'Plan 2014' - Big Sky Interest in Becoming FBS League

[TexasTerror]

Latest from Jack of BobcatReport... indicates that there is some interest by the Big Sky member schools to go to FBS together... also mentions Idaho as a possible addition to the breakaway group...


I also have been informed that none of the Big Sky schools are ready to make a commitment to move to FBS. That's significant because they will have 13 mostly Western teams by 2012 that aren't going anywhere. There is something called the "2014 Plan" being bounced around right now among the 9 current members. A simple majority is in place to investigate a conference move to FBS under serious discretion. They are greatly divided on this, and expect Idaho to be a candidate as a 14th member if they move forward. This is all talk for the moment.


2014 Plan is actually "Plan 2014" and does not include the entire Big Sky membership.

http://bobcatreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1140&start=0

[pleahy1]

From everything I've read an entire conference could not move up, a school had to be accepted into an existing FBS conference. Or has something changed in the NCAA rule book?

[DFW HOYA]

From everything I've read an entire conference could not move up, a school had to be accepted into an existing FBS conference. Or has something changed in the NCAA rule book?

Maybe the WAC takes them in.

[CollegeSportsInfo]

Latest from Jack of BobcatReport... indicates that there is some interest by the Big Sky member schools to go to FBS together... also mentions Idaho as a possible addition to the breakaway group...





http://bobcatreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1140&start=0

Yes, this move is called "We all join the WAC and then after a few years of being FBS members, we consider a split". As has been pointed out already, the NCAA, at the urging of the FCS schools, passed the law requiring ALL FCS upgrades to have been extended and accepted an invitation to an existing FBS conference...existing meaning an FBS conference that was active in FBS football in 2010.

The CAA folks have this same idea, a group of 6 upgrading together. But like the Big Sky, the same problems exist and it would require a waiver to bypass the conference affiliation rule. The problem is, there is zero reason for the NCAA to even consider a waiver for the Big Sky as by adhering to the rule, they help to keep the WAC, an existing FBS conference, stabilized.


Seems pretty straight forward:
- Montana and friends tell the WAC, "we'll join, but you need to include Montana, Montana St, Eastern Washington, Portland St, Sac St, Cal Poly, UC-Davis".
- The WAC is happy because it's members for them, despite being more than they want.
- Big Sky schools are happy because it's the only way they can join FBS
- In time, if some schools are less happy with the lineup, they opt to split off...which they could do as FBS members.

So you end up with:

North:
Eastern Washington
Portland St
Idaho
Montana
Montana St
Utah St.
Weber St.
* Denver

South:
SJSU
Sac St
Cal Poly
UC-Davis
NMSU
LA Tech
UTSA
Texas St.



In time, if the old Big Sky schools want to shake it up...good for them. Can grab onto Idaho, Utah St., SJSU and start something new in FBS:
SJSU
Sac St
Cal Poly
UC-Davis
Eastern Washington
Portland St
Idaho
Montana
Montana St
Utah St.
Weber St.






But as it's no lock that these upgrades would be successful, there is something to be said about the initial security of being in a well represented WAC with 15/16 members.

[FCS Go!]

Sounds like a bad idea to me but it would amuse me to no end if it happened- most of the strident move-uppers on eGriz constantly complain about how sick & tired they are of playing the other BSC teams.

Incidentally, I've found it impossible to register for the site. Anyone else have the same problem?

[wapiti]

I would be suprised to see this happen and as a Big Sky fan I would rather not see this happen.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

There are a multitude of problems with this speculation - which, to remind everyone, is what this is.

Utah State has zero, and I mean zero, interest in anything like this. They'll join the Mountain West before suffering in any of these alignments.

Poly and Davis have zero interest in leaving the Big West in all other sports. They're not going to abandon Pacific and the UC schools in order to play more Idaho and New Mexico State in the middle of a budget crisis. Furthermore, all the Cali schools (Poly, Davis, Sac State) would have to make incredibly tough decisions on which men's programs to cut in order to stay in Title IX compliance and spend millions more per year on football.

Weber State cannot support an FBS program right now, and you can bet Utah State, Utah and BYU will do nothing to help the development of a fourth FBS team in its midst. That Utah State would prop up a potential competitor for TV time and recruits is laughable.

For EWU's nice new field and quality FCS program, the population of Eastern Washington is tiny. Charitably, it's open to debate whether they could support FBS football, and when you add the fact that Washington and Washington State dominate the CFB conversation out there, that makes it even harder.

A similar argument about Oregon/Oregon State could be made about Portland State, though they have Jen-Weld field and they're in a large metro area, so they might find the going easier.

Then there's, of course, the considerations of "the rest" - Northern Colorado, North Dakota, NAU, Idaho State. That they all seem to be disposed of like burger wrappers with no consideration of what they might bring to the table makes me think that there is nothing to this. "Project 2014" sounds a lot like "Area 51" to me. xlolx

[EdubAlum]

I'm not sure i'd say spokane is tiny, it's not a major metro, but there are like 600,000 people in the spokane area, too bad they only care about Gonzaga/WSU though:)

[bojeta]

Ah ha! Was not aware of the FCS to FBS restriction. Just for drill, what would this mean for a possible Big West football conference. Would they be required to start as an FCS conference? Would they be exempt based on the old PCAA conference?

[darell1976]

Yes, this move is called "We all join the WAC and then after a few years of being FBS members, we consider a split". As has been pointed out already, the NCAA, at the urging of the FCS schools, passed the law requiring ALL FCS upgrades to have been extended and accepted an invitation to an existing FBS conference...existing meaning an FBS conference that was active in FBS football in 2010.

The CAA folks have this same idea, a group of 6 upgrading together. But like the Big Sky, the same problems exist and it would require a waiver to bypass the conference affiliation rule. The problem is, there is zero reason for the NCAA to even consider a waiver for the Big Sky as by adhering to the rule, they help to keep the WAC, an existing FBS conference, stabilized.


Seems pretty straight forward:
- Montana and friends tell the WAC, "we'll join, but you need to include Montana, Montana St, Eastern Washington, Portland St, Sac St, Cal Poly, UC-Davis".
- The WAC is happy because it's members for them, despite being more than they want.
- Big Sky schools are happy because it's the only way they can join FBS
- In time, if some schools are less happy with the lineup, they opt to split off...which they could do as FBS members.

So you end up with:

North:
Eastern Washington
Portland St
Idaho
Montana
Montana St
Utah St.
Weber St.
* Denver

South:
SJSU
Sac St
Cal Poly
UC-Davis
NMSU
LA Tech
UTSA
Texas St.



In time, if the old Big Sky schools want to shake it up...good for them. Can grab onto Idaho, Utah St., SJSU and start something new in FBS:
SJSU
Sac St
Cal Poly
UC-Davis
Eastern Washington
Portland St
Idaho
Montana
Montana St
Utah St.
Weber St.






But as it's no lock that these upgrades would be successful, there is something to be said about the initial security of being in a well represented WAC with 15/16 members.

Where does Southern Utah and North Dakota fit in since we will be BSC members starting next season.

[rufus]

I don't really think all these schools will move to FBS, but I also don't think the NCAA would actually block a viable conference from moving to FBS. They might push back initially, but I can't see them wanting to go to court in an antitrust case. The Big Sky would have standing to sue, regardless of whether or not they would win. I doubt that the NCAA is willing to risk the public relations hit of losing an antitrust case, so I would expect them to grant a waiver.

Hopefully the Big Sky succeeds in its goal. Having a conference set a precedent would make it easier for the CAA or other conferences to follow.

[darell1976]

I don't really think all these schools will move to FBS, but I also don't think the NCAA would actually block a viable conference from moving to FBS. They might push back initially, but I can't see them wanting to go to court in an antitrust case. The Big Sky would have standing to sue, regardless of whether or not they would win. I doubt that the NCAA is willing to risk the public relations hit of losing an antitrust case, so I would expect them to grant a waiver.

Hopefully the Big Sky succeeds in its goal. Having a conference set a precedent would make it easier for the CAA or other conferences to follow.

Right now our stadium prohibits us from the FBS as our capacity is 13,000 and no way to expand the dome so unless UND announces major renovations at Memorial Stadium including seating over 15,000 (FBS limit) that would leave us possibly without a conference if the BSC moves up.

[DFW HOYA]

Better solution--have one big Division I.

[NHwildEcat]

Better solution--have one big Division I.

I think we will eventually see this become the solution. Just wait for the Feds to hammer the hell out of the BCS...once playoffs are included in FBS- we will see the end of FCS IMHO.

[henfan]

Better solution--have one big Division I.

Well, that was the plan put forth circa 2000 before Tulane's Scott 'Taliban' Cowen and his merry band of crusaders IED'ed the proposal. The current FBS conferences like CUSA, MAC and the Sun Belt fought it tooth and nail because they somehow thought they would have to yield a degree of stature to FCS conferences in a single division. Of course nothing could be further from the truth but that was their apparent perception.

I have no hope of a single division happening anytime soon, though it would seem the natural thing to do.

[TheBisonator]

Right now our stadium prohibits us from the FBS as our capacity is 13,000 and no way to expand the dome so unless UND announces major renovations at Memorial Stadium including seating over 15,000 (FBS limit) that would leave us possibly without a conference if the BSC moves up.

I will marry all 12 Playboy centerfolds from the past year before UND ever goes to the FBS.

[Screamin_Eagle174]

I will marry all 12 Playboy centerfolds from the past year before UND ever goes to the FBS.

Seriously, what's with NDSU's obsession with UND? The way you guys incessantly involve UND in every topic just to trash them tells me that your fans have a pretty big insecurity issue with the flagship University of the state. It's actually quite pathetic.


EDIT: Nevermind, I just looked it up. NDSU has lost the last 3, and 10 of the last 13 games against UND. No wonder you're all so pissy. xlolx

[darell1976]

I will marry all 12 Playboy centerfolds from the past year before UND ever goes to the FBS.

I think the question is would the 12 Playboy centerfolds marry you.xlolx

[TheBisonator]

Seriously, what's with NDSU's obsession with UND? The way you guys incessantly involve UND in every topic just to trash them tells me that your fans have a pretty big insecurity issue with the other co-flagship University of the state. It's actually quite pathetic.

lolx

Fixed it for you.

[NDB]

Seriously, what's with NDSU's obsession with UND? The way you guys incessantly involve UND in every topic just to trash them tells me that your fans have a pretty big insecurity issue with the flagship University of the state. It's actually quite pathetic.

Just think of how Spokane Community College makes most EWU fans' blood boil.

[txstatebobcat]

Yes, this move is called "We all join the WAC and then after a few years of being FBS members, we consider a split". As has been pointed out already, the NCAA, at the urging of the FCS schools, passed the law requiring ALL FCS upgrades to have been extended and accepted an invitation to an existing FBS conference...existing meaning an FBS conference that was active in FBS football in 2010.

The CAA folks have this same idea, a group of 6 upgrading together. But like the Big Sky, the same problems exist and it would require a waiver to bypass the conference affiliation rule. The problem is, there is zero reason for the NCAA to even consider a waiver for the Big Sky as by adhering to the rule, they help to keep the WAC, an existing FBS conference, stabilized.


Seems pretty straight forward:
- Montana and friends tell the WAC, "we'll join, but you need to include Montana, Montana St, Eastern Washington, Portland St, Sac St, Cal Poly, UC-Davis".
- The WAC is happy because it's members for them, despite being more than they want.
- Big Sky schools are happy because it's the only way they can join FBS
- In time, if some schools are less happy with the lineup, they opt to split off...which they could do as FBS members.

So you end up with:

North:
Eastern Washington
Portland St
Idaho
Montana
Montana St
Utah St.
Weber St.
* Denver

South:
SJSU
Sac St
Cal Poly
UC-Davis
NMSU
LA Tech
UTSA
Texas St.



In time, if the old Big Sky schools want to shake it up...good for them. Can grab onto Idaho, Utah St., SJSU and start something new in FBS:
SJSU
Sac St
Cal Poly
UC-Davis
Eastern Washington
Portland St
Idaho
Montana
Montana St
Utah St.
Weber St.






But as it's no lock that these upgrades would be successful, there is something to be said about the initial security of being in a well represented WAC with 15/16 members.


The problem with this is that I can only see the WAC taking a maximum of three Big Sky schools. This would allow a 12 team football conference that can split to two divisions. Also TxSt, UTSA, LaTech and NMSU (in other words half the current conference) would NEVER accept the divisions as you put it. We want divisions so that we don't have to fly to California all the time with that set up we would have to fly, not just football, but every olympic sport at least twice a season. That's just not going to happen.

On the other hand, if looked on as a 10-year plan, let say that Montana, Montana State and Portland State move up in 2014. Then the Northwest and Southwest divisions of the WAC decide to go their separate ways creating two separate conferences then UM, MSU, PSU, SJSU, Idaho and Utah State could invite two or more Big Sky schools to complete the conference.

[NHwildEcat]

I will marry all 12 Playboy centerfolds from the past year before UND ever goes to the FBS.

Then you can have your own sister wives show...

[Mr. C]

More mindless speculation. CAA commissioner Tom Yeager asked a direct question of one of the NCAA vice presidents at January's FCS summit about a conference moving together to FBS and was flat out told it could not be done. It would take major legislation at the NCAA membership level for this rule to change and that isn't likely to happen anytime soon. Also, Montana AD Jim O'Day told me at the same summit that the reason that Montana stayed at FCS after the invite from the WAC last fall was that the numbers didn't add up. If the numbers didn't add up for Montana, who would they for the rest of the Big Sky Conference?

Football season can't get here soon enough.

[CopperCat]

You bring alot of good discussion to the board TT, but this "moving up" hysteria needs to stop. We at the FCS level need to push back on the NCAA instead of enabling all this garbage about why we all "need" to move up. We are doing fine where we are. We have a great playoff system in place. We've had some great championship teams over the years, and better yet we are seeing some FCS teams go toe to toe with the big boys more and more (that is NOT a reason to move up btw). Instead of focusing on all speculation and heresay, why not focus on the strong points of our level of football? The rest of it is just more hot air from people who think they have a better idea as to how we should manage our schools and sports programs. Chances are pretty good that the schools have a better idea of what to do than the pundits do anyway. Just my two cents.

[JSU02]

...but I also don't think the NCAA would actually block a viable conference from moving to FBS. They might push back initially, but I can't see them wanting to go to court in an antitrust case. The Big Sky would have standing to sue, regardless of whether or not they would win. I doubt that the NCAA is willing to risk the public relations hit of losing an antitrust case, so I would expect them to grant a waiver...
THIS!
If a group of schools is willing to invest in the 22 extra scholarships, salaries for extra football coaches, and paired that with an appropriate increase in women's funding under Title IX and have managed to get a bowl game for its champion to go to, and already average 15K attendance at the FCS level, I don't see how the NCAA would have a change in hell of winning in court.

[GannonFan]

More mindless speculation. CAA commissioner Tom Yeager asked a direct question of one of the NCAA vice presidents at January's FCS summit about a conference moving together to FBS and was flat out told it could not be done. It would take major legislation at the NCAA membership level for this rule to change and that isn't likely to happen anytime soon. Also, Montana AD Jim O'Day told me at the same summit that the reason that Montana stayed at FCS after the invite from the WAC last fall was that the numbers didn't add up. If the numbers didn't add up for Montana, who would they for the rest of the Big Sky Conference?

Football season can't get here soon enough.

Saying they can't is a whole lot different than actually stopping them. The other poster was right, if an FCS conference was real serious about moving up as a conference, the NCAA would be in a real weak position to stop them and they wouldn't want to find out how weak in a court of law. With the BCS coming under fire now, it wouldn't be a great time to take a position that would clearly be a restraint of trade. Until a conference chooses to test it, it's all just talk. But if a conference really wanted to do it, I think the NCAA would find some way to give them a waiver and avoid the legal drama of fighting a losing case keeping them out.