Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Cost of FBS vs FCS football
Author Message
NoQuestion Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 140
Joined: Apr 2014
Reputation: 2
I Root For: MSU
Location:
Post: #21
RE: Cost of FBS vs FCS football
(02-17-2017 06:43 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  I think you're likely right. While we can never completely rule out rank stupidity when considering the actions of Idaho administrators, I doubt they're actually THIS stupid. This is the first step in the dance of dropping sports.

The booster who started the Idaho FBS petition says he now has $1.8 million in pledges contingent on remaining FBS, which would more than wipe out the deficit on its own without even considering the additional revenue from FBS. There's a very public case to make that Idaho could easily grow rather than shrink its athletic department without taking an extra dime from the taxpayers, but I don't know if it will be allowed to be made.

How far would that $1.8 go. Would it cover 1 season more of FBS? Does he have a guarantee of the same amount every year if Idaho stays FBS? While it's a good fund raising effort. I think a UAB type fundraising of $20-$30 million would really help the cause.
02-17-2017 07:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,249
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 126
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Cost of FBS vs FCS football
Lets say Eastern Washington announced that they want to be in the FBS. How much people in the area would help raise money for new stadium upgrade?

Remember, there are history that many schools in the FCS had a football rivalry for a long time with the FBS schools. Southern, SEC and ACC had the history when many of the schools were once together in Southern. West Virginia and Maryland was also part of Southern Conference at one time. I think with FBS P5 schools scheduling schools like Chattanooga, Samford, Furman, The Citadel, VMI and some others help keep that rivalry going. It is the same with the Big 12 playing schools that were former members of the SWC and also with Southland schools. North Alabama had history playing with Troy, Jacksonville State and some others. That includes Samford.

The problem is that the P5 schools are stuck with FCS schools like the ACC and SEC because of the history they had with those schools. They are smart by playing games with these old rivalry teams because the fans do come out and watch the game. That includes Samford fans going to Auburn or Alabama to watch the games.
02-17-2017 07:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
LatahCounty Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,950
Joined: Sep 2015
Reputation: 88
I Root For: Idaho
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Cost of FBS vs FCS football
(02-17-2017 07:12 PM)NoQuestion Wrote:  
(02-17-2017 06:43 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  I think you're likely right. While we can never completely rule out rank stupidity when considering the actions of Idaho administrators, I doubt they're actually THIS stupid. This is the first step in the dance of dropping sports.

The booster who started the Idaho FBS petition says he now has $1.8 million in pledges contingent on remaining FBS, which would more than wipe out the deficit on its own without even considering the additional revenue from FBS. There's a very public case to make that Idaho could easily grow rather than shrink its athletic department without taking an extra dime from the taxpayers, but I don't know if it will be allowed to be made.

How far would that $1.8 go. Would it cover 1 season more of FBS? Does he have a guarantee of the same amount every year if Idaho stays FBS? While it's a good fund raising effort. I think a UAB type fundraising of $20-$30 million would really help the cause.

They're recurring pledges and if you put it that way they'd fund infinity seasons because Idaho actually does worse financially in FCS than FBS. The Big Sky will require roughly the same level of state subsidy and overall revenue will drop substantially. It's a financial no-brainer.
(This post was last modified: 02-17-2017 07:50 PM by LatahCounty.)
02-17-2017 07:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NoQuestion Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 140
Joined: Apr 2014
Reputation: 2
I Root For: MSU
Location:
Post: #24
RE: Cost of FBS vs FCS football
(02-17-2017 07:45 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  They're recurring pledges and if you put it that way they'd fund infinity seasons because Idaho actually does worse financially in FCS than FBS. The Big Sky will require roughly the same level of state subsidy and overall revenue will drop substantially. It's a financial no-brainer.

So, this booster has contacted the AD and President and guaranteed $1.8 million/year if they are FBS?
02-17-2017 07:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
uakronkid Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,791
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 48
I Root For: Akron
Location: Akron
Post: #25
RE: Cost of FBS vs FCS football
With FCS you spend less on scholarships (22 fewer scholarships, times however much a full ride costs annually). Let's say that it's $100k per year. That saves you $2.2 million, as an example. But that comes with the loss of revenue streams from the CFP payout and TV contracts. It's probably a wash in terms of hard money, but then you have the bad optics of being the only team to drop to the FCS in 30 years affecting donations and it's no surprise that FCS is the worse option for Idaho.

