Moving up

[Long Time Cat]

University of Southern California = a directional school?

[Cataholic]

https://sports.yahoo.com/washington-sta ... 34874.html

This is an incredible development. Washington State and Oregon State sue for control of the PAC 12. It is not mentioned in the article, but I believe the PAC 12 owns the rights to the Rose Bowl Game.

[thefrank1]

The OSU president hinted at this. MWC moving on up.

[Bobcat Sig]

University of Southern California = a directional school?

An outlier, to be sure. USC is much, much different than West Georgia or Eastern Washington.

[onceacat]

The OSU president hinted at this. MWC moving on up.

12 MW teams + OSU/WSU + UM/MSU = a pretty good football conference.

[thefrank1]

The OSU president hinted at this. MWC moving on up.

12 MW teams + OSU/WSU + UM/MSU = a pretty good football conference.

Works for me.

[Cataholic]

https://sports.yahoo.com/could-pac-12-s ... 31232.html

More information about the options OSU, WSU and the MWC are considering. Sounds like a lot of liabilities with the existing PAC 12 which could be an issue, but also lots of possibilities. It would be pretty incredible to see the MWC and PAC 12 merge and preserve Power Five status with the CFP. That would be awesome for schools in the MWC. Go from being a G5 conference to a P5 conference via a merger.

[onceacat]

https://sports.yahoo.com/could-pac-12-s ... 31232.html

More information about the options OSU, WSU and the MWC are considering. Sounds like a lot of liabilities with the existing PAC 12 which could be an issue, but also lots of possibilities. It would be pretty incredible to see the MWC and PAC 12 merge and preserve Power Five status with the CFP. That would be awesome for schools in the MWC. Go from being a G5 conference to a P5 conference via a merger.

"Power 5" vs G5 is entirely in the eye of the voters (and computers, I guess). An undefeated conference champ could easily make it through the schedule without a single Top 25 win. Utah & Boise State both dealt with this.

Even if the MWC + OSU/WSU gets rebranded as the Pac-14, it still won't be a Power 5 conference.

[Cataholic]

https://sports.yahoo.com/could-pac-12-s ... 31232.html

More information about the options OSU, WSU and the MWC are considering. Sounds like a lot of liabilities with the existing PAC 12 which could be an issue, but also lots of possibilities. It would be pretty incredible to see the MWC and PAC 12 merge and preserve Power Five status with the CFP. That would be awesome for schools in the MWC. Go from being a G5 conference to a P5 conference via a merger.

"Power 5" vs G5 is entirely in the eye of the voters (and computers, I guess). An undefeated conference champ could easily make it through the schedule without a single Top 25 win. Utah & Boise State both dealt with this.

Even if the MWC + OSU/WSU gets rebranded as the Pac-14, it still won't be a Power 5 conference.

Did you read the article? I learned a lot from it.

[coloradocat]

https://sports.yahoo.com/could-pac-12-s ... 31232.html

More information about the options OSU, WSU and the MWC are considering. Sounds like a lot of liabilities with the existing PAC 12 which could be an issue, but also lots of possibilities. It would be pretty incredible to see the MWC and PAC 12 merge and preserve Power Five status with the CFP. That would be awesome for schools in the MWC. Go from being a G5 conference to a P5 conference via a merger.

"Power 5" vs G5 is entirely in the eye of the voters (and computers, I guess). An undefeated conference champ could easily make it through the schedule without a single Top 25 win. Utah & Boise State both dealt with this.

Even if the MWC + OSU/WSU gets rebranded as the Pac-14, it still won't be a Power 5 conference.

Starting next year, the PAC isn't a P5 conference, just a P5 name. If it's either the two bottom-feeders or them plus the MWC, they don't deserve P5 status.

From the article:

A decision on a change to the CFP revenue-distribution model is believed to need unanimous support.

Assuming other rule changes only need majority support, I assume the other members would just pass a rule that all further changes of any kind only need majority support, and then drop the 2-PAC from P5 status.

