Idaho should drop down if anyone does, they were a I-AA powerhouse that went to I-A because they wanted to keep up with Boise State. Besides a season or two they've sucked ever since, and by 2014 they'll be a non-football member of the Big Sky anyway. At this point they have the chance to overcome crappy location and build up their program because of Kibbie Dome renovations and the success of some programs in similar situations (Montana, Eastern Washington). Only way they should stay around is if they miraculously get a MWC invite, which I seriously doubt.

Good to hear the news about BG, it'll ensure their survival in the MAC if this comes to pass. EMU would be the only other school whose future I would doubt, though I have no reason to think that they couldn't afford it with the new money coming in.

(09-12-2013 02:07 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 11:55 AM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  August 16, 2013
MU Athletics Enjoys Banner Fundraising Year

With an initial goal of $50 million as part of the For Love and Honor Campaign, Miami Athletics topped the $60 million mark


http://m.muredhawks.com/mobile/ViewArtic...M_ID=26100

Less than a month old, I've seen Miami's fund raising, lets see Kent's.

Kent State is doing fine. While not exactly the same sort of campaigns in your article Miami was excited because they got over 700k in cash donations. Kent was over a million. Is that 300k something to crow about? Not really but it should at least tell you that if Miami thinks it can fund raise to stay Kent seems to be able to as well.

I would worry about BGSU and it pains me to say that as that is a school Kent values playing but they are probably in one of the worst positions relative to the rest of the MAC.

OU Athletics sponsored a fund raising survey of all MAC schools last year. I wish Kittonhead or Optimist would post the results. KSU fans would be proud.

(09-12-2013 02:07 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 11:55 AM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  August 16, 2013
MU Athletics Enjoys Banner Fundraising Year

With an initial goal of $50 million as part of the For Love and Honor Campaign, Miami Athletics topped the $60 million mark


http://m.muredhawks.com/mobile/ViewArtic...M_ID=26100

Less than a month old, I've seen Miami's fund raising, lets see Kent's.

Kent State is doing fine. While not exactly the same sort of campaigns in your article Miami was excited because they got over 700k in cash donations. Kent was over a million. Is that 300k something to crow about? Not really but it should at least tell you that if Miami thinks it can fund raise to stay Kent seems to be able to as well.

I would worry about BGSU and it pains me to say that as that is a school Kent values playing but they are probably in one of the worst positions relative to the rest of the MAC.

No one is permitting me to release the results, but I would love to. Relative to the rest of the MAC, Kent is doing fine in fundraising.

There is no school in the MAC where the Prez is calling the AD saying, "We've got a few million extra in petty cash. Need it?"

And note that endowing scholarship costs is part of what Kent State is raising money for, so it wouldn't be surprising if the Kent State Athletic Department had already factored in scholarship stipends coming down the pike as a requirement for remaining in the FBS.

The big difference in the FBS becoming its own distinct division is that the P5 would no longer need Go5 votes to achieve a majority on something that the FCS and non-FB schools oppose ~ instead, the Go5 votes would become a tie-breaker on issues where the P5 were split, and on issues where the P5 reached a consensus, the Go5 would just have to go along for the ride.

Also note that the top division has always competed in the National Collegiate Championship for each of its sports, and its up to the lower divisions to sponsor their own separate divisional championships both if they have enough schools to do so and if they want to. So the FCS and non-FB Div1 schools could continue to go to March Madness simply by not starting their own separate divisional BB championship.

(09-12-2013 11:21 AM)TARDledo Wrote:  The list of schools that voted it down is public.

Marshall and East Carolina voted against it. Have they changed their position?

EDIT: http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=641297

It looks like BG and Miami voted against it too.

Yes. Marshall and ECU have since changed their stance. The main reason why Marshall and ECU voted against this originally was because of Title IX issues. Evidently something got worked out. From what I was told, every school in CUSA (Including the new incoming schools) voted in support of it.

(09-12-2013 09:33 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 11:21 AM)TARDledo Wrote:  The list of schools that voted it down is public.

Marshall and East Carolina voted against it. Have they changed their position?

EDIT: http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=641297

It looks like BG and Miami voted against it too.

Yes. Marshall and ECU have since changed their stance. The main reason why Marshall and ECU voted against this originally was because of Title IX issues. Evidently something got worked out. From what I was told, every school in CUSA (Including the new incoming schools) voted in support of it.

Also if I recall correctly there were schools voting against it that certainly had the money (I think Rutgers was one for instance). Some schools are saying we as a group should not because they don't like the idea of "paying" athletes in what was traditionally a fully amateur affair (well at least on its face). These schools will likely offer stipends if it is made legal but would not vote for them.

(09-12-2013 06:17 PM)DetroitRocket Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 03:55 PM)Falcon1407 Wrote:  BG has already announced it is planning on upping its athletic budget to the MAC average and has earmarked 50 million for renovations to the Doyt. We aren't going anywhere.

As far as the division 2 thing....if memory serves correct it was 1 faculty member who suggested it at a meeting, which was quickly put to rest. It wasn't like the board of trustees were voting on a measure. But, hey don't let facts get in the way. I do love how kitten somewhere worked Ohio in there.

Link please about the $50M.

It was mentioned in a meeting for the Campus Master plan.  I'll see if I can find a link.

(09-12-2013 10:56 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 09:33 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 11:21 AM)TARDledo Wrote:  The list of schools that voted it down is public.

Marshall and East Carolina voted against it. Have they changed their position?

EDIT: http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=641297

It looks like BG and Miami voted against it too.

Yes. Marshall and ECU have since changed their stance. The main reason why Marshall and ECU voted against this originally was because of Title IX issues. Evidently something got worked out. From what I was told, every school in CUSA (Including the new incoming schools) voted in support of it.

Also if I recall correctly there were schools voting against it that certainly had the money (I think Rutgers was one for instance). Some schools are saying we as a group should not because they don't like the idea of "paying" athletes in what was traditionally a fully amateur affair (well at least on its face). These schools will likely offer stipends if it is made legal but would not vote for them.

Yes there was several....Wake Forest, Boise State, Rutgers to name a few.

Title IX was used as a smokescreen by some of the Universities listed. Marshall was outed for voting due to actual financial concerns. But you come here and insinuate that MAC schools have that motivation. Same old tricks, all the time. Yet another attempt. When is this guy going to be banned from the MAC board?