(08-02-2017 05:19 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(08-02-2017 05:12 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(08-02-2017 04:58 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(08-02-2017 04:26 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(08-01-2017 07:49 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Silly and desperate are always the reasons you seem to find to oppose any move. Just like a 250k attendance for a sport isn't meaningful.

You so over your head on AD and President topics.

Having actually worked in an AD department, and served on the NAU President's commitee on athletics, I do know a tad bit.

As to your statement, it is bad assumption. If the P5 tried to "leave behind" FCS schools and/or G5 schools, the Senators from MT, ND, SD, VT, NH, ME, RI etc would band together in opposition, even though they are not in the same conference, nor would the MT and Dakotas being in the same conference affect the response one bit. You are so desperately trying to throw crap up at the wall in hopes of something sticking (which nothing is) that you are looking more foolish daily.

Presidents, not AD's, often have requests of their Senators and Reps outside athletics. A regional consortium of flagships schools all having the same requests would be best. Your don't learn that by working in an athletic department.

Again, it is politics, which you should leave to the adults. Whether they are in the same conference, or 5 different conferences, the result will be the same.

Your actually suggesting the Big Ten, Pac12, SEC and others are not meaningful lobbying entities.

No, I am suggesting that if the Senators of Montana, Idaho, Dakotas, Maine, New Hampshire objected to a P5 breakoff, that they would lobby as a group, irregardless of conference affiliation.