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.
I agree with a lot of what you’re saying. I think it’s a great option for the G5 teams. No more Tuesday night or 10pm games that no one is watching anyways. I don’t think it’s a good option for a P5 conference, though. The P12 has learned that the big value in being a P5 conference is having people talking about you all the time - it helps the brand immensely. This would be a move that takes it further out of the limelight and frankly would put it in direct competition to linear and cable TV providers. There is 0 chance ESPN/Fox/CBS/NBC talking heads are going to spend time telling viewers about games on a streaming platform.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
I am also jaded because I see what happens with the soccer rights in the US. I’ve been following Leeds since 2018 and if you were wanting to have access to all of their games over a season you would need: ESPN+, linear tv, cable, cable sports package, Peacock, Paramount+. Not apples to apples but I could see a situation where a mountain west fan would need a subscription to a cable sports package, fox sports streaming and paramount+ just for conference games - then maybe ESPN+ for a non-con road game. They carve up the schedule to make you pay three different organizations to watch the games. That’s how they all make their money.
I jumped on the ala cart slingtv bandwagon in 2015 thinking it was going to be this super democratic free choice I can pick what I want option. Let’s just say I went back to cable and a sports package with espn+ on the side. Haven’t ever thought of looking back.
Just because they are streaming doesn't mean they'll change the times. If all the games are on at the same time, fewer people will watch. Tuesday and Wednesday games get decent ratings. Probably better than their Saturday games earlier in the year. Streaming services passed cable in the last year or two and only expects to grow. I do have multiple streaming subscriptions, but it's still cheaper than what I paid for cable, and I dint feel like I'm missing anything. Young people today don't know much different. It may be 10 years away, but I expect this will be the norm.
Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk
Yeah there’s no doubting the long-term trends. But what matters now is what’s happening now. I guess to bring the conversation back to where it started, the P12 is either ending up on streaming platform or cable - no room on the linear TV. The comparison isn’t between cable/streaming it’s linear/streaming. And either way it’s not getting a deal to match the B12 if those are it’s only two options.Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyBison
And if that’s the case, it’s cooked as we know it.
Here we agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU92
The PAC has the inherent problem that 80% of the people of the US live in the Eastern or Central time zones (basically east of a line from San Antonio to Grand Forks).
At 7 pm Pacific most (~80%) of the country is winding down their day: fewer viewers means less money.
It's 3 Eastern, noon Pacific, and ... crickets. Nothing PAC; nothing SDSUred; nothing nothing. Crickets.
Has someone checked on Chapo today?
To be fair, college football teams only participate in one competition a year rather than 4, but yes as you say, they are still subject to multiple broadcast agreements which may require multiple subscriptions in order to get every single game. But one (or perhaps two) should get you most of them and the most important ones. I think last year only 1 bison football game wasn’t on ESPN+?Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU92
Pete Thamel
Quote:
Source: San Diego State is expected to deliver a notice to the Mountain West today that it will not withdraw from the league, as the school previously stated it intended to do. San Diego State plans to move forward as part of the Mountain West.
https://twitter.com/PeteThamel/statu...23-page-7.html
sdsu always screwing us... argh
Red or Blue?Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Chapo
yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka
(ten characters)
The MWC told SDSUred "you withdrew" based on the first letter (pretty clear in first paragraph).Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
Will the MWC make SDSUred pay an entrance fee if they want to come back? Or make them pay the exit, ... and an entrance. :p
So you're offering me a choice between Old Milwaukee regular or Old Mil Light?Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka
Ope….unfortunately for them we have emails and booster DMs on our side.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
People are reading too much into this
SDSU knew the PAC TV deal was behind schedule, so they asked for the deadline to be waived
MWC said no, so they get to keep the Aztecs for another year (MWC is probably happy)
SDSU and SMU to the PAC is almost surely done and PAC will survive just fine
Nothing has changed, NDSU still waiting
Thanks for posting that. With twitter blocking my ilk right now, I might have missed it …Quote:
Originally Posted by TAILG8R
My only takeaways from that are (1) Aresco doesn’t like to talk about schools they are considering, and (2) McFeely isn’t very bullish on a move, which is how he’s always been (despite writing about it so much). I guess he’s conservative in that sense. Or maybe "timid" is a better word … If FB drives the bus like Aresco says, then NDSU will get their shot
"We don't discuss teams that might have an interest in our conference and where the interest might be reciprocated. That said, I will say this: They have an outstanding program at the FCS level and it's been shown that FCS schools can move up and be successful in FBS. That's been shown by multiple schools. James Madison, Coastal Carolina, Appalachian State a few years ago. You've got a nice football program up there."
I’d classify McFeely’s reporting on a move to FBS as trying his best to be objective and realistic about the possibility. I know he doesn’t have a lot of fans on here, but I’ve read every one of his articles on the matter and he seems “bullish” (if you define it as “supportive of”) a move up, but definitely “less bullish” as you put it, of the likelihood of a move up. Even that, though, has slightly changed recently with a lot of the movement going on.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhoRepsTheLurker
Like I said I think he’s just trying to be realistic.
I also thought it was interesting he would say that football only memberships are possibly as in they look at all options.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhoRepsTheLurker
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I would guess that mcfeely’s wanting for NDSU to go FBS is more about fresh material and better travel destinations than anything else.
Not that I don’t mind having his annoying ass keeping the conversation going.
Agreed - I was under the impression there were some hoops FBS conferences had to jump through with the NCAA to get approval for football only members but the fact that he said they were looking at San Diego St and Boise St as football only a few years gives me the impression that, even if that is the case, it wouldn't be much of a hindrance to get.Quote:
Originally Posted by TAILG8R
MM continually refers to FBS as a "moonshot". That’s what I mean by not very bullish. I don’t see it as a moonshot. In fact, I see it as inevitable. Like ML said not too long ago, you don’t build facilities like this to stay FCS. A moonshot – with its connotations of extremely long odds - would be (fill in the blank) going FBS
The only thing missing is the right invite, and in my view it’s only a matter of time. MM seems to think it is unlikely to come, but like a lot of people around here – even some Bison fans – he grossly underestimates NDSU’s appeal, potential, and staying power. But hey, it’s a way of life up here, so flame away …
I’m not sure ‘moonshot’ implies long odds of success as much as a very complex huge ass project with massive implications.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhoRepsTheLurker
Think that's money shot eh.Quote:
Originally Posted by bisonaudit
After reading that article, I actually feel better. AAC has a fb only member and in the past as looked even farther West.
Doesn't mean it will happen....but it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility.
Good article. Sign me up for all sports in the AAC or MWC. To me the Summit is a ticking time bomb. I don't trust any school in the Summit that doesn't have the word 'Dakota' in it*. Tell me who you trust to invest and commit to the Summit out of the following: Oral Roberts, Denver, UMKC, Omaha, St Thomas, Western Illinois, errrrr, etc. Replacement options in the Summit are bad, to put it mildly.Quote:
Originally Posted by TAILG8R
* Don't really trust a couple of the 'Dakota' schools to invest either.
Too late the summit is already drowning. The summit needs to add a school to stay eligible. The Dakota schools are probably the most stable members except for NDSU wanting to jump.Quote:
Originally Posted by KSBisonFan
The war has started.
https://www.outkick.com/mountain-wes...hheld-payment/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bison Dan
Saw this coming as soon as the "you resigned", "no we didn't" arguments began. They tried to give "notice" of resignation, without actually resigning. It doesn't seem like that argument would fly in court. MWC claims they owe $17m now.Quote:
Either way, it appears the two sides are gearing up for a lengthy battle that could end up in court. San Diego State isn’t going to let the MWC take $6.6 million without a huge fight.
It will be very interesting to see if they can reach a peace settlement, or SDSU no longer has a conference to return to. They better pray something good happens for them with PAC or B12. Indy life sucks for most schools.
There's going to be a popcorn shortage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bison Dan
https://i.redd.it/b6e2rt5zb1ab1.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka