Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Professor Chaos
I think additional poaching from the MWC is off the table for the PAC. On top of them squeezing pretty much all the juice out of that orange (they clearly viewed Utah St as a Plan B/C option) the remaining MWC schools signed a grant-of-rights agreement that keeps them together through 2032 I believe.
The 7 members in place before adding UTEP and GCU signed a memorandum of understanding to establish a GOR on July 1st 2026. That GOR will replace exit fees. However until then there will be exit fees and any school willing and able to pay that can still be poached. It seems unlikely but these are crazy times. After the GOR is put in place any MW school that gets poached to a P4 conference has their GOR waived.
This article presents a nice overview of the contract and the contract itself.
https://nevadasportsnet.com/news/rep...rence-together
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The_Sicatoka
"Consequences of publicly advocating for a spot in a new athletic conference are that it raises expectations prematurely, severs relationships with your existing conference, and historically reduces your chance for acceptance." -- Clif Smart, former president, Missouri State University
Source:
https://sgfcitizen.org/voices-opinio...onference-usa/
As someone who has advocated for a higher profile for NDSU's potential to move up, this makes sense. Doesn't necessarily satisfy, but it's good perspective.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SoCalBison
As someone who has advocated for a higher profile for NDSU's potential to move up, this makes sense. Doesn't necessarily satisfy, but it's good perspective.
I’m not sure you understand his quote.
That said, MSU IS moving up, so the gist of his quote really doesn’t apply well to the very school he is referencing.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CAS4127
I’m not sure you understand his quote.
That said, MSU IS moving up, so the gist of his quote really doesn’t apply well to the very school he is referencing.
Did MSU publicly advocate for that move in advance? Not in terms of leaks occurring, but the AD and President saying they wanted to move before the deal was done?
Most of the time, these things leak thru third parties. Cases like Sac St lobbying publicly are actually not the norm, and I do think it could work against them.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BigHorns
Did MSU publicly advocate for that move in advance? Not in terms of leaks occurring, but the AD and President saying they wanted to move before the deal was done?
Most of the time, these things leak thru third parties. Cases like Sac St lobbying publicly are actually not the norm, and I do think it could work against them.
Kind of an odd story because a) MSU announced their intentions of moving up before doing so b) when they weren’t selected the first time it wasn’t because they had loose lips it’s because they were fucking terrible in football and c) the only reason why they’re moving up now is because CUSA offered every school with a soft pulse.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CAS4127
I’m not sure you understand his quote.
That said, MSU IS moving up, so the gist of his quote really doesn’t apply well to the very school he is referencing.
Well if you think I didn't understand his quote, you must be right and I must be just another moron with a keyboard. Thanks for the feedback.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BigHorns
Did MSU publicly advocate for that move in advance? Not in terms of leaks occurring, but the AD and President saying they wanted to move before the deal was done?
Most of the time, these things leak thru third parties. Cases like Sac St lobbying publicly are actually not the norm, and I do think it could work against them.
Yes. An entire year before CUSA invited Missouri State their president declared their FBS intents via a university scheduled interview with their equivalent of jeff kolpack.
Smart was the president in 2023 and he is the one in that quote saying don't do exactly what we did, successfully. Lol.
Eat up the slop.
The interview was published may 9th 2023. They were invited may 10th 2024.
Missouri State was maybe more tactful than sac st has been, but its still a pot and a kettle lol.
Sac st has said "we have money to go fbs".
Missouri state said "give us money so we can go fbs"
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BigHorns
Did MSU publicly advocate for that move in advance? Not in terms of leaks occurring, but the AD and President saying they wanted to move before the deal was done?
Most of the time, these things leak thru third parties. Cases like Sac St lobbying publicly are actually not the norm, and I do think it could work against them.
Their Brass has quietly but very publicly been ringing the FBS bell for the last 5+ years.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
I'm not sure this has been posted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Bu2Qso4B4s
One note: I'm not sure about why NDSU's FCS budget matters except that it's really healthy for an FCS program. NDSU's budget was under $5 million in D2, and NDSU ramped things up, so history shows that NDSU is pretty good at meeting new challenges.
BTW, I haven't heard much about NDSU's athletic endowment growth lately, but I believe that Matt Larson and the athletic department are doing really good work on that front.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
JY
@TBM_JY
·
5h
This IS NOT imminent.
McMurphy has backtracked on, or clarified his statements regarding
@NDSUfootball
to the
@MountainWest
NO ONE knows if there have even been discussions, including him. His comments were about FIT, NOT real discussions or MWC interest.
Mostly smoke here. ��
