(07-23-2014 05:20 PM)MJG Wrote:  Big SKY FBS

Webber ST 17500

Sacremento ST 21500

Montana 25500

Montana ST 21500

Portland ST 20000

Idaho 16000

UND 13500 dome would need Memorial Stadium expansion.

UC-Davis expansion to thirty thousand is 72% funded.
EWU has plans for expansion to twenty five thousand also Albi stadium 28k.

Possible additions

NDSU 19500
SDSU 17500
NMSU if the SBC tightens its footprint or never offers all sports. thirty thousand.

I will call it the WAFC or WAC FCS
Southern Utah, Idaho ST,Northern Arizona ,Cal- Poly and at least one of the above that is not ready.

A bowl game could be set up in Seattle ,Reno or Vegas vs SBC.
The conference would take awhile to fully catch up but the SBC only had two bowl tie ins last year.The FBS conference would have a pretty good footprint .Cal Davis and Sacramento ST are close .The Montanas ,EWU,Portland ST and Idaho are all close enough for bus trips.

(07-25-2014 04:11 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 02:13 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 04:02 PM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 03:49 PM)MJG Wrote:  The whole conference would not have to move up just six schools. NAU, ISU, NCU, UND, EWU and SUU would form a FCS football only conference. They would stay in the BSC for Olympic sports . These schools would benefit from having a future path to FBS. The different football groups still play just at the FBS school. The fee could be set bye the conference even scheduling the games.

Your concept is good. Your breakdown is suspect.

The staying FCS crowd would probably be: Northern Arizona, Northern Colorado, Southern Utah, Idaho State, and Weber State.

The Montanas, the States (Portland and Sac), and Eastern Washington and UND would move and you have to assume Idaho would be part of the mix. Current football associates Cal Poly and UC-Davis would take a long look.

I think North Arizona would make the move along with Montana and Montana State, Eastern Washington, Cal Poly, UC-Davis and Sacramento State.

Portland State is questionable. Idaho State would move up to join Idaho. Then add two Dakotas

West

North Arizona
Eastern Washington
Cal Poly
UC Davis
Sarcramento State
Idaho


West

Montana
Montana State
North Dakota State
South Dakota State
Northern Iowa
Idaho State

If you go fourteen, then add Portland State and Northern Colorado

Northern Arizona doesn't get much financial support from state government or fans, same with N Colo and Idaho St. Weber St and SUU have too many FBS schools in their state. An FBS move would be wildly unpopular politically in Utah.

Portland St has an FBS stadium and a will to go FBS. If they don't go FBS, they might as well drop football and sponsor men's soccer or lacrosse. Same with UCDavis and Cal Poly. FCS football doesn't have a long-term future at those schools.

Don't underestimate UND. Hockey funds the the athletics department to a large extent (250 k attendance), but expanding football makes sense so UND is not so dependent on one sport. A 300 m indoor track and football complex is going up now next to old Memorial Stadium. Add a visitor side and maybe even a roof, and we would meet FBS requirements with facilities that are on par or exceed many G5 schools.

E Wash has a stadium plan to go FBS. They long to latch on to Montana and Idaho as well as create an alternative to a long trip to Washington St among Spokanites.

Wow! WHERE did UND come up with $300M for a new stadium? ... Natural Gas? Amazing.

(07-25-2014 04:11 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 02:13 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 04:02 PM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 03:49 PM)MJG Wrote:  The whole conference would not have to move up just six schools. NAU, ISU, NCU, UND, EWU and SUU would form a FCS football only conference. They would stay in the BSC for Olympic sports . These schools would benefit from having a future path to FBS. The different football groups still play just at the FBS school. The fee could be set bye the conference even scheduling the games.

Your concept is good. Your breakdown is suspect.

The staying FCS crowd would probably be: Northern Arizona, Northern Colorado, Southern Utah, Idaho State, and Weber State.

The Montanas, the States (Portland and Sac), and Eastern Washington and UND would move and you have to assume Idaho would be part of the mix. Current football associates Cal Poly and UC-Davis would take a long look.

I think North Arizona would make the move along with Montana and Montana State, Eastern Washington, Cal Poly, UC-Davis and Sacramento State....

If you go fourteen, then add Portland State and Northern Colorado

Northern Arizona doesn't get much financial support from state government or fans, same with N Colo and Idaho St. Weber St and SUU have too many FBS schools in their state. An FBS move would be wildly unpopular politically in Utah.

Portland St has an FBS stadium and a will to go FBS. If they don't go FBS, they might as well drop football and sponsor men's soccer or lacrosse. Same with UCDavis and Cal Poly. FCS football doesn't have a long-term future at those schools.

Don't underestimate UND. Hockey funds the the athletics department to a large extent (250 k attendance), but expanding football makes sense so UND is not so dependent on one sport. A 300 m indoor track and football complex is going up now next to old Memorial Stadium. Add a visitor side and maybe even a roof, and we would meet FBS requirements with facilities that are on par or exceed many G5 schools.

E Wash has a stadium plan to go FBS. They long to latch on to Montana and Idaho as well as create an alternative to a long trip to Washington St among Spokanites.

I believe there is a long tradition at Davis of well regarded football teams both on and off the field. It has a long tradition, and they've sent numerous QBs to the pros (Ken O'Brien, Mike Moroksi, etc.), so I think there would be significant push back to losing football. FWIW.

(07-25-2014 04:36 PM)bigsky1999 Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 05:20 PM)MJG Wrote:  Big SKY FBS

Webber ST 17500

Sacremento ST 21500

Montana 25500

Montana ST 21500

Portland ST 20000

Idaho 16000

UND 13500 dome would need Memorial Stadium expansion.

UC-Davis expansion to thirty thousand is 72% funded.
EWU has plans for expansion to twenty five thousand also Albi stadium 28k.

Possible additions

NDSU 19500
SDSU 17500
NMSU if the SBC tightens its footprint or never offers all sports. thirty thousand.

I will call it the WAFC or WAC FCS
Southern Utah, Idaho ST,Northern Arizona ,Cal- Poly and at least one of the above that is not ready.

A bowl game could be set up in Seattle ,Reno or Vegas vs SBC.
The conference would take awhile to fully catch up but the SBC only had two bowl tie ins last year.The FBS conference would have a pretty good footprint .Cal Davis and Sacramento ST are close .The Montanas ,EWU,Portland ST and Idaho are all close enough for bus trips.

(07-25-2014 04:11 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 02:13 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 04:02 PM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 03:49 PM)MJG Wrote:  The whole conference would not have to move up just six schools. NAU, ISU, NCU, UND, EWU and SUU would form a FCS football only conference. They would stay in the BSC for Olympic sports . These schools would benefit from having a future path to FBS. The different football groups still play just at the FBS school. The fee could be set bye the conference even scheduling the games.

Your concept is good. Your breakdown is suspect.

The staying FCS crowd would probably be: Northern Arizona, Northern Colorado, Southern Utah, Idaho State, and Weber State.

The Montanas, the States (Portland and Sac), and Eastern Washington and UND would move and you have to assume Idaho would be part of the mix. Current football associates Cal Poly and UC-Davis would take a long look.

I think North Arizona would make the move along with Montana and Montana State, Eastern Washington, Cal Poly, UC-Davis and Sacramento State.

Portland State is questionable. Idaho State would move up to join Idaho. Then add two Dakotas

West

North Arizona
Eastern Washington
Cal Poly
UC Davis
Sarcramento State
Idaho


West

Montana
Montana State
North Dakota State
South Dakota State
Northern Iowa
Idaho State

If you go fourteen, then add Portland State and Northern Colorado

Northern Arizona doesn't get much financial support from state government or fans, same with N Colo and Idaho St. Weber St and SUU have too many FBS schools in their state. An FBS move would be wildly unpopular politically in Utah.

Portland St has an FBS stadium and a will to go FBS. If they don't go FBS, they might as well drop football and sponsor men's soccer or lacrosse. Same with UCDavis and Cal Poly. FCS football doesn't have a long-term future at those schools.

Don't underestimate UND. Hockey funds the the athletics department to a large extent (250 k attendance), but expanding football makes sense so UND is not so dependent on one sport. A 300 m indoor track and football complex is going up now next to old Memorial Stadium. Add a visitor side and maybe even a roof, and we would meet FBS requirements with facilities that are on par or exceed many G5 schools.

E Wash has a stadium plan to go FBS. They long to latch on to Montana and Idaho as well as create an alternative to a long trip to Washington St among Spokanites.

Wow! WHERE did UND come up with $300M for a new stadium? ... Natural Gas? Amazing.

That quote was 300 meter track and indoor practice center. It's beside our old Memorial Stadium. If we added a visitor side to Memorial (the visitors stands have been removed), we'd easily be over 15k. Even without a roof at Memorial, we could play November games indoors at the Alerus Center.

(07-25-2014 03:27 PM)aggie6thman Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 05:20 PM)MJG Wrote:  UC-Davis expansion to thirty thousand is 72% funded.

MJG, where in the world did you get this factoid? We spent $30 million to get a 10,000 seat stadium which means in order to add 20k seats we would have to be sitting on another $30-50 million....

We lack support and training facilities for our 23 sports as is, softball is getting $4 million to replace their stadium and field hockey is getting a $3 million facility opening soon.

Either Tumey found the money tree or you are way off.

Good question, aggie6thman. But I think you might be overestimating the cost. I believe that Aggie Stadium was built on a new site, and there were basics that had to be constructed that won't be redone, if they designed it right. They had to grade the site, provide access, electricity, plumbing, lights, an all-weather field, large scoreboard, press box, and locker rooms. It will still be a big cost, but you're probably talking adding a large grandstand or two, new restrooms and concessions.

You did mention another big cost which are training facilities. Maybe the AD will add 5,000-7,000 seats as a step? A 30,000-seat stadium with 6,000 fans wouldn't look good.

(07-24-2014 09:00 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  I don't think many here know the rules that have to followed to move up from FCS to FBS.

Meeting the five home games against FBS teams requirement is virtually impossible, unless you are invited to join an FBS Conference. Can't count other FCS teams as FBS. Unless a school has P5 resources, and can buy FBS home games the door to FBS without an invite is shut.

Also, the new playoff format and the new autonomy proposal, if it is approved, for all intents and purposes separates the FBS Conferences from the other 22 Division Conferences.

Many FBS schools have already let it be known that they will not be scheduling FCS teams in the future, and I think that will be the norm.

That rule was either modified before the BCS era or its never been enforced. Unfortunately NIU fans know that from our previous OOC home scheduling.

1998, 1999, 2000, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2014 all only had 4 home games vs FBS teams...with a 5th vs a FCS team.

(07-25-2014 05:00 PM)bigsky1999 Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 03:27 PM)aggie6thman Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 05:20 PM)MJG Wrote:  UC-Davis expansion to thirty thousand is 72% funded.

MJG, where in the world did you get this factoid? We spent $30 million to get a 10,000 seat stadium which means in order to add 20k seats we would have to be sitting on another $30-50 million....

We lack support and training facilities for our 23 sports as is, softball is getting $4 million to replace their stadium and field hockey is getting a $3 million facility opening soon.

Either Tumey found the money tree or you are way off.

Good question, aggie6thman. But I think you might be overestimating the cost. I believe that Aggie Stadium was built on a new site, and there were basics that had to be constructed that won't be redone, if they designed it right. They had to grade the site, provide access, electricity, plumbing, lights, an all-weather field, large scoreboard, press box, and locker rooms. It will still be a big cost, but you're probably talking adding a large grandstand or two, new restrooms and concessions.

You did mention another big cost which are training facilities. Maybe the AD will add 5,000-7,000 seats as a step? A 30,000-seat stadium with 6,000 fans wouldn't look good.

Why would we add seats when we can't sell out a full home slate of game right now? Makes absolutely no sense. We don't even AVERAGE 10k a game...or 9k a game...or 8k a game! Create demand, then we can start to talk about it. If we are playing the same teams we are now as many of you are suggesting, do you really think playing in a bigger stadium is going to fix it?

As for the stadium construction, it was built with everything you mentioned but you forgot that we are building in California where costs are higher than the lights. You can't add 5k seats without going up and that is going to cost a pretty penny. The stadium was sunk below grade for that exact reason. Steel and concrete costs were sky high so in order the save money and keep the project on budget we went down.

My old high school has a better weight room than the one at Davis, we have coaches spread out across campus because there are either no offices at the facilities or no space at Hickey.

This stadium expansion stuff is fun to talk about but you have to understand that it is highly unlikely to occur within 20 years.

(07-25-2014 05:27 PM)aggie6thman Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 05:00 PM)bigsky1999 Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 03:27 PM)aggie6thman Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 05:20 PM)MJG Wrote:  UC-Davis expansion to thirty thousand is 72% funded.

MJG, where in the world did you get this factoid? We spent $30 million to get a 10,000 seat stadium which means in order to add 20k seats we would have to be sitting on another $30-50 million....

We lack support and training facilities for our 23 sports as is, softball is getting $4 million to replace their stadium and field hockey is getting a $3 million facility opening soon.

Either Tumey found the money tree or you are way off.

Good question, aggie6thman. But I think you might be overestimating the cost. I believe that Aggie Stadium was built on a new site, and there were basics that had to be constructed that won't be redone, if they designed it right. They had to grade the site, provide access, electricity, plumbing, lights, an all-weather field, large scoreboard, press box, and locker rooms. It will still be a big cost, but you're probably talking adding a large grandstand or two, new restrooms and concessions.

You did mention another big cost which are training facilities. Maybe the AD will add 5,000-7,000 seats as a step? A 30,000-seat stadium with 6,000 fans wouldn't look good.

Why would we add seats when we can't sell out a full home slate of game right now? Makes absolutely no sense. We don't even AVERAGE 10k a game...or 9k a game...or 8k a game! Create demand, then we can start to talk about it. If we are playing the same teams we are now as many of you are suggesting, do you really think playing in a bigger stadium is going to fix it?

As for the stadium construction, it was built with everything you mentioned but you forgot that we are building in California where costs are higher than the lights. You can't add 5k seats without going up and that is going to cost a pretty penny. The stadium was sunk below grade for that exact reason. Steel and concrete costs were sky high so in order the save money and keep the project on budget we went down.

My old high school has a better weight room than the one at Davis, we have coaches spread out across campus because there are either no offices at the facilities or no space at Hickey.

This stadium expansion stuff is fun to talk about but you have to understand that it is highly unlikely to occur within 20 years.

I looked up stadium expansion at UC-Davis on my phone.
The link turned out to be a PDF with a rendering of a thirty thousand seat stadium. 72% funded was at the top of the page.

SJSU averaged ten thousand the year before they joined the MWC. Maybe UC-DAVIS never makes the move . They are one of the teams mentioned as future candidates. Eastern Washington has twenty five thousand seat stadium plans in

place. Cal-Poly I believe 16500 is the talked about expansion.

UMass and Missouri State have spent a lot of money adding no seats . A seventeen thousand seat stadium keeps you from hosting Alabama . The P5 schools play down so few times on the road it doesn't matter. Attendance is an overrated consideration. Make the rule 20k lose almost all of the MAC, SBC half of CUSA and a couple each in the other two. Make it twenty five thousand you have the G2.

(07-25-2014 05:24 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(07-24-2014 09:00 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  I don't think many here know the rules that have to followed to move up from FCS to FBS.

Meeting the five home games against FBS teams requirement is virtually impossible, unless you are invited to join an FBS Conference. Can't count other FCS teams as FBS. Unless a school has P5 resources, and can buy FBS home games the door to FBS without an invite is shut.

Also, the new playoff format and the new autonomy proposal, if it is approved, for all intents and purposes separates the FBS Conferences from the other 22 Division Conferences.

Many FBS schools have already let it be known that they will not be scheduling FCS teams in the future, and I think that will be the norm.

That rule was either modified before the BCS era or its never been enforced. Unfortunately NIU fans know that from our previous OOC home scheduling.

1998, 1999, 2000, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2014 all only had 4 home games vs FBS teams...with a 5th vs a FCS team.

A conference moves up together in this case six plus schools .
Idaho would be seven so three or four FBS home games one FCS counts towards five. No different than when the WAC or SBC had seven teams.

(07-25-2014 06:54 PM)MJG Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 05:27 PM)aggie6thman Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 05:00 PM)bigsky1999 Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 03:27 PM)aggie6thman Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 05:20 PM)MJG Wrote:  UC-Davis expansion to thirty thousand is 72% funded.

MJG, where in the world did you get this factoid? We spent $30 million to get a 10,000 seat stadium which means in order to add 20k seats we would have to be sitting on another $30-50 million....

We lack support and training facilities for our 23 sports as is, softball is getting $4 million to replace their stadium and field hockey is getting a $3 million facility opening soon.

Either Tumey found the money tree or you are way off.

Good question, aggie6thman. But I think you might be overestimating the cost. I believe that Aggie Stadium was built on a new site, and there were basics that had to be constructed that won't be redone, if they designed it right. They had to grade the site, provide access, electricity, plumbing, lights, an all-weather field, large scoreboard, press box, and locker rooms. It will still be a big cost, but you're probably talking adding a large grandstand or two, new restrooms and concessions.

You did mention another big cost which are training facilities. Maybe the AD will add 5,000-7,000 seats as a step? A 30,000-seat stadium with 6,000 fans wouldn't look good.

Why would we add seats when we can't sell out a full home slate of game right now? Makes absolutely no sense. We don't even AVERAGE 10k a game...or 9k a game...or 8k a game! Create demand, then we can start to talk about it. If we are playing the same teams we are now as many of you are suggesting, do you really think playing in a bigger stadium is going to fix it?

As for the stadium construction, it was built with everything you mentioned but you forgot that we are building in California where costs are higher than the lights. You can't add 5k seats without going up and that is going to cost a pretty penny. The stadium was sunk below grade for that exact reason. Steel and concrete costs were sky high so in order the save money and keep the project on budget we went down.

My old high school has a better weight room than the one at Davis, we have coaches spread out across campus because there are either no offices at the facilities or no space at Hickey.

This stadium expansion stuff is fun to talk about but you have to understand that it is highly unlikely to occur within 20 years.

I looked up stadium expansion at UC-Davis on my phone.
The link turned out to be a PDF with a rendering of a thirty thousand seat stadium. 72% funded was at the top of the page.

SJSU averaged ten thousand the year before they joined the MWC. Maybe UC-DAVIS never makes the move . They are one of the teams mentioned as future candidates. Eastern Washington has twenty five thousand seat stadium plans in

place. Cal-Poly I believe 16500 is the talked about expansion.

UMass and Missouri State have spent a lot of money adding no seats . A seventeen thousand seat stadium keeps you from hosting Alabama . The P5 schools play down so few times on the road it doesn't matter. Attendance is an overrated consideration. Make the rule 20k lose almost all of the MAC, SBC half of CUSA and a couple each in the other two. Make it twenty five thousand you have the G2.

Who is going to make the rule, the 128 schools with a seat at the FBS table, and who are a part of the new post season playoffs? Not likely. The other 22 Division 1 Conference's will have no say in the matter, because they don't have a seat at the FBS table.

If you could read between the lines and see that the Autonomy Proposal is actually the Autonomy (over a few issues the non-FBS tried to stop and will pay the price) Proposal, you might grasp what has transpired.

(07-25-2014 07:09 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 06:54 PM)MJG Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 05:27 PM)aggie6thman Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 05:00 PM)bigsky1999 Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 03:27 PM)aggie6thman Wrote:  MJG, where in the world did you get this factoid? We spent $30 million to get a 10,000 seat stadium which means in order to add 20k seats we would have to be sitting on another $30-50 million....

We lack support and training facilities for our 23 sports as is, softball is getting $4 million to replace their stadium and field hockey is getting a $3 million facility opening soon.

Either Tumey found the money tree or you are way off.

Good question, aggie6thman. But I think you might be overestimating the cost. I believe that Aggie Stadium was built on a new site, and there were basics that had to be constructed that won't be redone, if they designed it right. They had to grade the site, provide access, electricity, plumbing, lights, an all-weather field, large scoreboard, press box, and locker rooms. It will still be a big cost, but you're probably talking adding a large grandstand or two, new restrooms and concessions.

You did mention another big cost which are training facilities. Maybe the AD will add 5,000-7,000 seats as a step? A 30,000-seat stadium with 6,000 fans wouldn't look good.

Why would we add seats when we can't sell out a full home slate of game right now? Makes absolutely no sense. We don't even AVERAGE 10k a game...or 9k a game...or 8k a game! Create demand, then we can start to talk about it. If we are playing the same teams we are now as many of you are suggesting, do you really think playing in a bigger stadium is going to fix it?

As for the stadium construction, it was built with everything you mentioned but you forgot that we are building in California where costs are higher than the lights. You can't add 5k seats without going up and that is going to cost a pretty penny. The stadium was sunk below grade for that exact reason. Steel and concrete costs were sky high so in order the save money and keep the project on budget we went down.

My old high school has a better weight room than the one at Davis, we have coaches spread out across campus because there are either no offices at the facilities or no space at Hickey.

This stadium expansion stuff is fun to talk about but you have to understand that it is highly unlikely to occur within 20 years.

I looked up stadium expansion at UC-Davis on my phone.
The link turned out to be a PDF with a rendering of a thirty thousand seat stadium. 72% funded was at the top of the page.

SJSU averaged ten thousand the year before they joined the MWC. Maybe UC-DAVIS never makes the move . They are one of the teams mentioned as future candidates. Eastern Washington has twenty five thousand seat stadium plans in

place. Cal-Poly I believe 16500 is the talked about expansion.

UMass and Missouri State have spent a lot of money adding no seats . A seventeen thousand seat stadium keeps you from hosting Alabama . The P5 schools play down so few times on the road it doesn't matter. Attendance is an overrated consideration. Make the rule 20k lose almost all of the MAC, SBC half of CUSA and a couple each in the other two. Make it twenty five thousand you have the G2.

Who is going to make the rule, the 128 schools with a seat at the FBS table, and who are a part of the new post season playoffs? Not likely. The other 22 Division 1 Conference's will have no say in the matter, because they don't have a seat at the FBS table.

If you could read between the lines and see that the Autonomy Proposal is actually the Autonomy (over a few issues the non-FBS tried to stop and will pay the price) Proposal, you might grasp what has transpired.

The deal was supposedly made as a compromise to get autonomy. Once it is in effect the P5 and FCS conference's can vote in the rule. The G5 doesn't have enough power to keep it from happening. The legal problems closing the door can also be avoided. The BSC plus Dakota schools scenario involves six or seven state flagship programs. State senator's love these kinda soap box issues.

(07-25-2014 08:01 PM)MJG Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 07:09 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 06:54 PM)MJG Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 05:27 PM)aggie6thman Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 05:00 PM)bigsky1999 Wrote:  Good question, aggie6thman. But I think you might be overestimating the cost. I believe that Aggie Stadium was built on a new site, and there were basics that had to be constructed that won't be redone, if they designed it right. They had to grade the site, provide access, electricity, plumbing, lights, an all-weather field, large scoreboard, press box, and locker rooms. It will still be a big cost, but you're probably talking adding a large grandstand or two, new restrooms and concessions.

You did mention another big cost which are training facilities. Maybe the AD will add 5,000-7,000 seats as a step? A 30,000-seat stadium with 6,000 fans wouldn't look good.

Why would we add seats when we can't sell out a full home slate of game right now? Makes absolutely no sense. We don't even AVERAGE 10k a game...or 9k a game...or 8k a game! Create demand, then we can start to talk about it. If we are playing the same teams we are now as many of you are suggesting, do you really think playing in a bigger stadium is going to fix it?

As for the stadium construction, it was built with everything you mentioned but you forgot that we are building in California where costs are higher than the lights. You can't add 5k seats without going up and that is going to cost a pretty penny. The stadium was sunk below grade for that exact reason. Steel and concrete costs were sky high so in order the save money and keep the project on budget we went down.

