Printable View
It’s simple math, really. Wyoming was smart enough to just have one. If MT, ND, and SD were so inclined, there would be no discussion, and NDSU would be FBS long ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by B.Schlossman Fan Club
It’s a puzzle, really, why such small states would model their university systems after such large ones.
elites in education thinking they know betterQuote:
Originally Posted by WhoRepsTheLurker
Wait, what? Are you saying Liz Cheney is elite? Never thought I'd hear that from lakes ... but OKQuote:
Originally Posted by El_Chapo
But since Schlossy is here, I want his take on this guy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Siegel_(attorney)
Not really thread drift if you think about it ...
There's a lot of truth to that, except, in the Wyoming (one school) model, it'd be the University of North Dakota (just like U of Wyo).Quote:
Originally Posted by WhoRepsTheLurker
Just 7 years … Oh what could’ve been … Too late now thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka
Well, maybe not too late, given all the trends we have now, and the reality of the situation 132 years later. I predict NDSU will be FBS within 2 years. I don't know what will happen to UND
only thing i'm hating on is the harsh reality of where ndsu stands in ncaa sportsQuote:
Originally Posted by El_Chapo
thanks to common core no math is simple broQuote:
Originally Posted by WhoRepsTheLurker
today would be a Great day for ndsu to announce they are PURSUING FBS FOOTBALL. they should release that statement at 3pm today.
Larson got this track shoes on eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Chapo
Let's presume they did something like this. How silly would it look in a year or two if said objective is not achieved?Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Chapo
Would you then demand the President and all university leaders resign?
There's many good reasons the work for this happens behind closed doors, and recent move-ups did not announce they were "pursuing fbs" before a deal was done. I'm sure other schools and conferences already know our intentions and conversations have occurred.
because we are obviously being black balled for being so successful, so you turn up the public perception that NDSU wants to be FBS but no one will take them.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
The point being?Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Chapo
So, are you saying if you hadn't been so successful you would be welcomed into FBS..?Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Chapo
we are a victim of our own success unfortunatelyQuote:
Originally Posted by MWC
You aren't a victim of anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Chapo
Hold on. I speak jive, let me translate:Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
We were when we moved up to FCS from D2. The big sky didn’t take us because they didn’t want to bring in another school that would compete with the Montanas. Not enough places at the big boy table in the conference. I don’t know if that’s the case with the MW right now. I will say that if the MW was in the market for a filler team to put some W’s on the current members’ schedules, then they’d be better off looking at the Montana schools.
We absolutely are a victim of our own geography, though.
The MW is not looking to add anybody. Your geography is no deterrent if you came on as an affiliate football only member. Your olympic sports don't move the needle and you don't play all the sports the MW requires. It would be a very long shot to be invited as a full member.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU92
This doesn't mean the MW is arrogant or afraid to have you in the conference. You just don't add anything the conference doesn't already have..
Watch out MWC, that blast of reality in in your last sentence might hurt some feelings.Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
I'm not sure what you mean by not playing all the sports the MWC requires. Assuming we add women's tennis for Title IX(easy addition), we'd only be missing men's tennis and women's swimming/diving. Several schools don't play those. We'd be playing more men's sports than 5 members and more women's than 2. I agree our Olympics in general aren't up to MWC standards as far as competition and media exposure, but number of sports sponsored doesn't seem to be a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
Right, but neither does Nevada. It’s just located in a better spot for the conference than NDSU. That’s my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
Nevada was added to the MW because the conference needed something. When BYU and Utah left, the conference only had 7 schools left with only 4 only sponsoring baseball. NV and Fresno got them to 9 total and 6 baseball schools...Conferences are about more than just football. Hawaii was added as an affiliate because they offered subsidies to house their football. They pay subsidies to the Big West too. They also brought a Bowl game.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU92
Utah State and San Jose State were invited when SDSU and BSU left for the Big East. Same problem. It dropped the olympic sports side to just 7 members. The conference had a need. When the defectors returned they went to 12 for football and 11 for olympic sports..There is no need to add anything at the moment. Maybe down the road..
Yep, which is why most here are talking about potential events that would catalyze the need for the MW to add teams. Such as BSU and SDSU leaving. Or a major shakeup across all conferences.Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
While it is possible that BSU and SDSU would leave, that doesn't necessarily mean there would be a need to add. There would still be 10 football and 9 oly sports schools. The conference has done away with divisions so no need for 12..Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU92
guy from CUSA throws out a scenario. NDSU/SDSU/UNI/MONTANA IN CUSA
Rather than continuing to argue in circles, maybe someone wants to discuss a little bit of new news about what might come out of the DI transformational committee late this year or early next year. (note, everything in this post would apply to ALL DI, not just FBS)
From Matt Brown of Extra Points (posted to CSNBBS):
Topic: What will be the result of the Division 1 Transformation Committee (re: membership)?
Reply from MattBrownEP
https://csnbbs.com/thread-949656.htmlQuote:
This would be my best, educated guess, at the moment:
* The committee won't make membership recommendations until Q1 of 2023.
* Schools will have a three-year waiver period to get into compliance of new recommendations. Nobody is getting booted tomorrow.
* Schools will need to commit to sponsoring somewhere between 18-20 NCAA sponsored sports, NOT including FBS football.
