(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.

How many fanbase wants to be in the FBS from the lower levels?

(07-18-2017 10:32 PM)billings Wrote:  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

Thanks for info. Does the decline have anything to do with the rape controversy from a few years ago, or was that just a blip on the radar relative to the school's overall issues?

(07-18-2017 11:25 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  Got it, so you don't claim him?

He is a fan of UND, I'm a fan of NDSU, if that's what you're getting at? Both are or will be members of the Summit.

But what I mean is, he's the only one who comes up with and promotes these far-out ideas about conference realignment between the Big Sky and Summit teams.

(07-19-2017 01:05 AM)NoDak Wrote:  

(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.

In the BSC Sac State also had over 200 as did South Dakota State in the Summit/MVFC. Neither are going FBS anytime soon.

Oh, and I don't know about Sac State but SDSU hasn't had to cut any sports, eliminate programs, cut scholarships, nor did we recently agree to pay our Men's BB coach a paltry sum of $140K annually. You seem to be missing the fact that your school, who you say is going FBS just went through a painful budget cutting process which according to recent reports, the cuts may not yet be finished.

UND had too many sports, and W hockey was a big money loser. Not saying it should be FBS, but cutting excessive sports doesn't mean doom and gloom.

Texas and Texas A&M, the top two revenue athletic depts in the country, only have 20 sports each..

(07-19-2017 12:53 PM)jacksfan29 Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 01:05 AM)NoDak Wrote:  

(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.

In the BSC Sac State also had over 200 as did South Dakota State in the Summit/MVFC. Neither are going FBS anytime soon.

Oh, and I don't know about Sac State but SDSU hasn't had to cut any sports, eliminate programs, cut scholarships, nor did we recently agree to pay our Men's BB coach a paltry sum of $140K annually. You seem to be missing the fact that your school, who you say is going FBS just went through a painful budget cutting process which according to recent reports, the cuts may not yet be finished.

It is funny how the two BSC schools that are either at 200 (Sac St) or close (NAU) are the ones that are degraded as lacking in Athletics, etc while schools that would need to add 40-55 schollies (Montana, Mt State, EWU) are pushed for FBS...

Yeah absolutely no idea, at all, in the world, why the top FOOTBALL programs in the Big Sky would be the ones that people think about when it comes to upgrading FOOTBALL division?

(07-19-2017 01:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yeah absolutely no idea, at all, in the world, why the top FOOTBALL programs in the Big Sky would be the ones that people think about when it comes to upgrading FOOTBALL division?

Check the standings. Last few years. When is the last time Montana State did anything?


Montana is in the crapper.

These are the conf records and place for the last five seasons for the champ and the Montana's:

2016: T-1 EWU 8-0, T-1 UND 8-0, 8 UM 3-5, T-9 MSU 2-6
2015: 1 SUU 7-1, T-2 UM 6-2, T-8 MSU 3-5
2014: 1 EWU 7-1, T-2 UM 6-2, T-2 MSU 6-2
2013: 1 EWU 8-0, 3 UM 6-2, T-4 MSU 5-3
2012: T-1 MSU 7-1, T-1 EWU 7-1, T-1 CP 7-1, T-8 UM 3-5

Last season looks to be an anomaly as far as both Montana's finishing down in football. Both have proud histories and fan support, and won't allow their teams to stay down. I like the recent hires at both. Same goes for EW ... clearly the class of the Big Sky under Baldwin. We'll see if that continues.

(07-19-2017 01:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yeah absolutely no idea, at all, in the world, why the top FOOTBALL programs in the Big Sky would be the ones that people think about when it comes to upgrading FOOTBALL division?

I distinctly remember you and others attacking me when I posted that Liberty would move up to FBS last fall. Even had a local link. The thread was moved to the verbal assault section because the moderators agreed with you. How did that work out again?

(07-19-2017 05:57 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 01:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yeah absolutely no idea, at all, in the world, why the top FOOTBALL programs in the Big Sky would be the ones that people think about when it comes to upgrading FOOTBALL division?

