(03-30-2015 11:47 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The reason? They know their current level of support is about all they can ever expect based on the populations in their region. FBS will vastly increase their expenses but would make very little difference in the level of support they receive. Its simply not worth it.

Agreed. And it's smart thinking, and thinking that perhaps should be emulated by many G5 programs that historically have had little support, yet have pie-in-sky visions of "growing" their fan base and brand value to levels that are completely unrealistic. Stuff like "yeah, we average 27,000 fans per game, but if we build a 50,000 seat stadium and keep playing games on ESPNU we will soon be drawing 48,000 and the Big 12 will come calling".

Truth is, most schools are already bumping against the ceiling of their potential.

(04-03-2015 08:25 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Male athlete scholarships: 67%, female: 33%
Student body male: 54%, female: 46%

The participation numbers are even worse, as male participants are more likely to be walkons or partials.

Source: Fargo Forum

NDSU has emphasized nursing more, as they bought a Bismarck nursing school illegally without state approval. The school has a higher % female now than when they went DI. But no new women sports have been added. Womens equestrian is practically calling out, like SDSU did when they moved to DI.

The federal government maintains a website strictly for the purpose of Equity in Athletics. That's in fact the name of the website.

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/

This website says for the 2013-2014 reporting year, NDSU had 10,662 full time undergrads enrolled with a ratio of 56.7% / 43.3% male/female. And there were 537 total roster participants on athletics teams, with a ratio of 65% / 35% male/female. (these numbers are self-reported - as is the case with all schools)


Title IX has nothing to do with financial aid received by student athletes. It has only to do with equal participation by both genders in federally supported educational programs (not just athletics).

So that said, the athletics participation ratio is off from the enrollment ratio by less than 10% per gender. Female athletes are being given ample opportunities for extracurricular athletics participation at North Dakota State University.

Any lawsuit attempting to claim the opposite will likely fail.

(04-04-2015 06:25 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  Yes, administrators that don't want to move up use the cost issue as a crutch. Yes FBS costs more, but it also generates much more revenue. You receive $1.3 million a year from the FBS payout, plus you get $400-$600k more than FCS for money games.

Right now it is a wash in terms of cost, but as the playoff grows the G5 schools will receive more and more money. It won't be long before it actually costs more to be in FCS.

Perhaps. But even at a wash, the choice to move up - if actually given that opportunity via a conference invite - is obvious.

FCS is nothing more than a more expensive DII.

(04-04-2015 06:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Agreed. And it's smart thinking, and thinking that perhaps should be emulated by many G5 programs that historically have had little support, yet have pie-in-sky visions of "growing" their fan base and brand value to levels that are completely unrealistic. Stuff like "yeah, we average 27,000 fans per game, but if we build a 50,000 seat stadium and keep playing games on ESPNU we will soon be drawing 48,000 and the Big 12 will come calling".

Truth is, most schools are already bumping against the ceiling of their potential.

Disagreed. Because the cost of "low major" FBS is the same as the cost of top tier FCS, which they're already paying.

As proved by App St and Georgia Southern.


Perhaps the realities of moving from "low major" or "mid major" FBS upward to "high major" FBS are unrealistic. But that's not what we're talking about.