(03-14-2015 08:31 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(03-14-2015 03:36 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  My guess though is the conference won't make a move until it sees what happens with UAB. If CUSA kicks out the Blazers, I expect the Sun Belt to offer both UAB and UMass football a home.

That would be a very painful outcome for UAB fans. But I admit it seems plausible on the surface

It won't happen. This fight has an either/or outcome:

a. President Ray Watts is removed in disgrace and athletics are fully restored within CUSA.

b. Watts remains, UAB athletics are shut down, as is much of the undergraduate side of campus.

There is no middle ground. UAB has contacted no other conferences, formally or informally, and made no plans to do so. Watts does not want UAB to join another conference.

(03-15-2015 07:15 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 06:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 04:15 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 03:46 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Liberty could challenge the must invite rule and I think prevail. However the minimum standards would likely be deemed reasonable so if Liberty were to clear the hurdle of moving they still will need five home games against FBS or four against FBS and one against a high scholarship FCS and still need 8 games each year vs FBS regardless of location.

That's not an easy hurdle to clear.

If made part of a requirement challenge, the minimum standard was graduated over a period of 3-5 years, relaxing the initial standard but allowing a team to meet the requirements in graduated steps, that may be an amendment to make the indy jump easier for an FCS team. That period of time would allow a team an amount of latitude to either "earn" a conference affiliation or do it's best at future indy schedule. With the obvious choice being conference affiliation. The invite requirement is one screwy rule that disregards the fulfillment of requirements schools have made seeking membership. It so happens that Liberty may be the one in the cross hairs with the NCAA if no invite comes.

It's not a screwy rule. It's a very practical rule intended to ensure that every new FBS team meets the requirements of 5 home games/year including at least 4 home games/year vs. FBS opponents, because conference membership "guarantees" that a team will have several FBS home games and at least 8 games vs. FBS teams (based on the fact that every FBS conference currently plays at least 8 conference football games).

Without that requirement, you'd have schools trying to label themselves FBS while playing an independent schedule and playing 10 road games a year for money, or schools playing only 1 or 2 FBS home games a year and begging the NCAA for a waiver of the FBS requirements every single year. And, the minimum requirements of # of home games and # of FBS games also make good sense, because of course a team should have to play nearly all its games vs. FBS opponents in order to be classified as FBS, just like a college basketball team shouldn't be allowed to call itself D-I if they play 80% of their games vs. NAIA teams, a college baseball team shouldn't be classified as D-I if they only play 10 of 56 games vs. D-I baseball teams, etc., etc.

If a school could produce several years' worth of signed contracts to play at least 4 FBS teams at home every year and at least 8 FBS teams overall each year, then they'd have a good argument that the conference-invite rule is not needed in their particular case. If a school can't do that, then the NCAA will have plenty of justification for saying, "That's why we have the rule -- because it's too difficult for any FBS newbie to schedule enough FBS games and enough FBS home games, unless the school is a member of an FBS conference."

The screwy part is not the requirement of games, it's the requirement that a team must be invited. That's the indefensible and weak link. If and when that is challenged, it will be overturned as is equates to an unequal requirement. Equal is when standards have been met. An invite is not a standard. It's a loosey-goosey way to exclude qualified candidates for whatever reason with no set, or fair guidelines. The current game requirements you mention could be challenged as well for a team becoming indy, and likely would in combo with the invite requirement.

The invite only membership guideline can be compared to senior housing. Realtors cannot discriminate in age, but there can be 55+ year old communities that can limit their membership/community to folks that must be at least 55. So if you're 55+ and want to live there, you cannot be discriminated against if you have the means. It's not an association that says, well even though these folks are 55, we are not going to invite them. That's discrimination.

One can expect if one or several teams go an extended period of time, who meet all the guidelines, that have the facilities, that compare to and exceed current FBS teams in attendance, facility sizes, men and women sports and more, that a challenge will eventually come. One can further expect that more than just the invite only rule to be challenged as I mentioned earlier.

Lastly, this case will be so strong against the NCAA that it will likely never make news, or if it does make news, expect a quick change before it becomes full blown. The wise and prudent decision is to create an indy route if no invite exists which does not exist now. But the unwise actions to create this invite rule seems clearly to come from the in-their-head academia circle and not the real-world-business mind. This is simple and it just makes sense.

It's not a strong case against the NCAA unless a school (1) has several years' worth of signed contracts to play at least 4 FBS teams at home every year and at least 8 FBS teams overall each year, so that they can argue that the conference-invite rule is not needed in their particular case; and (2) can show that they formally applied for admission to multiple FBS conferences and were rejected. A school won't win -- we're talking about winning in court, not winning a barroom argument -- if it can't prove the ability to meet the minimum FBS game and home-game requirements and other FBS requirements even without conference affiliation. Neither will a school that never formally applied for membership in FBS conferences.

