I believe the PAC-12 also needs at least one football only member. I would take the PAC-12 football only invite over the Mountain West football only invite.
Printable View
I believe the PAC-12 also needs at least one football only member. I would take the PAC-12 football only invite over the Mountain West football only invite.
Oh yeah, no brainer. No hawaii, AND no utep eitherQuote:
Originally Posted by KC_Hats
Could be wrong but I believe it needs to be a full member that has football?Quote:
Originally Posted by KC_Hats
Sacramento state trying to pimp themselves at the beginning of the year about how they’re one of the top programs in FCS. Haven’t heard from them in a while, wonder why that is lmfao
Correct, you need 8 full members minimum in FBS. PAC currently has 7, MWC will have 8 and might lose more. FB only invites make absolutely no sense. Sorry folks, that ain't happening. Reporters certainly know how to get clicks from the masses though.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU92
Hope you are right, maybe I jinxed it in a good way. Just think folks should be prepared for this to take some time, and not melt down if it isn't done quick.Quote:
Originally Posted by Twentysix
For MW it could be football only imo. PAC has only slightly better odds than us joining B12, for a variety of reasons. It will be MW imo. Have been saying for years now that will be our best entry point.Quote:
Originally Posted by taper
Post like you do know more. Everyone else does here.Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
What are the requirements during the transition period? Is it 2 years? You probably wouldn't be officially be added until July of 2026 even if you are invited now. Would the transition period start in 26? Does that mean you couldn't be bowl eligible or the conference champ until the 2028 season.
Do you have 2 years to pay the 5 million or is that due on day one in 2026. Do You have 2 years from 06 to provide more scholarships? If you are football only does FBS still require you to add more sports if you don't meet the minimum? Do you have 2 years to do that?
This is all so much different than when Nevada moved up.
I believe the MW needs FB only and has stated publicly that that is exactly what they are looking for, so, you know, there’s THAT at least…Quote:
Originally Posted by taper
Next year ineligible for playoffs then 1 year ineligible for a Bowl, but JMU lobbied for a Bowl Game when they were ineligible and got itQuote:
Originally Posted by MWC
Usual Debby DownerQuote:
Originally Posted by MWC
That is a no brainer. Unlikely but possibleQuote:
Originally Posted by KC_Hats
Transition starts in july. First year you are an fcs team woth fbs scholarship limits, and playoff ineligible. Second year you are a full mwc member but ineligible for the post season (unless it is waivered cause there aren't enough teams to fill the bowls).Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
If the scholarship maximum is raised to 105, you need 95 scholarships by 2026. You are eligible for everything in 2027 and must have at least 95 scholarships.
All FBS teams will require a minimum of 95 scholarships if the maximum is raised to 105.
Thanks...It was confusing to me how it all worked.
I am not down..I am neither rooting against you or for you. The MW is looking at other FCS schools, too so I just wanted the info. Seems like some FCS school will be added.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU1980
I doubt the NCAA keeps that 90% of max scholarships requirement to maintain FBS status if the limit goes from 85 to 105. It'll also allow FBS schools to give partial scholarships if the limit is raised to 105. There technically wouldn't be a scholarship limit anymore just a roster limit and every player could be on scholarship if the school wants to give them one. I'm sure the NCAA would have to put some minimum on FBS teams to maintain but 95 (especially 95 full rides) seems awfully high to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Twentysix
Their appeal for full eligibility was actually denied by NCAA football committee, but they still got a bowl because there were not enough 6 win teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by HerdBot
FBS bowl rules allow a team in the 2nd year of transition to participate in bowls when there are not enough 6 wins teams, but not the CFP.
It’s the 3rd rule for unfilled bowl slots listed here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowl_eligibility
I am not convinced they will drop this requirement. The P2/4, who are really calling the shots in FBS now, want to increase the financial costs of being in FBS. They are against making it easy for FCS move ups to continue. I think especially the P2 would be happy to force some teams to drop back down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor Chaos
The P2 would also be happy to dump the bottom half of the FBS so everyone left gets twice the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
I doubt this is how it would work lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead
More like the top 10 teams get 8 times the money and the rest get 1% more money on some kind of downward sliding scale.
