Conference Realignments - Take 2

[jdub27]

29 minutes ago, nodak651 said:

Not sure.  Also not sure why this info isn't super easy to find!

Here's an article prior to the 2022 tournament, where the MWC eventually went 0-4.
https://nevadasportsnet.com/news/reporters/how-much-money-will-mountain-west-make-off-this-years-ncaa-tournament-it-depends

They then picked up 8 units in 2023.
https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2023/march-madness-2023-unit-payouts-1234717368/

So they are currently sitting at 21 units, which will pay out about $7.2 million to the MWC in 2024. 

2017 - 1
2018 - 4
2019 - 2
2020 - Canceled 
2021 - 2 
2022 - 4 
2023 - 8

[The Sicatoka]

The PAC: where they are and how they got there

https://sports.yahoo.com/whats-next-in-college-sports-conference-realignment-heres-where-the-shaky-landscape-stands-030444592.html?guccounter=1 

[andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!!]

https://www.grandforksherald.com/sports/college/und-determined-to-be-aligned-with-dakota-schools-even-if-it-means-fbs-jump

[The Sicatoka]

25 minutes ago, andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!! said:

https://www.grandforksherald.com/sports/college/und-determined-to-be-aligned-with-dakota-schools-even-if-it-means-fbs-jump

 

That's it; that's the reply. 

[SIOUXFAN97]

"We see ourselves as being a leading Division-I conference," he added.

come on fenton...........

[jdub27]

12 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

 

That's it; that's the reply. 

Guess they finally said the quiet part out loud.
Anyone paying attention has seen all of the small (and not so small) things that have been going on both in front and behind the scenes to get to this point.
Given the volatility, the best plan is not to figure out what your next step is but to put yourself in a position to be able to react to the constant change. 

Now for the really quiet part that hasn't been said out loud.....Of the 4 Dakota schools, UND is the only one who is currently sitting in a position to meet all new FBS requirements without significant restructuring or increasing scholarships to meet the minimum financial aid numbers, which could mean adding additional sports for at least 1 or 2 of the Dakota schools from either a pure numbers standpoint or a Title IX perspective (or both). That is a much bigger deal than people understand.

[SIOUXFAN97]

2 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

Guess they finally said the quiet part out loud.
Anyone paying attention has seen all of the small (and not so small) things that have been going on both in front and behind the scenes to get to this point.
Given the volatility, the best plan is not to figure out what your next step is but to put yourself in a position to be able to react to the constant change. 

Now for the really quiet part that hasn't been said out loud.....Of the 4 Dakota schools, UND is the only one who is currently sitting in a position to meet all new FBS requirements without significant restructuring or increasing scholarships to meet the minimum financial aid numbers, which could mean adding additional sports for at least 1 or 2 of the Dakota schools from either a pure numbers standpoint or a Title IX perspective (or both). That is a much bigger deal than people understand.

dm izzo please...........send screenshots!

[SWSiouxMN]

8 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

Guess they finally said the quiet part out loud.
Anyone paying attention has seen all of the small (and not so small) things that have been going on both in front and behind the scenes to get to this point.
Given the volatility, the best plan is not to figure out what your next step is but to put yourself in a position to be able to react to the constant change. 

Now for the really quiet part that hasn't been said out loud.....Of the 4 Dakota schools, UND is the only one who is currently sitting in a position to meet all new FBS requirements without significant restructuring or increasing scholarships to meet the minimum financial aid numbers, which could mean adding additional sports for at least 1 or 2 of the Dakota schools from either a pure numbers standpoint or a Title IX perspective (or both). That is a much bigger deal than people understand.

Thanks Kennedy...

<no snark, legitamently... Thanks Kennedy>

[The Sicatoka]

I looked more deeply into the proposed FBS rules (16 sports, 90% grants given, $6M, 210 grants) to move up and UND and NDSU's situations ... observations ... 

UND and NDSU,

- in the sports UND plays they can offer 115.6 mens and 85 womens grants (per NCAA limits). That's 200.6 and 57.6% male. UND's EADA data says they're giving out 199.9 grants. That's so close to 200.6 that dare we say "fully funded". And Knight says that's $5.94M in grants ($29.7k per). 

- in the sports NDSU plays they can offer 114.7 mens and 78 womens grants (per NCAA limits). That's 191.7 and 59.8% male. NDSU fans say they're fully funded and for this analysis we accept that as fact, 191.7 grants. And Knight says that's $5M in grants ($26k per). 

Both offer at least 16 sports (UND is 17). All good.
Fully funded at 90%. All good. 

$6M?

UND is there, and with Alston is way over. If UND added 22 FBS grants their balance would go 61.8% male. Workable but would get scrutiny. 

For NDSU just add the FBS grants to get to $6M, yes? Um, no. 22 grants for FBS means 22*$26k for about $575k. But that totals to still under $6M ($5.575M). And 22 FB makes for a 64% male grant dollars split. That'll get some notice. So, just add women's grants, right? Where? They're fully funded. To add women's grants they'd have to add a women's sport. So, $1M more on grants and women's grants to fund (i.e. add a women's sport). 

One more, SDSU:

- In the sports SDSU plays they can offer 124.6 mens and 106 womens grants (per NCAA limits). That's 230.6 and 54% male. SDSU fans say they're fully funded and for this analysis we accept that as fact, 230.6 grants. And Knight says that's just $4.26M in grants ($18.5k per). Those are small numbers.

More importantly, that's 19 sports. Not sustainable and be FBS for them, but may be dollars for grants if you cut programs. (SDSU's normal budget is very tight. SD doesn't give USD/SDSU near the resources compared to ND.) If I were SDSU AD I'd drop S&D both sides and keep WEquest but I don't know their books. 

SDSU summary: Find almost $2M(!) annual budget and reshuffle the sports lineup down. 

$5M FBS entry fee? Same problem for all. 

 

 

Didn't do full analysis on Montana schools, however, ...

Each only offer 15 NCAA sports (Rodeo at MSU is not NCAA). Each would have to add a sport. 

UM is $5.5M; MSU is $5.89M for grants at this time. 

 

DISCLAIMER: No one proofed my data but I gave sources. 

[SIOUXFAN97]

21 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

I looked more deeply into the proposed FBS rules (16 sports, 90% grants given, $6M, 210 grants) to move up and UND and NDSU's situations ... observations ... 

UND and NDSU,

- in the sports UND plays they can offer 115.6 mens and 85 womens grants (per NCAA limits). That's 200.6 and 57.6% male. UND's EADA data says they're giving out 199.9 grants. That's so close to 200.6 that dare we say "fully funded". And Knight says that's $5.94M in grants ($29.7k per). 

- in the sports NDSU plays they can offer 114.7 mens and 78 womens grants (per NCAA limits). That's 191.7 and 59.8% male. NDSU fans say they're fully funded and for this analysis we accept that as fact, 191.7 grants. And Knight says that's $5M in grants ($26k per). 

Both offer at least 16 sports (UND is 17). All good.
Fully funded at 90%. All good. 

$6M?

UND is there, and with Alston is way over. If UND added 22 FBS grants their balance would go 61.8% male. Workable but would get scrutiny. 

For NDSU just add the FBS grants to get to $6M, yes? Um, no. 22 grants for FBS means 22*$26k for about $575k. But that totals to still under $6M ($5.575M). And 22 FB makes for a 64% male grant dollars split. That'll get some notice. So, just add women's grants, right? Where? They're fully funded. To add women's grants they'd have to add a women's sport. So, $1M more on grants and women's grants to fund (i.e. add a women's sport). 

One more, SDSU:

- In the sports SDSU plays they can offer 124.6 mens and 106 womens grants (per NCAA limits). That's 230.6 and 54% male. SDSU fans say they're fully funded and for this analysis we accept that as fact, 230.6 grants. And Knight says that's just $4.26M in grants ($18.5k per). Those are small numbers.

More importantly, that's 19 sports. Not sustainable and be FBS for them, but may be dollars for grants if you cut programs. (SDSU's normal budget is very tight. SD doesn't give USD/SDSU near the resources compared to ND.) If I were SDSU AD I'd drop S&D both sides and keep WEquest but I don't know their books. 

SDSU summary: Find almost $2M(!) annual budget and reshuffle the sports lineup down. 

$5M FBS entry fee? Same problem for all. 

 

 

Didn't do full analysis on Montana schools, however, ...

Each only offer 15 NCAA sports (Rodeo at MSU is not NCAA). Each would have to add a sport. 

UM is $5.5M; MSU is $5.89M for grants at this time. 

 

DISCLAIMER: No one proofed my data but I gave sources. 

send to kolpack

[SWSiouxMN]

Strap in

 

[The Sicatoka]

Gee ... Herder's tweet reads a lot like my 4-4-2 prediction ... 

[SIOUXFAN97]

big10 wants virginia and unc bad

they will wait to see how fsu's lawsuit goes....

then.........boom goes the dynamite

[FSSD]

56 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

I looked more deeply into the proposed FBS rules (16 sports, 90% grants given, $6M, 210 grants) to move up and UND and NDSU's situations ... observations ... 

UND and NDSU,

- in the sports UND plays they can offer 115.6 mens and 85 womens grants (per NCAA limits). That's 200.6 and 57.6% male. UND's EADA data says they're giving out 199.9 grants. That's so close to 200.6 that dare we say "fully funded". And Knight says that's $5.94M in grants ($29.7k per). 

- in the sports NDSU plays they can offer 114.7 mens and 78 womens grants (per NCAA limits). That's 191.7 and 59.8% male. NDSU fans say they're fully funded and for this analysis we accept that as fact, 191.7 grants. And Knight says that's $5M in grants ($26k per). 

Both offer at least 16 sports (UND is 17). All good.
Fully funded at 90%. All good. 

$6M?

UND is there, and with Alston is way over. If UND added 22 FBS grants their balance would go 61.8% male. Workable but would get scrutiny. 

For NDSU just add the FBS grants to get to $6M, yes? Um, no. 22 grants for FBS means 22*$26k for about $575k. But that totals to still under $6M ($5.575M). And 22 FB makes for a 64% male grant dollars split. That'll get some notice. So, just add women's grants, right? Where? They're fully funded. To add women's grants they'd have to add a women's sport. So, $1M more on grants and women's grants to fund (i.e. add a women's sport). 

One more, SDSU:

- In the sports SDSU plays they can offer 124.6 mens and 106 womens grants (per NCAA limits). That's 230.6 and 54% male. SDSU fans say they're fully funded and for this analysis we accept that as fact, 230.6 grants. And Knight says that's just $4.26M in grants ($18.5k per). Those are small numbers.

More importantly, that's 19 sports. Not sustainable and be FBS for them, but may be dollars for grants if you cut programs. (SDSU's normal budget is very tight. SD doesn't give USD/SDSU near the resources compared to ND.) If I were SDSU AD I'd drop S&D both sides and keep WEquest but I don't know their books. 

SDSU summary: Find almost $2M(!) annual budget and reshuffle the sports lineup down. 

$5M FBS entry fee? Same problem for all. 

 

 

Didn't do full analysis on Montana schools, however, ...

Each only offer 15 NCAA sports (Rodeo at MSU is not NCAA). Each would have to add a sport. 

UM is $5.5M; MSU is $5.89M for grants at this time. 

 

DISCLAIMER: No one proofed my data but I gave sources. 

Couldn't UND actually cut a sport - Golf (M).  It would improve male percentage -10 participants and maybe up to 4.5 scholarships (not sure if they are fully funded).

[The Sicatoka]

54 minutes ago, FSSD said:

Couldn't UND actually cut a sport - Golf (M).  It would improve male percentage -10 participants and maybe up to 4.5 scholarships (not sure if they are fully funded).

That seems like an option, workable. 

EDIT:
You knew "4.5" men's golf grants. Interesting ... < giving you the side-eye > 
Quick math: (115.6 - 4.5 + 22) is 133.1M vs 85W ... 61% mens ... a little better ... 

[The Sicatoka]

1 hour ago, SIOUXFAN97 said:

send to kolpack

Kolpack matters because ... 

[SIOUXFAN97]

Just now, The Sicatoka said:

Kolpack matters because ... 

ummm........he lives in fargo.

imperial cass county (as siouxvolley used to say)

[The Sicatoka]

College FB in the west could become ... the merged PAC/MWC and the Big Sky. 

[SiouxHawkGuy]

4 hours ago, SIOUXFAN97 said:

dm izzo please...........send screenshots!

“But but but Fargo…. Look at all my trophies…” 

[nodakvindy]

8 hours ago, The Sicatoka said:

I looked more deeply into the proposed FBS rules (16 sports, 90% grants given, $6M, 210 grants) to move up and UND and NDSU's situations ... observations ... 

UND and NDSU,

- in the sports UND plays they can offer 115.6 mens and 85 womens grants (per NCAA limits). That's 200.6 and 57.6% male. UND's EADA data says they're giving out 199.9 grants. That's so close to 200.6 that dare we say "fully funded". And Knight says that's $5.94M in grants ($29.7k per). 

- in the sports NDSU plays they can offer 114.7 mens and 78 womens grants (per NCAA limits). That's 191.7 and 59.8% male. NDSU fans say they're fully funded and for this analysis we accept that as fact, 191.7 grants. And Knight says that's $5M in grants ($26k per). 

$6M?

UND is there, and with Alston is way over. If UND added 22 FBS grants their balance would go 61.8% male. Workable but would get scrutiny. 

- In the sports SDSU plays they can offer 124.6 mens and 106 womens grants (per NCAA limits). That's 230.6 and 54% male. SDSU fans say they're fully funded and for this analysis we accept that as fact, 230.6 grants. And Knight says that's just $4.26M in grants ($18.5k per). 

 

DISCLAIMER: No one proofed my data but I gave sources. 

I think this is all really solid analysis but these numbers jump out at me. I have diffuse believing a grant to SDSU is only valued at 60 percent of that of UND. I wonder if the same figure is being is being used. I checked on US News college rankings and the 29.6K figure quoted matches the all in total (tuition, room, board, etc ), but the 18.5K figure for SDSU matches the cost after federal aid, so don't think those was apples to apples.

The All in figure for SDSU is 28K which seems reasonable. So I would guess they would be OK on the 6 million and if they aren't and the other figure is what should be used then UND is only at 16.7K so they would be well short. I believe the former is likely the correct figure.

That said if the 4 4 2 result occurs, and that's seeming more likely, I feel like the door has probably closed for move ups as current leagues will be full and have zero motivation to let anyone else into the party. 

[Sioux>Bison]

19 minutes ago, nodakvindy said:

I think this is all really solid analysis but these numbers jump out at me. I have diffuse believing a grant to SDSU is only valued at 60 percent of that of UND. I wonder if the same figure is being is being used. I checked on US News college rankings and the 29.6K figure quoted matches the all in total (tuition, room, board, etc ), but the 18.5K figure for SDSU matches the cost after federal aid, so don't think those was apples to apples.

The All in figure for SDSU is 28K which seems reasonable. So I would guess they would be OK on the 6 million and if they aren't and the other figure is what should be used then UND is only at 16.7K so they would be well short. I believe the former is likely the correct figure.

That said if the 4 4 2 result occurs, and that's seeming more likely, I feel like the door has probably closed for move ups as current leagues will be full and have zero motivation to let anyone else into the party. 

Depends if the PAC merges with all of the MWC or if some teams get left in the MWC. The MWC might be left for some FCS teams find a home in the empty conference.

[jdub27]

7 hours ago, SiouxHawkGuy said:

“But but but Fargo…. Look at all my trophies…” 

You said the other thing out loud. They are really cool and I really wish we had them, but they don't mean a damn thing..... 

[Bison Dan]

4 hours ago, jdub27 said:

You said the other thing out loud. They are really cool and I really wish we had them, but they don't mean a damn thing..... 

What does mean something is if any FBS conference wants you.  No one knows about you guys or wants you.  Get over it you're on the outside looking in for any conference invite. It's just a fact.  

[homer]

1 hour ago, Bison Dan said:

What does mean something is if any FBS conference wants you.  No one knows about you guys or wants you.  Get over it you're on the outside looking in for any conference invite. It's just a fact.  

I’m going to guess we both have the same number of invites right now.  

[The Sicatoka]

1 hour ago, Bison Dan said:

What does mean something is if any FBS conference wants you.  No one knows about you guys or wants you.  Get over it you're on the outside looking in for any conference invite. It's just a fact.  

On field success is one small factor.

How's your budget; can you support the "standard of living" of the new conference? Do you "look" like the other members of the group (you are the company you keep). Do you bring as much to the table as you consume? Are your facilities to conference standards (age, capacity, broadcast capabilities)? What else does your institution offer the potential peers beyond athletics? (The B1G went after USC/UCLA for their research capabilities as anything.) 

And the one everyone overlooks: It's a people business. Who do you know and who do they know. 

Conferences are as much about the off-field institutional relationships as the on-field games. 

If you believe it's "on field" only you have no idea about the business that is college athletics.