The P5 would be outnumbered when it comes to voting matters...

(01-10-2017 07:52 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  do FCS and non-football schools get to vote and how would they vote if they did?

Even if they do get to vote, there's no potential benefit to them and there is a potential burnt bridge with FBS confs that want to kill the backdoor rule.

That equals "cooperate with the FBS, and earn a favor with them" to my calculus.

Besides all this -- and has already been brought up -- it would not be possible for six western FBS move ups to schedule the required minimum number of FBS games beyond Idaho and NM St, as MWC teams will blackball them and BYU has bigger fish to fry.

OK, has everyone said all their lines now? Have we all covered all the ground we always go over when this topic comes up? Seems like a good place to wrap.

(01-10-2017 12:46 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 12:32 PM)Curtisc83 Wrote:  I would love to see that reg about former FBS conference you mention in your post above.

NCAA Bylaw 20.4.2.1.1
Eligibility for Reclassification - Before a Football Championship Subdivision institution may apply for reclassification to the Football Bowl Subdivision, the institution must receive a bona fide invitation for membership from a Football Bowl Subdivision conference or a conference that previously met the definition of a Football Bowl Subdivision conference.

This was dug up by the consultants hired by Idaho to explore their options. The consultant report also says the WAC compliance officer states that he's been told by the NCAA that the WAC meets these criteria.

A bunch of people on this forum don't believe this is true. I keep asking them to show the rule that negates this "previously met" clause. So far I haven't seen it.

When was rule written? It may not have been in place when the WAC FBS collapsed.

There are posters here, like MplsBison, who insist that the rule will be revoked if the WAC acts on it. Perhaps the NCAA wrote the rule explicitly for NMSU and Idaho who were royally screwed by realignment. The NCAA dropped continuity requirements during that crisis time, so the WAC didn't have to comply with that.

The interpretation of the rule for second year transitionall FBS schools to be counted as full FBS members may have changed at the same time.

(01-10-2017 07:46 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  But the P5, G5, or both will think that extra money should've just gone to them.

Bottom line is that none of the current ten FBS conferences stand to gain anything by allowing an FBS WAC reboot.


[standby for NoDak to concoct some reason out of thin air for how FBS is actually benefitted by the odd duck Big Sky/WAC dream that he alone sustains]

I do not think all the G5 would be against this. MWC might be in favor if the Montanas and the Dakotas schools all move up to help Wyoming out.

(01-10-2017 08:23 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  OK, has everyone said all their lines now? Have we all covered all the ground we always go over when this topic comes up? Seems like a good place to wrap.

Not quite. Why can't Idaho have baseball like most everyone else in D1?

(01-10-2017 10:27 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 08:23 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  OK, has everyone said all their lines now? Have we all covered all the ground we always go over when this topic comes up? Seems like a good place to wrap.

Not quite. Why can't Idaho have baseball like most everyone else in D1?

The Big Sky teams all dropped baseball back in the 70's or so. Just the later adds had it and kept it from DII.

There are a number of DI schools that dropped baseball, like Wisconsin and Oregon, which recently added it again.

Metal bats isn't real baseball

(01-10-2017 10:31 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 10:27 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 08:23 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  OK, has everyone said all their lines now? Have we all covered all the ground we always go over when this topic comes up? Seems like a good place to wrap.

Not quite. Why can't Idaho have baseball like most everyone else in D1?

The Big Sky teams all dropped baseball back in the 70's or so. Just the later adds had it and kept it from DII.

There are a number of DI schools that dropped baseball, like Wisconsin and Oregon, which recently added it again.

You were in the Big West and then the WAC for a decade each. You could have added it then.

(01-10-2017 10:27 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 08:23 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  OK, has everyone said all their lines now? Have we all covered all the ground we always go over when this topic comes up? Seems like a good place to wrap.

Not quite. Why can't Idaho have baseball like most everyone else in D1?

Why can't the NCAA start its season later? Do you want to play baseball in north Idaho in February?

Boise doesn't have it either. It's hardly a required sport.

(01-10-2017 10:51 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 10:31 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 10:27 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 08:23 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  OK, has everyone said all their lines now? Have we all covered all the ground we always go over when this topic comes up? Seems like a good place to wrap.

Not quite. Why can't Idaho have baseball like most everyone else in D1?

The Big Sky teams all dropped baseball back in the 70's or so. Just the later adds had it and kept it from DII.

There are a number of DI schools that dropped baseball, like Wisconsin and Oregon, which recently added it again.

You were in the Big West and then the WAC for a decade each. You could have added it then.

Idaho needed to abide by Title IX, so women's sports were added. California schools are even stricter.

(01-10-2017 10:57 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Boise doesn't have it either. It's hardly a required sport.

Boise has softball, wrestling and beach volleyball. Idaho, not so much. I think they're at the bare minimum of sports required for D1.

(01-10-2017 10:20 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 12:46 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 12:32 PM)Curtisc83 Wrote:  I would love to see that reg about former FBS conference you mention in your post above.

NCAA Bylaw 20.4.2.1.1
Eligibility for Reclassification - Before a Football Championship Subdivision institution may apply for reclassification to the Football Bowl Subdivision, the institution must receive a bona fide invitation for membership from a Football Bowl Subdivision conference or a conference that previously met the definition of a Football Bowl Subdivision conference.

This was dug up by the consultants hired by Idaho to explore their options. The consultant report also says the WAC compliance officer states that he's been told by the NCAA that the WAC meets these criteria.

A bunch of people on this forum don't believe this is true. I keep asking them to show the rule that negates this "previously met" clause. So far I haven't seen it.

When was rule written? It may not have been in place when the WAC FBS collapsed.

There are posters here, like MplsBison, who insist that the rule will be revoked if the WAC acts on it. Perhaps the NCAA wrote the rule explicitly for NMSU and Idaho who were royally screwed by realignment. The NCAA dropped continuity requirements during that crisis time, so the WAC didn't have to comply with that.

The interpretation of the rule for second year transitionall FBS schools to be counted as full FBS members may have changed at the same time.

IIRC the rule change was approved in mid-2011, after Hawaii had announced in late 2010 that it would be accompanying Fresno State and Nevada to the MWC beginning in 2012. At that time the WAC's projected remaining membership for the 2012 season was down to San Jose State, Utah State, NMSU, Idaho, Louisiana Tech, and new members UTSA and Texas State -- one short of the eight required to meet the FBS conference requirement. To address the crisis Karl Benson was canvassing western and midwestern FCS schools throughout 2011, desperately trying to convince a couple more to move up to FBS and join the WAC.

The addition of the "previously met" language to the FBS eligibility rule gave Benson something positive to talk about and brought a brief ray of hope that, even if the conference was still below eight FBS members when the two year grace period expired in 2014 and the WAC became a "previously" FBS conference, a couple more FCS schools would have agreed to join and/or started their transition by then and the WAC would be able to reclaim FBS status in 2015 or 2016.

However the effort was short-circuited by the financial difficulties being faced by FCS schools around that time due to the lingering effects of the 2008-2009 recession. Montana had already announced in late 2010 that it had turned down a WAC invitation (even though its AD was reportedly in favor of accepting) and would remain in the Big Sky. With Montana staying put the other Big Sky schools lost interest in a potential move. There was talk of Lamar from the Southland having an interest in moving up but that didn't go anywhere.

By late 2011, despite the change to the FBS eligibility rule, all of the remaining WAC members saw the handwriting on the wall and were lobbying desperately to join other conferences. The hammer fell in early 2012 when San Jose State and Utah State accepted invitations from the MWC, UTSA and Louisiana Tech accepted invitations from CUSA, and Texas State and UT-Arlington accepted invitations from the Sun Belt, all effective with the 2013 season.

(01-11-2017 12:48 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 10:20 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 12:46 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 12:32 PM)Curtisc83 Wrote:  I would love to see that reg about former FBS conference you mention in your post above.

