Pointless to start a new football team now when schools are about to begin dropping the sport en mass like they did in the 70s.

The football being dropped are in the lower division.

Haskill Indian Nations, Stillman, Concordia-Alabama, Point, Cole are the most recent schools that dropped the sport.

If an FBS drops football it will be a schools pulling a high amount of institutional aid experiencing an enrollment drop. While many may be in the first category the second will not be so large because even a low level FBS will have a brand advantage over a number of in-state schools lacking that brand advantage

(02-03-2016 10:24 PM)Section 200 Wrote:  Pointless to start a new football team now when schools are about to begin dropping the sport en mass like they did in the 70s.

That's only happening in California for the most part.

(02-03-2016 01:59 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 01:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I can see them as a non-football addition. The AAC isn't adding a start up in football. They likely would start out in FCS like any other program.

This. While there is certainly long-term potential with WSU for the AAC, they won't be adding a startup without some type of transition status as an FCS/Independent before they become a full member.

Basketball-wise, they would be an immediate improvement that would help prop-up the league. Not sure they want to go through a non-football member-arrangement again, though.

One non-football arrangement should not cause a problem.

(02-03-2016 01:46 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 01:36 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Why is that a sinking feeling?

WSU and Tulsa will make great travel partners (again).

Tulsa would get a natural rival if they were to join.

I say sinking feeling in that they wouldn't be an easy conference win.

If you want easy wins, you should pick another team.

(02-03-2016 06:13 PM)NoDak Wrote:  The NCAA changes to FCS to FBS rules.

The MVC invites NMSU, Denver, ORU, Lamar, Sam Houston, and a DFW presence like UTA and goes to two divisions for Olympic Sports.

9 football, 16 bball

MVC South
Wichita St
MO St
Oral Roberts
UTA or Dallas Baptist
Denver
NMSU
Lamar
Sam Houston St

Wichita St and Mo St want penetration in the growing southwest for recruiting and alumni.

MVC FBS
N Iowa
I'll St
S Ill
Ind St
MO St
Wichita St
NMSU
Sam Houston St
Lamar

And every G5 conference would oppose that waiver. As would every FCS conference that wasn't looking to move up (most aren't). As would many non-football D1 conferences as they don't want more FBS leagues making football centric rules for the entire NCAA. My guess is that a few P5's would be against it too, as that might make more of a split in revenues.

Is it fair? Probably not. But it is what it is.

(02-04-2016 01:06 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 06:13 PM)NoDak Wrote:  The NCAA changes to FCS to FBS rules.

The MVC invites NMSU, Denver, ORU, Lamar, Sam Houston, and a DFW presence like UTA and goes to two divisions for Olympic Sports.

9 football, 16 bball

MVC South
Wichita St
MO St
Oral Roberts
UTA or Dallas Baptist
Denver
NMSU
Lamar
Sam Houston St

Wichita St and Mo St want penetration in the growing southwest for recruiting and alumni.

MVC FBS
N Iowa
I'll St
S Ill
Ind St
MO St
Wichita St
NMSU
Sam Houston St
Lamar

And every G5 conference would oppose that waiver. As would every FCS conference that wasn't looking to move up (most aren't). As would many non-football D1 conferences as they don't want more FBS leagues making football centric rules for the entire NCAA. My guess is that a few P5's would be against it too, as that might make more of a split in revenues.

Is it fair? Probably not. But it is what it is.

This could be a good split from the football centric schools from the basketball only schools. The P5 and other football schools could have their own FBS type basketball conference. There are some D2 schools that would go along with the D1 football schools.

FBS basketball and football conferences.

AAC
ACC
Big Sky
Big 10
Big 12
CAA football schools splitting from the non-football schools.
C-USA
MAC
MVFC
MWC
PAC 12
SEC
Southland

Liberty
Kennesaw State
Delaware State
Florida A&M
Central Conn. State
Jacksonville State
Eastern Kentucky
Eastern Illinois
Fordham?
Dayton?
Chattanooga
Western Carolina
Alabama State
Jackson State
West Florida
North Alabama
West Texas A&M

Plus schools like Wichita State, Milwaukee, UTA, Little Rock, and some others could add football to be part of this group. They will have a separate basketball tournament. This means schools like the Big East will lose their meal tickets because they will not be part of the big boys anymore.

(02-04-2016 03:33 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Plus schools like Wichita State, Milwaukee, UTA, Little Rock, and some others could add football to be part of this group. They will have a separate basketball tournament. This means schools like the Big East will lose their meal tickets because they will not be part of the big boys anymore.

Oh that's it. You clog every thread with pimping every two bit directional open admissions clown-and-barber college into FBS, and that's fine. I'd advise you to figure out a more social hobby, but it's your life.

But don't sit there and tell me that the big-money, high-attendance, large-fan-base programs of the Big East are riding the FBS schools for a "meal ticket". WE had those conversations, we had that debate and we went through that with the old Big East and "New Big East" football schools. And at the end of the day, our programs are getting TV revenue in line with the other "BCS Conference" basketball programs. (IF you take the conventional wisdom of a 75-25 FB/BB split, the P5 are all taking in $20M+. 25% of $20M is $5M, and we're getting $4M per school from Fox. Because, much like Penn STate and Texas TEch have long-established traditional fanbases whether anyone else likes it or not, so do we.)

Go start a thread about how the Seven Sisters should all jump to FBS and field teams of gender nonconformists and leave the Big East alone.

(02-04-2016 04:19 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 03:33 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Plus schools like Wichita State, Milwaukee, UTA, Little Rock, and some others could add football to be part of this group. They will have a separate basketball tournament. This means schools like the Big East will lose their meal tickets because they will not be part of the big boys anymore.

Oh that's it. You clog every thread with pimping every two bit directional open admissions clown-and-barber college into FBS, and that's fine. I'd advise you to figure out a more social hobby, but it's your life.

But don't sit there and tell me that the big-money, high-attendance, large-fan-base programs of the Big East are riding the FBS schools for a "meal ticket". WE had those conversations, we had that debate and we went through that with the old Big East and "New Big East" football schools. And at the end of the day, our programs are getting TV revenue in line with the other "BCS Conference" basketball programs. (IF you take the conventional wisdom of a 75-25 FB/BB split, the P5 are all taking in $20M+. 25% of $20M is $5M, and we're getting $4M per school from Fox. Because, much like Penn STate and Texas TEch have long-established traditional fanbases whether anyone else likes it or not, so do we.)

Go start a thread about how the Seven Sisters should all jump to FBS and field teams of gender nonconformists and leave the Big East alone.

Damn dude, what's the matter can't sleep ?

Tom, the reason they (G5) won't oppose it (new FBS conferences) is because the CFP is completely separate from the FBS.

In other words, just because, say, two new FBS conferences were formed, that in no way, shape or form obligates the CFP to expand its ownership/management structure to include those two new conferences.


So if the money is not threatened, then there's nothing really for the current G5 to oppose.

charger (post #37),

The MVC currently has five FCS playing, public full-members, one non-football, public full-member and four private full-members.

With WSU making all six public schools FCS playing, I think the private schools will want to add another to their ranks. In comes Valpo. And this especially makes sense for when/if Wichita flies the coop. Then it goes to 5/5 public FCS/private non-football (ignore the fact that Drake plays non-scholarship "DIII equivalent" football).


As far as the MVFC goes, the obvious #12 is North Dakota. It completes the Dakota flagships. I don't think there would be need for divisions, especially since UNI, MO St and WSU will demand not to be pigeonholed into playing all four Dakota schools every year.

NDSU, UND, SDSU, USD, MO St, Wichita St, UNI, W ILL, S ILL, ILL St, IN St, Youngstown St

(02-04-2016 11:13 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Tom, the reason they (G5) won't oppose it (new FBS conferences) is because the CFP is completely separate from the FBS.

In other words, just because, say, two new FBS conferences were formed, that in no way, shape or form obligates the CFP to expand its ownership/management structure to include those two new conferences.

So if the money is not threatened, then there's nothing really for the current G5 to oppose.

There's also nothing in it for the G5, or for the P5, or for the vast majority of the non-FBS conferences. In fact, the MAC and MWC will hate it, because who wants competition in your territory or nearby territory?

The new FBS conferences would also be entitled to seats at the NCAA Division I board table. Does the G5, err, G7, start rotating board seats? Does the board expand, with more votes for the P5 and FCS and non-football?

That's a lot of stuff to work out. All for a bunch of schools who could have said "Yes" and saved the FBS WAC, and didn't.

Not to mention that the CFP contract isn't permanent. Ten years down the road, it's hard to see how you deny the new lower-FBS conferences would without cutting out the existing G5.

"Hmm, let's see, by saying YES, we give up a trivial amount of power. By saying NO, I don't. And, let's see, the downside of saying NO is.....oh, wait there is no downside. Gee, this is a tough decision."

The MVFC (and the Southland, for that matter) has been Division I-A and FCS for over thirty years now. I don't expect that to suddenly change.

But on the other hand, there is no basis for denying them. It goes against the values of this country, to artificially hold someone back who possesses the desire and has reasonably demonstrated the potential to succeed.

