(12-09-2022 03:30 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 02:07 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 02:01 PM)TexanFan Wrote:  I love this idea but I have concerns.

Realistically, how many of the nine schools will be ready for FBS in two years? I think Tarleton is the closest to being FBS with facilities for the WAC, but we are not there yet. ACU and SFA have to expand their stadiums quickly. North Alabama plays in a high school stadium and I know this because I went to the football game this fall.

What I don’t want to do is become the Southland of FBS. If everybody pumps money into football to move up to FBS, what does it do to the other sports? The WAC has worked really hard to move up in the NET rankings and are currently setting 11th in MBB.

I know there is no magic enrollment number for FBS, but does any of the nine have high enough numbers to sustain FBS?

I am not trying to trash this idea as I want Tarleton to be FBS, but I am not sure this plan right now is the best option. It might be in five to ten years.

Edit. I do think this might encourage UTA to add football.

Who said anything about 2 years? The article says “earliest practical date”. That could be 5 years from today.

"The goal is for the conference to start playing in 2024 with nine members"

Did you even read the article?

Now go sit in timeout and don't speak til you're spoken to, outlier. This is a FOOTBALL conversation, doesn't pertain to you.

Doesn’t say that the goal is to be in FBS in 2024, only that the conference starts playing in 2024. Do you know how to read?

IMHO this is all about creating, in the article's words, "a clear pathway to the highest levels of college football." That doesn't mean that every school that participates in this new FCS football-only conference will actually take that pathway. The attraction is that it will open the door for all of the participants to consider it.

It's notable to me that the ten schools that signed onto this are looking for at least four more to join. That would give them 14 -- the minimum necessary for 8 to eventually end up in the WAC as full members and leverage the WAC's "previously FBS" status to begin the transition together as FBS independents, while 6 leave their football in the FCS football-only conference and still retain an FCS playoff auto-bid. I suspect the schools with less potential to move up to FBS -- like Southern Utah -- are anxious to expand the membership to a large enough size that anyone unable to make the jump could at least theoretically still have a viable FCS home.

My guess is that the targets for expansion are selected MVFC and Southland members, e.g. North Dakota State, South Dakota State, Northern Iowa, Missouri State, and McNeese State.

(12-09-2022 02:01 PM)TexanFan Wrote:  I love this idea but I have concerns.

Realistically, how many of the nine schools will be ready for FBS in two years? I think Tarleton is the closest to being FBS with facilities for the WAC, but we are not there yet. ACU and SFA have to expand their stadiums quickly. North Alabama plays in a high school stadium and I know this because I went to the football game this fall.

What I don’t want to do is become the Southland of FBS. If everybody pumps money into football to move up to FBS, what does it do to the other sports? The WAC has worked really hard to move up in the NET rankings and are currently setting 11th in MBB.

I know there is no magic enrollment number for FBS, but does any of the nine have high enough numbers to sustain FBS?

I am not trying to trash this idea as I want Tarleton to be FBS, but I am not sure this plan right now is the best option. It might be in five to ten years.

Edit. I do think this might encourage UTA to add football.

Agreed. If UTA has even the faintest of Football Heartbeat left in it, NOW is the time to bust out the Defibrillator!

(12-09-2022 02:01 PM)TexanFan Wrote:  I love this idea but I have concerns.

Realistically, how many of the nine schools will be ready for FBS in two years? I think Tarleton is the closest to being FBS with facilities for the WAC, but we are not there yet. ACU and SFA have to expand their stadiums quickly. North Alabama plays in a high school stadium and I know this because I went to the football game this fall.

What I don’t want to do is become the Southland of FBS. If everybody pumps money into football to move up to FBS, what does it do to the other sports? The WAC has worked really hard to move up in the NET rankings and are currently setting 11th in MBB.

I know there is no magic enrollment number for FBS, but does any of the nine have high enough numbers to sustain FBS?

I am not trying to trash this idea as I want Tarleton to be FBS, but I am not sure this plan right now is the best option. It might be in five to ten years.

Edit. I do think this might encourage UTA to add football.

ACU's stadium was already built to put a 2nd level on the visitor's side and a South endzone complex, so that wouldn't be a problem.

(12-09-2022 03:39 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  IMHO this is all about creating, in the article's words, "a clear pathway to the highest levels of college football." That doesn't mean that every school that participates in this new FCS football-only conference will actually take that pathway. The attraction is that it will open the door for all of the participants to consider it.

It's notable to me that the ten schools that signed onto this are looking for at least four more to join. That would give them 14 -- the minimum necessary for 8 to eventually end up in the WAC as full members and leverage the WAC's "previously FBS" status to begin the transition together as FBS independents, while 6 leave their football in the FCS football-only conference and still retain an FCS playoff auto-bid. I suspect the schools with less potential to move up to FBS -- like Southern Utah -- are anxious to expand the membership to a large enough size that anyone unable to make the jump could at least theoretically still have a viable FCS home.

My guess is that the targets for expansion are selected MVFC and Southland members, e.g. North Dakota State, South Dakota State, Northern Iowa, Missouri State, and McNeese State.

Seems like a good & levelheaded take.

(12-09-2022 03:52 PM)Outsider Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 02:01 PM)TexanFan Wrote:  I love this idea but I have concerns.

Realistically, how many of the nine schools will be ready for FBS in two years? I think Tarleton is the closest to being FBS with facilities for the WAC, but we are not there yet. ACU and SFA have to expand their stadiums quickly. North Alabama plays in a high school stadium and I know this because I went to the football game this fall.

What I don’t want to do is become the Southland of FBS. If everybody pumps money into football to move up to FBS, what does it do to the other sports? The WAC has worked really hard to move up in the NET rankings and are currently setting 11th in MBB.

I know there is no magic enrollment number for FBS, but does any of the nine have high enough numbers to sustain FBS?

I am not trying to trash this idea as I want Tarleton to be FBS, but I am not sure this plan right now is the best option. It might be in five to ten years.

Edit. I do think this might encourage UTA to add football.

ACU's stadium was already built to put a 2nd level on the visitor's side and a South endzone complex, so that wouldn't be a problem.

My point about ACU is minimum attendance is 15,000 for FBS, as I understand it. I didn’t think your stadium currently holds that many. I get you can add additional seating.

As for My UTA discussion, they have a new president and new AD so thoughts can change from their time in the SBC.

(12-09-2022 04:17 PM)TexanFan Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 03:52 PM)Outsider Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 02:01 PM)TexanFan Wrote:  I love this idea but I have concerns.

Realistically, how many of the nine schools will be ready for FBS in two years? I think Tarleton is the closest to being FBS with facilities for the WAC, but we are not there yet. ACU and SFA have to expand their stadiums quickly. North Alabama plays in a high school stadium and I know this because I went to the football game this fall.

What I don’t want to do is become the Southland of FBS. If everybody pumps money into football to move up to FBS, what does it do to the other sports? The WAC has worked really hard to move up in the NET rankings and are currently setting 11th in MBB.

I know there is no magic enrollment number for FBS, but does any of the nine have high enough numbers to sustain FBS?

I am not trying to trash this idea as I want Tarleton to be FBS, but I am not sure this plan right now is the best option. It might be in five to ten years.

Edit. I do think this might encourage UTA to add football.

ACU's stadium was already built to put a 2nd level on the visitor's side and a South endzone complex, so that wouldn't be a problem.

My point about ACU is minimum attendance is 15,000 for FBS, as I understand it. I didn’t think your stadium currently holds that many. I get you can add additional seating.

As for My UTA discussion, they have a new president and new AD so thoughts can change from their time in the SBC.

It may also depend on what UT sytem views as good strategically too. If they'll back it after they've seen the success of UTSA, it could change the ballgame.

(12-09-2022 04:17 PM)TexanFan Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 03:52 PM)Outsider Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 02:01 PM)TexanFan Wrote:  I love this idea but I have concerns.

Realistically, how many of the nine schools will be ready for FBS in two years? I think Tarleton is the closest to being FBS with facilities for the WAC, but we are not there yet. ACU and SFA have to expand their stadiums quickly. North Alabama plays in a high school stadium and I know this because I went to the football game this fall.

What I don’t want to do is become the Southland of FBS. If everybody pumps money into football to move up to FBS, what does it do to the other sports? The WAC has worked really hard to move up in the NET rankings and are currently setting 11th in MBB.

I know there is no magic enrollment number for FBS, but does any of the nine have high enough numbers to sustain FBS?

I am not trying to trash this idea as I want Tarleton to be FBS, but I am not sure this plan right now is the best option. It might be in five to ten years.

Edit. I do think this might encourage UTA to add football.

ACU's stadium was already built to put a 2nd level on the visitor's side and a South endzone complex, so that wouldn't be a problem.

My point about ACU is minimum attendance is 15,000 for FBS, as I understand it. I didn’t think your stadium currently holds that many. I get you can add additional seating.

As for My UTA discussion, they have a new president and new AD so thoughts can change from their time in the SBC.

Attendance isn’t limited to those in physical attendance. It permits seats sold to count toward the 15k.

(12-09-2022 05:49 PM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 04:17 PM)TexanFan Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 03:52 PM)Outsider Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 02:01 PM)TexanFan Wrote:  I love this idea but I have concerns.

Realistically, how many of the nine schools will be ready for FBS in two years? I think Tarleton is the closest to being FBS with facilities for the WAC, but we are not there yet. ACU and SFA have to expand their stadiums quickly. North Alabama plays in a high school stadium and I know this because I went to the football game this fall.

What I don’t want to do is become the Southland of FBS. If everybody pumps money into football to move up to FBS, what does it do to the other sports? The WAC has worked really hard to move up in the NET rankings and are currently setting 11th in MBB.

I know there is no magic enrollment number for FBS, but does any of the nine have high enough numbers to sustain FBS?

I am not trying to trash this idea as I want Tarleton to be FBS, but I am not sure this plan right now is the best option. It might be in five to ten years.

Edit. I do think this might encourage UTA to add football.

ACU's stadium was already built to put a 2nd level on the visitor's side and a South endzone complex, so that wouldn't be a problem.

My point about ACU is minimum attendance is 15,000 for FBS, as I understand it. I didn’t think your stadium currently holds that many. I get you can add additional seating.

As for My UTA discussion, they have a new president and new AD so thoughts can change from their time in the SBC.

Attendance isn’t limited to those in physical attendance. It permits seats sold to count toward the 15k.

This is true, and there are many ways to "sell" tickets. nmsu is exceptionally good at it.

(12-09-2022 03:12 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 03:04 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  What happens to all the non football schools?

It’s a football only league. Did you read the article?

Yes I did. I'm referring to when they move to FBS. There cannot be an FBS conference that is football only, it has to have all sports. Needs to be at least 8 full members.

(12-09-2022 07:35 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 03:12 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 03:04 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  What happens to all the non football schools?

It’s a football only league. Did you read the article?

Yes I did. I'm referring to when they move to FBS. There cannot be an FBS conference that is football only, it has to have all sports. Needs to be at least 8 full members.

Apparently these guys think they can. I am skeptical of them being able to do so. I really don’t think the SEC, Big 12, and others are going to “let” this group come and take money from them. Not happening.

(12-09-2022 07:49 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 07:35 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 03:12 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 03:04 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  What happens to all the non football schools?

It’s a football only league. Did you read the article?

Yes I did. I'm referring to when they move to FBS. There cannot be an FBS conference that is football only, it has to have all sports. Needs to be at least 8 full members.

Apparently these guys think they can. I am skeptical of them being able to do so. I really don’t think the SEC, Big 12, and others are going to “let” this group come and take money from them. Not happening.

P5 won't lose a cent. Their money is locked in. It's the G5 that would have to share the CFP money with any newcomers.

Although, Matt Brown suggests some workarounds are possible in his blog today.

(12-09-2022 08:14 PM)unalions Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 07:49 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 07:35 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 03:12 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 03:04 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  What happens to all the non football schools?

It’s a football only league. Did you read the article?

Yes I did. I'm referring to when they move to FBS. There cannot be an FBS conference that is football only, it has to have all sports. Needs to be at least 8 full members.

Apparently these guys think they can. I am skeptical of them being able to do so. I really don’t think the SEC, Big 12, and others are going to “let” this group come and take money from them. Not happening.

P5 won't lose a cent. Their money is locked in. It's the G5 that would have to share the CFP money with any newcomers.

