(01-12-2017 10:55 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  There are examples of this sprinkled around the country. A couple are grandfathered exemptions, but they count all the same.

Colorado College is D3. They play women's soccer in the Mountain West even though their primary conference, the SCAC, sponsors it.

Dallas Baptist is D2. They play baseball in the Missouri Valley even though their primary conference, the Heartland, sponsors it.

Those schools play in a different NCAA division and grandfather a few sports to DI. Not the same situation as Providence volleyball or Wichita State fball.

(01-12-2017 11:06 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 10:55 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  There are examples of this sprinkled around the country. A couple are grandfathered exemptions, but they count all the same.

Colorado College is D3. They play women's soccer in the Mountain West even though their primary conference, the SCAC, sponsors it.

Dallas Baptist is D2. They play baseball in the Missouri Valley even though their primary conference, the Heartland, sponsors it.

Those schools play in a different NCAA division and grandfather a few sports to DI. Not the same situation as Providence volleyball or Wichita State fball.

No, but it still counts.

Navy playing football in the AAC with other sports in the Patriot League, even though the latter also sponsors football.

(01-12-2017 09:11 PM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  I'm not sure of how to look that up though, it may also be conference specific rules instead of NCAA rules.

If it's a conference specific rule, then it only applies to members of that conference.

I looked through the Division I Membership requirements for schools, and didn't see anything at all about conference membership ... which makes sense, since a school is allowed to be an independent and also a member of any of the three Division I subdivisions (rules on reclassifying as FBS are, of course, less generous).

But here is the kind of rule which could be confused with a rule applying to schools:

Quote: 20.02.6 Football Bowl Subdivision Conference.
A conference classified as a Football Bowl Subdivision conference shall be comprised of at least eight full Football Bowl Subdivision members that satisfy all bowl subdi-vision requirements. An institution shall be included as one of the eight full Football Bowl Subdivision members only if the institution participates in the conference schedule in at least six men’s and eight women’s conference-sponsored sports, including men’s basketball and football and three women’s team sports including women’s basketball. A conference-sponsored sport shall be a sport in which regular-season and/or championship opportunities are provided, consistent with the minimum standards identified by the applicable NCAA sport committee for automatic qualification. (Adopted: 10/31/02 effective 8/1/05, Revised: 12/15/06)

20.02.6.1 Exception. A Football Bowl Subdivision member institution shall be permitted to count as one of its required six men’s sports and one of its required eight women’s sports a sport in which its conference does not sponsor or conduct a championship, provided the sport is one in which it participates in another Division I multi- or single-sport conference. Different sports may be counted for men and women. (Adopted: 4/29/04 effective 8/1/05, Revised: 12/15/06)
...

... however, that is not a regulation of individual schools, it is a regulation of a conference qualifying as an FBS conference. A 9th and/or 10th member could be a single-sports member for FB, as long as there are eight members that sponsor the minimum required number of sports within the conference. And as for sports beyond the minimum number, even those could play a sport in any other conference, so long as the required minimum number are in this conference.

Now, an FBS conference could have a conference rule that says if you play a sport sponsors by the conference, you have to be in the conference competition for that sport, but without an NCAA rule, that only reaches as far as that individual conference. In this (extremely hypothetical) "WAC FBS: The Resurrection" scenario, the WAC could simply have no such rule, and then if the conference where the FB-only affiliate played its Olympic Sports also either had not such rule or else did not sponsor FB, that would allow WSU as a FB-only affiliate.

This discussion is interesting, but moot.

At best, the WAC will sponsor FCS football. So it won't be able to call up any FCS schools.


Wichita St should go to the AAC as a non-football member. It will be interesting to see what this does to their football aspirations, as the AAC will not give them a football invitation any time soon.

Don't think they could start out in the MVFC, either. So might have to play as an FCS independent for a while.

(01-13-2017 10:17 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  This discussion is interesting, but moot.

At best, the WAC will sponsor FCS football. So it won't be able to call up any FCS schools.

Under the current version of the rule, it's ability to invite a school up to FBS is not contingent on it currently being an FBS conference. So the WAC sponsoring FCS football would not preclude it from calling up FCS schools to FBS, unless the rule is amended.

You know that's unadulterated bunk.

(01-13-2017 10:41 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  You know that's unadulterated bunk.

Again, you reject logic because you don't agree with its end result. Bizarre reasoning.

(01-12-2017 11:23 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Navy playing football in the AAC with other sports in the Patriot League, even though the latter also sponsors football.

With scholarships now, too.

(01-13-2017 10:52 AM)NoDak Wrote:  you reject logic because you don't agree with its end result.

Describes you to a T.

Logic says that if the WAC gave an invitation to UND, and then UND suddenly declared "we're FBS now, because WAC used to be FBS and there's this rules that says so", the NCAA would laugh at you.

That is correct, and I don't care if you're a troll.

(01-13-2017 10:56 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  With scholarships now, too.

.... at the FCS level.

You don't expect Navy to play FCS football, do you?

FWIW, if the WAC could pull off a football conference full of homeless FBS programs and FCS upstarts, specifically with Liberty among them, and the other FBS conferences vote this down, I don't know what it would take to get Liberty suing the **** out of the NCAA and all of these conferences over the sponsorship clause.

A lot of if's, but for those like Liberty, the rest of the NCAA makes an easy case against itself. No matter what one feels about the school or its programs, the spirit of the rule could be in for the fight of its life.

(01-13-2017 11:06 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  FWIW, if the WAC could pull off a football conference full of homeless FBS programs and FCS upstarts, specifically with Liberty among them, and the other FBS conferences vote this down, I don't know what it would take to get Liberty suing the **** out of the NCAA and all of these conferences over the sponsorship clause.

A lot of if's, but for those like Liberty, the rest of the NCAA makes an easy case against itself. No matter what one feels about the school or its programs, the spirit of the rule could be in for the fight of its life.

They could sue, but its really unclear if they'd win. Or the NCAA could just say...'ok - fine, but we now require all of our members to not discriminate' and eject Liberty from the NCAA (unless they changed their policies - which they wont). And without Liberty's money, some sort of far flung conference likely falls apart. Private organizations have the right to set their own membership criteria.

And the other problem is this...lets just assume that Liberty sues...and the NCAA doesn't use the poison pill that they have in their desk drawer to squash such a move by Liberty (described above)....IIRC NCAA rules specifically prohibit football only FBS conferences. In order for you to be a FBS conference, you MUST play at least basketball in that conference. So non-western teams could join the WAC and watch their expenses skyrocket and any rivalries die off.

And is not like any of the schools mentioned as potential members of the new WAC, other than Liberty, are rolling in dough.

(01-12-2017 02:30 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  When Rob Spear -- the only AD I'm aware of who'll openly talk about the subject -- brings up a WAC football revival, even as an FCS league, I'm not aware of him ever mentioning UND as a possible school in that conference. It's like UND has already decided to do something else. For what that's worth.

Spear has been talking this thing up forever. Remember the, "I'm going to work from within the BSC to poach the Montana schools to the WAC" statement he made.

Neither Montana school is moving up. I'm told NAU have just spent money to shrink the seating in their dome, not moving up. EWU? Not going anywhere. Weber? No. And of course, not UND.

If the WAC re-starts FCS FB expect it to be with a group of D2 schools, Grand Canyon, UTRGV and possibly FB only invites to Cal Poly and Davis plus NMSU (who will likely move down if nothing else opens up).

(01-09-2017 01:30 PM)NoDak Wrote:  CBU was accepted to DII in 2010.
They went through a 3 yr transition culminating in full membership in 2013.
They need five full years in DII before they can move to DI.
That mears 2018 is the first year they can move up.
It takes five years to become fully DI, so CBU wouldn't help the WAC until 2023 in case any school leaves.

If GCU, Seattle, or NMSU leave before 2023, the rest of the conference is SOL.

Not saying CBU is not aspirational for DI, but it's not a WAC savior for six years. The WAC needs full DI schools right now, not in 2023.
.

Bingo. I'm glad you recognize this. any WAX FBS pipe dreams North Dakota or anyone out west has will vanish if the WAC falls below seven full members. It needs D1 reinforcements first and foremost

(01-13-2017 11:06 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  FWIW, if the WAC could pull off a football conference full of homeless FBS programs and FCS upstarts, specifically with Liberty among them, and the other FBS conferences vote this down, I don't know what it would take to get Liberty suing the **** out of the NCAA and all of these conferences over the sponsorship clause.

A lot of if's, but for those like Liberty, the rest of the NCAA makes an easy case against itself. No matter what one feels about the school or its programs, the spirit of the rule could be in for the fight of its life.

My idea that completely squashes this whole issue is to simply let any FCS team move up to FBS as an independent, and without any minimum scheduling requirements. Just have to meet the scholarship and sports sponsorship requirements.

It would work because being an independent doesn't/wouldn't actually get you anything, other than the ability to provide 85 scholarships instead of 63. So no one would care if you only scheduled two FBS teams and ten FCS teams (assuming you could get that many FCS teams to play you, as an FBS independent).


Conferences would still defacto hold the keys to the gates into the tangible benefits of being FBS. So the independents would be like a proving grounds.

(01-13-2017 11:37 AM)jacksfan29 Wrote:  

(01-12-2017 02:30 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  When Rob Spear -- the only AD I'm aware of who'll openly talk about the subject -- brings up a WAC football revival, even as an FCS league, I'm not aware of him ever mentioning UND as a possible school in that conference. It's like UND has already decided to do something else. For what that's worth.

Spear has been talking this thing up forever. Remember the, "I'm going to work from within the BSC to poach the Montana schools to the WAC" statement he made.

Neither Montana school is moving up. I'm told NAU have just spent money to shrink the seating in their dome, not moving up. EWU? Not going anywhere. Weber? No. And of course, not UND.

If the WAC re-starts FCS FB expect it to be with a group of D2 schools, Grand Canyon, UTRGV and possibly FB only invites to Cal Poly and Davis plus NMSU (who will likely move down if nothing else opens up).

I agree with most of what you're saying. Actually, even Spear agrees with you. When he talks about a football WAC these days, he talks about starting it up as an FCS league but filling it exclusively with upper-level western FCS members who might be able to make the jump at some point. He thinks you have to get them all together under the same umbrella first, which is a huge undertaking, obviously.

And again, a lot of this is highly likely to be just BS he's saying to keep the alumni from storming the castle.

(01-13-2017 12:25 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  When he talks about a football WAC these days, he talks about starting it up as an FCS league but filling it exclusively with upper-level western FCS members who might be able to make the jump at some point.

Is he even on the record saying this? Or is this just a "I heard him say this at some luncheon" type of thing?

Sorry, but I have a hard time even buying this much.


Doesn't it make more sense to make the Big Sky be the league that just has elite western FCS programs?? And use the WAC as a "spillover" for the rest?

(01-13-2017 12:31 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 12:25 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  When he talks about a football WAC these days, he talks about starting it up as an FCS league but filling it exclusively with upper-level western FCS members who might be able to make the jump at some point.

Is he even on the record saying this? Or is this just a "I heard him say this at some luncheon" type of thing?

Sorry, but I have a hard time even buying this much.


Doesn't it make more sense to make the Big Sky be the league that just has elite western FCS programs?? And use the WAC as a "spillover" for the rest?

You'd have to take my word for it. Since getting his emails FOIA'ed he's a lot more circumspect about what he says publicly or puts in email. But I have heard him say all of this. And he'd want to use the WAC because he believes the WAC has more FBS rights than the Big Sky.

You don't know me outside this message board so you don't have to believe me but I have personally heard these words come out of Rob Spear's mouth, and so have a number of other boosters. He has his flaws, but accessibility and openness to donors is not one of them.

I believe you.

But he's dead wrong if he actually thinks the WAC has even an iota more of a chance to be an FBS conference than the Big Sky.

Anyway, the WAC is making an announcement this afternoon so maybe we'll learn something:

http://wacsports.com/news/2017/1/12/NEWS...70607.aspx