(07-18-2017 05:49 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  It's not implausible now. When Montana did their study, one of the FCS negatives was people associating them with the Big Sky directionals. Joining the Summit (maybe renaming Summit) with the Dakota 4 and Denver solves that. (Yes, oral Roberts, WIU and PU Fort Wayne, but they're far away.)

"Not implausible" does not equal "they have yearned for generations"

No, it doesn't solve that. Montana fans I know that are disatisified with the Big Sky want the Mountain West. Directional Dakotas don't help matters.

(07-18-2017 05:55 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Dakotas are already in the best FCS conference, so I don't see the point.

If Montana's and Idaho decided to ask for MVFC membership, perhaps lobbying for a western division, more power to you. Can't guarantee that Dakotas would like that and support it.

Just curious. Just for the record, I don't think there's any good reason for any of those schools to try to join the MVFC.

(07-18-2017 06:07 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 05:49 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  It's not implausible now. When Montana did their study, one of the FCS negatives was people associating them with the Big Sky directionals. Joining the Summit (maybe renaming Summit) with the Dakota 4 and Denver solves that. (Yes, oral Roberts, WIU and PU Fort Wayne, but they're far away.)

"Not implausible" does not equal "they have yearned for generations"

No, it doesn't solve that. Montana fans I know that are disatisified with the Big Sky want the Mountain West. Directional Dakotas don't help matters.

Montana fans are ridiculous, which is the #1 reason none of this is going to happen.

(07-18-2017 06:08 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 06:07 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 05:49 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  It's not implausible now. When Montana did their study, one of the FCS negatives was people associating them with the Big Sky directionals. Joining the Summit (maybe renaming Summit) with the Dakota 4 and Denver solves that. (Yes, oral Roberts, WIU and PU Fort Wayne, but they're far away.)

"Not implausible" does not equal "they have yearned for generations"

No, it doesn't solve that. Montana fans I know that are disatisified with the Big Sky want the Mountain West. Directional Dakotas don't help matters.

Montana fans are ridiculous, which is the #1 reason none of this is going to happen.

Some are. Some are realists that know that Montana can't afford even bare bones FBS, and have no desire to do that.

(07-18-2017 06:10 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 06:08 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 06:07 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 05:49 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  It's not implausible now. When Montana did their study, one of the FCS negatives was people associating them with the Big Sky directionals. Joining the Summit (maybe renaming Summit) with the Dakota 4 and Denver solves that. (Yes, oral Roberts, WIU and PU Fort Wayne, but they're far away.)

"Not implausible" does not equal "they have yearned for generations"

No, it doesn't solve that. Montana fans I know that are disatisified with the Big Sky want the Mountain West. Directional Dakotas don't help matters.

Montana fans are ridiculous, which is the #1 reason none of this is going to happen.

Some are. Some are realists that know that Montana can't afford even bare bones FBS, and have no desire to do that.

Montana would be strapped to keep up with the bigger MWC schools. But as of a couple years ago their athletic budget was already bigger than 7 or 8 FBS schools, and that's without any of the additional revenue that comes with FBS football. So if there were a lower-budget FBS conference in the West the way there is in the South, they could absolutely keep up.

(07-18-2017 05:55 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  No, plausible means that something is coherent, and somewhat matches with other facts. Plausible means not crazy, not stupid. Augustana U or whoever joining the Summit is maybe plausible. Joining America East is not.

Probable means more likely than not. I'd agree that any given school probably stays put.

Montana &friends to Summit is plausible. To WAC or Southland or Horizon or Big East is not.

Google "plausible define". I'm going with the dictionary over you, and the dictionary says plausible and probable are synonyms. Sorry

Now that you explained your thoughts, I agree that it is not insane to suggest Montana's in Summit or Dakota's in Big Sky. But certainly not probable.

(07-18-2017 06:07 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Directional Dakotas don't help matters.

Stupid directional schools. Can't believe the ACC and SEC have directional Carolina schools!

(10-03-1974 09:19 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  Some are. Some are realists that know that Montana can't afford even bare bones FBS, and have no desire to do that.

Idaho just had its best football season in quite a while, and looking to be even better this year.

Montana already spends that and can easily afford it.

So, BS is BS.

(07-18-2017 06:48 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 05:55 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  No, plausible means that something is coherent, and somewhat matches with other facts. Plausible means not crazy, not stupid. Augustana U or whoever joining the Summit is maybe plausible. Joining America East is not.

Probable means more likely than not. I'd agree that any given school probably stays put.

Montana &friends to Summit is plausible. To WAC or Southland or Horizon or Big East is not.

Google "plausible define". I'm going with the dictionary over you, and the dictionary says plausible and probable are synonyms. Sorry

Now that you explained your thoughts, I agree that it is not insane to suggest Montana's in Summit or Dakota's in Big Sky. But certainly not probable.

(07-18-2017 06:07 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Directional Dakotas don't help matters.

Stupid directional schools. Can't believe the ACC and SEC have directional Carolina schools!

(10-03-1974 09:19 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  Some are. Some are realists that know that Montana can't afford even bare bones FBS, and have no desire to do that.

Idaho just had its best football season in quite a while, and looking to be even better this year.

Montana already spends that and can easily afford it.

So, BS is BS.

So Idaho has a good season. What, third winning season in FBS? Whoopdie-do. Yes, let's aspire to have bottom 10 budget! And trade home games for Buy games on the road.

All for a chance to go to the Potato Bowl!

Let me know what the TV rating and payout were for the Idaho v CO St bowl game, and how those compared to the playoff game that Montana hosted.

(07-18-2017 06:54 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Let me know what the TV rating and payout were for the Idaho v CO St bowl game, and how those compared to the playoff game that Montana hosted.

That is not the full measure of the costs. Exposure - same. Benefits to locals - Montana wins.

Chance to host multiple? Montana

Montana would need to add 45 scholarships and at least another sport to reach NCAA minimums for FBS.

All for what? A December night in Boise? Games in Fargo and Vermillion? What a prize!!

(07-18-2017 06:51 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 06:48 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  [quote='johnbragg' pid='14452353' dateline='1500418555']
No, plausible means that something is coherent, and somewhat matches with other facts. Plausible means not crazy, not stupid. Augustana U or whoever joining the Summit is maybe plausible. Joining America East is not.

Probable means more likely than not. I'd agree that any given school probably stays put.

Montana &friends to Summit is plausible. To WAC or Southland or Horizon or Big East is not.

Google "plausible define". I'm going with the dictionary over you, and the dictionary says plausible and probable are synonyms. Sorry

Now that you explained your thoughts, I agree that it is not insane to suggest Montana's in Summit or Dakota's in Big Sky. But certainly not probable.

From Merriam-Webster.com

Definition of plausible
1: superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious a plausible pretext
2: superficially pleasing or persuasive
a swindler … , then a quack, then a smooth, plausible gentleman — R. W. Emerson
3: appearing worthy of belief the argument was both powerful and plausible

Definition of probable
1: supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof a probable hypothesis
2: establishing a probability probable evidence
3: likely to be or become true or real probable outcome

Summary, plausible meaning "not ridiculous", probable meaning "more likely than not"

(07-18-2017 06:51 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  So Idaho has a good season. What, third winning season in FBS? Whoopdie-do. Yes, let's aspire to have bottom 10 budget! And trade home games for Buy games on the road.

All for a chance to go to the Potato Bowl!

A whole bunch of schools have moved from FCS to FBS in the past couple decades. They've ranged from wildly successful to middling to Idaho level to even worse. Find me one FBS fanbase that wants to go back to FCS.

(07-18-2017 07:36 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 06:51 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  So Idaho has a good season. What, third winning season in FBS? Whoopdie-do. Yes, let's aspire to have bottom 10 budget! And trade home games for Buy games on the road.

All for a chance to go to the Potato Bowl!

A whole bunch of schools have moved from FCS to FBS in the past couple decades. They've ranged from wildly successful to middling to Idaho level to even worse. Find me one FBS fanbase that wants to go back to FCS.

Big difference between going back and going up. Pride keeps most from admitting it. Idaho was in a bad place - no conference wanted them, and travel to and from Moscow, plus crappy, small stadium would make scheduling almost impossible.

The upper level is reaching the historical max (actually a little above) - at which point the bigger guys push back and put new rules in place to chaff out the weaker schools. That happening is far more likely than a Northern Tier FBS conference.

(07-18-2017 07:40 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 07:36 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 06:51 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  So Idaho has a good season. What, third winning season in FBS? Whoopdie-do. Yes, let's aspire to have bottom 10 budget! And trade home games for Buy games on the road.

All for a chance to go to the Potato Bowl!

A whole bunch of schools have moved from FCS to FBS in the past couple decades. They've ranged from wildly successful to middling to Idaho level to even worse. Find me one FBS fanbase that wants to go back to FCS.

Big difference between going back and going up. Pride keeps most from admitting it. Idaho was in a bad place - no conference wanted them, and travel to and from Moscow, plus crappy, small stadium would make scheduling almost impossible.

The upper level is reaching the historical max (actually a little above) - at which point the bigger guys push back and put new rules in place to chaff out the weaker schools. That happening is far more likely than a Northern Tier FBS conference.

Idaho being in a bad place is a different conversation than FBS vs. FCS. I will tell you that I've enjoyed our good and even most of our bad FBS seasons far, far more than anything we did in FCS (2012 being a big exception), and I'm not alone. I'm on the Sun Belt board a lot, and sometimes App St. and Georgia Southern fans will start threads on what's better -- bowl games or FCS championships. Hands down for them it's bowl games and it's not even close.

(07-18-2017 07:18 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Exposure - same.

Don't be dishonest

(07-18-2017 07:18 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Benefits to locals - Montana wins.

Now you're making up your own criteria ... this is not applicable as the game wasn't in Moscow.

(07-18-2017 07:18 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Chance to host multiple? Montana

More made up, irrelevant criteria.

(07-18-2017 07:18 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Montana would need to add 45 scholarships

Factually false

(07-18-2017 07:18 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  All for what? A December night in Boise?

As you know, I've advocated that the Potato Bowl should not be allowed to continue being a bowl game ... so you got me there.

(07-18-2017 07:18 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Games in Fargo and Vermillion?

No need to be a twit ... you know that tin-foil hat stuff has nothing to do with me.

(07-18-2017 07:20 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  From Merriam-Webster.com

It just isn't internet discussion, if you don't have an argument over the definition of words. And now we even have competing dictionaries as the cherry on top.

Google says:

Quote:plau·si·ble
ˈplôzəb(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: plausible

(of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable.
"a plausible explanation"

(07-18-2017 07:40 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Idaho was in a bad place - no conference wanted them, and travel to and from Moscow, plus crappy, small stadium would make scheduling almost impossible.

Amazing how all that crap takes care of itself when you WIN. Ask Boise, they won a whole bunch.

(07-18-2017 07:40 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  at which point the bigger guys push back and put new rules in place to chaff out the weaker schools.

This kind of wishful thinking only ever comes from FCS fans, pretending they're going to claw back G5 teams.

Not in your lifetime.

Idaho and E Michigan ... what do we think, over/under 16 wins combined? That a fair bet?

The fact that you don't understand that FBS requires 200 Full equivalent scholarships and Montana is currently in the 155 range shows how little you know.

200-155 = 45. That is too get to FBS minimum


And I know quite a few Ga So and App fans that support their school no matter what but prefer FCS

Fine, thought you were implying going from 63 to 85 required title IX matching.

Tough to believe school as well funded as Montana provides so few equivalencies.

The scholarship/minimum sport sponsorship levels is another point that NoDak's WAC/BSC/Summit/Who'snext FBS pipe dream completely overlooks. Most BSC schools sponsor the bare minimum at FCS so it would take significant increases in funding for scholarships, operating budgets for new sports, and facilities for those new sports.

(07-18-2017 10:12 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Fine, thought you were implying going from 63 to 85 required title IX matching.

Tough to believe school as well funded as Montana provides so few equivalencies.

Montana is not that well funded. Bleeding students and cutting all over campus the last three years. Was a fight to get a 2% pay raise in for the coaches this year with several on the BOR voting no to that. Athletics has to pay the University Rent and upkeep on the facilities out of its revenue. They don't keep a chunk of concessions in athletics either. Their athletic $$ number is deceiving at best

(07-18-2017 10:47 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Jjoey, hopefully you can consider that it's just one guy who is talking like that, and no other Summit fans ...

Got it, so you don't claim him?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(07-18-2017 10:20 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  The scholarship/minimum sport sponsorship levels is another point that NoDak's WAC/BSC/Summit/Who'snext FBS pipe dream completely overlooks. Most BSC schools sponsor the bare minimum at FCS so it would take significant increases in funding for scholarships, operating budgets for new sports, and facilities for those new sports.

UND had more than 200 schollies, but may not now after cutting women's hockey and M&W swimming. Every school that went FBS in the last 30 years has had issues where posters such as these said it couldn't be done. Sometimes scholarship numbers, sometimes facilities, sometimes fielding more women's teams, but the schools who didn't succeed in transitioning to FBS can be counted on one hand and maybe one finger - FAMU. Presidents normally don't tread on new or expanded athletic programs unless they have an assured funding source - which is often private. Montana has relied on the Washington's for millions in fb facility improvements, much of which generates revenue.

UND expected to pay $730k for FCOA in 2016-17, and it costs $3400 each for each FCOA on a full load scholarship, which means almost 215 scholarships were given out. Reduce the number by about 30 for the cuts, and UND would be above 200 again for FBS.