Re: A new and better FBS thread
https://theathletic.com/3621500/2022...-ucla-big-ten/
Quote:
"Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff sent a letter to the University of California Board of Regents on Thursday in an attempt to overturn the UCLA chancellor’s decision to leave the Big Ten in 2024, a source confirmed to The Athletic."
"He wrote that UCLA athletes could see their academic and health status decline due to increased time traveling on planes to road games. Family and friends of those athletes would also have a more arduous and expensive time seeing the Bruins compete further away from California. Kliavkoff stated travel costs — currently $8.1 in the Pac-12 — would jump to $23.7 million if flights were chartered in the Big Ten."
Quite the commissioner there.
Meanwhile Oregon is offering up whatever the B1G would want (including adding sports).
Circus.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The_Sicatoka
Quote:
travel costs — currently $8.1 in the Pac-12 — would jump to $23.7 million if flights were chartered in the Big Ten.
Woof! And some here don't want to admit that travel is a real factor/consideration when moving conferences.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Not sure that this applies to FBS realignment issues like noted above but one reason why NDSU would experience some significantly higher travel expenses is because we'd need to add a women's sport. That is a 0-100% increase for that sport, plus moderately more expensive trips for our current sports.
The thing that I don't know is that according to what conference we get in - MW vs MAC, for instance - our players and coaches may have more hotel stays than they currently experience. That obviously can add up quickly as well.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OrygunBison
Not sure that this applies to FBS realignment issues like noted above but one reason why NDSU would experience some significantly higher travel expenses is because we'd need to add a women's sport.
You're at the right number (16) and mix of sports (8/8) for FBS per NCAA DI manual.
I believe the issue would be I'm told you're fully funded and to add men's scholarships you'd need to place women's equity dollars somewhere, so, yes, you might be right as adding might be one (expensive) option. Letting Hammersmith get after the budget to find somewhere to place equity dollars might be better (and cheaper).
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BigHorns
Woof! And some here don't want to admit that travel is a real factor/consideration when moving conferences.
To be fair, that commish points out the $15M travel increase, but doesn't point out the extra $45M (over today) the B1G will garner UCLA.
Is there an FBS conference that will give enough share to balance out added travel expense from this region? Pretty sure the MAC and MWC don't give shares that size. Anyone?
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The_Sicatoka
You're at the right number (16) and mix of sports (8/8) for FBS per NCAA DI manual.
I believe the issue would be I'm told you're fully funded and to add men's scholarships you'd need to place women's equity dollars somewhere, so, yes, you might be right as adding might be one (expensive) option. Letting Hammersmith get after the budget to find somewhere to place equity dollars might be better (and cheaper).
Why do you keep pushing this Title IX argument? Of all the things holding NDSU back from FBS, Title IX is barely worth talking about. We can easily add whatever our women's programs need. Just because UND has 3 active Title IX lawsuits doesn't mean NDSU needs some. That's one metric I'm quite happy you taking the lead on.
Here's the text of Title IX
Quote:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
That's it. 37 words. No mention of athletics. We make this way more complicated than it needs to be.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
This all just comes down to "want to." Does NDSU want to move to FBS?
Do the MW or Mac etc..want to add NDSU
It isn't location. It isn't title IX, It isn't the travel. It isn't increased costs.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
taper
Why do you keep pushing this Title IX argument? Of all the things holding NDSU back from FBS, Title IX is barely worth talking about. We can easily add whatever our women's programs need. Just because UND has 3 active Title IX lawsuits doesn't mean NDSU needs some. That's one metric I'm quite happy you taking the lead on.
Here's the text of Title IX
That's it. 37 words. No mention of athletics. We make this way more complicated than it needs to be.
My only point was the added travel for an entirely new offering needed to be accounted. People keep saying the difference in travel is negligible but with added scholarships for football, new scholarships for an entirely new women's sport, and likely added hotel nights for games further away, it will add up. I still don't think it's an impediment though.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MWC
This all just comes down to "want to." Does NDSU want to move to FBS?
Do the MW or Mac etc..want to add NDSU
It isn't location. It isn't title IX, It isn't the travel. It isn't increased costs.
If it wasn't for location - travel costs - NDSU would be FBS (such as if they were geographical located where JMU or GSU are).
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The_Sicatoka
You gonna mention the part where the California Board of Regents asked him for the letter in the first place? Or you just gonna pretend that he just did it on his own?
Lol
