(02-13-2016 06:05 PM)LatahCounty Wrote: Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but while it takes 8 FBS schools to start a brand new conference I believe under the current rules it would only take 6 existing FBS schools to bribe an existing D1 conference to let them join and start football. So if Idaho, NMSU, UMass and 3 other FBS schools wanted to pay off the Big Sky to join up and start the Big Sky FBS conference, it could be done.
At least, this is something Idaho's AD has been talking about in the event that the Sun Belt kicks us out.
It takes eight FBS schools to be an FBS conference. It takes seven for a bball autobid.
OK, so why did Idaho's AD say this:
"That (going FBS) is one thing the Big Sky should look at it and Doug Fullerton has talked about that possibility … I think they could … What’s interesting is current NCAA rules say you can form an FBS football league with six members. It doesn’t allow you to form a brand new league, but the possibility exists to form an FBS league under the umbrella of the Big Sky … There is an opportunity awaiting the Big Sky to do something different that I think sustains the future of that league and we’re happy to be a part of that conversation.
(02-13-2016 06:05 PM)LatahCounty Wrote: Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but while it takes 8 FBS schools to start a brand new conference I believe under the current rules it would only take 6 existing FBS schools to bribe an existing D1 conference to let them join and start football. So if Idaho, NMSU, UMass and 3 other FBS schools wanted to pay off the Big Sky to join up and start the Big Sky FBS conference, it could be done.
At least, this is something Idaho's AD has been talking about in the event that the Sun Belt kicks us out.
It takes eight FBS schools to be an FBS conference. It takes seven for a bball autobid.
OK, so why did Idaho's AD say this:
"That (going FBS) is one thing the Big Sky should look at it and Doug Fullerton has talked about that possibility … I think they could … What’s interesting is current NCAA rules say you can form an FBS football league with six members. It doesn’t allow you to form a brand new league, but the possibility exists to form an FBS league under the umbrella of the Big Sky … There is an opportunity awaiting the Big Sky to do something different that I think sustains the future of that league and we’re happy to be a part of that conversation.
He's wrong. Only an FCS league with six members would be recognized with six members.
I'm definitely not putting it past Idaho's AD to be wrong, but I don't know who would have more incentive to understand the rules on this subject than he would. It's still a very difficult trick to find 6 FBS schools plus an existing and willing D1 conference to do this with.
(02-13-2016 06:05 PM)LatahCounty Wrote: Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but while it takes 8 FBS schools to start a brand new conference I believe under the current rules it would only take 6 existing FBS schools to bribe an existing D1 conference to let them join and start football. So if Idaho, NMSU, UMass and 3 other FBS schools wanted to pay off the Big Sky to join up and start the Big Sky FBS conference, it could be done.
At least, this is something Idaho's AD has been talking about in the event that the Sun Belt kicks us out.
It takes 8 to established FBS schools, playing all required Olympic sports together, to start a conference. Additionally, this new conference would not have NCAA autobids in any sport (including basketball) and would not get any CFP sharing money. It would also have no TV deal and bowls until the next bowl cycle that starts in 5 years (and there would be no guarantee that it would get any bowl ties even then). So, there is virtually zero chance that a start up conference is going to draw existing established FBS members from existing conferences.
(02-13-2016 06:05 PM)LatahCounty Wrote: Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but while it takes 8 FBS schools to start a brand new conference I believe under the current rules it would only take 6 existing FBS schools to bribe an existing D1 conference to let them join and start football. So if Idaho, NMSU, UMass and 3 other FBS schools wanted to pay off the Big Sky to join up and start the Big Sky FBS conference, it could be done.
At least, this is something Idaho's AD has been talking about in the event that the Sun Belt kicks us out.
It takes eight FBS schools to be an FBS conference. It takes seven for a bball autobid.
OK, so why did Idaho's AD say this:
"That (going FBS) is one thing the Big Sky should look at it and Doug Fullerton has talked about that possibility … I think they could … What’s interesting is current NCAA rules say you can form an FBS football league with six members. It doesn’t allow you to form a brand new league, but the possibility exists to form an FBS league under the umbrella of the Big Sky … There is an opportunity awaiting the Big Sky to do something different that I think sustains the future of that league and we’re happy to be a part of that conversation.
