Haha no dak I'm not getting laughed at like you are.

I'm on plenty of boards, funny only sdsu gophs I'm not on and that's cuz NDSU routinely kicks them in football.

Big fluffy will not go fbs it's hilarious to even fathom it, they aren't even the best conf in the fcs.

(07-15-2014 08:34 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  FCS conferences can vote for their own scholarships and stipends too....but which way will they vote? What if they decide to reduce numbers down to 53 scholarships but offer lifetime scholarships, Long Term Disability insurance ect, to their players? The NFL only has a 53 man roster so why does FCS need to have 63 full scholarships?

Since those 63 are spread out up to the 104 limit. It would be really difficult,IMO, to figure out how much each guy gets.

(07-15-2014 09:04 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 08:22 PM)NoDak Wrote:  No CFP sharing for 12 years.

But bowl access.

Humanitarian (Boise): MWC vs Big Sky
(The MAC didn't care for the travel)
New bowl in Seattle: MWC vs Big Sky
New bowl in new Vikings stadium: MAC vs Big Sky

Those bowls would be perfect access. The MAC would be happy, and maybe the MWC.

The CAA would be a mess figuring out 8 full conference FBS teams.

Maybe the Big Sky itself brokered a voting deal that let it move up to FBS as part of the package AND Idaho/New Mexico St agreed to be part of the new FBS conference.

Big Sky Capacities including Idaho/NMSU

1) New Mexico St 30,343
2) Montana 25,203
3) Sacramento St 21,195
4) Montana St 20,767
5) Portland St 20,000
6) Weber St 17,500
7) Idaho 16,000
North Dakota 13,500
Idaho St 12,000
Cal Poly 11,075
UC Davis 10,367
Northern Arizona 10,000
Eastern Washington 8,500
Southern Utah 8,500
Northern Colorado 6,500

That would give a Big Sky with Idaho/NMSU seven schools above the 15,000 seating threshold. The others then could be given a certain grace period to get their stadiums up to 15,000 or risk expulsion.

If NMSU doesn't want to come along the Big Sky could also look at adding North Dakota St from the MVC since they now as an FBS conference have the right to make upgrades. New Mexico St might prefer to remain in a more established FBS conference for a while, Idaho though would probably concede Big Sky.

NDSU is at 18,500 or so
SDSU is building an addition which will take it close to 17,000
UND is building an indoor practice center next to old Memorial Stadium. With the track gone, a new visitors side can go up to break 15,000. November games can still be inside at the Alerus Center, where we play now.

Cal Poly, UC Davis, and E Washington all have expansion plans to go to > 15,000.

Sounds like the Big Sky has a shot at FBS, especially when you factor those Dakota schools jumping on the bandwagon.

(07-15-2014 08:34 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The NFL only has a 53 man roster so why does FCS need to have 63 full scholarships?

NFL roster limit isn't comparable because CFB teams use the extra numbers to redshirt some players and because NFL teams, unlike CFB teams, can replace injured players on the active roster during the season with players not on the season-opening roster, and/or cut low-performing players and give their roster spots to free agents. CFB would have to operate very differently if there was a max of 53 scholarship players per team.

(07-15-2014 09:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 08:34 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The NFL only has a 53 man roster so why does FCS need to have 63 full scholarships?

NFL roster limit isn't comparable because CFB teams use the extra numbers to redshirt some players and because NFL teams, unlike CFB teams, can replace injured players on the active roster during the season with players not on the season-opening roster, and/or cut low-performing players and give their roster spots to free agents. CFB would have to operate very differently if there was a max of 53 scholarship players per team.

Walk-ons, don't forget them.

Athletic Spending (% subsidized)
1. *Cal-Davis, $28.2 M, 79 %
2. North Dakota, $22.1 M, 49.5 %
3. *Cal Poly, $21 M, 76 %
4. Montana, $20 M, 43 %
5. ~Idaho, 19.5 M, 47.4 %
6. Sac State, $19.4 M, 78 %
7. Montana State, $17.9 M, 58%
8. Portland State, $13.4 M, 72
9. Northern Arizona, $12.8 M, 74 %
10. Weber State, $12.3 M, 66 %
11. Northern Colorado, $12.2 M, 68 %
12. IDAHO STATE, $11.7 M, 64 %
13. Eastern Washington, $11.4 M, 72 %
14. Southern Utah, $11.1 M, 75 %

