Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MWC
These are viable points. If NDSU really really really wants to move up they will figure out a way to raise the budget and the revenue streams. However, there is no magic elixir available in G5. It is a full on scramble for all mid majors. There is also a dwindling supply of open spots in P5. The money doesn't flow downhill from the big boys..They aren't interested in sharing.
So, you just have to question what the potential upside would be for you and then decide if what it takes to get there is worth it.
The next question you might knock around here on this board is what is the upside for the MW or any conference to add you? CUSA would be a delighted to add you because it is a conference trying to survive.
However, what is the benefit to the MW? Does it help them to add more mouths to feed? Do they have to add if a couple schools leave?
This is the only question that is left, and I'm confident that we can convince the MW that the answer is yes. Definitely the MAC, and definitely the MW if Boise and SDSU leave. Just my 2 cents.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
abc123
Correct, but there is a reason a lot of schools have moved away from the 3rd prong.
All it would take is a group of female athletes to show that there is interest in a sport not being offered at NDSU and their compliance becomes in jeopardy. With the growth of women's hockey and women's wrestling in the state and region, the possibility of those is definitely greater than zero. And then you are no longer controlling what was yours to control.
Thats a fair point, but I think womens’ wrestling could be added fairly cheaply.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
taper
Year 1, of course not. But there needs to be a plan to get there. Not impossible, but jumping in hoping for the best is a recipe for disaster. MAC would be vastly easier to budget than MWC.
Completely agree
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Gully
I don't know the answer but my question is now that athletes are employees, why does this matter?
Title IX applies to the whole educational institution, including graduate departments for example where it is not uncommon for students to to also be employees so I would think that it would continue to apply even if the employment status of athletes is acknowledged.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Ok, I admit I'm not well informed on this topic is the first thing I'll say.
I guess I thought the idea was to provide equal opportunities to students....even where their sports don't seem to have that much interest or make much money, because that is thought by some to be fair. But if they're essentially employees hired to be athletes, that seems different to me than students having "opportunities" to participate in a sport. It's not like the fb and bb teams are made up of regional kids who went to NDSU and just "decided to try out for the team". I'm probably not articulating my thoughts/question well though.
Do we have gender quotas on employees at universities? I honestly don't know.
What about gender quotas on students themselves? Is it wrong to have a gender imbalance in the general student body or just those that play sports? Is it wrong to have "too many" women or is it just "too many" men that is bad? With the trend of female students up and male down, I can see this coming back to haunt some people. Assuming a consistent standard anyway.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NDSU92
This is the only question that is left, and I'm confident that we can convince the MW that the answer is yes. Definitely the MAC, and definitely the MW if Boise and SDSU leave. Just my 2 cents.
I am unconvinced any school is leaving the MW any time soon. It could happen but that would still leave 10 football schools. No need to add to that.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NDSU92
To your point, NDSU students shot down the student fees last time because the general thought was "why are we increasing student fees if we're not moving up in athletics?" A fair point that I agreed with when I was a student. If it ends up being a student fees issue, you can also raise the price of a credit by $20 per semester. $20 x 12 credits = $240 per full time student per semester.
Since the additional money would be for the AD as a whole, it would likely get dispersed throughout like taper says.
Pretty sure it had more to do with the athletic department half-assing their presentation and thinking they were going to get a rubber stamp.
The athletics department was trying to keep its cash flow afloat due to increase in expenses (FCOA) and decrease in state funding (state budget cuts).
I'd be happy to change my opinion if you could provide something from 2016 that said anything about moving to FBS at that point in time was the reasoning behind the rejection but I don't recall a whole lot of ground-swell pushing it at that point in time. It is fair to say that they wanted something in return, but I don't think that an FBS move was what they were looking for.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
abc123
Pretty sure it had more to do with the athletic department half-assing their presentation and thinking they were going to get a rubber stamp.
The athletics department was trying to keep its cash flow afloat due to increase in expenses (FCOA) and decrease in state funding (state budget cuts).
I'd be happy to change my opinion if you could provide something from 2016 that said anything about moving to FBS at that point in time was the reasoning behind the rejection but I don't recall a whole lot of ground-swell pushing it at that point in time. It is fair to say that they wanted something in return, but I don't think that an FBS move was what they were looking for.
Yeah idk if they tried after I left. I know they floated it around quite a bit when I was in school through 2014. The resounding opinion amongst my friends and kids that went to games was essentially “why do they need more money? They’re already winning every year.” I’ve always assumed if us hardcore fans thought it, the rest of the students that didn’t care as much about sports would think the same thing.
So not necessarily a “not if you don’t go FBS” but more of a “you obviously don’t need it at FCS”
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MWC
I am unconvinced any school is leaving the MW any time soon. It could happen but that would still leave 10 football schools. No need to add to that.
Certainly, the question is would they want to though?
Who knows
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
abc123
Pretty sure it had more to do with the athletic department half-assing their presentation and thinking they were going to get a rubber stamp.
The athletics department was trying to keep its cash flow afloat due to increase in expenses (FCOA) and decrease in state funding (state budget cuts).
I'd be happy to change my opinion if you could provide something from 2016 that said anything about moving to FBS at that point in time was the reasoning behind the rejection but I don't recall a whole lot of ground-swell pushing it at that point in time. It is fair to say that they wanted something in return, but I don't think that an FBS move was what they were looking for.
Who in the athletic department would half ass stuff?
Half ass Matt?
