Big 12 pushed for it, now looks likely not to take advantage of it.


But, the Sun Belt is, and AAC might.


Wonder if it would have passed if only Sun Belt and/or AAC needed it?

I think so. With the G5 golden ticket spot, the games serve in some ways as play-ins.

(08-29-2016 12:09 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Big 12 pushed for it, now looks likely not to take advantage of it.


But, the Sun Belt is, and AAC might.


Wonder if it would have passed if only Sun Belt and/or AAC needed it?

No

The need for twelve teams killed the WAC .
CUSA went to fourteen to keep twelve after the next raid.
Then ten became the number needed stranding Idaho and NMSU.
The WAC should have survived .

The Big 12 is going to expand. 99% chance.

They pushed for the rule change to eliminate the leverage held by the expansion candidates.

Idaho and NMSU were not stranted because of the 10 rule change they were stranted because their football teams are prenial losers, they are both on the outskirts of even close by FBS conference boundraies, they have no local population base, no media market and a general lack of funding to compete at the FBS level...

(08-29-2016 05:53 PM)00yyz Wrote:  Idaho and NMSU were not stranted because of the 10 rule change they were stranted because their football teams are prenial losers, they are both on the outskirts of even close by FBS conference boundraies, they have no local population base, no media market and a general lack of funding to compete at the FBS level...

You are correct and even if the 10 team rule changed with the WAC days, it still would have been dissolved. There were only going to be 4 teams left regardless. A G5 conference wasn't going to go to 9 conference games or split into 2 5 teams divisions. Going to 12 to hold a CCG is the best format anyway.

(08-29-2016 06:42 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(08-29-2016 05:53 PM)00yyz Wrote:  Idaho and NMSU were not stranted because of the 10 rule change they were stranted because their football teams are prenial losers, they are both on the outskirts of even close by FBS conference boundraies, they have no local population base, no media market and a general lack of funding to compete at the FBS level...

You are correct and even if the 10 team rule changed with the WAC days, it still would have been dissolved. There were only going to be 4 teams left regardless. A G5 conference wasn't going to go to 9 conference games or split into 2 5 teams divisions. Going to 12 to hold a CCG is the best format anyway.

WAC football had five teams -- Idaho, NMSU, UTSA, Texas State, and Louisiana Tech -- remaining after SJSU and USU accepted invitations from the MWC. That's three short of the number of full members needed to be an FBS conference.

Even if CUSA had not overexpanded, it would have been almost impossible for the WAC to stay in the FBS business after USU and SJSU agreed to join the MWC.

The MWC invited USU and SJSU in May 2012, seven months before Boise backed out of the "Big East and West" fiasco and announced they were staying in the MWC. So at the time the MWC invited USU and SJSU, the MWC needed more full members to be in compliance as an FBS conference -- the MWC without Boise and SDSU had 7 full members (plus Hawai'i for football) and FBS conferences have to have at least 8 full members. USU and SJSU were not invited to create a 12-team MWC football conference; they were invited to keep the MWC in FBS compliance. Whether the CCG rule was 10 or 12 teams at the time didn't affect the MWC's decision to bring in those two schools.

(08-29-2016 05:53 PM)00yyz Wrote:  Idaho and NMSU were not stranted because of the 10 rule change they were stranted because their football teams are prenial losers, they are both on the outskirts of even close by FBS conference boundraies, they have no local population base, no media market and a general lack of funding to compete at the FBS level...

If the 12-team CCG rule had not been relaxed, it is a good bet that both would have been extended for at least two more years, and likely that NMSU would have been invited as a full member.

(08-29-2016 07:18 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(08-29-2016 05:53 PM)00yyz Wrote:  Idaho and NMSU were not stranted because of the 10 rule change they were stranted because their football teams are prenial losers, they are both on the outskirts of even close by FBS conference boundraies, they have no local population base, no media market and a general lack of funding to compete at the FBS level...

If the 12-team CCG rule had not been relaxed, it is a good bet that both would have been extended for at least two more years, and likely that NMSU would have been invited as a full member.

It's pretty doubtful that NMSU would have ever been invited as a full member. They were just too much of a geographic outlier for the Sun Belt. And it's not like their basketball was so good that it would have made it worthwhile.

(08-29-2016 05:53 PM)00yyz Wrote:  Idaho and NMSU were not stranted because of the 10 rule change they were stranted because their football teams are prenial losers, they are both on the outskirts of even close by FBS conference boundraies, they have no local population base, no media market and a general lack of funding to compete at the FBS level...

It was more geography than anything. There are plenty of bad teams in the Sun Belt that lack a real media market and good funding. If leagues were still required to have 12 for a CCG it would have helped NMSU and Idaho's case but the end result may have been the same.

(08-29-2016 05:53 PM)00yyz Wrote:  Idaho and NMSU were not stranted because of the 10 rule change they were stranted because their football teams are prenial losers, they are both on the outskirts of even close by FBS conference boundraies, they have no local population base, no media market and a general lack of funding to compete at the FBS level...

This is a dumb conversation. They were stranded because of all of the above. Circumstances and the sequence of events hurt the schools, and the schools didn't do enough to help themselves.

15 years ago Utah State and Arkansas State at were in basically the same place as Idaho and NMSU -- bad programs in small media markets coming out of conference turmoil. Both invested in their football programs and had enough luck in hiring to get better at the right time. Arkansas State had the benefit of geography -- the Sun Belt is a great fit for them. Utah State did enough to be more attractive to the MWC when the WAC blew up and there weren't enough MWC slots available.