NCAA Bylaw 20.4.2.1.1
Eligibility for Reclassification - Before a Football Championship Subdivision institution may apply for reclassification to the Football Bowl Subdivision, the institution must receive a bona fide invitation for membership from a Football Bowl Subdivision conference or a conference that previously met the definition of a Football Bowl Subdivision conference.

This was dug up by the consultants hired by Idaho to explore their options. The consultant report also says the WAC compliance officer states that he's been told by the NCAA that the WAC meets these criteria.

A bunch of people on this forum don't believe this is true. I keep asking them to show the rule that negates this "previously met" clause. So far I haven't seen it.

When was rule written? It may not have been in place when the WAC FBS collapsed.

There are posters here, like MplsBison, who insist that the rule will be revoked if the WAC acts on it. Perhaps the NCAA wrote the rule explicitly for NMSU and Idaho who were royally screwed by realignment. The NCAA dropped continuity requirements during that crisis time, so the WAC didn't have to comply with that.

The interpretation of the rule for second year transitionall FBS schools to be counted as full FBS members may have changed at the same time.

IIRC the rule change was approved in mid-2011, after Hawaii had announced in late 2010 that it would be accompanying Fresno State and Nevada to the MWC beginning in 2012. At that time the WAC's projected remaining membership for the 2012 season was down to San Jose State, Utah State, NMSU, Idaho, Louisiana Tech, and new members UTSA and Texas State -- one short of the eight required to meet the FBS conference requirement. To address the crisis Karl Benson was canvassing western and midwestern FCS schools throughout 2011, desperately trying to convince a couple more to move up to FBS and join the WAC.

The addition of the "previously met" language to the FBS eligibility rule gave Benson something positive to talk about and brought a brief ray of hope that, even if the conference was still below eight FBS members when the two year grace period expired in 2014 and the WAC became a "previously" FBS conference, a couple more FCS schools would have agreed to join and/or started their transition by then and the WAC would be able to reclaim FBS status in 2015 or 2016.

However the effort was short-circuited by the financial difficulties being faced by FCS schools around that time due to the lingering effects of the 2008-2009 recession. Montana had already announced in late 2010 that it had turned down a WAC invitation (even though its AD was reportedly in favor of accepting) and would remain in the Big Sky. With Montana staying put the other Big Sky schools lost interest in a potential move. There was talk of Lamar from the Southland having an interest in moving up but that didn't go anywhere.

By late 2011, despite the change to the FBS eligibility rule, all of the remaining WAC members saw the handwriting on the wall and were lobbying desperately to join other conferences. The hammer fell in early 2012 when San Jose State and Utah State accepted invitations from the MWC, UTSA and Louisiana Tech accepted invitations from CUSA, and Texas State and UT-Arlington accepted invitations from the Sun Belt, all effective with the 2013 season.

Thanks for that, Mongoose. Learned today that the Belt knew that it needed Idaho a and NMSU to help Ga S and App St transition, so it practically had to offer those two schools at least affiliate membership with an expiration datEe Also, the WAC FBS inviting privilege would on your last till the grace period ran out. That was changed retroactively.

Knew there was a bunch of meeting between the WAC, Big Sky and NCAA. Fullerton as the Big Sky Commish has often acted like a mouthpiece of the Montanas. If he said the Montanas were interested in FBS, there is no reason to doubt it. Mont St was further away from an FBS move then than now. The Montana Regents won't allow one to go without the other, so the politics involved was deep. Have to believe that the Montanas are truly aspirational but also conservative when making a change.

(01-11-2017 12:48 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 10:20 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 12:46 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 12:32 PM)Curtisc83 Wrote:  I would love to see that reg about former FBS conference you mention in your post above.

NCAA Bylaw 20.4.2.1.1
Eligibility for Reclassification - Before a Football Championship Subdivision institution may apply for reclassification to the Football Bowl Subdivision, the institution must receive a bona fide invitation for membership from a Football Bowl Subdivision conference or a conference that previously met the definition of a Football Bowl Subdivision conference. ...

