Given this whole argument, it's pretty clear that if NDSU is to move up, the best situation would be for them to do it with like minded schools, in a regional conference with real rivalries. Dakota's, Montana's, a few MVC schools and maybe Wyoming.

If geography is the only thing preventing some of these schools from moving up, the NCAA will need to allow them to create a much needed FBS conference in that region. This will happen if there are multiple FCS move ups and the Northern FCS schools are excluded due to geography alone.

(09-24-2021 10:07 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-24-2021 09:55 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-24-2021 02:46 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  NDSU is a Midwestern school in a state with no people to speak of. A recruiting desert. Same problem with Montana and Idaho.

The only places that make sense for the MWC to expand is the State of Texas and the State of Texas. Also the State of Texas makes sense. Florida is a bit too far, but Texas is next to New Mexico. They have things like cities and hundred s of high schools and and almost 38x as many people. It's even larger a margin when looking at HS students. Texas has 3.9m, graduating nearly 1m a year, while ND has 78,500 and graduates fewer than 20k a year. Good grief, my freaking youth basketball league covers a small patch of city that graduates more kids than all of North Dakota and I can cover it in 20 minutes by car. Houston and Dallas and other cities offer similar recruiting zones, where the kids compete growing up against stronger competition. It's no contest on value.

NDSU is a wonderful small state story. And a declining small state with lower than average education and income rates with an outflow of educated people, shrinking enrollments. It has no value whatsoever as a recruiting grand and is a (rhymes with witch) to get to. No such thing as direct flights like there are from SLC, Las Vegas, San Diego and San Jose to places like DFW and Houston. This only makes sense to fans who only look at the record of a school and not what resources they bring to the other schools.

I frankly think NDSU should look at the MAC for move up. I mean they are practically in Minnesota and not far from Iowa. Chicago and Minneapolis are the cities the people back east in the Dakotas look toward. They recruit that direction too. Moving west would really hurt them in ways similar to what happened to Nebraska shifting away from Texas. There are no California, Oregon, Washington or Arizona kids growing up in these city dominated areas looking to move to the prarieland.

A bad option for both sides.

The 1990s called. They want their stereotypes back.

North Dakota was the 4th fastest growing state over the 2010s. Most of those were high paying, highly technical jobs in the oil industry.

North Dakota is 5th highest % of population with a high school degree (93.5%). It is roughly average in income and % with a bachelor's degree.

I mean it’s not hard to grow the population percentage-wise if nobody was there to begin with.

Yup

And that "growth" was only 100,000 people. In contrast, Arizona grew by more the than total current population of North Dakota. And the next oil bust (already started) will cause a mass migration out of North Dakota, again

One thing about NDSU is that they do seem to have great ratings and they have a strong relationship with ESPN. They might be a bigger player in realignment than some expect, even though they're still FCS.

I'd like the AAC to add Colorado St. CSU is basically in the footprint, they they've consistently done well in most major sports, they're a major land grant and flagship university, and they have a beautiful new stadium in the foothills. Good place for opposing fans to visit. CSU feels like the most "pure" addition the AAC could find.

(09-21-2021 06:35 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  It seems odd to me that a pool of Texas schools deemed terrible additions if AAC were to take them despite the proximity to AAC footprint, are also being touted as good adds for MWC when none but UTEP are in proximity to the MWC footprint.

Because there's a large contingent of posters that want the AAC to fail and don't care about making arguments that make any sense.

(09-24-2021 01:28 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 06:35 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  It seems odd to me that a pool of Texas schools deemed terrible additions if AAC were to take them despite the proximity to AAC footprint, are also being touted as good adds for MWC when none but UTEP are in proximity to the MWC footprint.

Because there's a large contingent of posters that want the AAC to fail and don't care about making arguments that make any sense.

I don't really find that methodology odd. I don't think it's news that the conferences are at different levels. Baylor would be a slam dunk addition for CUSA, but a meh addition to the SEC.

