Let's play "what if" (MWC/Pac-2/FBS)

[ringthebells]

Time zones are better than the MW. Not sure about the Tues/Wed night MACtion in November. I kind of like that there are games to watch on those nights. I could handle doing it once a year. Not sure how many games get moved per school though.

[discoDancinRabbit]

Time zones are better than the MW. Not sure about the Tues/Wed night MACtion in November. I kind of like that there are games to watch on those nights. I could handle doing it once a year. Not sure how many games get moved per school though.

2-3 if i remember. Might as well pin it because its everybody's gripe about maction.

[GrandpaLee]

What are people's feelings about the MAC?

So many questions - so little time to sort out. OMG: MAC, MWC, Big Sky, MVC

Does the Board of Regents have final approval, e.g., NIL's, Dak State to DII; or, SDSU going alone to MWC? Or, each institution jumps in the pool on its own?

Over time, FBS dollars grew significantly & today fuel the top teams, plus NIL, unionization, Title Nine, coaches salaries, realignments, etc.

When the advertising demand slows, & the TV dollars scarce, what sports structures survive? ESPN, Bally, MIDCO have cut back -

What calculation drives keeping Olympic sports, or only BB, FB, T&F ?

[jakejc795]

Positive vibes. For starters the budget is in the ballpark and actually larger than niu.

Budgets may be similar, but I'd be curious about the extent to which MAC fanbases commute to games, because the Jacks rely on commuting fans to sell out, and a MACtion schedule will almost inevitably decrease commuting fans attendance.

[jakejc795]

My feeling is that if an MWC invite came our way, the SDSU community would somehow come up with the money.

And, leaving USD "behind" in FCS while going to FBS is ***probably*** going to increase the separation between the sizes of the fan bases. That's a pretty complicated calculus, however, as if, say, SDSU goes and has a few 2-9, 3-8, or even 6-5 FBS seasons while USD (with SDSU and presumably also NDSU now out of the way in FBS) wins an FCS natty or two, that will tend to equalize things...and make A) running out of fans considerably more likely (which translates directly into your B point as well). I'm also concerned that SDSU wouldn't necessarily get the same quality of athlete as just another lower-tier FBS team versus being a national championship contender FCS team. And then there's the issue of playing away--or worse, home games that start at 8 or 9 or 10 pm central time in the MWC.

These things are what make me ambivalent towards any move to FBS. I think all told, I'm very, very lukewarmly on the "well, if we're invited to the MWC (or in the more unlikely event the Pac-12) we kinda have to go" side of things, but it's not without a LOT of trepidation and an awareness that the downside potential is real and significant.

Great points.

MWC perspective is similar for me, largely because I think the G5 teams' path will be more sustainable for SDSU when the P4 secedes. I think the Pac will eventually bleed money to attempt to prop itself up

[JacksFan80]

Apparently Tarleton joining the MWC is a serious possibility. Wonder if SDSU/NDSU and the Montanas had talked with the MWC and decided it’s not worth it? Or were we passed over entirely? Either way I keep going back and forth on whether I’d want us to join the MWC. I used to be massively pro-FBS for SDSU but now I’m not so sure. We have a great thing going in the FCS, and we are in the perfect conference in terms of geography and competition. The old MWC would’ve been great with Boise, Fresno, CSU, USU, and the inferior SDSU, but without them it doesn’t really excite me outside of Wyoming.

Maybe we’re better off waiting until the big boys split off into their own super league, and try moving up the entire MVFC if that would be a possibility? If anything I’d rather see us and NDSU get out of the Summit and try and get full membership in the MVC. Would be a massive upgrade IMO. With Missouri State leaving it’ll leave the MVC at 11 members, and one would think they’d want an even number. Bring St. Thomas in as well and that’d be a perfect deal.

[Prairiehaas]

Article in WSJ yesterday discussing a group called College Sports tomorrow with a plan to "unify the more than 130 teams that compete in FBS into one nationwide competition." The plan would split FBS into 2 tiers with divisions based upon geography. The top 72 programs would be in one division split into 12 six team divisions. The remaining teams in the lower tier would be split into 8 divisions. The plan has a 24 team playoff with 2 berths reserved for the lower tier. The plan incudes a league salary cap and floor for teams and pay scales for the athletes based upon position and one-field usage. It would also have strict transfer rules and collective bargaining for athletes. The proposal for revenue generated would not be split evenly; 94% would got to teams in the top tier and 6% to the lower tier.

I don't know this has any chance of happening. It does show there is interest in moving the top tier of college football out from under the NCAA.

[Sodakbull]

Article in WSJ yesterday discussing a group called College Sports tomorrow with a plan to "unify the more than 130 teams that compete in FBS into one nationwide competition." The plan would split FBS into 2 tiers with divisions based upon geography. The top 72 programs would be in one division split into 12 six team divisions. The remaining teams in the lower tier would be split into 8 divisions. The plan has a 24 team playoff with 2 berths reserved for the lower tier. The plan incudes a league salary cap and floor for teams and pay scales for the athletes based upon position and one-field usage. It would also have strict transfer rules and collective bargaining for athletes. The proposal for revenue generated would not be split evenly; 94% would got to teams in the top tier and 6% to the lower tier.

I don't know this has any chance of happening. It does show there is interest in moving the top tier of college football out from under the NCAA.

So the new governing body will be like the old governing body, they want to keep all the money! And I bet they will make the rules too! I have to admit, I am skeptical of all this because so many dollars are involved and the guys making the rules will make the rules that favor them! They just wont have lawsuits hanging over their heads.

[Prairiehaas]

I wonder about the lawsuits related to NCAA rules and the settlements related to those lawsuits. In all cases, the current and future settlements must be paid by reducing monies going to the schools. If that reduction becomes significant wouldn't it be an incentive for certain schools, or groups of schools, to pull certain sports out from the NCAA? If the presidents of the largest and most powerful schools decide to start their own, or join a venture capital initiated, football or basketball league could the NCAA enforce a rule requiring NCAA members to keep all their sports affiliated with the NCAA? At that point could the NCAA enforce the Dayton Rule? And if not, might that kill FCS?

Massive speculation all of this. I suspect the nature of college athletics will change significantly in the next several years.

[ringthebells]

How about LIV college football?

[bigticket1]

Article in WSJ yesterday discussing a group called College Sports tomorrow with a plan to "unify the more than 130 teams that compete in FBS into one nationwide competition." The plan would split FBS into 2 tiers with divisions based upon geography. The top 72 programs would be in one division split into 12 six team divisions. The remaining teams in the lower tier would be split into 8 divisions. The plan has a 24 team playoff with 2 berths reserved for the lower tier. The plan incudes a league salary cap and floor for teams and pay scales for the athletes based upon position and one-field usage. It would also have strict transfer rules and collective bargaining for athletes. The proposal for revenue generated would not be split evenly; 94% would got to teams in the top tier and 6% to the lower tier.

I don't know this has any chance of happening. It does show there is interest in moving the top tier of college football out from under the NCAA.

If that's the plan I read, I laughed out loud at how often the term "student" was used in the news release. With all the use of NIL and collectives at the upper level, things seem to be moving more to pay-for-play than the student athlete model. It seemed that they were trying to emphasize the student aspect almost to the point of overkill in promoting their plan.

[JackJD]

Interesting topic --
I came across a couple articles linked on fan-message boards which add to the expansion discussion. The first one is an article published 9/30//24 in Forbes Magazine titled "A Data-Driven Look At PAC-12 and Mountain West Conference Expansion." Its author is a PhD data scientist who decided to develop "a data-driven framework for identifying who the Pac-12 and Mountain West should target in expansion."

The second article was published yesterday, 10/1/24, on the ESPN website and focuses on Gonzaga's announcement that it will leave the West Coast Conference and take all of its sports, including the fabulous men's basketball program, to the PAC-12 starting with the 2026 season.

The first article rounds up the usual suspects being discussed as expansion candidates for both the PAC-12 and the MWC, including the four FCS Dakota schools and the two FCS Montana schools. The author " used data on athletic department revenues and expenses, historical AP poll appearances, and FBS and FCS football game attendance to assess how potential expansion teams compare to the expected 2026 compositions of the Pac-12 (school names omitted) and the Mountain West Conference (school names omitted). For each dimension within the data, [the author] calculated how many standard deviations each team differs from the current conference average. A value above zero indicates the team outperforms the conference average, while a value below zero indicates the team performs worse than the conference average." The information is presented in a graph.

In my view, the graph isn't very encouraging for those who want to see SDSU and NDSU move up to FBS. The graph indicates the two Montana schools are better candidates than any of the four Dakota schools and of the four Dakota schools, SDSU is the most attractive and NDSU is not far behind. USD just isn't a realistic candidate and the statistical presentation in the article confirms that. One has to conclude that USD's football stadium capacity and its fan unwillingness to fill it will keep USD out of expansion talks. (And I doubt there'll be such talks with any of the Dakota schools.)

Here's the link to the data-driven article:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/giovann...on-candidates/

The second article focuses on Gonzaga. Gonzaga is in a unique position. One doesn't need to read the article to know that even without the conference realignment going on, Gonzaga could probably have its pick of many conferences based on the prominence of its men's basketball team. The PAC-12 made a nice pickup with Gonzaga -- PAC 12 still needs a football team or two. Seems to me the Montana and Dakota schools are not in the PAC-12 discussion. Here's the link to the Gonzaga story:
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...ol-sources-say

I don't know what to think about SDSU moving up to FBS. As a practical matter, I doubt SDSU is high on MWC's radar and I think the PAC-12 isn't paying attention to FCS schools.

[filbert]

Interesting topic --
I came across a couple articles linked on fan-message boards which add to the expansion discussion. The first one is an article published 9/30//24 in Forbes Magazine titled "A Data-Driven Look At PAC-12 and Mountain West Conference Expansion." Its author is a PhD data scientist who decided to develop "a data-driven framework for identifying who the Pac-12 and Mountain West should target in expansion."

The second article was published yesterday, 10/1/24, on the ESPN website and focuses on Gonzaga's announcement that it will leave the West Coast Conference and take all of its sports, including the fabulous men's basketball program, to the PAC-12 starting with the 2026 season.

The first article rounds up the usual suspects being discussed as expansion candidates for both the PAC-12 and the MWC, including the four FCS Dakota schools and the two FCS Montana schools. The author " used data on athletic department revenues and expenses, historical AP poll appearances, and FBS and FCS football game attendance to assess how potential expansion teams compare to the expected 2026 compositions of the Pac-12 (school names omitted) and the Mountain West Conference (school names omitted). For each dimension within the data, [the author] calculated how many standard deviations each team differs from the current conference average. A value above zero indicates the team outperforms the conference average, while a value below zero indicates the team performs worse than the conference average." The information is presented in a graph.

In my view, the graph isn't very encouraging for those who want to see SDSU and NDSU move up to FBS. The graph indicates the two Montana schools are better candidates than any of the four Dakota schools and of the four Dakota schools, SDSU is the most attractive and NDSU is not far behind. USD just isn't a realistic candidate and the statistical presentation in the article confirms that. One has to conclude that USD's football stadium capacity and its fan unwillingness to fill it will keep USD out of expansion talks. (And I doubt there'll be such talks with any of the Dakota schools.)

Here's the link to the data-driven article:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/giovann...on-candidates/

The second article focuses on Gonzaga. Gonzaga is in a unique position. One doesn't need to read the article to know that even without the conference realignment going on, Gonzaga could probably have its pick of many conferences based on the prominence of its men's basketball team. The PAC-12 made a nice pickup with Gonzaga -- PAC 12 still needs a football team or two. Seems to me the Montana and Dakota schools are not in the PAC-12 discussion. Here's the link to the Gonzaga story:
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...ol-sources-say

I don't know what to think about SDSU moving up to FBS. As a practical matter, I doubt SDSU is high on MWC's radar and I think the PAC-12 isn't paying attention to FCS schools.

I looked at the Forbes article, and my initial impression was that it was extremely superficial and really not terribly convincing. It's a big waving red flag for me if such purported analyses do not take into account the market penetration into DMAs as well as the size of the home DMA of the institution, as well as neighboring DMAs in which the institution would have significant market share. This one simply assumed that the institution in question would get 100% of the TV eyeballs of the DMA in which it is resident...and also that there are no other DMAs for which the institution would achieve significant market penetration.

Obviously, in the cases of SDSU and NDSU, not only would they have significant market share in the Sioux Falls-Mitchell and Fargo DMAs respectively, but also in the Rapid City and Sioux City DMAs for SDSU and the Minot-Bismarck-Mandan-Dickenson DMA for NDSU. Of course, that level of analysis is significantly more difficult than simply assuming things that are probably not anywhere close to truth. The market share in DMAs is THE BIG DEAL, and not taking that into account is a serious--might I say a rookie--error.

In short, if you're not considering market share in addition to market size, and not considering all markets within which an institution has significant market share, your analysis will be skewed and will not reflect economic reality.

On the other article, I don't have a lot of direct comments regarding Gonzaga. Regarding the Pac-12 generally though--it actually would not surprise me if in Pac-12 circles, the exceptional strength of SDSU's women's basketball program might play a significant role in judging the suitability of the institution. That might be as much of a factor as SDSU's push to become a R1 research university. (I believe NDSU is already an R1 university.).

How much of a role either of those might play isn't at all clear, but I'd actually be surprised if they don't at least enter into the discussion behind closed doors. This is of course more of a political rather than an economic factor, and so can't really be analyzed in any meaningful way. In a similar (if maybe less political manner) the strength of SDSU's and NDSU's men's basketball programs is noteworthy, as is the strength of both institutions' athletic programs top to bottom. Either institution, if adequate FBS financial resources were available, would likely put very, very, very competitive MBB teams on the court, worthy of earning an at-large NCAA tournament bid.

I'd agree that the Pac-12 would rather eat broken glass than invite an FCS school, but if the alternative is being de-certified by the NCAA, things may happen.

[Prairiehaas]

I would add two other issue with the analysis in the Forbes article. First the use of AP poll appearances rather than Sagarin rankings. FCS teams obviously will not fair well when compared using AP poll appearances, whereas the FCS schools in the analysis would fair much better using Sagarin rankings. The second issue is neither the PAC x nor the MWC are football only conferences. They are multi-sport conferences. That is why Gonzaga gets into the PAC. I would assume both conferences will look at the entirety of a candidate schools sports portfolio when evaluating for an offer to join.

I agree with Filbert. The PAC will not select an FCS school unless forced to. The MWC on the other hand may have less to choose from.

[GrandpaLee]

Do not the post-settlement P-4 football rosters allow 105 scholarships, versus 95 now. Those players will likely move up from non-P4 schools.

Players & money going away from FCS, soon. Serious consequences, yes/no?