When was rule written? It may not have been in place when the WAC FBS collapsed.

IIRC the rule change was approved in mid-2011, after Hawaii had announced in late 2010 that it would be accompanying Fresno State and Nevada to the MWC beginning in 2012.

The date of last amendment of a rule is given in the text. For 20.4.2.1.1, it says "(Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)". So the current version (quoted above) was adopted early 2011, and became effective mid-2011.

(01-11-2017 02:30 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 12:48 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 10:20 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 12:46 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 12:32 PM)Curtisc83 Wrote:  I would love to see that reg about former FBS conference you mention in your post above.

NCAA Bylaw 20.4.2.1.1
Eligibility for Reclassification - Before a Football Championship Subdivision institution may apply for reclassification to the Football Bowl Subdivision, the institution must receive a bona fide invitation for membership from a Football Bowl Subdivision conference or a conference that previously met the definition of a Football Bowl Subdivision conference. ...

When was rule written? It may not have been in place when the WAC FBS collapsed.

IIRC the rule change was approved in mid-2011, after Hawaii had announced in late 2010 that it would be accompanying Fresno State and Nevada to the MWC beginning in 2012.

The date of last amendment of a rule is given in the text. For 20.4.2.1.1, it says "(Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)". So the current version (quoted above) was adopted early 2011, and became effective mid-2011.

Thanks for the confirmation Bruce. I was pretty sure it was in 2011. I distinctly remember the excitement on the WAC board when the news came out. At that time the remaining conference members still felt the WAC had some brand strength left and that bringing in just one or two more replacement football programs would stabilize things. It seemed like everyone posting on the board that year had suggestions about who to target and how to convince them to accept invitations.

But all through the spring and summer and fall the anticipated expansion announcement was never made. In the end the cavalry never came over the hill.

(01-10-2017 06:34 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 06:31 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 05:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I actually did a deep dive through the NCAA manual a few weeks ago, and was pretty surprised that the black-letter rules say that former FBS conferences can give out FBS invites.

The problem with what you just said here, is a lack of context for when the rule was written and the intention of the rule.

They did it, at the time, to give the WAC a chance to survive by inviting a couple FCS schools up. That was the intention, and it was supposed to happen around 2011. But it never did.

So what would happen if the WAC suddenly decided it wanted to use the rule in 2017 to invite six FCS schools and then declare itself a FBS conference?

Confusion and panic, while they figured out how these rules got in the manual ... then laughter and relief when they realized that the WAC was trying to use the rules in a way they weren't meant to be used, and that they could simply be rewritten to disallow it.

The other question I keep asking that nobody has answered definitively -- who would vote on this rule change? It's an NCAA rule, not a CFP rule.

FBS rule so final vote is taken by one president from each existing FBS league.

(01-11-2017 09:50 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 06:34 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 06:31 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 05:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I actually did a deep dive through the NCAA manual a few weeks ago, and was pretty surprised that the black-letter rules say that former FBS conferences can give out FBS invites.

The problem with what you just said here, is a lack of context for when the rule was written and the intention of the rule.

They did it, at the time, to give the WAC a chance to survive by inviting a couple FCS schools up. That was the intention, and it was supposed to happen around 2011. But it never did.

So what would happen if the WAC suddenly decided it wanted to use the rule in 2017 to invite six FCS schools and then declare itself a FBS conference?

Confusion and panic, while they figured out how these rules got in the manual ... then laughter and relief when they realized that the WAC was trying to use the rules in a way they weren't meant to be used, and that they could simply be rewritten to disallow it.

The other question I keep asking that nobody has answered definitively -- who would vote on this rule change? It's an NCAA rule, not a CFP rule.

FBS rule so final vote is taken by one president from each existing FBS league.

Thanks. You're 100% sure about that? If that's the case, I don't see how FBS WAC could possibly get off the ground before the rule was changed. Unless people want to spend years in court.