People tend to forget the college football landscape entirely when their conference is a topic of discussion.

Started to realize over the past month that the MWC is the sheriff of paddy's

(09-24-2021 01:28 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 06:35 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  It seems odd to me that a pool of Texas schools deemed terrible additions if AAC were to take them despite the proximity to AAC footprint, are also being touted as good adds for MWC when none but UTEP are in proximity to the MWC footprint.

Because there's a large contingent of posters that want the AAC to fail and don't care about making arguments that make any sense.

I want the AAC to come out of this in pretty good shape, but I don't think a bunch more Tex schools will do that for you. The AAC surly doesn't need a Rice, or Utep. If you can't get 2 to 4 MWC schools you need to take on schools with a good upside potential.

(09-24-2021 01:39 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(09-24-2021 01:28 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 06:35 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  It seems odd to me that a pool of Texas schools deemed terrible additions if AAC were to take them despite the proximity to AAC footprint, are also being touted as good adds for MWC when none but UTEP are in proximity to the MWC footprint.

Because there's a large contingent of posters that want the AAC to fail and don't care about making arguments that make any sense.

I want the AAC to come out of this in pretty good shape, but I don't think a bunch more Tex schools will do that for you. The AAC surly doesn't need a Rice, or Utep. If you can't get 2 to 4 MWC schools you need to take on schools with a good upside potential.

I'm talking about the hilarious hypocrisy of this board. I didn't say the AAC should add any of them, but you'll see people say they are horrible adds for the AAC and then say the MWC should add them to give CSU/AFA access to Texas. They'll say the geography of the AAC with the Colorado schools is crazy while not blinking an eye at the fact that MWC geography with any of the Texas schools not named UTEP is just as bad if not much worse. They'll say "why would you join the AAC since Memphis and USF are out the door" yet Boise is just as much rumored to be out the door and they have a far larger impact on the MWC's value than anyone remaining in the AAC. USF alone gets some hilarious statements thrown out about them, they are on the one hand all but out the door to the B12 and on the other completely worthless to the AAC. A certain subset of C-USA and Sun-Belt fans will insinuate who wants to join a league with ECU, and then have wet dreams on their board about how could they get ECU to join the Sun-Belt.

(09-24-2021 01:52 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-24-2021 01:39 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(09-24-2021 01:28 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 06:35 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  It seems odd to me that a pool of Texas schools deemed terrible additions if AAC were to take them despite the proximity to AAC footprint, are also being touted as good adds for MWC when none but UTEP are in proximity to the MWC footprint.

Because there's a large contingent of posters that want the AAC to fail and don't care about making arguments that make any sense.

I want the AAC to come out of this in pretty good shape, but I don't think a bunch more Tex schools will do that for you. The AAC surly doesn't need a Rice, or Utep. If you can't get 2 to 4 MWC schools you need to take on schools with a good upside potential.

I'm talking about the hilarious hypocrisy of this board. I didn't say the AAC should add any of them, but you'll see people say they are horrible adds for the AAC and then say the MWC should add them to give CSU/AFA access to Texas. They'll say the geography of the AAC with the Colorado schools is crazy while not blinking an eye at the fact that MWC geography with any of the Texas schools not named UTEP is just as bad if not much worse. They'll say "why would you join the AAC since Memphis and USF are out the door" yet Boise is just as much rumored to be out the door and they have a far larger impact on the MWC's value than anyone remaining in the AAC. USF alone gets some hilarious statements thrown out about them, they are on the one hand all but out the door to the B12 and on the other completely worthless to the AAC. A certain subset of C-USA and Sun-Belt fans will insinuate who wants to join a league with ECU, and then have wet dreams on their board about how could they get ECU to join the Sun-Belt.

You guys don't need Texas, we do. UTSA would still be a good add for AAC or MWC. UNT just us because you have SMU right there.

I don't think the MWC should add anyone, even if they lose Colorado State and Air Force. But if they do feel they need to, then it should be in Texas.

(09-24-2021 01:52 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-24-2021 01:39 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(09-24-2021 01:28 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 06:35 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  It seems odd to me that a pool of Texas schools deemed terrible additions if AAC were to take them despite the proximity to AAC footprint, are also being touted as good adds for MWC when none but UTEP are in proximity to the MWC footprint.

Because there's a large contingent of posters that want the AAC to fail and don't care about making arguments that make any sense.

I want the AAC to come out of this in pretty good shape, but I don't think a bunch more Tex schools will do that for you. The AAC surly doesn't need a Rice, or Utep. If you can't get 2 to 4 MWC schools you need to take on schools with a good upside potential.

I'm talking about the hilarious hypocrisy of this board. I didn't say the AAC should add any of them, but you'll see people say they are horrible adds for the AAC and then say the MWC should add them to give CSU/AFA access to Texas. They'll say the geography of the AAC with the Colorado schools is crazy while not blinking an eye at the fact that MWC geography with any of the Texas schools not named UTEP is just as bad if not much worse. They'll say "why would you join the AAC since Memphis and USF are out the door" yet Boise is just as much rumored to be out the door and they have a far larger impact on the MWC's value than anyone remaining in the AAC. USF alone gets some hilarious statements thrown out about them, they are on the one hand all but out the door to the B12 and on the other completely worthless to the AAC. A certain subset of C-USA and Sun-Belt fans will insinuate who wants to join a league with ECU, and then have wet dreams on their board about how could they get ECU to join the Sun-Belt.

Such responses in a general sense — which expose contradictions and, worse, hypocrisy — are great examples of the "psychology of fandom." And, of course, some of the responses you reference are driven by an odd desire to troll.

The insecurities and biases of some posters are easily seen.

I've been guilty of being insecure, biased ... yes, even a homer. The key is to recognize it and improve upon it.

Who exactly is saying any of that? I am on record of saying Rice and UNT would be solid additions to BOTH the AAC and MWC. I’m more skeptical about UTSA, but I can see why either conference would consider them.

(09-24-2021 03:29 PM)esayem Wrote:  Who exactly is saying any of that? I am on record of saying Rice and UNT would be solid additions to BOTH the AAC and MWC. I’m more skeptical about UTSA, but I can see why either conference would consider them.

I mentioned this in another thread, here's what I think the deal is:

One comment on the board says look at the available schools in Texas, there's no one there the AAC should add.

Another comment on the board says the MWC ought to add some of those same schools in Texas.

There's no inconsistency unless both of those comments are made by the same person.

(09-24-2021 03:58 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-24-2021 03:29 PM)esayem Wrote:  Who exactly is saying any of that? I am on record of saying Rice and UNT would be solid additions to BOTH the AAC and MWC. I’m more skeptical about UTSA, but I can see why either conference would consider them.

I mentioned this in another thread, here's what I think the deal is:

One comment on the board says look at the available schools in Texas, there's no one there the AAC should add.

Another comment on the board says the MWC ought to add some of those same schools in Texas.

There's no inconsistency unless both of those comments are made by the same person.

Correct.

(09-21-2021 10:17 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I think the AAC could sit at 10 and it not be much of a concern, but I'm not sure the MWC can. The AAC has an extensive list of schools they can always add at any moment that fit in their current footprint (even if some of us don't love the options there's a whole bunch of them). The MWC doesn't have the same list of options, essentially there is 1 FBS team in their current footprint that isn't in the league (NMSU) and if they sit at 10 and then were to happen to lose Boise and SDSU to the B12 you could start having actual survival issues. The Texas schools at that point might not see the value in going out west in a MWC without Boise/SDSU/AFA/CSU. Right now UTSA/UTEP/UNT and others would almost certainly join, and once they join it makes survival easier because you can keep adding central time zone members.

(09-24-2021 03:58 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-24-2021 03:29 PM)esayem Wrote:  Who exactly is saying any of that? I am on record of saying Rice and UNT would be solid additions to BOTH the AAC and MWC. I’m more skeptical about UTSA, but I can see why either conference would consider them.

I mentioned this in another thread, here's what I think the deal is:

One comment on the board says look at the available schools in Texas, there's no one there the AAC should add.

Another comment on the board says the MWC ought to add some of those same schools in Texas.

There's no inconsistency unless both of those comments are made by the same person.

Well even then it could be consistent if the topic were UNT. The AAC might not want to add them because SMU was right there whereas for the MWC the might make some sense.

(09-24-2021 06:34 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Well even then it could be consistent if the topic were UNT. The AAC might not want to add them because SMU was right there whereas for the MWC the might make some sense.

Quite ... I have in another thread said that an annual divisional game in Texas helps assure that Navy stays in the AAC West, the AAC should pick Navy's choice of Rice or UTSA. But that is "exclusive or" due to the presence of SMU ... so for a hypothetical MWC Texas move, they are not mutually exclusive.

Indeed, if Air Force to the American plus the departures and resulting reduction in average O & D line sizes in the AAC was able to convince Army to join the AAC, it might be worthwhile despite the geography downside and the likely need to have another Front Range school to convince Air Force to come ...

... that is not saying that the geographic downside doesn't exist, but that there are offsetting upsides.

Similarly, the supposed advantages to the MWC of a pair of schools in some of the more populated regions of Texas are not ignoring the geographic downside, but arguing that the upsides are big enough to offset them.

Someone who is skeptical about Army ever being wooed to the AAC might find the first scenario doesn't pencil out, while still thinking the second scenario is worth considering.

(09-24-2021 01:52 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-24-2021 01:39 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(09-24-2021 01:28 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-21-2021 06:35 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  It seems odd to me that a pool of Texas schools deemed terrible additions if AAC were to take them despite the proximity to AAC footprint, are also being touted as good adds for MWC when none but UTEP are in proximity to the MWC footprint.

Because there's a large contingent of posters that want the AAC to fail and don't care about making arguments that make any sense.

I want the AAC to come out of this in pretty good shape, but I don't think a bunch more Tex schools will do that for you. The AAC surly doesn't need a Rice, or Utep. If you can't get 2 to 4 MWC schools you need to take on schools with a good upside potential.

I'm talking about the hilarious hypocrisy of this board. I didn't say the AAC should add any of them, but you'll see people say they are horrible adds for the AAC and then say the MWC should add them to give CSU/AFA access to Texas. They'll say the geography of the AAC with the Colorado schools is crazy while not blinking an eye at the fact that MWC geography with any of the Texas schools not named UTEP is just as bad if not much worse. They'll say "why would you join the AAC since Memphis and USF are out the door" yet Boise is just as much rumored to be out the door and they have a far larger impact on the MWC's value than anyone remaining in the AAC. USF alone gets some hilarious statements thrown out about them, they are on the one hand all but out the door to the B12 and on the other completely worthless to the AAC. A certain subset of C-USA and Sun-Belt fans will insinuate who wants to join a league with ECU, and then have wet dreams on their board about how could they get ECU to join the Sun-Belt.

The only people saying Rice and UTSA would be terrible adds to the AAC are fans from schools in your conference. If the MW was forced to add schools theyd be limited to teams from CUSA or the Sun Belt. SMU or Memphis arent going. Maybe they could even add NMSU. They arent adding teams in Arkansas, Louisiana or Mississippi.

(09-24-2021 10:02 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(09-24-2021 09:54 AM)NDSUguy Wrote:  

(09-24-2021 09:49 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(09-24-2021 09:12 AM)NDSUguy Wrote:  

(09-24-2021 06:12 AM)esayem Wrote:  Rice is on TV, I’ve seen a few games this year. I’m not sure why you’re picking on them.

