Hypothetical Conference for UND

[zonadub]

How about a truly northern conference of flagships and land-grants:

North Dakota

North Dakota State

Montana

Montana State

Idaho

Idaho State

Wyoming

Denver (non-football)

and either South Dakota/South Dakota State

or Colorado State/Utah State

9 teams all sports/10 teams non-football

[SIOUXFAN97]

after some more realingment with the pac-12, mwc,and BE how about this for some western fb

north division

montana

msu

und

idaho

utah state

sacramento state

portland state

south

wyoming

air force

csu

nevada

sjsu

nmsu

utep

[Herd]

I wish Nick Saban would give me credit next time he uses my ideas.

http://www.footballs...e-fbs-level#FCS

The top conferences in FBS (SEC, B12, B1G, P12, ACC) would need to tell the lower FBS conferences (MAC, MWC, BE, CUSA, SBelt), "We are no longer going to play you". Then the lower conferences would be on financial life support at 85 scholarships and would be forced maybe cut scholarships, separating them from the 85 scharship level of the top conferences. You simply cannot have three tiers if two of them are at the same scholarship level. How do you force the FBS lower tier away from the top? You can't, unless you don't play them. This might be OK for Alabama, USC, TX, MI . . . but Kentucky, Iowa St, Colorado, Indiana need the lower tier, or they whither and die vs the power teams.

Top Tier 85

Mid Tier 75? (Not likely)

Low Tier 63

How to you force teams not to sponsor 85 scholarships, because the top tier is not taking scholarships up, that much I can tell you. Right now, three tiers is a philosophical discussion at best. In the end, what's best for college football? I would contend that having an FBS championship that gives all FBS conference an opportunity is what's best. My 12 team playoff model that has 8 conference champs (bottom 4 champs of the 10 conferences would play-in for 2 spots) and 4 at large teams. This would greatly improve FBS excitement, lift up all of college football (not just the top 25), and would provide stability and balance. The top 4 seeds would get a 1st round bye, and would only need to win 3 games to be champs. (1 more than the current plus 1) In this scenario, Boise would not need to join a specific conference to have a road to a championship. At large teams would be selected via a formula, and could be top 4 and receive a 1st round bye.

A playoff like this would generate excitement to the level of ncaa BB, and it would benefit all conferences financially, not just the haves. I think that is necessary, and way more likely than 3 tiers, just my opinion. It might take 5-10 years, but eventually all conferences will have an avenue to the championship, like I have outlined.

[82SiouxGuy]

The top conferences in FBS (SEC, B12, B1G, P12, ACC) would need to tell the lower FBS conferences (MAC, MWC, BE, CUSA, SBelt), "We are no longer going to play you". Then the lower conferences would be on financial life support at 85 scholarships and would be forced maybe cut scholarships, separating them from the 85 scharship level of the top conferences. You simply cannot have three tiers if two of them are at the same scholarship level. How do you force the FBS lower tier away from the top? You can't, unless you don't play them.

Top Tier 85

Mid Tier 75?

Low Tier 63

How to you force teams not to sponsor 85 scholarships, because the top tier is not taking scholarships up, that much I can tell you. Right now, three tiers is a philosophical discussion at best.

It could happen if the BCS schools decide they want to keep their money. They can break away from the rest if they want. They basically set up their own championship didn't they? They have the ability to take the final step and just separate from the rest of Division I football. It actually wouldn't be hard for them to accomplish. The incentive would be money. They are the drawing cards in college football and television money would follow them wherever they decide to go. And if you don't believe that some of the key officials in BCS football have discussed the idea then you haven't been paying attention.

