smokey the cat Posted December 17, 2013 Posted December 17, 2013 My (everybody's?) favorite prof! I missed him but got Dr. Iseminger instead. Probably the best lecturer on campus. Quote
SiouxVolley Posted December 17, 2013 Posted December 17, 2013 How can they afford so much when Wyoming is smaller than ND and really has no more money than ND. Richer boosters? More NCAA money? Next year, Wyoming begins collecting nearly $1 mill more from to football playoff. Couple that with MWC payouts and FBS bodybag games and its easier to pay FBS salaries., Quote
SiouxVolley Posted December 17, 2013 Posted December 17, 2013 Portland State's football program has been told it must be fiscally self-sufficient going forward because of a $15 million budget shortfall at the university.http://www.oregonliv...ball_progr.htmlNow, linking in a different, but related, thought by "ira" in another thread:We know there are "haves" and "have nots" in the Big Sky.If this is the first sign of coming fiscal issues at other schools it's time for UND to behave as a "have" (because it is).Don't get left behind with the have nots.A winning program is not going to attract flies at PSU unless its FBS. This is the first wave in the Big Sky to FBS push. There's no profit or breakeven for sports at all for PSU: why are they demanding football breakeven?Have maintained for a while that UM, MSU, PSU, Sac, UND, EWU, NAU, WSU with NDSU would make a push for FBS on their terms (77 schollies). Why stay FCS when there is more to gain by FBS for less cost. Start bowls in Seattle and the Twin Cities Dome and you have the bowls needed for the conference. Quote
smokey the cat Posted December 17, 2013 Posted December 17, 2013 Next year, Wyoming begins collecting nearly $1 mill more from to football playoff. Couple that with MWC payouts and FBS bodybag games and its easier to pay FBS salaries., Thanks. Have a question and someone always has the answer. Quote
Herd Posted December 26, 2013 Posted December 26, 2013 A winning program is not going to attract flies at PSU unless its FBS. This is the first wave in the Big Sky to FBS push. There's no profit or breakeven for sports at all for PSU: why are they demanding football breakeven?Have maintained for a while that UM, MSU, PSU, Sac, UND, EWU, NAU, WSU with NDSU would make a push for FBS on their terms (77 schollies). Why stay FCS when there is more to gain by FBS for less cost. Start bowls in Seattle and the Twin Cities Dome and you have the bowls needed for the conference. So, what is happening to create a DI football level at 77 scholarships? Enlighten me? Why would you spend an additional 2 million on 28 (14x2) scholarships when nobody from the current FBS 85 level is coming down to play with you. The current gap of 22 scholarships between FCS and FBS keeps the current FCS teams and leagues at-bay from the Top Level. The 4 team championshp deal recently agreed to is keeping all 127 teams in the FBS at 85. Look at me, I'm at 77 scholarships, and I'm not eligible for a Bowl or the FCS title, and I can't afford this! How is that benefiting anyone? I think the two levels will stay in-tact for at least the next 5-10 years, and the FBS playoff will expand from 4 to 8 to 12. and more FBS conferences will be involved. I don't see any benefit in increasing FCS scholarships to anything less than 85 right now, and almost all the teams you listed aint going to 85, let's be honest. Unless there is an FBS spits (not happening for at least 5-10 years), the Big Sky aint going up in scholarships, period. If the FBS relaxed the scholarship level and created a 77-85 slot, it would increase the number of teams in the FBS, which is what the Top Conferences do not want. Why would this happen? The FBS controls the FBS scholarship levels with the NCAA, so why would they sabatoge themselves by allowing teams in at 77 scholarships? Sorry, makes no sense. Portland St going to 85 scholarship would be a 2 year death sentence, but I guess FCS football isn't sustainable for them either. Quote
smokey the cat Posted December 26, 2013 Posted December 26, 2013 So, what is happening to create a DI football level at 77 scholarships? Enlighten me? Why would you spend an additional 2 million on 28 (14x2) scholarships when nobody from the current FBS 85 level is coming down to play with you. The current gap of 22 scholarships between FCS and FBS keeps the current FCS teams and leagues at-bay from the Top Level. The 4 team championshp deal recently agreed to is keeping all 127 teams in the FBS at 85. Look at me, I'm at 77 scholarships, and I'm not eligible for a Bowl or the FCS title, and I can't afford this! How is that benefiting anyone? I think the two levels will stay in-tact for at least the next 5-10 years, and the FBS playoff will expand from 4 to 8 to 12. and more FBS conferences will be involved. I don't see any benefit in increasing FCS scholarships to anything less than 85 right now, and almost all the teams you listed aint going to 85, let's be honest. Unless there is an FBS spits (not happening for at least 5-10 years), the Big Sky aint going up in scholarships, period. If the FBS relaxed the scholarship level and created a 77-85 slot, it would increase the number of teams in the FBS, which is what the Top Conferences do not want. Why would this happen? The FBS controls the FBS scholarship levels with the NCAA, so why would they sabatoge themselves by allowing teams in at 77 scholarships? Sorry, makes no sense. Portland St going to 85 scholarship would be a 2 year death sentence, but I guess FCS football isn't sustainable for them either. You mentioned going from 4-8-12 teams in a playoff. My question for you is there really 8 or 12 teams that would deserve to be in even? Quote
