Printable View
Name them, preferably with quoted posts. I'm not one, daddy's not one. I can't recall anyone seriously saying money is a block. Increased revenue not offsetting increased costs yes, not making Big 10 money yes, but not that we can't easily afford MAC or work up to MWC.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU92
You just said we can't afford it a few posts ago, broQuote:
Originally Posted by taper
Also, if athletes do become University employees like you're predicting, there will likely only be a Dakota 2 as far as D1 athletics is concerned (NDSU and SDSU), and I don't see how having 4 mouths to feed is beneficial to a sudden massive jump in the price of food ...
It's OK to like the Dakota D2 model. A lot of the older guys on here are very attached to it, but it's not compatible with moving up in the current climate
The sooner everyone sees that the better
Ah, no I didn't. I said they don't want to pay us, not that we can't pay them.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhoRepsTheLurker
If ALL athletes get paid, *and* they still require Title IX, then you're going to see a whole bunch of schools end athletics altogether likely. Tons of D2 and D3 for sure, possibly FCS schools as well, at least at the NEC level.Quote:
Originally Posted by taper
The schools who have been full scholarship may just issue a (taxed) paycheck instead of a scholarship. Not sure that really benefits the student-athletes in the end, but maybe the courts force this if congress doesn't step in.
If any of this happens, not sure it makes much difference to "stick together." We all know there should be some consolidation of schools in the Dakotas, and maybe that applies to athletics as well. There's probably not the population base needed here to support multiple FBS level programs in each state.
Not sure Montana's situation, and someone suggest MSU was in better shape that UM is. I do like the idea of NDSU pairing with one of those two to join FBS. NDSU/SDSU/UM/MSU also may work, if the right situation develops.
If you're right about Johnson v NCAA, the entire model of collegiate athletics will be turned on it's head.Quote:
Originally Posted by taper
Who do they pick up if the MWC only loses 1-3 teams? TX teams? NMSU? Or do Montanas or NDSU get an invite? Loyalty to FBS first even though it doesn’t help media payout?Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
Name 4 more popular FCS programs in the west that could be MWC options? It must hurt to know that UND will never be one of those teams invited to the FBS…..Quote:
Originally Posted by nodak651
Popular or potentially valuable to a western conference (access to media/eyeballs, potential students, alumni, donors)?Quote:
Originally Posted by B.Schlossman Fan Club
Valuable puts UC-Davis and Sac St up the list.
Weber State gets you further into SLC.
And UCSD could be something (SoCal) if they got off the beach and decided to.
You and I (and/or daddy, who knows you’re essentially the same person) have had multiple conversations about money in this thread. I am not going to search through hundreds of pages to find them.Quote:
Originally Posted by taper
The rest are open UND fans lol
If they lose 1 to 3 they probably wouldn't add anyone. I was going off the scenario that one of the posters here was talking about. In his, or her scenario the MW would lose 5 schools to the Pac 10. I speculated that Hawaii, AFA and New Mexico would leave as well. There would be no exit fees. If 8 schools leave there is no conference. Adding 4 to 8 FCS schools would not qualify the MW as a FBS conference right away..Those schools would have some sort of probationary period. The MW would most likely lose their automatic bid for the NCAA's. There would likely be no bowl tie ins, initially.Quote:
Originally Posted by B.Schlossman Fan Club
The chances of getting any kind of media deal are minute..
My initial question was why you would want to join the MW were it to be gutted..There would be no upside for you.