Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
taper
Hard pass on the CUSA. Oh HELL no. That move would cause enormous damage to Bison athletics.
The idea that any FBS opponent is superior to any FCS is objectively false. We've had multiple FBS and even P5 WBB teams come to Fargo and attendance was less than half that of UND or SDSU games. Our highest ever "home" FB attendance(by far, almost double) was non-scholarship Butler. Not saying we shouldn't schedule the best teams we can find, because we definitely should, but there's a reason I want to stick with regional rivals.
The idea that joining the CUSA hoping it will fail so the MWC will take us is so beyond stupid I don't even know what to say. Bargaining from a position of desperation rarely works out.
That's exactly correct.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
taper
Probably the false idea that 22 men's scholarships means adding 22 women's. Title IX doesn't work that way.
Sorry, we'd have to make a similar investment/opportunity in women's sports right?
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NDSU92
Sorry, we'd have to make a similar investment/opportunity in women's sports right?
Title IX is an anti-discrimination law that does not target athletics. Compliance is very complicated and even my limited understanding of it is far beyond the scope of this thread. One thing I do know is that it's not a strict 1/1 M/W scholarship. NDSU has traditionally followed the "3rd prong" which is providing enough to be competitive, and since our women's sports as a whole are arguably more successful than our men we might even get away with adding 22 FB scholarships without any W increase just to make up that gap. In reality we could probably just add W tennis with their 8 schollies and be fine.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
daddy daycare
I mean all those schools mentioned are basically irrelevant in the grand scheme of college football, but hey....LET'S GO. That's what we're shooting for.
We are shooting for FBS. And I'm sorry...but I actually find those teams somewhat intriguing. In any case, I find them relevant because they are FBS. If we are in their conference, that means we are FBS. If we are FBS, we get to play even better teams OOC. Right now we get to regularly play really "relevant" teams like WIU, YSU, and Drake. Oh, and we get the priviledge of playing a mediocre FBS team every 7 years or so.
Regarding those saying we would lose revenue, how about negotiating. Maybe we could negotiate with the CUSA that NDSU can independently have a side media deal to make up for any loss of revenue from whatever the CUSA deal brings. In any case, figure out a way to make it work.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
WhoRepsTheLurker
I must have missed that message. Link?
It was a Craig Thompson interview a few weeks ago, shortly after the USC/UCLA announcement. It was either posted elsewhere in Bisonville or on the MWC board. I don't remember where.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
taper
Hard pass on the CUSA. Oh HELL no. That move would cause enormous damage to Bison athletics.
The idea that any FBS opponent is superior to any FCS is objectively false. We've had multiple FBS and even P5 WBB teams come to Fargo and attendance was less than half that of UND or SDSU games. Our highest ever "home" FB attendance(by far, almost double) was non-scholarship Butler. Not saying we shouldn't schedule the best teams we can find, because we definitely should, but there's a reason I want to stick with regional rivals.
The idea that joining the CUSA hoping it will fail so the MWC will take us is so beyond stupid I don't even know what to say. Bargaining from a position of desperation rarely works out.
I didn't say that we should join the CUSA and hope it fails. I've consistently said that we should be open to joining the CUSA if that's our only FBS option and trying to make it something better. But if it failed, I think we'd have options.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Professorbum
It was a Craig Thompson interview a few weeks ago, shortly after the USC/UCLA announcement. It was either posted elsewhere in Bisonville or on the MWC board. I don't remember where.
I believe the interview you are referring to was when Thompson talked about the phone calls he gets from various schools, regularly. I don't think he intimated or outright said they wouldn't take an FCS school. The MW hasn't added directly from FCS before but the situation is always fluid..Who knows?
Off the top of my head the only conferences to add directly from FCS lately are the Belt and, now, CUSA. But, again, fluid..
Re: A new and better FBS thread
To clarify a bit. The Big West and the WAC when they were FBS did add directly from FCS.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Professorbum
I didn't say that we should join the CUSA and hope it fails. I've consistently said that we should be open to joining the CUSA if that's our only FBS option and trying to make it something better. But if it failed, I think we'd have options.
Being an independent wouldn't be ideal, but if we were in the CUSA and it folded, wouldn't the NCAA have to let teams that can't find a home go the independent route?
Re: A new and better FBS thread
I keep hearing this "go FBS anywhere so we get to a better conference" enough I need to debunk it. No counting this year's announcements, there have been a total of 31 FCS to FBS teams, not including the total failure of FAMU. Just 1(UCF, joined FBS 1996) got a P5 invite, and it took 26 years for the 2nd highest enrollment university in the country to get it.
MWC is widely considered the best G5. Former FCS they added were SDSU(joined 1969), UNLV(1978), Nevada(1992), and Boise St(1996).
The idea that we can just move up the ladder is not backed up by history.
