Hypothetical Conference for UND

[Herd]

BCS is a level for all intents and purposes. They play for the title. The Non-FBS (mid-majoresque) conferences, can mess with them and play a bowl game with them, but Boise and TCU etc. never had a chance to play for a title. Now they have a better chance(especially TCU being in the Big 12). But don't kid yourself, there are currently three levels on D-I football.

BCS(B1G, SEC, Big 12, Pac-12, ACC, Big East(for the time being))

FBS conferences without a shot (MWC, Sun Belt, MAC, etc.)

FCS (The rest)

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.

[Herd]

BCS is a level for all intents and purposes. They play for the title. The Non-FBS (mid-majoresque) conferences, can mess with them and play a bowl game with them, but Boise and TCU etc. never had a chance to play for a title. Now they have a better chance(especially TCU being in the Big 12). But don't kid yourself, there are currently three levels on D-I football.

BCS(B1G, SEC, Big 12, Pac-12, ACC, Big East(for the time being))

FBS conferences without a shot (MWC, Sun Belt, MAC, etc.)

FCS (The rest)

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

[fightingsioux4life]

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.

Okay, that is a fair position to take on this. I also think FCS is the right level for UND and I hope our teams meet in the playoffs sometime.

[homer]

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?

I don't know how it logically happens either but I also don't think the BCS conferences started talking about a 96 team NCAA basketball tournament to get more teams in from the Big Sky or the Summit. Do you? That tells me that they are getting tired of splitting the money their teams earn. If the Big10, Pac12, Big12, ACC and SEC start pushing hard enough, who do you think the NCAA sides with? BCS conferences or nonBCS? I don't know how it is ever going to happen but it won't shock me when it does.

[JohnboyND7]

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

Obviously they all offer the same, but there is a difference between the schools. And thats fine. It really doesn't effect NDSU. Or UND. until there is reform in the class system, (which puts NDSU in 2nd tier, and shortly after UND follows 5 years later) there is no reason to give a flying F***.

[Cratter]

If by regular you mean twice. 2006 and 2009 for Boise.

The BCS only recently ,within ten years, said ok we will consider you for "our" bowls. Every BCSconference gets a vote. The rest added up get one.

Same scholarship levels but less voting power. You trying to tell me this is seperate but equal conferences?

[The Sicatoka]

If Saban tipped the hand of what the plan is, I suspect the "second tier" will be highlighted by the MAC, Sunbelt, CAA, Big Sky, and MVFC. We could even see part (bottom half or so) of the Moutain West and C-USA.

[82SiouxGuy]

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

You are just fixated on the scholarship thing. Here are 2 ways that the number of scholarships offered wouldn't affect splitting off the top layer of football schools. One I've talked about before. The BCS or a similar group of schools just pull out of the NCAA. Then they could have 85 or whatever number of scholarships they want, and what is left of the FBS could still offer 85, yet they would be different levels of football. The BCS schools would have plenty of money because of TV contracts and the rest of FBS may struggle to pay for 85, but that would be there choice if they wanted to continue at that level. Another possible way would be for the schools to all remain in the NCAA, but in addition to the 85 scholarships the top level could actually pay a living stipend to players. There is a growing group pushing for that. A lot of schools would have trouble paying for it, but the big conference schools would be in a much better position to do it. That would separate the top 2 levels even if they both kept 85 scholarships.

Scholarship levels could be changed or they may find another factor to separate levels. The number of scholarships offered by different levels doesn't have to be the determining factor if the schools decide to officially add another level of football.

[The Sicatoka]

What's the commissioner of the Sun Belt Conference saying?

''The goal of the Sun Belt right now is to be the best of the quote, 'below the line conferences,''' Benson said in a recent interview. ''There's going to be five (conferences) above the line and five below the line. The Sun Belt's goal is going to be to compete with those other conferences.''

Gee, it sounds like Benson (SBC commish) has heard of something like Saban's plan (top 70 or so). Where else would this "below the line" conferences statement come from?

My guess?

Above the line: SEC, Pac-12, Big Ten, ACC, Big 12*, Big East*

Below the line: Sun Belt, MAC, C-USA, Mountain West, WAC (RIP)

So there's the "third tier" (middle tier) of Division I football de facto forming. And if Benson is looking to limit "body bag" games that'll affect budgets (see article) so don't be surprised if budget issues don't lead to "reduction in scholarship limits" discussions later.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/sun-belt-sets-sights-catching-084224055--ncaaf.html

*I could see the Big East pilaged by the others in the coming days and the BE remnants ending up "below the line" or the Big Twelve folding up shop with the remnants going to the other "above the line" conferences.

[zonadub]

What's the commissioner of the Sun Belt Conference saying?

Gee, it sounds like Benson (SBC commish) has heard of something like Saban's plan (top 70 or so). Where else would this "below the line" conferences statement come from?

My guess?

Above the line: SEC, Pac-12, Big Ten, ACC, Big 12*, Big East*

Below the line: Sun Belt, MAC, C-USA, Mountain West, WAC (RIP)

So there's the "third tier" (middle tier) of Division I football de facto forming. And if Benson is looking to limit "body bag" games that'll affect budgets (see article) so don't be surprised if budget issues don't lead to "reduction in scholarship limits" discussions later.

http://sports.yahoo....055--ncaaf.html

*I could see the Big East pilaged by the others in the coming days and the BE remnants ending up "below the line" or the Big Twelve folding up shop with the remnants going to the other "above the line" conferences.

Unless Idaho, NMSU, Denver & Seattle pull something out of their collective a$$e$ like enticing Montana, MSU, UND and a couple more to move over, you can just go ahead and drop the WAC & move the Big East to the below the line list:

SEC, Pac 12, B1G, ACC, Big 12

------- the line -------

C-USA, Sun Belt, MAC, Mountain West, Big East

As 82 SiouxGuy said, the difference between above and below the line will more than likely be stipends, not # of scholarships - TV $$

[Herd]

You are just fixated on the scholarship thing. Here are 2 ways that the number of scholarships offered wouldn't affect splitting off the top layer of football schools. One I've talked about before. The BCS or a similar group of schools just pull out of the NCAA. Then they could have 85 or whatever number of scholarships they want, and what is left of the FBS could still offer 85, yet they would be different levels of football. The BCS schools would have plenty of money because of TV contracts and the rest of FBS may struggle to pay for 85, but that would be there choice if they wanted to continue at that level. Another possible way would be for the schools to all remain in the NCAA, but in addition to the 85 scholarships the top level could actually pay a living stipend to players. There is a growing group pushing for that. A lot of schools would have trouble paying for it, but the big conference schools would be in a much better position to do it. That would separate the top 2 levels even if they both kept 85 scholarships.

Scholarship levels could be changed or they may find another factor to separate levels. The number of scholarships offered by different levels doesn't have to be the determining factor if the schools decide to officially add another level of football.

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.

[82SiouxGuy]

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.

Premise 1: If the top 60 or so teams pull out of the NCAA they are going to take millions of dollars in TV money. They would take most of the BCS money for football and most of the March Madness money for basketball. I think they could afford to create an organization to do what the NCAA does for the other sports. That part isn't going to slow them down a bit.

Premise 2: If they decide to set up a level and invite schools or conferences from both FBS and FCS then they would have to make some decisions on scholarships limits for this new level. It might be 85, it might be 63, it might be someplace in the middle. If the FBS, non BCS schools are no longer trying to compete with the BCS schools they might be happy to make a change because many of them are struggling at least a little bit financially. That may happen more if the BCS schools pull out all of the TV money. And the NCAA might let schools decide that they don't have to give out the full limit of scholarships. Remember, in Division II not all conferences gave out the same number of scholarships. Not all of them gave out the limit of 36. The NCAA could do that for a hybrid level if they want. They aren't locked into the 63 and 85 scholarship limits that you seem to be, they can create whatever rules they want. Is it really that hard to see that they would be making something new, so the rules aren't already in place and they could set them up any way they want?

[Herd]

Premise 1: If the top 60 or so teams pull out of the NCAA they are going to take millions of dollars in TV money. They would take most of the BCS money for football and most of the March Madness money for basketball. I think they could afford to create an organization to do what the NCAA does for the other sports. That part isn't going to slow them down a bit.

