entry conference to the P-5. It makes sense, or else one of the "p-5" would take that place, and I don't think anyone wants to risk that.

It's only 5-5 is there isn't weighted voting and odds are there will be weighted voting making it 10-5.

It was already weighted in some of the governance groups and they hadn't changed it as of last year.
The Big 8 conferences got 3 votes while the MAC and BW got 1.5. The WAC split and it got 1.5 and the SB succeeded the BW. Non fb conferences got 1 and there were some extra votes to nonfb conferences so it was 27 for the 11 fb conferences and 24 for everyone else (20 conferences).

So you have the P5 getting 3 votes, CUSA getting 3 votes, AAC I believe got the BE 3 votes, MWC and MAC and SB get 1.5. Don't know what they did with the WAC votes. The new Big East and non-fb WAC probably get 2 of the extra votes for everyone else.

The problem was that ultimately you had the 1 vote, 1 school override.

(09-11-2013 06:41 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 05:08 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(09-11-2013 04:16 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Told by whom? ...

I'd say the NCAA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Divisi...ampionship

D2 had it own championship until there were not enough sponsoring members.

But that's not about a change in the rules: the rules specify what Championships a division is allowed to sponsor based on how many schools it had sponsoring the sport. There is nothing in the rules that can force a division to sponsor a sport if they don't want to.

I'm not getting this by reading Wikipedia, I'm getting it by reading Section 18 of this.

(09-11-2013 06:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Guys - unless the Division 4 schools (whether its just the power 5 or all FBS conferences) break off from the NCAA entirely, the impact on how Division I basketball is going to be minimal. The NCAA Tournament is still going to have the same mix of conferences. So, there's no reason why the Big East, A-10 or any other non-football league is going to be too concerned outside of some recruiting advantages to be had for a Division 4 that provides full cost of attendance versus non-FBS schools that don't/can't. The notion that the Big East schools, in particular, might somehow regret splitting or start adding MAC football schools is seriously misguided.

+1

The point of setting up their own division is to get division-level control of rules and bylaws by the top tier football schools for top tier football. If the point was to completely change the foundation rules running across all NCAA divisions, they couldn't do that just be setting up a distinct NCAA division, they'd have to split off from the NCAA entirely.

And access to the National Collegiate Championship in a sport if your division does not choose to sponsor its own Championship in that sport is a foundation NCAA rule. Splitting off to form its own division will not change the number of votes that the top tier football schools have for cross-NCAA issues like that.

I think they have real problems with the whole NCAA rulebook and how slow a process it is to change it. Recruiting rules impact every sport. I don't see any significant issue that impacts football that doesn't impact everything else.

So if they get it only for football, does it really help them?

(09-12-2013 08:26 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 07:42 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  I don't see a merger or reshuffle among G5 conferences. They would already have a minority vote (5 vs 10 or whatever it turns out to be). If they merge it would be 2 or 3 vs 10. The best bet for the G5 is to try and get a rule that says it takes a 2/3 majority (or more) to implement a rule change. That would require at least 1 vote from G5 to pass a change.

With TCU, BSU and SDSU, the Big East (hybrid version) was set to be the equivalent of a merger between the MWC and AAC. That plane never made it to the runway, much less got off the ground. I just don't see any reason for the MWC schools to join the AAC. A scheduling agreement and/or a bowl alliance yes. Merger no.

What ever the result, non-FBS schools or conferences will not be involved. The initial problem was that schools like Providence were able to vote on FBS issues. Suppose the ~250 non-FBS schools wanted a rule that field goals were going to be worth 1 point for every 5 yards from the end zone. A 30-yard field goal would be worth 6 points. With 125 votes there is nothing the FBS schools could do to stop it. That's not a great example because the conferences could say, "we will keep the 3-point FG." In other cases, like the stipend, the schools/conferences can't do that. The players would be ruled ineligible, forfeits imposed, loss of bowl games, etc.

One school one vote is nearly dead today except for over-ride and whatever it is we get will likely kill one school one vote.

All talk of reorganization centers around the concept that a group of CONFERENCES will run the vote. Whether it be the "Security Council" concept where the P5 can over-rule any action by the rest of Division I or the "sub-division" concept where the FBS conferences can make the rules they operate under while the rest of Divsion I makes its own rules but everyone competes together in every sport except football.

