Jump to FBS

[JohnboyND7]

I've been saying it for years NDSU needs to move to FBS. IF they could get it they could sell out 35,000 seats and take over the state.

I like the sound of that

In all seriousness, I doubt the state of ND can support two FBS teams as far as fan support goes. If NDSU makes the jump(unlikely), it would be very interesting to see the effects it has on both NDSU and UND.

[GFG]

In all honesty I don't think the state could support one FBS team. Is it possible? Of course it is, but I don't think it would work without a lot of the regional schools jumping at the same time and starting their own conference. This includes all the Dakota schools and the Montana schools as well as a couple others. That is, IMO, the only way it would work.

[The Sicatoka]

I still say FBS* will come to UND and NDSU because the BCS schools will create their own exclusive top-tier (and keep all the money) playground.

*I call it "FBS" but it'll be what's left of FBS after the BCS schools leave plus the top portion of today's FCS.

[Herd]

I think he meant that schools in lower tier conferences less a few in the MWC, and BE will never be able to compete with schools who have budgets like Texas, Oregon, Alabama, Ohio State for example. If that is what he meant then he is right on.

Teams in their own conferences can complete budget wise with this schools. You just cherry picked the top budgets in FBS, what about the bottom of those conferences. Are you suggesting that the top division in DI college football should have 5-7 teams? Maybe MLB should go from 32 teams to 8, because the bottom 24 dont' have budgets to complete? That's your logic . . . but the top teams still need to have teams to play against. The bottom teams in the top conferences still need to get Wins, or they dry up and whither.

[GFG]

I still say FBS* will come to UND and NDSU because the BCS schools will create their own exclusive top-tier (and keep all the money) playground.

*I call it "FBS" but it'll be what's left of FBS after the BCS schools leave plus the top portion of today's FCS.

That's a situation where I can definitely see it happen.

[homer]

Teams in their own conferences can complete budget wise with this schools. You just cherry picked the top budgets in FBS, what about the bottom of those conferences. Are you suggesting that the top division in DI college football should have 5-7 teams? Maybe MLB should go from 32 teams to 8, because the bottom 24 dont' have budgets to complete? That's your logic . . . but the top teams still need to have teams to play against. The bottom teams in the top conferences still need to get Wins, or they dry up and whither.

4 conferences of 16 teams will leave plenty of scheduling opportunities. This idea isn't unique to this board. Someone (either bin or Sicota) has posted links of it being discussed by Nick Saban and an AD or conference commissioner of one of the mid-level teams. They will get wins by scheduling one another.....so Minnesota vs. New Mexico would be replaced by Minnesota vs. Colorado.

[zonadub]

Teams in their own conferences can complete budget wise with this schools. You just cherry picked the top budgets in FBS, what about the bottom of those conferences. Are you suggesting that the top division in DI college football should have 5-7 teams? Maybe MLB should go from 32 teams to 8, because the bottom 24 dont' have budgets to complete? That's your logic . . . but the top teams still need to have teams to play against. The bottom teams in the top conferences still need to get Wins, or they dry up and whither.

OK, how about this?

Details of revenues and expenses at NCAA D-I public schools, 2006-2011

Purdue - lowest athletic budget in B1G - $66 M

UNLV - Highest budget in WMC - $59 M

Wyoming - lowest budget in MWC - $27 M

NDSU - HIGHEST budget in Summit League - $15 M

Montana State - HIGHEST Budget in Big Sky - $20 M

Source: USA Today

[FSSD]

I find it interesting that only 18 schools have a subsidy of less than %50 and Total Revenue greater than $15 million outside of the 6 major conference (Big 10, Big 12, Big East, ACC, SEC and Pac).

Mt. West (7) - $45M to $22M

SDSU, New Mexico, Boise St, Hawaii, Fresno St, Colorado St and Nevada

CUSA (2) - $40M to $27M

Memphis, Marshall

Patriot (1)

Army $34M

CAA (1)

William&Mary $22M

MV (2)

Wichita St $21M

UNI $18M

Big Sky (2)

UND $18M

Montana $18M

Summit (1)

NDSU $15M

[Herd]

If the Top 5 conferences of FBS (B1G, SEC, P12, B12. ACC) is going to separate themselves from the bottom 5 conferences (BE, MWC, MAC, CUSA, SBelt), how will this be accomplished?

Way #1: I don't think they can tell the bottom conferences, you have to reduce scholarships from 85

Way #2: I don't think the top conference will get an ncaa Ok to increase scholarships beyond 85 to separate themselves. This would create problems and separation within the top conferences as some could not afford it. It would also create problems with scholarship on the womens side.

Way #3: I don't think the top conferences can leave the ncaa (and amateur status) for football and still maintain requirements for college basketball in the ncaa. I don't think these conferences want to leave the ncaa for basketball.

Way #4: I don't think the Top 5 can have a championship at the same scholarship level as the bottom 5 and tell them they can't compete for it. Yes, they can keep it a 4 team championship and try to lock them out, but in the long run, access will need to be granted for teams at the same scholarship level.

Way #5: Simply spending more? I don't think you can designate a championship by the dollar level you are spending, that would be a poor precident to set. Top championship = > $50 mil; Second Level = < $50 mil? I don't see that happening. This dollar discrepancy is what is great about college BB, and the championship.

Please, fill me in on the details of how this is going to work? Everyone is talking about it, but I'd like someone to explain how it could logically happen.

[Herd]

OK, how about this?

Details of revenues and expenses at NCAA D-I public schools, 2006-2011

Purdue - lowest athletic budget in B1G - $66 M

UNLV - Highest budget in WMC - $59 M

Wyoming - lowest budget in MWC - $27 M

NDSU - HIGHEST budget in Summit League - $15 M

Montana State - HIGHEST Budget in Big Sky - $20 M

Source: USA Today

I'm not sure what you are saying? That UNLV should join the B1G? NDSU and Mt St are not in the FBS last time I looked.

[darell1976]

If the Top 5 conferences of FBS (B1G, SEC, P12, B12. ACC) is going to separate themselves from the bottom 5 conferences (BE, MWC, MAC, CUSA, SBelt), how will this be accomplished?

Way #1: I don't think they can tell the bottom conferences, you have to reduce scholarships from 85

Way #2: I don't think the top conference will get an ncaa Ok to increase scholarships beyond 85 to separate themselves. This would create problems and separation within the top conferences as some could not afford it. It would also create problems with scholarship on the womens side.

Way #3: I don't think the top conferences can leave the ncaa (and amateur status) for football and still maintain requirements for college basketball in the ncaa. I don't think these conferences want to leave the ncaa for basketball.

Way #4: I don't think the Top 5 can have a championship at the same scholarship level as the bottom 5 and tell them they can't compete for it. Yes, they can keep it a 4 team championship and try to lock them out, but in the long run, access will need to be granted for teams at the same scholarship level.

Way #5: Simply spending more? I don't think you can designate a championship by the dollar level you are spending, that would be a poor precident to set. Top championship = > $50 mil; Second Level = < $50 mil? I don't see that happening. This dollar discrepancy is what is great about college BB, and the championship.

Please, fill me in on the details of how this is going to work? Everyone is talking about it, but I'd like someone to explain how it could logically happen.

All these conferences have to do is talk money with the NCAA...and the will find a way to split from the lower conferences. When you talk money the NCAA listens.

[zonadub]

I'm not sure what you are saying? That UNLV should join the B1G? NDSU and Mt St are not in the FBS last time I looked.

You asked for the bottom budgets in the conferences - Purdue is the lowest budget in the B1G. Just trying to answer your question, Herd. Even the top budgets in FCS can't come close to the budgets of the top BCS conferences.

And yes, I did cherry pick the B1G. Washington State's budget is not so large ($40 M), but they have a tough time competing in the Pac 12.

[Herd]

All these conferences have to do is talk money with the NCAA...and the will find a way to split from the lower conferences. When you talk money the NCAA listens.

So they would separate themselves by simply . . . "talking money" with the ncaa? Interesting, why didn't I think of that? That clears it up, thanks!

[UNDColorado]

I'm not sure what you are saying? That UNLV should join the B1G? NDSU and Mt St are not in the FBS last time I looked.

My original comment was that select MWC and BE schools have budgets that can certainly compete. The point is that there is a top half, and it may not be as cut and dry as you would like it. NDSU and MSU were mentioned for a comparison, because we have to dumb things down for our friends to the south.

[Herd]

So they would separate themselves by simply . . . "talking money" with the ncaa? Interesting, why didn't I think of that? That clears it up, thanks!

And Darrell, what specific steps would the ncaa and Top 5 conferences agree on (after they got done "talkng money"), to separate them from the bottom 5 conferences in their own division and championship? It would involve changes to . . . what?

[homer]

If the Top 5 conferences of FBS (B1G, SEC, P12, B12. ACC) is going to separate themselves from the bottom 5 conferences (BE, MWC, MAC, CUSA, SBelt), how will this be accomplished?

Way #1: I don't think they can tell the bottom conferences, you have to reduce scholarships from 85

Way #2: I don't think the top conference will get an ncaa Ok to increase scholarships beyond 85 to separate themselves. This would create problems and separation within the top conferences as some could not afford it. It would also create problems with scholarship on the womens side.

Way #3: I don't think the top conferences can leave the ncaa (and amateur status) for football and still maintain requirements for college basketball in the ncaa. I don't think these conferences want to leave the ncaa for basketball.

Way #4: I don't think the Top 5 can have a championship at the same scholarship level as the bottom 5 and tell them they can't compete for it. Yes, they can keep it a 4 team championship and try to lock them out, but in the long run, access will need to be granted for teams at the same scholarship level.

Way #5: Simply spending more? I don't think you can designate a championship by the dollar level you are spending, that would be a poor precident to set. Top championship = > $50 mil; Second Level = < $50 mil? I don't see that happening. This dollar discrepancy is what is great about college BB, and the championship.

Please, fill me in on the details of how this is going to work? Everyone is talking about it, but I'd like someone to explain how it could logically happen.

Please follow link and read. (No need for me to re-post a re-post of a post.) The idea of a new tier in DI football has been put out by Nick Saban and Karl Benson (Sun Belt Commish).

http://forum.siouxsp...cs/#entry608424

Follow Sic's link- Its being discussed more than on this board. Who know's the specifics but the idea is being discussed by colleges. Georgia Southern's radio guy even mentioned it in an interview with McFeely a few weeks ago and that factored into their decision of moving to FBS- get ahead of the split so your in position to be in Teir 2 when the split occurs.

[the green team]

If the Top 5 conferences of FBS (B1G, SEC, P12, B12. ACC) is going to separate themselves from the bottom 5 conferences (BE, MWC, MAC, CUSA, SBelt), how will this be accomplished?

Way #1: I don't think they can tell the bottom conferences, you have to reduce scholarships from 85

Way #2: I don't think the top conference will get an ncaa Ok to increase scholarships beyond 85 to separate themselves. This would create problems and separation within the top conferences as some could not afford it. It would also create problems with scholarship on the womens side.

Way #3: I don't think the top conferences can leave the ncaa (and amateur status) for football and still maintain requirements for college basketball in the ncaa. I don't think these conferences want to leave the ncaa for basketball.

Way #4: I don't think the Top 5 can have a championship at the same scholarship level as the bottom 5 and tell them they can't compete for it. Yes, they can keep it a 4 team championship and try to lock them out, but in the long run, access will need to be granted for teams at the same scholarship level.

Way #5: Simply spending more? I don't think you can designate a championship by the dollar level you are spending, that would be a poor precident to set. Top championship = > $50 mil; Second Level = < $50 mil? I don't see that happening. This dollar discrepancy is what is great about college BB, and the championship.

Please, fill me in on the details of how this is going to work? Everyone is talking about it, but I'd like someone to explain how it could logically happen.

#2- These schools are the NCAA- they would be creating their own super division- all they would have to do is decide amongst themselves that they want to raise scholarships from 85 to 105 and boom...you have a new Division of NCAA Football, and maybe unfortunately basketball...just what the Big 10 and SEC have always wanted. It really isn't going to take much for schools in the Big Conferences to get behind that idea, even the bottom ones in the conference. I think it's a reality that is coming. Florida, Michigan, Ohio State, Alabama etc are growing tired of the Bowling Greens and the Western Kentucky's having any votes that may affect them, in any venue...this is a realistic solution for the Big Schools. Besides they could decide to have 120 Football Scholarships if they wanted. If and when they do this...and they won't have to apologize to anyone to do so. Of course...there is Title 9, but none of those schools fear starting more women's sports, as long as you can corner the market in football talent.

[darell1976]

And Darrell, what specific steps would the ncaa and Top 5 conferences agree on (after they got done "talkng money"), to separate them from the bottom 5 conferences in their own division and championship? It would involve changes to . . . what?

The BCS conferences would be The New DI, the other conferences would be D-1A and the FCS would be D-1AA. That separates themselves there. As for the money part, they could have their own bowl games (Orange, Rose, etc) and specific tv contracts for only that division (ESPN) to add more revenue to that division which puts more money into the pockets of the NCAA. As for basketball...it stays as it does now. Why change things if they split in football when you have 300+ teams in the same division for 1 title now.

[Herd]

#2- These schools are the NCAA- they would be creating their own super division- all they would have to do is decide amongst themselves that they want to raise scholarships from 85 to 105 and boom...you have a new Division of NCAA Football, and maybe unfortunately basketball...just what the Big 10 and SEC have always wanted. It really isn't going to take much for schools in the Big Conferences to get behind that idea, even the bottom ones in the conference. I think it's a reality that is coming. Florida, Michigan, Ohio State, Alabama etc are growing tired of the Bowling Greens and the Western Kentucky's having any votes that may affect them, in any venue...this is a realistic solution for the Big Schools. Besides they could decide to have 120 Football Scholarships if they wanted. If and when they do this...and they won't have to apologize to anyone to do so. Of course...there is Title 9, but none of those schools fear starting more women's sports, as long as you can corner the market in football talent.

