UND and the Big Sky could go FBS

[The Sicatoka]

The SunBelt may actually be willing to do something along these lines as it would help them help Idaho and NMSU move on. The MWC and to a lesser degree the MAC wouldn't do it because it would be creating competition in their geographical region. No such concern with the SunBelt.

An outsiders perceptions of what this would do for the Sun Belt:

- charge these teams an entry fee (one-time win)

- don't give them a split of the money while in SBC (neutral)

- find a way to politely dispatch Idaho and NMSU to a western conference (saving travel costs down the road)

Negative for SBC (namely, acknowledging Herd's point):

An eleventh of the Pie is less than a tenth of the Pie: the SBC is guaranteeing itself less money in the overall split*

*Unless that Pie goes up in the future

[Herd]

I'm still talking about the possibility it would happen not whether is actually likely to happen.

-Adding 6 teams would not be against any rules I've seen. I don't know of any measure in place that would allow the other conferences to stop the Sunbelt from doing it. Correct, inviting any teams up isn't a zero sum game, this isn't much different other than it being a few more teams. I don't know of anything that legal prevents this regardless of intentions or how it looks. (I was referring to it in terms of a new conference, at that point it is a zero sum game as the teams would already be FBS)

-"Entrance" fees along with some sort of structure that offsets their loss in the $12 million could easily be put in place for the existing teams. I believe that GSU and App St had something in their invite that they didn't receive revenue immediately.

-Again, only a 2-3 year issue, parts of which can be offset with non-conference guarantees that are well more than double of what the exact same team would be receiving as an FBS team once they are in year 2 and count as "FBS" wins (see Sicatoka's post)

-It would be a 2-3 year agreement and if there were east-west divisions, you'd be looking at 1, maybe 2 away games cross-division for 2 or maybe 3 years. The SunBelt may actually be willing to do something along these lines as it would help them help Idaho and NMSU move on. The MWC and to a lesser degree the MAC wouldn't do it because it would be creating competition in their geographical region. No such concern with the SunBelt.

-Fullerton wouldn't be killing football in the BSC, he's still have a full (though less competitive) conference while knowing that the other schools would come back as they would still have all other sports under the Big Sky umbrella. The Big Sky would then "manage" the operations of the FBS conference.

You have some very valid arguments on the money side of it, but they are not insurmountable if teams really want to go FBS. On the legal side of it, I am not sure there is anything that can prevent it (that I have seen). In terms of practicality, very doubtful but doable.

I'm not sold on it for many reasons but mainly because I don't think there is a rush to go FBS in the current landscape.

You are assuming what after 2-3 years? That the NCAA & FBS governing board would allow the teams out of the Sunbelt to exist in a new FBS conference 'The Big Sky' managed by Doug Fullterton, where they would share a $12 million piece of pie and live happily ever after?

If any of the Big Sky teams want to be FBS, then pull up your pants and do it like everyone else has been required to do it. You need to forget this silly notion of a large group of teams or an entire conference by-passing standard operations. What you are suggesting would throw up a massive red flag to the NCAA and FBS governing structure, and be stopped instantly. If what you are suggesting could be done, the CAA would have done it long ago. You can't goto a conference for a couple of years, then start your own conference.

[The Sicatoka]

You can't goto a conference for a couple of years, then start your own conference.

The National Collegiate Hockey Conference? Anyone?

(UND, DU, CC, et al, were in the WCHA for a couple-fifty-some years and then started their own conference.)

[The Sicatoka]

If any of the Big Sky teams want to be FBS, then pull up your pants and do it like everyone else has been required to do it.

They would be:

- conference invite

- two-year transition FCS --> FBS

- follow all the DI manual rules for FBS

Then:

- Do an "NCHC"

Can it happen? Current rules do not preclude it. Will it? I'm skeptical.

[jdub27]

You are assuming what after 2-3 years? That the NCAA & FBS governing board would allow the teams out of the Sunbelt to exist in a new FBS conference 'The Big Sky' managed by Doug Fullterton, where they would share a $12 million piece of pie and live happily ever after?

If any of the Big Sky teams want to be FBS, then pull up your pants and do it like everyone else has been required to do it. You need to forget this silly notion of a large group of teams or an entire conference by-passing standard operations. What you are suggesting would throw up a massive red flag to the NCAA and FBS governing structure, and be stopped instantly. If what you are suggesting could be done, the CAA would have done it long ago. You can't goto a conference for a couple of years, then start your own conference.

Again, I don't think its likely to happen for many reasons. But is there actually something in the NCAA manual that could stop this scenario from playing out? If timed right, it would could be completed when the football TV contracts are being redone, I can't see them being excluded at that point for fear of anti-trust lawsuits. Maybe it does throw up red flags and some rules are changed, but at this point, I don't think anything in place legally could stop it from happening. I very well could be wrong, but no one has provided anything to the contrary on it.

They would be:

- conference invite

- two-year transition FCS --> FBS

- follow all the DI manual rules for FBS

Then:

- Do an "NCHC"

Can it happen? Current rules do not preclude it. Will it? I'm skeptical.

Or the Big East turning into the American Athletic Conference and "new" Big East. This one is probably more relevant when discussing splitting up portions of large money to an extra, newly formed conference.

[Herd]

The National Collegiate Hockey Conference? Anyone?

(UND, DU, CC, et al, were in the WCHA for a couple-fifty-some years and then started their own conference.)

And your not smart enough to see the massive difference in these two scenarios? Oh please, I'd like to give you a little credit for being smarter than that.

[The Sicatoka]

Or the Big East turning into the American Athletic Conference and "new" Big East. This one is probably more relevant when discussing splitting up portions of large BASKETBALL money to an extra conference.

Added a clarification.

[The Sicatoka]

And your not smart enough to see the massive difference in these two scenarios? Oh please, I'd like to give you a little credit for being smarter than that.

You say it can't be done. I show it can. So your resort to that? C'mon man.

I get that the money is the 800 pound gorilla in the room; but, the rules allow it. NCAA politics (spelled: $$$$$) would stop it; but, as written, it's possible within the current DI manual.

Can it? Yes. Will it? Questionable.

[Herd]

Again, I don't think its likely to happen for many reasons. But is there actually something in the NCAA manual that could stop this scenario from playing out? If timed right, it would could be completed when the football TV contracts are being redone, I can't see them being excluded at that point for fear of anti-trust lawsuits.

Or the Big East turning into the American Athletic Conference and "new" Big East. This one is probably more relevant when discussing splitting up portions of large money to an extra, newly formed conference.

Both the NCHC and BE/AAC situations were zero sum. Not even close to the same scenarios. The Big Sky football situation would be similar to if the DII NSIC merged with the DI Summit for 5 years, with the intentions of then decided to spin off back to the DI NSIC league. This ploy by the NSIC wouldn't have a prayer of even getting off the ground. Neither would the similar situation being discussed with Big Sky football. Both bypass general guidelines for move up, which have ncaa and DI oversight.

Division I membership is guarded from DII in a similar fashion that DI FBS membership guarded from DI FCS. NCHC-WCHA or BE-AAC, not on the same plane at all.

[The Sicatoka]

... bypass general guidelines for move up, which have ncaa and DI oversight.

Bypass? How?

Haven't j-dub and I put forth, within the NCAA DI manual requirements, how this could be accomplished in theory?

Synopsis: SBC invites, teams do the two-year transition in SBC, SBC splits.

[jdub27]

Both the NCHC and BE/AAC situations were zero sum. Not even close to the same scenarios. The Big Sky football situation would be similar to if the DII NSIC merged with the DI Summit for 5 years, with the intentions of then decided to spin off back to the DI NSIC league. This ploy by the NSIC wouldn't have a prayer of even getting off the ground. Neither would the similar situation being discussed with Big Sky football. Both bypass general guidelines for move up, which have ncaa and DI oversight.

Division I membership is guarded from DII in a similar fashion that DI FBS membership guarded from DI FCS. NCHC-WCHA or BE-AAC, not on the same plane at all.

I get what you're saying but point at which of the following aren't currently allowed under current rules:

-Existing FBS conferences ability to invite 1 or more teams to move up to FBS

-FCS teams having to follow proper protocol to transition from FCS to FBS

-Existing FBS teams having the ability to create a new conference

No one (almost) is saying that this is a likely scenario. All that is being said is that the current rules do not prevent it. Can they be changed? Of course. Is the scenario likely to play out? Pretty much zero chance. Do the rules, as currently written, prevent it? Not that anyone has pointed out yet.

[Herd]

You say it can't be done. I show it can. So your resort to that? C'mon man.

I get that the money is the 800 pound gorilla in the room; but, the rules allow it. NCAA politics (spelled: $$$$$) would stop it; but, as written, it's possible within the current DI manual.

Can it? Yes. Will it? Questionable.

You fail to realize that there is NCAA and DI oversight on any moves made to DI or DI FBS. What is being suggested doesn't pass the basic sniff test, and it would never get off the ground. The gorilla in the room is basic oversight in place to prevent underhanded moves. Do you think the P5 would like to have 6-13 teams added so there are more mouths to feed in FBS football. Basic oversight of this move squelch this quickly.

[dmksioux]

You fail to realize that there is NCAA and DI oversight on any moves made to DI or DI FBS. What is being suggested doesn't pass the basic sniff test, and it would never get off the ground. The gorilla in the room is basic oversight in place to prevent underhanded moves. Do you think the P5 would like to have 6-13 teams added so there are more mouths to feed in FBS football. Basic oversight of this move squelch this quickly.

And you fail to realize that no one here is arguing with you about the likelihood of it happening. They are pointing out that, as the rules are currently written, it is plausible...even if highly unlikely. There's only been one poster who truly believes it's going to happen. The rest are just pointing out the fact that it could be done as the rules are currently written. You, nor does anyone else, have any idea what the "oversight" committee will do...you're just assuming what they will do...

[jdub27]

You fail to realize that there is NCAA and DI oversight on any moves made to DI or DI FBS. What is being suggested doesn't pass the basic sniff test, and it would never get off the ground. The gorilla in the room is basic oversight in place to prevent underhanded moves. Do you think the P5 would like to have 6-13 teams added so there are more mouths to feed in FBS football. Basic oversight of this move squelch this quickly.

Here's the only requirements and oversight that are laid out in the NCAA manual that I've seen (along with having a conference invite). FCS teams are already DI institutions, there isn't the stringent oversight you're discussing. Your scenario with the NSIC is completely different because it involves a move from from DII to DI.

1.Sponsor a minimum of 16 varsity intercollegiate sports, including football, based on the minimum sports sponsorship and scheduling requirements set forth in Bylaw 20. Sponsorship shall include a minimum six sports involving all male teams or mixed teams (males and females), and a minimum of eight varsity intercollegiate teams involving all female teams. Institutions may use up to two emerging sports to satisfy the required eight varsity intercollegiate sports involving all female teams. [bylaw 20.9.7.1]

2. Schedule and play at least 60 percent of its football contests against members of Football Bowl Subdivision. Institutions shall schedule and play at least five regular season home contests against Football Bowl Subdivision opponents. [bylaw 20.9.7.2]

3. Average at least 15,000 in actual or paid attendance for all home football contests over a rolling two-year period. [bylaw 20.9.7.3]

4. Provide an average of at least 90 percent of the permissible maximum number of overall football grants-in-aid per year over a rolling two-year period. [bylaw 20.9.7.4-(a)]

5. Annually offer a minimum of 200 athletics grants-in-aid or expend at least four million dollars on grants-in-aid to student-athletes in athletics programs. [bylaw 20.9.7.4-(b)]

[The Sicatoka]

The gorilla in the room is basic oversight in place to prevent underhanded moves. Do you think the P5 would like to have 6-13 teams added so there are more mouths to feed in FBS football.

Oversight is not the gorilla; the bolded (spelled $$$$$) is the gorilla.

[The Sicatoka]

And you fail to realize that no one here is arguing with you about the likelihood of it happening. They are pointing out that, as the rules are currently written, it is plausible...even if highly unlikely. There's only been one poster who truly believes it's going to happen. The rest are just pointing out the fact that it could be done as the rules are currently written. You, nor does anyone else, have any idea what the "oversight" committee will do...you're just assuming what they will do...

Precisely.

[Herd]

http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2013/06/why-cant-fcs-conferences-move-as-unit.html

[dmksioux]

http://lehighfootbal...ve-as-unit.html

That article does nothing to dispel "Sioux Volley's" theory. We all agree that the rules state that the Big Sky can't create it's own FBS conference. The theory states that a few teams can join an existing FBS conference (ie Sunbelt) and then later split ( and call it whatever they want.) The end game is the same, but the steps to get there are different than what the CAA was trying to do. Again, most everyone agrees that it won't happen, but in theory, it could.

[jdub27]

http://lehighfootbal...ve-as-unit.html

From your article:

What makes the Sun Belt more qualified to run an FBS conference than the CAA, except for what amounts to a grandfather rule? Only the fact that they already are an FBS conference has any bearing. Attendance? Graduation rates? Academic honors? Profitability? The NCAA doesn't care. If you're already an FBS conference, your're an FBS conference. If you're an FCS conference, you need eight FBS members, who already were invited by other FBS conferences, to become one.

It's a circular dependency that has the effect of ossifying the existing FCS/FBS conference structure in place. It also allows existing FBS conferences, with nothing more than a nametag, to draft schools - and also dismantle conferences - that have little in common with them, simply because they have "FBS" in the title.

People don't think that this structure has anything to do with realignmentageddon, but it absolutely does. When the conference structure is ossified and has no meaning, conferences become nametags, pilfering individual schools with no sense of rivalries, fan interest, or even institutional similarity. The imperative becomes preserving the existence of a conference over creation of something positive in an athletics sense. That's why we have the AAC stretching from Connecticut to Texas, Conference USA stretching from Virginia to Texas, the Sun Belt reaching from Wyoming to Georgia.

[#MACtion]

What people are forgetting is Fullerton's idea is based on a p5 split and a merge between top FCS and the rest of the FBS teams, so conferences like the BSC, MVFC, etc can move up as a whole.

That is not gonna happen even IF there was a split. It humors me when MVFC and BSC fans think the other FBS Conferences will rip-up their contract with the P5 conferences and ESPN and then roll out the red carpet for FCS conferences. The G5 conferences want to widen the gap with FCS conferences just as much or more as the P5 conferences wants to widen the gap. Most of these university presidents bounce around from school to school their entire careers. The SEC Commish was the C-USA commish not long ago, but somehow you think those same people are greedy, money hungry, and want power and control only at Colorado, but not at Colorado State???.... makes zero sense whatsoever.... The Colorado President and PAC12 Commish want all the money and power for themselves and want to kick the Colorado State Prez and Mountain West Commish to the curb, but the Colorado State Prez and Mountain West Commish want to give flowers to Commish Fullerton and personally buy UND a new stadium as a gift and share their TV time... ? What.. are you serious?

[Herd]

That article does nothing to dispel "Sioux Volley's" theory. We all agree that the rules state that the Big Sky can't create it's own FBS conference. The theory states that a few teams can join an existing FBS conference (ie Sunbelt) and then later split ( and call it whatever they want.) The end game is the same, but the steps to get there are different than what the CAA was trying to do. Again, most everyone agrees that it won't happen, but in theory, it could.

The NCAA will interpret this as they see fit. My likely scenario of what the NCAA will say . . .

• The Big Sky is not an existing FBS Conference, therefore it could not be setup as a FBS conference, even if it brings in 8 teams that are technically FBS. FBS teams could goto any of the existing 10 conferences, but the NCAA would not establish the Big Sky as the 11th FBS conference. This is why invitations are required, and why it's unlikely that 6 teams would be invited at one time.
  
• If the 6 teams from Big Sky were accepted into the Sunbelt, then they could remain FBS as long as they maintained status in an existing FBS conference. The NCAA would Not view the Big Sky as an existing FBS conference, so the Big Sky would not be an option for teams playing FBS football.
  

I don't say the above because it's the Big Sky. The NCAA would give the same interpretation to the CAA, MVFC or any FCS conference that was trying to move it's conference FBS.

[jdub27]

The NCAA will interpret this as they see fit. My interpretation of what the NCAA will say . . .

• The Big Sky is not an existing FBS Conference, therefore it could not be setup as a FBS conference, even if it brings in 8 teams that are technically FBS. FBS teams could goto any of the existing 10 conferences, but the NCAA would not establish the Big Sky as the 11th FBS conference.
  
• If the 6 teams from Big Sky were accepted into the Sunbelt, then they could remain FBS as long as they maintained status in an existing FBS conference. The NCAA would Not view the Big Sky as an existing FBS conference, so the Big Sky would not be an option for team playing FBS football.
  

Exactly the point. This is your interpretation, not what the rules say as written today. I'm not saying that the rules can't or won't change the rules to exactly what you're describing, but until they do what is being discussed could plausibly happen.

I'm not so certain on your line of thinking about the NCAA being the ones who have the power to establish conferences either? They can determine the qualifications for teams being FCS or FBS, which is spelled out in the NCAA manual, but not sure they are the final say on the formation of conferences or can refuse to recognize them for reasons that are arbitrary. Again the rules could be changed, but this is centered on how they are written today. Once schools that transition from FCS to FBS have completed that transition, they would have the same rights as any other school to move or create a conference.

[#MACtion]

That article does nothing to dispel "Sioux Volley's" theory. We all agree that the rules state that the Big Sky can't create it's own FBS conference. The theory states that a few teams can join an existing FBS conference (ie Sunbelt) and then later split ( and call it whatever they want.) The end game is the same, but the steps to get there are different than what the CAA was trying to do. Again, most everyone agrees that it won't happen, but in theory, it could.

Technically (but unlikely), it could possibly happen minus CFP revenue sharing for the new split-off FBS conference (but there would have to be some crazy, secret prior agreement with the Sun Belt or they have no incentive to do this and that secret agreement alone could have the NCAA block this). But I still don't think the entire Big Sky would or should attempt it. There are only a handful of Big Sky schools that could make it work but most of those same schools already were given a chance by the WAC and they said no.

[FSSD]

That is not gonna happen even IF there was a split. It humors me when MVFC and BSC fans think the other FBS Conferences will rip-up their contract with the P5 conferences and ESPN and then roll out the red carpet for FCS conferences. The G5 conferences want to widen the gap with FCS conferences just as much or more as the P5 conferences wants to widen the gap. Most of these university presidents bounce around from school to school their entire careers. The SEC Commish was the C-USA commish not long ago, but somehow you think those same people are greedy, money hungry, and want power and control only at Colorado, but not at Colorado State???.... makes zero sense whatsoever.... The Colorado President and PAC12 Commish want all the money and power for themselves and want to kick the Colorado State Prez and Mountain West Commish to the curb, but the Colorado State Prez and Mountain West Commish want to give flowers to Commish Fullerton and personally buy UND a new stadium as a gift and share their TV time... ? What.. are you serious?

No dog in the fight, but won't the P5 commissioners want more G5 or G conferences. Because, the cost of buying games for the P5s would go down (supply/demand). The cost of no-return G conference games has gone up significantly. The P5 conferences would lose nothing they have identified the pool of money for the G conferences.

[Herd]

No dog in the fight, but won't the P5 commissioners want more G5 or G conferences. Because, the cost of buying games for the P5s would go down (supply/demand). The cost of no-return G conference games has gone up significantly. The P5 conferences would lose nothing they have identified the pool of money for the G conferences.

$12 Million here, and $12 million there. No, I don't think the P5/NCAA want more FBS conferences. If they did, it would be an easy move. It is not.

If anything, most of the P5 (ironically) want 5 FBS conferences.