Today, Utah State and Arkansas State are solid in their conferences and perennial bowl teams. But not that long ago there wasn't much difference between them and us. They worked smarter and harder and got luckier than we did, but it wouldn't have been impossible for Idaho to have put itself in their positions.

(08-29-2016 07:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-29-2016 06:42 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(08-29-2016 05:53 PM)00yyz Wrote:  Idaho and NMSU were not stranted because of the 10 rule change they were stranted because their football teams are prenial losers, they are both on the outskirts of even close by FBS conference boundraies, they have no local population base, no media market and a general lack of funding to compete at the FBS level...

You are correct and even if the 10 team rule changed with the WAC days, it still would have been dissolved. There were only going to be 4 teams left regardless. A G5 conference wasn't going to go to 9 conference games or split into 2 5 teams divisions. Going to 12 to hold a CCG is the best format anyway.

WAC football had five teams -- Idaho, NMSU, UTSA, Texas State, and Louisiana Tech -- remaining after SJSU and USU accepted invitations from the MWC. That's three short of the number of full members needed to be an FBS conference.

Even if CUSA had not overexpanded, it would have been almost impossible for the WAC to stay in the FBS business after USU and SJSU agreed to join the MWC.

The MWC invited USU and SJSU in May 2012, seven months before Boise backed out of the "Big East and West" fiasco and announced they were staying in the MWC. So at the time the MWC invited USU and SJSU, the MWC needed more full members to be in compliance as an FBS conference -- the MWC without Boise and SDSU had 7 full members (plus Hawai'i for football) and FBS conferences have to have at least 8 full members. USU and SJSU were not invited to create a 12-team MWC football conference; they were invited to keep the MWC in FBS compliance. Whether the CCG rule was 10 or 12 teams at the time didn't affect the MWC's decision to bring in those two schools.

And actually, Texas St and UTSA already were invited to the Sun Belt and CUSA before they even before they joined the WAC officially. So really there were basically 3.

Maybe my words were misread, but I didn't mean to sound that the MW invited USU and SJSU to get to 12. (Although, there was quite a bit of discussion about expanding to 12). What I meant was that even if the 10 team rule existed back then, no G5 conference was going to go to 9 conference games (full round robin req.) or split into 2 5 team divisions to hold a CCG. It is impractical to hold divisions with 10 teams (even with 8 conference games) and 12 is the perfect setup to split into divisions.

(08-29-2016 12:09 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Big 12 pushed for it, now looks likely not to take advantage of it.


But, the Sun Belt is, and AAC might.


Wonder if it would have passed if only Sun Belt and/or AAC needed it?

Actually, if a conference wants to limit move ups, then the rule benefits everyone, even if that particular conference doesn't use it.

(08-29-2016 12:22 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  I think so. With the G5 golden ticket spot, the games serve in some ways as play-ins.

Yes they do.

It's not just the G5 schools that are contenders for a conference championship its also the schools that are divisional contenders. That's because if a school can win the division they are giving themselves a fighting chance at the conference championship and a fighting chance at a New Year's Bowl.

The impact is the better 5-6 schools in each conference that are perpetually in contention are perpetually in contention for the CFP game. That is going to have an impact on recruiting because as the P5's push to 14, 16 schools the lower half of those conferences is going to have less of a chance of making a CFP bowl than the first tier of the G5.

There are 26 schools between the PAC/B1G and only 8 of them have a serious shot at the Rose Bowl or another CFP bowl. Upper 33% to 25% have a legit shot and they'll end up the best coaching, big advantages over the second tier P5.

(08-30-2016 09:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-29-2016 12:09 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Big 12 pushed for it, now looks likely not to take advantage of it.


But, the Sun Belt is, and AAC might.


Wonder if it would have passed if only Sun Belt and/or AAC needed it?

Actually, if a conference wants to limit move ups, then the rule benefits everyone, even if that particular conference doesn't use it.

It makes you wonder what FBS would look like today if they limited move ups to requiring a conference invite from the time of the FBS/FCS split in the early 80's.

The NCAA split into 3 divisions in the 70's and schools could take solace in the fact they were permitted to transition to Division 1 from lower divisions if they met requirements. Then the door closed and a school was required to have a conference invite.

More recently the door closed on FCS schools transitioning to FBS requiring conference invites. If that rule was always in place at the outset the SBC more than likely never makes it without ULM, Troy, MTSU transitioning up from FCS. This prevents WKU, FAU, FIU, USA getting FBS invites later down the road.

(08-30-2016 10:16 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(08-30-2016 09:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-29-2016 12:09 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Big 12 pushed for it, now looks likely not to take advantage of it.


But, the Sun Belt is, and AAC might.


Wonder if it would have passed if only Sun Belt and/or AAC needed it?

Actually, if a conference wants to limit move ups, then the rule benefits everyone, even if that particular conference doesn't use it.

It makes you wonder what FBS would look like today if they limited move ups to requiring a conference invite from the time of the FBS/FCS split in the early 80's.

The NCAA split into 3 divisions in the 70's and schools could take solace in the fact they were permitted to transition to Division 1 from lower divisions if they met requirements. Then the door closed and a school was required to have a conference invite.

More recently the door closed on FCS schools transitioning to FBS requiring conference invites. If that rule was always in place at the outset the SBC more than likely never makes it without ULM, Troy, MTSU transitioning up from FCS. This prevents WKU, FAU, FIU, USA getting FBS invites later down the road.

Yes it makes you wonder, but when the split took place back in the early 80' there were many FBS Independents whereas when the conference invite rule when into effect the number of FBS Independents had dropped drastically from the number of Independents school from the past.