Herd

As usual, you bring much to the discussion.

The top 5 conferences . . . Already have the bottom 5 locked out of the NC picture with virtually no access by the lower 5 conferences They are taking 95% of the TV revenue They have 119 teams in the divison to play and get easy wins against etc, etc, etc, in their favor What more could they possible want to take away from the MWC, SBelt, MAC, CUSA, AAC? If they try to form a new divison that is potentially viewed as discriminatory to the lower 5 conferences who are selling their soles to play at the "Top Level of College" football, there will be legal action. Therefore, there will need to be tangible criteria that separates the top 5 and bottom 5 conferences (schollies, money, fans, etc), not pipedreams and arbitrary money suggestions.

An you keep saying that the split comes down to dollars. . . thank you captain obvious. You might as well be telling me that "Hunger is a problem in Africa". That's how broad your statement is, and how little it does to suggest any fix to the problem. The best interest of college football in the United States is my primary concern, so I could care less about the top 5 conferences whining about money, and how they can get more. If I was the NCAA, I'd be fighting for the best interest of college football, not pandering to greedy conference conmissioners trying to destroy college football and the lower divisions.

Being involved in a football conference with solid programs like UNI, SIU, IL State, MO State, and IN State is great, regardless if the conference is called Summit or Valley football. The teams make it great, not the name. Pushing for the Summit name is stupid if it creates problems and urges the Valley schools to consider moving on. Have you really even thought about what you are saying? It doesn't appear so. Being in the Summit/MVFC is not a problem. Being in the Summit for all sports, including football, is a problem is the Valley schools aren't in it. If you feel that being in a single conference is significantly better than being in a separate conference for a single sport, then maybe you should be pushing for Big Sky the Hockies. In the meantime you are spending an extra million a year in travel and playing in 3 time zones to have all your sports in a single conference.

So . . . are they adding scholarships, or forcing the lower FBS conferences down in scholarship? They won't separate themselves when all 119 teams are spending on scholarships at the same level in today's scenario, they just won't. Where are they drawing the split, and what is their logic for the split . . .scholarships, spending level, fans in the stands?? Is there a clear way to split? SEC, B1G, B12, P12, ACC ||| AAC, CUSA, MWC, MAC, SBelt Not a very clean break when you have schools in the bottom five outspending some in the top 5. It would be nice if the 13 conferences in FCS would split too (there actually is scholarship differences in FCS), but that doesn't do much to unite the division or form a successful championship. The bottom conferences, which want to be in the highest level of NCAA football, will go kicking and screaming from the table.

Ya, and thaaa'ts a Felony, deserving at least a couple of days in jail, right?

I'm sure that the Big 12 would also like a massive pot of gold, greater respect from the SEC, and casual Fridays. Wanting something, and actually getting it are two different things. You suggesting that the top 5 conferences would like to split isn't worth patting yourself on the back about, it is something we all know. Telling us this is going to happen in the fall of 2013, and it actually happening would be a little more remarkable. What, you think this is the kind of thing that just happens because the Big 12 says they'd like it?

They'll talk about said problems at the bottom of an old Sac State game thread as to not bring attention to said issues. Haven't you been following along?

Using 2013 end of year Sagarin rankings, Colorado State favored by +8 at home vs gFU. Sagarin Rankings CSU 134 vs gFU 149. CSU has a powerful running game and good size on their lines, the key to stopping them was shutting down the running game, and an NDSU stregth. NDSU was not a good matchup for CSU, but if you are not stout up front and if you couldn't stop the run like gFU most of 2013, you'd be in big trouble. When you predicted a gFU win, was there any knowledge behind that?

Since when do Fan Forums and Institutional Control have anything to do with each other? If stupid fans got athletic programs in trouble, we wouldn't have college sports, including sports at your school. In the larger scheme of things, I can certainly see where college students would, in their minds, minimize the legal remifications of voter fraud where they were just trying to make a few bucks to collect some names. Certainly a dumb move, and poor judgement on thier part. While I'm sure there is now a whole semester course dedicated to "Voter Fraud Law" at UND's Law school, I can see where some kids from TX and FL maybe didn't take their punishment as seriously as they should have. It's not like they were contributing to underage drinking where kids were hospitalized, or dealing illegal drugs or anything. You just keep making a big deal about this thread dedicated to NDSU. If it helps to keep football relavant at UND any negative UND topics buried deep for no one to see, all the better. Keep it going, you are almost to 100.

Darrell, did you start a 92 page thread on the former UND football players who had drug and sterioid issues last year? After you start that thread and show a little objectivity, I'll start to little to your BS. Did you start that thread, or was that topic hidden a the end of a game thread somewhere like everthing negative at UND? I guess these types of issues are only a big deal when they happen at NDSU, even though they happen just as much in your back yard. If you want to go tit-for-tat on UND vs NDSU brushes with the law, that's a pretty even match. I'm not minimizing this issue to follow-up on court ordered actions. Not taking care of the court ordered follow-up activities is pretty stupid, and speaks to the character of these 3-4 guys. But I don't hold administration responsible for guys that are no longer at school or on the team, anymore that this board did when former football players at UND were brought up on drug charges.

I guess it's not the message, but who the message comes from that makes it Ok or not Ok, does that sound about right SiouxGuy? I guess I can't express that opinion, although the same opinion is perfectly fine coming from someone/anyone with UND in their name. Jones said it best, "I thought you were one of us". Poor choice of words by the radio guy for sure, but probably a good idea for the HC to deal with it off the air, not create a firestorm. As for Bohl correcting a ND reference . . . he just corrected it, he didn't get angry about or create a problem, just corrected it. Would a reporter call Michigan State, Michigan, without being corrected? Of course not. Really not related to this topic at all.

Gee, you didn't thank UND-FB-Fan for sharing, and he and I are to totoal agreement. You better thank him so he doesn't feel left out.

What else is Ralston going to say? He had to either suck up, or lose his job. Ralston begging for his job and speaking the company line doesn't make what UND did right. In my opinion, Jones having thin skin in the issue. Jones being confrontational during the interview was the problem instead of being mature enough to handle objective criticism from someone who is supposed to be objective in his opinion. Jones saying, "you are supposed to be one of us", was all I had to hear. Also, would kill this board to have a thread on said topic, or is negative a no-no here? Does Jones control this board too? (ha-ha) Throwing this in the game thread, really?

So why was this entire board asking for Kelly's head on a platter? He was working very hard to rid the university of the nickname albatross during those days . . . you have a very selective memory it appears.

Being swayed . . . that is a poor choice of words. Kelly would more have been asking for the invite to include specifics that UND would be dropping the nickname, thereby helping to influence the (upcoming vote) to his benefit. Kelly wouldn't have been swaying Douple, just asking for the invitation language to help influence the vote. That is not hard to believe at all if you ask me.

Agreed, UND should be extended Summit baseball membership yesterday. IMO, UND should be extended full Summit membership, and MVFC member too . . .whether or not they would take it. It would be the right thing to do for the Summit. If I was the commish, I would officially invite UND and NC right away. Neither might accept, but I would do it anyway. And Id do everything possible to open the MVFC door if that would help.

Kelly was trying to influence nearly everyone duing the nickname debacle, including legislators and the sioux booster clubs. He was consistenly working behind the scenes to allow UND to drop the nickname. That is not speculation, but clear fact that was spouted over and over again on this board, many of who were very upset with Kelly over those efforts. What's to say he wasn't working the Summit invitiation (which everyone knew was coming by the way) behind the scenes so he could rid the university of the nickname problem? In the end, the B1F invitation came before the Summit inviation, so he accepted that and moved on. After being jilted by UND on a Summit invitation, Douple then decided to expose what Kelly was doing beind the scenes. . . . that scenario is not any more difficult to believe than the scenario that Kelly had zero involvement in trying to influence the Summit.

It was either Douple or your President Kelly who had truth issues. The possibilities of who was being honest was pretty much a coin flip. Douple said that your own President was influencing his universities nickname situation by asking the Summit to put a contingency on a UND invitiation. Like I said, pretty equal possibility of who was telling the truth. Pretty hard to understand how or why a conference commishioner could make something like that up. Equally as embarrasing for Kelly who made little attempt to expalin his role. He obviously said something to the Summit. Was his intended message not interpretted correctly? UND fans have a boner about their Summit situation and Douple, but that is due to the lens in which they view the situation. The truth was never clarified. If you are saying that the story from Douple was 100% fabricated, and Kelly had said zero to the Summit, I think you quite nieve.

NCAA rules allow FCS games to count toward playoff eligibility in the FBS, whereas (currently) DII games do not count toward FCS playoff eligibility. The B1G could make sure it's institutions scheduled FCS games again full scholarship FCS programs, then they would see competition similar to the lower level FBS ranks. Instead they are lumping all FCS teams together, 0-63 scholarships, and judging them all the same. Does the B1G see all FBS schools as "the same"? No, there is higher level competition and lower level competition in the FBS ranks also. Frankly, vs. full scholarship FCS teams, the B1G has been getting very good and compeitive games in a high percentage of those matchups.

Good Input . . . Easy to say, but really, really, really hard to make happen. Splitting 41 out of FBS to the 75 Level would be virually impossible. It would be just as easy for them to go up 5 than down 10. Also your split would throw two full scholarship FCS conference into tier 3, like the Southland, OVC, Big Sky or Valley. How do you choose two to move down? If you pick schools instead of conferences, you tear conferences apart. Really hard to make happen. Also, I'd say your Tier 3 level of 60 scholarships is too high. I'd move the max to 50, but even at that level, a championship in Tier 3 is basically meaningless, with a lot of non-scholarship schools. In the end, I belive that 2 championships will prevail, even if the levels change a little. In the end, I don't think you want any DI championship that has teams that are not as good as DII. That's what you'd have at the DI- 0to50 level. And geez, get rid of your A,AA,AAA's. I'd just call the Subdivisions DI-90, DI-75, DI-50. All these schools are meeting the academic requirements of DI, and they all play DI basketball, don't screw that up.

Competitively, I'd structure 3 tiers a such: (Listed by 2013 Sagarin Order for FCS; FBS sagarin doesn't make sense due to all the schools moving; I'm listing by order of strength IMO) As I do this activity, I become more convinced that it will be nearly impossible to pull existing FBS conferneces out of the Top Tier, and find a way to combine the top of FCS and bottom of FBS. Tier (1,2,3): SEC (1) B12 (1) P12 (1) B1G (1) ACC (1) America (1) MWC (1) CUSA (1) MAC (2) SBelt (2) MVFC (2) SoCon (2) (lost top 2) OVC (2) BigSky (2) Southland (2) CAA (2) Ivy (3) Patriot (3) MEAC (3) Big South (3) NEC (3) SWAC (3) Pioneer (3) Tier 1: 8 conferences; Maybe move CUSA & MWC to Tier 2 to balance number of teams. Tier 2: 8 conferences Can't draw the line any higher, or full scholarship leagues end up in Tier 3. Competitively the FCS could complete well against the lower FBS, but scholarships are the issue. Tier 3: 7 conferences Not much to play for here; few teams . . . the Ivies would plug their noses. Tier 3 is the reason that 3 tiers don't work. Think about dropping football would be a good idea, or play for fun w/o NC like the Ivys. I don't think there will ever be a championship in Tier 3, they would have to compete upward vs Tier 2 for a NC with a scholarship disadvantage. Could grant a waiver to play down for DII championship, but they DI budgets create probelms in the minds of the DII schools.

If there was a 3 tier plan in DI football, you wouldn't be moving up to Tier 2, you would be staying in tier 2 where you are now (hopefully staying out of teir 3), but 1/3 of the current FBS might/would be joining you in tier 2 (in something other than FBS) making the current tier 2 (FCS) a more relavant grouping. Again this 3 tier 80/80/80 scenario is not likely, as the bottom 1/3 of the current FBS would leave the top tier kicking and screaming. Currently there are no scholarship differences in the top tier (obviously), thus the problem for a 3 tier system and forcing 40 schools out. Ways to accomplish a 3 tier system would be: 1) Scholarship changes 2) Financial requirements 3) Or Attendance requirements. Scholarships and Financial ways are very tricky. The easiest way would be to impose a 30,000 attendance requirement, but this would really serve to fracture the bottom five FBS conferences, and even the top 5 FBS conferences.

And again, Patty V & I agree that it likely won't happen. If the bottom level of FBS is sponsoring 85 scholarship (same as the top level), who is going to force them out? Unless the ncaa leads a change in scholarship levels that would take the FBS top tier upward (not likely) and the bottom of FBS downward (not likely), then the current 120+ schools will remain in FBS, with the bottom of FBS just happy to be along for the ride, even if they are struggling to afford it. Maybe there will be a concrete plan proposed to alter the current 2 championship system, but I haven't seen one yet. Just chitter chatter about it from a few high profile schools who think they need more money, and people talking about it with no plan of how it would actually be accomplished. If there is a concrete plan, I haven't heard it yet.

Give me aything central or east for olympic sports. BSC would be last resort, well msybe WAC.