So the top confernces would raise scholarship levels by 20-35. Thank you, a specific idea . . . not very clean to accomplish for many reasons . . . but a specific idea none the less. This would likely need to be accompanied by a very specific revenue sharing plan in each conference, to prevent total finanical collapse at some of the less financially sound schools in the top conferences. I would say that over half of the B1G schools would be in B1G trouble if they had to increase scholarships by 20+20 to stay with Michigan and Ohio St.

I would disagree and say that the only financially sound way to create 3 Levels of DI football would be to create 3 levels with 85 being the max . . .

Level 1 85 scholarships

Level 2 70 scholarships

Leve 3 0-50 scholarships

But then how are you going to force the bottom 5 FBS conferences to reduce to 70 so the top 5 have "separation". And how are you going to get the FCS schools to separate themselves at either 70 or 50, which would tear conferences apart and create a chaotic situation? it's awful easy to say it's going to happen, but the devil is in the details.

[darell1976]

So the top confernces would raise scholarship levels by 20-35. Thank you, a specific idea . . . not very clean to accomplish for many reasons . . . but a specific idea none the less. This would likely need to be accompanied by a very specific revenue sharing plan in each conference, to prevent total finanical collapse at some of the less financially sound schools in the top conferences. I would say that over half of the B1G schools would be in B1G trouble if they had to increase scholarships by 20+20 to stay with Michigan and Ohio St.

I would disagree and say that the only financially sound way to create 3 Levels of DI football would be to create 3 levels with 85 being the max . . .

Level 1 85 scholarships

Level 2 70 scholarships

Leve 3 0-50 scholarships

But then how are you going to force the bottom 5 FBS conferences to reduce to 70 so the top 5 have "separation". And how are you going to get the FCS schools to separate themselves at either 70 or 50, which would tear conferences apart and create a chaotic situation? it's awful easy to say it's going to happen, but the devil is in the details.

Who votes to raise or lower scholarship levels...NCAA or the school's themselves?

[Herd]

The BCS conferences would be The New DI, the other conferences would be D-1A and the FCS would be D-1AA. That separates themselves there. As for the money part, they could have their own bowl games (Orange, Rose, etc) and specific tv contracts for only that division (ESPN) to add more revenue to that division which puts more money into the pockets of the NCAA. As for basketball...it stays as it does now. Why change things if they split in football when you have 300+ teams in the same division for 1 title now.

Sorry Darrell, all these schools are DI. They all meet the academic requirements as DI, have to follow all DI rules and regulations, and are participating with all their sports in DI already. Yes, you are saying that we would create 3 DI levels for football, but you are not saying how you separte the current 120 schools at the 85 scholarship level to create two championships.

[Herd]

Who votes to raise or lower scholarship levels...NCAA or the school's themselves?

Today, they are set by the ncaa. Ncaa would need to approve changes and evaluate title 9 impacts . . . unless you withdraw from the ncaa, not likely.

[darell1976]

Sorry Darrell, all these schools are DI. They all meet the academic requirements as DI and are participating with all their sports in DI already. Yes, you are saying that we would create 3 DI levels for football, but you are not saying how you separte the current 120 schools at the 85 scholarship level to create two championships.

I see what you are saying and that logic would have to be with raising or lowering scholarships.

[darell1976]

Today, they are set by the ncaa. Ncaa would need to approve changes and evaluate title 9 impacts . . . unless you withdraw from the ncaa, not likely.

How did the NCAA do this in DII with lowering scholarships?

[Herd]

How did the NCAA do this in DII with lowering scholarships?

With DII moving from 45 to 36, the NCAA just made the change at the request of a majority of its DII schools who were struggle to financially support the 45 level. When the DII change was made, it didn't tell some conferences, "you can stay at 45 because you have larger budgets", and others "you have to move to 36, because you are in this confernce". Then, "We'll have two championships now, and if you are at 36, you have to compete for that championship at a lower tier, although we'll OK you to play the 45s during the regular season."

Everyone was forced to move to 36, but the championship stayed the same. The current situation is much more complex.

In my opinion, there is not real reason to separte the 120 schools at the 85 scholarship level into 2 championships, other than greed. There is a need to open the championship up to allow more access. Again, that notion is usually squelched by greed and money.