I distinctly remember you and others attacking me when I posted that Liberty would move up to FBS last fall. Even had a local link. The thread was moved to the verbal assault section because the moderators agreed with you. How did that work out again?

The sun even shines on a dog's butt on occasion


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(07-19-2017 05:57 PM)NoDak Wrote:  I distinctly remember you and others attacking me when I posted that Liberty would move up to FBS last fall. Even had a local link. The thread was moved to the verbal assault section because the moderators agreed with you. How did that work out again?

Well that's a lie. I never attacked you, for Liberty.

I have posted negative things about Liberty itself, and particularly about the human piece of excrement formerly known as Jerry Falwell.

(07-20-2017 09:42 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 05:57 PM)NoDak Wrote:  I distinctly remember you and others attacking me when I posted that Liberty would move up to FBS last fall. Even had a local link. The thread was moved to the verbal assault section because the moderators agreed with you. How did that work out again?

Well that's a lie. I never attacked you, for Liberty.

I have posted negative things about Liberty itself, and particularly about the human piece of excrement formally known as Jerry Falwell.

Formerly or formally?

Formerly, thanks

The Montana game at Portland St is being moved to a high school. Guess Montana really loves the Big time Big Sky dregs.

If playing at the Timbers stadium isn't workable, then PSU needs to drop football.

(07-20-2017 10:20 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  If playing at the Timbers stadium isn't workable, then PSU needs to drop football.

The women's pro team, the Thorns, has priority scheduling so the Vikings-Griz game was sent to a Hillsboro HS stadium.

(07-20-2017 10:29 AM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-20-2017 10:20 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  If playing at the Timbers stadium isn't workable, then PSU needs to drop football.

The women's pro team, the Thorns, has priority scheduling so the Vikings-Griz game was sent to a Hillsboro HS stadium.

This is why Sac State will never move their games off-campus if the proposed MLS stadium gets built (and expansion franchise is awarded to the Sac Republic). I know there are some folks who would like to see us at that proposed venue, but the example above with PSU is alarm bells going off!

Is there any pressure to turn the Hornet Stadium infield into more of a track-specific configuration, so as to help with continuing to win bids to host major track meets?

(07-20-2017 10:51 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Is there any pressure to turn the Hornet Stadium infield into more of a track-specific configuration, so as to help with continuing to win bids to host major track meets?

No there isn't, we built outside of the stadium at the practice track all the throws competition sites. It sits adjacent to the 1st base side of John Smith Field where Hornet baseball plays at.

You can see it here from Google maps:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5580501,...a=!3m1!1e3

I remember that Portland State, Cal-Poly, Cal.-Davis, Sacramento State, Montana and Montana State were the hot chicks that the WAC wanted to move up to FBS status. Eastern Washington and Weber State fans wanted to go to FBS as well, but with Idaho and Utah State, it would be hard for them to join the WAC since both schools would be sharing the same tv markets of Salt Lake City and Spokane with Idaho and Utah State.

Idaho was hoping and praying those schools said yes so that they stay in the WAC and WAC would still be an FBS conference. As it is, I do think that states with no schools in the FBS division would try and pushed their way to be there.

Montana
North Dakota State
South Dakota State
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Maine
Delaware

Vermont and Alaska do not have football teams at D1 level. Alaska only have high school football.
Alaska-Fairbanks did played in a dome a long time ago.

Should Fairbanks restarts football and moved to D1 and Vermont restarts their football program? I can see them go to the FBS level further down the road.

Should there be a FBS conference formed for the Northeast schools and the Central plains schools to be represented at the FBS level? Lets say that the G5 and P5 agree to this? Some of the schools mentioned in this thread and some from the northeast are mostly academically similar to many schools in the P5 and G5 that could be easy targets if they grow for the P5.

UMass., Stony Brook and Buffalo all need to step up spending and build larger facilities to be even considered P5. They have the academics to be there.
Albany is in the same boat.
The Dakotas and Montanas are more Big 12 and SEC schools with their academics to belong. They are not R1 like the Big 10, but they are R2 like most of the Big 12 and SEC schools.