Idaho exploring backup plan to drop to FCS

[tigonian02]

http://www.idahostatesman.com/sports/college/university-of-idaho/article53627180.html

Sounds like if the Sunbelt doesn't renew their contract, they may be willing to drop to the Big Sky. They would be the first team ever to drop from FBS to FCS. Personally I agree that it makes much more sense regionally for them to drop. Thoughts?

[BisonFan02]

"Drop" to the Big Sky? Sounds like a geographic lateral move to me. xlolx

[UIWWildthing]

Idaho in FCS would make them more competitive long term. I feel this would be a good move for them.

[tigonian02]

"Drop" to the Big Sky? Sounds like a geographic lateral move to me. xlolx

Perhaps I could choose better words. Geographically, this isn't a lateral move....a move to the Big Sky would be a definitive upgrade as opposed to being in a conference located mostly in the south. The move from FBS to FCS is the drop I refer to.

[clenz]

This would give the BSC 14 teams. While divisions wouldn't (likely) be formed it would make it easier to balance a schedule, would it not?

[BisonFan02]

Perhaps I could choose better words. Geographically, this isn't a lateral move....a move to the Big Sky would be a definitive upgrade as opposed to being in a conference located mostly in the south. The move from FBS to FCS is the drop I refer to.

The Sunbelt to the Big Sky was the lateral move I was referring to.....it is a definite upgrade geographically with the Montana schools, EWU...etc.

[tribe_pride]

That would be really awkward for how to give scholarships because dropping 20 something scholarships really makes classes imbalanced. I guess you hope a number of people transfer out so you can replace them with incoming Freshman scholarships (but would it be to late when you find out they are transferring?). Otherwise, there is at least 1 maybe 2 classes with almost no scholarships.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

North

North Dakota
Montana
Montana State
Idaho
Idaho State
Portland State
Eastern Washington

South

Cal Poly
Northern Arizona
Northern Colorado
Sacramento State
Southern Utah
Weber State
UC Davis

Seems to fit pretty well....

[tomq04]

North

North Dakota
Montana
Montana State
Idaho
Idaho State
Portland State
Eastern Washington

South

Cal Poly
Northern Arizona
Northern Colorado
Sacramento State
Southern Utah
Weber State
UC Davis

Seems to fit pretty well....


I was looking at this last summer, makes the most sense for sure. Guaranteed schedule against your north/south conference mates, and 4 OOC games. Unfortunately not sure if we would do a championship game or not, would make for a weird situation that no one else has.

[Laker]

They should have done this already. It makes sense geographically and competition wise.

I wonder what will happen with New Mexico State?

[tigonian02]

The Sunbelt to the Big Sky was the lateral move I was referring to.....it is a definite upgrade geographically with the Montana schools, EWU...etc.

That's a debate that we should leave in the 4638485 other posts that argue the benefits/disadvantages of FBS vs FCS. I will say that from an Idaho standpoint it seems that going to the BSC is choice #1 IF they don't get a contract renewal to stay in the Sunbelt.

[BisonFan02]

I was looking at this last summer, makes the most sense for sure. Guaranteed schedule against your north/south conference mates, and 4 OOC games. Unfortunately not sure if we would do a championship game or not, would make for a weird situation that no one else has.

It looks like both are only a few quality schools away from being two different conferences.

[BisonFan02]

That's a debate that we should leave in the 4638485 other posts that argue the benefits/disadvantages of FBS vs FCS. I will say that from an Idaho standpoint it seems that going to the BSC is choice #1 IF they don't get a contract renewal to stay in the Sunbelt.

.......like I said, the Sunbelt isn't some golden goose that is better than the Big Sky. Its topical in this thread. You consider it a drop...I consider it a convouluted gray area at best. Idaho isn't a regional fit for the belt....and the competition doesn't turn the cranks any more than the powers in the Big Sky would. To each their own.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Here's another question. Could FCS and the Big Sky simply waive the requirement for existing scholarship holders and have the Vandals be eligible for the FCS playoffs the second they join Big Sky football? As Fullerton said, it's unprecedented, so maybe there could be an "unprecedented" waiver to let them compete in the playoffs.

Also worthy of mention here is: When going from FCS to FBS, the idea of the transition is for the whole athletic department to manage an FBS athletic department and the new requirements. In Idaho's case none of that applies. They're already in the Big Sky in all other sports and the only thing they would be doing is reducing the number of scholarships for football.

[FormerPokeCenter]

There are a few schools who dropped from Division I to I-AA, so while incredibly rare, it's not exactly a first..

Unless you're being hyper technical and referring to schools which are in the precisely named FBS and FCS.

[dewey]

That would be really awkward for how to give scholarships because dropping 20 something scholarships really makes classes imbalanced. I guess you hope a number of people transfer out so you can replace them with incoming Freshman scholarships (but would it be to late when you find out they are transferring?). Otherwise, there is at least 1 maybe 2 classes with almost no scholarships.

Sounds like they would be ineligible for the playoffs for a few years. How exactly they trim the scholarships in football and the entire athletic department is a good question. You would imagine that some football players would be pretty pissed about losing their scholarship. However the other athletic programs that may need to get cut would be extremely pissed off that the move to FBS failed and is now directly affecting their sport.

Here is an excerpt from the article.
The transition would be a multi-year process, and should Idaho become the first school to ever drop from FBS to FCS, the football program would likely play a hybrid schedule and be ineligible for the playoffs in 2018 and 2019, Big Sky Commissioner Doug Fullerton said Thursday.


Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/sports/college/university-of-idaho/article53627180.html#storylink=cpy

It does make more sense for.them to be in the Big Sky especially since all other sports are in that league.

Dewey

[Bronco]

Already in the Big Sky in Basketball

[clenz]

I was looking at this last summer, makes the most sense for sure. Guaranteed schedule against your north/south conference mates, and 4 OOC games. Unfortunately not sure if we would do a championship game or not, would make for a weird situation that no one else has.
Can't believe no one else has pointed out the obvious on this

- - - Updated - - -

I doubt kids would lose their scholarships. They'd be over the limit for 2 or three years (transitional years mostly anyway). Big deal

[tigonian02]

Here's another question. Could FCS and the Big Sky simply waive the requirement for existing scholarship holders and have the Vandals be eligible for the FCS playoffs the second they join Big Sky football? As Fullerton said, it's unprecedented, so maybe there could be an "unprecedented" waiver to let them compete in the playoffs.

Also worthy of mention here is: When going from FCS to FBS, the idea of the transition is for the whole athletic department to manage an FBS athletic department and the new requirements. In Idaho's case none of that applies. They're already in the Big Sky in all other sports and the only thing they would be doing is reducing the number of scholarships for football.

Interesting thought. I can see the argument about scholarships as an "unfair advantage" keeping them out of the playoffs at least for year 1.

[Silenoz]

I wonder how much of the roster would transfer to remain FBS. I also how many fans would transfer because their obsession with Boise State would be incompatible with "giving up" on FBS and admitting defeat to the Broncos

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Just looking at this without looking into it too much yet it seems like this might be a way for Idaho administration to get themselves "put into a bad situation" intentionally so they can do what is best for the school and have a scapegoat or way to blame some of this on the SBC so they have to do what they should have done a few years and make the BSC their home again.

I doubt they are worried too much about losing some fans. If their fans had been that powerful then more would have happened at that school and ticket prices for games would not have been about what the average price of a BSC game is.

Also, to Tom, what clenz is referring to I believe is something that has been sort of a known commodity around AGS fro a long time in that conferences can not have a championship game and be eligible for the playoffs...those teams would not be allowed in from what I remember. The CAA didn't do it, we won't be doing it.

This has been in movement for a couple years now and it may be standing on the edge of coming to fruition now but I think Benson will maybe want to keep them and that is the key is how hard he sells it or if he just let's it go. Idaho is just some safety for the SBC I think, that is it.

[NDSUtk]

So Big Sky institutions fans - do you feel this would be a positive add from the football perspective? I'm not familiar with Idaho at all. So curious, do you think they'll be a top, middle or bottom team at the start?

On a slightly different note, I'm curious what this does to the coaches. Just looked and their coach is at 415k base with a potential for about 300k in bonuses (granted he only hit 5k according to USA today). For an FCS school that would be out of line. So does he look to jump ship to maintain pay?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[FormerPokeCenter]

The Slumbelch's geographic footprint is ridiculous....New Mexico at least gets some semi-close games, but Idaho is totally ****ed anyway you look at it.

How are you supposed to have great fan involvement and get the students involved if all of your games require exorbitant travel arrangements?

The additional resources necessary to compete in FBS are tough enough for marginal schools, but adding in ridiculous travel is a recipe for disaster...

[AmsterBison]

Idaho going to the Big Sky for football makes a lot of sense.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

So Big Sky institutions fans - do you feel this would be a positive add from the football perspective? I'm not familiar with Idaho at all. So curious, do you think they'll be a top, middle or bottom team at the start?

On a slightly different note, I'm curious what this does to the coaches. Just looked and their coach is at 415k base with a potential for about 300k in bonuses (granted he only hit 5k according to USA today). For an FCS school that would be out of line. So does he look to jump ship to maintain pay?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Idaho was, and probably will be again a national team in FCS. They always had great talent and would be a great addition to the BSC again.

Nobody is pining for them, but us that have been around know that they were a great fit in FCS. It would be good for them, it would be good for us.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

The Slumbelch's geographic footprint is ridiculous....New Mexico at least gets some semi-close games, but Idaho is totally ****ed anyway you look at it.

How are you supposed to have great fan involvement and get the students involved if all of your games require exorbitant travel arrangements?

The additional resources necessary to compete in FBS are tough enough for marginal schools, but adding in ridiculous travel is a recipe for disaster...

Exactly. When Idaho was in the conference me and friends always went there and we always had a lot of Idaho fans come here. They traveled pretty decently back in the day....even for Basketball games.

[clenz]

Idaho was, and probably will be again a national team in FCS. They always had great talent and would be a great addition to the BSC again.

Nobody is pining for them, but us that have been around know that they were a great fit in FCS. It would be good for them, it would be good for us.
I was too young and didn't see it, but the stories from those at the UNI/Idaho game in 91 or 92 are awesome.

I believe it was #1 vs #2 in the UNIDome

[clenz]

I looked it up

1992

UNI was 5-0 going into the game with wins over McNeese State, Idaho State, Iowa State, Western Kentucky, and Southern Illinois
Idaho was 6-0 with wins over St Cloud State, Colorado State, Weber State, CSU-Northridge, Idaho State and EWU

UNI won 27-26 on a last second field goal, if I'm not mistaken.

Idaho ended up losing in the playoffs to McNeese State

UNI beat EWU and McNeese State in the playoffs before losing to YSU in the semi finals.

I'd welcome Idaho back and hope they'd be a top 10-15 team again. I wasn't around really following FCS when they were rolling but I'd love to see it again.

[BisonFan02]

Can't believe no one else has pointed out the obvious on this

- - - Updated - - -

I doubt kids would lose their scholarships. They'd be over the limit for 2 or three years (transitional years mostly anyway). Big deal

Screw FCS playoff eligibility.... xlolx

[pokefan02]

Idaho would still be able to have 85 players on scholarship. All they would need to do is divide the 63 among the 85. Some players might be pissed, but they would all still have scholarships.

Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Nussmier and Friesz were two great Vandals QBs from the FCS era.

[clenz]

Screw FCS playoff eligibility.... xlolx
Big Sky Title Game in Vegas at Sam Boyd Stadium

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Idaho would still be able to have 85 players on scholarship. All they would need to do is divide the 63 among the 85. Some players might be pissed, but they would all still have scholarships.

Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk

This is also literally all they would need to do in order to go back to FCS. That and possibly re-jigger some Title IX scholarships around. It's also possible that they could mix scholarship aid and other aid around so that participation is the same, most get the same $$$ and Title IX is about the same.

Another argument for waiving the transition period and making them eligible for the FCS playoffs immediately.

[clenz]

Another argument for waiving the transition period and making them eligible for the FCS playoffs immediately.
I'd be okay this this.


I'm not sure Idaho would be a top flight team as it stands right now anway

[UNIFanSince1983]

I looked it up

1992

UNI was 5-0 going into the game with wins over McNeese State, Idaho State, Iowa State, Western Kentucky, and Southern Illinois
Idaho was 6-0 with wins over St Cloud State, Colorado State, Weber State, CSU-Northridge, Idaho State and EWU

UNI won 27-26 on a last second field goal, if I'm not mistaken.

Idaho ended up losing in the playoffs to McNeese State

UNI beat EWU and McNeese State in the playoffs before losing to YSU in the semi finals.

I'd welcome Idaho back and hope they'd be a top 10-15 team again. I wasn't around really following FCS when they were rolling but I'd love to see it again.

I was obviously fairly young (8 to be exact), but I do remember this game. I actually think my Dad still has it on VHS which is why I probably remember it so well. I would watch all the VHS games that he would tape all the time when I was younger. This was an amazing game between two great teams!

[UNIFanSince1983]

North

North Dakota
Montana
Montana State
Idaho
Idaho State
Portland State
Eastern Washington

South

Cal Poly
Northern Arizona
Northern Colorado
Sacramento State
Southern Utah
Weber State
UC Davis

Seems to fit pretty well....

Does make sense, but looks a little imbalanced. Of course no different than the Big 10 this year or the SEC every year so it probably can work.

[catamount man]

Idaho should be back in the BIG SKY as of yesterday. No future in FBS. I can say that about 1/2 of the "group of 5" teams.

[BisonFan02]

Idaho should be back in the BIG SKY as of yesterday. No future in FBS. I can say that about 1/2 of the "group of 5" conferences.

Slight FIFY

[PAllen]

Just looking at this without looking into it too much yet it seems like this might be a way for Idaho administration to get themselves "put into a bad situation" intentionally so they can do what is best for the school and have a scapegoat or way to blame some of this on the SBC so they have to do what they should have done a few years and make the BSC their home again.

I doubt they are worried too much about losing some fans. If their fans had been that powerful then more would have happened at that school and ticket prices for games would not have been about what the average price of a BSC game is.

Also, to Tom, what clenz is referring to I believe is something that has been sort of a known commodity around AGS fro a long time in that conferences can not have a championship game and be eligible for the playoffs...those teams would not be allowed in from what I remember. The CAA didn't do it, we won't be doing it.

This has been in movement for a couple years now and it may be standing on the edge of coming to fruition now but I think Benson will maybe want to keep them and that is the key is how hard he sells it or if he just let's it go. Idaho is just some safety for the SBC I think, that is it.

Are teams playing in a conference championship really ineligible for the playoffs, or are the just already booked on playoff week one? In other words, if a conference played through the bye week, or shortened the season by one game to accommodate a conference championship game on the last week of the regular season, would that really disqualify them?

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Idaho would still be able to have 85 players on scholarship. All they would need to do is divide the 63 among the 85. Some players might be pissed, but they would all still have scholarships.

Sent from my 831C using Tapatalk

I am not sure but it is possible and maybe even probable that Idaho is not currently giving the max as it is.

[kdinva]

I am not sure but it is possible and maybe even probable that Idaho is not currently giving the max as it is.

I agree.........1-A schollys have to be "full"......I'd bet they have got only 74-77 on scholly......same with a few of the MAC teams, I'd bet.

[walliver]

This is also literally all they would need to do in order to go back to FCS. That and possibly re-jigger some Title IX scholarships around. It's also possible that they could mix scholarship aid and other aid around so that participation is the same, most get the same $$$ and Title IX is about the same.

Another argument for waiving the transition period and making them eligible for the FCS playoffs immediately.

D-II teams moving to FCS have a waiting period for the playoffs.
FCS going to FBS have a two year transition.
It is hard to argue that a team moving to a lower scholarship level wouldn't have to sit out.
Ideally, Idaho should honor all existing scholarships, limit new scholarships to FCS levels, and be ineligible for the playoffs for 2-4 years until their scholarships are at FCS levels. They would also have to fire a few coaches.
I don't see why people are arguing that other sports would have to suffer, the move would only affect football.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

D-II teams moving to FCS have a waiting period for the playoffs.
FCS going to FBS have a two year transition.
It is hard to argue that a team moving to a lower scholarship level wouldn't have to sit out.

It's also hard to argue that the little bit of extra scholarship money would be so destabilizing that Idaho would dominate during that transition period.

The purported function of the transition period is not so much for one sport but to give the sports extra time to deal with the extra compliance stuff they need to deal with as athletic departments. By going from FBS to FCS, they are going from more strict to less strict - in only one sport. I am willing to bet it is much easier to transfer from FBS to FCS than the other way around. Also, this is not the same as D-II to D-III, where your whole methodology changes from some scholarships to none.

[aceinthehole]

There are a few schools who dropped from Division I to I-AA, so while incredibly rare, it's not exactly a first.


Hasn't been done since 1986.

The only football program that reclassified down in football from any Division I subdivision post-1981 is West Texas A&M. They played football at the I-A and I-AA level in the MVC from 1972-1985. They reclassified their entire athletic program from I/I-AA to D-II for the 1986-87 season.

[melloware13]

For the scholarships, one thing Idaho could do is add 12 men's scholarships elsewhere such as Soccer or Swimming. If the BSC wanted to, they could have a CCG on the last week of the regular season for the autobid, similar to the PSAC in DII. Everyone would play a crossover game, but the division winners are paired for the championship

[NoCoDanny]

It seems like a no brainer but it's never that simple... I look at it like this, Boise St and Nevada moved up at the same time, the results have been polar opposite... but also you see the commitment by those two as far as facilities etc. I don't see Idaho being any different as a program as they were 20 years ago. If they were a legit FBS program you'd think they would have built a stadium at some point if nothing else.

They are an FCS program in all but name.

[ST_Lawson]

Hasn't been done since 1986.

The only football program that reclassified down in football from any Division I subdivision post-1981 is West Texas A&M. They played football at the I-A and I-AA level in the MVC from 1972-1985. They reclassified their entire athletic program from I/I-AA to D-II for the 1986-87 season.

And the only other time I can remember hearing about a school doing something similar, it wasn't a football school. Centenary College reclassified from DI (they were in the Summit League with a bunch of us MVFC schools) down to DIII in 2012.

[dgtw]

I think cutting someone from full scholarship to partial would be morally wrong. I agree they probably aren't at a full 85. Some may bail if they say they are dropping to FCS, so that will help some. It will rake a few years but it will work itself out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jsnow84]

Didn't Bill and Mary reclassify from 1A to 1AA?

[ursus arctos horribilis]

This is also literally all they would need to do in order to go back to FCS. That and possibly re-jigger some Title IX scholarships around. It's also possible that they could mix scholarship aid and other aid around so that participation is the same, most get the same $$$ and Title IX is about the same.

Another argument for waiving the transition period and making them eligible for the FCS playoffs immediately.

No. They should have to do it just as any other team with an advantage would....the move to FBS'ers and so forth. They would have an advantage and should be required to sit out for a couple. Now I doubt that would make the NC's or even conference champs but it doesn't matter. Remember why the "Marshall Rule" came into play...an advantage gained and Idaho should surely have more of an advantage being established in FBS than say a CCU would.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

It's also hard to argue that the little bit of extra scholarship money would be so destabilizing that Idaho would dominate during that transition period.

The purported function of the transition period is not so much for one sport but to give the sports extra time to deal with the extra compliance stuff they need to deal with as athletic departments. By going from FBS to FCS, they are going from more strict to less strict - in only one sport. I am willing to bet it is much easier to transfer from FBS to FCS than the other way around. Also, this is not the same as D-II to D-III, where your whole methodology changes from some scholarships to none.

Nobody said they would dominate. They would have an advantage. That means wait until you are working under the same rules as all others have the ability to do.

[dgtw]

The average FBS player is going to be better than the average FCS player. An argument could be made they would not be eligible for four years or at least until all the FBS guys are gone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Laker]

And the only other time I can remember hearing about a school doing something similar, it wasn't a football school. Centenary College reclassified from DI (they were in the Summit League with a bunch of us MVFC schools) down to DIII in 2012.

I thought about them. Their name came up at a Tulsa-Oklahoma football broadcast a few years ago when they were talking about the D1 schools with the smallest enrollments.

[1984]

I am sure they would loose a few players who could move to a different FBS school.

[Grizzlies82]

So Big Sky institutions fans - do you feel this would be a positive add from the football perspective? I'm not familiar with Idaho at all. So curious, do you think they'll be a top, middle or bottom team at the start?

On a slightly different note, I'm curious what this does to the coaches. Just looked and their coach is at 415k base with a potential for about 300k in bonuses (granted he only hit 5k according to USA today). For an FCS school that would be out of line. So does he look to jump ship to maintain pay?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

In the long run this would be positive for both Idaho and for the Big Sky conference. Currently Idaho is lousy in FBS. I suspect if they played in the Big Sky next year, even with their higher scholarship limits and supposed FBS talent, at best they'd be somewhat better than a middle of the road team. Yet they had a history of fielding decent teams and suspect they would do so again in the future.

Personally I'd love to see it since Idaho is Montana's oldest rival (except for MT State) with a nearly 90 game history. Historically they hold the edge in wins by a wide margin. However for about five years after they moved up they continued to play UM. Yet after the Grizzlies won about three in a row they dropped the series. We need to start it up again to balance the overall record. "Back in the day", the Big Sky games I looked forward to were Montana State, Idaho, Boise State, and Nevada. It is rather sad. The last three left for FBS and the first one essentially quit playing football altogether.

As you point out, joining the Big Sky would be rough for a few years with financial changes. That is as far as salary changes and adjusting the program's number of coaches. They'd need to also honor their existing (full) scholarships so it would be a few years to bring those in line with FCS levels and our ability to give out partials. I have no idea if they'd need to drop some women's scholarships to balance over all numbers or if they'd shuffle some to other males in sports outside of football. Yet ultimately none of these points would be insurmountable.

It would just be rocky initially. In the end Idaho would have five conference foes within about 300 miles, and essentially all their conference games would be as close as they currently have just one (New Mexico State). Financially, competitively, and from the standpoint of a fan (once they got beyond the bruised ego) it all makes sense. Hope it happens.

[DFW HOYA]

And the only other time I can remember hearing about a school doing something similar, it wasn't a football school. Centenary College reclassified from DI (they were in the Summit League with a bunch of us MVFC schools) down to DIII in 2012.

Birmingham Southern joined Division I in 2003, dropped out of Division I in 2006, added football, and joined Division III in 2007.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham%E2%80%93Southern_Panthers_football

[Hammersmith]

It looks like both are only a few quality schools away from being two different conferences.

Truth. Several UND posters here and at SiouxSports like to contrast the Summit League with the Big Sky and point out how unstable the former is and how stable is the latter. What they don't understand(or choose to ignore) is that the Big Sky is almost as unstable as the Summit. The Summit gains and loses teams regularly, but stays at about the same total number of members. That's one type of instability. The Big Sky hasn't lost any members for a long time, but they keep adding them. That's another type of instability. Only a conference like the Ivy League is truly stable.

If the Big Sky continues to add teams, eventually there will be a split. A group of members will find they have more in common with each other than the rest of the membership, and they'll split off to form their own conference. Or the core group of old Big Sky schools will get fed up with all the new additions and want to return to their roots. It happened to the WAC(old WAC schools left to form the MWC), it happened to the Big East(basketball schools got fed up with the new football focus), and it could very well happen to the Big Sky if it's core membership goes beyond 14.


Here's another question. Could FCS and the Big Sky simply waive the requirement for existing scholarship holders and have the Vandals be eligible for the FCS playoffs the second they join Big Sky football? As Fullerton said, it's unprecedented, so maybe there could be an "unprecedented" waiver to let them compete in the playoffs.

Also worthy of mention here is: When going from FCS to FBS, the idea of the transition is for the whole athletic department to manage an FBS athletic department and the new requirements. In Idaho's case none of that applies. They're already in the Big Sky in all other sports and the only thing they would be doing is reducing the number of scholarships for football.

There can't be a waiver for a process that doesn't exist yet. The problem with an FBS to FCS transition is that there is no mechanism in place for it. There are detailed rules written regarding DII/DIII/NAIA moves to DI, and there are detailed rules for FCS to FBS moves, but there is nothing in the rule book about the reverse. Notice that Fullerton said a two-year ban was 'likely'. That's because there is no official process yet, and everyone is guessing how it will work. If Idaho decides to move down, an NCAA committee will be created to draft a new procedure which will be hurriedly voted on and added to the rule book.


I agree.........1-A schollys have to be "full"......I'd bet they have got only 74-77 on scholly......same with a few of the MAC teams, I'd bet.

Common misconception. Partial scholarships are allowed in FBS(and basketball, volleyball, etc.). There's just no good reason to give them out other than as punishment or dire financial straits. All the NCAA cares about in FBS is counters. A student-athlete becomes an FBS counter as soon as they get any athletic-based aid. It doesn't matter if it's one dollar or a full-scholarship. Now, since giving a student-athlete a buck affects your scholarship limit as much as a full scholarship, you might as well give the full to attract the best player possible. But it's not required. What you can't do is split 85 scholarships over more than 85 players. That's a big no-no.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Are teams playing in a conference championship really ineligible for the playoffs, or are the just already booked on playoff week one? In other words, if a conference played through the bye week, or shortened the season by one game to accommodate a conference championship game on the last week of the regular season, would that really disqualify them?

Missed this earlier PAllen but someone had posted the rule years back and basically what I remember it saying is that any teams playing in any other post season championship then they were ineligible for the playoffs. I'll try and find it later but that is how I remember it.

We never say the 2 division CAA do it and I always assumed this was the reason but don't know for sure.

[Hammersmith]

Missed this earlier PAllen but someone had posted the rule years back and basically what I remember it saying is that any teams playing in any other post season championship then they were ineligible for the playoffs. I'll try and find it later but that is how I remember it.

We never say the 2 division CAA do it and I always assumed this was the reason but don't know for sure.


18.7 Postseason Football.
18.7.1 Permissible Football Games. [FBS/FCS] The only football games in which a member institution may compete are:
(e) A conference championship game on an open date during the traditional fall season, provided the game is played (as opposed to scheduled) the week prior to the first round of an NCAA football championship date and provided the game is listed on the schedules of all conference members;

So conference championship games plus playoffs are allowed, but the game has to occur on the final week of the regular season, and all conference members have to keep that date open. That means either getting everyone to put their bye on the final weekend or only going with a 10-game regular season(11 games every few years). You can see why it hasn't been done before.

[BisonFan02]

So conference championship games plus playoffs are allowed, but the game has to occur on the final week of the regular season, and all conference members have to keep that date open. That means either getting everyone to put their bye on the final weekend, or only going with a 10-game regular season(11 games every few years). You can see why it hasn't been done before.

..............sooooo you're saying there's a chance? :D

[ursus arctos horribilis]

So conference championship games plus playoffs are allowed, but the game has to occur on the final week of the regular season, and all conference members have to keep that date open. That means either getting everyone to put their bye on the final weekend, or only going with a 10-game regular season(11 games every few years). You can see why it hasn't been done before.

Yeah, there it is. It is why I put post season in my reply as it was one thing I remember being in the way and why FCS conferences were not likely to have this.

[ST_Lawson]

So conference championship games plus playoffs are allowed, but the game has to occur on the final week of the regular season, and all conference members have to keep that date open. That means either getting everyone to put their bye on the final weekend or only going with a 10-game regular season(11 games every few years). You can see why it hasn't been done before.

What about something like this though....

You've got 14 teams, split them into two divisions of 7 teams.

You start with your relatively standard one game against an FBS, two against non-conference FCS: 3 games
Each team plays each other team in their own division: 6 games
Add in 1 game that's either another non-conference, or maybe a cross-division rivalry game: 1 game

Then, after the "regular season" is over for the conference, teams are ranked 1-7 in their division.
For the final weekend of the season, #1s play each other for the conference championship, but also #2s play each other, #3s play each other, etc...all the way down to the #7s playing each other: 1 game

Total of 11 games, keep the bye week earlier in the season, wherever works.

Conference champion gets the auto-bid. Likely the other #1 and one or both of the #2s will get at-large bids to the playoffs, depending on how the rest of the season went.

Not only do you have a competition for the conference championship, but you also have something of "divisional bragging rights" for which division wins the most of the games. Like...who wins 4 (or more) out of the 7 matchups. You also end up with likely relatively competitive games, since the best teams are playing each other, but also the worst teams are playing each other.

To make it easier on the scheduling, probably the location of the matchups would have to go back and forth each year. All games @ North (or East) division one year, all games @ South (or West) division the next. Just like everyone usually does with regular in-conference games (Western plays at NDSU in 2015, NDSU plays at Western in 2016). That way, everyone knows whether their last game is home or away, they just may not know until the last weekend of their "regular season" who the specific opponent will be.

Thoughts? Completely dumb?

Of course there's the problem of having an odd number of teams. This really only works with an even split between divisions (7 teams each, 8 teams each, etc.).

[Hammersmith]

What about something like this though....

You've got 14 teams, split them into two divisions of 7 teams.

You start with your relatively standard one game against an FBS, two against non-conference FCS: 3 games
Each team plays each other team in their own division: 6 games
Add in 1 game that's either another non-conference, or maybe a cross-division rivalry game: 1 game

Then, after the "regular season" is over for the conference, teams are ranked 1-7 in their division.
For the final weekend of the season, #1s play each other for the conference championship, but also #2s play each other, #3s play each other, etc...all the way down to the #7s playing each other: 1 game

[snip]

Thoughts? Completely dumb?

Of course there's the problem of having an odd number of teams. This really only works with an even split between divisions (7 teams each, 8 teams each, etc.).

At first I thought this wouldn't work, but I'm coming around to it. Another one of the allowable game bylaws goes like this:

(b) Any football game scheduled between two colleges [which is to be played on a common and regular open date (as defined in Bylaw 18.02.3) of their regular football seasons, on the campus or in the regular playing stadium of either team], even if it is scheduled after the beginning of either participant’s football season;

That seems to suggest that a conference could keep the last Saturday of the regular season open and then schedule those games after the penultimate weekend was over. I can see a few other problems this scenario could create, but I don't see anything flat-out prohibiting it.



BTW, can anyone parse the following out? I think it's just talking about ordinarily scheduled, regular-season games, but it reads as gobbledygook to me.

(a) Games scheduled as to the identity of a participating college before the beginning of the regular football season of the institution for any academic year, including not only games for which the identity of one participating college is known, but also one for which the institution’s opponent is not known at the time of scheduling;

[JALMOND]

So Big Sky institutions fans - do you feel this would be a positive add from the football perspective? I'm not familiar with Idaho at all. So curious, do you think they'll be a top, middle or bottom team at the start?