My old high school has a better weight room than the one at Davis, we have coaches spread out across campus because there are either no offices at the facilities or no space at Hickey.

This stadium expansion stuff is fun to talk about but you have to understand that it is highly unlikely to occur within 20 years.

I looked up stadium expansion at UC-Davis on my phone.
The link turned out to be a PDF with a rendering of a thirty thousand seat stadium. 72% funded was at the top of the page.

SJSU averaged ten thousand the year before they joined the MWC. Maybe UC-DAVIS never makes the move . They are one of the teams mentioned as future candidates. Eastern Washington has twenty five thousand seat stadium plans in

place. Cal-Poly I believe 16500 is the talked about expansion.

UMass and Missouri State have spent a lot of money adding no seats . A seventeen thousand seat stadium keeps you from hosting Alabama . The P5 schools play down so few times on the road it doesn't matter. Attendance is an overrated consideration. Make the rule 20k lose almost all of the MAC, SBC half of CUSA and a couple each in the other two. Make it twenty five thousand you have the G2.

Who is going to make the rule, the 128 schools with a seat at the FBS table, and who are a part of the new post season playoffs? Not likely. The other 22 Division 1 Conference's will have no say in the matter, because they don't have a seat at the FBS table.

If you could read between the lines and see that the Autonomy Proposal is actually the Autonomy (over a few issues the non-FBS tried to stop and will pay the price) Proposal, you might grasp what has transpired.

The deal was supposedly made as a compromise to get autonomy. Once it is in effect the P5 and FCS conference's can vote in the rule. The G5 doesn't have enough power to keep it from happening. The legal problems closing the door can also be avoided. The BSC plus Dakota schools scenario involves six or seven state flagship programs. State senator's love these kinda soap box issues.

The proposal as is, is a result the non-fbs conferences balking on implementing some things the P5 wanted.

G5's are rewarded, and non-fbs don't have a seat at the FBS table.

On those issues that the non-fbs can have input, there is almost no chance it will be an issue the P5's and non-fbs conferences will agree on and the G5's not, and that was by design. Also guarantees it will be unlikely anything will be moved to the autonomy side that the G5's don't agree with and that is by design.

If this proposal passes FBS will be for all intents and purposes separated from the non-fbs conferences, and that is the intent.

(07-25-2014 04:24 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 04:09 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Great Northern Conference
Montana, Montana State, North Dakota, North Dakota State, SDSU, South Dakota, Idaho State, maybe Portland State, Seattle U, U of Denver. That would be a "nice neighborhood" for all of those schools. Maybe one Cal Poly or Sacramento State.

More G5's would reduce the costs associated with scheduling for the PAC12 and Big 10.

That's a bogus argument. From 2005-2010 or so, there were 67 BCS-AQ teams and about 52-54 Non-AQ teams. Now there are 64 lower-FBS teams, with one Sun Belt spot open. There are MORE body-bag schools, not less. So they have to travel--that's Georgia Southern's problem, not Arizona State's.

Quote:They talk big about how their are not going to schedule FCS teams, but not scheduling them costs them a half million a year. Why does the PAC12 have games with the Big Sky scheduled out for 2020? It would be easier and cheaper for them to allow the Big Sky to move up.

Easier? How is it "easier" to turn the rulebook upside down than it is to leave it alone? Cheaper? FBS body-bag games cost MORE than FCS body-bag games.

If you move the Big Sky up to FBS, there are no FCS leagues west of I-35 (San Antonio-Dallas-KC-Minneapolis).

Quote:Montana is running the show and creating an FBS conference to their liking.

Good luck with that.

Quote:Montana could have moved to the WAC, but an end result of the WAC with Montana, Mont St, Idaho, NMSU, Lamar, Sam Houston, Texas St, and Jacksonville St was totally unacceptable to Montana. Montana wants a Montana-centric conference, not a Texas-centric one which would have happened with the WAC. The other Big Sky schools (other than Mont St) were simply not ready at that time (i.e. Calif schools were in deep budget cuts).

Montana-centric conference. I'm just going to point out that, in the Montana AD's paper, one of the issues mentioned was Montana's declining population of HS seniors, meaning that UM has to raise their profile to attract out-of-state students. So good luck with a Montana Centric Conference. :crazy:

(07-25-2014 07:09 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 06:54 PM)MJG Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 05:27 PM)aggie6thman Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 05:00 PM)bigsky1999 Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 03:27 PM)aggie6thman Wrote:  MJG, where in the world did you get this factoid? We spent $30 million to get a 10,000 seat stadium which means in order to add 20k seats we would have to be sitting on another $30-50 million....

We lack support and training facilities for our 23 sports as is, softball is getting $4 million to replace their stadium and field hockey is getting a $3 million facility opening soon.

Either Tumey found the money tree or you are way off.