(03-15-2015 09:59 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 07:15 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 06:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 04:15 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 03:46 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Liberty could challenge the must invite rule and I think prevail. However the minimum standards would likely be deemed reasonable so if Liberty were to clear the hurdle of moving they still will need five home games against FBS or four against FBS and one against a high scholarship FCS and still need 8 games each year vs FBS regardless of location.

That's not an easy hurdle to clear.

If made part of a requirement challenge, the minimum standard was graduated over a period of 3-5 years, relaxing the initial standard but allowing a team to meet the requirements in graduated steps, that may be an amendment to make the indy jump easier for an FCS team. That period of time would allow a team an amount of latitude to either "earn" a conference affiliation or do it's best at future indy schedule. With the obvious choice being conference affiliation. The invite requirement is one screwy rule that disregards the fulfillment of requirements schools have made seeking membership. It so happens that Liberty may be the one in the cross hairs with the NCAA if no invite comes.

It's not a screwy rule. It's a very practical rule intended to ensure that every new FBS team meets the requirements of 5 home games/year including at least 4 home games/year vs. FBS opponents, because conference membership "guarantees" that a team will have several FBS home games and at least 8 games vs. FBS teams (based on the fact that every FBS conference currently plays at least 8 conference football games).

Without that requirement, you'd have schools trying to label themselves FBS while playing an independent schedule and playing 10 road games a year for money, or schools playing only 1 or 2 FBS home games a year and begging the NCAA for a waiver of the FBS requirements every single year. And, the minimum requirements of # of home games and # of FBS games also make good sense, because of course a team should have to play nearly all its games vs. FBS opponents in order to be classified as FBS, just like a college basketball team shouldn't be allowed to call itself D-I if they play 80% of their games vs. NAIA teams, a college baseball team shouldn't be classified as D-I if they only play 10 of 56 games vs. D-I baseball teams, etc., etc.

If a school could produce several years' worth of signed contracts to play at least 4 FBS teams at home every year and at least 8 FBS teams overall each year, then they'd have a good argument that the conference-invite rule is not needed in their particular case. If a school can't do that, then the NCAA will have plenty of justification for saying, "That's why we have the rule -- because it's too difficult for any FBS newbie to schedule enough FBS games and enough FBS home games, unless the school is a member of an FBS conference."

The screwy part is not the requirement of games, it's the requirement that a team must be invited. That's the indefensible and weak link. If and when that is challenged, it will be overturned as is equates to an unequal requirement. Equal is when standards have been met. An invite is not a standard. It's a loosey-goosey way to exclude qualified candidates for whatever reason with no set, or fair guidelines. The current game requirements you mention could be challenged as well for a team becoming indy, and likely would in combo with the invite requirement.

The invite only membership guideline can be compared to senior housing. Realtors cannot discriminate in age, but there can be 55+ year old communities that can limit their membership/community to folks that must be at least 55. So if you're 55+ and want to live there, you cannot be discriminated against if you have the means. It's not an association that says, well even though these folks are 55, we are not going to invite them. That's discrimination.

One can expect if one or several teams go an extended period of time, who meet all the guidelines, that have the facilities, that compare to and exceed current FBS teams in attendance, facility sizes, men and women sports and more, that a challenge will eventually come. One can further expect that more than just the invite only rule to be challenged as I mentioned earlier.

Lastly, this case will be so strong against the NCAA that it will likely never make news, or if it does make news, expect a quick change before it becomes full blown. The wise and prudent decision is to create an indy route if no invite exists which does not exist now. But the unwise actions to create this invite rule seems clearly to come from the in-their-head academia circle and not the real-world-business mind. This is simple and it just makes sense.

It's not a strong case against the NCAA unless a school (1) has several years' worth of signed contracts to play at least 4 FBS teams at home every year and at least 8 FBS teams overall each year, so that they can argue that the conference-invite rule is not needed in their particular case; and (2) can show that they formally applied for admission to multiple FBS conferences and were rejected. A school won't win -- we're talking about winning in court, not winning a barroom argument -- if it can't prove the ability to meet the minimum FBS game and home-game requirements and other FBS requirements even without conference affiliation. Neither will a school that never formally applied for membership in FBS conferences.

It doesn't really matter if they win anyway, because their victory would be pyrrhic victory of sorts. The P5 would not want to be part of a D-1 football division that allows anyone in who wants to be in. That would be the straw that breaks the camels back and creates the final split between the NCAA and the P5. The G5 will try to go with them if possible. Liberty may find that they have won the right to be proud members of an FBS division of one. Even if the G5 cant leave, I doubt they will be rushing to schedule the team that caused the split and likely destroyed their football programs as a result.

(03-15-2015 09:59 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 07:15 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 06:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 04:15 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 03:46 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Liberty could challenge the must invite rule and I think prevail. However the minimum standards would likely be deemed reasonable so if Liberty were to clear the hurdle of moving they still will need five home games against FBS or four against FBS and one against a high scholarship FCS and still need 8 games each year vs FBS regardless of location.

That's not an easy hurdle to clear.

If made part of a requirement challenge, the minimum standard was graduated over a period of 3-5 years, relaxing the initial standard but allowing a team to meet the requirements in graduated steps, that may be an amendment to make the indy jump easier for an FCS team. That period of time would allow a team an amount of latitude to either "earn" a conference affiliation or do it's best at future indy schedule. With the obvious choice being conference affiliation. The invite requirement is one screwy rule that disregards the fulfillment of requirements schools have made seeking membership. It so happens that Liberty may be the one in the cross hairs with the NCAA if no invite comes.

It's not a screwy rule. It's a very practical rule intended to ensure that every new FBS team meets the requirements of 5 home games/year including at least 4 home games/year vs. FBS opponents, because conference membership "guarantees" that a team will have several FBS home games and at least 8 games vs. FBS teams (based on the fact that every FBS conference currently plays at least 8 conference football games).

Without that requirement, you'd have schools trying to label themselves FBS while playing an independent schedule and playing 10 road games a year for money, or schools playing only 1 or 2 FBS home games a year and begging the NCAA for a waiver of the FBS requirements every single year. And, the minimum requirements of # of home games and # of FBS games also make good sense, because of course a team should have to play nearly all its games vs. FBS opponents in order to be classified as FBS, just like a college basketball team shouldn't be allowed to call itself D-I if they play 80% of their games vs. NAIA teams, a college baseball team shouldn't be classified as D-I if they only play 10 of 56 games vs. D-I baseball teams, etc., etc.

If a school could produce several years' worth of signed contracts to play at least 4 FBS teams at home every year and at least 8 FBS teams overall each year, then they'd have a good argument that the conference-invite rule is not needed in their particular case. If a school can't do that, then the NCAA will have plenty of justification for saying, "That's why we have the rule -- because it's too difficult for any FBS newbie to schedule enough FBS games and enough FBS home games, unless the school is a member of an FBS conference."

The screwy part is not the requirement of games, it's the requirement that a team must be invited. That's the indefensible and weak link. If and when that is challenged, it will be overturned as is equates to an unequal requirement. Equal is when standards have been met. An invite is not a standard. It's a loosey-goosey way to exclude qualified candidates for whatever reason with no set, or fair guidelines. The current game requirements you mention could be challenged as well for a team becoming indy, and likely would in combo with the invite requirement.

The invite only membership guideline can be compared to senior housing. Realtors cannot discriminate in age, but there can be 55+ year old communities that can limit their membership/community to folks that must be at least 55. So if you're 55+ and want to live there, you cannot be discriminated against if you have the means. It's not an association that says, well even though these folks are 55, we are not going to invite them. That's discrimination.

One can expect if one or several teams go an extended period of time, who meet all the guidelines, that have the facilities, that compare to and exceed current FBS teams in attendance, facility sizes, men and women sports and more, that a challenge will eventually come. One can further expect that more than just the invite only rule to be challenged as I mentioned earlier.

Lastly, this case will be so strong against the NCAA that it will likely never make news, or if it does make news, expect a quick change before it becomes full blown. The wise and prudent decision is to create an indy route if no invite exists which does not exist now. But the unwise actions to create this invite rule seems clearly to come from the in-their-head academia circle and not the real-world-business mind. This is simple and it just makes sense.

It's not a strong case against the NCAA unless a school (1) has several years' worth of signed contracts to play at least 4 FBS teams at home every year and at least 8 FBS teams overall each year, so that they can argue that the conference-invite rule is not needed in their particular case; and (2) can show that they formally applied for admission to multiple FBS conferences and were rejected. A school won't win -- we're talking about winning in court, not winning a barroom argument -- if it can't prove the ability to meet the minimum FBS game and home-game requirements and other FBS requirements even without conference affiliation. Neither will a school that never formally applied for membership in FBS conferences.

An FCS school can not possibly have signed home games with four FBS schools, because of NCAA rules. Items chicken or egg scenario. Any court with half a brain can see that. After a court case when the FCS sues the NCAA for the right to move e up, FBS schools might sign H / H agreement, but not before.

(03-15-2015 11:07 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 09:59 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 07:15 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 06:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 04:15 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  If made part of a requirement challenge, the minimum standard was graduated over a period of 3-5 years, relaxing the initial standard but allowing a team to meet the requirements in graduated steps, that may be an amendment to make the indy jump easier for an FCS team. That period of time would allow a team an amount of latitude to either "earn" a conference affiliation or do it's best at future indy schedule. With the obvious choice being conference affiliation. The invite requirement is one screwy rule that disregards the fulfillment of requirements schools have made seeking membership. It so happens that Liberty may be the one in the cross hairs with the NCAA if no invite comes.

It's not a screwy rule. It's a very practical rule intended to ensure that every new FBS team meets the requirements of 5 home games/year including at least 4 home games/year vs. FBS opponents, because conference membership "guarantees" that a team will have several FBS home games and at least 8 games vs. FBS teams (based on the fact that every FBS conference currently plays at least 8 conference football games).

Without that requirement, you'd have schools trying to label themselves FBS while playing an independent schedule and playing 10 road games a year for money, or schools playing only 1 or 2 FBS home games a year and begging the NCAA for a waiver of the FBS requirements every single year. And, the minimum requirements of # of home games and # of FBS games also make good sense, because of course a team should have to play nearly all its games vs. FBS opponents in order to be classified as FBS, just like a college basketball team shouldn't be allowed to call itself D-I if they play 80% of their games vs. NAIA teams, a college baseball team shouldn't be classified as D-I if they only play 10 of 56 games vs. D-I baseball teams, etc., etc.

If a school could produce several years' worth of signed contracts to play at least 4 FBS teams at home every year and at least 8 FBS teams overall each year, then they'd have a good argument that the conference-invite rule is not needed in their particular case. If a school can't do that, then the NCAA will have plenty of justification for saying, "That's why we have the rule -- because it's too difficult for any FBS newbie to schedule enough FBS games and enough FBS home games, unless the school is a member of an FBS conference."

The screwy part is not the requirement of games, it's the requirement that a team must be invited. That's the indefensible and weak link. If and when that is challenged, it will be overturned as is equates to an unequal requirement. Equal is when standards have been met. An invite is not a standard. It's a loosey-goosey way to exclude qualified candidates for whatever reason with no set, or fair guidelines. The current game requirements you mention could be challenged as well for a team becoming indy, and likely would in combo with the invite requirement.

The invite only membership guideline can be compared to senior housing. Realtors cannot discriminate in age, but there can be 55+ year old communities that can limit their membership/community to folks that must be at least 55. So if you're 55+ and want to live there, you cannot be discriminated against if you have the means. It's not an association that says, well even though these folks are 55, we are not going to invite them. That's discrimination.

One can expect if one or several teams go an extended period of time, who meet all the guidelines, that have the facilities, that compare to and exceed current FBS teams in attendance, facility sizes, men and women sports and more, that a challenge will eventually come. One can further expect that more than just the invite only rule to be challenged as I mentioned earlier.

Lastly, this case will be so strong against the NCAA that it will likely never make news, or if it does make news, expect a quick change before it becomes full blown. The wise and prudent decision is to create an indy route if no invite exists which does not exist now. But the unwise actions to create this invite rule seems clearly to come from the in-their-head academia circle and not the real-world-business mind. This is simple and it just makes sense.

It's not a strong case against the NCAA unless a school (1) has several years' worth of signed contracts to play at least 4 FBS teams at home every year and at least 8 FBS teams overall each year, so that they can argue that the conference-invite rule is not needed in their particular case; and (2) can show that they formally applied for admission to multiple FBS conferences and were rejected. A school won't win -- we're talking about winning in court, not winning a barroom argument -- if it can't prove the ability to meet the minimum FBS game and home-game requirements and other FBS requirements even without conference affiliation. Neither will a school that never formally applied for membership in FBS conferences.

An FCS school can not possibly have signed home games with four FBS schools, because of NCAA rules. Items chicken or egg scenario. Any court with half a brain can see that. After a court case when the FCS sues the NCAA for the right to move e up, FBS schools might sign H / H agreement, but not before.

Not true. FCS teams moving up to FBS sign contracts for games with FBS teams before they actually move up, and that's what any school that wants to go to war against the NCAA needs to do here. That's how move-up teams have those games ready to play in the year when they start play as an FBS team.

(03-15-2015 04:15 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 03:46 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Liberty could challenge the must invite rule and I think prevail. However the minimum standards would likely be deemed reasonable so if Liberty were to clear the hurdle of moving they still will need five home games against FBS or four against FBS and one against a high scholarship FCS and still need 8 games each year vs FBS regardless of location.

That's not an easy hurdle to clear.

If made part of a requirement challenge, the minimum standard was graduated over a period of 3-5 years, relaxing the initial standard but allowing a team to meet the requirements in graduated steps, that may be an amendment to make the indy jump easier for an FCS team. That period of time would allow a team an amount of latitude to either "earn" a conference affiliation or do it's best at future indy schedule. With the obvious choice being conference affiliation. The invite requirement is one screwy rule that disregards the fulfillment of requirements schools have made seeking membership. It so happens that Liberty may be the one in the cross hairs with the NCAA if no invite comes.

Current rule is one year to get your ducks in a row, one year to play under full rules to prove you can, third year you have to meet all standards.

It's not to Liberty or any other challengers advantage to extend that period. That would mean a long period of ineligible for post-season and enhanced difficulty scheduling because AD's want to be sure they can count the game as an FBS game.

(03-15-2015 07:15 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 06:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 04:15 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 03:46 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Liberty could challenge the must invite rule and I think prevail. However the minimum standards would likely be deemed reasonable so if Liberty were to clear the hurdle of moving they still will need five home games against FBS or four against FBS and one against a high scholarship FCS and still need 8 games each year vs FBS regardless of location.

That's not an easy hurdle to clear.

If made part of a requirement challenge, the minimum standard was graduated over a period of 3-5 years, relaxing the initial standard but allowing a team to meet the requirements in graduated steps, that may be an amendment to make the indy jump easier for an FCS team. That period of time would allow a team an amount of latitude to either "earn" a conference affiliation or do it's best at future indy schedule. With the obvious choice being conference affiliation. The invite requirement is one screwy rule that disregards the fulfillment of requirements schools have made seeking membership. It so happens that Liberty may be the one in the cross hairs with the NCAA if no invite comes.

It's not a screwy rule. It's a very practical rule intended to ensure that every new FBS team meets the requirements of 5 home games/year including at least 4 home games/year vs. FBS opponents, because conference membership "guarantees" that a team will have several FBS home games and at least 8 games vs. FBS teams (based on the fact that every FBS conference currently plays at least 8 conference football games).

Without that requirement, you'd have schools trying to label themselves FBS while playing an independent schedule and playing 10 road games a year for money, or schools playing only 1 or 2 FBS home games a year and begging the NCAA for a waiver of the FBS requirements every single year. And, the minimum requirements of # of home games and # of FBS games also make good sense, because of course a team should have to play nearly all its games vs. FBS opponents in order to be classified as FBS, just like a college basketball team shouldn't be allowed to call itself D-I if they play 80% of their games vs. NAIA teams, a college baseball team shouldn't be classified as D-I if they only play 10 of 56 games vs. D-I baseball teams, etc., etc.

If a school could produce several years' worth of signed contracts to play at least 4 FBS teams at home every year and at least 8 FBS teams overall each year, then they'd have a good argument that the conference-invite rule is not needed in their particular case. If a school can't do that, then the NCAA will have plenty of justification for saying, "That's why we have the rule -- because it's too difficult for any FBS newbie to schedule enough FBS games and enough FBS home games, unless the school is a member of an FBS conference."

The screwy part is not the requirement of games, it's the requirement that a team must be invited. That's the indefensible and weak link. If and when that is challenged, it will be overturned as is equates to an unequal requirement. Equal is when standards have been met. An invite is not a standard. It's a loosey-goosey way to exclude qualified candidates for whatever reason with no set, or fair guidelines. The current game requirements you mention could be challenged as well for a team becoming indy, and likely would in combo with the invite requirement.

The invite only membership guideline can be compared to senior housing. Realtors cannot discriminate in age, but there can be 55+ year old communities that can limit their membership/community to folks that must be at least 55. So if you're 55+ and want to live there, you cannot be discriminated against if you have the means. It's not an association that says, well even though these folks are 55, we are not going to invite them. That's discrimination.

One can expect if one or several teams go an extended period of time, who meet all the guidelines, that have the facilities, that compare to and exceed current FBS teams in attendance, facility sizes, men and women sports and more, that a challenge will eventually come. One can further expect that more than just the invite only rule to be challenged as I mentioned earlier.