Money is most of the motivation. They also want to continue to own majority of the CFP slots, which equates to more success/money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead
Dumping the bottom half via increased financial costs is a lot easier to pull off than using other mechanisms that might be more open to legal challenges. My theory is this has been the plan for a while. Will not be surprised to see a good chunk of G5 weeded out. I am not sure CUSA or even MAC survives in current state. There may be some conference consolidation.
If they don't drop it then it's going to need some tweaking since partial scholarships will be allowed.... so one team with 95 scholarship players might only be giving out 80 full rides equivalents with ~30 players on partials whereas another team might be giving out full rides to all 95.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
The rule will likely be interpretted by NCAA to require 90% full ride equivalents. If a school chooses to divide some of these into partials, I don't expect it will change the math. I could see some schools splitting 95 scholarships across 105 players.Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor Chaos
"All FBS schools will 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."
"These requirements will take effect Aug. 1, 2027, for existing FBS members and for schools already transitioning to FBS membership. Moving forward, for schools applying to transition to FBS beginning in 2024-25 and thereafter, the requirements would have to be met by the end of the two-year transition process."
Are those quotes from one article or mixed from two? Where have you seen that the rule is likely to be interpreted as full ride equivalents? By nature equivalency sports, which football will become, don't have scholarship limits and instead have roster limits. That's why I was assuming the 90% scholarship minimum would need to be revised or removed but I could be wrong - I just haven't ever seen it stated one way or the other yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
Jeff Choate likes North Dakota State's fit in the MW but is it worth financial jump?
https://nevadasportsnet.com/news/rep...financial-jumpQuote:
"I think that they're a better fit than a lot of other places that we're talking to, but I don't know why they would," Choate said of North Dakota State joining the MW. "It's going to cost them probably $14 million because about four years ago the buy-in to Division I went from $1 million to $11 million. So, it's going to cost them a bunch of money, and they have plenty of money. Don't get me wrong. But year in and year out, they can compete for a national championship. They can where they're at now. If they feel like the juice is worth the squeeze and they can get into a position they might be able to do it. I think there's four teams that could do it. North Dakota State, South Dakota State, Montana State and Montana. I think all of those teams could potentially make the leap because of their fan base, but they're going to have to go from a 20-something million dollar athletic budget up into the 40s. And so is there an appetite to do that in those states? I don't know the answer to that."
In terms of North Dakota State's ability to quickly compete in the MW, Choate had no doubt about that with the Bison routinely beating power-conference FBS schools over the last 15 seasons.
"Do I think they would compete really well?" Choate said. "Absolutely. Yeah, I do."
Haha none of his numbers are accurate but I guess he made his point.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSUstudent
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah, his numbers are ridiculous but the first sentence really says all that needs to be said.Quote:
Originally Posted by TAILG8R
I thought it was pretty random that question came up in a routine Monday press conference about the upcoming game against AFA.
You can’t listen to ML on 1660 today and tell me his stance hasn’t changed.
It used to be NDSU wants to be at the highest level of football that makes sense for NDSU. Or some other caveat like where they can compete for championships.
Today several times it was stated as NDSU wants to play at the highest level possible. The things he said about FBS conferences should want NDSU sounded a lot more like the official stance is now we want to go, we are ready and just waiting for an invite.
A very drastic difference than what was coming out of his mouth just a few months ago.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You're welcome bro.Quote:
Originally Posted by TAILG8R
I don’t think his position has changed, just the words he’s using publicly, which leads to believe something else has changed…Quote:
Originally Posted by TAILG8R
hmmmm, interesting point you makeQuote:
Originally Posted by heffray
Does he want to be at the highest level that doesn't make sense? :hide:
I'm not sure, has he applied for a job at UN_?Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka
It's a shame this won't be the final post in this historic thread. Well done.Quote:
Originally Posted by TAILG8R
...Most disappointing thread ever?
Pfffft stfu we beat sdsu twice eh! Pump it up. Hoople bitches raining from teh sky ehQuote:
Originally Posted by DePereBisonFan
Prepare theyself for a more disappointing thread…Quote:
Originally Posted by DePereBisonFan
Yes .Quote:
Originally Posted by DePereBisonFan