This is what we have been saying forever about Fullerton. He's spinning fantsies. There is no rule allowing schools to form an FBS conference "under the umbrella" of an existing FCS conference (and the truth is, he knows this).
Back in the 2011-2012 time period, I remember him saying in a radio interview that the Big Sky was in negotiations to split the Big Sky between the WAC and Big Sky in order to save the confernece. Reporters immediately started calling the WAC for comments and more information. The WAC didn't have clue what they were talking about. There had been no contact between the leagues at all---Fullerton just was making up candy mountains and chocolate syrup rivers to fill radio time. It was absolutely bizarre, but fairly typical of his shtick.
(This post was last modified: 02-13-2016 08:11 PM by Attackcoog.)
(02-13-2016 06:05 PM)LatahCounty Wrote: Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but while it takes 8 FBS schools to start a brand new conference I believe under the current rules it would only take 6 existing FBS schools to bribe an existing D1 conference to let them join and start football. So if Idaho, NMSU, UMass and 3 other FBS schools wanted to pay off the Big Sky to join up and start the Big Sky FBS conference, it could be done.
At least, this is something Idaho's AD has been talking about in the event that the Sun Belt kicks us out.
It takes eight FBS schools to be an FBS conference. It takes seven for a bball autobid.
OK, so why did Idaho's AD say this:
"That (going FBS) is one thing the Big Sky should look at it and Doug Fullerton has talked about that possibility … I think they could … What’s interesting is current NCAA rules say you can form an FBS football league with six members. It doesn’t allow you to form a brand new league, but the possibility exists to form an FBS league under the umbrella of the Big Sky … There is an opportunity awaiting the Big Sky to do something different that I think sustains the future of that league and we’re happy to be a part of that conversation.
This is what we have been saying forever about Fullerton. He's spinning fantsies. There is no rule allowing schools to form an FBS conference "under the umbrella" of an existing FCS conference (and the truth is, he knows this).
Back in the 2011-2012 time period, I remember him saying in a radio interview that the Big Sky was in negotiations to split the Big Sky between the WAC and Big Sky in order to save the confernece. Reporters immediately started calling the WAC for comments and more information. The WAC didn't have clue what they were talking about. There had been no contact between the leagues at all---Fullerton just was making up candy mountains and chocolate syrup rivers to fill radio time. It was absolutely bizarre, but fairly typical of his shtick.
The WAC's Hurd admitted they were in negotiations with conferences. The WAC was in negotiations are least two times with the Big Sky. A Midwest conference, probably the MVC, wanted to absorb the WAC on the condition that Idaho and Seattle would be kicked out. The WAC had their reasons to deny it at the time.
(This post was last modified: 02-13-2016 08:17 PM by NoDak.)
(02-13-2016 06:05 PM)LatahCounty Wrote: Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but while it takes 8 FBS schools to start a brand new conference I believe under the current rules it would only take 6 existing FBS schools to bribe an existing D1 conference to let them join and start football. So if Idaho, NMSU, UMass and 3 other FBS schools wanted to pay off the Big Sky to join up and start the Big Sky FBS conference, it could be done.
At least, this is something Idaho's AD has been talking about in the event that the Sun Belt kicks us out.
It takes eight FBS schools to be an FBS conference. It takes seven for a bball autobid.
OK, so why did Idaho's AD say this:
"That (going FBS) is one thing the Big Sky should look at it and Doug Fullerton has talked about that possibility … I think they could … What’s interesting is current NCAA rules say you can form an FBS football league with six members. It doesn’t allow you to form a brand new league, but the possibility exists to form an FBS league under the umbrella of the Big Sky … There is an opportunity awaiting the Big Sky to do something different that I think sustains the future of that league and we’re happy to be a part of that conversation.
He's wrong. Only an FCS league with six members would be recognized with six members.
I'm definitely not putting it past Idaho's AD to be wrong, but I don't know who would have more incentive to understand the rules on this subject than he would. It's still a very difficult trick to find 6 FBS schools plus an existing and willing D1 conference to do this with.
His only incentive is to keep his comfy job viable by keeping his flock from defecting. The only way an FCS team can move up is to be invited to an existing FBS conference. You know the old riddle--"which came first, the chicken or the egg?". Well, Fullerton is basically suggesting you don't need either. Lucky he's not poultry farmer.
(This post was last modified: 02-13-2016 08:22 PM by Attackcoog.)
(02-13-2016 06:42 PM)NoDak Wrote: It takes eight FBS schools to be an FBS conference. It takes seven for a bball autobid.
OK, so why did Idaho's AD say this:
"That (going FBS) is one thing the Big Sky should look at it and Doug Fullerton has talked about that possibility … I think they could … What’s interesting is current NCAA rules say you can form an FBS football league with six members. It doesn’t allow you to form a brand new league, but the possibility exists to form an FBS league under the umbrella of the Big Sky … There is an opportunity awaiting the Big Sky to do something different that I think sustains the future of that league and we’re happy to be a part of that conversation.
He's wrong. Only an FCS league with six members would be recognized with six members.
I'm definitely not putting it past Idaho's AD to be wrong, but I don't know who would have more incentive to understand the rules on this subject than he would. It's still a very difficult trick to find 6 FBS schools plus an existing and willing D1 conference to do this with.
His only incentive is to keep his comfy job viable by keeping his flock from defecting. The only way an FCS team can move up is to be invited to an existing FBS conference. You know the old riddle--"which came first, the chicken or the egg?". Well, Fullerton is basically suggesting you don't need either. Lucky he's not poultry farmer.
I get why Fullerton would perpetuate a false narrative. I don't get why Idaho's AD would go along with it if it were totally untrue. But, I've never seen anyone cite the place in the rules that would actually allow them to do this.
At any rate, we're only talking about the difference between 6 existing FBS schools and 8. And since there are only 3 that are even potentially in the market right now I doubt it will ever matter very much.
(02-13-2016 07:14 PM)NoDak Wrote: He's wrong. Only an FCS league with six members would be recognized with six members.
I'm definitely not putting it past Idaho's AD to be wrong, but I don't know who would have more incentive to understand the rules on this subject than he would. It's still a very difficult trick to find 6 FBS schools plus an existing and willing D1 conference to do this with.
His only incentive is to keep his comfy job viable by keeping his flock from defecting. The only way an FCS team can move up is to be invited to an existing FBS conference. You know the old riddle--"which came first, the chicken or the egg?". Well, Fullerton is basically suggesting you don't need either. Lucky he's not poultry farmer.
I get why Fullerton would perpetuate a false narrative. I don't get why Idaho's AD would go along with it if it were totally untrue. But, I've never seen anyone cite the place in the rules that would actually allow them to do this.
At any rate, we're only talking about the difference between 6 existing FBS schools and 8. And since there are only 3 that are even potentially in the market right now I doubt it will ever matter very much.
THe Idaho AD says right there in the article than an FCS league cant create an FBS league. Then he say's that Fullerton has some sort of plan he's mentioned. Frankly, the Idaho AD is in a tough spot. He's got to sell hope to his donors---and to potential recruits that might read the article.
On the potential of the Big Sky to become an FBS football league: "There’s a lot of confusion out there. A lot of people seem to think that you could just go form a new league, well there’s an NCAA rule that prohibits you from forming a new league because in order to form a new league you need seven schools that have been together for eight years. So if you look at the Big Sky, breaking it into like schools, which has been talked about … To break it into like schools you can’t meet that criteria."
Big Sky FBS cont.: "That (going FBS) is one thing the Big Sky should look at it and Doug Fullerton has talked about that possibility … I think they could … What’s interesting is current NCAA rules say you can form an FBS football league with six members. It doesn’t allow you to form a brand new league, but the possibility exists to form an FBS league under the umbrella of the Big Sky … There is an opportunity awaiting the Big Sky to do something different that I think sustains the future of that league and we’re happy to be a part of that conversation.
If I'm understanding it correctly, the Big Sky would have to invite 6 current FBS members to join the conference. And then those new members would start Big Sky FBS football and probably have to invite at least 2 FCS Big Sky members to move up and join them. Which seems like a plausible workaround for the 8 team minimum. But again, finding 6 FBS teams to do this probably isn't a lot easier than finding 8.
back to the original post it might be possible one day.
No one would leave an all sports FBS conference for a football only scheduling alliance. Which is what the original post suggest an alliance not an actual conference.
Idaho and NMSU want to stay in the SBC versus this kind of scenario .
They don't have a choice though and neither does U Mass anymore .
For U Mass indepencence/A10 is better than MAC full membership .
I don't agree but I'm not U Mass and they know what is important to them.
So I can see other schools having similar beliefs .
WSU MVC/Alliance better than a basketball downgrade.
UNI same as WSU
JMU CAA/Alliance
Others might not have any realistic options.
NDSU
Liberty
Montana
Montana ST
SDSU
EKU
Youngstown ST
Chattanooga
So if the conference invitation rule is done away with having five independents would help a team move up. BYU,Army,U Mass,NMSU and Idaho an alliance would benefit these five. BYU and Army it just makes scheduling easier so they might help a little . The other three it would be adding stability that would be needed.
I listed ten to go with the five but three moving up this way would be optimistic.
Still eight with six playing annually and the other two scheduling in some make it feasible .
(This post was last modified: 02-13-2016 09:43 PM by MJG.)
UMass is already trying to make sure we schedule BYU and Army consistently...it just makes sense. And with Gillette involved, BYU doesn't mind playing games @UMass.
(02-13-2016 09:42 PM)MJG Wrote: back to the original post it might be possible one day.
No one would leave an all sports FBS conference for a football only scheduling alliance. Which is what the original post suggest an alliance not an actual conference.
Idaho and NMSU want to stay in the SBC versus this kind of scenario .
They don't have a choice though and neither does U Mass anymore .
For U Mass indepencence/A10 is better than MAC full membership .
I don't agree but I'm not U Mass and they know what is important to them.
So I can see other schools having similar beliefs .
WSU MVC/Alliance better than a basketball downgrade.
UNI same as WSU
JMU CAA/Alliance
Others might not have any realistic options.
NDSU
Liberty
Montana
Montana ST
SDSU
EKU
Youngstown ST
Chattanooga
So if the conference invitation rule is done away with having five independents would help a team move up. BYU,Army,U Mass,NMSU and Idaho an alliance would benefit these five. BYU and Army it just makes scheduling easier so they might help a little . The other three it would be adding stability that would be needed.
I listed ten to go with the five but three moving up this way would be optimistic.
Still eight with six playing annually and the other two scheduling in some make it feasible .
If indys are ever included as possible options for the G5 access bowl slot, you might see a few schools dump their current conference affiliation and go indy.
The real key to making indy life work is there would have to be enough schools to achieve a critical mass of sorts. If several schools making the move at the same time and were organized, indy could once again be a viable course of action.
If there were at least 8-10 indy schools, then they could probably cooperate with one another in a loose coalition to guarantee late season scheduling. Such a coalition might even work together on bowl and TV deals. Of course, any schools trying this would have to have access to an acceptable Olympic sports home---so this option might not be viable for everyone.
The only big advantage to the indy route would be the ability to fashion a much more attractive football schedule than would ever be possible as a G5 conference member. So, if you are a decent name, with a decent fan base, located in a good recruiting area---then maybe you could attract enough P5 home-and-homes to make it worth the effort. Again, this option is only going to make sense to such teams if the G5 access slot becomes open to indys in the future (which I doubt would happen).
(This post was last modified: 02-14-2016 04:02 AM by Attackcoog.)
(02-13-2016 10:10 PM)e-parade Wrote: UMass is already trying to make sure we schedule BYU and Army consistently...it just makes sense. And with Gillette involved, BYU doesn't mind playing games @UMass.
So far the A10/Indy is working, but time will tell.
Agree with e-parade here. Recruiting went very well for our first year being independent. Since Ryan Bamford took over as AD, we have complete schedules for 2016 and 2017 and 10 games scheduled for 2018. We also have been successful scheduling local teams as Boston College and UConn.
It depends if the FBS schools could control who can join. I think there may not be any objections if these schools move up.
Eastern Washington
Portland State
Northern Arizona
Sacramento State
Cal-Davis
Cal-Poly, SLO
Western Washington
Western Oregon
Long Beach State
Montana
Montana State
Colorado Mesa
West Texas A&M
Abilene Christian
Central Oklahoma
Wichita State
Missouri State
Omaha
North Dakota
North Dakota State
South Dakota
South Dakota State
Minn.-Duluth
Mankato State
Missouri State
Central Arkansas
Jackson State
Chattanooga
Eastern Kentucky
Illinois State
Indiana State
Youngstown State
North Florida
West Florida
Valdosta State
James Madison
Delaware
Towson
Villanova
Stony Brook
Albany
Central Conn. State
Vermont
New Hampshire
Maine
No, not all would be brought up. They are in places that could benefit the FBS schools already there with scheduling issues. P5 schools could used them to pad wins and say that they have these schools count as FBS teams. Oregon already put North Dakota State on their calendar. Having them up to FBS level before then could be an ESPN game of the week.
(02-13-2016 10:10 PM)e-parade Wrote: UMass is already trying to make sure we schedule BYU and Army consistently...it just makes sense. And with Gillette involved, BYU doesn't mind playing games @UMass.
So far the A10/Indy is working, but time will tell.
Agree with e-parade here. Recruiting went very well for our first year being independent. Since Ryan Bamford took over as AD, we have complete schedules for 2016 and 2017 and 10 games scheduled for 2018. We also have been successful scheduling local teams as Boston College and UConn.
So far so good better scheduling better recruiting its early but so far it works.
I follow the situation being on this board and the possibility of Idaho and NMSU being forced to go independent.Maybe it helps a WSU make the move who knows.
(02-14-2016 05:52 AM)DavidSt Wrote: It depends if the FBS schools could control who can join. I think there may not be any objections if these schools move up.
Eastern Washington
Portland State
Northern Arizona
Sacramento State
Cal-Davis
Cal-Poly, SLO
Western Washington
Western Oregon
Long Beach State
Montana
Montana State
Colorado Mesa
West Texas A&M
Abilene Christian
Central Oklahoma
Wichita State
Missouri State
Omaha
North Dakota
North Dakota State
South Dakota
South Dakota State
Minn.-Duluth
Mankato State
Missouri State
Central Arkansas
Jackson State
Chattanooga
Eastern Kentucky
Illinois State
Indiana State
Youngstown State
North Florida
West Florida
Valdosta State
James Madison
Delaware
Towson
Villanova
Stony Brook
Albany
Central Conn. State
Vermont
New Hampshire
Maine
No, not all would be brought up. They are in places that could benefit the FBS schools already there with scheduling issues. P5 schools could used them to pad wins and say that they have these schools count as FBS teams. Oregon already put North Dakota State on their calendar. Having them up to FBS level before then could be an ESPN game of the week.
(This post was last modified: 02-14-2016 08:50 AM by BearcatJerry.)
The schools that missed moving up during the last realignment are toast.
1. The State governments keep taking money away from state schools.
Louisiana just put out their troubles in the news.
Kentucky wants 4.5 % money back this year from each state university and is reducing each schools budget 9% next year.
So how are you going to sell spending more money on athletics when you are going to have to cut money from all departments.
2. Why upgrade to a G5 conference from FCS now. TV contracts for G5 conferences are going down and there is virtually no chance of a G5 making the 4 team playoff. (so you are moving up for a pre-Christmas bowl where you may break even, NOT)
3. The only prize that 64 teams in the G5 compete for one New Years Day bowl slot like Houston got this year.
4. Also even if the rules were changed (and why would any of the current 128 FBS schools vote a rule change) The new conference would
not get any money from the playoff and that agreement runs for another decade.
The schools that did move up had good leadership in place saw what was coming and acted in time. Those that did not move up were either asleep at the switch or really did not want to move up.
All that will really happen at this point if one or two schools get added into a P5 conference and leave an opening in a G5 Conference, a FCS school could be called up, but maybe not, Now that you can have a conference playoff with less than 12 teams none may be needed.
(This post was last modified: 02-14-2016 10:31 AM by Hilltop 75.)
(02-14-2016 09:29 AM)Hilltop 75 Wrote: The schools that missed moving up during the last realignment are toast.
1. The State governments keep taking money away from state schools.
Louisiana just put out their troubles in the news.
Kentucky wants 4.5 % money back this year from each state university and is reducing each schools budget 9% next year.
So how are you going to sell spending more money on athletics when you are going to have to cut money from all departments.
2. Why upgrade to a G5 conference from FCS now. TV contracts for G5 conferences are going down and there is virtually no chance of a G5 making the 4 team playoff. (so you are moving up for a pre-Christmas bowl where you may break even, NOT)
3. The only prize that 64 teams in the G5 compete for one New Years Day bowl slot like Houston got this year.
4. Also even if the rules were changed (and why would any of the current 128 FBS schools vote a rule change) The new conference would
not get any money from the playoff and that agreement runs for another decade.
The schools that did move up had good leadership in place saw what was coming and acted in time. Those that did not move up were either asleep at the switch or really did not want to move up.
All that will really happen at this point if one or two schools get added into a P5 conference and leave an opening in a G5 Conference, a FCS school could be called up, but maybe not, Now that you can have a conference playoff with less than 12 teams none may be needed.
Except for the PAC 12, MWC, Big 12, U. Mass., Idaho, New Mexico State and western Big 10 teams may need some FCS schools in the area to upgrade to FBS level for an ease of scheduling issues for close by teams. Minnesota can still play the Dakota schools in the future if they move up. PAC 12 teams need some of the Big Sky schools to make the move as well. There are huge gaps between schools in the FBS level in these areas. It costs money to travel from state to state. With the money crunch happening to all the schools? The budget cuts will hit Kentucky and other P5 schools. It is a bad timing for the Big 10 to say no more FCS teams. If the states having money issues, and the taxpayers are having troubles as well? Why travel to far away games where the fans can't go?
(02-13-2016 02:46 PM)ken d Wrote: What if the rule change only allowed current FBS programs to move to a football only league? There could be some existing schools that would rather have their non-football programs in a more regional league. Combine those with existing orphans and potential orphans (like NMSU and Idaho, who don't fit in the SBC and don't have a long term commitment from that league) and you might be able to form such a conference.
What if the change also limited football only conferences to 8 members to prevent a stampede from the SBC and CUSA?
Who would vote for it though? No power conference would? No g5 conference would? It does not help any current league? So it would be DOA
why would p5 schools object?
For one they wouldn't generally vote for anything that doesn't immediately help them. But likewise It could lead to their own demise.
(02-14-2016 09:29 AM)Hilltop 75 Wrote: The schools that missed moving up during the last realignment are toast.
1. The State governments keep taking money away from state schools.
Louisiana just put out their troubles in the news.
Kentucky wants 4.5 % money back this year from each state university and is reducing each schools budget 9% next year.
So how are you going to sell spending more money on athletics when you are going to have to cut money from all departments.
2. Why upgrade to a G5 conference from FCS now. TV contracts for G5 conferences are going down and there is virtually no chance of a G5 making the 4 team playoff. (so you are moving up for a pre-Christmas bowl where you may break even, NOT)
3. The only prize that 64 teams in the G5 compete for one New Years Day bowl slot like Houston got this year.
4. Also even if the rules were changed (and why would any of the current 128 FBS schools vote a rule change) The new conference would
not get any money from the playoff and that agreement runs for another decade.
The schools that did move up had good leadership in place saw what was coming and acted in time. Those that did not move up were either asleep at the switch or really did not want to move up.
All that will really happen at this point if one or two schools get added into a P5 conference and leave an opening in a G5 Conference, a FCS school could be called up, but maybe not, Now that you can have a conference playoff with less than 12 teams none may be needed.
Except for the PAC 12, MWC, Big 12, U. Mass., Idaho, New Mexico State and western Big 10 teams may need some FCS schools in the area to upgrade to FBS level for an ease of scheduling issues for close by teams. Minnesota can still play the Dakota schools in the future if they move up. PAC 12 teams need some of the Big Sky schools to make the move as well. There are huge gaps between schools in the FBS level in these areas. It costs money to travel from state to state. With the money crunch happening to all the schools? The budget cuts will hit Kentucky and other P5 schools. It is a bad timing for the Big 10 to say no more FCS teams. If the states having money issues, and the taxpayers are having troubles as well? Why travel to far away games where the fans can't go?
Most all those gaps exist for a reason. There just isnt a large enough audience to attract an FBS bid. These FBS conferences talk to tv all time. If TV really wanted a FBS member in those areas, they can make it happen by simply suggesting the move and placing dollars on the table to support it. But tv has not elected to pay extra for additions in those areas--which tells me, at least to this point in time, it hasn't made economic sense for the networks to do so.
(This post was last modified: 02-14-2016 09:11 PM by Attackcoog.)
/
Why Not a Football-Only Conference?