The MWC may very well select Texas schools if their expansion happens. The problem is that they are not going after schools that ANYONE in the state of Texas care about. The Texas schools being discussed would not have any increase in eyeballs watching them than NDSU or Montana would. Each week 100,000+ people watch NDSU play football. I would be very shocked to find that being the case for UTSA or North Texas.

Just as a comparison (and why eyeballs really don't matter that much), here is the average TV viewership data from 2015-2019 for schools currently in the MWC. These are for games shown on TV as well as when streamed:

Boise State (476K)
Colorado State (130K)
Fresno State (127K)
Wyoming (126K)
Air Force (121K)
New Mexico (97K)
Hawaii (94K)
San Diego State (63K)
UNLV (55K)
San Jose State (30K)

Tell me more about how adding the 10th and 11th best FBS schools in Texas to the MWC somehow are better than NDSU or Montana?

Winning breads excitement and fan following. It has been shown time and time again that chasing markets for 2nd or 3rd tier teams in that market does nothing for a conference. Winning teams with good programs will ultimately benefit the conference more. That is why NDSU is being considered.

These FCS schools sure have inferiority complex.

No complex for me... Just trying to provide a counterpoint to the stale argument of media markets. Not talking academics but from a fan base and on field performance standpoint, none of the Texas schools really bring anything to the table with 1 exception. Recruiting.

Being able to better recruit Texas is a plus but that's about it.

and you think NDSU brings more fans and viewership than UTSA?

UTSA could be off the table if the AAC invites them.

North Texas have a lousy history of losing record in football. They bring nothing to either conference.

Rice is having issues with both money sports. Baseball is good, but that does not bring the viewers.

UTEP needs to get their house in order before moving.

UTSA is the only school that have an upside for either conference.

(09-24-2021 10:02 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(09-24-2021 09:54 AM)NDSUguy Wrote:  

(09-24-2021 09:49 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(09-24-2021 09:12 AM)NDSUguy Wrote:  The MWC may very well select Texas schools if their expansion happens. The problem is that they are not going after schools that ANYONE in the state of Texas care about. The Texas schools being discussed would not have any increase in eyeballs watching them than NDSU or Montana would. Each week 100,000+ people watch NDSU play football. I would be very shocked to find that being the case for UTSA or North Texas.

Just as a comparison (and why eyeballs really don't matter that much), here is the average TV viewership data from 2015-2019 for schools currently in the MWC. These are for games shown on TV as well as when streamed:

Boise State (476K)
Colorado State (130K)
Fresno State (127K)
Wyoming (126K)
Air Force (121K)
New Mexico (97K)
Hawaii (94K)
San Diego State (63K)
UNLV (55K)
San Jose State (30K)

Tell me more about how adding the 10th and 11th best FBS schools in Texas to the MWC somehow are better than NDSU or Montana?

Winning breads excitement and fan following. It has been shown time and time again that chasing markets for 2nd or 3rd tier teams in that market does nothing for a conference. Winning teams with good programs will ultimately benefit the conference more. That is why NDSU is being considered.

These FCS schools sure have inferiority complex.

No complex for me... Just trying to provide a counterpoint to the stale argument of media markets. Not talking academics but from a fan base and on field performance standpoint, none of the Texas schools really bring anything to the table with 1 exception. Recruiting.

Being able to better recruit Texas is a plus but that's about it.

and you think NDSU brings more fans and viewership than UTSA?

The NDSU fans might well be the ones who get the last laugh, when they upgrade to FBS.

I, for one, would be very interested in watching NDSU play FBS football, and would have no interest, whatsoever, in watching UTSA play, because there's already a ridiculous number of Texas FBS schools.

I love midwesterners defending North Dakota as western.

And I love them saying that an entire state that graduates from High School around 9,000 males a year is a worthwhile recruiting zone.

What a joke.