2012 Sun Belt #'s from Wikipedia
Texas State University $26,886,756 $25,439,818 $1,446,938
Georgia State University $24,540,533 $25,943,332 -$1,402,799
University of South Alabama $19,060,589 $18,816,817 $0,243,772
University of Louisiana at Lafayette $17,440,897 $17,532,577 -$0,091,680
Troy University $16,504,664 $16,504,664 $0,000,000
Arkansas State University $15,307,308 $15,307,308 $0,000,000
University of Louisiana at Monroe $11,323,485 $10,769,839 $0,553,646
University of Texas at Arlington $9,714,229 $10,770,129 -$1,055,900
University of Arkansas at Little Rock $9,697,449 $9,356,355 $0,341,094

MAC from 2010 (USA Today)
Miami $25,604,474.00
EMU $24,635,531.00
Akron $24,498,336.00
CMU $24,104,699.00
WMU $23,233,399.00
Ohio $22,875,238.00
NIU $21,899,024.00
Toledo $20,021,956.00
Kent $19,446,680.00
BGSU $17,850,240.00
Ball State $17,347,944.00
Buffalo $16,973,585.00

The Big Sky has some schools that operate on the low end, but so does the Sun Belt. (UTA and UALR don't count) But if you compare the top end of the Big Sky, it looks awfully like the MAC and Sun Belt. Why should the Big Sky be frozen out of FBS?

(07-16-2014 01:03 AM)NoDak Wrote:  Athletic Spending (% subsidized)
1. *Cal-Davis, $28.2 M, 79 %
2. North Dakota, $22.1 M, 49.5 %
3. *Cal Poly, $21 M, 76 %
4. Montana, $20 M, 43 %
5. ~Idaho, 19.5 M, 47.4 %
6. Sac State, $19.4 M, 78 %
7. Montana State, $17.9 M, 58%
8. Portland State, $13.4 M, 72
9. Northern Arizona, $12.8 M, 74 %
10. Weber State, $12.3 M, 66 %
11. Northern Colorado, $12.2 M, 68 %
12. IDAHO STATE, $11.7 M, 64 %
13. Eastern Washington, $11.4 M, 72 %
14. Southern Utah, $11.1 M, 75 %

2012 Sun Belt #'s from Wikipedia
Texas State University $26,886,756 $25,439,818 $1,446,938
Georgia State University $24,540,533 $25,943,332 -$1,402,799
University of South Alabama $19,060,589 $18,816,817 $0,243,772
University of Louisiana at Lafayette $17,440,897 $17,532,577 -$0,091,680
Troy University $16,504,664 $16,504,664 $0,000,000
Arkansas State University $15,307,308 $15,307,308 $0,000,000
University of Louisiana at Monroe $11,323,485 $10,769,839 $0,553,646
University of Texas at Arlington $9,714,229 $10,770,129 -$1,055,900
University of Arkansas at Little Rock $9,697,449 $9,356,355 $0,341,094

MAC from 2010 (USA Today)
Miami $25,604,474.00
EMU $24,635,531.00
Akron $24,498,336.00
CMU $24,104,699.00
WMU $23,233,399.00
Ohio $22,875,238.00
NIU $21,899,024.00
Toledo $20,021,956.00
Kent $19,446,680.00
BGSU $17,850,240.00
Ball State $17,347,944.00
Buffalo $16,973,585.00

The Big Sky has some schools that operate on the low end, but so does the Sun Belt. (UTA and UALR don't count) But if you compare the top end of the Big Sky, it looks awfully like the MAC and Sun Belt. Why should the Big Sky be frozen out of FBS?

Because when the contract for the new playoff was signed, Big Sky was not FBS, and its highly doubtful the 5 other G5 leagues are going to sign off on a 6th G5 conference, and the 5 other P5 leagues and Notre Dame are not likely to want 10-12 new teams joining FBS, when they know that by simply rewriting governance, they can be assured that only 1 or 2 more max will be added depending on how the Sun Belt handles the 12th member question.

The Big Sky lost their chance to become FBS when the WAC lost football. You and Fullerton can believe every crazy theory that you want, but its not happening.

(07-15-2014 09:21 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 09:04 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 08:22 PM)NoDak Wrote:  No CFP sharing for 12 years.

But bowl access.

Humanitarian (Boise): MWC vs Big Sky
(The MAC didn't care for the travel)
New bowl in Seattle: MWC vs Big Sky
New bowl in new Vikings stadium: MAC vs Big Sky

Those bowls would be perfect access. The MAC would be happy, and maybe the MWC.

The CAA would be a mess figuring out 8 full conference FBS teams.

Maybe the Big Sky itself brokered a voting deal that let it move up to FBS as part of the package AND Idaho/New Mexico St agreed to be part of the new FBS conference.

Big Sky Capacities including Idaho/NMSU

1) New Mexico St 30,343
2) Montana 25,203
3) Sacramento St 21,195
4) Montana St 20,767
5) Portland St 20,000
6) Weber St 17,500
7) Idaho 16,000
North Dakota 13,500
Idaho St 12,000
Cal Poly 11,075
UC Davis 10,367
Northern Arizona 10,000
Eastern Washington 8,500
Southern Utah 8,500
Northern Colorado 6,500

That would give a Big Sky with Idaho/NMSU seven schools above the 15,000 seating threshold. The others then could be given a certain grace period to get their stadiums up to 15,000 or risk expulsion.

If NMSU doesn't want to come along the Big Sky could also look at adding North Dakota St from the MVC since they now as an FBS conference have the right to make upgrades. New Mexico St might prefer to remain in a more established FBS conference for a while, Idaho though would probably concede Big Sky.

NDSU is at 18,500 or so
SDSU is building an addition which will take it close to 17,000
UND is building an indoor practice center next to old Memorial Stadium. With the track gone, a new visitors side can go up to break 15,000. November games can still be inside at the Alerus Center, where we play now.

Cal Poly, UC Davis, and E Washington all have expansion plans to go to > 15,000.

I was not aware that there was a stadium capacity threshold for FBS membership. There is, however, an attendance threshold of at least 15K in one of the latest two years, which only 2 of the Big Sky's 13 current members would meet. NMSU has met that threshold (though not by much) and Idaho has not met it for at least the last four years. Besides Montana and Montana St, the next closest to the attendance minimum is North Dakota, which averaged 8,357 last year.

So you can forget about the Big Sky moving up. It's not going to happen.

(07-15-2014 08:34 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 02:39 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 02:24 PM)stever20 Wrote:  It's an interesting thought.

A few things-
1- Bowls- you are right for seasons thru 2019. Got to keep in mind though, a FBS move up declared now would be bowl ineligible in 2014(still full FCS), 2015 and 2016. 1st year they would be bowl eligible would be 2017. So 3 years of problems- but they would likely try to create 2-3 games in the meantimes.....
2- TV- if it's CAA they would have some tv money with NBC already they could see about getting a bit more money for football being FBS now.

The question would become the CFP situation. What language is in there regarding new conferences? It was done while the WAC was active, so there could be some provision if the old WAC reignited. I wouldn't say that it's out of the realm of possibility at all. And like what was brought up earlier, the P5 wouldn't mind having more FBS schools now, to lessen the cost of the buy games. Could easily see the Pac 12 like was brought up wanting Big Sky to be FBS so they have more regional options for buy games.

If you look at the CFP FAQs it doesn't mention FBS, it mentions specific conferences... It specifically mentions the highest rated team of "the MAC, MWC, AAC, SBC, and CUSA" it does NOT mention the highest rated team from the rest of "the field of FBS". Thus the WAC, even if revived" is not included. And even if it did mention that, then you can be assured that the other FBS conferences would be staunchly resisting any more FBS Conferences and there would be all sorts of chatter right now. However that is not the case and Aresco, Thompson, Steinbrecher, etc are content and know whats coming.

As I outlined above, perhaps allowing FCS conferences to attempt to keep up in name only was the olive branch given to get their vote and approval and their fans wouldn't be mad or something.

I think you've got a good grip on this.

Everything may line up on the voting structure, with P5 picking up 38% of the vote, G5 19% of the vote and the other 22 conferences left with 57% of the vote or about 2.5% each. The P5 and G5 can both vote for their own football rules separately.

I've read the MAC and MWC like a 4,000 per year stipend. The AAC is willing to match the P5 dollar for dollar. CUSA is in favor of some type of stipend. I don't know where the SBC stands but it clear the G5 will vote in a stipend if permitted.

FCS conferences can vote for their own scholarships and stipends too....but which way will they vote? What if they decide to reduce numbers down to 53 scholarships but offer lifetime scholarships, Long Term Disability insurance ect, to their players? The NFL only has a 53 man roster so why does FCS need to have 63 full scholarships?

When stipend was approved the first time, the rule required that it be approved on a conference by conference basis before being awarded. The Sun Belt was the first conference to adopt the needed rules to award stipend.

I fail to see how stipend is going to be a major deal. The last proposal was to award them only in head count sports. There are only 125 head count athletes at the typical school (men's and women's hoops, women's volleyball and football and football isn't head count in FCS) and under NCAA rules no more than 137 at any school (women's gymnastics).

So let's take a $6000 stipend which is far more than the $2000 a year previously proposed and is the highest number I've seen thrown out and consider a school with the maximum number of head count athletes. That's $822,000 most everyone in G5 has nearly $825,000 in new revenue flowing down from CFP.

I didn't major in math nor business finance but it certainly appears there is adequate new revenue to easily pay that.

Let's look at the $2000 stipend previously proposed and assume headcount get it full amount while equivalency receive it in proportion to the amount of aid they receive. Consider a school with 19 sports awarding 230 FTE. That's only $460,000. If we work backwards from the assumption of only about $825,000 of the CFP money is NEW money then a school with 230 scholarships awarded can afford a stipend of $3500 per full scholarship or equivalent to a full scholarship awarded without dipping into other resources.

That's why virtually none of the G5 schools opposed the stipend last time around. They knew they could afford it because the P5 had already insured they could afford it.

(07-15-2014 09:28 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Sounds like the Big Sky has a shot at FBS, especially when you factor those Dakota schools jumping on the bandwagon.

Only if someone changes the rules for them. The G5 ain't voting for them and why would the P5 want to increase the voting clout of schools that have been obstructionist in the past.

Exactly Ark.

And north dakota numbers are inflated because of thier weird obsession with hockey.

NDSU is the ONLY viable FBS option in the upper Midwest right now, they are hot and nationally known with an actual fan base of 25000 that will follow them anywjere

(07-16-2014 09:19 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 09:28 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Sounds like the Big Sky has a shot at FBS, especially when you factor those Dakota schools jumping on the bandwagon.

Only if someone changes the rules for them. The G5 ain't voting for them and why would the P5 want to increase the voting clout of schools that have been obstructionist in the past.

After the rules have been changed, the voting clout of schools that have been obstructionist in the past goes away.

It's definitely possible to see P5 wanting more FBS schools after the rules have changed. They get more FBS schools, that lessens the cost of buy games against non P5 FBS schools- just pure supply/demand.

(07-16-2014 09:08 AM)ken d Wrote:  I was not aware that there was a stadium capacity threshold for FBS membership. There is, however, an attendance threshold of at least 15K in one of the latest two years, which only 2 of the Big Sky's 13 current members would meet. NMSU has met that threshold (though not by much) and Idaho has not met it for at least the last four years. Besides Montana and Montana St, the next closest to the attendance minimum is North Dakota, which averaged 8,357 last year.

So you can forget about the Big Sky moving up. It's not going to happen.

In order to have 15,000 in attendance, a school needs to have >15k seats. But the NCAA allows schools to buy their own tickets at 1/3rd the price to meet the 15k threshold during transition. FAU and FIU used that loophole to gain FBS status. The 15k is only required every other year and isn't strictly enforced.

But of course, if the attendance requirement is eliminated or changed by the NCAA and P5, its a new day in FBS.

(07-16-2014 09:55 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 09:19 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 09:28 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Sounds like the Big Sky has a shot at FBS, especially when you factor those Dakota schools jumping on the bandwagon.

Only if someone changes the rules for them. The G5 ain't voting for them and why would the P5 want to increase the voting clout of schools that have been obstructionist in the past.

After the rules have been changed, the voting clout of schools that have been obstructionist in the past goes away.

It's definitely possible to see P5 wanting more FBS schools after the rules have changed. They get more FBS schools, that lessens the cost of buy games against non P5 FBS schools- just pure supply/demand.

Supply and demand is somewhat of a factor---but its not really supply and demand that drives it. Its the difference between how much the typical FBS school can make playing a home game vs playing a one-and-done on the road---which is different for every school. The price isn't going to fall all that much because of supply and demand as long as most FBS schools can sell 25-30K in tickets at $20 bucks a pop ($500K), plus sell parking income and concessions (not to mention having a better chance to win at home and no travel costs).

(07-16-2014 10:27 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 09:55 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 09:19 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 09:28 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Sounds like the Big Sky has a shot at FBS, especially when you factor those Dakota schools jumping on the bandwagon.

Only if someone changes the rules for them. The G5 ain't voting for them and why would the P5 want to increase the voting clout of schools that have been obstructionist in the past.

After the rules have been changed, the voting clout of schools that have been obstructionist in the past goes away.

It's definitely possible to see P5 wanting more FBS schools after the rules have changed. They get more FBS schools, that lessens the cost of buy games against non P5 FBS schools- just pure supply/demand.

Supply and demand is somewhat of a factor---but its not really supply and demand that drives it. Its the difference between how much the typical FBS school can make playing a home game vs playing a one-and-done on the road---which is different for every school. The price isn't going to fall all that much because of supply and demand as long as most FBS schools can sell 25-30K in tickets at $20 bucks a pop ($500K), plus sell parking income and concessions (not to mention having a better chance to win at home and no travel costs).

Except that if say 20 more FBS schols came around- instead of having only 65ish G5 schools you would have 85ish G5 schools. I mean, right now some G5 schools are getting close to if not more than a million dollars. FCS schools get at most 300k. If there are more FBS schools, that cost will get lower for FBS games.

The MVFC looked into moving up.
My guess is it is split three ways .
Some stay FCS some BSC some CAA.
That all but eliminates possible candidates.

The Ohio Valley schools interested end up in the SBC.
I KINDA wonder if Missouri State new this when only building to seventeen thousand. Having a full nice stadium being more important than just hitting a number. U MASS is a good candidate for CAA if FBS. They also spent a lot of money without adding seats.

(07-16-2014 10:59 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 10:27 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 09:55 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 09:19 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 09:28 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Sounds like the Big Sky has a shot at FBS, especially when you factor those Dakota schools jumping on the bandwagon.

Only if someone changes the rules for them. The G5 ain't voting for them and why would the P5 want to increase the voting clout of schools that have been obstructionist in the past.

After the rules have been changed, the voting clout of schools that have been obstructionist in the past goes away.

It's definitely possible to see P5 wanting more FBS schools after the rules have changed. They get more FBS schools, that lessens the cost of buy games against non P5 FBS schools- just pure supply/demand.

Supply and demand is somewhat of a factor---but its not really supply and demand that drives it. Its the difference between how much the typical FBS school can make playing a home game vs playing a one-and-done on the road---which is different for every school. The price isn't going to fall all that much because of supply and demand as long as most FBS schools can sell 25-30K in tickets at $20 bucks a pop ($500K), plus sell parking income and concessions (not to mention having a better chance to win at home and no travel costs).

Except that if say 20 more FBS schols came around- instead of having only 65ish G5 schools you would have 85ish G5 schools. I mean, right now some G5 schools are getting close to if not more than a million dollars. FCS schools get at most 300k. If there are more FBS schools, that cost will get lower for FBS games.

I get that. What I'm saying is that opportunity cost is a major component in driving the price. The price might fall a bit with more schools available--but the opportunity cost of a 6th home game represents a floor the price cant fall below. In order for a one-and-done-body-bag game to be more attractive than a home game for an FBS team---it has to offer a significant premium over the potential earnings of the FBS schools 6th home game. Otherwise, the typical default would be to schedule a 6th home game.

(07-16-2014 11:11 AM)MJG Wrote:  The MVFC looked into moving up.
My guess is it is split three ways .
Some stay FCS some BSC some CAA.
That all but eliminates possible candidates.

The Ohio Valley schools interested end up in the SBC.
I KINDA wonder if Missouri State new this when only building to seventeen thousand. Having a full nice stadium being more important than just hitting a number. U MASS is a good candidate for CAA if FBS. They also spent a lot of money without adding seats.

Currently we are required to play some games at the Razor and have a 17K stadium. There are plans for expansion but need to prove it's necessary. Will have a chance with 3 games, one Saturday and two November weeknight games on campus.

(07-16-2014 09:55 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 09:19 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-15-2014 09:28 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Sounds like the Big Sky has a shot at FBS, especially when you factor those Dakota schools jumping on the bandwagon.

Only if someone changes the rules for them. The G5 ain't voting for them and why would the P5 want to increase the voting clout of schools that have been obstructionist in the past.

After the rules have been changed, the voting clout of schools that have been obstructionist in the past goes away.

It's definitely possible to see P5 wanting more FBS schools after the rules have changed. They get more FBS schools, that lessens the cost of buy games against non P5 FBS schools- just pure supply/demand.

They get 1 FCS game and many p5 conferences are talking about going to 9 conference games. Thats *two* OOC games, and many of the richers schools are trying to tie into power matchups from now on.

The demand is going to drop so there is no need to increase the supply.