GaSo Meeting

[AppGrad78]

In the future, college football's new strength-of-scheduling provisions will negatively impact the lower-level FBS schools just as severely as the FCS schools. That's because BCS-level schools with aspirations of a top 25 finish -- that's about 70 programs -- will be far less likely to schedule schools with weaker so-called RPIs, whether they're FBS or FCS. If you're Alabama, for example, it really won't matter if you're considering scheduling No. 85 Western Kentucky (FBS) or No. 95 Appalachian State (FCS). Alabama still isn't likely to schedule either. In fact, it would make more economic sense to schedule the FCS team because the financial guarantee is significantly less expensive.

[Saint3333]

Some here would like to make the scheduling of BCS members seem impossible, they don't appear to be looking at historical and future schedules of current and future FBS members.

Let me put this is simple terms: EVERY, ALL, (insert your favorite term for absolutely 100%) of the programs in CUSA and Sun Belt has had a home game with a BCS conference member opponent. One of the newest members of CUSA, ODU, will host VT in 2018.

I am making no predictions of which opponents would be App's first "big name" OOC opponent to come to Boone, but one will come if we are FBS.

I'd take CUSA and MAC OOC opponents at home over what we currently get (minus the Montana game).

[Saint3333]

In the future, college football's new strength-of-scheduling provisions will negatively impact the lower-level FBS schools just as severely as the FCS schools. That's because BCS-level schools with aspirations of a top 25 finish -- that's about 70 programs -- will be far less likely to schedule schools with weaker so-called RPIs, whether they're FBS or FCS. If you're Alabama, for example, it really won't matter if you're considering scheduling No. 85 Western Kentucky (FBS) or No. 95 Appalachian State (FCS). Alabama still isn't likely to schedule either. In fact, it would make more economic sense to schedule the FCS team because the financial guarantee is significantly less expensive.

That assumes them counting the FCS as slightly below non-BCS FBS programs. They are more likely to adopt the basketball and FCS method in which lower level games are viewed as much worse or not counted in the total for wins.

[ASUPATCH]

In the future, college football's new strength-of-scheduling provisions will negatively impact the lower-level FBS schools just as severely as the FCS schools. That's because BCS-level schools with aspirations of a top 25 finish -- that's about 70 programs -- will be far less likely to schedule schools with weaker so-called RPIs, whether they're FBS or FCS. If you're Alabama, for example, it really won't matter if you're considering scheduling No. 85 Western Kentucky (FBS) or No. 95 Appalachian State (FCS). Alabama still isn't likely to schedule either. In fact, it would make more economic sense to schedule the FCS team because the financial guarantee is significantly less expensive.

Unfortunately when schedulIng how do you predict rpi? USC looked like a good schedule to start the season.

[AppGrad78]

In the future, college football's new strength-of-scheduling provisions will negatively impact the lower-level FBS schools just as severely as the FCS schools. That's because BCS-level schools with aspirations of a top 25 finish -- that's about 70 programs -- will be far less likely to schedule schools with weaker so-called RPIs, whether they're FBS or FCS. If you're Alabama, for example, it really won't matter if you're considering scheduling No. 85 Western Kentucky (FBS) or No. 95 Appalachian State (FCS). Alabama still isn't likely to schedule either. In fact, it would make more economic sense to schedule the FCS team because the financial guarantee is significantly less expensive.

That assumes them counting the FCS as slightly below non-BCS FBS programs. They are more likely to adopt the basketball and FCS method in which lower level games are viewed as much worse or not counted in the total for wins.

I haven't heard of a differentiation between FCS and FBS in the new RPI. It's my understanding it will simply be an RPI of Division I programs.

[AppStateNation]

4th and final article on the FOIA request, hope you enjoyed reading!

EXCLUSIVE: E-Mails From the MAC & Sun Belt’s Commissioners Project Conference Realignment Pause
http://www.appstatenation.com/2013/02/0 ... ent-pause/

[Saint3333]

I haven't seen anything to suggest either method, but it will be a system in which the teams that control the money and power put in a system that benefits them.

By "forcing" games that favor BCS programs taking out non BCS opponents it will help them. It will also entice the non BCS teams to schdule other high RPI team in non BcS conferences. It will work much like the bracket buster weekend. Sounds good but really can be counterproductive for bubble teams.

[GoAppsGo92]

Ok. I think we might be getting things mixed up a bit.

The GOF agreement is based on conference performance for a given year, not simply RPI. The reason FCS/FBS games are likely to become rare is that it will be important for GOF schools to make their OOC slate stronger. Hence, you will see more GOF conferences working together for scheduling. As for the power conferences: The reason they will schedule GOF schools is because they likely already have a strong SOS, but want to host as many games as possible during the regular season to maximize revenue. Playing GOF schools will bring a better gate than FCS, and will count towards bowl eligibility.

FCS scheduling will almost certainly decrease as a result of the new revenue sharing agreement. With upwards of $40 million dollars available to GOF schools, the desire to build a strong conference of quality teams actually makes more sense than what CUSA has done with markets. Long term, the conferences that have the best programs will benefit the most from the new sharing agreement. I think objectively, you would have to say that the Mountain West, MAC, Big East and even the Sunbelt appear to be in a better position than CUSA at this point when it comes to winning programs.

[GoAppsGo92]

GSU will support a move to the Belt no strings attached, App seems to be more selective. But a Belt that includes GSU would obviously be good for us.

When I think of the meeting between NMSU and GSU, I have this vision of two defendants talking outside the courtroom... talking about how working together could help them win their cases. But the fact of the matter is: neither one capable of helping the other at all since they both are on the outside looking in.

They could only have exchanged notes about what they are doing and what they have heard. Even if one school got in ahead of the other, there is little a non-voting transition member could do to help another candidate.

Having said that: GSU is definitely doing everything they know to do to network a seat at the Sunbelt table... and that is with or without us.

[AppinATL]

I am curious to see if the ASU administration would cool towards the Sun Belt if WKU leaves. It would make us a bit of a geographic outlier but if GSU is jumping ship, it'd be real tough to stay behind if we have a choice.

A Sun Belt with GSU and WKU would be a very good thing for us. One great existing rivalry and the potential for another good one.

GSU is a rival primarily because we most often compete against each other for the conference championship. As far as bringing large numbers of fans to KBS, they don't. If we go to the SunBelt together, we'll have more opponents to worry about than GSU, none of which will bring large numbers of their fans to KBS.

While that may be true, imagine the alternative if GSU goes to the Sun Belt and we stay in the SmallCon (which will be significantly smaller without our redneck buddies to the south). Who will the SoCon replace them with...Presby? Garder-Webb? Maybe ETSU when they get football going again. Oh, how exciting!