Good question, aggie6thman. But I think you might be overestimating the cost. I believe that Aggie Stadium was built on a new site, and there were basics that had to be constructed that won't be redone, if they designed it right. They had to grade the site, provide access, electricity, plumbing, lights, an all-weather field, large scoreboard, press box, and locker rooms. It will still be a big cost, but you're probably talking adding a large grandstand or two, new restrooms and concessions.

You did mention another big cost which are training facilities. Maybe the AD will add 5,000-7,000 seats as a step? A 30,000-seat stadium with 6,000 fans wouldn't look good.

Why would we add seats when we can't sell out a full home slate of game right now? Makes absolutely no sense. We don't even AVERAGE 10k a game...or 9k a game...or 8k a game! Create demand, then we can start to talk about it. If we are playing the same teams we are now as many of you are suggesting, do you really think playing in a bigger stadium is going to fix it?

As for the stadium construction, it was built with everything you mentioned but you forgot that we are building in California where costs are higher than the lights. You can't add 5k seats without going up and that is going to cost a pretty penny. The stadium was sunk below grade for that exact reason. Steel and concrete costs were sky high so in order the save money and keep the project on budget we went down.

My old high school has a better weight room than the one at Davis, we have coaches spread out across campus because there are either no offices at the facilities or no space at Hickey.

This stadium expansion stuff is fun to talk about but you have to understand that it is highly unlikely to occur within 20 years.

I looked up stadium expansion at UC-Davis on my phone.
The link turned out to be a PDF with a rendering of a thirty thousand seat stadium. 72% funded was at the top of the page.

SJSU averaged ten thousand the year before they joined the MWC. Maybe UC-DAVIS never makes the move . They are one of the teams mentioned as future candidates. Eastern Washington has twenty five thousand seat stadium plans in

place. Cal-Poly I believe 16500 is the talked about expansion.

UMass and Missouri State have spent a lot of money adding no seats . A seventeen thousand seat stadium keeps you from hosting Alabama . The P5 schools play down so few times on the road it doesn't matter. Attendance is an overrated consideration. Make the rule 20k lose almost all of the MAC, SBC half of CUSA and a couple each in the other two. Make it twenty five thousand you have the G2.

Who is going to make the rule, the 128 schools with a seat at the FBS table, and who are a part of the new post season playoffs? Not likely. The other 22 Division 1 Conference's will have no say in the matter, because they don't have a seat at the FBS table.

If you could read between the lines and see that the Autonomy Proposal is actually the Autonomy (over a few issues the non-FBS tried to stop and will pay the price) Proposal, you might grasp what has transpired.

FCS cant vote on that rule. That means the only people who could are FBS teams, and that just wont happen because it would risk eliminating some body bag games that the P5 needs.

So basically this is a thread by an Idaho fan that wants his team not just to play all other
games beside football within the Big Sky, but football as well, as a FBS team.

Whether motivated by the fact that the SBC has to continuously continue to approve Idaho
being in the SBC or whether you want to only play in the Big Sky, not sure there is a way
for you to get the FBS to approve the Big Sky as FBS. Seems pretty hopeless actually.

(07-25-2014 09:15 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  So basically this is a thread by an Idaho fan that wants his team not just to play all other
games beside football within the Big Sky, but football as well, as a FBS team.

Whether motivated by the fact that the SBC has to continuously continue to approve Idaho
being in the SBC or whether you want to only play in the Big Sky, not sure there is a way
for you to get the FBS to approve the Big Sky as FBS. Seems pretty hopeless actually.

Don't forget NoDak's rather wild theories.

(07-25-2014 09:25 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 09:15 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  So basically this is a thread by an Idaho fan that wants his team not just to play all other
games beside football within the Big Sky, but football as well, as a FBS team.

Whether motivated by the fact that the SBC has to continuously continue to approve Idaho
being in the SBC or whether you want to only play in the Big Sky, not sure there is a way
for you to get the FBS to approve the Big Sky as FBS. Seems pretty hopeless actually.

Don't forget NoDak's rather wild theories.

Not forgetting, but ignoring, too many holes in it and no need to even address their theories.

(07-25-2014 08:20 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 04:24 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 04:09 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Great Northern Conference
Montana, Montana State, North Dakota, North Dakota State, SDSU, South Dakota, Idaho State, maybe Portland State, Seattle U, U of Denver. That would be a "nice neighborhood" for all of those schools. Maybe one Cal Poly or Sacramento State.

More G5's would reduce the costs associated with scheduling for the PAC12 and Big 10.

That's a bogus argument. From 2005-2010 or so, there were 67 BCS-AQ teams and about 52-54 Non-AQ teams. Now there are 64 lower-FBS teams, with one Sun Belt spot open. There are MORE body-bag schools, not less. So they have to travel--that's Georgia Southern's problem, not Arizona State's.