[Cataholic]

https://sports.yahoo.com/could-pac-12-s ... 31232.html

More information about the options OSU, WSU and the MWC are considering. Sounds like a lot of liabilities with the existing PAC 12 which could be an issue, but also lots of possibilities. It would be pretty incredible to see the MWC and PAC 12 merge and preserve Power Five status with the CFP. That would be awesome for schools in the MWC. Go from being a G5 conference to a P5 conference via a merger.

"Power 5" vs G5 is entirely in the eye of the voters (and computers, I guess). An undefeated conference champ could easily make it through the schedule without a single Top 25 win. Utah & Boise State both dealt with this.

Even if the MWC + OSU/WSU gets rebranded as the Pac-14, it still won't be a Power 5 conference.

Starting next year, the PAC isn't a P5 conference, just a P5 name. If it's either the two bottom-feeders or them plus the MWC, they don't deserve P5 status.

From the article:

A decision on a change to the CFP revenue-distribution model is believed to need unanimous support.

Assuming other rule changes only need majority support, I assume the other members would just pass a rule that all further changes of any kind only need majority support, and then drop the 2-PAC from P5 status.

According to the article, you can’t change without unanimous support. How would you pass a new rule where just a majority is needed? You will never get OSU or WSU to agree to a new majority rule so it is not possible to make such a change. That is the basis of the lawsuit - that only two PAC 12 members have votes - OSU and WSU.

[St George]

In my old and feeble mind there needs to be 3 choices instead of just FBS and FCS. Take the bottom 1/3 of the FBS and the top 1/3 of the FCS and combine them into the RAS, named after me of course. They can come up with a name later. The Mountain West and some other conferences only get PARTICIPATION BOWLS because they end up with records 6-6 or better and end up playing each other. Then when top teams in either of the lower levels are ready, move up, or down as the case may be. I would still rather compete for a National Championship than have a meaningless trophy for a participation bowl.

I stand corrected, there are already 3, but not by choice. FBS Power 5, FBS Non power 5, and FCS.

[catgrad05]

This would be the perfect opportunity to do the promotion-regulation idea. Combine the two leagues and add the Montana schools, make a PAC 8 and a Mountain 8. Bottom two from the PAC go to the mountain and top two from the Mountain move to the PAC. You play all seven in your division with two cross over games a year so rivalry is maintained regardless of which division your rival currently sits. Promote that it’s a new model focused on regional rivals, fans can actually attend away games. It would make for better on campus involvement for all teams involved. Think it’s a great idea for western teams

[coloradocat]

https://sports.yahoo.com/could-pac-12-s ... 31232.html

More information about the options OSU, WSU and the MWC are considering. Sounds like a lot of liabilities with the existing PAC 12 which could be an issue, but also lots of possibilities. It would be pretty incredible to see the MWC and PAC 12 merge and preserve Power Five status with the CFP. That would be awesome for schools in the MWC. Go from being a G5 conference to a P5 conference via a merger.

"Power 5" vs G5 is entirely in the eye of the voters (and computers, I guess). An undefeated conference champ could easily make it through the schedule without a single Top 25 win. Utah & Boise State both dealt with this.

Even if the MWC + OSU/WSU gets rebranded as the Pac-14, it still won't be a Power 5 conference.

Starting next year, the PAC isn't a P5 conference, just a P5 name. If it's either the two bottom-feeders or them plus the MWC, they don't deserve P5 status.

From the article:

A decision on a change to the CFP revenue-distribution model is believed to need unanimous support.

Assuming other rule changes only need majority support, I assume the other members would just pass a rule that all further changes of any kind only need majority support, and then drop the 2-PAC from P5 status.

According to the article, you can’t change without unanimous support. How would you pass a new rule where just a majority is needed? You will never get OSU or WSU to agree to a new majority rule so it is not possible to make such a change. That is the basis of the lawsuit - that only two PAC 12 members have votes - OSU and WSU.

I'm saying that the rule for revenue-distribution requires unanimous support but I assume that there are other rules within the CFP committee that don't and the other conferences would use one of those to change all the rules (including by definition the revenue ones). Maybe this isn't a possibility but Alabama and Ohio State aren't going to give New Mexico and Wyoming an equal share without a fight. They'll find a way.