The rest would decide what they want to do. Would they cut scholarships? Perhaps. Would they realign? Perhaps. You're right, the discussion about changing the organization of college football is more of a philosophical discussion at this stage, especially for fans. But it could develop steam and change rather quickly, just like the changing of conferences. You are so hung up on the scholarship thing. Scholarship levels aren't set in stone. They could change those levels very easily. And those levels are not the only thing that potentially separate the different levels. There is nothing that would prevent a BCS group from having 85 scholarships and the top level of the rest from also having 85 scholarships. Just because they have the same number of scholarships doesn't prevent them from separating into different groups for playoff or championship competition. Open your mind.

[homer]

The money generated by a TV contract of top tier schools would easily support the Kentucky's and Iowa St.'s of the division. I cannot imagine what a TV playoff contract would be worth along with new television deals if they did not include Texas vs. Sisters of the Poor and Alabama vs. School of the Blind.

Also, I do not see it a stretch for those larger schools to break away so they can keep the NCAA basketball money. As much as people like seeing George Mason make a run to the final four they would still rather have a Final Four of Duke, Syracuse, Ohio St. and North Carolina vs. UConn Butler, Virginia Common Wealth, Michigan St.

[Herd]

It could happen if the BCS schools decide they want to keep their money. They can break away from the rest if they want. They basically set up their own championship didn't they? They have the ability to take the final step and just separate from the rest of Division I football. It actually wouldn't be hard for them to accomplish. The incentive would be money. They are the drawing cards in college football and television money would follow them wherever they decide to go. And if you don't believe that some of the key officials in BCS football have discussed the idea then you haven't been paying attention.

The rest would decide what they want to do. Would they cut scholarships? Perhaps. Would they realign? Perhaps. You're right, the discussion about changing the organization of college football is more of a philosophical discussion at this stage, especially for fans. But it could develop steam and change rather quickly, just like the changing of conferences. You are so hung up on the scholarship thing. Scholarship levels aren't set in stone. They could change those levels very easily. And those levels are not the only thing that potentially separate the different levels. There is nothing that would prevent a BCS group from having 85 scholarships and the top level of the rest from also having 85 scholarships. Just because they have the same number of scholarships doesn't prevent them from separating into different groups for playoff or championship competition. Open your mind.

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.

[82SiouxGuy]

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.

The football coaches won't be the ones to make a decision on whether there is a change. Neither will the athletic directors. The decision will be made at a much higher level. And lots of dollar signs will be discussed. The school presidents may not be as concerned with having 2-10 records if they are getting an extra $10,000,000, or something similar. Those dollars would come from an expanded playoff system and the TV rights that would go along with it. When you only have to split those TV dollars 60 ways instead of 120 ways, each school could potentially get a lot more money. That money could also make it much easier for the BCS schools to abandon the current bowl system. And if the BCS schools completely separated from the NCAA they could add the additional revenue they could keep from a basketball contract.

The schools from the large conferences have watched more and more schools move up over the past 20 years and water down the top level of college athletics. They also have to share revenues with these schools, when the big schools are actually attracting most of that revenue. There is a chance that the big schools will at some point decide to change that dynamic. This is an opportunity for them to make a large change, and bring in a great deal of money at the same time. Will it be what puts them over the edge? Who knows. But it is a possibility.

[darell1976]

The money generated by a TV contract of top tier schools would easily support the Kentucky's and Iowa St.'s of the division. I cannot imagine what a TV playoff contract would be worth along with new television deals if they did not include Texas vs. Sisters of the Poor and Alabama vs. School of the Blind.

Also, I do not see it a stretch for those larger schools to break away so they can keep the NCAA basketball money. As much as people like seeing George Mason make a run to the final four they would still rather have a Final Four of Duke, Syracuse, Ohio St. and North Carolina vs. UConn Butler, Virginia Common Wealth, Michigan St.

I actually wish they would. Yes you get the Bucknell over Kansas or a Butler making a run to the Final Four but its rare to see those teams win it. Is a team like George Washington, Vermont, NDSU or UND going to make noise in March Madness? No. Odds are (which IMO is 99.9999) at most 1 and done. I would like to see a 3 tier DI league in both basketball and football. You have the BCS conferences (Big 10, Big 12, SEC, etc) as DI, Mid major MVC (basketball), MAC, SB, C-USA etc as D-IA, and then the lower tier conferences (Summit, Big Sky etc. (basketball) and the FCS world as D-IAA. You have 3 DI championships. DI can keep their bowl situation, D-IA would fight for a National Tilte, and D-IAA would also fight for a national title. Same in basketball. Nick Saban (IMO is an @ss...... hatred against him for what he did to the Miami Dolphins) does have a point.

[Herd]

I actually wish they would. Yes you get the Bucknell over Kansas or a Butler making a run to the Final Four but its rare to see those teams win it. Is a team like George Washington, Vermont, NDSU or UND going to make noise in March Madness? No. Odds are (which IMO is 99.9999) at most 1 and done. I would like to see a 3 tier DI league in both basketball and football. You have the BCS conferences (Big 10, Big 12, SEC, etc) as DI, Mid major MVC (basketball), MAC, SB, C-USA etc as D-IA, and then the lower tier conferences (Summit, Big Sky etc. (basketball) and the FCS world as D-IAA. You have 3 DI championships. DI can keep their bowl situation, D-IA would fight for a National Tilte, and D-IAA would also fight for a national title. Same in basketball. Nick Saban (IMO is an @ss...... hatred against him for what he did to the Miami Dolphins) does have a point.

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?

[darell1976]

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?

To win a National Title. In football (at least in the FCS) its a shot to win a NC, in basketball you have no shot, and the only glory is that 40 minutes on CBS. I know Herd you are so proud for NDSU getting their against KU but after KU beat them their season was done. What sounds better losing to KU in the first round or going 4 rounds or so and playing for a NC? I personally would like to see the latter. I would want UND to play for a NC in basketball, but MM is not going to make that dream come true. Winning the NIT? Doubt it, Winning the CIT...possible (odds still aren't good) but since UND has been in the CIT the past two years it could happen you never know.

[homer]

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?

The smaller schools aren't going to be the ones making the decisions. The Big10, Big12, SEC and Pac12 don't care about hurting the feelings of the Summit and Big Sky. Will it happen, no one can say for certain either way. Like SiouxGuy said, its all about $$$.

[Herd]

To win a National Title. In football (at least in the FCS) its a shot to win a NC, in basketball you have no shot, and the only glory is that 40 minutes on CBS. I know Herd you are so proud for NDSU getting their against KU but after KU beat them their season was done. What sounds better losing to KU in the first round or going 4 rounds or so and playing for a NC? I personally would like to see the latter. I would want UND to play for a NC in basketball, but MM is not going to make that dream come true. Winning the NIT? Doubt it, Winning the CIT...possible (odds still aren't good) but since UND has been in the CIT the past two years it could happen you never know.

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.

[darell1976]

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.

Then why have the NIT? Or the CIT? Why is their 2nd and 3rd place tournaments in DI but they don't have that in DII or DIII? If NDSU was invited into the NIT would you say they should turn it down because it didn't meet your criteria.

[NYSioux]

Herd has a point here. You take the NIT option if it is available, but only if you do not qualify for the big one. To put the question in reverse, would any team take an NIT invite over NCAA just because their odds of winning are improved?

[Herd]

Then why have the NIT? Or the CIT? Why is their 2nd and 3rd place tournaments in DI but they don't have that in DII or DIII? If NDSU was invited into the NIT would you say they should turn it down because it didn't meet your criteria.

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?

[Herd]

Then why have the NIT? Or the CIT? Why is their 2nd and 3rd place tournaments in DI but they don't have that in DII or DIII? If NDSU was invited into the NIT would you say they should turn it down because it didn't meet your criteria.

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.

[mg2009]

I'm not sure that UND would ever get serious consideration for an fbs conference. The fargodome and uni domes are too small for fbs, and both are significantly larger than the alerus. The Grand Forks market is also way too small. The same applies to basically every western school in a small city, ie bozeman or missoula*.

