Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BigHorns
Let's presume they did something like this. How silly would it look in a year or two if said objective is not achieved?
Would you then demand the President and all university leaders resign?
There's many good reasons the work for this happens behind closed doors, and recent move-ups did not announce they were "pursuing fbs" before a deal was done. I'm sure other schools and conferences already know our intentions and conversations have occurred.
because we are obviously being black balled for being so successful, so you turn up the public perception that NDSU wants to be FBS but no one will take them.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El_Chapo
because we are obviously being black balled for being so successful, so you turn up the public perception that NDSU wants to be FBS but no one will take them.
The point being?
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El_Chapo
because we are obviously being black balled for being so successful, so you turn up the public perception that NDSU wants to be FBS but no one will take them.
So, are you saying if you hadn't been so successful you would be welcomed into FBS..?
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MWC
So, are you saying if you hadn't been so successful you would be welcomed into FBS..?
we are a victim of our own success unfortunately
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El_Chapo
we are a victim of our own success unfortunately
You aren't a victim of anything.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MWC
You aren't a victim of anything.
Hold on. I speak jive, let me translate:
We were when we moved up to FCS from D2. The big sky didn’t take us because they didn’t want to bring in another school that would compete with the Montanas. Not enough places at the big boy table in the conference. I don’t know if that’s the case with the MW right now. I will say that if the MW was in the market for a filler team to put some W’s on the current members’ schedules, then they’d be better off looking at the Montana schools.
We absolutely are a victim of our own geography, though.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NDSU92
Hold on. I speak jive, let me translate:
We were when we moved up to FCS from D2. The big sky didn’t take us because they didn’t want to bring in another school that would compete with the Montanas. Not enough places at the big boy table in the conference. I don’t know if that’s the case with the MW right now. I will say that if the MW was in the market for a filler team to put some W’s on the current members’ schedules, then they’d be better off looking at the Montana schools.
We absolutely are a victim of our own geography, though.
The MW is not looking to add anybody. Your geography is no deterrent if you came on as an affiliate football only member. Your olympic sports don't move the needle and you don't play all the sports the MW requires. It would be a very long shot to be invited as a full member.
This doesn't mean the MW is arrogant or afraid to have you in the conference. You just don't add anything the conference doesn't already have..
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MWC
The MW is not looking to add anybody. Your geography is no deterrent if you came on as an affiliate football only member. Your olympic sports don't move the needle and you don't play all the sports the MW requires. It would be a very long shot to be invited as a full member.
This doesn't mean the MW is arrogant or afraid to have you in the conference. You just don't add anything the conference doesn't already have..
Watch out MWC, that blast of reality in in your last sentence might hurt some feelings.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MWC
The MW is not looking to add anybody. Your geography is no deterrent if you came on as an affiliate football only member. Your olympic sports don't move the needle and you don't play all the sports the MW requires. It would be a very long shot to be invited as a full member.
This doesn't mean the MW is arrogant or afraid to have you in the conference. You just don't add anything the conference doesn't already have..
I'm not sure what you mean by not playing all the sports the MWC requires. Assuming we add women's tennis for Title IX(easy addition), we'd only be missing men's tennis and women's swimming/diving. Several schools don't play those. We'd be playing more men's sports than 5 members and more women's than 2. I agree our Olympics in general aren't up to MWC standards as far as competition and media exposure, but number of sports sponsored doesn't seem to be a problem.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MWC
The MW is not looking to add anybody. Your geography is no deterrent if you came on as an affiliate football only member. Your olympic sports don't move the needle and you don't play all the sports the MW requires. It would be a very long shot to be invited as a full member.
This doesn't mean the MW is arrogant or afraid to have you in the conference. You just don't add anything the conference doesn't already have..
Right, but neither does Nevada. It’s just located in a better spot for the conference than NDSU. That’s my point.