* Most sport-specific scholarship caps and staffing caps will be lifted, as conferences will decide how many scholarships to offer per sport.
* Benchmarks about stadium size and attendance will be removed
* Schools will need to commit to sponsoring X number of scholarships across all sports, unless they get an Ivy waiver
* Schools will need to commit to maintaining a certain ratio of coaches to scholarship athletes, trainers to scholarship athletes, mental health professionals to scholarship athletes AND academic support specialists. The increase in STAFFING will be a bigger financial lift than the requirement to sponsor additional sports.
* In an effort to get around antitrust issues, these guidelines will be set up in a way for schools to "self select" which levels to participate in, rather than entire conferences getting booted.
* In a related move, I believe the NCAA men's and women's basketball tournaments will expand, and that not every conference will be guaranteed championship access to every NCAA sponsored sport.
https://twitter.com/MattBrownEP
https://www.extrapointsmb.com/
Settlers thought North Dakota would be on par with states like Pennsylvania for population. Once the Catholic church realized that wasn't going to happen they moved one of the cathedrals from Jamestown to Fargo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhoRepsTheLurker
That's a detail that matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
What sports are missing?
I believe all FBS schools are required to sponsor 16 sports but it appears there is some flexibility for sports that have both a woman's team and a man's...i.e tennis, golf etc..I also think there may have been some adjustment during the Covid.
Currently, NV sponsors 6 men's programs and 9 women's that have both genders in 4 sports..Golf, tennis, cross country and basketball
Football and Baseball are men only sports.
I don't know what sports you do or don't sponsor but it appears you have 14. It doesn't seem like it would too onerous to add 1 or 2 more but you would be required to. There is flexibility to which sports you add. That would be up to you
However, were you to be invited as an affiliate, football only member the MW would not care how many sports you carry otherwise. The NCAA might.
As a footnote..NV may be adding skiing back to the mix soon. That was a sport they had before. They will have both genders for that too. That will be cool..
Hold on here, how can you possibly explain this? Claiming we don't sponsor the right sports but didn't bother to look up what we have?Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
NDSU sponsors 16 sports.
Indoor T&F and Outdoor T&F count separately.
Men's and women's squads count separately.
Add in CC and that's six teams (3M/3W).
Signed,
NCAA rules geek only exceeded by Bisonville's Hammersmith
Thanks for posting. It should be obvious now why we are in waiting mode and will be for at least a year.
Interesting response from MB
"I'd wager less than a dozen or so schools actually leave D1 over this, at least in the immediate term."
Who were the last 10 or so schools to jump to D1? These would seem to be the most vulnerable in terms of dropping down to D2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammersmith
Right 'number' of sports..Quote:
Originally Posted by taper
I went to your athletic site and counted 14 but I see someone says you already do 16..
I stand corrected..
Think it has been stated that NDSU would only have to add sports to fix Title IX issues if we moved FBS. Unlike many FCS programs, all sports are fully funded scholarships as well if I recall correctly.
To sort of make the pro FBS argument. NDSU would only have to come up with $ to fund another sport or two and to fund coaching salaries for football to be "par" for FBS. Plus any additional travel expenses. Not to minimize this amount of $ needed to do all this but I can agree to NDSU at this point isn't too far off $ wise IMO. Can it be sustained year over year going into FBS and account for all the added expenses in the future? And losing perhaps some say over who televises our games yet making less money perhaps? I don't know, to me that isn't the hang-up at all though I'm sure they can get it figured out.
Geography is not our friend and is probably the biggest issue.
I really think your best bet is to pursue and affiliate football only membership somewhere..Geography would be no problem then. 4 home conference games, 4 road games. Not really much of a burden to any conference.
Great. Name the conference that'll take a football affiliate. Hawaii and Navy are the only G5 affiliates now. Both are special.Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
Well, obviously the MW and the AAC are open to it..I don't think Hawaii is all that special. The MAC might take a long look at that..CUSA would do it..
The MW probably won't add anybody until the current tv deal runs out in 26..Even if they lose members in the interim.
The AAC is willing to add now
The MAC possibly could do it..
Conference CUSA would absolutely do it..They would probably do for SoDak ST. too..
It would have benefit North Dakota greatly to have one "major" university. It is what it is. Mistakes were made long ago that aren't gonna be rectified.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka
AAC might be open to this, but I think they are done expanding for now. They are already looking at diluted earnings for their media contract for new members. I don't think they want to split the pie more ways until they can establish the new members.Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
MAC did this for a while with UMass, then kicked them out when they wouldn't join for all sports. I think an all sports bid is a much stronger possibility.
CUSA just got torn apart, and needs 8 full members to maintain FBS status. If they lose MTSU/WKU, that becomes in jeopardy.
As it is, they need the new schools to successfully transition to keep their status.
Supposedly UMass (who is desperate) talked to them about football only, but was turned down for now.
That leaves MWC, who I'm guessing also isn't looking to expand until they lose members.
Football only is a much harder sell than all sports membership in many cases. Maybe MWC is different.
might as well combine them now.Quote:
Originally Posted by ByeSonBusiness
NDSU gets football basketball teams
und gets hockey
might as combine the 11 other nd colleges too
Unless they lose 4 members (which is very unlikely) I don't think the MW will add anybody.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns