(07-15-2014 03:04 PM)NoQuestion Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 02:57 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 01:58 PM)NoQuestion Wrote:  Been reading this board for quite awhile.

Just to clear up a little history. Benson was ready to announce the addition of Montana and Montana State the same day they added Denver, Texas State, and Texas-San Antonio, but the Montana schools backed out minutes before the press conference.

Source?

http://milehighmids.tumblr.com/post/3661...ue-in-2013

Thanks - strange that in all the years since, reading egriz, AGS, etc that this is the first mention of that I have seen

(07-15-2014 03:55 PM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 03:45 PM)I AM an Eagle! Wrote:  The devil is in the details. 11 BCS Conferences...how many conferences does that first line say?! WAC resurrection possibly? Typo perhaps?

It says 11, but when you count icons on the top of that page there are 11 but it includes an icon for "FBS Independents".

Yes I saw the 11 icons (including FBS Independents) but if you read what the first sentence says you can see that they mentioned the independents in addition to the 11 conferences..."In addition to the 11 BCS conferences in the Football Bowl Subdivision, there are four Independents — Army, BYU, Navy and Notre Dame."

(07-15-2014 02:39 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 02:24 PM)stever20 Wrote:  It's an interesting thought.

A few things-
1- Bowls- you are right for seasons thru 2019. Got to keep in mind though, a FBS move up declared now would be bowl ineligible in 2014(still full FCS), 2015 and 2016. 1st year they would be bowl eligible would be 2017. So 3 years of problems- but they would likely try to create 2-3 games in the meantimes.....
2- TV- if it's CAA they would have some tv money with NBC already they could see about getting a bit more money for football being FBS now.

The question would become the CFP situation. What language is in there regarding new conferences? It was done while the WAC was active, so there could be some provision if the old WAC reignited. I wouldn't say that it's out of the realm of possibility at all. And like what was brought up earlier, the P5 wouldn't mind having more FBS schools now, to lessen the cost of the buy games. Could easily see the Pac 12 like was brought up wanting Big Sky to be FBS so they have more regional options for buy games.

If you look at the CFP FAQs it doesn't mention FBS, it mentions specific conferences... It specifically mentions the highest rated team of "the MAC, MWC, AAC, SBC, and CUSA" it does NOT mention the highest rated team from the rest of "the field of FBS". Thus the WAC, even if revived" is not included. And even if it did mention that, then you can be assured that the other FBS conferences would be staunchly resisting any more FBS Conferences and there would be all sorts of chatter right now. However that is not the case and Aresco, Thompson, Steinbrecher, etc are content and know whats coming.

As I outlined above, perhaps allowing FCS conferences to attempt to keep up in name only was the olive branch given to get their vote and approval and their fans wouldn't be mad or something.

And when the Big West collapsed and the Sun Belt emerged the Sun Belt said, "send us the Big West check" and the BCS answer was, "You didn't sign the contract so you get zip and Big West no longer offers football so they get zip as well."

(07-15-2014 02:50 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I wouldn't say that just because it says MAC,MWC, AAC, SBC, and CUSA doesn't mean that it's only those conferences. It may mean that it is currently those conferences.

And frankly- while G5 may not want it, P5 would be in control. If it's a 5-5 tie, you can bet that the tie would go with the P5.

There is actually a CFP contract. It bears 11 signatures, one from each conference and one from Notre Dame.

(07-15-2014 03:04 PM)NoQuestion Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 02:57 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 01:58 PM)NoQuestion Wrote:  Been reading this board for quite awhile.

Just to clear up a little history. Benson was ready to announce the addition of Montana and Montana State the same day they added Denver, Texas State, and Texas-San Antonio, but the Montana schools backed out minutes before the press conference.

Source?

http://milehighmids.tumblr.com/post/3661...ue-in-2013

This is just some guys blog. Regardless of the integrity of the information presented, the premise that the Dakota schools didn't want to be in a conference because Texas schools were involved is apparently not correct. They had the opportunity to jump to the WAC in 2011-2012 when the Texas schools had already announced they were leaving the WAC. They still didn't want to go. The reason the Big Sky type schools don't want to go to FBS is that they are afraid of the higher expenses. They just don't want FBS. If you could wave a magic wand and call the Big Sky FBS, then maybe they might consider it. Otherwise, they are not interested. They like their current little conference and their current low expenses.

