Gothmog

The Idaho study says pretty much the same thing: Three years ago, Big Sky Commissioner Doug Fullerton and WAC Commissioner Jeff Hurd visited about the possibility of combining the two conferences, and having part of the league participate in FBS and the remainder in FCS for football. The idea did gain some interest, but was ultimately shot down. Bottom line -- this ain't happening anytime soon.

There should be a UND Hockey corollary to Godwin's Law.

There you go putting your own school down again. What is the point in that? EDIT - Sorry quoted the wrong post/ meant to quote Darrell's post.: NHL and the olympics pretty big. FCS football is a laughing stock to Alabama, Ohio State and big name FBS schools

Actually no, I merely pointed out that your point about confusing NDSU and UND cuts both ways. If you want to use it to put NDSU down, you are necessarily putting UND down at the same time. I would never make that point, mistakes happen, they are pretty much meaningless.

Pretty weak smack: considering NDSU had 15 first downs vs. USD, including a 7 play 66 yard TD drive in the 1st quarter. UND, on the other hand, had 3 first downs vs NDSU, and, I believe, zero until late in the third quarter. In any case, losing a game in October isn't a big deal, when you finish with a win in January.

No, Darrell called UND obscure.

Challenging outrageous and false claims is not trolling.

Why do UND fans seem to take pleasure in pointing out the obscurity of their own school? The confusion about logos/names works both ways.

Have you called them? Really? You can't even make up a reason why the consultants the Univerity of Idaho hired would be kept unaware of such a material fact? Or, if they were aware of it, why they wouldn't mention it? Without that fact, the study they authored is completely worthless. Not a single fact, just more baseless assertions. I expect more of the same when these are proven to have been false.

Well, this is a complete non-sequitur. I'll ask again. Why did you claim that a rule change allowing an FCS conference with an orphaned FBS member to move to FBS would happen before Idaho's commencement if you had no knowledge that any such rule change was, in fact, going to happen? Also, it's clear that the authors of the Idaho study were not aware of any deal in place to move the Big Sky to FCS en masse, and yet you have claimed that a deal was in place. How do you explain that?

I think your interpretation is probably incorrect. There would be no reason to include the "met the definition" language if only conferences that had sponsored football after the name change were included. In that case, the phrase "bona fide invitation from an FBS conference" would be sufficient.

I guess the question is: if it wasn't a fact why did you state it as a fact? Also, it's interesting to note that you always seem to be able to envision rule changes when they're convenient. Otherwise, rules are set in stone.

That's not quite what the rule quoted in the study says. It says that an FCS team must receive a bona fide invitation from a FBS conference or a conference that had previously "met the definition" of an FBS conference. Since the change to FBS from 1A was to name only, it would seem that a former 1A conference would meet that definition.

Agreed, but this is all just speculation anyway.

Yes, I am counting Idaho And New Mexico State. I do agree that the two orphans, plus the Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota schools, minus some existing WAC schools, would be a nice FBS conference.

Probably would be if the WAC could find six FCS schools (Big Sky or not) ready, willing, and able to move up in short order. That's a very big if.

The post basically says, among other things, that the consultant is admittedly speculating about the feasibility of an FBS WAC and that the consultant concludes that a revived FBS WAC is the worst of three options for Idaho anyway. I'd say that this study is the likely basis for Idaho's announced decision to move to FCS, and as such does not add any support to SV's theories.

IMO, the ideal FBS outcome for NDSU, and I think UND also, would be an FBS MVC. But I think that's even more unlikely.

Exactly. The consultant is engaging in the same sort of speculation that SV tries to sell as fact The difference is that that it's spelled out as such in the consultant's report. That said, this is possible, and if the WAC is interested in reviving football by inviting 6 or more FCS schools. I'd be very happy if NDSU jumped on the opportunity, It would be a fairly risk-free way to get to FBS.

Well, it isn't the first time I've said it.

No one ever doubted that it was possible that the Big Sky could move up en masse, or at least I didn't. The point was always that that was unlikely. There remains no evidence that any of the Big Sky schools are actually preparing to do this, or that they would even choose to if they could. So, this study does add some support to SV's musings, but not much. BTW - this actually blows away SV's assertion that an announcement of a rule change allowing FCS conferences with an "orphaned" FBS member to move up was imminent.

Wouldn't saving Idaho from being forced to go FBS Independent get the NCAA about the same PR advantage anyway? Assuming, of course, that there's any real PR advantage to be had in pulling an obscure, and poorly managed program like Idaho's butt out of the fire the first place. The PR effect might be the opposite of what you're suggesting.

Did you really mean to imply that it's difficult to "tell the difference" between facts and speculation on this message board?

What facts? This thread is almost entirely speculation.

For some reason, this quote from Monty Python's "The Holy Grail" seems particularly appropriate in this thread: Sir Bedevere: ...and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. King Arthur: This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.