SiouxVolley Posted December 26, 2013 Posted December 26, 2013 77 scholarships is the minimum for FBS (90 percent of 85). So, what is happening to create a DI football level at 77 scholarships? Enlighten me? Why would you spend an additional 2 million on 28 (14x2) scholarships when nobody from the current FBS 85 level is coming down to play with you. The current gap of 22 scholarships between FCS and FBS keeps the current FCS teams and leagues at-bay from the Top Level. The 4 team championshp deal recently agreed to is keeping all 127 teams in the FBS at 85. Look at me, I'm at 77 scholarships, and I'm not eligible for a Bowl or the FCS title, and I can't afford this! How is that benefiting anyone? I think the two levels will stay in-tact for at least the next 5-10 years, and the FBS playoff will expand from 4 to 8 to 12. and more FBS conferences will be involved. I don't see any benefit in increasing FCS scholarships to anything less than 85 right now, and almost all the teams you listed aint going to 85, let's be honest. Unless there is an FBS spits (not happening for at least 5-10 years), the Big Sky aint going up in scholarships, period. If the FBS relaxed the scholarship level and created a 77-85 slot, it would increase the number of teams in the FBS, which is what the Top Conferences do not want. Why would this happen? The FBS controls the FBS scholarship levels with the NCAA, so why would they sabatoge themselves by allowing teams in at 77 scholarships? Sorry, makes no sense. Portland St going to 85 scholarship would be a 2 year death sentence, but I guess FCS football isn't sustainable for them either. Quote
The Sicatoka Posted December 26, 2013 Author Posted December 26, 2013 77 scholarships is the minimum for FBS (90 percent of 85). Yup. They talk "85" but the DI manual says you have to maintain 90% of that to keep DI status: 77. The 77 number is fact and reality based. Quote
Cratter Posted December 26, 2013 Posted December 26, 2013 So I had to read the Herds rant for nothing? Quote
SIOUXFAN97 Posted December 27, 2013 Posted December 27, 2013 Yup. They talk "85" but the DI manual says you have to maintain 90% of that to keep DI status: 77. The 77 number is fact and reality based. is it true that mac schools all agree to keep schollies down near the 77 to keep costs somewhat down? Quote
The Sicatoka Posted December 27, 2013 Author Posted December 27, 2013 is it true that mac schools all agree to keep schollies down near the 77 to keep costs somewhat down? That I do not know; however, if found to be true it would not surprise me. Quote
Herd Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 You mentioned going from 4-8-12 teams in a playoff. My question for you is there really 8 or 12 teams that would deserve to be in even? How many teams deserve to be in the FCS playoff? The size of the FCS pool is about exactly the same as the FBS pool of 127. If 16-20-24 if right for FCS with 125 teams, how can 4 be right for FBS? Quote
Herd Posted January 2, 2014 Posted January 2, 2014 That I do not know; however, if found to be true it would not surprise me. 90% of 85, or 77 scholarships is the minimum number to be eligible. So you can't really target 77, or you'd run the risk of not being at the level required to be eligible. So really, you need to target 80-85, so when you lose a few players you don't fall below the minimum. Targeting 77 would be a losing proposition, targeting 77 for a conference would not be an option unless there was a change to the current scholly structure. A conference would not be allowed to move FBS anyway without approval from all FBS conferences, and if you decided as a conference to target a lower level than 85, I'm sure you could forget the whole idea. Approval would not be granted. Quote
The Sicatoka Posted November 7, 2014 Author Posted November 7, 2014 Another FCS program seems to have serious fiscal issues, this one in the MVFC: http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/columnists/gregg-doyel/2014/11/07/doyel-indiana-state-facing-a-football-free-future/18283525/ Quote
darell1976 Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 Another FCS program seems to have serious fiscal issues, this one in the MVFC:http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/columnists/gregg-doyel/2014/11/07/doyel-indiana-state-facing-a-football-free-future/18283525/ Bad link Quote
choyt3 Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 Another FCS program seems to have serious fiscal issues, this one in the MVFC:http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/columnists/gregg-doyel/2014/11/07/doyel-indiana-state-facing-a-football-free-future/18283525/ Good link. A team that's been in the FCS top 25 for five weeks is in fiscal disarray? Hmmm.... Quote
The Sicatoka Posted November 7, 2014 Author Posted November 7, 2014 Bad link Worked for me but ... try this http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/columnists/gregg-doyel/2014/11/07/doyel-indiana-state-facing-a-football-free-future/18283525/ If not, Google "Doyel: Indiana State facing a football-free future?" Quote
SiouxVolley Posted November 8, 2014 Posted November 8, 2014 Another FCS program seems to have serious fiscal issues, this one in the MVFC: http://www.indystar.com/story/sports/columnists/gregg-doyel/2014/11/07/doyel-indiana-state-facing-a-football-free-future/18283525/ Indiana State actually talked about going FBS a couple of years ago. They either have to come up with the money for a new stadium or go non-scholarship football. They don't have to worry about getting evicted from the MVC though. Portland is horribly mismanaged in most of the University. There's infighting everywhere and not a cohesive plan anywhere. One of Kelley's buddies from the U of Ill system is President. Portland State already has a stadium in place, it just needs to get its act together. Quote
darell1976 Posted November 8, 2014 Posted November 8, 2014 Worked for me but ... try thishttp://www.indystar.com/story/sports/columnists/gregg-doyel/2014/11/07/doyel-indiana-state-facing-a-football-free-future/18283525/ If not, Google "Doyel: Indiana State facing a football-free future?" That linked worked for me. What a mess for ISUb. 4% on their money rely on FBS games? Yikes!! Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.