Are we certain that's even possible? I mean, sure; I guess in practice an infinitesimal move at the margin is still technically a move, but....
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
Proposed Group of 5 Playoff
- Thread starter NavyBlue
- Start date
Exactly. It would be an unequal premise with 85 scholarship (headcount) schools competing in a playoff against 63 scholarship (equivalency) schools. It's a cool idea, though.
If the G5 goes with a playoff format and the Mountain West doesn't have openings, that "Snowbelt Conference" is looking pretty good as an FBS conference 
. And I would bet that the NCAA would allow a new conference to develop, especially out west. The west needs another FBS conference.
Cal Poly
Idaho
Montana
Montana State
North Dakota State
South Dakota State
New Mexico State
Weber State (?)
Sacramento State
UC Davis
... Who else?
. And I would bet that the NCAA would allow a new conference to develop, especially out west. The west needs another FBS conference.Cal Poly
Idaho
Montana
Montana State
North Dakota State
South Dakota State
New Mexico State
Weber State (?)
Sacramento State
UC Davis
... Who else?
Just for fun, if you use Massey and include FCS teams:
1/18 South Dakota State
2/37 SMU
3/42 Troy
4/43 JMU
5/45 Memphis
6/48 Liberty
7/52 Tulane
8/57 Boise St
9/61 UTSA
10/62 Wyoming
11/63 Air Force
12/65 Fresno St
13/67 NDSU
14/70 Montana
15/71 App State
16/73 Miami-OH
17/76 Coastal Carolina
18/77 Toledo
19/78 Ohio
20/84 San Jose St
21/85 UNLV
22/87 South Alabama
23/89 Jacksonville State
24/90 Western Kentucky
25/93 bozeman state
alabamagrizzly
Well-known member
A true “Snowbelt” con would probably includeIf the G5 goes with a playoff format and the Mountain West doesn't have openings, that "Snowbelt Conference" is looking pretty good as an FBS conference
Cal Poly
Idaho
Montana
Montana State
North Dakota State
South Dakota State
New Mexico State
Weber State (?)
Sacramento State
UC Davis
... Who else?
1 Montana
2 scats
3 Idaho
4 NDSU
5 UND
6 SDSU
7 USD
8 WSU
9 EWU or UNI
Preferably a nine team con to have 8 con games and not have a rotating con schedule.
mthoopsfan
Well-known member
That's helpful. Thx.
EWU is barely hanging on in the FCS. No way do they have money to move up.
alabamagrizzly
Well-known member
Ya, just made the suggestion geographically based off the conference name.
Drop EWU/UNI and take Weber. That’s a damned fine conference.
What about adding Utah State and Colorado State ( I know they currently have ties to other conferences ) but the footprint would be great!
Well, I think the original premise was staying with FCS teams. If we’re talking about the “perfect” conference that’s a whole different discussion. In that scenario I’d go:
MT
MT State
UND
NDSU
USD
SDSU
Utah State
Wyoming
Colorado State
That is a nice, geographically tight, competitive conference that would (IMHO) immediately become the 2nd best G5 conference behind the potential MWC/P2 merger, which I assume would look like:
Wazzu
Oregon St
Boise St
Fresno St
San Jose St
San Diego St
AFA
Hawaii
Nevada
New Mexico Lobos
UNLV
I don't know a ton about this, but didn't they just merge their football with the ASUN?
thirdandlong
Well-known member
Title nine. Title Nine. Don't forget about Title Nine.
Assuming this includes BB, would you want Sac with their existing BB arena?
Hypothetically, would there be any chance to steal UCD for all sports?
St. Thomas and Denver would be nice for basketball/olympics. Does Seattle have any potential for basketball only? Would Portland State have potential if they dropped FB?
Sorry... wandered over here and couldn't help myself.
UC Davis has more money available than I had previously realized, if I am honest. They are a school that I do NOT pretend is there yet, but they have the donor base to make some really big jumps if they choose to do that and make a move up.
They aren't in the category of the Dakotas or the Montanas, of course. But thy have not gone backwards in recent years in donor base, by ANY means. I'm curious to see what they do in the next 10 years.
I mean that in terms of facilities, to be clear. I couldn't go back and edit. I know they are not going to buy a football team all of a sudden next year or the year after or anything, but I think teams in the Big Sky should be prepared for them to grow into something more than they have been in the coming decade.
Way too much dilution ... need to have teams with facilities that want to play both football and basketball and aren't ashamed of playing both! Would give the conference at least a shot at getting a media deal...
