darell1976 Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 http://usatoday30.us...garin/fbc12.htm Tier I: 1-7 Tier II: 8-16 Tier III: The rest A lot can and will change of course.... Seems about right. Of course certain teams outside of those numbers like in the Southland(SFA, SHSU) would be in tier II.
Shawn-O Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Seems about right. Of course certain teams outside of those numbers like in the Southland(SFA, SHSU) would be in tier II. Yeah, some gray area with the Mountain West and Southland. Surprisingly, the Ohio Valley comes in ahead of Southland right now. Oh, and I'd like to see the UND-NDSU series resume with games every two years.
darell1976 Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Yeah, some gray area with the Mountain West and Southland. Surprisingly, the Ohio Valley comes in ahead of Southland right now. Oh, and I'd like to see the UND-NDSU series resume with games every two years. I wonder if they did go to 3 tiers if conferences would merge.
zonadub Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 NDSU fans have enjoyed different experiences in I-AA than in D2, and no I'm not stuck in the past. If I'm stuck anywhere it is in the present time. I'm stuck here trying to get back to a better place in time. not sure I agree with all this, but will agree that "new & improved" is not necessarily improved 1
homer Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? Even with your explanation you are describing a situation that causes a leveling of the playing field. Here is a less complex example. If the FBS decided they would cut scholarships across the board, some guys that would have gone to LSU or Alabama would end up at Minnesota let's say. Would Minnesota have a worse, better, or same chance of beating LSU with players that were in previous years good enough to be on LSU's roster, but due to scholarship cuts ended up at Minnesota. Take the last nine scholarship players off the best teams and they are better than the last nine scholarship teams off of the weaker teams. So you literally take the worst nine scholarship players off of Minnesota's roster and replace them with the worst nine on LSU's roster. Who gets better and who gets worse? Scholarship reductions hurt the best teams the most and at that point in history NDSU was head and shoulders above everyone else. Your assuming that LSU and Alabama keep getting the most talented players every year. In your example that may be the case and that would justify your reasoning. In regards to NDSU and the scholorship reductions, they didn't.
JohnboyND7 Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Your assuming that LSU and Alabama keep getting the most talented players every year. In your example that may be the case and that would justify your reasoning. In regards to NDSU and the scholorship reductions, they didn't. Cycling happens as well, but generally dominant programs will continue to do well. Oklahoma, Alabama, etc. tend to be good at their level similar to NDSU has been doing since the 60's. If you lowered the scholarship limits, they would be pulled back to the pack. Lowering scholarship limits will ALWAYS be bad for the teams that are dominating the sport as they gain nothing by it. They only lose. Some of them may manage to continue to be great, but lowering the scholarship limits sure as heck are doing nothing to help them. If they lowered hockey scholarships 25-50%, would you see a big change in hockey? Yep. Teams like Bemidji and Mankato would start to get a lot of players UND and Minnesota were getting because they are getting money to go play at the smaller school.
The Sicatoka Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 http://usatoday30.us...garin/fbc12.htm Tier I: 1-7 Tier II: 8-16 Tier III: The rest A lot can and will change of course.... When you look at that list of 1-26, there really are naturally occurring breaks in average and mean between #7 and #8 and between #16 and #17.
Bison06 Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Your assuming that LSU and Alabama keep getting the most talented players every year. In your example that may be the case and that would justify your reasoning. In regards to NDSU and the scholorship reductions, they didn't. As a general rule, teams that are winning will get the first pick of the litter in recruiting battles. Doesn't mean they get the best players, because recruiting is more art than science, but they get the ones they want which in general means they are better. I understand systems and coaching philosophies play a role in the types of players a team will recruit, but cutting scholarships definitely brings the bad teams up and pulls the good teams back to the pack. 1
UNDColorado Posted October 18, 2012 Posted October 18, 2012 Athletic budgets would also be taken into account. Teams like Idaho, who has a similar budget to UND, cannot compete with teams who have 50 million plus budgets. I think Texas is pushing the 100 M mark!
The Phoenix Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 Your assuming that LSU and Alabama keep getting the most talented players every year. In your example that may be the case and that would justify your reasoning. In regards to NDSU and the scholorship reductions, they didn't. Man, I just can't resist, but what percentage of times do you think a player that has sholie offers from both UND and NDSU goes to UND over NDSU? It has to be close to 50% for your point to have any merit.
homer Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 Man, I just can't resist, but what percentage of times do you think a player that has sholie offers from both UND and NDSU goes to UND over NDSU? It has to be close to 50% for your point to have any merit. Depends which fanbase you ask. We already know how you'd answer and its not even February yet.
JohnboyND7 Posted October 19, 2012 Posted October 19, 2012 Man, I just can't resist, but what percentage of times do you think a player that has sholie offers from both UND and NDSU goes to UND over NDSU? It has to be close to 50% for your point to have any merit. Depends on the year I suppose.
