Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NDSU92
The negative underlying trapdoor is the NCAA. Always has been.
I’m not saying I wouldn’t kill for this. I’m all about upward mobility in all things, especially when it’s NDSU that is potentially on the receiving end.
I’m saying don’t get your hopes up.
Oh absolutely believe it's a moonshot to say the least. Even in the unlikely event it happens there is no guarantee NDSU is involved either.
All I'm saying is there are a lot of positives to why football programs would want to be part of this.
I also think other than winning the lottery and getting into the top G5 conference(whatever that is at this point) this would be a dream scenario for NDSU because all sports eyeballs would be focused on it and the talk of every sports personality would include this new model and programs. And of course I believe NDSU would sky rocket to the top of the top tier and that would be a national story beause of the recognition the program has already built for itself.
So even though I believe the chance is less than 1%, I'm all in on talking about the fun positives this could bring to a total stale level of college football.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BigHorns
Believe the Boise proposal said the crossover games would replace one or two OOC games.
Lots of conferences have "protected" rivalries in their divisions. Either those two can play OOC or negotiate to protect that game. Doesn't seem like a deal breaker to me.
You still need 8 conference games. An ooc game would not count as a conference game. The idea is to create 2 separate conferences. For it to work each conference would need 9 football members.
Remember you are deciding who gets to move up or who has to move down. It has to be on as level a playing field as you can get.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MWC
I have a hard time seeing schools willingly vote themselves into a lesser conference for less money. I also don't see any interest outside of MW fans in watching a a risk of relegation game between two schools fans outside of the MW never watched or cared about before. That is not something that will be more valuable.
I do think, if there is some sort of merger individual schools might see a chance to earn a larger payout based on performance. But even that will be a hard sell. OSU and Wazzu are in a pickle. The MW doesn't have to do anything. I just don't see any conference make up that hurts some members just for the benefit of the Pac 2 twins.
I also don't think adding 2 small market teams will add much to any potential contract.
However, I do hope they can work out something that is more equitable for everyone, because I would really enjoy sharing a conference with the twins. They are in the neighborhood and have been playing against MW schools for a long time.
I don't know where anyone is voting themselves into a lesser conference for less money? Tell me which of the two conferences has some great media deal right now? MWC = what $4m each and PAC = $0 right now.
On the relgation games not being valuable to non MWC viewers I respectfully disagree and think it would be primetime ESPN content.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TAILG8R
Lol it’s not only Chapo either…
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MWC
A conference with the Pac2 and 6 MW schools would not be P5. This idea does nothing more than create two G5 conferences in the region. If it is just for football only, it doesn't even get you an additional automatic bid for the NCAA basketball tourney.
PAC still has Autonomy status with NCAA. They also have P5 status in the CFP system today, and because of CFP membership voting rules, not sure that will easily be revoked. They are grouped with the P5 schools, and get a larger payout than the G5 do from CFP.
The easiest way to do this would be to do it for ALL sports. Making Football separate would require an NCAA/FBS waiver, as football-only FBS conferences aren't allowed today. Plus a lot of the benefits here are the additional auto-bids.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
The reason, I don't see this generating enough MW votes to make it happen is because this is really just a scheme to eliminate exit fees. Once you create 2 separate conferences the charade ends.
That's why I ask who gets to pick who goes where to start the process. What will be the criteria for the placement?
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BigHorns
PAC still has Autonomy status with NCAA. They also have P5 status in the CFP system today, and because of CFP membership voting rules, not sure that will easily be revoked. They are grouped with the P5 schools, and get a larger payout than the G5 do from CFP.
The easiest way to do this would be to do it for ALL sports. Making Football separate would require an NCAA/FBS waiver, as football-only FBS conferences aren't allowed today. Plus a lot of the benefits here are the additional auto-bids.
But from what others are saying the NCAA can and will just come in and change anything they don't like. So who's to say that the PAC adding MWC wouldn't cause the NCAA to say, yeah sorry you're now at the kid's table where you belong?
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MWC
You still need 8 conference games. An ooc game would not count as a conference game. The idea is to create 2 separate conferences. For it to work each conference would need 9 football members.
Remember you are deciding who gets to move up or who has to move down. It has to be on as level a playing field as you can get.
Interesting scheduling point, it might be this would work better as two 9 member conferences, 18 teams total.
That would mean PAC/MWC need to add 4 teams. Even better.
The Boise proposal was that the cross-conference games would officially be "OOC" contests. Not sure they could get away with replacing the 8 in-conference games.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TAILG8R
But from what others are saying the NCAA can and will just come in and change anything they don't like. So who's to say that the PAC adding MWC wouldn't cause the NCAA to say, yeah sorry you're now at the kid's table where you belong?
That's what some seem to think LOL. But people forget that the "NCAA" = all division 1 schools, including the G5. Majority of schools would need to vote for/approve any changes, not just the SEC/B1G or the P4.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TAILG8R
I don't know where anyone is voting themselves into a lesser conference for less money? Tell me which of the two conferences has some great media deal right now? MWC = what $4m each and PAC = $0 right now.
On the relgation games not being valuable to non MWC viewers I respectfully disagree and think it would be primetime ESPN content.
The idea of the premier league is they get a bigger slice of the tv deal. That probably means 60 percent to 40 percent. It may even be 70/30. As for ESPN, the current providers are CBS/Fox. That contract is in place through 2026. The Pac 2 has no tv deal so for 3 more years under a relegation system, the premiere league would taking their extra chunk at the expense of the minor league slices. It is possible that CBS/Fox could bump up the deal in exchange for more years under contract. While possible it would not exactly be a gold mine.
