(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.