Page 1524 of 1577 FirstFirst ... 52410241424147415141522152315241525152615341574 ... LastLast
Results 15,231 to 15,240 of 15764

Thread: A new and better FBS thread

  1. #15231
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    NYC and Bucks County, PA
    Posts
    26,129

    Default Re: A new and better FBS thread

    Quote Originally Posted by MWC View Post
    The tv people requested 2 schools in a different time zone. They wanted extra inventory so they would have multiple time slots all day. With just one school added for football, there would not be a conference game played in the CST every other week. Two means at least one MW conference game in the CST every week. Sometimes two.
    Toledo is Eastern Time so if the MWC picked up Toledo, the conference would have all the time zones.

  2. #15232
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    9,555

    Default Re: A new and better FBS thread

    McMurphy's interview on Hot Mic with Dom this morning:




    Nothing new broke here - a lot of it was repeated from his interview on Bison 1660 last week. He said the latest in terms of NDSU/MWC contact is "nothing new". He said the timeline he'd expect the MWC membership questions to be resolved will be "in the next few months" and referenced the end of the academic year in May to be the latest he'd expect it to happen.

  3. #15233
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Secret bunker deep under REA, 58202
    Posts
    4,743

    Default Re: A new and better FBS thread

    "Consequences of publicly advocating for a spot in a new athletic conference are that it raises expectations prematurely, severs relationships with your existing conference, and historically reduces your chance for acceptance." -- Clif Smart, former president, Missouri State University

    Source: https://sgfcitizen.org/voices-opinio...onference-usa/

  4. #15234
    BigHorns is offline Senior Member Gets their mail at the West Parking Lot
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    2,600

    Default Re: A new and better FBS thread

    Quote Originally Posted by MWC View Post
    There are a couple of reasons Gloria said not to believe everything you read. It is possible that she is clapping back on the 1 football only school blurb from McMurphy.
    That might make sense. Whatever it was seemed to be pushback on the McMurphy leak/report. Maybe they haven’t given up on NIU and want to add a couple yet.

    I’m still in the camp of things look promising, and we are as close as we’ve ever been, but it’s not done.

    And I agree that there could be impacts depending on what PAC decides to do. Do they find a way to get Memphis or settle for Texas St? If Texas St isn’t taken, do they reconsider MW? My bet is “no” for Texas St, but will have to wait and see. A package of Texas St and UTEP makes some sense.

  5. #15235
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    28,070

    Default Re: A new and better FBS thread

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka View Post
    "Consequences of publicly advocating for a spot in a new athletic conference are that it raises expectations prematurely, severs relationships with your existing conference, and historically reduces your chance for acceptance." -- Clif Smart, former president, Missouri State University

    Source: https://sgfcitizen.org/voices-opinio...onference-usa/
    Well, I guess stick a fork in Sac State then.
    NDSU to the FBS always. In all ways.

  6. #15236
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    McKinney, Tx
    Posts
    7,283

    Default Re: A new and better FBS thread

    Quote Originally Posted by BigHorns View Post
    That might make sense. Whatever it was seemed to be pushback on the McMurphy leak/report. Maybe they haven’t given up on NIU and want to add a couple yet.

    I’m still in the camp of things look promising, and we are as close as we’ve ever been, but it’s not done.

    And I agree that there could be impacts depending on what PAC decides to do. Do they find a way to get Memphis or settle for Texas St? If Texas St isn’t taken, do they reconsider MW? My bet is “no” for Texas St, but will have to wait and see. A package of Texas St and UTEP makes some sense.
    Lol how does that make sense? Can you elaborate?
    National Champions: '65 '68 '69 '83 '85 '86 '88 '90 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '17 '18 '19 '21 '24

  7. #15237
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    North Fargo
    Posts
    12,240

    Default Re: A new and better FBS thread

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka View Post
    "Consequences of publicly advocating for a spot in a new athletic conference are that it raises expectations prematurely, severs relationships with your existing conference, and historically reduces your chance for acceptance." -- Clif Smart, former president, Missouri State University

    Source: https://sgfcitizen.org/voices-opinio...onference-usa/
    bUt LaRsEn NeEdS tO pUmP iT uP
    Rainbows & Sunshine
    (heffray has given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, he’ll try again later)

  8. #15238
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Secret bunker deep under REA, 58202
    Posts
    4,743

    Default Re: A new and better FBS thread

    Quote Originally Posted by NDSUstudent View Post
    Well, I guess stick a fork in Sac State then.
    Maybe folks are misreading NDSU AD ML.

  9. #15239
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    28,070

    Default Re: A new and better FBS thread

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka View Post
    Maybe folks are misreading NDSU AD ML.
    They are, he could want to go FBS more than Lakes but unlike some random person on a message board he needs to deliver on it and looking desperate is probably not the best tactic on basically every front.
    NDSU to the FBS always. In all ways.

  10. #15240
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    9,555

    Default Re: A new and better FBS thread

    Quote Originally Posted by BigHorns View Post
    That might make sense. Whatever it was seemed to be pushback on the McMurphy leak/report. Maybe they haven’t given up on NIU and want to add a couple yet.

    I’m still in the camp of things look promising, and we are as close as we’ve ever been, but it’s not done.

    And I agree that there could be impacts depending on what PAC decides to do. Do they find a way to get Memphis or settle for Texas St? If Texas St isn’t taken, do they reconsider MW? My bet is “no” for Texas St, but will have to wait and see. A package of Texas St and UTEP makes some sense.
    I think additional poaching from the MWC is off the table for the PAC. On top of them squeezing pretty much all the juice out of that orange (they clearly viewed Utah St as a Plan B/C option) the remaining MWC schools signed a grant-of-rights agreement that keeps them together through 2032 I believe.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •