Final 12 minutes of podcast...actual quote is around 19-minute mark.

How would the WAC be able to restart FBS football?

(05-08-2020 10:26 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  How would the WAC be able to restart FBS football?

Can I talk to you for a moment about our lords and cfb realignment prophets DavidSt and NoDak and the Great Northern Conference?

(05-08-2020 10:26 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  How would the WAC be able to restart FBS football?

I’m thinking FCS is the only way. Either New Mexico St drops down or chooses to remain FBS. Let’s say they drop, other schools with football: Dixie St and Tarleton St. That’s it - 3. Perhaps the Big Sky wants to shed UC Davis and Cal Poly as affiliates? Perhaps San Diego could offer scholarships and join for football? That would still only be 6 assuming New Mexico St dropped down.

At one point, Moccia mentions the time when NMSU hired a realignmentologist, which we had a thread about here on CSNbbs.

UTRGV to restart their football program? They did had the sport when they were a JC.

Dixie State planned to build a 15,000 seat stadium.

Lamar, Midwestern State and West Texas A&M could be some others.

(05-08-2020 11:02 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  UTRGV to restart their football program? They did had the sport when they were a JC.

Dixie State planned to build a 15,000 seat stadium.

Lamar, Midwestern State and West Texas A&M could be some others.

I could see Midwestern St and West Texas A&M but Lamar isn’t leaving the Southland

(05-08-2020 10:26 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  How would the WAC be able to restart FBS football?

It was an extreme hypothetical he was raising(after being asked directly about it). He mentioned UMass, UConn and Liberty. If they got the four of them(inc. NMSU) and maybe a few other move ups, they probably think there's a chance.

But if you listen to his tone of voice, it does not sound likely at all. At one point, he says. "It's not impossible," and he puts a little bit of emphasis on the 'im'. Like you do when you say something's not impossible, but very, very improbable.

I'd guess the conversation they'll have at their WAC meeting will mostly be asking current and transitioning members if they're interested in FBS football, and then deciding whether or not to send feelers out to Liberty, UMass and UConn. If they do and get a positive response back from all of them, they would then have to ask around the Big Sky, Southland and MVFC to see if anyone else is interested. Lots and lots of dominoes would have to fall just right for it to happen, and it most certainly wouldn't happen right away.

How probable is it? Turn it into a math problem. Ask yourself what are the percentage odds that at least two current or transitioning WAC members are interested in FBS. Then ask yourself how probable it is that each of UMass, UConn and Liberty would be interested in joining an FBS WAC. Finally, ask yourself how likely it is that at least two other Big Sky/MVFC/Southland schools would be interested in moving up. Convert all those percentages to decimal, multiply them together, then convert the result back to percentage. There's your answer.

(05-08-2020 11:18 AM)Hammersmith Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 10:26 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  How would the WAC be able to restart FBS football?

It was an extreme hypothetical he was raising(after being asked directly about it). He mentioned UMass, UConn and Liberty. If they got the four of them(inc. NMSU) and maybe a few other move ups, they probably think there's a chance.

But if you listen to his tone of voice, it does not sound likely at all. At one point, he says. "It's not impossible," and he puts a little bit of emphasis on the 'im'. Like you do when you say something's not impossible, but very, very improbable.

I'd guess the conversation they'll have at their WAC meeting will mostly be asking current and transitioning members if they're interested in FBS football, and then deciding whether or not to send feelers out to Liberty, UMass and UConn. If they do and get a positive response back from all of them, they would then have to ask around the Big Sky, Southland and MVFC to see if anyone else is interested. Lots and lots of dominoes would have to fall just right for it to happen, and it most certainly wouldn't happen right away.

How probable is it? Turn it into a math problem. Ask yourself what are the percentage odds that at least two current or transitioning WAC members are interested in FBS. Then ask yourself how probable it is that each of UMass, UConn and Liberty would be interested in joining an FBS WAC. Finally, ask yourself how likely it is that at least two other Big Sky/MVFC/Southland schools would be interested in moving up. Convert all those percentages to decimal, multiply them together, then convert the result back to percentage. There's your answer.

Sounds a lot like they would discuss having the minimum 8 football members for more of a scheduling agreement disguised as a conference

(05-08-2020 11:22 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 11:18 AM)Hammersmith Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 10:26 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  How would the WAC be able to restart FBS football?

It was an extreme hypothetical he was raising(after being asked directly about it). He mentioned UMass, UConn and Liberty. If they got the four of them(inc. NMSU) and maybe a few other move ups, they probably think there's a chance.

But if you listen to his tone of voice, it does not sound likely at all. At one point, he says. "It's not impossible," and he puts a little bit of emphasis on the 'im'. Like you do when you say something's not impossible, but very, very improbable.

I'd guess the conversation they'll have at their WAC meeting will mostly be asking current and transitioning members if they're interested in FBS football, and then deciding whether or not to send feelers out to Liberty, UMass and UConn. If they do and get a positive response back from all of them, they would then have to ask around the Big Sky, Southland and MVFC to see if anyone else is interested. Lots and lots of dominoes would have to fall just right for it to happen, and it most certainly wouldn't happen right away.

How probable is it? Turn it into a math problem. Ask yourself what are the percentage odds that at least two current or transitioning WAC members are interested in FBS. Then ask yourself how probable it is that each of UMass, UConn and Liberty would be interested in joining an FBS WAC. Finally, ask yourself how likely it is that at least two other Big Sky/MVFC/Southland schools would be interested in moving up. Convert all those percentages to decimal, multiply them together, then convert the result back to percentage. There's your answer.

Sounds a lot like they would discuss having the minimum 8 football members for more of a scheduling agreement disguised as a conference

I could see a scheduling agreement, yes (sort of already doing that with those FBS independents now). But joining a conference to make this happen... eh... I dunno. If any current or future WAC members have FBS aspirations this may be an option, but wouldn't they need to get 6-8 members that are FBS now to kick-start the whole thing?

I guess you could get...

NMSU
UMass
Liberty

BYU would not be interested AT ALL.

UConn also would not be interested at all as they would much rather play an independent schedule with regional rivals.

Army obviously wouldn't want to join either.

So really you have 3... just three in NMSU, UMass, and Liberty (had Idaho not dropped down they could've been #4), so unless several others are able to move up as independents (ala Liberty) I don't see it having a chance in hell to happen as an FBS conference sadly. I'd love to see it happen, but don't see it possible. If they could get the bare minumum to be an FBS conference (I think 6 is the bare minimum is it not?).. then MAYBE they could fill out with other potential move-ups that might join for football only. In its current state, starting FCS football in the conference or continuing to not sponsor football makes the most sense.

It seems like these schools have a defacto scheduling agreement as is, I think they'd rather keep that than create a whole new conference.


Maybe you could get a few northeast/mid Atlantic FCS move-ups and do something with UMass, UConn, and Liberty (Maybe also Army), but even that seems like the longest of long shots.

(05-08-2020 10:40 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 10:26 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  How would the WAC be able to restart FBS football?

Can I talk to you for a moment about our lords and cfb realignment prophets DavidSt and NoDak and the Great Northern Conference?

DavidSt said I'm entirely goofy and said he tried to talk sense Into me, so David
St doesn't want this idea associated with him.

(05-08-2020 12:34 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  It seems like these schools have a defacto scheduling agreement as is, I think they'd rather keep that than create a whole new conference.


Maybe you could get a few northeast/mid Atlantic FCS move-ups and do something with UMass, UConn, and Liberty (Maybe also Army), but even that seems like the longest of long shots.

Full .e.bershjp is worth $2million. Not. Many schools turning that down.dfçç

Correct me if I’m wrong, but to be a formal FBS conference don’t 8 of the football members also have to be full members?

Actually it sounds more like a discussion item with 2 (Dixie State, Tarleton State), possibly 3 (UTRGV) football schools. Mochia said that in almost the same breath as looking for another conference. A lot of "maybe" in that. As in maybe a Big Sky or SLC school might want to move up to FBS. Then he threw out the absurd UConn, UMass and Liberty, as if they would have interest in a conference with NMSU, let alone Dixie State and Tarleton State. That is how pie in the sky BS it was.

But really this was a known discussion for the FCS schools who joined, Hurd has mentioned as much before. Schools in the SLC and Big Sky are very far from FBS capable, even before the current virus situation.

What was interesting in the conversation was Mochia saying UTRGV had hired Oliver Luck and Mack Brown to investigate football. This is probably what the announcement on the 11th will be about. Perhaps they are FBS focused, or maybe FCS with the SLC in mind. New Orleans place is shaky since they had a study on football, an announcement they would be exploring it, and no football. UTRGV and Tarleton could perhaps replace UNO down the road.

The only way this could have happened, and it would have been a long shot:

Before they added Dixie St. and Tarletan St., two programs with no business being D1, they should have reached out to BYU again. BYU plus seven of the top MWC schools to form a new version of the MWC without the football fat. Football revenue would not be shared with the non-football members. Sure, NMSU is included, but their basketball makes it worth it. Then simply vote out Chicago St.

Hypothetically you’d have:

Air Force
Colorado St.
Wyoming
BYU
Boise
San Diego St.
UNLV
New Mexico
NMSU
*Cal Baptist
*Grand Canyon
*Seattle
*UTRGV
*Utah Valley

*non-football

(05-08-2020 01:22 PM)esayem Wrote:  The only way this could have happened, and it would have been a long shot:

Before they added Dixie St. and Tarletan St., two programs with no business being D1, they should have reached out to BYU again. BYU plus seven of the top MWC schools to form a new version of the MWC without the football fat. Football revenue would not be shared with the non-football members. Sure, NMSU is included, but their basketball makes it worth it. Then simply vote out Chicago St.

Hypothetically you’d have:

Air Force
Colorado St.
Wyoming
BYU
Boise
San Diego St.
UNLV
New Mexico
NMSU
*Cal Baptist
*Grand Canyon
*Seattle
*UTRGV
*Utah Valley

*non-football

Interesting concept to try to poach from the MWC, however, BYU never would've joined. They would've been the lynch-pin for this to have worked (they could've just joined the MWC directly if they wanted to). I think what needed to happen was the WAC needed to replace the defecting members ASAP back in 2010-2013 period, still not sure why they let it decline to just NMSU and Idaho (where was their initiative to invite the Big Sky members for example?). Could've seen them backfill with Montana, Montana St, NAU, Sacramento St, Portland St, others. Maybe this was tried and I am just unaware, or could expanded east (as they did anyway partly with UTSA) to get more call ups. UTSA? Texas St? Missouri St? anyone else from SunBelt possibly?

(05-08-2020 01:22 PM)esayem Wrote:  The only way this could have happened, and it would have been a long shot:

Before they added Dixie St. and Tarletan St., two programs with no business being D1, they should have reached out to BYU again. BYU plus seven of the top MWC schools to form a new version of the MWC without the football fat. Football revenue would not be shared with the non-football members. Sure, NMSU is included, but their basketball makes it worth it. Then simply vote out Chicago St.

Hypothetically you’d have:

Air Force
Colorado St.
Wyoming
BYU
Boise
San Diego St.
UNLV
New Mexico
NMSU
*Cal Baptist
*Grand Canyon
*Seattle
*UTRGV
*Utah Valley

*non-football

Why in the heck would any of the MWC want this? It would serve no purpose for them and be a downgrade. If they really wanted any of them to be conference mates, they could just invite them.

This is DavidSt level

(05-08-2020 01:35 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-08-2020 01:22 PM)esayem Wrote:  The only way this could have happened, and it would have been a long shot:

Before they added Dixie St. and Tarletan St., two programs with no business being D1, they should have reached out to BYU again. BYU plus seven of the top MWC schools to form a new version of the MWC without the football fat. Football revenue would not be shared with the non-football members. Sure, NMSU is included, but their basketball makes it worth it. Then simply vote out Chicago St.

Hypothetically you’d have:

Air Force
Colorado St.
Wyoming
BYU
Boise
San Diego St.
UNLV
New Mexico
NMSU
*Cal Baptist
*Grand Canyon
*Seattle
*UTRGV
*Utah Valley

*non-football

Why in the heck would any of the MWC want this? It would serve no purpose for them and be a downgrade. If they really wanted any of them to be conference mates, they could just invite them.

This is DavidSt level

Thanks for the complement!

The purpose was to create a football conference that would be more appealing than the current MWC due to a greater payout with BYU and less mouths to feed. Make sense?

(05-08-2020 01:10 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  What was interesting in the conversation was Mochia saying UTRGV had hired Oliver Luck and Mack Brown to investigate football. This is probably what the announcement on the 11th will be about. Perhaps they are FBS focused, or maybe FCS with the SLC in mind. New Orleans place is shaky since they had a study on football, an announcement they would be exploring it, and no football. UTRGV and Tarleton could perhaps replace UNO down the road.

Moccia misspoke. Mack Brown was involved in the UTRGV football feasibility study which started in 2016 and I think ended in 2018. Brown was hired at UNC as the head coach in November of 2018. As far as I know, UTRGV never made a decision on football. So, for UTRGV to decide to go with football now, considering the environment we are in today and the likely budgets cuts, makes no sense. They may decide to go with football at some point down the road, especially with a growing enrollment that is expected to reach 40,000 in the next decade, but not at this point in time.