Offer a 100 level sports medicine elective with a $10k program fee. Covered by scholarship of course. No worse than boosters buying blocks of empty seats to pretend they meet the 15k attendance rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSUguy
Printable View
Offer a 100 level sports medicine elective with a $10k program fee. Covered by scholarship of course. No worse than boosters buying blocks of empty seats to pretend they meet the 15k attendance rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSUguy
You can't make everyone happy:Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSUguy
- the cost effective schools want a total grants floor (because their dollars don't rack up fast enough)
- the high cost privates want a dollars floor (because each grant is costly)
- the 90% fund what you do make the most sense, but again that's costly to the privates
NDSU would certainly fudge the numbers to meet whatever criteria is in place. There are a number of G5 schools that will struggle with these and so ultimately this will go by the wayside. Schools that are currently running big funding deficits are not going to be interested in the grant aspects of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka
The only thing that the G5 (which is who is really driving these suggestions) can do to block the FCS in some way is to put a larger entry fee on the transition.
I disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSUguy
"Fudge" sounds like wrong-doing.
NDSU would do what it had to to make it work (see: Cook's program cuts).
If tough calls were needed Cook shows he'll make them, but they'll be clean.
Ok, so it's a $1m gap tops it looks like.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka
We might need to hand out some more scholarships, or add another sport.
Adding FBS schollies should cover at least 25% of that.
SDSU's resignation letter to the MWC. It seems pretty clear cut, they're gone and would have negotiate reentry if not.
https://twitter.com/MattBrownEP/stat...Fid%3D31123349
Netflix already has a huge subscription base, and bumps up their fees periodically.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU92
If they don't charge an add on fee, its just more content, instead of producing another movie or two.
Would make Netflix a "must have" for PAC fans.
Would give PAC distribution to a subscriber base bigger than cable.
Netflix would need to net an additional 3M year-round subscribers just to make money back on how much they’re paying the P12. Then there are things like the cost of production, the fact that they obviously can’t do live events without investing a ton more into their operations, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
The convenience factor goes both ways I guess. Never being on conventional TV causes issues for bars, casual eyeballs, etc. but on the flip side they wouldn’t have to play their games at midnight.
Being on AppleTV sounds to me like it’d be just about time to stick a fork in the P12
They wouldn't sell advertisements for the breaks? Just run stranger things in-between quarters eh? Already watched nfl football on Amazon prime.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU92
Maybe they use/leverage the PAC Network for production, assuming that wasn't totally dismantled.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU92
It just seems that there would be mutual benefits for Netflix and PAC to have this as part of the base package and distributed to all subscribers. I'd agree that if they make it a separate add-on subscription, it may be doomed.
I sort of want to see a streaming model like this succeed. If it works for the PAC, then that makes it a viable path for the MWC as well, and solves their late night game times. The major linear channels are already saturated with P5 contracts, mostly B1G, SEC, B12. Would be nice to have more competition and outlets willing to pay for games.