Disclaimer: I'm probably channeling my departed internet friend NoDak (I knew him as SiouxVolley on the UND board). I do miss that guy.

The east has the SBC, MAC, C-USA, and AAC. The west has the MWC. (My definition of west is the Mississippi River.)

The MWC doesn't consider itself "entry level" like the SBC and C-USA (and even MAC by inviting UMass at the time) seem to be by inviting FCS schools; thus, the west has no entry level G5 conference.

I say the west needs an entry level G5. But no existing G5 wants to expand to the front range or the upper Midwest (distance, climate).

Two options I've pondered:

Option 1: "Build it yourself" -- get a coalition together -- Montanas, xDSUs, UxDs, Idaho, Weber St, EWU, then BB only Denver, Omaha, and St. Thomas (they'll play Pioneer FB a while yet). 9FB, 12BB. Denver and MSP and Spokane and Omaha markets. That way should the MWC (or B12) need schools they have already made FBS teams. How can they build FBS with no invitation? Simply call the NCAA and point out they set precedent with Liberty.

Option 2: "Life raft" for CUSA -- Form six team "north division" of CUSA. CUSA gets DI members to keep their conference status during their transitions; the six get an FBS invite. The six would be Montanas, xDSUs, UxDs. Seventh would be Idaho because they wouldn't want BSC w/o Montanas. But neither would EWU. (At this point why do you need CUSA other than the invite, and this becomes effectively Option1 again.)

Holes in my notion? Surely. The SD schools seem cool at best to FBS. Not all of the mentioned schools are ready for FBS (Montana doesn't sponsor the minimum total sports for FBS). Not everyones' facilities are there (UND, UI are missing FB seats). And does anyone want to create something new and radical in this economic and athletic environment full of uncertainty?

Why would it work? Academically this consortium would have better standing than the MAC, actually most G5s. And they'd have at least 8 US Senators looking out for them. They could mirror the B1G's "Academic Alliance". These schools also do not have geography and climate concerns: they live it already.

OK ... poke holes in it.

(05-19-2022 10:43 AM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  I say the west needs an entry level G5. But no existing G5 wants to expand to the front range or the upper Midwest (distance, climate).

The SD schools seem cool at best to FBS. Not all of the mentioned schools are ready for FBS (Montana doesn't sponsor the minimum total sports for FBS). Not everyones' facilities are there (UND, UI are missing FB seats). And does anyone want to create something new and radical in this economic and athletic environment full of uncertainty?


OK ... poke holes in it.

I think you did a pretty good job of poking the holes already - but the easiest hole is your original premise.

Other than you saying so, why does the west need another G5?

And why do you need more entry level teams?

(05-19-2022 10:54 AM)inutech Wrote:  Other than you saying so, why does the west need another G5?

Why does the southeast need the SBC and CUSA?
Why does the rust belt need the MAC?
Why aren't those still FCS level?

The answer to why another G5, why more entry level, is: a path to FBS.

(05-19-2022 10:54 AM)inutech Wrote:  I think you did a pretty good job of poking the holes already - but the easiest hole is your original premise.

A long time ago someone taught me that if you can't argue both sides, you don't know the argument.

(05-19-2022 11:01 AM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 10:54 AM)inutech Wrote:  Other than you saying so, why does the west need another G5?

Why does the southeast need the SBC and CUSA? One could argue that both are not needed, but the south is the most populated region of the country. Based off of 2021 numbers, the south makes up 38.3% of the country's total population, coming in at a whopping 127.25 million people. The closest to that? The west, at 78.7 million people, but do remember that California makes up nearly 40 million of that population, leaving the other 38.7 million people to be spread out over Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana.

Why does the rust belt need the MAC? The midwest comes in third place in US population at nearly 69 million people, spread out over North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. That's a massive chunk of states, but do realize that many of these areas are much more densely populated than say ND or SD.

Why aren't those still FCS level? Because these conferences are made up of schools that are often closer in geographic alignment, sans CUSA. The Sun Belt, MAC, and MWC are relatively compact conferences, especially when you look at those divisions. If you were to look at the upper-midwest-to-west, which might include Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Wyoming, there aren't as many viable FCS teams to create a strong, concise conference. In that region, you have Portland State, Eastern Washington, Montana, Montana State, Idaho State, North Dakota, North Dakota State, South Dakota, and South Dakota State. By bus, the drive from SDSU to Portland State would be a full 24-hours. On top of that, many of these schools are not close to larger airports that would make flying commercial cheap enough to warrant the move, which is why many of them have never made any sort of commitment to FBS football, or even expressed interest.

The answer to why another G5, why more entry level, is: a path to FBS. The path is already there, though. Location can be a deterrent, yes, but if you're willing to commit to it and the chips fall where they need to, most any team can make an FBS move. Liberty proved that. Hell, even schools like Hawaii and New Mexico State have made it work on their islands. The path already exists. Creating another path for them to just realize that they don't have the means or desire to take it doesn't make any sense.

(05-19-2022 10:43 AM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  Disclaimer: I'm probably channeling my departed internet friend NoDak (I knew him as SiouxVolley on the UND board). I do miss that guy.

The east has the SBC, MAC, C-USA, and AAC. The west has the MWC. (My definition of west is the Mississippi River.)

The MWC doesn't consider itself "entry level" like the SBC and C-USA (and even MAC by inviting UMass at the time) seem to be by inviting FCS schools; thus, the west has no entry level G5 conference.

I say the west needs an entry level G5. But no existing G5 wants to expand to the front range or the upper Midwest (distance, climate).

Two options I've pondered:

Option 1: "Build it yourself" -- get a coalition together -- Montanas, xDSUs, UxDs, Idaho, Weber St, EWU, then BB only Denver, Omaha, and St. Thomas (they'll play Pioneer FB a while yet). 9FB, 12BB. Denver and MSP and Spokane and Omaha markets. That way should the MWC (or B12) need schools they have already made FBS teams. How can they build FBS with no invitation? Simply call the NCAA and point out they set precedent with Liberty.

Option 2: "Life raft" for CUSA -- Form six team "north division" of CUSA. CUSA gets DI members to keep their conference status during their transitions; the six get an FBS invite. The six would be Montanas, xDSUs, UxDs. Seventh would be Idaho because they wouldn't want BSC w/o Montanas. But neither would EWU. (At this point why do you need CUSA other than the invite, and this becomes effectively Option1 again.)

Holes in my notion? Surely. The SD schools seem cool at best to FBS. Not all of the mentioned schools are ready for FBS (Montana doesn't sponsor the minimum total sports for FBS). Not everyones' facilities are there (UND, UI are missing FB seats). And does anyone want to create something new and radical in this economic and athletic environment full of uncertainty?

Why would it work? Academically this consortium would have better standing than the MAC, actually most G5s. And they'd have at least 8 US Senators looking out for them. They could mirror the B1G's "Academic Alliance". These schools also do not have geography and climate concerns: they live it already.

OK ... poke holes in it.

The WAC fell apart as an FBS conference, mostly because of a lack of candidates out West to backfill with. Also, C-USA has conference offices in Texas and will likely continue to target Texas based callups as needed. The AAC has a heavy SWC presence now too (Tulsa, Rice, UTSA, UNT, SMU). I just don't know that there is a glaring need for another FBS league out West.

Did you know most of the MVFC and BSC (FCS conferences) fly charter to away games already? Most have a "400 mile by bus" internal rule. Like I said, ... These schools also do not have geography and climate concerns: they live it already.

And the landscape has changed with the "bona fide invite" rule. No one can just move up any more; it requires an invite. And folks in this thread already have admitted no existing G5 wants the front range or upper Midwest in January.

(05-19-2022 11:49 AM)freshtop Wrote:  The WAC fell apart as an FBS conference, mostly because of a lack of candidates out West to backfill with.

I think you just defined why a western entry-level G5 is needed.

(05-19-2022 11:40 AM)8993 Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 11:01 AM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 10:54 AM)inutech Wrote:  Other than you saying so, why does the west need another G5?

Why does the southeast need the SBC and CUSA? One could argue that both are not needed, but the south is the most populated region of the country. Based off of 2021 numbers, the south makes up 38.3% of the country's total population, coming in at a whopping 127.25 million people. The closest to that? The west, at 78.7 million people, but do remember that California makes up nearly 40 million of that population, leaving the other 38.7 million people to be spread out over Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana.

Why does the rust belt need the MAC? The midwest comes in third place in US population at nearly 69 million people, spread out over North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. That's a massive chunk of states, but do realize that many of these areas are much more densely populated than say ND or SD.

Why aren't those still FCS level? Because these conferences are made up of schools that are often closer in geographic alignment, sans CUSA. The Sun Belt, MAC, and MWC are relatively compact conferences, especially when you look at those divisions. If you were to look at the upper-midwest-to-west, which might include Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Wyoming, there aren't as many viable FCS teams to create a strong, concise conference. In that region, you have Portland State, Eastern Washington, Montana, Montana State, Idaho State, North Dakota, North Dakota State, South Dakota, and South Dakota State. By bus, the drive from SDSU to Portland State would be a full 24-hours. On top of that, many of these schools are not close to larger airports that would make flying commercial cheap enough to warrant the move, which is why many of them have never made any sort of commitment to FBS football, or even expressed interest.

The answer to why another G5, why more entry level, is: a path to FBS. The path is already there, though. Location can be a deterrent, yes, but if you're willing to commit to it and the chips fall where they need to, most any team can make an FBS move. Liberty proved that. Hell, even schools like Hawaii and New Mexico State have made it work on their islands. The path already exists. Creating another path for them to just realize that they don't have the means or desire to take it doesn't make any sense.

Liberty is a bad example. Other than Grand Canyon, there is nobody with bottomless pots of money to pull off what Liberty has. Most schools are like Idaho or Delaware that realize that there aren't the resources available to make it work from an all sports standpoint. NMSU had to hope that one of the two continents that they were just offshore from would take them in.C-USA was that one.

(05-19-2022 11:52 AM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 11:49 AM)freshtop Wrote:  The WAC fell apart as an FBS conference, mostly because of a lack of candidates out West to backfill with.

I think you just defined why a western entry-level G5 is needed.

If there weren’t enough interested in FBS to save it then are there enough now? The WAC could play FBS football again if there were enough programs interested. To my knowledge there aren’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(05-19-2022 11:55 AM)whittx Wrote:  Most schools are like Idaho or Delaware that realize that there aren't the resources available to make it work from an all sports standpoint. NMSU had to hope that one of the two continents that they were just offshore from would take them in. C-USA was that one.

If you're not "in footprint" it's not going to happen or work is what you're saying. And there is nothing close to the front range or upper Midwest. That's why I say they should build it themselves.

I believe the group I mention in Option 1 would surpass the MAC (athletics and academics) in a decade* after formation.


*That'll win some MAC friends, but WMU and Miami don't like UND already. See: NCHC.

My question is do we know if there is an interest by the Dakota and Montana schools to move to fbs? If any of them are interested have they approached CUSA, the most likely destination, with a presentation the way Tarleton State and EKU have?

I believe NDSU has some interest but only for the MWC which means they may have a very long wait. The South Dakota State AD has been quoted as saying fcs is a good fit for them and to me they would make a good pairing with NDSU for CUSA for football only eventually.

There doesn't really appear to be any schools in that region clamoring for an fbs home.

(05-19-2022 12:20 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  I believe NDSU has some interest but only for the MWC which means they may have a very long wait.

I do not believe the MWC will take direct from FCS. They do not consider themselves "entry level" G5.

Is there little apparent FBS interest in the region because there's no nearby entry-level option? Would that change if there was an option full of similar institutions?

(05-19-2022 12:26 PM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 12:20 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  I believe NDSU has some interest but only for the MWC which means they may have a very long wait.

I do not believe the MWC will take direct from FCS. They do not consider themselves "entry level" G5.

Is there little apparent FBS interest in the region because there's nearby no option? Would that change if there was an option full of similar institutions?

The Montana schools had the WAC option available, and if they had bitten, would have kept Idaho, SJSU and maybe picked up another school. The issue is that the WAC was the island of misfit toys between the remaining Big West schools once most of the Cal States dropped football and the non-Airport 8 WAC schools

(05-19-2022 12:08 PM)freshtop Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 11:52 AM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 11:49 AM)freshtop Wrote:  The WAC fell apart as an FBS conference, mostly because of a lack of candidates out West to backfill with.

I think you just defined why a western entry-level G5 is needed.

If there weren’t enough interested in FBS to save it then are there enough now? The WAC could play FBS football again if there were enough programs interested. To my knowledge there aren’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There’s not even non-football schools in the west that are interested in moving up.

(05-19-2022 11:02 AM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 10:54 AM)inutech Wrote:  I think you did a pretty good job of poking the holes already - but the easiest hole is your original premise.

A long time ago someone taught me that if you can't argue both sides, you don't know the argument.

Very good philosophy. "Steel man" that opposing argument up.

If there was a mutual demand for it, I suppose 5 western based FCS teams could join C-USA in a west division with UTEP and NMSU but I don’t know that either side desires it. I think the Big Sky schools and the Dakota ones are comfortable right where they are at.

(05-19-2022 11:52 AM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 11:49 AM)freshtop Wrote:  The WAC fell apart as an FBS conference, mostly because of a lack of candidates out West to backfill with.

I think you just defined why a western entry-level G5 is needed.

I think he just described why it isn't. If the only reason for having a new western FBS conference is to create a path to FBS, there would have to be more western schools who want one than there are open spots in existing FBS conferences. Right now, there is plenty of room for additions to CUSA.

Are MWC teams having a hard time finding FBS OOC opponents? If not, I still have to ask why we need a sixth G conference.

(05-19-2022 01:54 PM)ken d Wrote:  ... there is plenty of room for additions to CUSA.

They may have room, but does CUSA (footprint) want to add trips to the Dakotas?

Shortest distance (CUSA to SE corner of SD, Vermillion) would be 900 miles. That's "normal" to BSC and MVFC schools; that's ghastly to conferences used to being on a bus home after every game.