If the G5 schools add non-football members, the reality is they are going to send a football school president to the board of directors and a football school AD (and potentially FAR) to the Management Council to vote on their behalf.

If we get in a system where 10 football conferences can offer stipends across the various sports and the 21 other conferences cannot because they refuse to approve it, then a school like St. Louis is going to be courted by C-USA, MAC, and Sun Belt to come in and beef up their TV value and their capacity to earn basketball units. Schools like Wichita State and Missouri State that would either scoff at or be leery of going to the Sun Belt or MAC would see it as essential to remain nationally competitive. A school like Missouri State may conclude that they don't want to play FBS football but join for all sports except football and play FCS non-stipend in football in the MVFC.

Or would the 10 conferences figure they could beef up their basketball by their stipend advantage and not need non-fb schools?

(09-12-2013 03:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think they have real problems with the whole NCAA rulebook and how slow a process it is to change it. Recruiting rules impact every sport. I don't see any significant issue that impacts football that doesn't impact everything else.

So if they get it only for football, does it really help them?

They would still gain freedom to set Division-level rules, if the P5 could agree, which is greater freedom than they have today. And for substantially less turmoil and risk of political blowback than a breakaway from the NCAA, so if its a smaller benefit, its also at a smaller cost.

(09-12-2013 03:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  Or would the 10 conferences figure they could beef up their basketball by their stipend advantage and not need non-fb schools?

It definitely would be the MAC's best shot of moving up to a two-bid conference, if they could give stipend scholarships to their BB players and the Gonzaga's and Wichita State's of the world could not.

(09-12-2013 02:57 PM)bullet Wrote:  It was already weighted in some of the governance groups and they hadn't changed it as of last year.
The Big 8 conferences got 3 votes while the MAC and BW got 1.5. The WAC split and it got 1.5 and the SB succeeded the BW. Non fb conferences got 1 and there were some extra votes to nonfb conferences so it was 27 for the 11 fb conferences and 24 for everyone else (20 conferences).

... The problem was that ultimately you had the 1 vote, 1 school override.

The other problem is that 27 for the 11 FBS FB conferences and 24 for everyone else meant that even if the P5 reached consensus, they needed close to a consensus from the Go5 to push division level things through. Split off to a separated Bowl Division and a consensus of P5 schools decided things, and the Go5 only come into play as the tie breaking votes if there is disagreement among the P5.

The MAC has definitely been behind the MVC and A-10 in basketball.

(09-12-2013 03:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  The MAC has definitely been behind the MVC and A-10 in basketball.

Well yea, we don't pay our players enough.

(09-12-2013 03:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  The MAC has definitely been behind the MVC and A-10 in basketball.

Yes, that's implicit in the remark that the MAC would have a chance to move up to being a two-bid conference. If they were equal or better than the A-10, they'd already be a two-bid+ conference

(09-12-2013 07:29 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 03:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  The MAC has definitely been behind the MVC and A-10 in basketball.

Yes, that's implicit in the remark that the MAC would have a chance to move up to being a two-bid conference. If they were equal or better than the A-10, they'd already be a two-bid+ conference

I would say a 3 bid conference annually with the FBS recruiting advantages as a 12 to 16 team MAC basketball conference.

(09-12-2013 02:24 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 11:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 10:41 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 10:26 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Yes the voting dynamics are not going to be simply G5/P5.

I think the fact that they want to do this new governance model right with FAR's and senior women's administrators that it makes sense to start everything off on democratic footing and make it a 1 vote one conference system in FBS.

Back when the votes in management council were set up to tilt in favor of BCS/FBS leagues the G5 didn't have the status of junior partners as they do now in the big football machine. Thinking has become even more integrated within FBS.

And junior partner is an apt description.

The battles on the Board of Directors and even among the BCS board of directors don't break G5/P5. That just doesn't happen. Normally votes break one of two ways. All of FBS supports it and the rest of Division I fights it or the P5 split and the G5 split as well.

Historically the wild cards have been CUSA and MWC (when CUSA was more like today's AAC). And they have tended to take positions regarding post-season that old AQ6 disagreed with and were also opposed by the MAC and Sun Belt with WAC swinging between the MWC/CUSA position and the everyone else position based on what their mood was that day.

The old CUSA and MWC were never as likely to line up with their geographic AQ neighbors as Sun Belt, MAC and WAC were. The MWC and CUSA tended to be rather ineffective in BCS meetings because they typically had two proposals.
1. Let us have an equal share of money and access
2. We'll take less money if we get identical access.

Before the last four year renewal of the BCS the six AQ leagues, Sun Belt, and MAC agreed to a guaranteed every year spot in the BCS to be determined by a game played the first Saturday in December between the two highest rated non-AQ champs. The AQ said they'd support if there was unanimous support and CUSA, MWC, and WAC said no.

Wow. What a truly stupid decision. That would have been a significant upgrade and would have given the non-AQ not one--but TWO--nationally significant games. Instead, since then, we have years where NO non-AQ team played in a nationally significant BCS bowl.

Yes but you have to remember that these are the conferences that thought that they could do it all alone and that they were too good to have to do something like this with conferences like THEM. Granted one of those conferences never did send a school to a BCS game and one of the conferences that wanted to do this got a school sent. Such is life.

This was probably the origination of the first proposal of the "alliance" where the CUSA Champ was to play the MWC Champ and they proposed the winner get an auto-AQ. They wanted to cut out the MAC, SBC, and WAC instead of the "highest rated non-aq". They screwed themselves.

(09-12-2013 10:58 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 02:24 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 11:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 10:41 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 10:26 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Yes the voting dynamics are not going to be simply G5/P5.

I think the fact that they want to do this new governance model right with FAR's and senior women's administrators that it makes sense to start everything off on democratic footing and make it a 1 vote one conference system in FBS.

Back when the votes in management council were set up to tilt in favor of BCS/FBS leagues the G5 didn't have the status of junior partners as they do now in the big football machine. Thinking has become even more integrated within FBS.

And junior partner is an apt description.

The battles on the Board of Directors and even among the BCS board of directors don't break G5/P5. That just doesn't happen. Normally votes break one of two ways. All of FBS supports it and the rest of Division I fights it or the P5 split and the G5 split as well.

Historically the wild cards have been CUSA and MWC (when CUSA was more like today's AAC). And they have tended to take positions regarding post-season that old AQ6 disagreed with and were also opposed by the MAC and Sun Belt with WAC swinging between the MWC/CUSA position and the everyone else position based on what their mood was that day.

The old CUSA and MWC were never as likely to line up with their geographic AQ neighbors as Sun Belt, MAC and WAC were. The MWC and CUSA tended to be rather ineffective in BCS meetings because they typically had two proposals.
1. Let us have an equal share of money and access
2. We'll take less money if we get identical access.

Before the last four year renewal of the BCS the six AQ leagues, Sun Belt, and MAC agreed to a guaranteed every year spot in the BCS to be determined by a game played the first Saturday in December between the two highest rated non-AQ champs. The AQ said they'd support if there was unanimous support and CUSA, MWC, and WAC said no.

Wow. What a truly stupid decision. That would have been a significant upgrade and would have given the non-AQ not one--but TWO--nationally significant games. Instead, since then, we have years where NO non-AQ team played in a nationally significant BCS bowl.

Yes but you have to remember that these are the conferences that thought that they could do it all alone and that they were too good to have to do something like this with conferences like THEM. Granted one of those conferences never did send a school to a BCS game and one of the conferences that wanted to do this got a school sent. Such is life.

This was probably the origination of the first proposal of the "alliance" where the CUSA Champ was to play the MWC Champ and they proposed the winner get an auto-AQ. They wanted to cut out the MAC, SBC, and WAC instead of the "highest rated non-aq". They screwed themselves.

If I recall the timeline correctly that suggestion was after the MWC lost enough to realize that it no longer could do it alone (up to this point it was doing well enough to get in at a fair clip) and CUSA I think was coming around to the idea that it had yet to do it and it would have trouble in the future since it is the revolving door conference and thus could not say for sure what it could be or would be. In the end they still could not reconcile their differences though I think that was mostly due to the MWC. It held the best cards and all they really want to do is get back into places like Texas. I think they would have been happy just snagging Houston and another Texas school or two though they did not because those same schools had their eyes on something that they thought would be a bigger prize (the BE).