Re: A new and better FBS thread
I'll say it again. The new playoff format HAS to leave G5 conferences thinking about how to get stronger and less about media markets.
Adding a shitty team in CA or TX does nothing for your conferences chances of getting the one elusive auto bid.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BigHorns
That's the death of bison football as we know it.
No media coverage/deal, crap opponents, and no CFP access will come out of that.
Unless we just buy the damn conference and boot them all out.
This just might work. But keep Liberty. They were ranked #17 in 2020.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Professorbum
I think they'd take UTEP for one. Possibly Texas State to pair with them. Or maybe try to pull Tulsa over. Even NMSU gets the nod before us. I know NMSU sucks in football, but they would help the conf in BB and be an easy partner for UTEP. I just don't think they will look to FCS unless they have no FBS options.
If they do dip into FCS, they'll pull MSU and U of M before us. Or maybe Idaho. Idaho is a state with a growing population. If they lose Boise, maybe Idaho (as a recent FBS school who begrudgingly dropped down to FCS) becomes more attractive if they promise to make some investments.
If the MWC was interested in the many positive things that NDSU could bring (winning tradition, positive revenue, national interest, strong fan support, solidly run athletics dept with fundraising ability, R1 university status), we'd already have been invited. But they are not. They are interested in mountains, and/or Texas, and/or Calif. That's it. That's what is important to them.
I’d argue the opposite. If they wanted UTEP and NMSU, they would’ve already offered THEM. Lord knows they’ve had a million chances to do so. They are the schools who have been sitting there with their hands in their pockets waiting for an invite that has never come after what like 15 years? They average like 5k fans at a football game.
This is the first time in our history that we’ve had high FBS facilities. I could argue that we’ve never actually had a shot until now. All we need is an opening.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TAILG8R
I'll say it again. The new playoff format HAS to leave G5 conferences thinking about how to get stronger and less about media markets.
Adding a shitty team in CA or TX does nothing for your conferences chances of getting the one elusive auto bid.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
I agree. But no one in my lifetime has ever accused the MWC of having any imagination whatsoever. They never, ever imagine what could be.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Professorbum
I think they'd take UTEP for one. Possibly Texas State to pair with them. Or maybe try to pull Tulsa over. Even NMSU gets the nod before us. I know NMSU sucks in football, but they would help the conf in BB and be an easy partner for UTEP. I just don't think they will look to FCS unless they have no FBS options.
If they do dip into FCS, they'll pull MSU and U of M before us. Or maybe Idaho. Idaho is a state with a growing population. If they lose Boise, maybe Idaho (as a recent FBS school who begrudgingly dropped down to FCS) becomes more attractive if they promise to make some investments.
If the MWC was interested in the many positive things that NDSU could bring (winning tradition, positive revenue, national interest, strong fan support, solidly run athletics dept with fundraising ability, R1 university status), we'd already have been invited. But they are not. They are interested in mountains, and/or Texas, and/or Calif. That's it. That's what is important to them.
None of us know what the MW is or isn't interested in. Thompson has no power or a vote. The decisions are made by the executive board and voted on by the full membership. League presidents decide everything and that is fluid with presidents coming and going.
We do know the tv providers told the MW they would not increase the payout to cover new members. We do know the deal runs for 4 more years.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TAILG8R
I'll say it again. The new playoff format HAS to leave G5 conferences thinking about how to get stronger and less about media markets.
Adding a shitty team in CA or TX does nothing for your conferences chances of getting the one elusive auto bid.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Yes, I think you are correct, and FB only could become more viable in the 12-team model. With 4 teams in the "playoff", all the talent gravitates to 4 teams. We'll see if going to 12 breaks that up
Speaking of the MWC, Boise didn't look so great against the Beavers last night, and the Aztecs didn't look so great either ... first game of the season. We'll see
I also thought the MVFC didn't look so great. Bison and Jacks looked the best, and even they had warts. Maybe Air Force is legit this year, who knows. Yotes got shut out I believe, and Nebraska's sideline oozes major disfunction ... why I'm not a fan of bringing the home-town hero back to coach. Need to coach with your brain, not your emotions. Frost seems to have a hard time with that at Nebraska
There are only 2-3 teams in the MVFC that should even be in the conversation, so all this talk of the MVFC jumping up makes no sense. Why would the state of ND invest in taking the Bison to the next level, and then shoot themselves in the foot by investing even more to bring along an anchor? Sorry, it's just logic. Too many of you are D2 Midco homers, and I mean that in a nice friendly way, not the assholian way it comes off ...
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Professorbum
I agree. But no one in my lifetime has ever accused the MWC of having any imagination whatsoever. They never, ever imagine what could be.
I think the only way the MW would add is to get bigger media markets..There is not a lot of those available.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MWC
None of us know what the MW is or isn't interested in. Thompson has no power or a vote. The decisions are made by the executive board and voted on by the full membership. League presidents decide everything and that is fluid with presidents coming and going.
We do know the tv providers told the MW they would not increase the payout to cover new members. We do know the deal runs for 4 more years.
That's rather surprising given other conferences are getting more when they add members.
(Well, outside cusa who basically doesn't have anything)
Would have to think that payout statement was conditional on who they wanted to add.
If MWC adds Washington and Oregon, no way they wouldn't ante up for that. It would pay for itself with viewers.
NMSU and UTEP would be different of course.
NDSU is probably somewhere between those two extremes in media value.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NDSU1980
So you're back to the same tired argument. The good conferences don't want us and you don't want a weak conference. That leaves FCS Forever for you, since according to you there's no other path.
You can always know with you, it will the same point of view every time.
I said CUSA. Because RIGHT NOW, NDSU adds nothing to MWC. Say it out loud to yourself.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Professorbum
I think they'd take UTEP for one. Possibly Texas State to pair with them. Or maybe try to pull Tulsa over. Even NMSU gets the nod before us. I know NMSU sucks in football, but they would help the conf in BB and be an easy partner for UTEP. I just don't think they will look to FCS unless they have no FBS options.
If they do dip into FCS, they'll pull MSU and U of M before us. Or maybe Idaho. Idaho is a state with a growing population. If they lose Boise, maybe Idaho (as a recent FBS school who begrudgingly dropped down to FCS) becomes more attractive if they promise to make some investments.
If the MWC was interested in the many positive things that NDSU could bring (winning tradition, positive revenue, national interest, strong fan support, solidly run athletics dept with fundraising ability, R1 university status), we'd already have been invited. But they are not. They are interested in mountains, and/or Texas, and/or Calif. That's it. That's what is important to them.
Herder has said on his podcast that UC-Davis has to be in the top of the FCS discussions. Geography, enrollment, money....etc