WYOBISONMAN Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 Well, that's your opinion and youi're certainly entitled to it. Personally, I enjoyed the old Sioux football games vs. the likes of UNC and UNO way more than any of this I-AA stuff that we've been seeing lately. Then go cheer for St. Cloud. I doubt too many of the UND fans would be shook up if you did that. Hey......D2 all the way. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. !@#$ Dave.......you guys have a conference game against MONTANA today.......and have a decent shot at beating them. I don't believe that a game against Mankato is that much more exciting than having Montana at home. Seriously......................... 1
WYOBISONMAN Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 So you would seriously rather see UND playing the likes of St. Cloud or Mankato today? I just can't imagine why.........
Let'sGoHawks! Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 "Damn you Thomas Edison, gaslights were better!" -DaveK 1
WYOBISONMAN Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 Dave......they play a lot more interesting teams than Valpo......but.....I would rather watch that than Pitt State. Pitt State is a no name school. Are you not going to the game? I am even going to watch this one. I just don't believe a true fan of NCAA football would prefer NCC games to what you have going on today at the Alerus.
Let'sGoHawks! Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 Oh for f**k's sake, I said change is not always better. I didn't say it is never better, so please try not to twist my statements into something that they were never intended to be. Is that too difficult to comprehend? It really amazes me how dense some people are. Wow, just incredible really when you stop and think about it. (shakes head in disbelief) My statement captures how many people perceive you. Did you answer wyo's question? Do you really think D2 is better than FCS?
WYOBISONMAN Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 Yes, Pitt State is a no name school. But so is NDSU, so is UND, so is Montana, so is Northern Iowa, and so on. I-AA, like D2, is made up of no name schools. I-AA is merely a glorified version of D2. But at least in the D2 days we had a conference made up of schools that are all located within a few hours from each other for the most part. It made for some great rivalries that we just don't have and never will have in I-AA. No, I'm not going to the game. I'm watching Michigan/Michigan State on Big 10 Network. I am a true fan of NCAA football and I liked the old NCC days way more than what is currently being played at the Alerus. Sorry I don't fit into your personal definition of what a fan of NCAA football should be. OK Dave.......have fun.
Let'sGoHawks! Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 OK Dave.......have fun. This is where I usually say: "ohhhh, davek" followed by a
WYOBISONMAN Posted October 20, 2012 Posted October 20, 2012 This is where I usually say: "ohhhh, davek" followed by a Well......he isn't an alumus....so the river is a mile wide, but an inch deep.
JohnboyND7 Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 Yes, Pitt State is a no name school. But so is NDSU, so is UND, so is Montana, so is Northern Iowa, and so on. I-AA, like D2, is made up of no name schools. I-AA is merely a glorified version of D2. But at least in the D2 days we had a conference made up of schools that are all located within a few hours from each other for the most part. It made for some great rivalries that we just don't have and never will have in I-AA. No, I'm not going to the game. I'm watching Michigan/Michigan State on Big 10 Network. I am a true fan of NCAA football and I liked the old NCC days way more than what is currently being played at the Alerus. Sorry I don't fit into your personal definition of what a fan of NCAA football should be. NDSU, UND, Montana, and Northern Iowa have a significantly larger amount of recognition and athletic budgets in comparison to Pitt State. NDSU has SDSU, USD, and UNI all within a 2.5-8 hour drive. UND has to do some flying, but Montana and Montana State still make for some fun competition in comparison to the old NCC. Important to know when you have outgrown something, or in the case of the Dakota Schools, when something shrinks to the point it is too small for you. When teams like Moorhead State, U of Mary, and Minot State are D-II, it is very important to make sure that NDSU and UND are NOT D-II. Just so happens NDSU got a head start on that. 1
JohnboyND7 Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 NDSU, UND, Montana and Northern Iowa all have significantly smaller amounts of recognition and athletic budgets in comparison to the likes of Notre Dame, Michigan, USC, etc... The discrepancy between the high profile D1 schools and the top I-AA schools is so much more than the discrepancy between the top I-AA schools and the top D2 schools. I-AA just isn't the big deal that some people around here so desperately want to make it out to be. I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt by that fact, but I didn't make it that way so don't shoot the messenger. Of course Notre Dame, USC, etc. are going to be a big deal in comparison to NDSU and UND. Money, fans, history, and other factors lead to that. You are telling me that you'd rather watch UND play against St. Cloud in front of a few thousand than against Montana in front of 25,000? Normally I'd say you are entitled to your own opinion but at this point your opinion is just wrong and there is no other way around it. 1
Jheria Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 Okay, so people have an inaccurate perception of me. Thank you for clearing that up. The one underlying theme in peoples perception of you is you. Not everyone else is wrong and you are always right. Look in the mirror and you just might find that what everyone elses idea of you is correct. 1
Jheria Posted October 21, 2012 Posted October 21, 2012 NDSU, UND, Montana and Northern Iowa all have significantly smaller amounts of recognition and athletic budgets in comparison to the likes of Notre Dame, Michigan, USC, etc... The discrepancy between the high profile D1 schools and the top I-AA schools is so much more than the discrepancy between the top I-AA schools and the top D2 schools. I-AA just isn't the big deal that some people around here so desperately want to make it out to be. I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt by that fact, but I didn't make it that way so don't shoot the messenger. You just don't get it. It is a big deal here in North Dakota (where you choose to live) so get used to it. Hahhahahahahahahaha
Recommended Posts