Herd

The Valley commish is just stating what the rest of us already know. DI college football would benefit competitively from having 3 championship levels with 80 teams each, vs todays 2 levels witb 120 teams each. In both levels today (fbs & fcs) you have teams at the bottom without access to the championship that also struggle competitively with the top of their levels. Then she agrees with me when she indicates, it likely wont change due to politics and the perception that bottom of fbs is still tbe highest level of college football. Meaning, the bottom 40 in fbs will likely want to stay at the top level, and cant be forced down due to scolarship levels and other political reasons.

I think the proclamation that the end of the ncaa is at hand, is a little premature. The larger conferences do not operate in a vacuum, and the cost and difficulty to administer college athletics is not something that you install over the weekend like a 1-3-1 defense. Ceratinly the ncaa isn't perfect, but they also do a lot of good for college athletics. If a new version of the ncaa were created to give you 3 governing boards for college athletics, how does that help financially? At some point, even the B1G with all its arrogance and greed will need to do what's best for college athletics, and need to consider things beyond its conference. While Alabama, TX, and Ohio State would like to see massive change, I'm not sure the have nots in these conferences would be on board.

With DII moving from 45 to 36, the NCAA just made the change at the request of a majority of its DII schools who were struggle to financially support the 45 level. When the DII change was made, it didn't tell some conferences, "you can stay at 45 because you have larger budgets", and others "you have to move to 36, because you are in this confernce". Then, "We'll have two championships now, and if you are at 36, you have to compete for that championship at a lower tier, although we'll OK you to play the 45s during the regular season." Everyone was forced to move to 36, but the championship stayed the same. The current situation is much more complex. In my opinion, there is not real reason to separte the 120 schools at the 85 scholarship level into 2 championships, other than greed. There is a need to open the championship up to allow more access. Again, that notion is usually squelched by greed and money.

Today, they are set by the ncaa. Ncaa would need to approve changes and evaluate title 9 impacts . . . unless you withdraw from the ncaa, not likely.

Sorry Darrell, all these schools are DI. They all meet the academic requirements as DI, have to follow all DI rules and regulations, and are participating with all their sports in DI already. Yes, you are saying that we would create 3 DI levels for football, but you are not saying how you separte the current 120 schools at the 85 scholarship level to create two championships.

So the top confernces would raise scholarship levels by 20-35. Thank you, a specific idea . . . not very clean to accomplish for many reasons . . . but a specific idea none the less. This would likely need to be accompanied by a very specific revenue sharing plan in each conference, to prevent total finanical collapse at some of the less financially sound schools in the top conferences. I would say that over half of the B1G schools would be in B1G trouble if they had to increase scholarships by 20+20 to stay with Michigan and Ohio St. I would disagree and say that the only financially sound way to create 3 Levels of DI football would be to create 3 levels with 85 being the max . . . Level 1 85 scholarships Level 2 70 scholarships Leve 3 0-50 scholarships But then how are you going to force the bottom 5 FBS conferences to reduce to 70 so the top 5 have "separation". And how are you going to get the FCS schools to separate themselves at either 70 or 50, which would tear conferences apart and create a chaotic situation? it's awful easy to say it's going to happen, but the devil is in the details.

And Darrell, what specific steps would the ncaa and Top 5 conferences agree on (after they got done "talkng money"), to separate them from the bottom 5 conferences in their own division and championship? It would involve changes to . . . what?

So they would separate themselves by simply . . . "talking money" with the ncaa? Interesting, why didn't I think of that? That clears it up, thanks!

I'm not sure what you are saying? That UNLV should join the B1G? NDSU and Mt St are not in the FBS last time I looked.

If the Top 5 conferences of FBS (B1G, SEC, P12, B12. ACC) is going to separate themselves from the bottom 5 conferences (BE, MWC, MAC, CUSA, SBelt), how will this be accomplished? Way #1: I don't think they can tell the bottom conferences, you have to reduce scholarships from 85 Way #2: I don't think the top conference will get an ncaa Ok to increase scholarships beyond 85 to separate themselves. This would create problems and separation within the top conferences as some could not afford it. It would also create problems with scholarship on the womens side. Way #3: I don't think the top conferences can leave the ncaa (and amateur status) for football and still maintain requirements for college basketball in the ncaa. I don't think these conferences want to leave the ncaa for basketball. Way #4: I don't think the Top 5 can have a championship at the same scholarship level as the bottom 5 and tell them they can't compete for it. Yes, they can keep it a 4 team championship and try to lock them out, but in the long run, access will need to be granted for teams at the same scholarship level. Way #5: Simply spending more? I don't think you can designate a championship by the dollar level you are spending, that would be a poor precident to set. Top championship = > $50 mil; Second Level = < $50 mil? I don't see that happening. This dollar discrepancy is what is great about college BB, and the championship. Please, fill me in on the details of how this is going to work? Everyone is talking about it, but I'd like someone to explain how it could logically happen.

Teams in their own conferences can complete budget wise with this schools. You just cherry picked the top budgets in FBS, what about the bottom of those conferences. Are you suggesting that the top division in DI college football should have 5-7 teams? Maybe MLB should go from 32 teams to 8, because the bottom 24 dont' have budgets to complete? That's your logic . . . but the top teams still need to have teams to play against. The bottom teams in the top conferences still need to get Wins, or they dry up and whither.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I completely disagree with that statement. Maybe its your vague "BCS type school" statement that I disagree with. What are you saying. Are you saying that none of the schools in the MWC, CUSA, BE, MAC or Sunbelt belong in FBS football? If so, I completely disagree.

Moving FBS is a very individual thing. You won't see large groups of schools doing it together for obvious reasons. 1) you need a conference invite 2) Larger group, greater competition for limited openings. A school will likely not get a conference invite until after they have declared their plan and desire to go FBS, and it might even take a few years after the move for the invite to come. Moving FBS is a risky proposition as you make the commitment, then hope to get scooped up. If two schools go together, they might be competing for 1 opening. I don't think you'll see UND/NDSU or NDSU/SDSU joining gether for a move to FBS . . . it will likely involve timing and individual decisions. The AD at NDSU has talked about signs and triggers . . . I would guess those triggers in Fargo would be any movement by top football conference mates UNI, IL State, S IL or MO State. Those would likely be triggers for NDSU. I would expect any decision to go FBS to be done alone (or following one of the conf mates), hoping for a MAC invite.

In the ncaa's agreement, it is a requirement that a new nickname is selected, within given timeframe as I understand it. School will not be allowed to continue indefinitely without a new nickname per ncaa policy and legal agreement. While many would like to stay without a nickname, that isn't a long range option.

In the eyes of the ncaa, you "cooperated" like a bratty, back-talking 5 year old, or a suspect taken in custody who is cooperating with authorities. I guess it depends on how you define "cooperation".

Why would NDSU be worried? NDSU actually cooperates with the ncaa unlike some other schools, and Emmert had a lot of positivity regarding the Bison in Frisco. I'm sure the athletic department had the opportunity to rub elbows with Emmert and the ncaa folks the past two years.

How big of a payday would one get from SMU? Maybe 250-300, but that's probably about it, and you just paid 100 to get it . . . and you are throwing away at top 5 FCS matchup. Really, after 8 years of extensions, you pull this BS? That payout doesn't seem like its worth it to get trashed by the media and message boards for being chicken !@#$. You are defending this move?

Yes, NDSU will honor the return trip . . .always have, always will. Some sign contracts honestly, and some pull this kinda stuff in the 11th hour. It was clearly more about avoiding a loss than anything else for MSU. Don't really want to hear their BS reasons for backing out.

I think the reason why the football game has not been played, is that Taylor is hoping to schedule the UND game on-line, but is waiting for the details from Bismarck on the on-line football funding formula. This on-line football should be a win-win for both schools, with a lower guarantee and no travel. Faison has stated that he is on board with on-line football and that the formulas are favorable for UND as he indicated, "The costs are right to get this thing done, and frankly it might be a lot easier to get a win. They love us in Bismarck, but if the state folks will throw NDSU a bone to get this thing done, I don't see any harm in that. We will just push to reassert our funding advantage in the next session. LIke I said, they love us in Bismarck!". This on-line game is meeting with mix reviews from Bismarck where some are not eager to re-addess the football funding formula which currently gives a andvantage to und/on-line football credit hour. However, when pressed for comment, the chancelor of the NDSBHE concurred, "If there is a way to correct the formula and make this thing happen, it is our obligation to do so. Competition, it lifts us up, and makes us accountable, and frankly a little equity wouldn't hurt." When asked if playing UND on-line was a good way to re-start the rivalry with UND, NDSU's Gene Taylor smiled and reiterated, "All comers . . . Anyone, anytime, anywhere . . . even in cyberspace. On-line football helps to create a great college experience". It appears the game could happen in 2013.

It doesn't seem strange to you that Mis charges are handed out to 5 guys because of an underage situation, and no MIPs are issued to the minors involved? Was that part of a plea bargain? That seem strange to me. Usually you would have both, and the players with the MIPs would not be discinplined significantly or suspended for a 1st offense, but at least it would be in the public record. I would like to see a media story or the university expalin what happened. Right now that situation seems very fishy, and Faison is far from out front on this issue. Obvioulsy he did not want it known that the majority of the team was involved. That's how it appears.

It looks like Faison has all of gFU's bases covered, should anything happen anywhere in the university for the next 1-2 years, with his comforting blanket statements that something more could happen if warranted. It's very soothing, comforting and out front of him. If I was the media, I would just leave it alone, he is clearly in charge of the situation, and out front. What is strange to me is how 5 players get Misdimeanor charges for contributing to minors, yet the remainder of the team that were all underage and the specific reason for these charges being filed just walk away with nothing. Did the police not show up, and the players just volunteered for a Class A Mis because Faison wanted to get out in front of it? Or did the police look the other way with a slough of MIPs when the university got involved? How does that happen? Why didn't the AD get out in front of the the underage situation and suspend them also? I'm sure it is being handled with the university discinplinary process, or maybe it will be handled at a future date where "somthing more could happen". These are questions that would be printed in the NDSU situation, but are off limits at gFU where the media doesn't touch it.

Yes, they got way out in front of it. Far enough in front of it that they prevented all the underage players from receiving Minors, as they obviously should have in this situation.

You won't see any specifics on the ndsu or the und university discipline processes, they are internal and protected by any university. NDSU at least said that they players would be disciplined by that process, while I did not remember reading that in the paper in september up north, and I haven't seen any info since then. What games were the und players suspended for, the Manitoba and U-18 exhibitions? Say it isn't so, that's embarrassing if it was. That would be like ndsu suspending players for the green v gold game.

As far as we know from a media reporting standpoint, there was somthing that happened involving alcohol and underage drinking, and five players got suspended for 1 game. We had Zero knowledge of any charges filed or that any university discipline would occur other than game suspensions. Suspensions occurred at start of the season to limited impact to players and team, because winning is all that really matters, and boys will be boys. Wasn't it bascially a preseason or non-con game where the suspensions occurred? Please enlighten me on the specific game. Also, according to the reporting, no MIPs were issued to all the underage players involved in the situation, just the 5 players who were of legal age who were suspended. What is up with that, did the cops just look the other way? In NDSU's situation, we had a suspension (1 player for #1 vs #3), university discipline process discussed openly in a press conf, legal charges filed (at the same level as the und players), and medial stories at the start, the middle, the end and still happening with local, state "and" regional papers. And shockingly, people on this board smugly criticize the ndsu situation as not being treated seriously enough and see the lack of media coverage in the UND situation as no big deal that it was reported in September when no knowledge of legal charges were known. I guess these types of situations are only important and get media coverage when DI championship teams are involved. I guess UND hockey is not the biggest deal in ND or the region.

If the game could be played in a manner of mutual respect, ala the SDSU games in DI, then I would be for it. However, anything NDSU/UND at this point for FB will be toxic. There will be editorial after editorial leading up to and following a game, and I'm not sure it worth it, for either school at this point. I'm not sure why some people think NDSU is scared to play UND. NDSU expects to pound MT State in Fargo next year, so why with NDSU think they wouldn't do the same to UND? From an NDSU perspective, there is not a concern about the outcome, it's more related to giving a team you recruit against positive exposure. When UND decided not to play NDSU, the problem wasn't that they canceled competition, it was "how" they did it. They did so with timing and comment that were very disrespectful to the people at NDSU. Also, next year NDSU has an FBS top 25 and an FCS to 5 in the Non-Conf schedule. I don't think they are ducking competition.