2024 Non-UND FCS Thread

[fightingsioux4life]

5 hours ago, CMSioux said:

I realize for some it's all about the sports, but UND has far from "ceded" the state of ND to SU in the most important area which is academics. 

That's a false choice. You don't have to give up one to have the other. You sound like you are advocating the Rutgers model, where wins and losses are almost 100% irrelevant.

[SiouxFan100]

This old guys wants stability - I don’t think su leaving is good for UND 

[FSSD]

I still hold the following pecking order for schools IN the MWC footprint:

1)  Sac St.

2) Cal Davis

3) Montana St and/or Montana

4) Idaho

On the far eastern edge of ND - NDSU.

[fightingsioux4life]

1 minute ago, SiouxFan100 said:

This old guys wants stability - I don’t think su leaving is good for UND 

Stability? Stability is pretty much extinct in college athletics (especially FB).

[AJS]

7 minutes ago, FSSD said:

I still hold the following pecking order for schools IN the MWC footprint:

1)  Sac St.

2) Cal Davis

3) Montana St and/or Montana

4) Idaho

On the far eastern edge of ND - NDSU.

They want the central time zone for their FB only addition.

[jdub27]

1 hour ago, AJS said:

They want the central time zone for their FB only addition.

Why? Their value to any media contact is the late night games. There are already plenty of central and mountain time games to fill the gaps. 

[AJS]

8 hours ago, jdub27 said:

Why? Their value to any media contact is the late night games. There are already plenty of central and mountain time games to fill the gaps. 

It’s not my opinion, it’s what has been reported. The conference feels there is value being in the central time zone. 

[UND-FB-FAN]

10 hours ago, Kab said:

Nothing we can do if there is no invite

‘notice Montana schools and sdsu don’t have an invite either 

‘I’ve said if they go it should be all sports, summit shouldn’t let them stay 

Mountain  west will be a shell of what it was after several schools go to the pac 12 

Agreed, but the point is UND needs to be positioning for an invite, not taking the approach that they can let NDSU move forward and “hopefully fail”. That didn’t work at all last time. 
 

I agree that it would ideally be a 6-team package deal (UND, NDSU, USD, SDSU, MSU, Montana), but as you say, getting a conference to dish out 6 invites will be difficult. 
 

My main gripe in all of this is I have no faith in UND leadership right now at present. UND needs to be an actual leader, but right now it’s all just lip service. If NDSU stays the only leader, and moves forward to FBS, then I fully expect them to continue to lead the pack in terms of success and the following/finances that come with that.
 

UND needs to start being more aggressive interdepartmentally (and within their own department, also, to be honest).

[forksandspoons]

2 hours ago, UND-FB-FAN said:

My main gripe in all of this is I have no faith in UND leadership right now at present. UND needs to be an actual leader, but right now it’s all just lip service. If NDSU stays the only leader, and moves forward to FBS, then I fully expect them to continue to lead the pack in terms of success and the following/finances that come with that.
 

UND needs to start being more aggressive interdepartmentally (and within their own department, also, to be honest).

This

[jdub27]

4 hours ago, UND-FB-FAN said:

My main gripe in all of this is I have no faith in UND leadership right now at present.

University President's are the ones who are involved in these major decisions, not athletic directors.
I would argue you aren't paying attention all that well if you don't think that the President and his second in charge aren't huge proponents of supporting athletics and understanding the "front porch theory" on why they are important. That being said, I have no clue what their stance is other than they see a huge importance of making sure we are aligned with our regional peers. 

Obviously none of that matters if a conference isn't interested. But, it probably doesn't hurt for University Presidents to have high-up connections to members of potential conferences you may be interested in though, at least have conversations. 

[forksandspoons]

55 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

University President's are the ones who are involved in these major decisions, not athletic directors.
I would argue you aren't paying attention all that well if you don't think that the President and his second in charge aren't huge proponents of supporting athletics and understanding the "front porch theory" on why they are important. That being said, I have no clue what their stance is other than they see a huge importance of making sure we are aligned with our regional peers. 

Obviously none of that matters if a conference isn't interested. But, it probably doesn't hurt for University Presidents to have high-up connections to members of potential conferences your interested in though to at least have conversations. 

Maybe Armacost has connections with Mountain West folks due to his time at Air Force?
 

Chaves needs to be the one making a strong case to Armacost… 

[fightingsioux4life]

1 minute ago, forksandspoons said:

Maybe Armacost has connections with Mountain West folks due to his time at Air Force?
 

Chaves needs to be the one making a strong case to Armacost… 

Chaves is part of the problem.

[jdub27]

24 minutes ago, fightingsioux4life said:

Chaves is part of the problem.

He gets his marching orders and direction directly from the top.
He's not making significant decisions, which I would very much venture to guess include extending and/or firing coaches, without at least running it by his boss.
This defending what decisions have been made and there is definitely a portion of those decisions related to off-field performance as well as on-field performance. The former is in a very good spot. The latter is not up to the standards that I assume anyone is expecting. He also doesn't have an open checkbook to make knee-jerk decisions that cost mid-6 to 7 figures.

Not arguing with the current frustration. It is justified. However there are realities in how it can be dealt with.

[fightingsioux4life]

26 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

He gets his marching orders and direction directly from the top.
He's not making significant decisions, which I would very much venture to guess include extending and/or firing coaches, without at least running it by his boss.
This defending what decisions have been made and there is definitely a portion of those decisions related to off-field performance as well as on-field performance. The former is in a very good spot. The latter is not up to the standards that I assume anyone is expecting. He also doesn't have an open checkbook to make knee-jerk decisions that cost mid-6 to 7 figures.

Not arguing with the current frustration. It is justified. However there are realities in how it can be dealt with.

So Armacost is running the athletic department through Chaves? I thought Presidents delegated these things.

[The Sicatoka]

Armacost is aware of "the picture", as is Chaves. 

No further comment. 

[jdub27]

1 hour ago, fightingsioux4life said:

So Armacost is running the athletic department through Chaves? I thought Presidents delegated these things.

In what industry does a subordinate not run large decisions, particularly ones that are very public and have significant financial implications, through the chain of command?
Conference realignment is decided at the President's level, not the AD level, with input from many channels (which heavily includes the AD).
University President's provide a ton of guidance for expectations to their most public facing departments (athletics).

Not sure how any of that is controversial or confusing?

[fightingsioux4life]

1 minute ago, jdub27 said:

In what industry does a subordinate not run large decisions, particularly ones that are very public and have significant financial implications, through the chain of command?
Conference realignment is decided at the President's level, not the AD level, with input from many channels (which heavily includes the AD).
University President's provide a ton of guidance for expectations to their most public facing departments (athletics).

Not sure how any of that is controversial or confusing?

I guess I was thinking about all AD functions, not just conference realignment.

I agree with you on this.

[UND-FB-FAN]

6 hours ago, jdub27 said:

University President's are the ones who are involved in these major decisions, not athletic directors.
I would argue you aren't paying attention all that well if you don't think that the President and his second in charge aren't huge proponents of supporting athletics and understanding the "front porch theory" on why they are important. That being said, I have no clue what their stance is other than they see a huge importance of making sure we are aligned with our regional peers. 

Obviously none of that matters if a conference isn't interested. But, it probably doesn't hurt for University Presidents to have high-up connections to members of potential conferences you may be interested in though, at least have conversations. 

I would argue we will have to agree to disagree. You’re gullible to lip service and friendliness. Results speak louder than words in my opinion, and I hold that in higher regard when forming opinions on UND and it’s leadership. 

[jdub27]

3 minutes ago, UND-FB-FAN said:

I would argue we will have to agree to disagree. You’re gullible to lip service and friendliness. Results speak louder than words in my opinion, and I hold that in higher regard when forming opinions on UND and it’s leadership. 

I saw them to be the first peer schools to step up and fund Alton Awards.
I know what they have had to do to get the new facilities funded and on line.
I have first hand spoken with the President and discussed the larger picture of athletics.

Those are the actions and results I'm basing my opinion on. If you don't think any of that constitutes a massive shift from how athletics were previously supported, that is your choice. If you want to base your opinion on how quickly people are let go, also fine by me. But without the money to back those decisions, it isn't going to happen immediately. A persuasive argument on what the programs could be losing out on in revenue by letting things deteriorate too far might help you move the needle some, but hypothetical numbers won't move the needle as much as cold, hard cash.

[fightingsioux4life]

33 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

I saw them to be the first peer schools to step up and fund Alton Awards.
I know what they have had to do to get the new facilities funded and on line.
I have first hand spoken with the President and discussed the larger picture of athletics.

Those are the actions and results I'm basing my opinion on. If you don't think any of that constitutes a massive shift from how athletics were previously supported, that is your choice. If you want to base your opinion on how quickly people are let go, also fine by me. But without the money to back those decisions, it isn't going to happen immediately. A persuasive argument on what the programs could be losing out on in revenue by letting things deteriorate too far might help you move the needle some, but hypothetical numbers won't move the needle as much as cold, hard cash.

The results (or in this case, lack thereof) speak for themselves. No amount of sugar-coating can change that.

[HoopsFan03]

40 minutes ago, fightingsioux4life said:

The results (or in this case, lack thereof) speak for themselves. No amount of sugar-coating can change that.

It’s that dang fantasy world that keeps showing up for some posters here 

Others choose to see the reality 

[UND-FB-FAN]

1 hour ago, jdub27 said:

I saw them to be the first peer schools to step up and fund Alton Awards.
I know what they have had to do to get the new facilities funded and on line.
I have first hand spoken with the President and discussed the larger picture of athletics.

Those are the actions and results I'm basing my opinion on. If you don't think any of that constitutes a massive shift from how athletics were previously supported, that is your choice. If you want to base your opinion on how quickly people are let go, also fine by me. But without the money to back those decisions, it isn't going to happen immediately. A persuasive argument on what the programs could be losing out on in revenue by letting things deteriorate too far might help you move the needle some, but hypothetical numbers won't move the needle as much as cold, hard cash.

I just read a bunch of distraction text here. Sure, those are good things (facilities, Alston funds, etc), but results should be of priority. Results, as in head to head competition results, are the basis here. It shouldn’t be win at all costs, as sustainability is critical, but the University of North Dakota football program has only had sustainability in mediocrity, at this point, and that is where my criticism lies.

[GoodGood]

Some prefer to look at Massey ratings instead of playoff wins 

[jdub27]

1 hour ago, fightingsioux4life said:

The results (or in this case, lack thereof) speak for themselves. No amount of sugar-coating can change that.

Who's sugar coating the current results, particularly the last two weeks? I haven't seen anyone defending it. 

21 minutes ago, UND-FB-FAN said:

I just read a bunch of distraction text here. Sure, those are good things (facilities, Alston funds, etc), but results should be of priority. Results, as in head to head competition results, are the basis here. It shouldn’t be win at all costs, as sustainability is critical, but the University of North Dakota football program has only had sustainability in mediocrity, at this point, and that is where my criticism lies.

I acknowledged and agreed with a lot of what you said. The criticism is warranted and valid. I'm also understanding there currently isn't 7 figures lying around right now to make the fix you are advocating for. Unless that shows up somewhere, there won't be an immediate change. Call me crazy, but all the criticisms in the world aren't going to convince a sane person to walk away from well over half a million dollars doing something they are passionate about, barring something completely unforeseen, so that isn't a solution. Find me anyone on here who would make that choice. 

[UND Football Fan]

12 minutes ago, GoodGood said:

Some prefer to look at Massey ratings instead of playoff wins 

We maybe the UNI of the Massey ratings.