[Cataholic]

https://sports.yahoo.com/could-pac-12-s ... 31232.html

More information about the options OSU, WSU and the MWC are considering. Sounds like a lot of liabilities with the existing PAC 12 which could be an issue, but also lots of possibilities. It would be pretty incredible to see the MWC and PAC 12 merge and preserve Power Five status with the CFP. That would be awesome for schools in the MWC. Go from being a G5 conference to a P5 conference via a merger.

"Power 5" vs G5 is entirely in the eye of the voters (and computers, I guess). An undefeated conference champ could easily make it through the schedule without a single Top 25 win. Utah & Boise State both dealt with this.

Even if the MWC + OSU/WSU gets rebranded as the Pac-14, it still won't be a Power 5 conference.

Starting next year, the PAC isn't a P5 conference, just a P5 name. If it's either the two bottom-feeders or them plus the MWC, they don't deserve P5 status.

From the article:

A decision on a change to the CFP revenue-distribution model is believed to need unanimous support.

Assuming other rule changes only need majority support, I assume the other members would just pass a rule that all further changes of any kind only need majority support, and then drop the 2-PAC from P5 status.

According to the article, you can’t change without unanimous support. How would you pass a new rule where just a majority is needed? You will never get OSU or WSU to agree to a new majority rule so it is not possible to make such a change. That is the basis of the lawsuit - that only two PAC 12 members have votes - OSU and WSU.

I'm saying that the rule for revenue-distribution requires unanimous support but I assume that there are other rules within the CFP committee that don't and the other conferences would use one of those to change all the rules (including by definition the revenue ones). Maybe this isn't a possibility but Alabama and Ohio State aren't going to give New Mexico and Wyoming an equal share without a fight. They'll find a way.

I fully expect the Alabama’s of the world to challenge their P5 status, but I don’t see anything in this article indicating that such a challenge has merit. You are basing your whole argument on your own assumption. Do you have any information where the Alabama’s of the world have legal merit?

Regardless, I think it is freaking awesome that PAC 12 schools left for more money, only to POTENTIALLY have left the door open for some G5 schools to gain P5 status. That is awesome and hilarious! I hope it happens!

[AFCAT]

Build up the FCS

https://www.si.com/college/2023/09/08/w ... division-1

[RickRund]

How much would this move up help our recruiting?

[onceacat]

https://sports.yahoo.com/could-pac-12-s ... 31232.html

More information about the options OSU, WSU and the MWC are considering. Sounds like a lot of liabilities with the existing PAC 12 which could be an issue, but also lots of possibilities. It would be pretty incredible to see the MWC and PAC 12 merge and preserve Power Five status with the CFP. That would be awesome for schools in the MWC. Go from being a G5 conference to a P5 conference via a merger.

"Power 5" vs G5 is entirely in the eye of the voters (and computers, I guess). An undefeated conference champ could easily make it through the schedule without a single Top 25 win. Utah & Boise State both dealt with this.

Even if the MWC + OSU/WSU gets rebranded as the Pac-14, it still won't be a Power 5 conference.

Did you read the article? I learned a lot from it.

Yeah, I should have been more clear...theres some revenue stream from the CFP, but there's no scenario in which its a P5 conference in terms of the competitive landscape.

[onceacat]

This would be the perfect opportunity to do the promotion-regulation idea. Combine the two leagues and add the Montana schools, make a PAC 8 and a Mountain 8. Bottom two from the PAC go to the mountain and top two from the Mountain move to the PAC. You play all seven in your division with two cross over games a year so rivalry is maintained regardless of which division your rival currently sits. Promote that it’s a new model focused on regional rivals, fans can actually attend away games. It would make for better on campus involvement for all teams involved. Think it’s a great idea for western teams

Love this ideas.

You could add the DSUs and get a full 8 game conference round robin. Idaho & Davis plus maybe Sac should probably be in the mix as well.

[Cataholic]

Build up the FCS

https://www.si.com/college/2023/09/08/w ... division-1

This is so disappointing. It appears that Montana Tech outdraws University of West Georgia.