Lastly, this case will be so strong against the NCAA that it will likely never make news, or if it does make news, expect a quick change before it becomes full blown. The wise and prudent decision is to create an indy route if no invite exists which does not exist now. But the unwise actions to create this invite rule seems clearly to come from the in-their-head academia circle and not the real-world-business mind. This is simple and it just makes sense.

The NCAA went to that rule for a reason.

Teams would get their schedule in place (NCAA would accept a letter of intent rather than a signed contract) and even if the contract was signed someone would need to cancel to accomodate a made for TV deal or get some other better offer or need to shift to another year.

NCAA was constantly having to deal with the file of teams moving and was getting provisional waiver requests (we met the rule last week and don't this week through no fault of our own).

They adopted it to spend less time dealing with it. Court may not concur with the rule but it is very unlikely a court is going to dismiss the idea that if you marketing yourself as FBS that you should play at least 41.7% of your games at home and those game should be FBS games or games that count toward FBS bowl eligibility. Reasonable standards to insure what is being presented to the public under a marketing label tend to do OK with the courts in anti-trust cases unless you can show an alternative that is just as good and I don't think you can say playing fewer games or fewer FBS schools is going to be a just as good alternative.

(03-15-2015 07:25 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The SBC should add Chattagnooga for basketball and travel in the East and cut Idaho/NMSU loose as FB only schools.

Then the SBC would have a 9/12 model that could maximize revenue in FB.

Chattanooga approached the league in 2004 about a non-football membership. It was a non-starter at the time because the SBC was in dire need of football members.

(03-15-2015 09:14 PM)58-56 Wrote:  

(03-14-2015 08:31 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(03-14-2015 03:36 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  My guess though is the conference won't make a move until it sees what happens with UAB. If CUSA kicks out the Blazers, I expect the Sun Belt to offer both UAB and UMass football a home.

That would be a very painful outcome for UAB fans. But I admit it seems plausible on the surface

It won't happen. This fight has an either/or outcome:

a. President Ray Watts is removed in disgrace and athletics are fully restored within CUSA.

b. Watts remains, UAB athletics are shut down, as is much of the undergraduate side of campus.

There is no middle ground. UAB has contacted no other conferences, formally or informally, and made no plans to do so. Watts does not want UAB to join another conference.

This has additional fiasco written all over it.

My hunch is CUSA has kicked the can down the road to avoid the UAB vote in the hope UAB will move on and they aren't seen as rubbing salt in the wound.

My second hunch is that UAB would have a reasonable shot at Sun Belt though I suspect some schools are leery of the committment level and would be more comfortable if UAB approached and asked before getting the hook. Post-hook it could be tense getting the votes because the Sun Belt is fairly divided right now.

But if CUSA pulls the plug, the Sun Belt becomes the only path to restoring football.

Jesus Christo that's a mess inflicted on UAB.

(03-16-2015 12:18 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 11:07 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 09:59 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 07:15 PM)NewTimes Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 06:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  It's not a screwy rule. It's a very practical rule intended to ensure that every new FBS team meets the requirements of 5 home games/year including at least 4 home games/year vs. FBS opponents, because conference membership "guarantees" that a team will have several FBS home games and at least 8 games vs. FBS teams (based on the fact that every FBS conference currently plays at least 8 conference football games).

Without that requirement, you'd have schools trying to label themselves FBS while playing an independent schedule and playing 10 road games a year for money, or schools playing only 1 or 2 FBS home games a year and begging the NCAA for a waiver of the FBS requirements every single year. And, the minimum requirements of # of home games and # of FBS games also make good sense, because of course a team should have to play nearly all its games vs. FBS opponents in order to be classified as FBS, just like a college basketball team shouldn't be allowed to call itself D-I if they play 80% of their games vs. NAIA teams, a college baseball team shouldn't be classified as D-I if they only play 10 of 56 games vs. D-I baseball teams, etc., etc.

If a school could produce several years' worth of signed contracts to play at least 4 FBS teams at home every year and at least 8 FBS teams overall each year, then they'd have a good argument that the conference-invite rule is not needed in their particular case. If a school can't do that, then the NCAA will have plenty of justification for saying, "That's why we have the rule -- because it's too difficult for any FBS newbie to schedule enough FBS games and enough FBS home games, unless the school is a member of an FBS conference."

The screwy part is not the requirement of games, it's the requirement that a team must be invited. That's the indefensible and weak link. If and when that is challenged, it will be overturned as is equates to an unequal requirement. Equal is when standards have been met. An invite is not a standard. It's a loosey-goosey way to exclude qualified candidates for whatever reason with no set, or fair guidelines. The current game requirements you mention could be challenged as well for a team becoming indy, and likely would in combo with the invite requirement.

