A new and better FBS thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NDSU92

I wonder if it’s any coincidence that every single poster in this thread who says NDSU can’t go FBS because of money, also says that NDSU and UND are a package deal and need each other. And meanwhile also mentions no concern about UND’s athletic budget.

Hmmm

---

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 taper

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.

---

You just said we can't afford it a few posts ago, bro

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhoRepsTheLurker

You just said we can't afford it a few posts ago, bro

---

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 taper

This thread has a bad habit at looking solely at football. We're an educational institution with many more aspects to consider. I'm on record believing that Johnson v NCAA will make athletes paid employees in the not too distant future. That's going to be a massive NCAA shakeup that not all programs will survive. I think the 4 Dakotas make it if we stick together, and in the ensuing chaos a block of 4 schools that will never leave each other is a solid foundation of a conference.
If I'm wrong about Johnson then maybe I'm wrong about what follows, but I'm pretty sure it'll happen. Don't think I like the death of amateur athletics but it's going to happen.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taper

This thread has a bad habit at looking solely at football. We're an educational institution with many more aspects to consider. I'm on record believing that Johnson v NCAA will make athletes paid employees in the not too distant future. That's going to be a massive NCAA shakeup that not all programs will survive. I think the 4 Dakotas make it if we stick together, and in the ensuing chaos a block of 4 schools that will never leave each other is a solid foundation of a conference.
If I'm wrong about Johnson then maybe I'm wrong about what follows, but I'm pretty sure it'll happen. Don't think I like the death of amateur athletics but it's going to happen.

---

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 MWC

No AFA, No Hawaii means 5 leftover MW schools. There is no ego, inflated or otherwise in those 5..I seriously doubt even FCS schools would want to join that..No tv deal, no chance at the CFP, ever. Dead man walking..

However, like I said, I do not anticipate the MW getting gutted as you guys are are hoping and praying for.

---

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 nodak651

Speaking of inflated ego..

---

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 B.Schlossman Fan Club

Name 4 more popular FCS programs in the west that could be MWC options?

---

Popular or potentially valuable to a western conference (access to media/eyeballs, potential students, alumni, donors)?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taper

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.

---

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.

The rest are open UND fans lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B.Schlossman Fan Club

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?

---

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.

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.

Not sure why anyone thinks the MWC needs to be gutted for this to happen.
They could be proactive, rather than reactive, and strengthen the conference, guarding against any future defections.

Looking at this map, there are only 6 states that are not represented by a FBS team, though most of the states surrounding us have only one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...S_programs.png

NDSU, SDSU, and the Montanas would complete the western map nicely.
It would also be a logical extension of the MWC and really the top 4 programs in FCS in terms of winning, fanbase, brands, and support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigHorns

Not sure why anyone thinks the MWC needs to be gutted for this to happen.
They could be proactive, rather than reactive, and strengthen the conference, guarding against any future defections.

Looking at this map, there are only 6 states that are not represented by a FBS team, though most of the states surrounding us have only one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...S_programs.png

NDSU, SDSU, and the Montanas would complete the western map nicely.
It would also be a logical extension of the MWC and really the top 4 programs in FCS in terms of winning, fanbase, brands, and support.

---

They may well do just that..I was just going off the post here that said the MW would be gutted by losing 5 schools to the Pac 10.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NDSU92

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.

The rest are open UND fans lol

---

Since I've never said money is stopping us, and you can't even try to argue otherwise, I accept that you concede you were wrong.

Note that I just said the exact opposite of your view. I think Johnson v NCAA is going to put a serious money barrier on college athletics, and that all 4 Dakotas can pass it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taper

Since I've never said money is stopping us, and you can't even try to argue otherwise, I accept that you concede you were wrong.

Note that I just said the exact opposite of your view. I think Johnson v NCAA is going to put a serious money barrier on college athletics, and that all 4 Dakotas can pass it.

---

How can all 4 dakotas pass it but not have the resources to move FBS independently of each other? I don’t see the logic in that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka

Popular or potentially valuable to a western conference (access to media/eyeballs, potential students, alumni, donors)?

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.

---

Valuable and FCS doesn’t mean anything. Is UCD, Sac St or Weber ever in the top 10 for attendance every year? No because no one in their big metros cares to even go to their games….. invaluable. Maybe Sac St can keep up with SDSU but they will never be on the same level as the NDSU, MSU, and UM level.

Quit trying to spin you know you are wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MWC

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.

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.

---

FBS is the upside, that’s all we want. I do agree that if 1-3 schools leave that you might not see the MWC add anyone. Any added team could reduce the media deal even more after it decreases from losing Boise and SDSU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigLakeBison

How can all 4 dakotas pass it but not have the resources to move FBS independently of each other? I don’t see the logic in that.

---

Again, I never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taper

Again, I never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth.

---

If you’re wondering why you get pushback in this thread, this is it. You do a very poor job of articulating your point and you constantly talk in circles. You’re a doomsday prepper in regards to FBS. You see the worst possible scenario and your brain locks in on it. You then build these wild defense mechanism ideas to offset the worst case scenario. The reality is Johnson v NCAA isn’t going to play out as negatively as you think and the new northern G5 conference isn’t going to happen anytime soon. It is going to happen gradually over several decades and someone is going to be first. NDSU is at the top of the list to be the first and get the ball rolling. If in order to make FBS work we need to move all 4 Dakotas at once, then I will not watch NDSU play FBS football in my lifetime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NDSU92

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.

The rest are open UND fans lol

---

lol...wut....if you're referring to me I never mention money as a hurdle. Geography is literally the only reason NDSU sits where they sit today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B.Schlossman Fan Club

FBS is the upside, that’s all we want. I do agree that if 1-3 schools leave that you might not see the MWC add anyone. Any added team could reduce the media deal even more after it decreases from losing Boise and SDSU.

---

That seems unlikely.

Media deals are built off of inventory (games) and markets/eyeballs. Generally, more of both should be better, though it does depend what the average is. If NDSU joins Oregon and Washington we would pull the average payout down, and it would cost them. I'm less certain that is true with schools like Wyoming and Nevada. However, it partly depends what schools are left and the average media/market size of those schools compared to ours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigHorns

That seems unlikely.

Media deals are built off of inventory (games) and markets/eyeballs. Generally, more of both should be better, though it does depend what the average is. If NDSU joins Oregon and Washington we would pull the average payout down, and it would cost them. I'm less certain that is true with schools like Wyoming and Nevada. However, it partly depends what schools are left and the average media/market size of those schools compared to ours.

---

One thing you would add to the mix is 'some' extra viewers out of the Pacific and Mountain time zone. The MW doesn't get a whole lot of interest outside of their own region. There is some value to that. However, tv providers and streamers do not value the MW much at all. The deals are not based upon individual schools like Boise and SDSU. It is based upon the conference as a single entity. Boise gets a little bump but that extra money comes from the the rest of the conference, not the providers. Nobody in the MW is getting rich.

If you want to be FBS and you want to play MW schools it works. If you want to be a national program, it doesn't.

If the MW does add you would be down the list a bit. One of the hurdles is you have no history or familiarity with MW. Every school in the MW was in the WAC at one time. So were Utep, Texas State, NMSU and La Tech. They are a known quantity. SMU, UTSA, Tulsa, and Rice were Wacsters too. North Texas was in the Big West with several MW schools. They would be hard to get but not impossible.

There are options..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigLakeBison

If you’re wondering why you get pushback in this thread, this is it. You do a very poor job of articulating your point and you constantly talk in circles. You’re a doomsday prepper in regards to FBS. You see the worst possible scenario and your brain locks in on it. You then build these wild defense mechanism ideas to offset the worst case scenario. The reality is Johnson v NCAA isn’t going to play out as negatively as you think and the new northern G5 conference isn’t going to happen anytime soon. It is going to happen gradually over several decades and someone is going to be first. NDSU is at the top of the list to be the first and get the ball rolling. If in order to make FBS work we need to move all 4 Dakotas at once, then I will not watch NDSU play FBS football in my lifetime.

---

The only reason you think I talk in circles is because you straight up lie about what I said then compare that against what I did say.

As far as doomsday, were you around for any of the flood years? We started sandbagging long before the water was flowing down streets. Same thing here. Pay for play is coming and you can choose to be ready for it or not. Alston was a 9-0 SCOTUS decision. Johnson is in the 3rd Circuit, not some local small claims court. California assembly recently passed a revenue sharing bill that'll probably be passed by the senate and signed by the governor by the end of the year. House v NCAA is trying to get that nationwide. Nick Saban is calling for a players union. The Patriot League said they'll shut down before paying players. I didn't pull any of this out of thin air, it's happening whether you or I want it or not. Only question is how broad or narrow the policy will be.

This is probably a stupid questions but if college athletes become state employees, aren't the state schools are only legally mandated to pay minimum wage. Could the schools, as a requirement of employment have the athletes to pay at least a portion of their scholarships? As employees they would be required to show up to practice, games etc but would they be required to go to class?..Would they be required to progress towards graduation?

It seems like a lot of stuff would have to be worked out before this happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MWC

One thing you would add to the mix is 'some' extra viewers out of the Pacific and Mountain time zone. The MW doesn't get a whole lot of interest outside of their own region. There is some value to that. However, tv providers and streamers do not value the MW much at all. The deals are not based upon individual schools like Boise and SDSU. It is based upon the conference as a single entity. Boise gets a little bump but that extra money comes from the the rest of the conference, not the providers. Nobody in the MW is getting rich.

If you want to be FBS and you want to play MW schools it works. If you want to be a national program, it doesn't.

If the MW does add you would be down the list a bit. One of the hurdles is you have no history or familiarity with MW. Every school in the MW was in the WAC at one time. So were Utep, Texas State, NMSU and La Tech. They are a known quantity. SMU, UTSA, Tulsa, and Rice were Wacsters too. North Texas was in the Big West with several MW schools. They would be hard to get but not impossible.

There are options..

---

I think the mountain west in a situation where it loses SDSU and UNLV or another school would have a hard time grabbing schools out of the AAC, right? If so, the only other schools are CUSA schools?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MWC

This is probably a stupid questions but if college athletes become state employees, aren't the state schools are only legally mandated to pay minimum wage. Could the schools, as a requirement of employment have the athletes to pay at least a portion of their scholarships? As employees they would be required to show up to practice, games etc but would they be required to go to class?..Would they be required to progress towards graduation?

It seems like a lot of stuff would have to be worked out before this happens.

---

These are all complications that I think ultimately would end college athletics as we know it. It would push athletics at that level to private clubs/minor leagues and college athletics would be similar to D3 today.

To the athletes, careful what you ask for. You may get it. And it won't be what you thought it would be.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NDSU92

I think the mountain west in a situation where it loses SDSU and UNLV or another school would have a hard time grabbing schools out of the AAC, right? If so, the only other schools are CUSA schools?

---

I agree..Very tough indeed.The only way it might happen is if the AAC loses schools too..

As for CUSA.. I would be fine with the MW adding Texas State and UTEP if they chose to do that..I actually think they would not add anybody unless it got down to 8 football schools..That would leave only 7 oly sports members..There are plenty of basketball schools in the region..That would be an easy backfill. That might leave spot for a football only invitation to get back up to 9. That is the ideal number for 8 conference games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MWC

This is probably a stupid questions but if college athletes become state employees, aren't the state schools are only legally mandated to pay minimum wage. Could the schools, as a requirement of employment have the athletes to pay at least a portion of their scholarships? As employees they would be required to show up to practice, games etc but would they be required to go to class?..Would they be required to progress towards graduation?

It seems like a lot of stuff would have to be worked out before this happens.

---

I’m not sure there would be any serious issues. They’d be both employees and students. Lots of people are in that same situation already.

Not sure what the minimum wage has to do with anything. University employees are some of the best compensated state employees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bisonaudit

I’m not sure there would be any serious issues. They’d be both employees and students. Lots of people are in that same situation already.

Not sure what the minimum wage has to do with anything. University employees are some of the best compensated state employees.

---

State Universities would only be required by law to pay at least minimum wage. They could pay more to the athletes if they wanted to. But they don't have to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MWC

State Universities would only be required by law to pay at least minimum wage. They could pay more to the athletes if they wanted to. But they don't have to.

---

What’s your point? Nobody pays anyone more than the legal minimum just because they want to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bisonaudit

What’s your point? Nobody pays anyone more than the legal minimum just because they want to.

---

The players want to be considered employees. The schools simply do not have to pay them as much as an NL deal which comes from boosters. I do not know why the athletes are pursuing this path..If I were a school president I would welcome the employee model and do away with the scholarships..If your 'job' is to be a football player you don't even have to be a student..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bisonaudit

What’s your point? Nobody pays anyone more than the legal minimum just because they want to.

---

\

You would be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bisonaudit

What’s your point? Nobody pays anyone more than the legal minimum just because they want to.

---

Well, that's not true at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daddy daycare

lol...wut....if you're referring to me I never mention money as a hurdle. Geography is literally the only reason NDSU sits where they sit today.

---

AirPlanes from Fargo to Springfield Miss or Youngstown Ohio are same distance to Denver and Boise FFS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MWC

The players want to be considered employees. The schools simply do not have to pay them as much as an NL deal which comes from boosters. I do not know why the athletes are pursuing this path..If I were a school president I would welcome the employee model and do away with the scholarships..If your 'job' is to be a football player you don't even have to be a student..

---

The issue with NIL is that almost none of them are actual marketing deals. They’re salaries paid by boosters. So I think the idea is to stop pretending that we’re doing something that we’re not and just own up to the idea that we pay football players to play football.

I don’t see any freer market scenario where players get paid less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El_Chapo

AirPlanes from Fargo to Springfield Miss or Youngstown Ohio are same distance to Denver and Boise FFS

---

Yet it’s the main reason NDSU is still FCS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El_Chapo

AirPlanes from Fargo to Springfield Miss or Youngstown Ohio are same distance to Denver and Boise FFS

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daddy daycare

Yet it’s the main reason NDSU is still FCS.

---

How does the turbulence compare eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MWC

If the MW does add you would be down the list a bit. One of the hurdles is you have no history or familiarity with MW. Every school in the MW was in the WAC at one time. So were Utep, Texas State, NMSU and La Tech. They are a known quantity. SMU, UTSA, Tulsa, and Rice were Wacsters too. North Texas was in the Big West with several MW schools. They would be hard to get but not impossible.
There are options..

---

UTEP/NMSU/LT : can see them jumping at the chance, but are they really better adds than NDSU? I kind of doubt they are. Their records and Sagarin are horrible.

Texas St: maybe 50-50 chance of them leaving SBC for MWC. I do think they would go to AAC to join UNT, UTSA, SMU, etc.

UTSA, Tulsa, Rice, UNT: seem very unlikely to leave AAC for anything short of P5, also have a big exit fee. MWC should have added them before the AAC did. Now it's likely too late.

SMU: has been rumored for PAC or B12.

I'm not sure the realistic options extend beyond UTEP/NMSU/LT or FCS schools for backfills.

UTEP #128
NMSU #136
LT# 147

There's at least 15-20 FCS schools that would beat them on the field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigHorns

UTEP/NMSU/LT : can see them jumping at the chance, but are they really better adds than NDSU? I kind of doubt they are. Their records and Sagarin are horrible.

Texas St: maybe 50-50 chance of them leaving SBC for MWC. I do think they would go to AAC to join UNT, UTSA, SMU, etc.

UTSA, Tulsa, Rice, UNT: seem very unlikely to leave AAC for anything short of P5, also have a big exit fee. MWC should have added them before the AAC did. Now it's likely too late.

SMU: has been rumored for PAC or B12.

I'm not sure the realistic options extend beyond UTEP/NMSU/LT or FCS schools for backfills.

---

I agree..It would be tough to get them. It might be hard to add any of them, including NDSU. I don't think NDSU's Sagarin ranking would play any role in the decision to add or not add your school. This not really a football centric conference though good football programs are always helpful. I do think SDSU is leaving but that doesn't mean any addition is necessary at this time.

It should be noted that San Diego State has been a WAC/MW member since 1978 and neither conference has ever garnered a lucrative tv deal. No addition is going to change that. SDSU is not a great football program but they are getting a P5 slot because their are over 3 million people in San Diego County and and they are in southern California. No potential add brings anything close to that.

If the MW loses only SDSU this round, the next tv deal will probably be about the same as it is now. The providers are paying for late night time slots. You simply don't move the needle enough..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taper

The only reason you think I talk in circles is because you straight up lie about what I said then compare that against what I did say.

As far as doomsday, were you around for any of the flood years? We started sandbagging long before the water was flowing down streets. Same thing here. Pay for play is coming and you can choose to be ready for it or not. Alston was a 9-0 SCOTUS decision. Johnson is in the 3rd Circuit, not some local small claims court. California assembly recently passed a revenue sharing bill that'll probably be passed by the senate and signed by the governor by the end of the year. House v NCAA is trying to get that nationwide. Nick Saban is calling for a players union. The Patriot League said they'll shut down before paying players. I didn't pull any of this out of thin air, it's happening whether you or I want it or not. Only question is how broad or narrow the policy will be.

---

Yes, changes are coming. College athletics is not going to end though. There's too much money and influence that want to preserve it. There will be compromise. If college athletics goes full on semi-pro they will lose their "niche". Name a semi-pro league in this country that has the interest and financial pull that college athletics do? The worst case scenario has a very small chance of happening. But yet you promote basing the future decisions of NDSU on the small chance that the worse case scenario happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigHorns

UTEP/NMSU/LT : can see them jumping at the chance, but are they really better adds than NDSU? I kind of doubt they are. Their records and Sagarin are horrible.

Texas St: maybe 50-50 chance of them leaving SBC for MWC. I do think they would go to AAC to join UNT, UTSA, SMU, etc.

UTSA, Tulsa, Rice, UNT: seem very unlikely to leave AAC for anything short of P5, also have a big exit fee. MWC should have added them before the AAC did. Now it's likely too late.

SMU: has been rumored for PAC or B12.

I'm not sure the realistic options extend beyond UTEP/NMSU/LT or FCS schools for backfills.

UTEP #128
NMSU #136
LT# 147

There's at least 15-20 FCS schools that would beat them on the field.

---

Only CUSA teams would consider leaving their current conference for the MWC, the sunbelt and AAC are coveted spots not worth giving up for a western conference.