We live in a world where ODU and georgia state were picked for FBS over established powers like georgia southern, app state, and JMU, and all three of those schools have pretty large advantages over UND and even NDSU.

That said, I'm still a fan of UND to the summit. except for UN-o, the I-29 schools are all peers academically and athletically. With UND it would have enough teams to 1) be stable at a minimum of 7 members and 2) nearly be large enough to field its own conference in football, with 5 members. Additionally, if denver winds up in the summit, which is pretty plausible, that would put 3 of the hockey schools in the same conference for all sports.

*fargo and sioux falls are also both to small.

[The Sicatoka]

Hurd, we have de facto three tiers today:

FBS,

FCS (with scholarships)

FCS (no scholarships and the schools that don't play for FCS playoffs)

What I see under Saban's plan:

The top 70 or so (with N > 85 scholarships and mandatory cash stipends to players)

The next 70 or so (with something like 75 scholarships, to merge FBS and FCS, and no stipends)

The bottom run (no scholarships and the schools that don't play for FCS playoffs)

[Cratter]

Or use money.

BCS

FBS

FCS

I believe a BCS team has never visited Moscow.

[fightingsioux4life]

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.

So, based on your logic, NDSU would have been better off in a low-level FBS bowl game, in mid-December, on a weeknight, on ESPN2, that nobody knows or cares about, with lots of empty seats in the stands, with a crappy payout that barely covers the cost of the trip than hosting three FCS playoff games and then traveling to Frisco, TX with a bunch of your fans and winning your first national football title in 21 years? Good luck with that.

[darell1976]

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.

I use NDSU as an example because you are a fan of them. As a UND fan MM is exciting but I would rather they play for a NC in a three tier tourny. Or even a two tier tourny. As long as you have BCS conference teams in MM no way will UND, NDSU or any lower level team win a NC.

[Cratter]

I think you are advocating dropping to Division 2.

[FargoBison]

I use NDSU as an example because you are a fan of them. As a UND fan MM is exciting but I would rather they play for a NC in a three tier tourny. Or even a two tier tourny. As long as you have BCS conference teams in MM no way will UND, NDSU or any lower level team win a NC.

It isn't all about winning an NC, it is about competing on the highest level. Unless your school has been a part of it you just can't comment about it.

There are many schools in each division that have a small chance to win a NC, should we create 8 divisions so they all can have a reasonable shot?

[darell1976]

It isn't all about winning an NC, it is about competing on the highest level. Unless your school has been a part of it you just can't comment about it.

There are many schools in each division that have a small chance to win a NC, should we create 8 divisions so they all can have a reasonable shot?

Look how many schools participate in March Madness 65 or 66 or something like that. Out of that number only a handful has a shot at a NC, the others are mostly there to enjoy the experience of MM and to get their 40 minutes of fame. Same with football most teams know there is no shot when there was the BCS poll (which i think is gone now) So why not have tiers in basketball like they do in football. In football currently you have FBS and FCS in basketball its 300+ teams in one tier...DI. If they have the Majors play in one tier and the others in another tier then more schools would believe they have a shot at a NC. And its not about winning a NC?? Tell that to anyone who plays college sports. Or tell an olympian who comes in 4th...its not about the medals its about competing on the highest level. Sorry but IMO thats the dumbest quote I have ever heard.

[NYSioux]

The discussion has fractured between s tier system for football and that for basketball, which are two completely different animals. From a basketball perspective, winning a game at the dance or the thought of being in the Sweet 16 is far more appealing to me than winning a low level championship. I would be willing to bet that if you ask fans of Gonzaga or fans of the MVC teams the vast majority are would agree. From a football perspective, there are a lot more variables, but I would support playing at the highest level possible if the circumstances are right. From both perspectives, why didn't we just stay put in division II if our goal is to win a "national championship".