(07-15-2014 04:12 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 02:50 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I wouldn't say that just because it says MAC,MWC, AAC, SBC, and CUSA doesn't mean that it's only those conferences. It may mean that it is currently those conferences.

And frankly- while G5 may not want it, P5 would be in control. If it's a 5-5 tie, you can bet that the tie would go with the P5.

There is actually a CFP contract. It bears 11 signatures, one from each conference and one from Notre Dame.

You have a link to that contract?

(07-15-2014 03:58 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 03:04 PM)NoQuestion Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 02:57 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 01:58 PM)NoQuestion Wrote:  Been reading this board for quite awhile.

Just to clear up a little history. Benson was ready to announce the addition of Montana and Montana State the same day they added Denver, Texas State, and Texas-San Antonio, but the Montana schools backed out minutes before the press conference.

Source?

http://milehighmids.tumblr.com/post/3661...ue-in-2013

Thanks - strange that in all the years since, reading egriz, AGS, etc that this is the first mention of that I have seen

And what was Benson thinking? If Montana and MSU got cold feet just a few minutes before the press conference started, and the WAC really wanted them, then you postpone the press conference and spend a few days or a week trying to talk them into going through with the move.

Good lord. The sky is falling.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Time to interview chicken little to see what he thinks.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(07-15-2014 04:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The reason the Big Sky type schools don't want to go to FBS is that they are afraid of the higher expenses. They just don't want FBS. If you could wave a magic wand and call the Big Sky FBS, then maybe they might consider it. Otherwise, they are not interested. They like their current little conference and their current low expenses.

This is my thinking too and also why I think the new governance may have been approved in this manner. The P5 wanted their autonomy and never really wanted to break away but they needed to get the majority of ALL of D1 to buy it off.

- P5 gets their autonomy to satisfy O'Bannon lawsuits and spend their money BUT with limits on what they can and can't make rules on themselves (ie. scholarship limits and game rules, NO; stipends up to limit and recruiting, YES)

- G5 agrees to vote yes for autonomy in exchange for being bound together with CFP, guaranteed access to Fiesta, Cotton, Peach Bowls, increased CFP revenue share, ability to match any stipends or new rules they agree to and can afford that the P5 make but have less voting power to override (more like tie-breaker voting rights)

- FCS has "FCS label" erased and are given the opportunity to match stipends and can raise scholarship limit to 85 if they want to make them feel apart of the same D1 league in football to save face with their fans and give them hope but NO inclusion in the CFP access and revenue share for the 12 years of the existing contract at a minimum. In reality these conferences may never offer the full 85 scholarships just as not all of today's FCS conferences offer the max 63 scholarships. The individual FCS conferences will decide if they want to create bowls or belong to a playoff outside the CFP. This also fits with Fullerton's comments and be enough to get Idaho back while having exciting news. Also gives schools like UMass the political cover to move back to the CAA for football and remain in the A10 because the CAA now has FCS erased.
Basically hope is granted to them but the gap remains. This may have also been why all the saber rattling about not playing FCS schools anymore if they didn't get on board.

- Basketball only conferences vote yes in exchange for assurance in not messing with the basketball tourney and also are allowed to offer stipends but few will offer the full amount (see FCS above).

The grand compromise that gets the P5 the majority vote for partial autonomy and they don't ever get called on their bluff to break away from the NCAA (which wouldn't have happened).

Anyway - I could see something like the above happening without too much drama from any party.

I guess we find out in a couple weeks.

This guy is looney tunes. He inferiority complex to NDSU being a nationally known football program with 3 titles and 7 fbs wins compared with his schools of 0 playoffs 0 fbs wins that he is begging for this make believe idea to happen. Haha pass the popcorn

(07-15-2014 05:09 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 04:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The reason the Big Sky type schools don't want to go to FBS is that they are afraid of the higher expenses. They just don't want FBS. If you could wave a magic wand and call the Big Sky FBS, then maybe they might consider it. Otherwise, they are not interested. They like their current little conference and their current low expenses.

This is my thinking too and also why I think the new governance may have been approved in this manner. The P5 wanted their autonomy and never really wanted to break away but they needed to get the majority of ALL of D1 to buy it off.

