What rule says they can’t have those conversations? Prove that it is illegal. Cal and Stanford would still have to stoop to that level which may not happenQuote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka
Printable View
What rule says they can’t have those conversations? Prove that it is illegal. Cal and Stanford would still have to stoop to that level which may not happenQuote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka
You got 3 of 4.Quote:
Originally Posted by HerdBot
CaliStan wouldn't tolerate Boise State and their below average academics.
What new FBS requirements? You mean one of a thousand proposals that hasn't even been scheduled for a vote?Quote:
Originally Posted by abc123
Talk? Sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by B.Schlossman Fan Club
The minute they begin to act as a group to willfully withhold exit fees that's conspiracy.
Also, most conferences have disclosure by-laws that require you to disclose if you've received an offer or are in talks. It normally requires abstention from voting.
No, the "fund 90% of grants in all sponsored sports, 210 total grants, $6M in grants, 16 sports" proposal scheduled for vote in September. It also does away with the 15k average attendance rule completely.Quote:
Originally Posted by taper
The MAC pushed for elimination of "15k"; the trade to get it was the 210 grants for $6M requirements.
https://www.ncaa.org/news/2023/6/28/...s-schools.aspx
If we can raise 58 million for the new IPF, adding 1 million in student aid is a foregone conclusionQuote:
Originally Posted by abc123
gotta love UND guys Waldorf and Statler here yapping like they or und are in any way involved in going to FBS. lol
I don't think that will be a problem. At the rate they're growing the endowments, a good portion will be funded automatically each year, with the goal of having all scholarships funded by endowments.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka
If you're already fully funded, who are you going to give them to? 22 more football scholarships doesn't get you there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gully
Add a sport, I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by abc123
Been gone a few weeks bros are we fbs yet
UND sure as hell better hope that gets adopted.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka
Lots easier to spend money than hit the 15k average up there.
We'll be fine either way.
I'm not sure how each school does in other sports, but even SEC football teams probably like having some easier games on the schedule once in a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Bird
Kevin. I'm over my hangover. I will be using all of my online resources and hook ups to get this done within 48 hours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
I'll post my venmo when I'm done, and you fans come compensate me accordingly.
I'm ALL IN
Conference value is sometimes measured in ways beyond wins and losses in football.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead
Basketball performance (Duke), rich recruiting territory (Texas schools), media market that increases the payout (Rutgers), academic prestige (Vanderbilt), etc.
Having said that, there are definitely some schools pushing for higher compensation.
Boise St got their own special deal, FSU wants more, Oregon and UW would have likely had unequal sharing if they stayed in PAC.
It is also likely you will see more performance based payouts in the P5 conferences.
Less common in G5, but they have a smaller pie to start with.
CUSA fans are mad that the quote is going around that we turned down CUSA. oops.Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Chapo
MAC fans actually are proud to be a bus league
AAC fans heads are spinning.
MWC fans are trying to merge with Pac.
we got some work to do Kevin.. fire up the Adderall
Big 12 rumor…
Quote:
Jason Scheer
@jasonscheer
·9h
Hearing Oregon State and San Diego State have had very preliminary talks with the Big 12 over the last 48 hours. Key word is preliminary and it would be at discounted rates.
If you're the B12, how does adding Oregon State make any sense? SDSU makes sense, along with their rumored interest in UCONN to a degree. I'd be very surprised if they do add Oregon State.Quote:
Originally Posted by bruinbison
Hopefully it doesn't happen and we see something like a Cal, Stanford, Oregon St, Washington St, Hawaii, Air Force, Colorado State, SDSU, UNLV, and Utah State/Fresno State PAC-10, which opens up the MWC for NDSU. Playing Boise St, Wyoming, SJSU, Nevada, Utah State/Fresno State, and New Mexico, with FCS call ups would interest me. It isn't perfect, but it's a significant improvement over FCS and CUSA.
I think they're one of the best available non P2 out there after Notre Dame and Stanford.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Bird
The BXII would get SoCal market and ASU and UA would get back to their primary recruiting areas.
Because the Big 16, Big 18 and SEC are in “watch the world burn” mode and this is just more ridiculous anarchy to add to the madness? I mean if you’re going to take OSU, why not take WSU? LolQuote:
Originally Posted by Big Bird
Because MN and WA are alike in that their "state" schools are budget nightmares and they protect the franchise (the M or the W) at all costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU92
SCSU's budget and enrollment nightmares seem manageable compared to what WasSU is facing.
WasSU's not even the best DI academics in Pullman-Moscow.
Agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU92
I bet all three will digest (do nothing) for a while and just watch FSU try to break the ACC GOR.
If that happens, the ACC will be quartered like the PAC was.
Crown jewel: North Carolina <- new TV market for B1G or SEC and growing population
If we are fully funded right right now that’s 191 scholarships. Adding 22 would put us above the minimum requirement. I don’t think the total aid piece would be a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by abc123
The new (proposed but expected) rule says for FBS: 16 sports, 90% of grants in each sport you play, 210 total grants, $6M in grants (and eliminates the 15k attendance rule).Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU_grad
In the sports NDSU plays they can offer 114.7 mens and 78 womens grants (per NCAA limits). That's 192.7 and 59.8% male. NDSU fans say they're fully funded and for this analysis we accept that as fact, 191 or 192 grants (we agree). And Knight says that's $5M in grants ($26k per).
16 sports. All good.
Fully funded at 90%. All good.
$6M?
For NDSU just add the 22 FBS grants to get to $6M (and 210), yes? Um, no. 22 grants for FBS means 22*$26k for about $575k. But that totals to still under $6M ($5.575M). And 22 FB makes for a 64% male grant dollars split. That'll get some notice (likely from WEquest that NDSU recently tried to shut down).
So, just add women's grants, right? Where? They're fully funded. To add women's grants NDSU'd have to add a women's sport (Equest?). So, $1M more on grants and need women's grant slots to fund (i.e. add a women's sport).
None of that is insurmountable (money and a plan), but there are more moving pieces than first glance would have one believe.
The Montana schools each only have 15 NCAA recognized sports.
The South Dakota schools are each under $5M in grant dollars.
Everyone'd have to come up with the $5M FBS entry fee (part of new rule).
Boy you sure are lobbying hard
Not saying NDSU gets in, but the only way you do is if the pig farmers are too stupid to see the future and pass
But please, carry on
Stopped by the MWC board just for yucks
Who’s the clueless dipshit who calls himself "mags"?
Smells like a desperate und fan
The stench was so bad it forced me to leave ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka
Mags is just a troll..I don't think he has any connection to NDSU or any MWC school. Lakesbison has been the only regular and he has been pleasant and friendly lately.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhoRepsTheLurker
adding any female sport that no one watches is tough to do financially...especially if it involves horses.
I get that, but you’re basically talking a half million dollars. Plus, we all know how these NCAA ‘requirements’ have worked in the past. This rule won’t be a determining factor at all in a move-up.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka
what's the link to the mwc board
i think you undershooting the half mil....your not adding in facilities, coaches salary,........
Seems like a western conference will disappear after all of this. Probably the CUSA.
Like I said, "None of that is insurmountable (money and a plan), but there are more moving pieces than first glance would have one believe."Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU_grad
These new requirements (16/90%/210/$6M) are much simpler to audit so they are more readily enforceable. (Most of the MAC is doing 'creative' pricing and purchases to make "15k".)
You must be in compliance with the new rules by 2027 (if/when they pass); there are some southern schools way worse off than those I mentioned.
without even looking.........ul-m and ark st?Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka
How you feeling about all this MWC? Could be really great for you, or could be really "bad"Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
Tough to see the PAC go, tbh, but seems they've been flirting with this for a while now
Paul Finebaum be dammed, I would not be surprised if they find a way to pull it out ...
Yeah...I saw that he quoted me to make a point. While I might think I've got a handle on things, I'm actually a nobody, so quoting me is worthless. But even more odd was that my quote didn't really go to the point he was making.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhoRepsTheLurker
We already fund a club equestrian team, it wouldn't be that much extra to expand the program into NCAA.Quote:
Originally Posted by skunkapekiller
As for that D1 proposal the UND fans keep harping on, it could very easily turn into 210 grants or $6M. That one word change is all it takes and we're far from the only school that would prefer it that way.
At a NCAA level, I think that it would be tough to mandate a total dollar amount in grants, given that there is a wide ranging cost associated with tuition. Private schools would have the upper hand over many public schools when it comes to grants provided simply because their tuition costs so much more. That is why my thought is that it will be the total number of grants provided. That is the fairest way to ensure that schools are committed to Athletics.Quote:
Originally Posted by taper
ULM and FAU are both under $5M. ArkSt is over $6M.Quote:
Originally Posted by skunkapekiller
It's "and" not "or" the way the NCAA release is written.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSUguy
If adopted, all FBS schools would be required to provide 90% of the total number of allowable scholarships over a two-year rolling period across at least 16 sports, including football. Schools also would be required to offer at least 210 scholarships each year, amounting to no less than $6 million in athletics scholarships offered.
https://www.ncaa.org/news/2023/6/28/...s-schools.aspx
Pricey privates want a dollar number; cheap publics want a grants number; so require both and make nobody happy <-- the NCAA way!
Wow, when you get an idea in your head you really can't accept any alternate views, can you? This is just a proposal. It hasn't passed, it isn't a rule. Proposals can change, and there's plenty of schools that don't like the $6M part. Even if that does pass, we'll be fine. The way things are going we'll pass the mark just from inflation in a few years. Since the privates meet it from higher fees, we can easily do the same on an accounting ledger. Just offer a class with a $5000 lab fee related to sports medicine all incoming athletes are expected to take. That $5k is part of the grant of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka