Herd

The viloations look pretty similar to me between the two schools, unless this is viewed as a hazing event, in which case the UND situation would be a lot more serious, and some of these guys would be sweating their careers. How you can get busted in a sitatuon like this and have zero Minors, zero contributing to Minors, zero arrests or charges filed is a friggin miracle. They either had a guilty conscience the next day and turned themselves in (haha), or this was a neat trick by the GFPD. Is this the new definition of "transparency". On the NDSU side, we are talking about a large group of people (there is certainly some safety in numbrs in this case), and an agency that is likely very complicit in these charges due to owning the process and training on the procedures. A serious situation, yes, but if you think that these charges won't be plead down below the current level, your an idiot. These players will all likely get 1 game suspensions and some service requirements to appease the sharks, and that's about it. If it would make you happy and shut you up (saving another 60 pages), maybe I'd vote for suspending them right now before any of us even really know anything about how this will play out like happened in the a$$ kissing move for public consumption up north. Can NDSU also pick the worst team on schedule PVA&M for the suspensions?

Transparency . . . Like the Arres . . . , like the Misdimea . . . , like the charg . . . , like Contributing to Min . . . . . . I mean the suspensions. Ya, that was great transparency on the suspensions, there it is, boom, totally transparent. What are they being suspended for again? Well who knows, there wasn't any transparency on that part of it. So far they have been suspended ONE GAME for a "Party". Yes, very nice. Does two "Parties" and some transparency get you an entire season? Time to end all "Parties" at UND. That must have been one hell of a "Party". UND sure showed NDSU a thing or two, now that's text book tranparency. Does the GFPD also practice tranparency. Transparency is great. We should all practice this high level of tranparency, so everything is completely . . . well, Transparent.

Eight bison football player charged . . . . down the field and kicked the snot out of Colorado State. That is all that matters until the legal process plays out. Your witch hunt is over, the legal system will take care of it. Isn't there anything else interesting with und sports to talk about here?

82 . . . is this thread a beacon of hope for you? If you can't beat them, take them down seems to be your mentality. I'm pretty sure ndsu will deal with this situation appropriately, and I'm pretty sure you'll keep this thread going for another 54 pages if you can.

That's where you are wrong, the school will deal with the specific legal results . . . not message board speculation or media article suggestions about what might have happened. I suppose you think that Montana should assume that JJ is a convicted rapist? That is what you are suggesting here, you are assuming that they have been convicted of a Class A Mis, and they have not . . .they have been charged only. In JJ's case, you remove him from the team pending the legal actions, but he is not a convicted rapist. In the bison situation, the charges are significnantly less serious, and you could argue that punishment should wait until the legal process has played out. But, you don't punish at the level of charges, you would open yourself up to potenial legal action on the other side of the issue. Charges vs. conviction . . . big difference.

Fair enough, probably a good approach. I think the kicker for the coach and ad is that they are being advised that the case will likely be plead at a lesser level than the current charge . . . thus the stance of letting this thing play out. Even if there is a lesser Plea below a Class A Mis, at least a one game suspension is likely, so why not do it up front.

So, what would you do under the same circumstance with 8 und football players? It sounds like you have all the answers. So tell me, seriously tell me? If this get pleaded down to a minimal charge, they will likely get a game or two suspension, but that will likely occur after their case is heard. Would you run your und players out of town or kick them out of school? Tell me what you would do to 8 und football players in the same circumstance? Sure, the media and boards like this are going to speculate on the legal outcome, but all the coach and ad really have to deal with the legal facts which are not yet clear, not the whining media and fans on other boards. But, please carry on and try to make heads roll, I wouldn't expect anything less. I think this situation is really stupid, and that discipline is likely warranted at some point for this fraud. But it not the kind of situation that warrants immediate expulsion from the team or suspension. It's the kind of thing you let play out and you react to the facts. There are certain violations that warrant immediate reaction to get a player off the team, this is not one of them in my opinion. You react after the case has been heard. I think it would be handled that way on nearly any college campus.

The NCAA is funded by the basketball tournament. The NCAA doesn't exist if the top 5 conferences pull out of the NCAA. That simply cannot and will not happen. The NCAA will hold onto college basketball, they have to. If there is a hydrid level 2, then conferences as we know them will be torn limb from limb, including the BSC and the MVFC. That's all that college footall needs is something like that at the lower DI level, it would completely ruin the financial situation for the lower FBS. If the top of FBS doesn't play the lower level of FBS many schools will drop football before they play at the 2nd level. Do you really understand the impact of what your are saying? It will be Idaho everywhere . . . it would be like NDSU being forced to play DII, the fan base would dry up. It would be worse than that for may FBS teams.

Premise 1: The top 60 schools are going to pull out of the NCAA. Right, schools are going to pull out of the NCAA when the NCAA sponsors the championships for 95% of their 20+ sports. Not likely at all. Do they really want to find a new organization to conduct a championship for women's softball or men's soccer? Is the NCAA going to allow football to be pulled out of the NCAA, while letting the school be a member for all other sports? Premise 2: The Big Sky and the MWC are going to complete for a championship in teir two when the Big Sky sponsors 63 scholarship and the MWC sponsors 85 scholarships, without the Big Sky schools investing $4-5 million, or the MWC dropping down to the current FCS level. Really, you think that is going to happen? Teams may jump up and down in levels, but your can't merge FCS and FBS schools in the same championship without major problems . . . not going to happen.

Johnny . . . what is the Scholarship Level in your BCS group? How many scholarships do they offer in the FBS?

John . . . the BCS is 5 top Bowls Games each year, a Playoff Championship Series. 10 Teams play in the BCS each year (not 60 teams and 5 conferences), and Boise has been a regular in the BCS Series playing out of the WAC and the MWC. Now they have had nearly undefeated seasons and can't manage to get into the NC Game because they are not ranked high enough, but they have been a BCS regular. Do we have an understanding on these key points? I feel like we are not talking about the same thing. You talk like all the teams in your top five conferences play in BCS Bowls each year, and that's far from the case. It is 10 teams annually in the BCS. Boise will now have an automatic shot at the Big East's slot in the BCS (if the BE keeps it) by winning their conference, instead of sweating it out in the rankings, but they will also play a tougher schedule. So I'm not sure things are any better for Boise in the Big East, the jury is out on that one. Even going undefeated in the BE isn't likely to land them in the NC Game, much the same way that doing it in the MWC didn't either.

You are using Alabama as an example? Try using Minnesota, Indiana, Colorado, Texas Tech and Kentucky. They would all get 2 wins if they are lucky if all they play is the top 60 in the nation. Football would whither on the vine for many teams in the top conferences if they are not playing to lower conferences and FCS. Alabama is going to win 10-12 games regardless of who they play, bad example.

If the 120 teams in FBS football are going to split, then approx 60 will need to be at a different scholarship level than the other 60 schools. Please explain how that is going to happen? The top conferences in FBS football have tried to push the lower conferences out by basically doing everything possible to exclude them from the championship and taking the money, yet the bottom conferences remain at 85 scholarships and remain in FBS football. Fact is, the top conferences need the lower ones so they can get wins. Truth is, I don't see it ever splitting . . . tell me how it logically happens?

Sorry, but BCS is not a level of football in DI, it is a playoff championship. Some FBS conferences have auto bids to BCS games, thus some people say that some schools are BCS schools, but they should be careful in doing so. Any school in FBS football can play in a BCS game. So does that make them BCS too? The people that throw BCS around like it is a level of football . . . simply don't know what the hell they are talking about. That is the only way to explain it! Yes, it's hard for a team in the MWC, MAC, SB, or CUSA to play in a BCS game, but it's not impossible. It usually takes a top 10 ranking. The biggest problem with FBS football is that the smaller conferences have no automatic avenue to a playoff like FCS has. This needs to be corrected as I have stated over and over.

You don't have tiers in basketball because of the player quantity and the scholarship level. Basketball at its basic scholarship level is relatively affordable vs. football. The two scholarship levels in DI football constitute a 4-5 million dollar divide when you consider the cost for both the men's and women's scholarships. Thus the reasons for DI basketball being 1 level vs. 2 in football is obvious and logical.

FBS and BCS are not two levels of Division I college football. BCS stands for Bowl Championship Series, which crowns the FBS champion.

My opinions on how many tiers there are in college football doesn't have anything to do with NDSU, nothing. Can I make that any clearer to you. Thanks for switching sports on me also, as I was talking about DI basketball where I believe that the current single level setup is great. Football has two levels of Division I, and that's a good setup as I have stated . . . much better that the 3 tier scenario tha st many are suggesting. Would I want NDSU to be playing FBS football instead of FCS football, is that your question? No, I'm fine with playing DI FCS, that works good right now for NDSU. Would I want NDSU in DII where there is a greater chance of winning national championships? Hell no, that's a small minded loser mentality.

It would be a major slap to Idaho if they are forced to the FCS Big Sky, then Montana is asked to move up two years from now, and not Idaho. Ouch!

My opinons don't have anything to do with NDSU, but I see that yours clearly do. Watching schools of all sizes, levels and conferences compete for the DI title is what makes it must see TV. The first tournament game that I watched as a kid was Michigan State vs. Indiana State, but I know that your'd prefer that game never happened, because there is no way that Indiana State should be on the same court as a big school.

The alternative tournaments to the NCAAs are not a bad thing, but they are not your first goal obviously. Playing in those tournaments can be a great way to get experience for your team, develop players, and learn how to win. But getting an ncaa bid is clearly the goal, and a much higher profile achievement. What does that have to do with it?

Do you think that Montana would say yes to the MWC if they got an offer today? Is Montana a significantly better candidate than Idaho? Montana's offer to the MWC will likely come someday in the next 10 years, and it will be interesting to see if MSU and others get pulled along.

Fair enough, I respect your opinion. You'd obviously prefer a school be DII unless that had a good shot at winning the NC. That is fine, and I respect your opinion, although I completely disagree with you. I prefer the American ideology of striving for achievement, hard work, and accomplishing the seemingly impossible. I believe that the DI tournament is what is good about college basketball.

Even a one and done is an incredible experience for a school from a smaller conference in the BB tournament. Why would anyone in their right mind want to change the current setup, especially someone from a small DI school? I suppose you wish you could pay higher taxes, work 80 hours a week for the same pay, play in a 20 team DI hockey conf with DI's only, and you'd like to see ND goto 6 tiers in high school basketball. Am I getting warm?

Why would NMSU stick around for a WAC without FBS football or discussions with the Big Sky? If the Big Sky was going to "allocate" schools to the WAC in a joint venture to keep a western BB bid, there still won't be FBS football. So basically NMSU is gone for all practical purposes, trying to find a crack in the door somewhere else to keep football at the top level. It's too bad that there are not another 6 FCS schools in the west or central region willing to jump to the WAC for FBS football. If there were still 3 or 4 others schools beside NMSU and Idaho in WAC playing football, it would be more intriguing to consider. With Montana saying no to FBS football in the WAC, this thing is likely dead. Montana might have been able to pull 3 or 4 schools with them if they had bought in to the move.

Listening to XM91 Arute and blond UCLA guy, scholarships are not going up at the top level, so that narrows down the options for a 3 tier system. The biggest obstical to 3 tiers is the fact that you would have large proud FBS schools with perennial 2-10 records, where today they can get to 6 wins because they are playing the lower level FBS and FCS. NIck Saban could go 11-1 at Alabama playing only in the Upper FBS tier vs. the top 60, but he is in the minority with maybe 20 other schools. The rest of FBS doesn't want or need that situation, they would whither and die. What is good for Nick Saban and Alabama is not good for the great majority of FBS football schools. Again, just stating opinion. You will continue to hear talk about the popular topic of 3 tiers, but there is no good or easy roadmap as I see it. If someone can show me how it works, I am open to learning how it could happen and not hurt college football, even at the top level. The current FBS structure also benefits the Bowls system, which would basically go extinct with 60 teams in the top tier. After a playoff, there would be 10 bowls or less, unless you want to award bowls to teams with losing records. If there was a 3 tier system, Tier 2 would not be playing bowls, they'd want to play for a championship.