The invite only membership guideline can be compared to senior housing. Realtors cannot discriminate in age, but there can be 55+ year old communities that can limit their membership/community to folks that must be at least 55. So if you're 55+ and want to live there, you cannot be discriminated against if you have the means. It's not an association that says, well even though these folks are 55, we are not going to invite them. That's discrimination.

One can expect if one or several teams go an extended period of time, who meet all the guidelines, that have the facilities, that compare to and exceed current FBS teams in attendance, facility sizes, men and women sports and more, that a challenge will eventually come. One can further expect that more than just the invite only rule to be challenged as I mentioned earlier.

Lastly, this case will be so strong against the NCAA that it will likely never make news, or if it does make news, expect a quick change before it becomes full blown. The wise and prudent decision is to create an indy route if no invite exists which does not exist now. But the unwise actions to create this invite rule seems clearly to come from the in-their-head academia circle and not the real-world-business mind. This is simple and it just makes sense.

It's not a strong case against the NCAA unless a school (1) has several years' worth of signed contracts to play at least 4 FBS teams at home every year and at least 8 FBS teams overall each year, so that they can argue that the conference-invite rule is not needed in their particular case; and (2) can show that they formally applied for admission to multiple FBS conferences and were rejected. A school won't win -- we're talking about winning in court, not winning a barroom argument -- if it can't prove the ability to meet the minimum FBS game and home-game requirements and other FBS requirements even without conference affiliation. Neither will a school that never formally applied for membership in FBS conferences.

An FCS school can not possibly have signed home games with four FBS schools, because of NCAA rules. Items chicken or egg scenario. Any court with half a brain can see that. After a court case when the FCS sues the NCAA for the right to move e up, FBS schools might sign H / H agreement, but not before.

Not true. FCS teams moving up to FBS sign contracts for games with FBS teams before they actually move up, and that's what any school that wants to go to war against the NCAA needs to do here. That's how move-up teams have those games ready to play in the year when they start play as an FBS team.

Absolutely correct.

Akron played five their second year FBS without a conference, La Tech did it year two and that was back when the rules only required you to play a total of 7 FBS games but had tougher rules on attendance and stadium.

(03-15-2015 04:25 PM)Savacool Wrote:  Why does all of the members of the Sunbelt want to leave the Sunbelt Conference and take UAB's place in CUSA. In my personal opinion CUSA is now the Sunbelt 2.

In the case of Texas State fans, it is in-state opponents and bowl opportunities.

Texas State is on an island for football. With the exception of the Cajuns, everyone in our league is 8+ hour drive from us. Meanwhile, CUSA offers games in San Antonio, Houston, and DFW where we have large alumni chapters and actively recruit students.

Texas State fans were also soured on the Sun Belt during bowl selection. The league has 3 guaranteed bowls and has made no bones about the fact they they prefer would prefer to place teams based on geographic proximity to the bowl rather than team record.

The Cajuns will continue to get the New Orleans Bowl as long as they are eligible. Two bowls in Alabama (and the rumored Orlando Bowl) favor the eastern half of the league.

(03-15-2015 04:25 PM)Savacool Wrote:  Why does all of the members of the Sunbelt want to leave the Sunbelt Conference and take UAB's place in CUSA. In my personal opinion CUSA is now the Sunbelt 2.

AState doesn't have a lot to gain in CUSA because the members (outside USM and with older fans Rice) don't have a very high profile and aren't really any closer than Sun Belt schools.

Any interest AState has would be based on preferring to be the one that leaves rather than the league lose a good member that is not us and become weaker or even more geographically spread out.

(03-15-2015 01:03 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 12:58 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Why not allow a school like Liberty to come up for vote by the NCAA Management Council?

If they have the facility, budget, attendance, enrollment, TV deal that all looks in the range of existing FBS schools I don't see why they couldn't be voted in.

Personally I think Liberty would be a great addition to FBS for reasons I'm citing above. They would bring a lot of fans with them to the top level of the sport.

Liberty has the profits from federal student loans earned their on-line programs to sue their way to FBS as an independent if they feel they have exhausted all attempts via the conference invite route.

FTFY

I have now witnessed the Conference of haters know as the Sunbelt dog out Liberty until I hope the conference remains in purgatory for eternity. I hope Conference USA never gives another Sunbelt team a "get out of hail free" card.

(03-16-2015 02:50 PM)Rabonchild Wrote:  I have now witnessed the Conference of haters know as the Sunbelt dog out Liberty until I hope the conference remains in purgatory for eternity. I hope Conference USA never gives another Sunbelt team a "get out of hail free" card.

lol....that would actually help the Sunbelt....a lot.

(03-16-2015 02:50 PM)Rabonchild Wrote:  I have now witnessed the Conference of haters know as the Sunbelt dog out Liberty until I hope the conference remains in purgatory for eternity. I hope Conference USA never gives another Sunbelt team a "get out of hail free" card.

It is not "dogging" to:
1. Point out Liberty has been considered twice and the presidents declined to accept them.
2. Point out that Liberty can sue the NCAA and it doesn't solve the issue of moving up.
3. Point out that some schools would have reservations about a school where there are four or five online students for every on campus student (Grand Canyon moving Division I was controversial).
4. Point out that some state supported schools are going to be hesitant to add a school that can cause problems from their faculty and student bodies over their policies.

(03-15-2015 04:25 PM)Savacool Wrote:  Why does all of the members of the Sunbelt want to leave the Sunbelt Conference and take UAB's place in CUSA. In my personal opinion CUSA is now the Sunbelt 2.

People need to keep in mind that regardless if the CUSA has 12, 13 or 14 teams, they get the same $12 million/year from the CFP media deal.

In other words, $X/13 > $Y/14, where X is the $12 million plus the CUSA media deal with the remaining 13 football teams and Y is the $12 million plus the CUSA media deal with the remaining 13 and any Sun Belt team as a 14th football team.


That said, why would CUSA add anyone to replace UAB's football team? Going from 13 to 14 football teams doesn't really seem to do anything beneficial.

(03-15-2015 09:14 PM)58-56 Wrote:  It won't happen. This fight has an either/or outcome:

a. President Ray Watts is removed in disgrace and athletics are fully restored within CUSA.

b. Watts remains, UAB athletics are shut down, as is much of the undergraduate side of campus.

There is no middle ground. UAB has contacted no other conferences, formally or informally, and made no plans to do so. Watts does not want UAB to join another conference.

I kindly doubt that UAB is going to be equivalent to UC San Francisco starting in Fall 2015.

What does CUSA have to gain by booting UAB from the conference and adding a Sun Belt football team? They aren't going to get any additional money from the CFP media deal and I doubt their own media deal would go up enough to break even on a per school basis with 13 football programs splitting the revenue. They would still get to have a championship game with 13.

Note that I'm assuming UAB would accept an unequal revenue sharing deal in order to stay in the CUSA (no football revenue distributed to UAB).

(03-15-2015 10:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It doesn't really matter if they win anyway, because their victory would be pyrrhic victory of sorts. The P5 would not want to be part of a D-1 football division that allows anyone in who wants to be in. That would be the straw that breaks the camels back and creates the final split between the NCAA and the P5. The G5 will try to go with them if possible. Liberty may find that they have won the right to be proud members of an FBS division of one. Even if the G5 cant leave, I doubt they will be rushing to schedule the team that caused the split and likely destroyed their football programs as a result.

I don't agree that even a full-on merger between the FBS and FCS (assuming the maximum headcount of the FBS stays in place) would cause the P5 to leave.


The P5 are increasingly doing their own thing while residing well within the definition of FBS and DI.

They have autonomy in governance. They have the best football regular season media coverage and money they've ever had. They have the best football post-season media coverage and money structure they've ever had in the CFP. Bowl games are being set up to produce more P5 vs. P5 matchups and kill off G5 vs. P5 matchups (see the Little Cesar's Bowl). The P5 are going to be playing at least nine games a year against themselves (either nine explicit conference games or nine games against P5).

Heck, even March Madness this year features some examples of G5 and I-AAA teams being corralled into knocking each other out of the P5's way in the "second" round.


I for one think that if there was a "unified Division I" where every Division I football team was in the same division, with the same 85 max headcount, that the P5 would be just fine and dandy with it. Business as usual.

(03-16-2015 03:36 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-15-2015 04:25 PM)Savacool Wrote:  Why does all of the members of the Sunbelt want to leave the Sunbelt Conference and take UAB's place in CUSA. In my personal opinion CUSA is now the Sunbelt 2.

People need to keep in mind that regardless if the CUSA has 12, 13 or 14 teams, they get the same $12 million/year from the CFP media deal.

In other words, $X/13 > $Y/14, where X is the $12 million plus the CUSA media deal with the remaining 13 football teams and Y is the $12 million plus the CUSA media deal with the remaining 13 and any Sun Belt team as a 14th football team.


That said, why would CUSA add anyone?

If CUSA adds no one, and WKU returns to the Sun Belt, both leagues have 12 football teams, just enough for a conference title game, and the right number for maximizing distribution of a G5 conference's CFP money.

You're welcome.