There is no benefit to moving down. Honestly, dropping football completely and focusing on basketball is preferable to moving down.
02-17-2017 08:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bronco85 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 166
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 33
I Root For: COI, BSU
Location: Parts Unknown
Post: #26
RE: Cost of FBS vs FCS football
(02-17-2017 06:43 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  
(02-17-2017 06:09 PM)Bronco85 Wrote:  What is interesting to me after watching the UI plea to the ISBOE for $4 million, was how the current deficit in the UI AD could be so easily used as an extremely good basis for a well grounded and fiscally sound argument to remain FBS and independent (much as NMSU did). While the Finance Officer was quick to lead with the lie that the drop to FCS had no impact on the deficit, the only hard numbers he presented made it clear that donations were down significantly due to the drop and future away game guarantees would also be significantly down. Remaining FBS cures both these problems. Liberty suddenly becoming available as a legitimate scheduling opportunity would also seem a plus. The argument could be made that while an FBS conference invitation for UI is not on the horizon, an expanded pool of FBS independents might be a possibility which could extend the life of viability as an independent. UI has a defacto bowl bid (which would likely be formalized if they stay FBS) that minimizes expenses and keeps costs less than the FCS playoffs. UI has been directed by the ISBOE to come up with a specific fiscal recovery plan for the Athletic Department and this may be part of a truly workable plan. However, I have a nagging fear the poor presentation by UI may well have been done to get the result that happened (or else the stupidity was extraordinary). When one of the board members told the UI representative that it would be irresponsible to bail out UI for four years and the board sent UI back to make a specific deficit recovery plan, it may have provided the justification for the excuse to drop a women's sport or two ("we didn't want to, the ISBOE made us") or maintain a 4 -5 home game schedule to maximize revenue games.

I think you're likely right. While we can never completely rule out rank stupidity when considering the actions of Idaho administrators, I doubt they're actually THIS stupid. This is the first step in the dance of dropping sports.

The booster who started the Idaho FBS petition says he now has $1.8 million in pledges contingent on remaining FBS, which would more than wipe out the deficit on its own without even considering the additional revenue from FBS. There's a very public case to make that Idaho could easily grow rather than shrink its athletic department without taking an extra dime from the taxpayers, but I don't know if it will be allowed to be made.

What is truly sad is that the UI will not even try to support the athletic department. The history of UI shows that if they start a massive capitol campaign, their alumni and partners are extremely generous. They nearly always exceed goals in shorter than expected time frames. UI has never, to my knowledge, initiated a full out capitol campaign for any athletic endeavor (i.e. utilizing the same process as academic campaigns, e.g. massive phone and social media blitz). They even created rules which did not allow athletics to use foundation donor roles. I know there is a fear of "tapping out" the donor base by the academics (particularly faculty have this fear) but I believe it is unfounded (it has no empirical validation to my knowledge). If they made the effort, UI could raise tens of millions in a few months. They have done it many times before. It appears the current administration via its misinformation campaign is hell bent on making sure no one ever tries
02-17-2017 08:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dtd_vandal Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 155
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 8
I Root For: Idaho
Location:
Post: #27
RE: Cost of FBS vs FCS football
(02-17-2017 08:03 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  With FCS you spend less on scholarships (22 fewer scholarships, times however much a full ride costs annually). Let's say that it's $100k per year. That saves you $2.2 million, as an example. But that comes with the loss of revenue streams from the CFP payout and TV contracts. It's probably a wash in terms of hard money, but then you have the bad optics of being the only team to drop to the FCS in 30 years affecting donations and it's no surprise that FCS is the worse option for Idaho.

There is no benefit to moving down. Honestly, dropping football completely and focusing on basketball is preferable to moving down.

According to the finance guy during the questioning by the state board the other day, the 22 less scholarships will only save about $300k per year. When you look at that and compare the revenue streams being lost, it's even more of a no brainer that a move down is horrible financially.
02-17-2017 08:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
LatahCounty Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,950
Joined: Sep 2015
Reputation: 88
I Root For: Idaho
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Cost of FBS vs FCS football
(02-17-2017 07:58 PM)NoQuestion Wrote:  
(02-17-2017 07:45 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  They're recurring pledges and if you put it that way they'd fund infinity seasons because Idaho actually does worse financially in FCS than FBS. The Big Sky will require roughly the same level of state subsidy and overall revenue will drop substantially. It's a financial no-brainer.

So, this booster has contacted the AD and President and guaranteed $1.8 million/year if they are FBS?

I don't think anybody made any guarantees from this. It's a pledge sheet. It's not even necessary to close the gap, so it's basically money on top of what's needed.