- P5 gets their autonomy to satisfy O'Bannon lawsuits and spend their money BUT with limits on what they can and can't make rules on themselves (ie. scholarship limits and game rules, NO; stipends up to limit and recruiting, YES)

- G5 agrees to vote yes for autonomy in exchange for being bound together with CFP, guaranteed access to Fiesta, Cotton, Peach Bowls, increased CFP revenue share, ability to match any stipends or new rules they agree to and can afford that the P5 make but have less voting power to override (more like tie-breaker voting rights)

- FCS has "FCS label" erased and are given the opportunity to match stipends and can raise scholarship limit to 85 if they want to make them feel apart of the same D1 league in football to save face with their fans and give them hope but NO inclusion in the CFP access and revenue share for the 12 years of the existing contract at a minimum. In reality these conferences may never offer the full 85 scholarships just as not all of today's FCS conferences offer the max 63 scholarships. The individual FCS conferences will decide if they want to create bowls or belong to a playoff outside the CFP. This also fits with Fullerton's comments and be enough to get Idaho back while having exciting news. Also gives schools like UMass the political cover to move back to the CAA for football and remain in the A10 because the CAA now has FCS erased.
Basically hope is granted to them but the gap remains. This may have also been why all the saber rattling about not playing FCS schools anymore if they didn't get on board.

- Basketball only conferences vote yes in exchange for assurance in not messing with the basketball tourney and also are allowed to offer stipends but few will offer the full amount (see FCS above).

The grand compromise that gets the P5 the majority vote for partial autonomy and they don't ever get called on their bluff to break away from the NCAA (which wouldn't have happened).

Anyway - I could see something like the above happening without too much drama from any party.

I guess we find out in a couple weeks.

I think most of what you said I guess could happen. However, the FCS portion of it would not be very likely. The main reason it would not happen is most FCS would probably NOT want other FCS schools to be able to increase scholarship limits and pay stipends. The vast majority of FCS schools would not have the budgets to do that and would be at a disadvantage to the handful of FCS schools that could financially pull it off. A proposal like that probably loses more FCS votes than it gains for the P5 autonomy goal. There is no legislative help coming to make the Big Sky FBS and I suspect the Big Sky members don't really care. Like I said, I think they are happy with where they are.

(07-15-2014 09:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 06:13 AM)cleburneslim Wrote:  Irrelevance of fcs football has alot to do with espns refusal to air games. No one is really tuning in to watch the sbc play because they have a shot at a national championship. ark states increasing popularity is based on the fact that thier games are occassionally aired in television. New fans cannot be found if your games cannot be viewed.
Espn and the like force fcs schools into irrelevancy.
If their is a split it is my thought that the g5 schools left behind will fill their ranks with fcs schools wishing to move up. Whether this new second level of football is irrelevant will depend on how they are treated by the media. If like the fcs they are belittled and not aired it will have poor results if however they are aired as another football option treated as an option to what college football is becoming "semi pro", it may become very popular.

The only FCS games that draw any sort of national audience tend to be the semi-finals and finals. The branding matters. Even the regionals that will carry some FCS games tend to dump them if they get access to FBS games.

the only fcs games televised in which the announcers dont continually condescend toward fcs is the semi finals and finals. When the g5 begins being referred to as a lower level school constantly it will have a very similar effect. All I mean to say is that given a supportive media which has the intent of building a product rather than degrading one, a successful second level could in the future bring more reward than currently available to the g5. What happened to the schools choosing to become fcs was a systematic derogatory attack from every media outlet and as we all know perception is reality.

(07-15-2014 06:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 05:09 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 04:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The reason the Big Sky type schools don't want to go to FBS is that they are afraid of the higher expenses. They just don't want FBS. If you could wave a magic wand and call the Big Sky FBS, then maybe they might consider it. Otherwise, they are not interested. They like their current little conference and their current low expenses.

This is my thinking too and also why I think the new governance may have been approved in this manner. The P5 wanted their autonomy and never really wanted to break away but they needed to get the majority of ALL of D1 to buy it off.

- P5 gets their autonomy to satisfy O'Bannon lawsuits and spend their money BUT with limits on what they can and can't make rules on themselves (ie. scholarship limits and game rules, NO; stipends up to limit and recruiting, YES)

- G5 agrees to vote yes for autonomy in exchange for being bound together with CFP, guaranteed access to Fiesta, Cotton, Peach Bowls, increased CFP revenue share, ability to match any stipends or new rules they agree to and can afford that the P5 make but have less voting power to override (more like tie-breaker voting rights)

- FCS has "FCS label" erased and are given the opportunity to match stipends and can raise scholarship limit to 85 if they want to make them feel apart of the same D1 league in football to save face with their fans and give them hope but NO inclusion in the CFP access and revenue share for the 12 years of the existing contract at a minimum. In reality these conferences may never offer the full 85 scholarships just as not all of today's FCS conferences offer the max 63 scholarships. The individual FCS conferences will decide if they want to create bowls or belong to a playoff outside the CFP. This also fits with Fullerton's comments and be enough to get Idaho back while having exciting news. Also gives schools like UMass the political cover to move back to the CAA for football and remain in the A10 because the CAA now has FCS erased.
Basically hope is granted to them but the gap remains. This may have also been why all the saber rattling about not playing FCS schools anymore if they didn't get on board.

- Basketball only conferences vote yes in exchange for assurance in not messing with the basketball tourney and also are allowed to offer stipends but few will offer the full amount (see FCS above).

The grand compromise that gets the P5 the majority vote for partial autonomy and they don't ever get called on their bluff to break away from the NCAA (which wouldn't have happened).

Anyway - I could see something like the above happening without too much drama from any party.

I guess we find out in a couple weeks.

I think most of what you said I guess could happen. However, the FCS portion of it would not be very likely. The main reason it would not happen is most FCS would probably NOT want other FCS schools to be able to increase scholarship limits and pay stipends. The vast majority of FCS schools would not have the budgets to do that and would be at a disadvantage to the handful of FCS schools that could financially pull it off. A proposal like that probably loses more FCS votes than it gains for the P5 autonomy goal. There is no legislative help coming to make the Big Sky FBS and I suspect the Big Sky members don't really care. Like I said, I think they are happy with where they are.

Idaho was major college while the rest of the BSC was small college or similar to FBS FCS. The MWC has some schools wanting stipends others do not.The top FCS conferences could become tweener conferences. The 85 scholarships schools could play for bowls the 63 the smaller play-off.
The FCS play-offs losing money could mean more bowls .

A feeling out period with a lot of gray area could result .
I know the BSC, CAA and MVFC have some schools that are better candidates than some current FBS members. How many from each I am not sure.

(07-15-2014 06:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 05:09 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 04:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The reason the Big Sky type schools don't want to go to FBS is that they are afraid of the higher expenses. They just don't want FBS. If you could wave a magic wand and call the Big Sky FBS, then maybe they might consider it. Otherwise, they are not interested. They like their current little conference and their current low expenses.

This is my thinking too and also why I think the new governance may have been approved in this manner. The P5 wanted their autonomy and never really wanted to break away but they needed to get the majority of ALL of D1 to buy it off.

- P5 gets their autonomy to satisfy O'Bannon lawsuits and spend their money BUT with limits on what they can and can't make rules on themselves (ie. scholarship limits and game rules, NO; stipends up to limit and recruiting, YES)

- G5 agrees to vote yes for autonomy in exchange for being bound together with CFP, guaranteed access to Fiesta, Cotton, Peach Bowls, increased CFP revenue share, ability to match any stipends or new rules they agree to and can afford that the P5 make but have less voting power to override (more like tie-breaker voting rights)

- FCS has "FCS label" erased and are given the opportunity to match stipends and can raise scholarship limit to 85 if they want to make them feel apart of the same D1 league in football to save face with their fans and give them hope but NO inclusion in the CFP access and revenue share for the 12 years of the existing contract at a minimum. In reality these conferences may never offer the full 85 scholarships just as not all of today's FCS conferences offer the max 63 scholarships. The individual FCS conferences will decide if they want to create bowls or belong to a playoff outside the CFP. This also fits with Fullerton's comments and be enough to get Idaho back while having exciting news. Also gives schools like UMass the political cover to move back to the CAA for football and remain in the A10 because the CAA now has FCS erased.
Basically hope is granted to them but the gap remains. This may have also been why all the saber rattling about not playing FCS schools anymore if they didn't get on board.

- Basketball only conferences vote yes in exchange for assurance in not messing with the basketball tourney and also are allowed to offer stipends but few will offer the full amount (see FCS above).

The grand compromise that gets the P5 the majority vote for partial autonomy and they don't ever get called on their bluff to break away from the NCAA (which wouldn't have happened).

Anyway - I could see something like the above happening without too much drama from any party.

I guess we find out in a couple weeks.

I think most of what you said I guess could happen. However, the FCS portion of it would not be very likely. The main reason it would not happen is most FCS would probably NOT want other FCS schools to be able to increase scholarship limits and pay stipends. The vast majority of FCS schools would not have the budgets to do that and would be at a disadvantage to the handful of FCS schools that could financially pull it off. A proposal like that probably loses more FCS votes than it gains for the P5 autonomy goal. There is no legislative help coming to make the Big Sky FBS and I suspect the Big Sky members don't really care. Like I said, I think they are happy with where they are.

Another reason it wouldn't happen is because the P5 don't want FBS flooded with new schools when their current contract expires. Then they would have a fight with lesser revenue schools and a majority of FBS being have-nots and wanting a bigger piece of the playoff pie. P5 can still say no, but it gets messier. G5 certainly doesn't want it.

(07-15-2014 05:38 PM)lakesbison Wrote:  This guy is looney tunes. He inferiority complex to NDSU being a nationally known football program with 3 titles and 7 fbs wins compared with his schools of 0 playoffs 0 fbs wins that he is begging for this make believe idea to happen. Haha pass the popcorn

And you only have zero reputation because someone felt sorry for your reputation being so in the red.

You are a troll on all the boards you can find, and most of it is anti-UND: like others care what UND is do you. Even NDSU's board has banned you multiple times. Your a Bison / Gopher hockey fan, which is the worst combination possible to be anti-UND.

(07-15-2014 05:09 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 04:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The reason the Big Sky type schools don't want to go to FBS is that they are afraid of the higher expenses. They just don't want FBS. If you could wave a magic wand and call the Big Sky FBS, then maybe they might consider it. Otherwise, they are not interested. They like their current little conference and their current low expenses.

This is my thinking too and also why I think the new governance may have been approved in this manner. The P5 wanted their autonomy and never really wanted to break away but they needed to get the majority of ALL of D1 to buy it off.

- P5 gets their autonomy to satisfy O'Bannon lawsuits and spend their money BUT with limits on what they can and can't make rules on themselves (ie. scholarship limits and game rules, NO; stipends up to limit and recruiting, YES)

- G5 agrees to vote yes for autonomy in exchange for being bound together with CFP, guaranteed access to Fiesta, Cotton, Peach Bowls, increased CFP revenue share, ability to match any stipends or new rules they agree to and can afford that the P5 make but have less voting power to override (more like tie-breaker voting rights)

- FCS has "FCS label" erased and are given the opportunity to match stipends and can raise scholarship limit to 85 if they want to make them feel apart of the same D1 league in football to save face with their fans and give them hope but NO inclusion in the CFP access and revenue share for the 12 years of the existing contract at a minimum. In reality these conferences may never offer the full 85 scholarships just as not all of today's FCS conferences offer the max 63 scholarships. The individual FCS conferences will decide if they want to create bowls or belong to a playoff outside the CFP. This also fits with Fullerton's comments and be enough to get Idaho back while having exciting news. Also gives schools like UMass the political cover to move back to the CAA for football and remain in the A10 because the CAA now has FCS erased.
Basically hope is granted to them but the gap remains. This may have also been why all the saber rattling about not playing FCS schools anymore if they didn't get on board.

- Basketball only conferences vote yes in exchange for assurance in not messing with the basketball tourney and also are allowed to offer stipends but few will offer the full amount (see FCS above).

The grand compromise that gets the P5 the majority vote for partial autonomy and they don't ever get called on their bluff to break away from the NCAA (which wouldn't have happened).

Anyway - I could see something like the above happening without too much drama from any party.

I guess we find out in a couple weeks.

No CFP sharing for 12 years.

But bowl access.

Humanitarian (Boise): MWC vs Big Sky
(The MAC didn't care for the travel)
New bowl in Seattle: MWC vs Big Sky
New bowl in new Vikings stadium: MAC vs Big Sky
Maybe a California low level bowl for the California schools.

Those bowls would be perfect access. The MAC would be happy, and maybe the MWC.

It's possible some Big Sky schools would choose to be at 90% of FBS schollies (77), to help reduce costs and Title IX considerations. NCAA rules require 90% of the maximum for FBS.

The CAA would be a mess figuring out 8 full conference FBS teams.

(07-15-2014 03:58 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 03:04 PM)NoQuestion Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 02:57 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 01:58 PM)NoQuestion Wrote:  Been reading this board for quite awhile.

Just to clear up a little history. Benson was ready to announce the addition of Montana and Montana State the same day they added Denver, Texas State, and Texas-San Antonio, but the Montana schools backed out minutes before the press conference.

Source?

http://milehighmids.tumblr.com/post/3661...ue-in-2013

Thanks - strange that in all the years since, reading egriz, AGS, etc that this is the first mention of that I have seen

The Big Sky took the Montana's flirtation with the WAC seriously, and soon after, the entire Big Sky voted North and South Dakota aboard. Previously, the Montana's couldn't get the other schools to back any of the Dakota's. S Dakota declined once the MVFC found out and added them, as NDSU, SDSU, W Ill raised a stink in the MVFC because the loss the USD threatened the Summit League. USD also would have been required to pay exit fees from the Summit League, even though they were never a participating member, and an entry fee to the Big Sky.

(07-15-2014 02:39 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 02:24 PM)stever20 Wrote:  It's an interesting thought.

A few things-
1- Bowls- you are right for seasons thru 2019. Got to keep in mind though, a FBS move up declared now would be bowl ineligible in 2014(still full FCS), 2015 and 2016. 1st year they would be bowl eligible would be 2017. So 3 years of problems- but they would likely try to create 2-3 games in the meantimes.....
2- TV- if it's CAA they would have some tv money with NBC already they could see about getting a bit more money for football being FBS now.

The question would become the CFP situation. What language is in there regarding new conferences? It was done while the WAC was active, so there could be some provision if the old WAC reignited. I wouldn't say that it's out of the realm of possibility at all. And like what was brought up earlier, the P5 wouldn't mind having more FBS schools now, to lessen the cost of the buy games. Could easily see the Pac 12 like was brought up wanting Big Sky to be FBS so they have more regional options for buy games.

If you look at the CFP FAQs it doesn't mention FBS, it mentions specific conferences... It specifically mentions the highest rated team of "the MAC, MWC, AAC, SBC, and CUSA" it does NOT mention the highest rated team from the rest of "the field of FBS". Thus the WAC, even if revived" is not included. And even if it did mention that, then you can be assured that the other FBS conferences would be staunchly resisting any more FBS Conferences and there would be all sorts of chatter right now. However that is not the case and Aresco, Thompson, Steinbrecher, etc are content and know whats coming.

As I outlined above, perhaps allowing FCS conferences to attempt to keep up in name only was the olive branch given to get their vote and approval and their fans wouldn't be mad or something.

I think you've got a good grip on this.

Everything may line up on the voting structure, with P5 picking up 38% of the vote, G5 19% of the vote and the other 22 conferences left with 57% of the vote or about 2.5% each. The P5 and G5 can both vote for their own football rules separately.

I've read the MAC and MWC like a 4,000 per year stipend. The AAC is willing to match the P5 dollar for dollar. CUSA is in favor of some type of stipend. I don't know where the SBC stands but it clear the G5 will vote in a stipend if permitted.

FCS conferences can vote for their own scholarships and stipends too....but which way will they vote? What if they decide to reduce numbers down to 53 scholarships but offer lifetime scholarships, Long Term Disability insurance ect, to their players? The NFL only has a 53 man roster so why does FCS need to have 63 full scholarships?

(07-15-2014 08:22 PM)NoDak Wrote:  No CFP sharing for 12 years.

But bowl access.

Humanitarian (Boise): MWC vs Big Sky
(The MAC didn't care for the travel)
New bowl in Seattle: MWC vs Big Sky
New bowl in new Vikings stadium: MAC vs Big Sky

Those bowls would be perfect access. The MAC would be happy, and maybe the MWC.

The CAA would be a mess figuring out 8 full conference FBS teams.

Maybe the Big Sky itself brokered a voting deal that let it move up to FBS as part of the package AND Idaho/New Mexico St agreed to be part of the new FBS conference.

Big Sky Capacities including Idaho/NMSU

1) New Mexico St 30,343
2) Montana 25,203
3) Sacramento St 21,195
4) Montana St 20,767
5) Portland St 20,000
6) Weber St 17,500
7) Idaho 16,000
North Dakota 13,500
Idaho St 12,000
Cal Poly 11,075
UC Davis 10,367
Northern Arizona 10,000
Eastern Washington 8,500
Southern Utah 8,500
Northern Colorado 6,500

That would give a Big Sky with Idaho/NMSU seven schools above the 15,000 seating threshold. The others then could be given a certain grace period to get their stadiums up to 15,000 or risk expulsion.

If NMSU doesn't want to come along the Big Sky could also look at adding North Dakota St from the MVC since they now as an FBS conference have the right to make upgrades. New Mexico St might prefer to remain in a more established FBS conference for a while, Idaho though would probably concede Big Sky.