Although, Matt Brown suggests some workarounds are possible in his blog today.

And why would the MAC and AAC give up their money for the WAC?

(12-09-2022 02:54 PM)edinburger Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 02:01 PM)TexanFan Wrote:  I love this idea but I have concerns.

Realistically, how many of the nine schools will be ready for FBS in two years? I think Tarleton is the closest to being FBS with facilities for the WAC, but we are not there yet. ACU and SFA have to expand their stadiums quickly. North Alabama plays in a high school stadium and I know this because I went to the football game this fall.

What I don’t want to do is become the Southland of FBS. If everybody pumps money into football to move up to FBS, what does it do to the other sports? The WAC has worked really hard to move up in the NET rankings and are currently setting 11th in MBB.

I know there is no magic enrollment number for FBS, but does any of the nine have high enough numbers to sustain FBS?

I am not trying to trash this idea as I want Tarleton to be FBS, but I am not sure this plan right now is the best option. It might be in five to ten years.

Edit. I do think this might encourage UTA to add football.

Agree with pretty much all of this, especially the part about sacrificing the sports where we're starting to be taken seriously in order to be the worst FBS conference.

It’s sounds like more of an absorption of the ASUN, hopefully bar don’t lose out on any Basketball school. Would make for a pretty strong basketball conference.

This is dumb and not happening! Tarletingon State, Northern Alabama and Dixie don’t belong in big time football with the likes of Alabama, Georgia, Texas A&M and Sam Houston. Lol! Screams small time but enjoy your one bid playoff league and games in Cedar City.

(12-09-2022 08:14 PM)unalions Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 07:49 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 07:35 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 03:12 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 03:04 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  What happens to all the non football schools?

It’s a football only league. Did you read the article?

Yes I did. I'm referring to when they move to FBS. There cannot be an FBS conference that is football only, it has to have all sports. Needs to be at least 8 full members.

Apparently these guys think they can. I am skeptical of them being able to do so. I really don’t think the SEC, Big 12, and others are going to “let” this group come and take money from them. Not happening.

P5 won't lose a cent. Their money is locked in. It's the G5 that would have to share the CFP money with any newcomers.

Although, Matt Brown suggests some workarounds are possible in his blog today.

Not their decision. That will be (and likely already has been) decided in a court of law.

The very basis of their argument is the WAC is no "newcomer" to FBS.

Tell you what, with Texas A&M with UT and their gobs of money and skin in the game with Tarleton and SFA, I certainly wouldn't bet against it.

(12-09-2022 08:57 PM)unalions Wrote:  Good interview with the EKU AD here. Starts about 12 min mark.

He sticks with this being a football-only and talks up the ASUN a lot. Maybe they will try to go as a single-sport league. Maybe his answer was a bit political to placate both in case this doesn't work out.

What stuck out to me is "our league officials have been in Indianapolis."

(12-09-2022 09:11 PM)unalions Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 08:57 PM)unalions Wrote:  Good interview with the EKU AD here. Starts about 12 min mark.

He sticks with this being a football-only and talks up the ASUN a lot. Maybe they will try to go as a single-sport league. Maybe his answer was a bit political to placate both in case this doesn't work out.

What stuck out to me is "our league officials have been in Indianapolis."

It's an interesting interview for sure.

(12-09-2022 09:10 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 08:14 PM)unalions Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 07:49 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 07:35 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(12-09-2022 03:12 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  It’s a football only league. Did you read the article?

Yes I did. I'm referring to when they move to FBS. There cannot be an FBS conference that is football only, it has to have all sports. Needs to be at least 8 full members.

Apparently these guys think they can. I am skeptical of them being able to do so. I really don’t think the SEC, Big 12, and others are going to “let” this group come and take money from them. Not happening.

P5 won't lose a cent. Their money is locked in. It's the G5 that would have to share the CFP money with any newcomers.

Although, Matt Brown suggests some workarounds are possible in his blog today.

Not their decision. That will be (and likely already has been) decided in a court of law.

The very basis of their argument is the WAC is no "newcomer" to FBS.

Tell you what, with Texas A&M with UT and their gobs of money and skin in the game with Tarleton and SFA, I certainly wouldn't bet against it.

WAC football was dead when the CFP came about. They have no seat at that table.