stingthemgood
Active member
Ya’ll are on some drugs
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts, upgrade to remove ads and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your BigSkyFans.com experience today!
The PAC/MWC Dominoes Begin to Fall
- Thread starter Kadeezy
- Start date
This is an awful take that lets weak/poor admin off the hook for not having the balls to keep football. Sac State, and all the other CA publics that still have football, faced the same issues from the CalNow fallout. It all boils down to having admin with the balls to do what it takes to keep football. Any CA public that had/has a field with 5k+ capacity was/is capable of sponsoring a football program. CalNow was just used as an out by weak/pathetic admin to cut football, I'll never believe otherwise on this topic.
I'm not buying the scholarship limit comment either. With the House Agreement, there are no longer scholarship limits but roster limits. Programs that "opt-in" can maintain a roster size of 105 players; how many of those are put on scholarship are limited by 2 factors:
- How many their respective conference will allow. My speculation is that this was part of our decision to leave the BSC as it doesn't sound like the BSC is budging from its FCS scholarship limit of 63. You can't maximize the advantage of opting in if you are still limited by the conference you are in.
- How many scholarships leadership is willing to fund. There are Title IX implications here, but as with CalNow, this circles back to the wherewithal of the leadership and the effort they are willing to take to be on the leading edge of the changes related to the House Agreement. Note that all NCAA sponsored sports roster limits were also adjusted, so the Title IX balance will still need to be maintained in conjunction with football scholarships.
Interesting tidbit for the "opt outs" moving forward:
CalNow affected CSU’s, not the UC’s, so not all public’s were affected the same. UC’s could still use on of the three prong approaches for Title IX compliance. Most used the progress model to gradually get in compliance (or still are showing progress each year and really aren’t truly in compliance on roster or spending amount) . CSU’s had to up the roster spots or cut sports in 6 years.
CSU system agrees to equity in sports programs - UPI Archives
The California State University system Thursday announced a landmark lawsuit settlement with the National Organization of Women in which it agrees to reach...
www.upi.com
Now I agree it was a hard change that needed tough leadership. LB had no stadium. Fullerton got the stadium and played four games in theirs and still couldn’t make it work… https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-mar-08-sp-titans-football8-story.html
They needed leaders who could rally the alumni community around the idea of division 1 football. They failed.
Which is why Sac has a good chance. Their leaders are all in. They don’t care if the effort fails, they know they have to make the effort to raise athletics.
LBSU played in Veteran's Memorial Stadium, which wasn't theirs but nothing was preventing them from continued use until they figured out an on-campus venue. They had (and still have) the field space for a multi-sport facility if their leadership had the wherewithal to get it done.
Good article on Fullerton, thanks for posting that. They had the facility coming on-line which makes their failure more significant.
Both LBSU and Fullerton always had strong enrollments, so it has always been a matter of having the fortitude to implement an athletics fee to fund football. That's what Sac State did when they were in the same situation back in the day. My point is that if a program like ours was able to keep football alive then those universities could have figured it out. All lot of it falls on their respective leadership, or lack thereof, at the time.
Good article on Fullerton, thanks for posting that. They had the facility coming on-line which makes their failure more significant.
Both LBSU and Fullerton always had strong enrollments, so it has always been a matter of having the fortitude to implement an athletics fee to fund football. That's what Sac State did when they were in the same situation back in the day. My point is that if a program like ours was able to keep football alive then those universities could have figured it out. All lot of it falls on their respective leadership, or lack thereof, at the time.
HornetFootballFan
Active member
They should submit that unofficially / humorously to NCAA Charlie baker update as a way to let them know. If Charlie loves CFB then he should whisker some loop holes that he be aware of that could get us FBs. This is not over. We expect fairness
Last edited:
jdgaucho
Member
Nothing to lose by stating the Big West qualifies.
Now that the clock is official, we'll see what Dr. Wood can conjure up. Expiring/renewal of TV contracts with the A4 conferences will drive realignment, as they have been for over the past decade. Here are the current TV durations for the FBS conferences:
- ACC deal through 2036
- SEC deal through 2034
- American deal through 2032
- Big 12 deal through 2031
- Pac 12 deal through 2031
- SBC deal through 2031
- B1G deal through 2030
- CUSA deal through 2029
- MAC deal through 2027
- MW deal through 2026
The other threat to FBS/tier 2 college football membership is Federal legislation that would grant the NCAA an anti-trust exemption. If that happens then I don't think anyone from FCS gets the call. Interesting times ahead.
So glad we thumbed the Big Sky. FCS Indy will be a lonely road.
Kadeezy
Active member
We'll see, we're about to be in the most unique situation in all of college football.
Kadeezy
Active member
Chat GPT Ranks the top 10 FCS Move Up Candidates:
| Rank | School | FBS Wins | Power 5 Wins | Market Size | Attendance | Best Fit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | North Dakota State | 9 | 2 | Small (state-dominant) | ~18,000 | MWC, MAC |
| 2 | Sacramento State | 4 | 3 | Top 20 (Sacramento DMA) | ~10,000+ | MWC, AAC |
| 3 | South Dakota State | 1 | 1 | Modest | ~15,000 | MWC |
| 4 | Montana | 1 | 1 | Statewide loyalty | ~23,000+ | MWC |
| 5 | UC Davis | 3 | 0 | NorCal/Bay Area | ~9,000 | MWC, AAC |
| 6 | Eastern Kentucky | 1 | 0 | SE U.S. | ~10,000 | C-USA, Sun Belt |
| 7 | Chattanooga | 0 | 0 | Near ATL/Nash | ~9,000 | Sun Belt |
| 8 | Tarleton State | 0 | 0 | Texas (DFW edge) | ~9,000 | C-USA |
| 9 | Florida A&M | ~0 | 0 | Florida | ~16,000 | C-USA, Sun Belt |
| 10 | Eastern Washington | 3 | 1 | Spokane area | ~8,000 | MWC |
Kadeezy
Active member
I asked it to consider several key factor, including program success over the last 15 years.
We had 13,000 attendance.
E. Washington!? Credibility lost.
E. Washington!? Credibility lost.
