A new and better FBS thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SDbison

Bowl games would have a better chance of a different opponent every year. Just sayin.

---

Bowl games: 1 game per year, possible different opponent, less drama

Playoffs: 4-5 possible games per year, possible different opponents (or create playoff rival teams), TONS of drama.

I'm in the camp of staying where there's playoffs. The odds of facing the same teams year in and year out in the playoffs is marginal. This year was an oddity if you ask me. But they were all very solid teams with great games.

The disposable income for a lot of people in our fanbase is changing drastically as we speak. Anybody directly, or indirectly, involved in production agriculture is going to imitate a Rottweiler hitting the end of his chain. So, if you grow crops or sell stuff to people who do with compensation based on sales, you won't be spending MORE on fun things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NorthernBison

The disposable income for a lot of people in our fanbase is changing drastically as we speak. Anybody directly, or indirectly, involved in production agriculture is going to imitate a Rottweiler hitting the end of his chain. So, if you grow crops or sell stuff to people who do with compensation based on sales, you won't be spending MORE on fun things.

---

Ahh, yes, and I just received a complimentary call from TM yesterday. The wife and I have been discussing allocations for our charitable contribution's this coming year. "TIMING"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ndsubison1

NDSUs fan interest has reached its peak. The only way to increase it is to move up. That however, isnt guaranteed.

---

So what do the P-5 teams do when they have supposedly reached their peak? They have no place to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tony

Only one way to find out.

---

It would vary by season Imo, but we'd likely lose this season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ndsubison1

It would vary by season Imo, but we'd likely lose this season.

---

Check neg rep

It'd be a good game. Boise ain't no slouch. Especially the 2nd half of the season. But I'd go with ndsubison1.

http://s.quickmeme.com/img/82/823601...649c96247d.jpg

No discussion or new thread on newly approved rule to allow payments to athletes? I'd provide more info/links, but on IPhone. It was approved late last week as I understand. NDSU will have to do it to stay competitive, regardless of level we are at--and to all athletes in main sports IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SDbison

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but at the same time sitting around waiting sucks. How many years will it take for the football subdivision thing to get settled? Also, where are things going with a Fargodome expansion or alternate facility in future? All this status quo means is the program has peaked and stagnation will prevail. Just don't see how NDSU football can grow with all the constraints on the gameday facilities, the subdivision status and lack of any plans to have regional TV coverage every week. With some effort regional TV coverage is the only thing that could possibly get better in the next 5 years (i.e. contract with Fox Sports North). The Montana ESPN game is a one off and then after 2016 with no FBS games our national coverage will be limited to late in the playoffs.

---

I agree. I also think the athletic department is kind of between a rock and a hard place right now with future uncertainty. I don't think they want to go asking for money twice.

I do think having a two tiered approach to the problem should be announced. With the completion of the SHAC, there should be an announcement there will be a strategy developed to upgrade the dome or the next facility to meet demand of remaining in a relevant tier of college football. That would coincide with the shakeout of college football and the preparation to fluidly move into the tier of football that best suits Bison football. So instead of looking like it is a wait and see approach, it would be a proactive approach to a productive future. In the meantime, the second tier of the project is positioning the athletic department to jump at the opportunity to move towards the next level. We should be seeking active partners interested in seeking a similar future and having them on board with being prepared for the next step. If the next step is a collaboration of FCS and the remaining G5 schools, I do think our next step really does have to include an all sports conference once and for all as our next conference move better be our last for a long time.

We can simultaneously prepare for a future of bigger and better things while waiting for college football to realign. It minimizes the risk and the potential double investment disaster.

Matt Larsen was on kfgo and talking about this. Below is the podcast link.
He said we are talking around 3500 each student but schools choose.
Don't have to pay all sports.

I see schools like uni having a tough time financially. If we begin to do this they might have to play 3 FBS schools :)

http://kfgo.com/podcasts/mike-mcfeel...en-01-21-2015/