On a slightly different note, I'm curious what this does to the coaches. Just looked and their coach is at 415k base with a potential for about 300k in bonuses (granted he only hit 5k according to USA today). For an FCS school that would be out of line. So does he look to jump ship to maintain pay?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Just soaking up this idea and remembering back to crazy times when both Idaho and Boise were in the Big Sky. Aaaaahhhhh!!!!!

Simply put, Idaho should have negotiated a return to the Big Sky when they lost Boise as a leveraging partner in their quest to be relevant in the FBS (when Boise left them high and dry and moved to the Mountain West without them). Right now, as it has not been done in awhile, precedence will be set if they do return. If they are allowed to compete while over the scholly limit, other schools on the edge of FBS will no doubt want the same arrangement themselves. As schools that move up are not allowed to participate in the playoffs right away but have to go through a "transition" period, I think it is not too much to ask Idaho to do the same thing while they move down.

Also, I'll be able to return to my own college days and start hating little Petrino again. I wonder if he has picked up any of his father's strange little quirks. xlolx

[OleGriz]

BTW, can anyone parse the following out? I think it's just talking about ordinarily scheduled, regular-season games, but it reads as gobbledygook to me.


(a) Games scheduled as to the identity of a participating college before the beginning of the regular football season of the institution for any academic year, including not only games for which the identity of one participating college is known, but also one for which the institution’s opponent is not known at the time of scheduling;

I couldn't find what you're quoting from, so I don't know the context, but it sounds like (a) refers to something like the two division 1v1, 2v2, etc. proposal, or something akin to the BracketBusters in basketball where a team knows they have a game home or away on a certain day, but not necessarily who the opponent will be at the start of the season.

[Hammersmith]

I couldn't find what you're quoting from, so I don't know the context, but it sounds like (a) refers to something like the two division 1v1, 2v2, etc. proposal, or something akin to the BracketBusters in basketball where a team knows they have a game home or away on a certain day, but not necessarily who the opponent will be at the start of the season.

Sorry, it's from the DI manual in the section about allowable football games. Bylaw 18.7.1.a.

I quoted the beginning of it earlier in this thread, but forgot some might have missed it. It's the beginning of that first sentence that's getting me.

Put together with the previous text, it starts:

"The only football games in which a member institution may compete are games scheduled as to the identity of a participating college before the beginning of the regular football season of the institution for any academic year."

I just think that "as to the identity of" bit is really poorly worded. Even for the DI manual, which is notoriously bad for that.


Oh well, just the dumb stuff you get fixated on when you're desperately waiting for 11am CST to roll around.

[Mr. C]

Hasn't been done since 1986.

The only football program that reclassified down in football from any Division I subdivision post-1981 is West Texas A&M. They played football at the I-A and I-AA level in the MVC from 1972-1985. They reclassified their entire athletic program from I/I-AA to D-II for the 1986-87 season.

There is the example of Winston-Salem State, which moved from Division II and the CIAA to the MEAC and Division I a few years back. The Rams began having financial difficulties as a university (not just athletics) and dropped back down to the D-II level during the transition period.

[Mr. C]

I have both covered and followed the Idaho program over the course of over 30 years. As a matter of fact, the first D-I game I ever covered was an Idaho-Fresno State game during my college days in the late 1970s. In covering the Sun Belt Conference over the past two seasons with Appalachian State's move to FBS, I think that a move back to FCS would be extremely beneficial to the Vandals. Having watched them the past two years, I think they would have been in the middle of the pack, at best, in the Big Sky Conference. People who made the trip to Moscow from Boone for this season's game were impressed with the improvements that have been made to the Kibbie Dome and, over time, Idaho could probably get back to playing competitively in the Big Sky. The travel costs and other logistical problems of playing football in the Sun Belt make it almost impossible for the Idaho program to succeed. If the Vandals can swallow their institutional pride, the Big Sky is obviously the best place for them in football.

In moving from D-II to D-I, the major issues deal with compliance issues. There are different academic standards for receiving a D-II scholarship than a D-I scholarship, hence the three-year transition period that North Dakota State and other programs have had to follow. The only major issue for a team stepping down is how to go from 85 schollies back to 63. I'm sure that could be worked out easily enough by the folks at the NCAA and the Big Sky.

[WestCoastAggie]

It may make sense to split the Big Sky into 2 divisions.

[WestCoastAggie]

Yeah, there it is. It is why I put post season in my reply as it was one thing I remember being in the way and why FCS conferences were not likely to have this.

A champ. Game in the Big Sky? Sounds like a good idea to me!

[ursus arctos horribilis]

A champ. Game in the Big Sky? Sounds like a good idea to me!

It is set up so it won't happen whether we would like it or not. It would be too difficult to pull off within the current rules.

[WestCoastAggie]

It is set up so it won't happen whether we would like it or not. It would be too difficult to pull off within the current rules.

It sounds like to me that the NCAA needs to change things around a tad if they don't want the Big Sky to flip them the bird too. The potential revenue from a Champ game between you all may be too much to pass up. I would think that most Big Sky schools, specifically the Montana ones can mobilize their fan bases to attend a champ game in Seattle, WA, Denver, CO, or in their prospective home barns.

[kdinva]

How about the "North" be the Big Sky.........and the "south" call themselves the Big West, or similar......both would have 6 conf. games, could schedule each other for OOC games, and the Big West's auto bid would replace the MEAC's....




North

North Dakota
Montana
Montana State
Idaho
Idaho State
Portland State
Eastern Washington

South

Cal Poly
Northern Arizona
Northern Colorado
Sacramento State
Southern Utah
Weber State
UC Davis

Seems to fit pretty well....

[ST_Lawson]

How about the "North" be the Big Sky.........and the "south" call themselves the Big West, or similar......both would have 6 conf. games, could schedule each other for OOC games, and the Big West's auto bid would replace the MEAC's....

Well that just makes too much sense.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

It sounds like to me that the NCAA needs to change things around a tad if they don't want the Big Sky to flip them the bird too. The potential revenue from a Champ game between you all may be too much to pass up. I would think that most Big Sky schools, specifically the Montana ones can mobilize their fan bases to attend a champ game in Seattle, WA, Denver, CO, or in their prospective home barns.

I honestly can not think of one team in the BSC that would opt for a championship game over the playoffs. I honestly can't even think of one fan that I know personally that would go for it.

Maybe something does change but in the overall playoffs it is already a tad too long for most peoples taste (mine includedO so that just doesn't see reasonable for the field.

In other words, it seems good in theory, but it won't happen in practice. I keep harkening back to the large CAA from 10 yrs. back as an example...a good one, to look at.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Well that just makes too much sense.

The members, and the conference would probably not be real keen on it. Can't speak for others but just don't think it would fly.

[Yote 53]

That Big Sky North, add the other 3 Dakota schools and we're getting close to that dream conference with the Dakotas, Montanas, and Idahos in the same conference some have talked about. Just spin that conference off from the BSC, or do a BSC, Big West split like was mentioned with a cross conference scheduling agreement for OOC games.

Just internet banter. The big 3 Dakota schools are sitting just fine in the MVFC. Still, if something happened to the Valley basketball schools, you never know.

[BisonFan02]

That Big Sky North, add the other 3 Dakota schools and we're getting close to that dream conference with the Dakotas, Montanas, and Idahos in the same conference some have talked about. Just spin that conference off from the BSC, or do a BSC, Big West split like was mentioned with a cross conference scheduling agreement for OOC games.

Just internet banter. The big 3 Dakota schools are sitting just fine in the MVFC. Still, if something happened to the Valley basketball schools, you never know.

You answered your own question....

[Mr. C]

When the CAA was split into two divisions, it was almost a guarantee that the winner of each division got into the playoffs, whether they deserved it, or not. One team got the auto bid and the other was almost viewed as a champion and earned an at-large berth. The same divisional set-up might help the Big Sky earn more bids. It sure might have helped this season with teams like Northern Arizona and North Dakota on the wrong side of the bubble.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

When the CAA was split into two divisions, it was almost a guarantee that the winner of each division got into the playoffs, whether they deserved it, or not. One team got the auto bid and the other was almost viewed as a champion and earned an at-large berth. The same divisional set-up might help the Big Sky earn more bids. It sure might have helped this season with teams like Northern Arizona and North Dakota on the wrong side of the bubble.

Yep, it is another reason why no championsip game will happen once all is thought out.

[SUUTbird]

Might be important to take into account as well the rumors of Fullerton wanting to split the Big Sky Conference into an FBS and FCS Division for Football only which in this case I think would work out pretty well. Also I think that all of the Dakota schools would jump at the chance to join in FBS conference made up of current Big Sky and MVC schools, even for Football only. When breaking it down you could easily have the following conference:

Big Sky FBS
-Montana
-Montana State
-Idaho
-Idaho State
-Eastern Washington
-NDSU (Football Only)
-SDSU (Football Only)
-New Mexico State (Football Only)

Would give us a solid core of eight teams and a pretty decent looking conference. However if we wanted to follow the mold of other FBS Conferences I also can see a certain number of the following teams joining to give us a conference championship game:

-NAU
-Portland State
-Cal Poly
-North Dakota
-South Dakota
-UNI

Any combination of the schools with the ones listed above to get to 12 teams would be a pretty solid conference in my opinion.

[clenz]

So....just start an FBS conference then?

[Mr. C]

The problem with starting an FBS conference is that you would lose your automatic bid for the lucrative NCAA men's basketball tournament. Also, NCAA officials said that you can't start a brand new FBS conference without legislative change when we are at the FCS Summit conference in 2011 in Frisco. CAA commish Tom Yeager asked the NCAA point-blank about that.

[centennial]

^ Yup this is fantasy. Liberty go ahead and sue the NCAA, cause that's the only chance the hopefuls have.

[Twentysix]

^ Yup this is fantasy. Liberty go ahead and sue the NCAA, cause that's the only chance the hopefuls have.

#OnlineTithesForLibertyInCFP

[DFW HOYA]

The problem with starting an FBS conference is that you would lose your automatic bid for the lucrative NCAA men's basketball tournament.

How did the AAC & Big East do it?

[Laker]

How did the AAC & Big East do it?

Great question.

[rokamortis]

Great question.

They took advantage of an NCAA by-law that allows a conference to have an autobid (apologize I don't have the details exact) if X number of teams (I think 6) have played together for Y (I think 2) years. Since both conferences had enough teams that had played together for the required time frame after the split they were allowed to keep they autobids. A completely new conference probably wouldn't be so lucky. Plus, FBS rules won't allow move ups to create their own conference since the teams have to already be FBS.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

How did the AAC & Big East do it?

http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/bcs_selection_procedures.html

Automatic Qualification
1. The top two teams in the final BCS Standings shall play in the National Championship Game.2. The champions of the Atlantic Coast, American Athletic (formerly Big East), Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, and Southeastern conferences will have automatic berths in one of the participating bowls through the 2013 regular season.3. The champion of Conference USA, the Mid-American Conference, the Mountain West Conference, the Sun Belt Conference, or the Western Athletic Conference will earn an automatic berth in a BCS bowl game if either:

A. Such team is ranked in the top 12 of the final BCS Standings, or,
B. Such team is ranked in the top 16 of the final BCS Standings and its ranking in the final BCS Standings is higher than that of a champion of a conference that has an annual automatic berth in one of the BCS bowls.


Short answer is that they were "written into" the BCS formula. When the FCP "formula" was created, the Big East/AAC wasn't included. Simple as that.

[Grizzlies82]

http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/bcs_selection_procedures.html

Automatic Qualification
1. The top two teams in the final BCS Standings shall play in the National Championship Game.2. The champions of the Atlantic Coast, American Athletic (formerly Big East), Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, and Southeastern conferences will have automatic berths in one of the participating bowls through the 2013 regular season.3. The champion of Conference USA, the Mid-American Conference, the Mountain West Conference, the Sun Belt Conference, or the Western Athletic Conference will earn an automatic berth in a BCS bowl game if either:

A. Such team is ranked in the top 12 of the final BCS Standings, or,
B. Such team is ranked in the top 16 of the final BCS Standings and its ranking in the final BCS Standings is higher than that of a champion of a conference that has an annual automatic berth in one of the BCS bowls.


Short answer is that they were "written into" the BCS formula. When the FCP "formula" was created, the Big East/AAC wasn't included. Simple as that.

So based upon this the Big Sky Conference should simply rename itself the "Western Athletic Conference" and problem solved. FBS and ready to rock! :)

[centennial]

So based upon this the Big Sky Conference should simply rename itself the "Western Athletic Conference" and problem solved. FBS and ready to rock! :)
They lost the rights after 2 years of inactivity. So no go. Montana had the chance to save the WAC and choose not to. All of us are stuck.

[clenz]

So based upon this the Big Sky Conference should simply rename itself the "Western Athletic Conference" and problem solved. FBS and ready to rock! :)
2 years are gone.

If that wasn't the case the MVC could just up and start FBS again

[mvemjsunpx]

They lost the rights after 2 years of inactivity. So no go. Montana had the chance to save the WAC and choose not to. All of us are stuck.

I really doubt Montana would've been enough to save WAC football.

[mvemjsunpx]

I honestly can not think of one team in the BSC that would opt for a championship game over the playoffs. I honestly can't even think of one fan that I know personally that would go for it.

No kidding. It would make the Big Sky the SWAC minus the positives.

[Go Green]

Birmingham Southern joined Division I in 2003, dropped out of Division I in 2006, added football, and joined Division III in 2007.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham%E2%80%93Southern_Panthers_football

Davidson went from I-AA to D-III and back to I-AA in the late 1980s/early 1990s.

[Professor Chaos]

Didn't read the whole thread so I apologize if this has been discussed already but....

If Idaho did drop to the Big Sky I'd really like to see them split into separate conferences, if only just for football. Having 14 teams in a conference is waaaaay too many when there's no championship game. Splitting into two 7 team leagues would allow an extra autobid and give BSC schools some regional OOC opponents (who they likely have a history with). To offset the problem of having to schedule 5 OOC games every year maybe they could form a "scheduling alliance" (which was essentially what the Great West Conference was back in the day) where each team in both conferences gets a guaranteed home game and road game OOC with a team from the other conference (determined by the conferences schedule makers) so they get their 8 guaranteed games (4 home and 4 away) and only have 3 OOC to fill after that.

[Sycamore62]

Didn't read the whole thread so I apologize if this has been discussed already but....

If Idaho did drop to the Big Sky I'd really like to see them split into separate conferences, if only just for football. Having 14 teams in a conference is waaaaay too many when there's no championship game. Splitting into two 7 team leagues would allow an extra autobid and give BSC schools some regional OOC opponents (who they likely have a history with). To offset the problem of having to schedule 5 OOC games every year maybe they could form a "scheduling alliance" (which was essentially what the Great West Conference was back in the day) where each team in both conferences gets a guaranteed home game and road game OOC with a team from the other conference (determined by the conferences schedule makers) so they get their 8 guaranteed games (4 home and 4 away) and only have 3 OOC to fill after that.

I agree with this. I like conferences that have a round robin schedule not potentially multiple undefeated teams UNLESS you could have a championship game.

If I were any team thinking of moving any direction, I would try to wait to see if other musical chairs happen in the next couple years or if they P5 does something significant that puts the G5 with the upper FCS level teams

[mvemjsunpx]

Didn't read the whole thread so I apologize if this has been discussed already but....

If Idaho did drop to the Big Sky I'd really like to see them split into separate conferences, if only just for football. Having 14 teams in a conference is waaaaay too many when there's no championship game. Splitting into two 7 team leagues would allow an extra autobid and give BSC schools some regional OOC opponents (who they likely have a history with). To offset the problem of having to schedule 5 OOC games every year maybe they could form a "scheduling alliance" (which was essentially what the Great West Conference was back in the day) where each team in both conferences gets a guaranteed home game and road game OOC with a team from the other conference (determined by the conferences schedule makers) so they get their 8 guaranteed games (4 home and 4 away) and only have 3 OOC to fill after that.

Not a good idea. The best part of the Great West absorption was that it greatly increased the Big Sky's number of games against other conferences OOC. If there's a split like you suggest, any regular-season games against the Southland, MVFC, etc., would become quite rare.

[Professor Chaos]

Not a good idea. The best part of the Great West absorption was that it greatly increased the Big Sky's number of games against other conferences OOC. If there's a split like you suggest, any regular-season games against the Southland, MVFC, etc., would become quite rare.
Well, the SLC is almost exclusively scheduling D2s and FBS teams OOC now that they went to the 9 game conference schedule so that's out already. I guess if there's less Big Sky/MVFC matchups OOC then so be it. I just don't like how two schools competing for the same autobid could potentially have only 2 common opponents in 8 conference games if this were to happen.

[centennial]

I really doubt Montana would've been enough to save WAC football.
Montana and Montana State would have probably convinced the others to not jump ship.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Montana and Montana State would have probably convinced the others to not jump ship.

True, and I'm glad that did not happen.

[F'N Hawks]

Well, the SLC is almost exclusively scheduling D2s and FBS teams OOC now that they went to the 9 game conference schedule so that's out already. I guess if there's less Big Sky/MVFC matchups OOC then so be it. I just don't like how two schools competing for the same autobid could potentially have only 2 common opponents in 8 conference games if this were to happen.

FWIW, I believe UND has scheduled Sammy in a home/home coming up in the 2017-2019 range.

[tomq04]

What about something like this though....

You've got 14 teams, split them into two divisions of 7 teams.

You start with your relatively standard one game against an FBS, two against non-conference FCS: 3 games
Each team plays each other team in their own division: 6 games
Add in 1 game that's either another non-conference, or maybe a cross-division rivalry game: 1 game

Then, after the "regular season" is over for the conference, teams are ranked 1-7 in their division.
For the final weekend of the season, #1s play each other for the conference championship, but also #2s play each other, #3s play each other, etc...all the way down to the #7s playing each other: 1 game

Total of 11 games, keep the bye week earlier in the season, wherever works.

Conference champion gets the auto-bid. Likely the other #1 and one or both of the #2s will get at-large bids to the playoffs, depending on how the rest of the season went.

Not only do you have a competition for the conference championship, but you also have something of "divisional bragging rights" for which division wins the most of the games. Like...who wins 4 (or more) out of the 7 matchups. You also end up with likely relatively competitive games, since the best teams are playing each other, but also the worst teams are playing each other.

To make it easier on the scheduling, probably the location of the matchups would have to go back and forth each year. All games @ North (or East) division one year, all games @ South (or West) division the next. Just like everyone usually does with regular in-conference games (Western plays at NDSU in 2015, NDSU plays at Western in 2016). That way, everyone knows whether their last game is home or away, they just may not know until the last weekend of their "regular season" who the specific opponent will be.

Thoughts? Completely dumb?

Of course there's the problem of having an odd number of teams. This really only works with an even split between divisions (7 teams each, 8 teams each, etc.).


This sounds amazing.

[bobcathpdevil56]

What about something like this though....

You've got 14 teams, split them into two divisions of 7 teams.

You start with your relatively standard one game against an FBS, two against non-conference FCS: 3 games
Each team plays each other team in their own division: 6 games
Add in 1 game that's either another non-conference, or maybe a cross-division rivalry game: 1 game

Then, after the "regular season" is over for the conference, teams are ranked 1-7 in their division.
For the final weekend of the season, #1s play each other for the conference championship, but also #2s play each other, #3s play each other, etc...all the way down to the #7s playing each other: 1 game

Total of 11 games, keep the bye week earlier in the season, wherever works.

Conference champion gets the auto-bid. Likely the other #1 and one or both of the #2s will get at-large bids to the playoffs, depending on how the rest of the season went.

Not only do you have a competition for the conference championship, but you also have something of "divisional bragging rights" for which division wins the most of the games. Like...who wins 4 (or more) out of the 7 matchups. You also end up with likely relatively competitive games, since the best teams are playing each other, but also the worst teams are playing each other.

To make it easier on the scheduling, probably the location of the matchups would have to go back and forth each year. All games @ North (or East) division one year, all games @ South (or West) division the next. Just like everyone usually does with regular in-conference games (Western plays at NDSU in 2015, NDSU plays at Western in 2016). That way, everyone knows whether their last game is home or away, they just may not know until the last weekend of their "regular season" who the specific opponent will be.

Thoughts? Completely dumb?

Of course there's the problem of having an odd number of teams. This really only works with an even split between divisions (7 teams each, 8 teams each, etc.).

I believe the NAIA North Star Conference did something like this during this last season. It is NAIA and different rules, I know, but they had #1 v. #8, #2 v. #7 and so on. I think it was in the Fargo Dome over one weekend. Sounded like it went well and was well received by fans.

Some of you ND guys might be able to elaborate more on this.

[BisonFan02]

I believe the NAIA North Star Conference did something like this during this last season. It is NAIA and different rules, I know, but they had #1 v. #8, #2 v. #7 and so on. I think it was in the Fargo Dome over one weekend. Sounded like it went well and was well received by fans.

Some of you ND guys might be able to elaborate more on this.

I could elaborate more later....but the North Star is an absolute joke....has been since the old Dak 10 dissolved. This is coming from a Jamestown grad by the way....I wouldnt use them as a case study for the BSC.

[bobcathpdevil56]

I could elaborate more later....but the North Star is an absolute joke....has been since the old Dak 10 dissolved. This is coming from a Jamestown grad by the way....I wouldnt use them as a case study for the BSC.

I was using it is an example of leaving an "open" date on the schedule, but having it be a guaranteed conference game. They would determine who you play by matching you to another team by record or standings, even if you have already played them this year.

[mvemjsunpx]

Montana and Montana State would have probably convinced the others to not jump ship.

I doubt it, plus why would MSU have gone to the WAC anyway?

[BisonFan02]

I was using it is an example of leaving an "open" date on the schedule, but having it be a guaranteed conference game. They would determine who you play by matching you to another team by record or standings, even if you have already played them this year.

Neutral site games in the North Star against schools that are not really natural rivals doesn't turn the cranks of alums.....like I said, I wouldn't use it as an example. How would the travel work with short notice in the BSC to charter road teams? Personally, I think it is a cool idea for the BSC........BUT, you better be damn sure you can keep an even # of members...Otherwise, you could have a schedule snafu if you had to backtrack on an agreement like this with dates/teams.

[bobcathpdevil56]

I doubt it, plus why would MSU have gone to the WAC anyway?

If I remember correctly, MSU was waiting on UM to decide and we probably would have followed them or at least tried to follow them. It was a very confusing time for any football fans in Montana

[ursus arctos horribilis]

If I remember correctly, MSU was waiting on UM to decide and we probably would have followed them or at least tried to follow them. It was a very confusing time for any football fans in Montana

Montana would not have went anywhere without MSU anyway I'm fairly sure. It would be a package or lump it thing.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

BTW, if it was MSU that did keep us out of that ****, I can't thank you enough.

[SactoHornetFan]

Sacramento State was looking at the WAC but once Nevada and Fresno State jumped ship, that was the end of that. Of course, San Jose State followed suit a year later. There could have been 4 WAC teams within 200 miles of each other. That would have been tremendous travel savings for those schools and allow fans easy travel to go on the road especially for football. They would be all day trips (well, everyone wants an overnight in Reno to play at the slots and card tables afterwards).

[DFW HOYA]

The idea of two conferences is an interesting discussion. Who owns the rights to the WAC name?

Remember, the rights to the Big East name was one of the great underreported stories of the last conference realignment mess. Why was it underreported? Because ESPN (and their surrogates at the ACC) were asleep at the wheel.

[UNDOregon]

The idea of two conferences is an interesting discussion. Who owns the rights to the WAC name?

Remember, the rights to the Big East name was one of the great underreported stories of the last conference realignment mess. Why was it underreported? Because ESPN (and their surrogates at the ACC) were asleep at the wheel.

The WAC owns the rights to the WAC name, no? The WAC is an active athletic conference. I may have missed something in this thread but I am not sure why posters think that the WAC name is up for grabs.

[mvemjsunpx]

If I remember correctly, MSU was waiting on UM to decide and we probably would have followed them or at least tried to follow them. It was a very confusing time for any football fans in Montana

OK, that makes sense. I'm guessing most every politician in the state would cry bloody murder if one school tried to jump up without the other. The Brawl just brings in too much money, and they wouldn't want to risk that (& rightly so).

[Twentysix]

Montana would not have went anywhere without MSU anyway I'm fairly sure. It would be a package or lump it thing.

Its funny how different ND and MT are. We are more likely to be loyal to SDSU than UND in a hypothetical future divisional move.

Idaho and NM State would be great additions to the FCS. Hopefully they both move back to the FCS rather than disbanding football.

[ST_Lawson]

The WAC owns the rights to the WAC name, no? The WAC is an active athletic conference. I may have missed something in this thread but I am not sure why posters think that the WAC name is up for grabs.

Yea, they dropped football, but they're still a conference. They're kinda all over the place, but not quite as bad as the Sun Belt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Athletic_Conference

Chicago State and UMKC (Missouri-Kansas City) are in it, as is a for-profit religious university (Grand Canyon University)...it's a weird setup.

[UNIFanSince1983]

Did UMKC choose to leave the Summit or were they forced out?

[mvemjsunpx]

Did UMKC choose to leave the Summit or were they forced out?

No idea, but it did seem weird that they jumped to the WAC when everyone else was bolting.

[grayghost06]

Didn't Bill and Mary reclassify from 1A to 1AA?

W&M, Richmond and VMI and others were reclassified I-AA after the '81 season. This forced a drop from 95 scholarship players they had been allowed before. At the time, the NCAA allowed for this provision, primarily because most of the schools were not voluntarily moving to the lower level:
An amendment
was approved at the special
Convention allowing
Division I-A institutions that
have been reclassified Division
I-AA to exceed the limit of 75
by awarding not more than 85
awards during the 1982-83 academic
year. If an institution
chooses to exceed 75, however,
it will not be eligible for the
1982 NCAA Division I-AA
Football Championship.
NCAA News / February 15,1982


Not sure why the NCAA publication listed the scholarship limit for the new I-AA level at 75. I was under the impression that it was originally 70 and dropped to 63 when the NCAA mandated a 10% reduction for I-A (95 to 85) in the early 90s.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

W&M, Richmond and VMI and others were reclassified I-AA after the '81 season. This forced a drop from 95 to 70 scholarships. At the time, the NCAA allowed for this provision, primarily because most of the schools were not voluntarily moving to the lower level:
An amendment
was approved at the special
Convention allowing
Division I-A institutions that
have been reclassified Division
I-AA to exceed the limit of 75
by awarding not more than 85
awards during the 1982-83 academic
year. If an institution
chooses to exceed 75, however,
it will not be eligible for the
1982 NCAA Division I-AA
Football Championship.
NCAA News / February 15,1982


Great find. So there's historic precedent of setting a waiver for playoff eligibility.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Great find. So there's historic precedent of setting a waiver for playoff eligibility.

How?


however,
it will not be eligible for the
1982 NCAA Division I-AA
Football Championship.

[PantherRob82]

How?
If an institution
chooses to exceed 75, however,
it will not be eligible for the
1982 NCAA Division I-AA
Football Championship.

[UNDOregon]

Did UMKC choose to leave the Summit or were they forced out?

It was a voluntary move, based on wanting more exposure in bigger cities, Phoenix, Seattle, Salt Lake City, and Chicago. Both the WAC and the Summit have few members, so forcing schools out could kill the conferences. Don't expect those conferences to have expulsions at this time. There have been rumors that UMKC is reconsidering the Summit.

The WAC is in a precarious position. Its membership consists mostly of schools with no place to go. But, some of those schools are developing their options, such as New Mexico State's applications for full membership in the Sun Belt. Seattle University would love to join the other Catholic schools in the West Coast Conference; if BYU rejoins the Mountain West or goes somewhere else, there will be a spot in the WCC for Seattle University. Cal State Bakersfield wants to join the other California schools in the Big West.

WAC also decided to add as many schools as possible as affiliates, which seems desperate but impressively gives many schools a place for various sports. In survival mode, a conference does not have a geographic footprint and it does not concern itself with members having similar academic missions.

[ST_Lawson]

I think UMKC also wanted to go with (what appeared to be at the time) the more stable option.
When UMKC decided to leave, Southern Utah, Oral Roberts, Centenary, and Oakland were all in the process of moving elsewhere and the Summit didn't look like it was going to be around for too much longer. We were essentially at 6 full members at that time (Western, IUPUI, IPFW, NDSU, SDSU, and USD).

Shortly after that, or right around the same time (so likely after UMKC had already made the decision and started the paperwork), Nebraska-Omaha joined up, Denver came over from the WAC, and Oral Roberts rejoined the conference, which changed the picture dramatically. I've also heard rumors of UMKC wanting to maybe rejoin the Summit, but there are advantages to staying in the WAC, if the conference is able to remain somewhat stable. Primarily, the WAC is not as good of a basketball conference as the Summit now, and it's much easier to get the tournament auto-bid out of the WAC than it is out of the Summit. Neither are likely to have any at-large teams, so the auto-bid is pretty much the only way into the tournament.

[walliver]

Great find. So there's historic precedent of setting a waiver for playoff eligibility.

The salient point with the previous move was that it was involuntary.
A little historical perspective: http://www.nytimes.com/1981/12/05/sports/ivy-league-is-forced-to-lose-major-team-football-status.html

This is a very different situation from a team choosing to move to a new level. I don't see why so many people are downright giddy to think that Idaho should get a free pass. Is it some sort of hope that that would encourage all the G5 to "move down". An voluntary transition from one level to another should always be seen as a "transition", not a "move down". The point is somewhat moot, however, as I suspect Idaho would be a middle-of-the-pack Big Sky member for the first few years.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The salient point with the previous move was that it was involuntary.
A little historical perspective: http://www.nytimes.com/1981/12/05/sports/ivy-league-is-forced-to-lose-major-team-football-status.html

This is a very different situation from a team choosing to move to a new level. I don't see why so many people are downright giddy to think that Idaho should get a free pass. Is it some sort of hope that that would encourage all the G5 to "move down". An voluntary transition from one level to another should always be seen as a "transition", not a "move down". The point is somewhat moot, however, as I suspect Idaho would be a middle-of-the-pack Big Sky member for the first few years.

It's not so much as a giddiness for a mass move-down as it is establishing an easy way to do so with minimum penalty. Idaho remains a special case in many ways. I'm not at all saying that teams should be "forced" to move down, it's more that it shouldn't be difficult should schools choose.

Furthermore, a move up in spending from D-II to D-I or even FCS to FBS is a massive undertaking in compliance. That's why there's a transition period. It has nothing to do with competitiveness. Going the other direction, reducing spending and compliance, is completely different.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

If an institution
chooses to exceed 75, however,
it will not be eligible for the
1982 NCAA Division I-AA
Football Championship.

How does this make a difference? At the time 75 was the lower division number (now 63) from what I gathered earlier. If that is correct and I'm taking it as that then replace what was then the ceiling (75) with what is now the ceiling (63) and tell me "how?".

If the scholarship limit was NOT 75 then I concede the point.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

It's not so much as a giddiness for a mass move-down as it is establishing an easy way to do so with minimum penalty. Idaho remains a special case in many ways. I'm not at all saying that teams should be "forced" to move down, it's more that it shouldn't be difficult should schools choose.

Furthermore, a move up in spending from D-II to D-I or even FCS to FBS is a massive undertaking in compliance. That's why there's a transition period. It has nothing to do with competitiveness. Going the other direction, reducing spending and compliance, is completely different.

There is an advantage so stop pretending there isn't. When a team plays under the same rules, good, we include everyone. Until then, let's stop trying to say we are gonna guage it by some random "eye test" of "are they about the same" or whatever.

If they want to move back, they have a lot of good things laying around that they can just step right in to. Waiting a couple years for playoffs and the compliance of rules all others have followed for years is not a big f'n ask.

[Sader87]

I really don't know the particulars regarding schollie reduction etc at the time but HC also went from 1-A to 1-AA in 1982 and we were in the 1-AA playoffs in 1983.

Guessing, but I don't think we were giving anywhere near to 95 scholarships in 1981. If anything, HC actually got bettah/strongah in the ensuing decade it went 1-AA.

[PantherRob82]

How does this make a difference? At the time 75 was the lower division number (now 63) from what I gathered earlier. If that is correct and I'm taking it as that then replace what was then the ceiling (75) with what is now the ceiling (63) and tell me "how?".

If the scholarship limit was NOT 75 then I concede the point.

The waiver would be provided if they were under scholarship limits. If not, no waiver. Maybe I'm missing the point. :p

[ursus arctos horribilis]

The waiver would be provided if they were under scholarship limits. If not, no waiver. Maybe I'm missing the point. :p

Yeah, I think we're both missing something here cuz it seems clear to each of us, both looking at the same information, and yet, it is not clear. xlolx

I think we agree.

They could not get under scholarship limits in a first year unless they were already operating very close to fcs limits, which is possible but unlikely.

[PantherRob82]

Yeah, I think we're both missing something here cuz it seems clear to each of us, both looking at the same information, and yet, it is not clear. xlolx

I think we agree.

They could not get under scholarship limits in a first year unless they were already operating very close to fcs limits, which is possible but unlikely.

Whatever, let's get some beer. xlolx

[RabidRabbit]

Did UMKC choose to leave the Summit or were they forced out?

Umkc voluntarily jumped. Felt that they couldn't compete with SL schools, specifically, Dakota Schools.

[Bisonoline]

That would be really awkward for how to give scholarships because dropping 20 something scholarships really makes classes imbalanced. I guess you hope a number of people transfer out so you can replace them with incoming Freshman scholarships (but would it be to late when you find out they are transferring?). Otherwise, there is at least 1 maybe 2 classes with almost no scholarships.

You arent dropping 20 schollies. You have 63 full rides that can be divided up between 85 if you wish. So you will have some on fullrides and some on partial. But with FCOA that will help take some of the sting out of it.

[PAllen]

Interesting thought. Could Idaho drop to 63 schollies spread over 80+ players while making up the difference with FCOA? I don't know the exact numbers involved, but let's say that they currently offer 80 schollies. Say their tuition is $10k. FCOA is $2.5k. Make everyone's scholly a 3/4 scholly and make up the difference with $2.5k in FCOA funds. Current players loose nothing, and they're instantly at 60 schollies and 3 under the FCS limit.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Interesting thought. Could Idaho drop to 63 schollies spread over 80+ players while making up the difference with FCOA? I don't know the exact numbers involved, but let's say that they currently offer 80 schollies. Say their tuition is $10k. FCOA is $2.5k. Make everyone's scholly a 3/4 scholly and make up the difference with $2.5k in FCOA funds. Current players loose nothing, and they're instantly at 60 schollies and 3 under the FCS limit.

I would think they could. I still don't believe they would or should be allowed to play for championships for a year or two. Those players were requited under different conditions in that they were promised FBS play. I do think it might be a good way to help take the sting out of any troubles it would cause to those who stayed with the program.

[MarkyMark]

I would think they could. I still don't believe they would or should be allowed to play for championships for a year or two. Those players were requited under different conditions in that they were promised FBS play. I do think it might be a good way to help take the sting out of any troubles it would cause to those who stayed with the program.

Aw let em play if they can comply with FCS scholly limits. We need to encourage more FBS pretenders to drop down.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Aw let em play if they can comply with FCS scholly limits. We need to encourage more FBS pretenders to drop down.

Then why oh why are we not letting the schools moving up play in their first year transitioning? Comply and get level with the rules and welcome back. If we (FCS & NCAA) does things right like this then there isn't some big problem down the road because it was thought that playing it fast and loose was the way to go.

[MarkyMark]

Then why oh why are we not letting the schools moving up play in their first year transitioning? Comply and get level with the rules and welcome back. If we (FCS & NCAA) does things right like this then there isn't some big problem down the road because it was thought that playing it fast and loose was the way to go.

OK if that's the rule then follow it. If there are no rules for this situation then I say let them play.

In this particular team I don't see much threat of a deep playoff run but I could see a situation where the next FBS team to drop down (if there is another one) could whip through the playoff bracket.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

OK if that's the rule then follow it. If there are no rules for this situation then I say let them play.

In this particular team I don't see much threat of a deep playoff run but I could see a situation where the next FBS team to drop down (if there is another one) could whip through the playoff bracket.

I don't think there is a specific rule for teams coming down. I used the rule for teams moving up because it addresses basically the exact same issues.

App, GSU, ODU, etc all had to give up the playoffs after announcing because it gives an advantage. How could this same advantage not be present for a team already there...coming back down? That is my reasoning on the matter.

This particular team thing is what I've been sort of going after in that the standards should be the standards no matter what team we are talking about. That way the fairness of the doorway has integrity for anyone looking to cross it.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I don't think there is a specific rule for teams coming down. I used the rule for teams moving up because it addresses basically the exact same issues.

App, GSU, ODU, etc all had to give up the playoffs after announcing because it gives an advantage. How could this same advantage not be present for a team already there...coming back down? That is my reasoning on the matter.

This particular team thing is what I've been sort of going after in that the standards should be the standards no matter what team we are talking about. That way the fairness of the doorway has integrity for anyone looking to cross it.

Here's the thing though. In retrospect, would App, ODU, or GaSo have really whipped through the playoffs with the extra schollies? Personally I don't think so.

The last team that really used that type of thing to their advantage was Marshall -- different time, different football landscape. My impression is that they were FBS in all but name when they marched to their last titles. And if I remember, they didn't win the championship in their final season in I-AA.

Just so I'm consistent I'd be OK with transitioning teams competing for the playoffs in their swan song year.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Incidentally, the NCAA is now going to allow FBS conferences with less than 12 members to have a championship game. The Sun Belt doesn't need Idaho anymore in order to have the option for a championship game because they can hold one with only 10 teams. This is probably why they were studying the "Big Sky in all sports" option in the first place.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Here's the thing though. In retrospect, would App, ODU, or GaSo have really whipped through the playoffs with the extra schollies? Personally I don't think so.

The last team that really used that type of thing to their advantage was Marshall -- different time, different football landscape. My impression is that they were FBS in all but name when they marched to their last titles. And if I remember, they didn't win the championship in their final season in I-AA.

Just so I'm consistent I'd be OK with transitioning teams competing for the playoffs in their swan song year.

You keep saying this as if it has something to do with anything in the philosophy of why it shouldn't be done. Montana played a team that did whip through the god damn playoffs in 1996 and whether this particular team could or could not doesn't f'n matter. It is an unfair recruiting advantage, period. Anytime you have to say "here's the thing though" it's probably one of those situations where you are not looking at the whole picture and only acting like the compliance should be moveable depending on who one is talking about....that is a pure bull**** way of doing things.

You say things like "the landscape has changed" and so forth as if it also means something...it doesn't. This type of moving the goalposts crap makes for problems and if unfair at some point. Your way of doing things is absolutely ridiculous and creates unnecessary problems. Be fair to all and leave it be.

What if these teams didn't have enough to be the champs but just enough to knock other teams out early and truncate their run because of the advantage gained. Is that fair to those living by the rules? Use you noggin man.

[tigonian02]

You keep saying this as if it has something to do with anything in the philosophy of why it shouldn't be done. Montana played a team that did whip through the god damn playoffs in 1996 and whether this particular team could or could not doesn't f'n matter. It is an unfair recruiting advantage, period. Anytime you have to say "here's the thing though" it's probably one of those situations where you are not looking at the whole picture and only acting like the compliance should be moveable depending on who one is talking about....that is a pure bull**** way of doing things.

You say things like "the landscape has changed" and so forth as if it also means something...it doesn't. This type of moving the goalposts crap makes for problems and if unfair at some point. Your way of doing things is absolutely ridiculous and creates unnecessary problems. Be fair to all and leave it be.

What if these teams didn't have enough to be the champs but just enough to knock other teams out early and truncate their run because of the advantage gained. Is that fair to those living by the rules? Use you noggin man.

Good F***ing post!

[BisonFan02]

You keep saying this as if it has something to do with anything in the philosophy of why it shouldn't be done. Montana played a team that did whip through the god damn playoffs in 1996 and whether this particular team could or could not doesn't f'n matter. It is an unfair recruiting advantage, period. Anytime you have to say "here's the thing though" it's probably one of those situations where you are not looking at the whole picture and only acting like the compliance should be moveable depending on who one is talking about....that is a pure bull**** way of doing things.

You say things like "the landscape has changed" and so forth as if it also means something...it doesn't. This type of moving the goalposts crap makes for problems and if unfair at some point. Your way of doing things is absolutely ridiculous and creates unnecessary problems. Be fair to all and leave it be.

What if these teams didn't have enough to be the champs but just enough to knock other teams out early and truncate their run because of the advantage gained. Is that fair to those living by the rules? Use you noggin man.

http://skiffleboom.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/over_the_line_walter_lebowski_skiffleboom.jpg

[Lehigh Football Nation]

You keep saying this as if it has something to do with anything in the philosophy of why it shouldn't be done. Montana played a team that did whip through the god damn playoffs in 1996 and whether this particular team could or could not doesn't f'n matter. It is an unfair recruiting advantage, period. Anytime you have to say "here's the thing though" it's probably one of those situations where you are not looking at the whole picture and only acting like the compliance should be moveable depending on who one is talking about....that is a pure bull**** way of doing things.

You say things like "the landscape has changed" and so forth as if it also means something...it doesn't. This type of moving the goalposts crap makes for problems and if unfair at some point. Your way of doing things is absolutely ridiculous and creates unnecessary problems. Be fair to all and leave it be.

What if these teams didn't have enough to be the champs but just enough to knock other teams out early and truncate their run because of the advantage gained. Is that fair to those living by the rules? Use you noggin man.

On this board we are continuously saying that the difference between the lower levels of FBS and the elite of FCS is not that much different. Either it truly is, and the FCS playoffs needs to be protected from the tyranny of an ~85 scholarship team in the playoffs (assuming all the kids stay), or the difference is really not that great, in which case a ramp-down plan allows for these schools something to play for. It is not the same as 63 scholarship team having to find money and administration for stricter compliance for their athletes, finding money for Titie IX compliance, etc. in a move to FBS.

You are saying that moving FBS-->FCS and FCS-->FBS are the same thing. They aren't. You are saying a school at 63 promising a swift move to 85 is the same as a school at 85 that has to break it to recruits that they're headed to 63. It isn't.

[NY Crusader 2010]

You are saying that moving FBS-->FCS and FCS-->FBS are the same thing. They aren't. You are saying a school at 63 promising a swift move to 85 is the same as a school at 85 that has to break it to recruits that they're headed to 63. It isn't.

They are definitely not the same - the deck will not be nearly as stacked for Idaho next year as it was for Marshall in'96. Idaho will be breaking it to their entire team and incoming recruits that their dreams of playing FBS football will no longer be happening in Moscow. However, rules are rules and a line in the sand must be drawn somewhere. No different than Fordham being ineligible for the Patriot League title from 2010-2013. Did they run roughshod over the league during that time? No -- in fact, had they been eligible, they wouldn't have won any auto-bids during that time (would've been co-champs with Lafayette in 2013). Regardless, they were not playing within PL guidelines at the time and were not able to compete for a conference championship.

I actually have a similar attitude towards the situation as you -- I'm more inclined to say "let 'em play" and thought the same thing with regards to Fordham. "They have scholarships? So what? Let's beat them AND their schollies" was the attitude I had at the time. But in a large organization like the NCAA, there have to be bylaws just like nations need constitutions.

[Laker]

Anyone familiar enough with the Idaho program to venture a guess at the probability that they will make the move in football?

[NY Crusader 2010]

History lesson needed a more senior poster: when did Marshall announce they were moving to the MAC? My first two seasons following FCS football were 1995 and 1996 and I remember watching the title game in 96 - that team was unbelievable.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

History lesson needed a more senior poster: when did Marshall announce they were moving to the MAC? My first two seasons following FCS football were 1995 and 1996 and I remember watching the title game in 96 - that team was unbelievable.
OL FU would probably remember for sure but I think it was right after the 1995 season.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

On this board we are continuously saying that the difference between the lower levels of FBS and the elite of FCS is not that much different. Either it truly is, and the FCS playoffs needs to be protected from the tyranny of an ~85 scholarship team in the playoffs (assuming all the kids stay), or the difference is really not that great, in which case a ramp-down plan allows for these schools something to play for. It is not the same as 63 scholarship team having to find money and administration for stricter compliance for their athletes, finding money for Titie IX compliance, etc. in a move to FBS.

You are saying that moving FBS-->FCS and FCS-->FBS are the same thing. They aren't. You are saying a school at 63 promising a swift move to 85 is the same as a school at 85 that has to break it to recruits that they're headed to 63. It isn't.

Look, you need to get some **** straight in your head and start understanding what people around here believe.

We believe that there is very little difference in the lower FBS and the top FCS in spite of a clear advantage they have in recuiting athletes to play for them.

I'm gonna say this to you one more god damn time...the fact this particular team has not achieved an advantage over some of the top 25 does not matter one bit...not one. Stop saying it as if it does. The advantage will help them agianst some teams and that skews things, it skews who might make the playoffs, who might advance, and so forth and so on. Let's not advocate the butterfly effect here when we can just do the right f'n thing which is what I advocate. You advocate horse**** ways of doing things.

I said that moving teams are the same thing? Bull****. I said that they both have an advantage and that is indisputable.

I know you are just playing dumb here MPLS so I'll let you toil going forward but you are getting your ass kicked in logic here man. Cut your losses you dirty rule bender.:D

[BisonFan02]

Look, you need to get some **** straight in your head and start understanding what people around here believe.

We believe that there is very little difference in the lower FBS and the top FCS in spite of a clear advantage they have in recuiting athletes to play for them.

I'm gonna say this to you one more god damn time...the fact this particular team has not achieved an advantage over some of the top 25 does not matter on bit...not one. Stop saying it as if it does. The advantage will help them agianst some teams and that skews things, it skews who might make the playoffs, who might advance, and so forth and so on. Let's not advocate the butterfly effect here when we can just do the right f'n thing is what I advocate. You advocate horse**** ways of doing things.

I said that moving teams are the same thing? Bull****. I said that they both have an advantage and that is indisputable.

I know you are just playing dumb here MPLS so I'll let you toil going forward but you are getting your ass kicked in logic here man. Cut your losses you dirty rule bender.:D

Wait....................what!??!!?!

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Wait....................what!??!!?!

Not the same guy, just uses the MPLS tact a whole lot...hence my jokey joke there.

[BisonFan02]

Not the same guy, just uses the MPLS tact a whole lot...hence my jokey joke there.

Ah.... xlolx I figured the tact part, but for some reason, even the possibility of the "literal" had me rolling.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I'm gonna say this to you one more god damn time...the fact this particular team has not achieved an advantage over some of the top 25 does not matter one bit...not one. Stop saying it as if it does. The advantage will help them agianst some teams and that skews things, it skews who might make the playoffs, who might advance, and so forth and so on. Let's not advocate the butterfly effect here when we can just do the right f'n thing which is what I advocate. You advocate horse**** ways of doing things.

The "right f'ing thing" here only makes it so no school would ever willingly transfer from FBS to FCS, because you cannot sell your donors the idea that "hey, we are going to do the right f'ing thing and reclassify and spend less money on the football program". With the prospect of postseason play, you can tell Idaho, "hey, too bad you have to reclassify to FCS, but at least you can get a legit shot at the postseason that you never really had in FBS. And you'll be able to shop your next two years of recruits on competing for the postseason for their whole careers, not just during their junior year, maybe."

This isn't a case of Idaho getting forced to do something. This is a case of Idaho making a choice. If you want FCS to grow, you need to provide a sensible path for schools like Idaho, UMass, or others to return to FCS and experience it's biggest selling point and positive - postseason opportunity through playoffs. You can't sell a school on the fact that "you need to eat your vegetables, it's the right f'in thing to do". ​

[ursus arctos horribilis]

The "right f'ing thing" here only makes it so no school would ever willingly transfer from FBS to FCS, because you cannot sell your donors the idea that "hey, we are going to do the right f'ing thing and reclassify and spend less money on the football program". With the prospect of postseason play, you can tell Idaho, "hey, too bad you have to reclassify to FCS, but at least you can get a legit shot at the postseason that you never really had in FBS. And you'll be able to shop your next two years of recruits on competing for the postseason for their whole careers, not just during their junior year, maybe."

This isn't a case of Idaho getting forced to do something. This is a case of Idaho making a choice. If you want FCS to grow, you need to provide a sensible path for schools like Idaho, UMass, or others to return to FCS and experience it's biggest selling point and positive - postseason opportunity through playoffs. You can't sell a school on the fact that "you need to eat your vegetables, it's the right f'in thing to do". ​

Yes, you lack integrity, I got it.xthumbsupx

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Yes, you lack integrity, I got it.xthumbsupx

And you're a crappy salesman, and I'm not MPLS. Truce? xthumbsupx

[ursus arctos horribilis]

And you're a crappy salesman, and I'm not MPLS. Truce? xthumbsupx

I told ya I was gonna let you toil, that's how it looks.

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

Here's the thing though. In retrospect, would App, ODU, or GaSo have really whipped through the playoffs with the extra schollies? Personally I don't think so.

The last team that really used that type of thing to their advantage was Marshall -- different time, different football landscape. My impression is that they were FBS in all but name when they marched to their last titles. And if I remember, they didn't win the championship in their final season in I-AA.

Just so I'm consistent I'd be OK with transitioning teams competing for the playoffs in their swan song year.

The idea that Marshall blew through the playoffs because they somehow exploited an impending IA move is pure mythology. Marshall was the juggernaut they were because they were damned good and because they won the transfer lottery getting maybe the best receiver to play the game not named Jerry Rice in a time when a lot of defenses were designed to stop power running games.

The idea that you can have a significant advantage in being over the FCS scholarship limit one season makes no sense…no sane coach is going to load up on Jucos and third-string FBS players to try and win an FCS championship. Not only would it most likely not work (all of us who actually follow the FCS know that simply stockpiling FBS transfers doesn't build FCS powers) it would not be a good long-term strategy for doing well in your first years in FBS.

Both Georgia Southern and App State fans were told it somehow doesn't matter that good FCS teams have the talent to go up against good G5 teams and that you can point out examples where FCS teams competed and beat them because, well, it's different when you play FBS teams week in and week out. The 14-1 record both teams had in the Sun Belt last year shows otherwise.

The scholarship differential is not as big an advantage people make it out to be. That said, I don't know how you can justify making Idaho eligible for the playoffs.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

The idea that Marshall blew through the playoffs because they somehow exploited an impending IA move is pure mythology. Marshall was the juggernaut they were because they were damned good and because they won the transfer lottery getting maybe the best receiver to play the game not named Jerry Rice in a time when a lot of defenses were designed to stop power running games.

The idea that you can have a significant advantage in being over the FCS scholarship limit one season makes no sense…no sane coach is going to load up on Jucos and third-string FBS players to try and win an FCS championship. Not only would it most likely not work (all of us who actually follow the FCS know that simply stockpiling FBS transfers doesn't build FCS powers) it would not be a good long-term strategy for doing well in your first years in FBS.

Both Georgia Southern and App State fans were told it somehow doesn't matter that good FCS teams have the talent to go up against good G5 teams and that you can point out examples where FCS teams competed and beat them because, well, it's different when you play FBS teams week in and week out. The 14-1 record both teams had in the Sun Belt last year shows otherwise.

The scholarship differential is not as big an advantage people make it out to be. That said, I don't know how you can justify making Idaho eligible for the playoffs.

Your last line comes around to the correct answer and it does not matter if it is seen as a significant advantage or not...it is an advantage outside the boundaries of what the new contemporaries would be working under.

And Marshall was very good at the time. They were much better in 1996 when they added Kresser and a couple of other transfers to the Moss transfer...which would have been a lot less likely if they weren't moving up.

They were a completely different team in 1996 and Montana unlike what you are probably referring to in the SoCon was built to stop the passing game...but there was zero chance of that happening with Kresser and Moss.

[BisonFan02]

The idea that Marshall blew through the playoffs because they somehow exploited an impending IA move is pure mythology. Marshall was the juggernaut they were because they were damned good and because they won the transfer lottery getting maybe the best receiver to play the game not named Jerry Rice in a time when a lot of defenses were designed to stop power running games.

The idea that you can have a significant advantage in being over the FCS scholarship limit one season makes no sense…no sane coach is going to load up on Jucos and third-string FBS players to try and win an FCS championship. Not only would it most likely not work (all of us who actually follow the FCS know that simply stockpiling FBS transfers doesn't build FCS powers) it would not be a good long-term strategy for doing well in your first years in FBS.

Both Georgia Southern and App State fans were told it somehow doesn't matter that good FCS teams have the talent to go up against good G5 teams and that you can point out examples where FCS teams competed and beat them because, well, it's different when you play FBS teams week in and week out. The 14-1 record both teams had in the Sun Belt last year shows otherwise.

The scholarship differential is not as big an advantage people make it out to be. That said, I don't know how you can justify making Idaho eligible for the playoffs.

and now it is fans of both institutions that have the same delusions of grandeur that NDSU would only finish "somewhere between 3-5th" in the Sun Belt because they "couldn't do it week in and week out". xlolx

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

and now it is fans of both institutions that have the same delusions of grandeur that NDSU would only finish "somewhere between 3-5th" in the Sun Belt because they "couldn't do it week in and week out". xlolx

No, actually GSU and App fans for the most part are taking up for NDSU on the Sun Belt board. A lot of our fans might think we are better teams this year but not one of them doesn't think if NDSU moved to an FBS conference they would immediately be a top-10 G5 and make a splash omparable with GSU, App, and Marshall.

[dgtw]

The FBS has passed a rule saying you can have a title game with ten members if you lay a full schedule. So the Sunbelt no longer needs Idaho and New Mexico State to keep them at 12.

Here is what my rules would be for any school moving downward.

1. Anybody who wants to transfer to another FBS school may do so right now without having to sit out a year.

You came to this school so you could play FBS so you can go somewhere else without penalty.

2. Although FCS allows for partial scholarships, anybody on scholarship now will remain on a full ride as long as they have eligibility and are eligible academically.

They were promised a full ride, to take that away is morally wrong.

3. The school will be considered in transition for two seasons, during which time they will not be eligible for the FCS playoffs.

Moving down is a big headache and inconvenience for everyone else you are involved with, There should be some sanction for making the move.

4. After the two years, you will be able to qualify for the playoffs provided you are down to the 63 scholarship limit.

If getting down to 63 can't be done in two years, I would give them an extra year of transition if they need it. But between people who might leave right away, two years of graduations and just general attrition, you should be able to do it. Granted, I've never been involved in college athletics management, so I honestly can't say how easy it might be.

[SENOREIDA]

The FBS has passed a rule saying you can have a title game with ten members if you lay a full schedule. So the Sunbelt no longer needs Idaho and New Mexico State to keep them at 12.

Here is what my rules would be for any school moving downward.

1. Anybody who wants to transfer to another FBS school may do so right now without having to sit out a year.

You came to this school so you could play FBS so you can go somewhere else without penalty.

2. Although FCS allows for partial scholarships, anybody on scholarship now will remain on a full ride as long as they have eligibility and are eligible academically.

They were promised a full ride, to take that away is morally wrong.

3. The school will be considered in transition for two seasons, during which time they will not be eligible for the FCS playoffs.

Moving down is a big headache and inconvenience for everyone else you are involved with, There should be some sanction for making the move.

4. After the two years, you will be able to qualify for the playoffs provided you are down to the 63 scholarship limit.

If getting down to 63 can't be done in two years, I would give them an extra year of transition if they need it. But between people who might leave right away, two years of graduations and just general attrition, you should be able to do it. Granted, I've never been involved in college athletics management, so I honestly can't say how easy it might be.

Yes, 12 team is not required anymore for a championship game, but if he conference has less then 12 teams, they must play a full round robin schedule. I believe the Sun Belt will offer both NMSU and Idaho extensions to avoid losing out on potential money games.

[Bisonator]

No, actually GSU and App fans for the most part are taking up for NDSU on the Sun Belt board. A lot of our fans might think we are better teams this year but not one of them doesn't think if NDSU moved to an FBS conference they would immediately be a top-10 G5 and make a splash omparable with GSU, App, and Marshall.
How many games did GSU or APP have on national TV this year? How much has enrollment increased at either school? How much has attendance grown? What are your budgets looking like now compared to 5 years ago?

[Eagle22]

How many games did GSU or APP have on national TV this year? How much has enrollment increased at either school? How much has attendance grown? What are your budgets looking like now compared to 5 years ago?

Georgia Southern had 4 games on national TV (3 on ESPN U, one on ESPN). Our enrollment is stable at just under 21,000 which is by design after a few years of growth. We're projected to be at around 25,000 enrollment by the year 2025 as we've become more selective and raised incoming freshman SAT scores. We could have gotten to 25,000 sooner but needed to make infrastructure improvements to catch up with all the growth we've had the last ten years.

There are only a handful of state universities in Georgia actually seeing growth, most have student populations that are contracting rather sharply (Georgia Southern, UGA, Georgia State, Kennesaw St seem to be the primary exceptions).

Our budget 5 years ago was around the $16 million mark, we are now closer to $20/21 million and will be increasing that as we add COA in 2016. Our revenue streams have increased as we gain payouts from the CFP and higher payouts from P5 OOC games. Athletic Fund donations (booster club) have risen.

Most telling though is annual giving to the University as a whole. I don't have the exact (actual) numbers in front of me but since we went FBS we have seen a 55% increase in overall giving to the University.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Yes, 12 team is not required anymore for a championship game, but if he conference has less then 12 teams, they must play a full round robin schedule. I believe the Sun Belt will offer both NMSU and Idaho extensions to avoid losing out on potential money games.

That's a great point. Interestingly, I think it makes a severe non-incentive to have 11 teams. So the Sun Belt will likely IMO either have 12 teams (+ Coastal) or 10 (drop both Idaho and NMSU). There's a point for 12 and a point for 10, but 11 makes no sense.

[ericsaid]

.......like I said, the Sunbelt isn't some golden goose that is better than the Big Sky. Its topical in this thread. You consider it a drop...I consider it a convouluted gray area at best. Idaho isn't a regional fit for the belt....and the competition doesn't turn the cranks any more than the powers in the Big Sky would. To each their own.

So I haven't posted here in a long time but in an effort to actually have someone rebut your claims that the Sun Belt is a glorified FCS conference, I will post the scores of Sun Belt against FCS from this season.

Troy: Overall 4-8 (3-5 Conference) Beat Charleston Southern (Playoff Participant) 44-16
Arkansas State: Overall 9-4 (8-0 Conference) Beat Missouri State 70-7
Idaho: Overall 4-8 (3-5 Conference) Beat Wofford 41-38
Texas State: Overall 3-9 (2-6 Conference), Beat Prairie View A&M 63-24
Louisiana-Monroe: Overall 2-11 (1-7 conference) Beat Nicholls 47-0
Georgia Southern: Overall 9-4 (6-2 Conference) Beat the Citadel (Playoffs) 48-13
Georgia State: Overall 6-7 (5-3 Conference) Lost to Liberty 41-33
Louisiana-Lafayette: Overall 4-8 (3-5 Conference) Beat Northwestern State 44-17
South Alabama: Overall 5-7 (3-5 Conference) Beat Gardner-Webb 33-23
Appalachian State: Overall 11-2 (7-1 Conference) Beat Howard 49-0

All in all, one loss to Liberty, with a Georgia State team who finally learned how to win as the year went along.

That said, App is getting a visit from Miami(Fl.) next season, Wake Forest the year after and has future home and homes with Marshall (old rivalry). To say that this is a lateral move given the results, and the profile of the schools you may end up playing with administrative assistance, it is anything but lateral.

For Idaho to succeed, they need to be in a regional conference. I respect their program and the strides they made this year (Which may have been better if Dezmon Epps could stay out of trouble) however without consistent winning and an incompetent administration, Idaho will not gain anything by being in FBS.

[Bisonator]

So I haven't posted here in a long time but in an effort to actually have someone rebut your claims that the Sun Belt is a glorified FCS conference, I will post the scores of Sun Belt against FCS from this season.

Troy: Overall 4-8 (3-5 Conference) Beat Charleston Southern (Playoff Participant) 44-16
Arkansas State: Overall 9-4 (8-0 Conference) Beat Missouri State 70-7
Idaho: Overall 4-8 (3-5 Conference) Beat Wofford 41-38
Texas State: Overall 3-9 (2-6 Conference), Beat Prairie View A&M 63-24
Louisiana-Monroe: Overall 2-11 (1-7 conference) Beat Nicholls 47-0
Georgia Southern: Overall 9-4 (6-2 Conference) Beat the Citadel (Playoffs) 48-13
Georgia State: Overall 6-7 (5-3 Conference) Lost to Liberty 41-33
Louisiana-Lafayette: Overall 4-8 (3-5 Conference) Beat Northwestern State 44-17
South Alabama: Overall 5-7 (3-5 Conference) Beat Gardner-Webb 33-23
Appalachian State: Overall 11-2 (7-1 Conference) Beat Howard 49-0

All in all, one loss to Liberty, with a Georgia State team who finally learned how to win as the year went along.

That said, App is getting a visit from Miami(Fl.) next season, Wake Forest the year after and has future home and homes with Marshall (old rivalry). To say that this is a lateral move given the results, and the profile of the schools you may end up playing with administrative assistance, it is anything but lateral.

For Idaho to succeed, they need to be in a regional conference. I respect their program and the strides they made this year (Which may have been better if Dezmon Epps could stay out of trouble) however without consistent winning and an incompetent administration, Idaho will not gain anything by being in FBS.
Not sure how that rebut's his post. You blew out some teams most other FCS schools do already, had some close games and even lost one. What am I missing?

[clenz]

Not sure how that rebut's his post. You blew out some teams most other FCS schools do already, had some close games and even lost one. What am I missing?
All with 22 more scholarships at their disposal.

Glorified seems like a proper adjective.

[BisonFan02]

Not sure how that rebut's his post. You blew out some teams most other FCS schools do already, had some close games and even lost one. What am I missing?

It doesn't....and you are missing nothing.

[Laker]

Idaho tries to stay in Sunbelt for football:

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/18/idaho-makes-sales-pitch-to-sun-belt-to-remain-member/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=college-football

[BisonBacker]

Idaho tries to stay in Sunbelt for football:

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/02/18/idaho-makes-sales-pitch-to-sun-belt-to-remain-member/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=college-football

I would rather be in the MVFC or the Big Sky than the Slum Belt.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

"Founding Sun Belt Member Idaho"

[clenz]

I got a kick out of the slide that quotes the USA Today as saying the KibbieDome is a top 10 FBS stadium environment experience

[F'N Hawks]

I got a kick out of the slide that quotes the USA Today as saying the KibbieDome is a top 10 FBS stadium environment experience

Whoever wrote that piece (Siegel) must have been paid off. Look at the other 9 schools and the honorable mentions. xlolx. WTF?

Link (http://fanindex.usatoday.com/2015/10/17/the-10-stadiums-with-the-best-atmosphere-in-college-football/)

[Uncle Rico's Clan]

I got a kick out of the slide that quotes the USA Today as saying the KibbieDome is a top 10 FBS stadium environment experience

That was actually the USA Today list of top 10 DI football experiences in the state of Idaho. Here is the complete list:

1...N/A
2...N/A
3...N/A
4...Boise State University
5...N/A
6...N/A
7...N/A
8...N/A
9...University of Idaho
10...N/A

Others receiving votes: Washington State University, N/A, Idaho State University, N/A, N/A, N/A

[Bisonator]

I got a kick out of the slide that quotes the USA Today as saying the KibbieDome is a top 10 FBS stadium environment experience

It isn't even top 10 in the Sunbelt. xlolx

[bertram]

Good ol KibbieDome is ranked pretty high on this list:https://www.thrillist.com/travel/nation/worst-college-football-stadiums-america-s-worst-stadiums-to-watch-fbs-college-football

[Libertine]

As with most Powerpoint presentations, I tuned out after the third slide.

[catamount man]

Idaho back in FCS and Big Sky 2018. Calling it.

[Professor Chaos]

This seems to say more than anything about where Idaho football is trending: https://twitter.com/SKramerWrites/status/700456119546740736


Idaho listed 71 full-ride scholarships for football in 2015 and projects 70 for 2016. Hm.

70 is closer to 63 than it is to 85. I thought that having anything less than 77 football schollies threatens a teams FBS existence so they don't seem long for the FBS.

[RootinFerDukes]

I thought in fbs you must have 85 full scholarships given to 85 players, all others are walk on. Between not enforcing scholarship levels and not enforcing the attendance average rule, what exactly is the point of having guidelines to be an fbs team?
The NCAA needs to grow a pair and start kicking programs into Fcs where they belong. That would be 2/3 of the Mac haha

[Hammersmith]

I thought in fbs you must have 85 full scholarships given to 85 players, all others are walk on. Between not enforcing scholarship levels and not enforcing the attendance average rule, what exactly is the point of having guidelines to be an fbs team?
The NCAA needs to grow a pair and start kicking programs into Fcs where they belong. That would be 2/3 of the Mac haha

FBS teams are required to award 76.5 scholarships averaged over a rolling two year period. (That's 90% of the 85 max.) Those 76.5 scholarships can be split among a maximum of 85 players. If it's true that Idaho is going to award 71 and 70 scholarships in back to back years, then there's no way they could satisfy that FBS requirement. That being said, the NCAA has never shown an eagerness to enforce those kinds of rules. There are a dozen or more schools that don't satisfy the attendance requirements(even with the loopholes the bylaws allow), and when was the last time you heard about the NCAA knocking a school down to FCS over it? The rules are there to keep lower programs from joining the FBS club, not kicking existing programs out.

The Summit League has benefited from a similar situation. To get an autobid in most NCAA sports, a conference must have 6 teams that offer the sport. The Summit has been flirting with only 5 baseball teams for the last several years. When Oakland and ORU left a few years back, it put Summit baseball into a critical situation. UNO had joined, but they weren't a full DI school yet. The conference had an automatic two-year waiver to get back into compliance, but that wasn't going to be enough. The NCAA was quick to give an additional waiver to get over the hump. ORU rejoining the conference got the Summit back to the 6-team minimum.

Why was all that important? MBB autobids are dependent on a conference sponsoring a certain number of team sports. The Summit is right at that minimum. If the Summit were to officially lose the baseball autobid, that would start a chain reaction which could end with the loss of the MBB autobid. And that would be the end of the Summit. Now, the P5 conferences would love to see another at-large bid open up in MBB. If the NCAA isn't going to be a stickler for the rules in the case of the Summit, why would we possibly think the would be a stickler for the rules in a case like Idaho, where there's so much less at stake?

[RootinFerDukes]

Good info. If the rules are there to keep schools from moving up to fbs, then how did some of the recent move ups qualify. Ccu, ga state to name a few.

[Hammersmith]

Good info. If the rules are there to keep schools from moving up to fbs, then how did some of the recent move ups qualify. Ccu, ga state to name a few.

The legality of the rules is always a sticking point. There used to be a rule saying a school had to have a 30k seat stadium. There were rumblings that a lawsuit could result in a judgement against the NCAA if a school pushed the issue. The rule was just too arbitrary. If a 250 student college built a 30k seat stadium, how does that prove they could be FBS? That was the reason for the switch to an attendance requirement.

What CCU and GA St are doing are using the transition period to prove they can meet the FBS requirements. They have two years to do so. Honestly, I don't know why the FBS is allowing GA St to complete it's move up. I'm okay with all the rest(even CCU), but GA St is a joke. But it's really a balancing act. Make the rules too lenient, and you get a flood of schools moving up in a modern-day gold rush. Too restrictive, and you leave the subdivision open to litigation. The recent change to force schools to have a conference invite before moving up is just another step in the ongoing tightrope walk.

[RootinFerDukes]

The legality of the rules is always a sticking point. There used to be a rule saying a school had to have a 30k seat stadium. There were rumblings that a lawsuit could result in a judgement against the NCAA if a school pushed the issue. The rule was just too arbitrary. If a 250 student college built a 30k seat stadium, how does that prove they could be FBS? That was the reason for the switch to an attendance requirement.

What CCU and GA St are doing are using the transition period to prove they can meet the FBS requirements. They have two years to do so. Honestly, I don't know why the FBS is allowing GA St to complete it's move up. I'm okay with all the rest(even CCU), but GA St is a joke. But it's really a balancing act. Make the rules too lenient, and you get a flood of schools moving up in a modern-day gold rush. Too restrictive, and you leave the subdivision open to litigation. The recent change to force schools to have a conference invite before moving up is just another step in the ongoing tightrope walk.

That's my gripe. If you won't enforce scholarship levels, attendance requirements, etc. a school should be able to just declare themselves fbs independent. Liberty would've done that years ago. I guess schools will have to sue the NCAA to really challenge that rule.

[Thundar]

That's my gripe. If you won't enforce scholarship levels, attendance requirements, etc. a school should be able to just declare themselves fbs independent. Liberty would've done that years ago. I guess schools will have to sue the NCAA to really challenge that rule.

Sueing the NCAA isn't a good option, being a member isn't a right and you don't want to piss off the governing body otherwise you might be looking to the NAIA for sports

[walliver]

Sueing the NCAA isn't a good option, being a member isn't a right and you don't want to piss off the governing body otherwise you might be looking to the NAIA for sports

Another problem with the lawsuit, is that FBS is really a cartel between the NCAA and the 10 FBS conferences. Any lawsuit would be against the NCAA and the conferences. After you win your lawsuit, who are you going to play? The people you just sued?

I have little doubt, that any team suing would likely prevail in court, but so far, no-one has felt the benefits outweigh the downsides of a long lawsuit.

[ccd494]

Another problem with the lawsuit, is that FBS is really a cartel between the NCAA and the 10 FBS conferences. Any lawsuit would be against the NCAA and the conferences. After you win your lawsuit, who are you going to play? The people you just sued?

I have little doubt, that any team suing would likely prevail in court, but so far, no-one has felt the benefits outweigh the downsides of a long lawsuit.

This right here is the reason that UConn can't get any traction joining the ACC. They sued the ACC and Boston College when BC switched conferences. Shortsighted and shot themselves in the foot for future realignment.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Related:

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/sports/nmsu-president-makes-pitch-as-sun-belt-prepares-to-vote/article_f8c70c02-42fa-5955-9dc6-8b02472c5762.html#.Vsm9LvfepRw.twitter


New Mexico State University President Garrey Carruthers made a presentation via teleconference to Sun Belt Conference representatives on Wednesday seeking a long term home for the Aggies’ football program past the current agreement, which is set to expire after the 2017 season.

Sun Belt Conference presidents will vote to either extend or terminate the football only membership of both NMSU and Idaho on March 10 during the Sun Belt Conference Basketball Tournament in New Orleans.

NMSU needs 75 percent approval, or nine of the 12 votes to remain in the league. Carruthers made a presentation that emphasized the potential value the Aggie football program adds to the league, despite its far-west location, through potential distribution of “AggieVision” telecasts, as well as an upward trajectory on the football field in the first three seasons under head coach Doug Martin.

NMSU believes it can alleviate geography concerns over the television airwaves, providing high definition broadcasts of NMSU home games back to opposing Sun Belt markets. NMSU would allow Sun Belt Conference schools the ability to create revenue by providing distribution back to the visiting team and allow the visitor to insert advertising for games that were not selected by Sun Belt national or regional television packages.


This looks really, really bad for both NMSU and Idaho. They both only need four schools to want to kick them out and they're done.

I can't believe App State, Georgia Southern, or Georgia State are interested in keeping one or both of them. If a team like South Alabama votes thumbs down.... they're gone.

[RootinFerDukes]

So when teams join conferences as football only members, they're given a contract length, while full members don't have such a timeline?
The Mac just lets umass' membership expire because they wouldn't commit to becoming a full member.

[SENOREIDA]

So when teams join conferences as football only members, they're given a contract length, while full members don't have such a timeline?
The Mac just lets umass' membership expire because they wouldn't commit to becoming a full member.
Essentially they aren't really members. They do not have the same rights as full fledged members, and are treated as such. It creates more of an incentive to join the conference full time, but unfortunately Idaho and NMSU are not in the Sun Belt by choice and that is the problem.

[Hammersmith]

So when teams join conferences as football only members, they're given a contract length, while full members don't have such a timeline?
The Mac just lets umass' membership expire because they wouldn't commit to becoming a full member.

Depends on the situation. Some conferences invite schools as affiliate members with no time limit, others build in different forms of automatic or non-automatic renewals. It really depends on who has the advantage in the negotiations. If Norte Dame went to the MAC, you can be sure that the invite would be indefinite. But that same MAC would insist on an auto-out if they were dealing with an FCS move-up(like they did with UMass).

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Essentially they aren't really members. They do not have the same rights as full fledged members, and are treated as such. It creates more of an incentive to join the conference full time, but unfortunately Idaho and NMSU are not in the Sun Belt by choice and that is the problem.

They're not just being treated as not-full-fledged members; they're being treated like dirt.

Was the plan for Idaho or NMSU to have them join as full members? Never. Ever. Ever. Ever. was that the plan. If the Sun Belt had dangled an invite to them as the WAC had its heart ripped out, NMSU and Idaho would have clung to such an invite and joined as all-sports members the following day. What really happened was Idaho found an alternate solution (Big Sky membership in everything but football) and NMSU got stuck in the WAC, unable to extricate themselves.

Would either of them have grabbed at Sun Belt full membership over their actual paths? Absolutely.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Depends on the situation. Some conferences invite schools as affiliate members with no time limit, others build in different forms of automatic or non-automatic renewals. It really depends on who has the advantage in the negotiations. If Norte Dame went to the MAC, you can be sure that the invite would be indefinite. But that same MAC would insist on an auto-out if they were dealing with an FCS move-up(like they did with UMass).

UMass' story is a cautionary tale about trying to join a transition conference to try to get somewhere.

They joined the MAC because it was their "in" to FBS football, and gave them a line about (chuckle) maybe leaving the A-10 and joining the MAC full-time. In reality they were playing for (chuckle) a Big East invite to be alongside UConn, or possibly to replace UConn if they split for the ACC. Instead, the worst possible UMass outcome happened: UConn stayed marooned in the flotsam of the old Big East after it broke apart, and the MAC got tired of UMass' program dragging the conference down since it wasn't ready for prime time.

[rokamortis]

They're not just being treated as not-full-fledged members; they're being treated like dirt.

Was the plan for Idaho or NMSU to have them join as full members? Never. Ever. Ever. Ever. was that the plan. If the Sun Belt had dangled an invite to them as the WAC had its heart ripped out, NMSU and Idaho would have clung to such an invite and joined as all-sports members the following day. What really happened was Idaho found an alternate solution (Big Sky membership in everything but football) and NMSU got stuck in the WAC, unable to extricate themselves.

There is actually a lot of support for NMSU to gain full membership. Just their distance is too much for enough schools to deny their entry as a full member.

Here's the thing though, If NMSU and Idaho wanted to be full members of the Sun Belt then they should never have left. They created this situation themselves. They left and unfortunately became casualties as their new conference imploded. But I think they make good affiliate members and think they should be extended semi-permanent membership.

[Laker]

Someone on here might have the answer- is New Mexico in favor or against NM State joining the MWC? I know that adding them really doesn't fill the bill of adding new TV sets which is what Big Ten expansion was all about, but it makes sense geographically.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Someone on here might have the answer- is New Mexico in favor or against NM State joining the MWC? I know that adding them really doesn't fill the bill of adding new TV sets which is what Big Ten expansion was all about, but it makes sense geographically.

I thought that New Mexico was against NMSU joining the MWC with the intensity of a white-hot sun. I am not sure of the whole story but I think there is a lot of animosity between the two schools.

[Laker]

I thought that New Mexico was against NMSU joining the MWC with the intensity of a white-hot sun. I am not sure of the whole story but I think there is a lot of animosity between the two schools.

A couple of years ago I heard two stories- one that they were dead set against, the other that they really wanted them. Hard to know but I would assume that they oppose.

[Laker]

I thought that New Mexico was against NMSU joining the MWC with the intensity of a white-hot sun. I am not sure of the whole story but I think there is a lot of animosity between the two schools.

Maybe in New Mexico it was this color. :D

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-amkAKwoJKh8/Tbyo-4LdDAI/AAAAAAAAAFI/0mTyJl_mik8/s1600/zia%2B3.jpg

[dgtw]

With the MWC at 12, they really don't need anyone else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Laker]

With the MWC at 12, they really don't need anyone else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I bet that they would take BYU back if they could. I don't see the independent status working for BYU for long. They aren't Notre Dame.

[ccd494]

I bet that they would take BYU back if they could. I don't see the independent status working for BYU for long. They aren't Notre Dame.

To about 10,000,000 Americans they are.

[Bill]

To about 10,000,000 Americans they are.

well, I think the comparison is fair - but BYU "represents" about 6.3 million mormons in the US, where Notre Dame "represents" about 70 million catholics. The economy of scale must play in here somewhere!

Source: I confess - I used Wikipedia for both.

[clenz]

well, I think the comparison is fair - but BYU "represents" about 6.3 million mormons in the US, where Notre Dame "represents" about 70 million catholics. The economy of scale must play in here somewhere!

Source: I confess - I used Wikipedia for both.
Notre Dame also has it's strongest ties along the NYC/Boston area. Major media markets with a population far superior to the total number of Mormon's in the world.

BYU's entire market is based nearly entirely in the state of Utah, and even then it's pretty split with Utah.

[344Johnson]

well, I think the comparison is fair - but BYU "represents" about 6.3 million mormons in the US, where Notre Dame "represents" about 70 million catholics. The economy of scale must play in here somewhere!

Source: I confess - I used Wikipedia for both.

The Irish are the big Catholic school to cheer for, but there are many Catholic division 1 schools, particularly if you prefer basketball to football.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The Irish are the big Catholic school to cheer for, but there are many Catholic division 1 schools, particularly if you prefer basketball to football.

Cue Sader87.....

[dgtw]

I bet that they would take BYU back if they could. I don't see the independent status working for BYU for long. They aren't Notre Dame.

I agree. But would taking either of the potential Sun Belt refugees to keep it an even number be worth it if they got BYU?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dakotadan]

I agree. But would taking either of the potential Sun Belt refugees to keep it an even number be worth it if they got BYU?
They would try to bring in a Texas school such as Rice, UTEP, North Texas, etc. at the same time. The MWC really wants to get a foot back into Texas, both for recruiting and the media markets. And honestly if they got far enough down the list of schools I could see Montana getting an invite before NMSU or UI.

[I Bleed Purple]

Interesting reading the complete opposite tone of this subject here and on Idaho's board.

[RootinFerDukes]

Interesting reading the complete opposite tone of this subject here and on Idaho's board.

What exactly are they saying?

[I Bleed Purple]

What exactly are they saying?

A lot of them would rather drop football than go back to FCS and that if they do, they'll never support them again.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

A lot of them would rather drop football than go back to FCS and that if they do, they'll never support them again.

Because what they're doing now is obviously working out so well for them.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

A lot of them would rather drop football than go back to FCS and that if they do, they'll never support them again.

It's been about 20 years so I assume most of them were not around before and delusions are tough to break. Idaho is not, and never have been an FBS team. There were a lot of years in the last 20 they would not have been a top 25 FCS team.

I can see some of them not wanting to support any longer cuz if The Griz made a move like Idaho had done I very well may have just said "screw it" as well. If they had done the move and ended up being the turd that Idaho became then I definitely would have not put a lot of money toward the effort.

Speaking of which...Idaho doesn't normally sell out their dome do they? On top of that...their ticket prices are less than a lot of BSC team prices...so how many fans could they really have putting a decent amount of money toward the program in the first place?

[Dane96]

The Irish are the big Catholic school to cheer for, but there are many Catholic division 1 schools, particularly if you prefer basketball to football.

LOL.

This can't be a real question/statement.

[BisonFan02]

LOL.

This can't be a real question/statement.

Consider the source.

[344Johnson]

LOL.

This can't be a real question/statement.

Are you saying that there are not a ton of Catholic division 1 schools or that the only one with any fans is Notre Dame?

[mvemjsunpx]

A lot of them would rather drop football than go back to FCS and that if they do, they'll never support them again.

That's why moving up is stupid unless you're absolutely sure you'll do well (and maybe not even then). The lower-level fans will either die off or bolt if the team sucks, while the new upper-level fans won't accept dropping down. Idaho put themselves in a no-win scenario that everyone saw coming 20 years ago.

Fun fact: Idaho is 9-8 against the Big Sky since moving up! xlolx

[I Bleed Purple]

A sample if you guys care.

http://www.scout.com/college/idaho/forums/3864-sbc-bsc-realignment/14451315-staben-fbs-fcs-options

(http://www.scout.com/college/idaho/forums/3864-sbc-bsc-realignment/14451315-staben-fbs-fcs-options)

But I've read threads like these off and on for a few years now, and this one is pretty tame compared to others I've read.

EDIT: Ah, here are a few of the angrier ones.

http://www.scout.com/college/idaho/forums/3864-sbc-bsc-realignment/14453942-if-idaho-goes-back-to-the-fcs

http://www.scout.com/college/idaho/forums/3864-sbc-bsc-realignment/14461353-where-do-you-stand (http://www.scout.com/college/idaho/forums/3864-sbc-bsc-realignment/14451315-staben-fbs-fcs-options)

[superman7515]

A sample if you guys care.

http://www.scout.com/college/idaho/forums/3864-sbc-bsc-realignment/14451315-staben-fbs-fcs-options
(http://www.scout.com/college/idaho/forums/3864-sbc-bsc-realignment/14451315-staben-fbs-fcs-options)

There is so much misinformation there, especially around realignment to FBS and how that would work under the "Big West" name, that I just had to quit reading because it was making my soul hurt.

[F'N Hawks]

Fun fact: Idaho is 9-8 against the Big Sky since moving up! xlolx

No comment.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

It's too bad that Idaho can't join some sort of offshoot of the Mountain West. Air Force, Colorado State, Wyoming, Idaho, and Boise State really should be in their own conference. Add Montana and Montana State, throw in Eastern Washington... that's a nice FBS conference foundation. Too bad it will never happen.

[Laker]

A sample if you guys care.

http://www.scout.com/college/idaho/forums/3864-sbc-bsc-realignment/14451315-staben-fbs-fcs-options
(http://www.scout.com/college/idaho/forums/3864-sbc-bsc-realignment/14451315-staben-fbs-fcs-options)
But I've read threads like these off and on for a few years now, and this one is pretty tame compared to others I've read.


Reading these posts, many writers seem to think that going FCS is the same as Socrates being banished from Athens so let's drink hemlock instead. Or that going independent will result in a decent schedule.

In talking about rivalries, they dismiss Idaho State totally. Evidently they are so wrapped up in the success of Boise State that they won't settle for anything less.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

[tigonian02]

That's why moving up is stupid unless you're absolutely sure you'll do well (and maybe not even then). The lower-level fans will either die off or bolt if the team sucks, while the new upper-level fans won't accept dropping down. Idaho put themselves in a no-win scenario that everyone saw coming 20 years ago.

Fun fact: Idaho is 9-8 against the Big Sky since moving up! xlolx

I can agree with this...if you haven't had repeated success at the FCS level (or at least enough to develop some kind of brand), then you should stay where you are until then.

[RootinFerDukes]

A lot of them would rather drop football than go back to FCS and that if they do, they'll never support them again.

Well that has been mainly what has happened so far in the past since the I-AA split. Wichita state, pacific, cal state Fullerton, long beach state, Texas-Arlington. Santa Clara is the only program to drop down in 1981 and then eventually discontinue in 1992.
They'd be only the second occurrence of it happening and the first in 35+ years.
I think they're being dramatic though and don't realize that their program is without question better suited to be a big sky team. Regional rivals and frankly better known teams then anyone they'd play in the sun belt for anyone in Idaho.
It's not like they'd lose any national visibility. I don't think I've seen a TV game featuring them unless they're playing a P5 program.

[BisonFan02]

Well that has been mainly what has happened so far in the past since the I-AA split. Wichita state, pacific, cal state Fullerton, long beach state, Texas-Arlington. Santa Clara is the only program to drop down in 1981 and then eventually discontinue in 1992.
They'd be only the second occurrence of it happening and the first in 35+ years.
I think they're being dramatic though and don't realize that their program is without question better suited to be a big sky team. Regional rivals and frankly better known teams then anyone they'd play in the sun belt for anyone in Idaho.
It's not like they'd lose any national visibility. I don't think I've seen a TV game featuring them unless they're playing a P5 program.

Delusions of FBS grandeur...

Seriously...I could understand the thought of having a FBS program in this case if it puts them in a better "all sports" conference across the board....but since they are already in the Big Sky for non-football sports, what REAL benefit is there to house only football in the Sunbelt conference?

[ursus arctos horribilis]

There is so much misinformation there, especially around realignment to FBS and how that would work under the "Big West" name, that I just had to quit reading because it was making my soul hurt.

Yes. It is head scratching at how little some of them seem to understand on what their issues are. What the realignment stuff is...hell, as you said soul damaging...but I'm a sucker for punishment so I will be going back and reading it all...every word. I love delusions of granduer a whole bunch.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

god damnit. I don't care, I refuse to read ahead and see if what I am saying has already been side so F you BF02.

[BisonFan02]

god damnit. I don't care, I refuse to read ahead and see if what I am saying has already been side so F you BF02.

xlolx won't ya?

[bobcathpdevil56]

I just don't understand how these UI fans would be soo angry they would quit being fans. Are their heads really that big and their boners that hard over FBS football? They would be competitive in Big Sky and I would think eventually competitive in FCS football. Why so angry over this?

I guess the mishandling by the athletic department is a major part of it, but that doesn't mean you quit being a fan of the football team.

[dgtw]

It's not like they are Texas deciding to drop down. They'd be joining a league they are already a member of, so they'd have established rivalries. Plus, some of the other schools aren't far away, so you can road trip and even have visiting fans come to your games and buy tickets and spend money in other ways. They'd sell more visiting tickets in one game than they do all season now.

Yes, it is admitting failure in a way, but it looks like a step up to me. If they had landed in the MWC, they'd be fine, but they didn't;

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I just don't understand how these UI fans would be soo angry they would quit being fans. Are their heads really that big and their boners that hard over FBS football? They would be competitive in Big Sky and I would think eventually competitive in FCS football. Why so angry over this?

I guess the mishandling by the athletic department is a major part of it, but that doesn't mean you quit being a fan of the football team.

They are blaming everything on mishandling by the athletic department but in reality Idaho as a state has not had the money to pump their way (like many other states) and their fans don't do crap on an FBS level for donations, tickets, and so forth.

They (the fans) share as much in the programs demise as the administration does but all you see is a bunch of fake big money donors talking...odd isn't it?

Plus, you want to look at how off the rails with insecurity some of the people are take a look at them actually trying to blame Fullerton for some of their problems. It is hard to believe they are that big of morons to think that Fullerton was actively holding them back.

You would never hear something like that from Boise cuz they actually made something out of themselves and don't sit around trying to blame everyone else for their own ****.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

BTW, their overvaluing of themselves and who they think their rivals are is so damn funny. I'd like to see which of their perceived rivals would consider Idaho one of their rivals...even Boise would be hard pressed to pull that one off with a straight face.

I enjoy them so much right now.

[mvemjsunpx]

I just don't understand how these UI fans would be soo angry they would quit being fans. Are their heads really that big and their boners that hard over FBS football? They would be competitive in Big Sky and I would think eventually competitive in FCS football. Why so angry over this?

I guess the mishandling by the athletic department is a major part of it, but that doesn't mean you quit being a fan of the football team.

Some people prefer delusion to despair. Idaho fans apparently love both. xcoffeex

[bobcathpdevil56]

I could understand this seething anger if they were shutting down the program, but they are simply going to FCS. Their whole, "I don't even know who any football teams in the FCS are" shtick reminds of the story of the pot and the kettle (no one knows about UI football either). I hope they can come to grips with this move, because it is seeming more and more inevitable.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

If Idaho doesn't want to be in FCS, IMVHO, we shouldn't want them.

[Yote 53]

This would probably be easier to take for Vandal fans if Boise State did not exist. I can actually understand their anger as they are going to have to move out of the FBS club and probably will never have a chance to get back into that club. Meanwhile, Boise State, an inferior school in their eyes, remains at the next level and has actually had some success.

[clenz]

God damn Boise State keeping Idaho from being what they should be

[Yote 53]

There's Clenz, following me around again.

[clenz]

There's Clenz, following me around again.

Yep, I'm only on this thread because of you. I didn't reply almost instantly to the thread back in Jan 8th with the 4th reply and been in it since

[andthehomeofthe-BIZON-]

https://media.giphy.com/media/GjYjLvGErsggg/giphy.gif

[RootinFerDukes]

Delusions of FBS grandeur...

Seriously...I could understand the thought of having a FBS program in this case if it puts them in a better "all sports" conference across the board....but since they are already in the Big Sky for non-football sports, what REAL benefit is there to house only football in the Sunbelt conference?

Get to say you play big boy football and maybe go to a bowl that 80 teams go to each season when they win 5 games and 4 of them against fbs teams.

[BisonFan02]

Get to say you play big boy football and maybe go to a bowl that 80 teams go to each season when they win 5 games and 4 of them against fbs teams.

That's precious. "Big Boy" football meet "Little Man" syndrome xlolx

[clenz]

That's precious. "Big Boy" football meet "Little Man" syndrome xlolx
Honestly, that mentality isn't any different than that of Iowa State fans...ISU just happens to have been around for decades longer and have the head start

[Yote 53]

God damn Boise State keeping Idaho from being what they should be

The response you give to my comment in this thread is a carryover shot at me from another thread. Yep, you're not following me around at all.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Idaho is what happens in the current system of mobility from FCS to FBS, where the only way a school can try FBS football is to jettison it's conference.

In 1994, Idaho, North Texas, and a couple others were "invited" by the Big West to play FBS football. Idaho then had to jettison its historic rivalries in all other sports to join a sketchy, transitional, shell of a football league simply to try FBS. Every bad thing that has happened to Idaho was a direct result of that decision.

Some schools join a "sketchy" league and manage to survive, like Boise State, but for every Boise State there are a dozen Idaho and UMass' that get trapped. Idaho and UMass can't sucker enough donors to make them anything more than a middling, at best, FBS team with no shot at the plus-one playoff and perhaps, if all the stars align, a shot at a money-losing bowl like the Camellia Bowl.

What really needs to change is the ridiculous way rich schools (like Liberty) are prevented from pursuing an FBS dream that is actually sustainable, and the equally ridiculous way that no-hopers like Idaho and UMass are not allowed to reclassify quickly and easily back to FCS after they realize that they don't have the tools yet for success.

[clenz]

The response you give to my comment in this thread is a carryover shot at me from another thread. Yep, you're not following me around at all.
Yep. I don't have about a dozen other posts in this thread at all. It's all because you posted.

Also, prove my statement wrong. What you said was an inferior academic school, that isn't the land-grant university, is causing the land-grant university to not be all that it can be by taking resources.

In a state with such a small population it's clear that Boise State is the reason Idaho has the struggles they do

[Libertine]

Idaho is what happens in the current system of mobility from FCS to FBS, where the only way a school can try FBS football is to jettison it's conference.

In 1994, Idaho, North Texas, and a couple others were "invited" by the Big West to play FBS football. Idaho then had to jettison its historic rivalries in all other sports to join a sketchy, transitional, shell of a football league simply to try FBS. Every bad thing that has happened to Idaho was a direct result of that decision.

Some schools join a "sketchy" league and manage to survive, like Boise State, but for every Boise State there are a dozen Idaho and UMass' that get trapped. Idaho and UMass can't sucker enough donors to make them anything more than a middling, at best, FBS team with no shot at the plus-one playoff and perhaps, if all the stars align, a shot at a money-losing bowl like the Camellia Bowl.

What really needs to change is the ridiculous way rich schools (like Liberty) are prevented from pursuing an FBS dream that is actually sustainable, and the equally ridiculous way that no-hopers like Idaho and UMass are not allowed to reclassify quickly and easily back to FCS after they realize that they don't have the tools yet for success.

I so totally approve this message.