Quote:They talk big about how their are not going to schedule FCS teams, but not scheduling them costs them a half million a year. Why does the PAC12 have games with the Big Sky scheduled out for 2020? It would be easier and cheaper for them to allow the Big Sky to move up.

Easier? How is it "easier" to turn the rulebook upside down than it is to leave it alone? Cheaper? FBS body-bag games cost MORE than FCS body-bag games.

If you move the Big Sky up to FBS, there are no FCS leagues west of I-35 (San Antonio-Dallas-KC-Minneapolis).

Quote:Montana is running the show and creating an FBS conference to their liking.

Good luck with that.

Quote:Montana could have moved to the WAC, but an end result of the WAC with Montana, Mont St, Idaho, NMSU, Lamar, Sam Houston, Texas St, and Jacksonville St was totally unacceptable to Montana. Montana wants a Montana-centric conference, not a Texas-centric one which would have happened with the WAC. The other Big Sky schools (other than Mont St) were simply not ready at that time (i.e. Calif schools were in deep budget cuts).

Montana-centric conference. I'm just going to point out that, in the Montana AD's paper, one of the issues mentioned was Montana's declining population of HS seniors, meaning that UM has to raise their profile to attract out-of-state students. So good luck with a Montana Centric Conference. :crazy:

The more body bag schools, the cheaper body bag games are for the P5. The Pac12 and Big 10 wants some FCS conferences to move up. With one more P5 conference in favor, the FBS rules will be changed. The G5's say won't matter because they will be outvoted.

There will still be an FCS conference in the west: the WAC.

The demographics have changed drastically on the Northern Plains. Montana has its own share of the Bakken oil. Billings and points east are booming. North Dakota will have the richest per capita income with the nations highest population growth plus billions in a legacy fund. New high schools being built for towns that ten years ago most thought would be ghost towns soon. Now the high schools will have more students than the towns had 10 years ago.

And ghost towns existed because economic reasons came and went, as it was
so shall it be.

(07-25-2014 10:05 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  And ghost towns existed because economic reasons came and went, as it was
so shall it be.

The same was said of West Texas. But its booming more than ever.

(07-25-2014 09:52 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 08:20 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 04:24 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 04:09 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Great Northern Conference
Montana, Montana State, North Dakota, North Dakota State, SDSU, South Dakota, Idaho State, maybe Portland State, Seattle U, U of Denver. That would be a "nice neighborhood" for all of those schools. Maybe one Cal Poly or Sacramento State.

More G5's would reduce the costs associated with scheduling for the PAC12 and Big 10.

That's a bogus argument. From 2005-2010 or so, there were 67 BCS-AQ teams and about 52-54 Non-AQ teams. Now there are 64 lower-FBS teams, with one Sun Belt spot open. There are MORE body-bag schools, not less. So they have to travel--that's Georgia Southern's problem, not Arizona State's.

Quote:They talk big about how their are not going to schedule FCS teams, but not scheduling them costs them a half million a year. Why does the PAC12 have games with the Big Sky scheduled out for 2020? It would be easier and cheaper for them to allow the Big Sky to move up.

Easier? How is it "easier" to turn the rulebook upside down than it is to leave it alone? Cheaper? FBS body-bag games cost MORE than FCS body-bag games.

If you move the Big Sky up to FBS, there are no FCS leagues west of I-35 (San Antonio-Dallas-KC-Minneapolis).

Quote:Montana is running the show and creating an FBS conference to their liking.

Good luck with that.

Quote:Montana could have moved to the WAC, but an end result of the WAC with Montana, Mont St, Idaho, NMSU, Lamar, Sam Houston, Texas St, and Jacksonville St was totally unacceptable to Montana. Montana wants a Montana-centric conference, not a Texas-centric one which would have happened with the WAC. The other Big Sky schools (other than Mont St) were simply not ready at that time (i.e. Calif schools were in deep budget cuts).

Montana-centric conference. I'm just going to point out that, in the Montana AD's paper, one of the issues mentioned was Montana's declining population of HS seniors, meaning that UM has to raise their profile to attract out-of-state students. So good luck with a Montana Centric Conference. :crazy:

The more body bag schools, the cheaper body bag games are for the P5. The Pac12 and Big 10 wants some FCS conferences to move up. With one more P5 conference in favor, the FBS rules will be changed. The G5's say won't matter because they will be outvoted.

There will still be an FCS conference in the west: the WAC.

The demographics have changed drastically on the Northern Plains. Montana has its own share of the Bakken oil. Billings and points east are booming. North Dakota will have the richest per capita income with the nations highest population growth plus billions in a legacy fund. New high schools being built for towns that ten years ago most thought would be ghost towns soon. Now the high schools will have more students than the towns had 10 years ago.

Uhh...unfortunately that would be in violation of contract. The Playoff contract was signed by 5 G5 conferences and 5 P5 conferences. The contract does not provide for a 6th, 7th, or 8th Group of 5 conference.

A conference could move up, but they would not be able to split the contract money.