UND and the Big Sky could go FBS

[Yote 53]

I'm not sure I agree with the FBS part of all these theories, though that could be plausible I guess.  From what I understand, the FBS stadium requirement is 15,000.  USD is about to undergo a renovation of the Dakota Dome and with a few modifications will get over 15,000.  SDSU is already there with their new stadium.  NDSU is at 19,000.  UND?  I have no idea what the Alerus is but I don't think it is 15k.  So some work to do there.  As far as the question of 15,000 being big enough, would you rather play in a Dome packed with 15k, or a cavernous open air MAC stadium that holds 25,000 but only has 5,000 in attendance?

What I like about SV's plans, crazy as they might sound, is that the Dakotas join forces with the Montanas and Idaho.  SV may throw out a lot of whacky scenarios that will probably not come to pass but the overall outlook is correct.  I firmly believe that prospective conference offers the best opportunity for the future for all the schools involved, whether it be as an FBS conference or an FCS conference.  Honestly, I can see the allure of going FBS and being a G-level conference that gets a slice of the CFP playoff money.  That G-level of Division 1 will soon be seen as the 2nd level of football as the P5 separates themselves.  That 2nd level of football is the level the Dakotas have openly talked about where they want to be at, whatever the label is, FCS or G-level, so from that perspective, yeah NDSU officials and other Dakota school officials are on record as being for a "move".  Right now the FCS is the second level, but if that changes then we all need to be prepared for it.  His crazy plans are the type of stuff that hopefully our schools presidents and AD's are working towards.  The Summit has been great, but it is always teetering, dealing with one membership issue after another.  It's time we set a course for permanent stability.  A good, solid foundation is necessary in order to truly grow.

[nodak651]

If there is ever a new 2nd level that is officially formed, I think there is a good chance the 15k requirement gets dropped.

[The Sicatoka]

Today, honesty, there are about four levels of "NCAA DI" football: 

The P5
The G5
FCS scholarship (FCS-S)
FCS non-scholarship (FCS-NS)

To my eyes: 
There's some blur between very bottom P5 and very top of G5.
There's a lot of blur between bottom half G5 and top half of FCS-S.
There's some blur between the very bottom of FCS-S and FCS-NS. 

[bison73]

11 hours ago, JohnboyND7 said:

As far as i'm aware, bison73 doesn't drink. 

 

You are correct. As usual his post are woefully lacking in facts.

[The Sicatoka]

Staring at a map and various conference (Summit, BSC) membership ... 

UND, NDSU, USD, SDSU, UNO, DU
EWU, Idaho, Montana, Montana State, Weber State, Northern Colorado*

That's 10 FB (nine game schedule) and 12 BB (22 games) with easy travel partners. 

 

*UNC or Idaho State, pick poison. 

[Herd]

2 hours ago, The Sicatoka said:

Staring at a map and various conference (Summit, BSC) membership ... 

UND, NDSU, USD, SDSU, UNO, DU
EWU, Idaho, Montana, Montana State, Weber State, Northern Colorado*

That's 10 FB (nine game schedule) and 12 BB (22 games) with easy travel partners. 

 

*UNC or Idaho State, pick poison. 

I’m trying to understand the value of playing with 85 scolarships vs. 63 scholarships for the teams you listed.  Let’s examine for UND.

Recent Attendance:  10,000; potential 14,000?

2017 Ranking:  171 Of 254; potential top 100?

Costs:  add 3-4$M increase for 85 scholarships;  finding revenue to try to offset is hard.

Profile:  Elevated some, not a lot;  Could get more regular B1G/B12 games, which would help outsider view of U.

Games:  8-9 Games would be played against today’s FCS teams spending more.  Was Idaho better than FCS top 15?  No.  Maybe  play 2 P5 Games vs 1?  Schedule is higher profile, but not by much.  Heck you’re playing Wash this year.

So, if I’m going to goto the 85 scholarship level, I’d want to do it in a Conf that is a step up, not a metoo Conf.  Joining the MWC makes sense, join a 85 Level WAC . . . I don’t see the value.

[SiouxVolley]

So strange that NDSU will only play H&A with FCS schools that in my opinion will also go FBS.

Recent NDSU schedules have OOC FCS Delaware, Cal Poly, and Weber St H&A.

Delaware is renovating in the fanciest way possible.  Without adding seats, the tickets will be much pricier.

https://www.delawareonline.com/story/sports/college/ud/2017/11/11/delaware-stadium-receive-long-awaited-facelift-cost-60-million/843762001/

UND has and will have H&A with three OOC schools that will also take the plunge: Mo St, Sam Houston St and Stony Brook.

During their collective FBS transitions, more games will be scheduled, as exisiting FBS teams are unlikely to schedule a transitional team.

Herd seemingly purposefully forgets the FBS teams often get three times of going rate that an FCS team gets against the same P5 opponent.  And it is likely that new moveups once their transitions are complete will get two P5 or high G5 games.

[Herd]

4 minutes ago, SiouxVolley said:

So strange that NDSU will only play H&A with FCS schools that in my opinion will also go FBS.

Recent NDSU schedules have OOC FCS Delaware, Cal Poly, and Weber St H&A.

Delaware is renovating in the fanciest way possible.  Without adding seats, the tickets will be much pricier.

https://www.delawareonline.com/story/sports/college/ud/2017/11/11/delaware-stadium-receive-long-awaited-facelift-cost-60-million/843762001/

UND has and will have H&A with three OOC schools that will also take the plunge: Mo St, Sam Houston St and Stony Brook.

During their collective FBS transitions, more games will be scheduled, as exisiting FBS teams are unlikely to schedule a transitional team.

Herd seemingly purposefully forgets the FBS teams often get three times of going rate the FCS team get against the same P5 opponent.

If you are truly interested in 85 scholarship football, then join CUSA, MW, MAC.  Why dilute your big day by joining a bunch of FCS teams?  What good does it do for 10 FCS schools to goto 85 scholarships.  Separate yourself.

[SiouxVolley]

5 minutes ago, Herd said:

If you are truly interested in 85 scholarship football, then join CUSA, MW, MAC.  Why dilute your big day by joining a bunch of FCS teams?  What good does it do for 10 FCS schools to goto 85 scholarships.  Separate yourself.

This has been said multiple times, but you don’t read.  Those leagues get maximum CFP payment at 10 teams.  They wouldn’t consider adding unless they lose schools, as just adding without subtracting schools would further divide the payments..  And they wouldn’t consider NDSU either with its FCS championships.

Looks like Chaves’ replacement really wants an expanded Roos Field so she can move up.  But EWU just doesn’t have the resources.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/aug/10/lynn-hickey-working-to-both-chip-away-eastern-wash/

[Herd]

4 minutes ago, SiouxVolley said:

This has been said multiple times, but you don’t read.  Those leagues get maximum CFP payment at 10 teams.  They wouldn’t consider adding unless they lose schools, as just adding without subtracting schools would further divide the payments..  And they wouldn’t consider NDSU either with its FCS championships.

Looks like Chaves’ replacement really wants an expanded Roos Field so she can move up.  But EWU just doesn’t have the resources.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/aug/10/lynn-hickey-working-to-both-chip-away-eastern-wash/

Some people goto the bathroom in groups . . . Usually girls.

[The Sicatoka]

Now the rules may have changed since I last read them but I believe to be FBS you must do 90% of allowed scholarships on a rolling two year average. 

 

[SiouxVolley]

3 hours ago, Herd said:

Some people goto the bathroom in groups . . . Usually girls.

Nick Saban doesn’t go alone, he goes with the SEC, and there are not separating.  Liberty goes to the bathroom alone, as they have megabucks.

[Herd]

5 hours ago, SiouxVolley said:

Nick Saban doesn’t go alone, he goes with the SEC, and there are not separating.  Liberty goes to the bathroom alone, as they have megabucks.

So, you don’t teally want to compete at the 85 scholarship level, you just want to go there as long as 10 other FCS teams go with you and you can call yourself FBS?  Is that right?  I got it, you are a poser.

[The Sicatoka]

2 hours ago, Herd said:

So, you don’t teally want to compete at the 85 scholarship level, you just want to go there as long as 10 other FCS teams go with you and you can call yourself FBS?  Is that right?  I got it, you are a poser.

That exists today. It's called the Sun Belt. No, wait, the MAC. 

[jdub27]

1 hour ago, The Sicatoka said:

That exists today. It's called the Sun Belt. No, wait, the MAC. 

So why would 10 FCS teams want to up and join that right now (and this is assuming that they actually could, which is not guaranteed and requires a ton of moving parts to come together)? This talk about getting access to potential CFP money in 2026 when the contract expires assumes that the P5 will be willing to continue to give the G5 a proportionate piece of the pie, when they have been working towards giving them less. Right now, the G5 are currently getting $81.32 million combined between the 5 conferences. It is split out mostly equal between the 5 conferences, with a little bit set aside to be given out based on performance. Based on that, each conference is getting roughly $16 million or between $1.1-1.6 million per team.

The estimates if the playoff field was to expand to 8 teams is that the contract would increase by roughly 50% from where it is now. So a best case scenario is that this new start-up conference gets $24 million ($16 million plus 50%) and splits it 10 ways, giving each school an additional $2.4 million in additional revenue. And that's again, assuming the P5 plays nice and actually would increase the percentage of money they would share with the G5.  Does anyone really think the P5 cares if the G5 expands to the G6 and just because of that, they would allocate them a bigger piece of the pie? Decent chance they'd leave them at roughly the same percentages (best case) or just tell them to pound sand and they'll get whatever crumbs they feel is appropriate, which is what they have continued to do.

Does an extra $2.4 million justify adding 22 scholarships on the men's and women's side (which would probably require an additional sport) plus the increase in coaching expenses, travel expenses and the general budget increases?

Don't get me wrong, I'd love a conference like the proposed one, I just don't see a realistic path to getting there at this point in time. A major shift in the landscape could change that, but it seems less likely since the G5 has continued to give the P5 whatever they want, lessening the chances of them doing something drastic. Any and all talk at UND does not involve any of these pie in the sky scenarios, it involves getting athletics where they need to be to compete in the Summit and MVFC. Any claim that UND will never play a game in the MVFC is laughable.

[Yote 53]

13 hours ago, Herd said:

I’m trying to understand the value of playing with 85 scolarships vs. 63 scholarships for the teams you listed.  Let’s examine for UND.

Recent Attendance:  10,000; potential 14,000?

2017 Ranking:  171 Of 254; potential top 100?

Costs:  add 3-4$M increase for 85 scholarships;  finding revenue to try to offset is hard.

Profile:  Elevated some, not a lot;  Could get more regular B1G/B12 games, which would help outsider view of U.

Games:  8-9 Games would be played against today’s FCS teams spending more.  Was Idaho better than FCS top 15?  No.  Maybe  play 2 P5 Games vs 1?  Schedule is higher profile, but not by much.  Heck you’re playing Wash this year.

So, if I’m going to goto the 85 scholarship level, I’d want to do it in a Conf that is a step up, not a metoo Conf.  Joining the MWC makes sense, join a 85 Level WAC . . . I don’t see the value.

The reasons would be to:

#1 - Play at the clear second level of D1 football.  That would also elevate the profile of the entire athletic department.  We won't be on the same level as Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, but would put the Dakota schools on the same level as Wyoming, Nevada, Colorado State, etc.

#2 - A G5 Summit conference would be involved in the evolving CFP as one of the G5 participants.  When, not if, the CFP expands there will be an at-large spot for the highest ranked/undefeated G5 champion.  It would be the lowest seed and the odds of being the one G5 school to have that magical season would be very long, but it's still access to the CFP, no matter how remote.

#3 - The G5 conferences are going to end up getting a shared cut of the CFP.  Sure, it won't be a Big Ten or SEC level cut, but there will be money and it could be a couple million per school.

#4 - As a G5 school you can command a larger payday for P5 games.  There may just come a day where the FCS is shut out of scheduling P5 schools.  Maybe that happens, maybe not, but I can guarantee that Northern Illinois is getting paid more to play Iowa this year than USD is playing Kansas State.

The more money coming from points #2, #3, and #4 would aid in offsetting the costs of increased scholarships.  Being a G5 school would aid in #1.  Just to be clear, the proposed dream conference we are talking about here with the Dakotas, Montanas, etc. would have way more credibility than conferences like the Sun Belt.  It would probably slot in right behind the Mountain West out west, nipping right on their heels given enough time to grow in stature, and would be on the same level as the MAC in the east.  This would be the long term vision.

[SiouxVolley]

7 hours ago, Yote 53 said:

The reasons would be to:

#1 - Play at the clear second level of D1 football.  That would also elevate the profile of the entire athletic department.  We won't be on the same level as Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, but would put the Dakota schools on the same level as Wyoming, Nevada, Colorado State, etc.

#2 - A G5 Summit conference would be involved in the evolving CFP as one of the G5 participants.  When, not if, the CFP expands there will be an at-large spot for the highest ranked/undefeated G5 champion.  It would be the lowest seed and the odds of being the one G5 school to have that magical season would be very long, but it's still access to the CFP, no matter how remote.

#3 - The G5 conferences are going to end up getting a shared cut of the CFP.  Sure, it won't be a Big Ten or SEC level cut, but there will be money and it could be a couple million per school.

#4 - As a G5 school you can command a larger payday for P5 games.  There may just come a day where the FCS is shut out of scheduling P5 schools.  Maybe that happens, maybe not, but I can guarantee that Northern Illinois is getting paid more to play Iowa this year than USD is playing Kansas State.

The more money coming from points #2, #3, and #4 would aid in offsetting the costs of increased scholarships.  Being a G5 school would aid in #1.  Just to be clear, the proposed dream conference we are talking about here with the Dakotas, Montanas, etc. would have way more credibility than conferences like the Sun Belt.  It would probably slot in right behind the Mountain West out west, nipping right on their heels given enough time to grow in stature, and would be on the same level as the MAC in the east.  This would be the long term vision.

Thanks for being such a star of reason on this board.  Much of the bison board just comes here to argue and degrade, so an outsider with a eagle vision like yours is very refreshing.

There has been an FBS plan for quite some time but it takes a long time to get the gears moving amount all the schools.

[Herd]

26 minutes ago, SiouxVolley said:

Thanks for being such a star of reason on this board.  Much of the bison board just comes here to argue and degrade, so an outsider with a eagle vision like yours is very refreshing.

There has been an FBS plan for quite some time but it takes a long time to get the gears moving amount all the schools.

Until there’s a G5 championship, or an avenue to join the FBS playoff for G5 Conf champions, why would you want to make a huge investment like this?   I would support my team joining the MW, but I wouldn’t support joining 10 FCS moveups in a weak 85 scholarship league unless there’s a championship playoff to join.

[Herd]

Und specifically is just getting its feet wet at the 63 scholarship level.  A move to the 85 scholarship level should be based on Unds readiness, no other reason.  Quite frankly, UND is significantly less ready than a Montana or Idaho for example.   Why would UND even be interested at this point?  It’s too soon.

Additionaly, if 10 FCS teams all went to the 85 Level all at the same time (with teams that they are recruiting against), would the talent level improve much?  “Marginally” I would contend.  (See Idaho, 85 scholarships but not as much talent as many FCS schools)

The reason to goto 85 scholarships would be to advance past area competitors and create a recruiting advantage, not be metoo with all other area schools.  I don’t see a reason or advantage.

 

 

[SiouxVolley]

The current SunBelt and past WAC and MAC commish, Benson, is leaving his post tomorrow.  He would be the perfect new WAC boss, as Hurd is supposedly retiring.  Benson has all kinds of experience transitioning schools to FBS and negotiating with TV networks and the NCAA.  He would also get to return to Denver.

https://www.theadvertiser.com/story/sports/college/ul/2018/08/15/breaking-sun-belt-conference-commissioner-karl-benson-leaving/999177002/

[Yote 53]

3 hours ago, Herd said:

Und specifically is just getting its feet wet at the 63 scholarship level.  A move to the 85 scholarship level should be based on Unds readiness, no other reason.  Quite frankly, UND is significantly less ready than a Montana or Idaho for example.   Why would UND even be interested at this point?  It’s too soon.

Additionaly, if 10 FCS teams all went to the 85 Level all at the same time (with teams that they are recruiting against), would the talent level improve much?  “Marginally” I would contend.  (See Idaho, 85 scholarships but not as much talent as many FCS schools)

The reason to goto 85 scholarships would be to advance past area competitors and create a recruiting advantage, not be metoo with all other area schools.  I don’t see a reason or advantage.

 

 

Part of my motivation to see this happen is because the Dakota schools should have gone D1AA in the 70's when the original split happened.  We didn't and it took decades to get to the right level.  So it's about being proactive this time and positioning ourselves to be at the second level of football rather than reacting decades later.

We can either push for, prepare for, and challenge our schools to aspire for better things, or we can talk about Augustana moving up to join the Summit.  Do you all want to hang and bang with Augie again?  Should we settle for that or aspire to something more?

[Herd]

12 minutes ago, Yote 53 said:

Part of my motivation to see this happen is because the Dakota schools should have gone D1AA in the 70's when the original split happened.  We didn't and it took decades to get to the right level.  So it's about being proactive this time and positioning ourselves to be at the second level of football rather than reacting decades later.

We can either push for, prepare for, and challenge our schools to aspire for better things, or we can talk about Augustana moving up to join the Summit.  Do you all want to hang and bang with Augie again?  Should we settle for that or aspire to something more?

Is being a bottom of the barrel league at the 85 scholarship level, aspiring for more? If a team is ready, it should make the move.  10 together, no.

if a playoff started at the G5 level, I would feel differently.  But then it probably wouldn’t be 85 scholarship level, would it.

[darell1976]

11 hours ago, Herd said:

Is being a bottom of the barrel league at the 85 scholarship level, aspiring for more? If a team is ready, it should make the move.  10 together, no.

if a playoff started at the G5 level, I would feel differently.  But then it probably wouldn’t be 85 scholarship level, would it.

I think you would see a boat load of schools moving up if this happened. UCF is a pretty good reason to sit in FCS since there won't be any G5 team playing for a national title, if they expand to 8 or 16 then maybe.

[The Sicatoka]

Random thoughts and observations:

There's no western MAC. There should be one.

FBS football is expensive; but FCS football is a money-losing proposition also. 

I believe the P5 will break away and form it's own "level" before you'd see this "Summit Football" consortium happen and become FBS. However, should the P5 do that, the G5 would need it to happen to stay viable. And in that scenario who knows how rules like "85" and "15000" reshape. 

 

I'd rather have folks pondering these outlandish notions than be blindsided by them. Why? I'm literally replacing the whole communication schema on a machine (that there are 1000s of out there). When it was originally designed the communication schema used "would never go obsolete or be too slow". Guess what. Too slow happened. And there's no provision in the design to fix it other than total rip-up and change-out to all new tech. Times change. And now I'm having to basically start from scratch because nobody thought or planned for "that day". 

It's called "risk management". You ponder the real "what ifs". You come up with how you'd handle them. You write it down so you have a plan ... just in case. You don't have to execute on any of it until "if" starts to materialize as more than just "if". 

[jdub27]

9 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

I'd rather have folks pondering these outlandish notions than be blindsided by them. Why? I'm literally replacing the whole communication schema on a machine (that there are 1000s of out there). When it was originally designed the communication schema used "would never go obsolete or be too slow". Guess what. Too slow happened. And there's no provision in the design to fix it other than total rip-up and change-out to all new tech. Times change. And now I'm having to basically start from scratch because nobody thought or planned for "that day". 

It's called "risk management". You ponder the real "what ifs". You come up with how you'd handle them. You write it down so you have a plan ... just in case. You don't have to execute on any of it until "if" starts to materialize as more than just "if". 

No issues with that, I don't think there is anyone who would have issues with some of the conference ideas mentioned here. The people in charge should have general ideas of the landscape and be in looking into possibilities to protect themselves in the future. 

The issues arise when claims are made from jumping to wild-ass conclusions based on nothing but half-truths and 100% speculation when the facts and logical reasoning say otherwise, but yet it is still declared as the de facto plan of action. Then, when deadlines like July 1 pass with no action, making an excuse why something didn't happen, even though there were plenty of people saying why it wouldn't in the first place.

It's one thing to say "Here's an interesting possibility" and having a discussion about it. It's completely different than saying "Here's what's going to happen, you just don't have the vision to see it" and then fail to take into account any reasoning on why the idea doesn't have any chances of working.