But I do know a booster with facilities names after him who, before the drop-down announcement was made, offered $3 million toward the basketball arena project if the UI would try to give FBS a go post-Sun Belt. Rejected.
(This post was last modified: 02-17-2017 09:03 PM by LatahCounty.)
02-17-2017 09:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,462
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 349
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #29
RE: Cost of FBS vs FCS football
(02-17-2017 08:40 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  
(02-17-2017 08:03 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  With FCS you spend less on scholarships (22 fewer scholarships, times however much a full ride costs annually). Let's say that it's $100k per year. That saves you $2.2 million, as an example. But that comes with the loss of revenue streams from the CFP payout and TV contracts. It's probably a wash in terms of hard money, but then you have the bad optics of being the only team to drop to the FCS in 30 years affecting donations and it's no surprise that FCS is the worse option for Idaho.

There is no benefit to moving down. Honestly, dropping football completely and focusing on basketball is preferable to moving down.

According to the finance guy during the questioning by the state board the other day, the 22 less scholarships will only save about $300k per year. When you look at that and compare the revenue streams being lost, it's even more of a no brainer that a move down is horrible financially.

But Idaho wouldn't get the playoff money as an FBS Indy right? You have to be in a conference don't you?

Cheers!
02-17-2017 09:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
LatahCounty Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,950
Joined: Sep 2015
Reputation: 88
I Root For: Idaho
Location:
Post: #30
RE: Cost of FBS vs FCS football
(02-17-2017 09:48 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(02-17-2017 08:40 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  
(02-17-2017 08:03 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  With FCS you spend less on scholarships (22 fewer scholarships, times however much a full ride costs annually). Let's say that it's $100k per year. That saves you $2.2 million, as an example. But that comes with the loss of revenue streams from the CFP payout and TV contracts. It's probably a wash in terms of hard money, but then you have the bad optics of being the only team to drop to the FCS in 30 years affecting donations and it's no surprise that FCS is the worse option for Idaho.

There is no benefit to moving down. Honestly, dropping football completely and focusing on basketball is preferable to moving down.

According to the finance guy during the questioning by the state board the other day, the 22 less scholarships will only save about $300k per year. When you look at that and compare the revenue streams being lost, it's even more of a no brainer that a move down is horrible financially.

But Idaho wouldn't get the playoff money as an FBS Indy right? You have to be in a conference don't you?

Cheers!

There isn't much playoff money -- just the Indy share which is I think around $300K. Most of the extra money comes from increased payouts for guarantee games and higher donation levels to the department.
02-17-2017 10:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bronco85 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 166
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 33
I Root For: COI, BSU
Location: Parts Unknown
Post: #31
RE: Cost of FBS vs FCS football
(02-17-2017 10:49 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  
(02-17-2017 09:48 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(02-17-2017 08:40 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  
(02-17-2017 08:03 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  With FCS you spend less on scholarships (22 fewer scholarships, times however much a full ride costs annually). Let's say that it's $100k per year. That saves you $2.2 million, as an example. But that comes with the loss of revenue streams from the CFP payout and TV contracts. It's probably a wash in terms of hard money, but then you have the bad optics of being the only team to drop to the FCS in 30 years affecting donations and it's no surprise that FCS is the worse option for Idaho.

There is no benefit to moving down. Honestly, dropping football completely and focusing on basketball is preferable to moving down.

According to the finance guy during the questioning by the state board the other day, the 22 less scholarships will only save about $300k per year. When you look at that and compare the revenue streams being lost, it's even more of a no brainer that a move down is horrible financially.

But Idaho wouldn't get the playoff money as an FBS Indy right? You have to be in a conference don't you?

Cheers!

There isn't much playoff money -- just the Indy share which is I think around $300K. Most of the extra money comes from increased payouts for guarantee games and higher donation levels to the department.

Coincidentally, that amount makes up the scholarship costs of FBS versus FCS, at least according to what UI claimed just this week. Since UI is virtually never at the 85 limit, it may even be a net gain... sigh.
02-18-2017 10:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,743
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 617
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Cost of FBS vs FCS football
(02-17-2017 03:08 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  
(02-17-2017 02:59 PM)YNot Wrote:  Excuse my ignorance, but aren't there several FCS institutions that already operate at similar budgets to many of the Sun Belt, MAC, and C-USA schools? Especially recent call-ups like Charlotte, Old Dominion, Coastal Carolina, etc.

WEST: Montana, Montana St., NDSU, South Dakota St., (and Wichita St.)[Idaho and NMSU]
EAST: Liberty, JMU, Delaware, Jacksonville St., Youngstown St. [UMass]

People keep repeating "FBS is too expensive" like it's Gospel, but I'm very familiar with the numbers for Idaho and even without any CFP or FBS conference money Idaho will still lose considerably more money as an FCS school than it would as an FBS Independent.

For the Montanas, who've already basically maxed out the revenue in their markets, maybe it doesn't make sense to go FBS without a conference. But in many other places it may be actually be a better financial decision to go FBS, conference or no.

If you look at the USA Today revenues and costs, the biggest losers are the G5 schools. FCS schools don't have the same deficits as the MAC/CUSA/Sun Belt schools. Some of the AAC schools have the biggest deficits of all.

You not only have the extra 20 football scholarships, but you have to have extra women's scholarships to comply with Title IX, you have to have 2 extra sports (16 minimum instead of 14) and the salary and facilities gap is huge and continuing to grow.

That has to be offset by buy-a-win road games, donations and attendance. For a number of schools, going 3-9 in the Sun Belt means lower attendance than going 10-2 in FCS.
02-18-2017 10:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,167
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 437
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #33
RE: Cost of FBS vs FCS football
(02-17-2017 02:59 PM)YNot Wrote:  Excuse my ignorance, but aren't there several FCS institutions that already operate at similar budgets to many of the Sun Belt, MAC, and C-USA schools? Especially recent call-ups like Charlotte, Old Dominion, Coastal Carolina, etc.

WEST: Montana, Montana St., NDSU, South Dakota St., (and Wichita St.)[Idaho and NMSU]
EAST: Liberty, JMU, Delaware, Jacksonville St., Youngstown St. [UMass]

Athletic Budgets sometimes don't really mean much. I think it might be more instructive to look at the cash outlays required to make the jump or sustain a program

1) Facilities - You'll need a place to play. And they usually don't come cheap. And its not just a stadium. You'll need practice facilities, workout facilities, etc. As a FBS, you'll be competing for recruits with schools that provide the 'best of the best'. You can try to do it on the cheap, but you're going to have challenges competing if you do it that way.

2) Coaching salaries - FBS coaches make more....much more. And you'll need more assistant coaches too, and they make much more than FCS or D2 assistants too.

3) Title IX cash outlays - You'll need more womens teams, coaches, and travel budgets, plus facilities for them.

4) FCOA - You'll be paying it as a FBS.

So beyond the scholarship (usually non-cash) costs, there are significant costs to being FBS over FCS.
02-18-2017 11:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
uakronkid Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,791
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 48
I Root For: Akron
Location: Akron
Post: #34
RE: Cost of FBS vs FCS football
(02-17-2017 08:40 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  
(02-17-2017 08:03 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  With FCS you spend less on scholarships (22 fewer scholarships, times however much a full ride costs annually). Let's say that it's $100k per year. That saves you $2.2 million, as an example. But that comes with the loss of revenue streams from the CFP payout and TV contracts. It's probably a wash in terms of hard money, but then you have the bad optics of being the only team to drop to the FCS in 30 years affecting donations and it's no surprise that FCS is the worse option for Idaho.

There is no benefit to moving down. Honestly, dropping football completely and focusing on basketball is preferable to moving down.

According to the finance guy during the questioning by the state board the other day, the 22 less scholarships will only save about $300k per year. When you look at that and compare the revenue streams being lost, it's even more of a no brainer that a move down is horrible financially.

Does Idaho not cover Full Cost of Attendance?

All of this just makes me wonder if you're going to see Idaho use the backlash from all this as an excuse to just drop football completely.
02-18-2017 01:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bronco85 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 166
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 33
I Root For: COI, BSU
Location: Parts Unknown
Post: #35
RE: Cost of FBS vs FCS football
(02-18-2017 01:17 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  
(02-17-2017 08:40 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  
(02-17-2017 08:03 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  With FCS you spend less on scholarships (22 fewer scholarships, times however much a full ride costs annually). Let's say that it's $100k per year. That saves you $2.2 million, as an example. But that comes with the loss of revenue streams from the CFP payout and TV contracts. It's probably a wash in terms of hard money, but then you have the bad optics of being the only team to drop to the FCS in 30 years affecting donations and it's no surprise that FCS is the worse option for Idaho.

There is no benefit to moving down. Honestly, dropping football completely and focusing on basketball is preferable to moving down.

According to the finance guy during the questioning by the state board the other day, the 22 less scholarships will only save about $300k per year. When you look at that and compare the revenue streams being lost, it's even more of a no brainer that a move down is horrible financially.

Does Idaho not cover Full Cost of Attendance?

All of this just makes me wonder if you're going to see Idaho use the backlash from all this as an excuse to just drop football completely.

You are not the first to suggest this possibility. The BSC has a rule against having a full time member without football (they saw what happened to the BWC and WAC). They made an exception for UI but it was understood they expected and wanted UI football. UI without football is not as valuable to the BSC and sets a precedent for other cash strapped schools to drop football, however they did make an exception and take UI without football. It would be interesting to see what the BSC would do if UI dropped football and wanted to remain.
02-18-2017 02:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NoDak Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,130
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 92
I Root For: UND
Location:
Post: #36
RE: Cost of FBS vs FCS football
Liberty, UND, NDSU, and USD are the only FCS schools paying FCOA to my knowledge. UND will drop more sports (like M/W tennis) before it will touch FCOA.
02-18-2017 03:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
LatahCounty Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,950
Joined: Sep 2015
Reputation: 88
I Root For: Idaho
Location:
Post: #37
RE: Cost of FBS vs FCS football
(02-18-2017 01:17 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  All of this just makes me wonder if you're going to see Idaho use the backlash from all this as an excuse to just drop football completely.

Would be a more sensible decision for the university than playing FCS football. My view has always been, try indy for a while and see what happens, especially now that the program has straightened out. If we fall down, scheduling is terrible and the program falls apart again, then fine, give up and drop the sport.

If the fanbase hates the idea of FCS, the marketing value is actually negative for a school that competes with BSU, and it costs a ton of money then why do it?
02-18-2017 04:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,462
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 349
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #38
RE: Cost of FBS vs FCS football
(02-18-2017 03:01 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Liberty, UND, NDSU, and USD are the only FCS schools paying FCOA to my knowledge. UND will drop more sports (like M/W tennis) before it will touch FCOA.

UND has d-1 wrestling still right?

Cheers!
02-18-2017 06:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NoDak Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,130
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 92
I Root For: UND
Location:
Post: #39
RE: Cost of FBS vs FCS football
(02-18-2017 06:03 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(02-18-2017 03:01 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Liberty, UND, NDSU, and USD are the only FCS schools paying FCOA to my knowledge. UND will drop more sports (like M/W tennis) before it will touch FCOA.

UND has d-1 wrestling still right?

Cheers!

No, that was dropped in the 90's at the DII level to add more women's sports. NDSU and SDSU have it though and it's pretty high priority with them because their now Big 12 affiliates.

As said before, the ND schools wanted to go DI even in the 70's and on, but could not get a conference invite and couldn't convince our North Central Conference schools to move up enough masse. When Northern Iowa left the NCC to start the then MidCon with Green Bay, Valpo, E Ill, W Ill and Sw Mo St, that was a massive blow to the NCC and our egos as we werent wanted. N Colorado and Omaha later did move up along with the SD schools. ND schools have always been much more comprehensive than other NCC schools and have more Minnesota fans and connections
(This post was last modified: 02-18-2017 06:52 PM by NoDak.)
02-18-2017 06:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
Fighting the cartel 5
*

Posts: 9,462
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 349
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #40
RE: Cost of FBS vs FCS football
(02-18-2017 06:42 PM)NoDak Wrote:  
(02-18-2017 06:03 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(02-18-2017 03:01 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Liberty, UND, NDSU, and USD are the only FCS schools paying FCOA to my knowledge. UND will drop more sports (like M/W tennis) before it will touch FCOA.

UND has d-1 wrestling still right?

Cheers!

No, that was dropped in the 90's at the DII level to add more women's sports. NDSU and SDSU have it though and it's pretty high priority with them because their now Big 12 affiliates.

As said before, the ND schools wanted to go DI even in the 70's and on, but could not get a conference invite and couldn't convince our North Central Conference schools to move up enough masse. When Northern Iowa left the NCC to start the then MidCon with Green Bay, Valpo, E Ill, W Ill and Sw Mo St, that was a massive blow to the NCC and our egos as we werent wanted. N Colorado and Omaha later did move up along with the SD schools. ND schools have always been much more comprehensive than other NCC schools and have more Minnesota fans and connections

Oh ok. That's also good historical info. I didn't know UNI excluded you guys.

Cheers!
02-18-2017 07:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.