Premise 2: If they decide to set up a level and invite schools or conferences from both FBS and FCS then they would have to make some decisions on scholarships limits for this new level. It might be 85, it might be 63, it might be someplace in the middle. If the FBS, non BCS schools are no longer trying to compete with the BCS schools they might be happy to make a change because many of them are struggling at least a little bit financially. That may happen more if the BCS schools pull out all of the TV money. And the NCAA might let schools decide that they don't have to give out the full limit of scholarships. Remember, in Division II not all conferences gave out the same number of scholarships. Not all of them gave out the limit of 36. The NCAA could do that for a hybrid level if they want. They aren't locked into the 63 and 85 scholarship limits that you seem to be, they can create whatever rules they want. Is it really that hard to see that they would be making something new, so the rules aren't already in place and they could set them up any way they want?

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.

[FargoBison]

With their goal is winning a medal (equivilant to a NC), in basketball unless you are either a major team, or maybe a mid major(even that is rare) you have very, very little chance at a NC. NDSU, UND, Summit, BSC, will never see a NC in basketball.

Darell my point which you don't seem to grasp is that I and many NDSU fans don't care if we will never win a NC in men's basketball. We want to compete at the highest level, that is why we went DI in the first place. I'll take losing by 10 to Kansas in round one of the NCAA tournament anyday over winning a second tier title.

There are many Olympians who no doubt consider just qualifying for the games to be a major accomplishment, everyone wants to win but the whole experience is also worth something. March Madness offers a similar experience.

[82SiouxGuy]

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.

The NCAA wouldn't have a choice about things if the BCS conferences, or anyone else, decide to pull out. The NCAA is a voluntary organization. How many times have we repeated that on this forum over the past couple of years? It also applies here. If the big conferences decide to pull out because they are tired of sharing the TV money they have the rights, the ability and the power to do so. The NCAA would do everything in their power to keep the schools. But if they decide to leave, the NCAA won't be able to do anything about it. It would simply be a case of the Big Boys flexing their power and selfishly doing what they believe is in their best interests, not worrying about anyone else. Don't you believe that a group of schools might act in their own best interests when there are potentially hundreds of millions of dollars at stake?

You seem to be under the impression that we are making this stuff up on this board. Funny, people like Nick Saban have been quoted saying these things. This wasn't our idea. We are just speculating on how it would work or some of the potential ways it could happen. We didn't think up the idea. Based on some of the articles that have been quoted, there are some very connected people discussing this very idea. If this happened it would change the entire landscape of college athletics. The larger schools would be looking out for themselves and the rest of the schools would have to fend for themselves. No one know what that would look like. Maybe a lot of college athletics would return to what it was originally, an outlet for students and fun for alumni instead of the big business it has become for so many. Or maybe they would just pull back to what they can afford. I don't think there would be a huge rush of schools dropping football. They would adjust and make it work.

The NCAA would probably survive. They would have to change how they do business. They might even have to charge schools to belong rather than paying them. But there would be a need to administer athletics and the NCAA would have to find a way to survive. Either that or a replacement organization would be created.

This is worst case scenario for much of college athletics. I don't know if it will get there. They could just separate the top level of college football as we have discussed. Like I said, that could be as simple as adding a stipend to what students are given and have separate championships for all 3 levels. Or they could even keep things the way they are. Personally, I believe that some kind of change is coming. There is too much discussion going on. You know the old saying, where there's smoke there's fire. So I think we will see some kind of realignment that will result in 3 levels of football in what we currently know as Division I. And yes, I understand the magnitude of what I'm saying. I'm not predicting what will happen. I am just discussing some of the potential results of things that have been reported or speculated, and giving opinions on how these things could happen.

[FargoBison]

Leaving the NCAA would be very complicated for the major schools, I don't see it happening. That said I think this three tier idea could come to fruition if the major schools want it to happen enough.

[The Sicatoka]

Leaving the NCAA would be very complicated for the major schools, I don't see it happening. That said I think this three tier idea could come to fruition if the major schools want it to happen enough.

What would be so complicated? "Hi, we're leaving." They'd have a new organization and new bylaws (and television deals) in place in no time. Why? There's money to be made by them.

I was skeptical of "three tiers" until I read what Saban and Benson said recently. Now I believe we may see it as soon as 2014 (new playoff).

[82SiouxGuy]

Leaving the NCAA would be very complicated for the major schools, I don't see it happening. That said I think this three tier idea could come to fruition if the major schools want it to happen enough.

Would it be that much harder than leaving a conference? It seems like that has been pretty easy for a lot of schools in the past couple of years. Even for some of the top athletic programs in the country, like Nebraska going to the Big 10. Would it be that much harder than starting a new conference? Like say the National Collegiate Hockey Conference? Schools seem to be pulling that off. The BCS schools already have a basic framework in place for football. Leaving the NCAA would just be taking things 1 step further. It's an extreme idea, but it is certainly possible.

[FargoBison]

What would be so complicated? "Hi, we're leaving." They'd have a new organization and new bylaws (and television deals) in place in no time. Why? There's money to be made by them.

I was skeptical of "three tiers" until I read what Saban and Benson said recently. Now I believe we may see it as soon as 2014 (new playoff).

Just to do it you would need to get a number of college presidents on board, which is complicated by itself.

Then there would be Lawsuits, politicians would no doubt be involved, and there would be lots of anger(especially since it would mean March Madness is dead). They could make millions or lose millions depending on how it would all play out, it would be a huge gamble that I doubt any college president would do unless the status quo is greatly changed.

That said I do think some changes are coming to college football. Once you start a playoff it will only grow in number, the bigger schools don't want to share that money so they'll try to squeeze as many schools out of the highest tier as possible.

[bincitysioux]

Leaving the NCAA would be very complicated for the major schools, I don't see it happening.

I tend to agree. The presidents of the major FBS schools already have free reign to call the shots regarding FBS/BCS football. Combine that with the monies they receive from the NCAA for March Madness, and I think they are more than content. I doubt that when they are cashing million-dollar checks from the BCS and the NCAA BB Tourney, that they are thinking too much about potential revenue from non-NCAA affiliated Soccer, Volleyball, Track & Field programs etc...............

[Sioux68]

Hanging a Sweet 16 banner is a huge deal and if you win 2 games your there. If the games are in Minneapolis you have a shot. The ndsu team vs Kansas had a legit shot of winning. it was a 2 point game with 3 minutes left. had they won, they would have played a weaker team than kansas in front of a home crowd in Minneapolis and the confidence to win.

the only part that sucks is you need a team of all seniors to win so you only get a shot once every 4 years and the Minneapolis home site is not a lock.. south Dakota state had to travel

[mg2009]

people realize that for them to leave the ncaa, they would have to make an entirely new ncaa, right?

[UNDBIZ]

Some other conference news.....

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/247350/

Associated Press writer Eric Olson predicts the University of Nebraska will add men’s hockey within the next six to eight years under new athletic director Shawn Eichorst, who came from Miami.

[82SiouxGuy]

people realize that for them to leave the ncaa, they would have to make an entirely new ncaa, right?

If you're talking about the BCS schools, yes, we realize that. They already have a start in place with the BCS structure. The big difference is that they wouldn't have all of the small schools dragging them down. In reality, the smaller schools have control of the NCAA for most things right now because there are more of them. Even within Division I, there are more schools not in the BCS than there are in the BCS. A lot of the NCAA rules are created by, and/or passed by, a vote of the membership. But the BCS conferences are the ones that attract the TV money for both football and basketball. The BCS schools could take back total control of their programs and fates if they start their own organization.

[homer]

people realize that for them to leave the ncaa, they would have to make an entirely new ncaa, right?

First, the NCAA wouldn't let them leave. They would clapse to their every demand if/when they make a push to split.

Second, you act like they couldn't pull it off. (For the record I think they eventally get in their own division, not create their own association) For the amount of money they would be making by doing it, I'm guessing their is someone else out there as bright as Mark Emmert who could lead the organization and its not like they would have to rewrite a bunch of bylaws.