The courts would agree, I think.


Also, I don't get your point about competition, voting power and the CFP.

- The MAC already competes with the MVC/MVFC.
- All DI conference already vote on DI issues. That wouldn't change. Obviously, there would be more votes on FBS issues. So?
- The CFP might expand in 10 years ... or maybe it gives all money to just the P conferences anyway. You don't know.

(02-04-2016 11:40 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  But on the other hand, there is no basis for denying them.

Sure there is. "You're cutting in on our action." That's a legally valid response.

The MVFC would have some kind of a case if they currently resembled a lower-FBS conference. But they don't. They're not on TV, they don't have FBS level attendance. MVFC membership is split between the MVC and Summit. Athletic budgets are less than you find in the MAC or Sun Belt or the bottom of CUSA. Some of the strongest programs were Division II not so long ago. That's not what an FBS conference looks like.

Quote: It goes against the values of this country, to artificially hold someone back who possesses the desire and has reasonably demonstrated the potential to succeed.

The courts would agree, I think.

Nope. You can't sue your way into a club (without a racial/gender/religious/etc claim.)

Quote:Also, I don't get your point about competition, voting power and the CFP.

The current board is 24 members, 5 from the P5 conferences (who I believe get 2 votes each), 5 from the G5 conferences, 5 from FCS and 5 from the non-football conferences. The FCS and non-FB conferences rotate to fill the seats. (Plus an AD, a faculty athletic rep, a student-athlete and a woman's athletics rep.)

NCAA governance article

Quote:
- The MAC already competes with the MVC/MVFC.

Not for FBS recruits. A kid who has offers to start at Northern Illinois and Northern Iowa is going to Northern Illinois, hands down.

Quote:- All DI conference already vote on DI issues. That wouldn't change. Obviously, there would be more votes on FBS issues. So?

But their votes don't all count the same. Lower-FBS conferences today are guaranteed one vote. It's balanced G5 vs FCS vs nonfootball vs P5, with P5 having double weight.

Quote:- The CFP might expand in 10 years ... or maybe it gives all money to just the P conferences anyway. You don't know.

Maybe it gives all the money to the P5 conferences. Or maybe it gives money to all the FCS conferences. What it doesn't do, is give money to some lower-FBS conferences and not others. Otherwise the Sun Belt wouldn't be in the current contract.

Changing the NCAA rules is a pretty big ordeal. It doesn't happen without some serious reason to do so, and some sort of a consensus across Division I. ("We'd better do anything the P5 says or they might split" does count as a consensus.")

(02-04-2016 11:27 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 11:13 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Tom, the reason they (G5) won't oppose it (new FBS conferences) is because the CFP is completely separate from the FBS.

In other words, just because, say, two new FBS conferences were formed, that in no way, shape or form obligates the CFP to expand its ownership/management structure to include those two new conferences.

So if the money is not threatened, then there's nothing really for the current G5 to oppose.

There's also nothing in it for the G5, or for the P5, or for the vast majority of the non-FBS conferences. In fact, the MAC and MWC will hate it, because who wants competition in your territory or nearby territory?

The new FBS conferences would also be entitled to seats at the NCAA Division I board table. Does the G5, err, G7, start rotating board seats? Does the board expand, with more votes for the P5 and FCS and non-football?

That's a lot of stuff to work out. All for a bunch of schools who could have said "Yes" and saved the FBS WAC, and didn't.

Not to mention that the CFP contract isn't permanent. Ten years down the road, it's hard to see how you deny the new lower-FBS conferences would without cutting out the existing G5.

"Hmm, let's see, by saying YES, we give up a trivial amount of power. By saying NO, I don't. And, let's see, the downside of saying NO is.....oh, wait there is no downside. Gee, this is a tough decision."

The MVFC (and the Southland, for that matter) has been Division I-A and FCS for over thirty years now. I don't expect that to suddenly change.

This is the real key that the Big-Sky-to-FBS-tin-foil-hat types refuse to see. While they as fans love the idea of moving to FBS, their administrations do not. Their administrations know the economics don't work for them. They may pay lip service to their fans and donors about moving up one day---but their actual actions tell a completely different story. They are not interested in spending big money to support an FBS level program when they know, due to their small populations and fan bases, there is little potential for off setting increases in TV money and ticket sales. Most of these schools are doing well and selling about as many tickets at the FCS level as they would at the FBS level.

They are probably right about te potential increases in revenue. Look at the CUSA contract---Is a group of current FCS Big Sky/MVC level schools really going to do any better than the more established schools of CUSA or the Sunbelt? Not likely.

(02-04-2016 12:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 11:40 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  But on the other hand, there is no basis for denying them.

Sure there is. "You're cutting in on our action." That's a legally valid response.

The MVFC would have some kind of a case if they currently resembled a lower-FBS conference. But they don't. They're not on TV, they don't have FBS level attendance. MVFC membership is split between the MVC and Summit. Athletic budgets are less than you find in the MAC or Sun Belt or the bottom of CUSA. Some of the strongest programs were Division II not so long ago. That's not what an FBS conference looks like.

Quote: It goes against the values of this country, to artificially hold someone back who possesses the desire and has reasonably demonstrated the potential to succeed.

The courts would agree, I think.

Nope. You can't sue your way into a club (without a racial/gender/religious/etc claim.)

Quote:Also, I don't get your point about competition, voting power and the CFP.

The current board is 24 members, 5 from the P5 conferences (who I believe get 2 votes each), 5 from the G5 conferences, 5 from FCS and 5 from the non-football conferences. The FCS and non-FB conferences rotate to fill the seats. (Plus an AD, a faculty athletic rep, a student-athlete and a woman's athletics rep.)

NCAA governance article

Quote:
- The MAC already competes with the MVC/MVFC.

Not for FBS recruits. A kid who has offers to start at Northern Illinois and Northern Iowa is going to Northern Illinois, hands down.

Quote:- All DI conference already vote on DI issues. That wouldn't change. Obviously, there would be more votes on FBS issues. So?

But their votes don't all count the same. Lower-FBS conferences today are guaranteed one vote. It's balanced G5 vs FCS vs nonfootball vs P5, with P5 having double weight.

Quote:- The CFP might expand in 10 years ... or maybe it gives all money to just the P conferences anyway. You don't know.

Maybe it gives all the money to the P5 conferences. Or maybe it gives money to all the FCS conferences. What it doesn't do, is give money to some lower-FBS conferences and not others. Otherwise the Sun Belt wouldn't be in the current contract.

Changing the NCAA rules is a pretty big ordeal. It doesn't happen without some serious reason to do so, and some sort of a consensus across Division I. ("We'd better do anything the P5 says or they might split" does count as a consensus.")

not that i disagree with most of what you say but your statement about not competing between FCS and MAC on the field has been proven to be inaccurate. While much of the time a player might pick a MAC over MVFC school, it is not like they aren't competing. Heck, this year alone, NDSU had 2 players choose NDSU over MAC teams (and more if I include offers from MW conference teams).

I have no doubt President Bardo wants this. Many fans do too. If football returns, the goal is FBS as soon as possible. Wichita MIGHT be open to CUSA if we felt it would be a short term stay in order to build a solid FBS foundation and gain entrance into the AAC or MWC. Those two conferences are the goal with the AAC being favored.

Yes, we absolutely want more Texas exposure. All of our athletic teams recruit Texas as is, and we target Texas on the academic side as well. We are currently offering students from the Tulsa and OKC metro areas in state tuition and I'm not sure if that's been expanded to DFW yet or not, but the plan is to get that done soon. We are growing the academic side of the campus and focused on a lot of research based education and partnerships with many industry leading companies. We have closed the golf course on the east side of campus and begun construction on a couple of academic buildings for Engineering/Business. Airbus is moving their Wichita facilities to campus when construction is finished. Another new dorm will be going up on part of the closed golf course as well. There's plenty of room to build a new football stadium if needed.

If Wichita does this, they're going to do it right and not hold back. The Wichita metro has some solid HS football that I believe we could keep and the JUCO conference in the state is one of the best in the country. We could get our fair share and I have no doubt we'd surpass KU, not saying much, in short time. Football would also help grow the enrollment of WSU which has been a plan of President Bardo since he got here. He wants another 5-10k eventually which would put us between 20-25k. And there's no shortage of big money in town and it goes beyond Charles Koch.

I know I want football to return. I know Bardo does. I hope it happens. The MVC is dying.

Talk about a big risk. When tons of programs are losing money in football.l not in the P5. Valley is crap though so dont blame them for trying.

It is a risk that may pay out.

While UAB may be a reason to pause and consider how difficult it is to build a program, you can always look at USF and see a school that benefited from adding football.

Schools like Old Dominion, Georgia State, Charlotte, Liberty, and UTSA looked to their future and saw a benefit to adding college football.

I don't know whether the schools want national exposure but they wish to move from their regional roots.

What will be interesting to see is whether schools like Eastern Michigan or smaller schools have difficulty having enough men to fill their rosters.

In eastern NC, schools like Methodist, Campbell, and UNC-Pembroke are fairly new football schools. They need rosters.