Here's an extremely sensible, reasoned opinion on how to solve the "St. Thomas" problem:
   
   1.   Let Hamline, St.Olaf and Carleton move to the Midwest Conference for football only, just as Macalester did a few years ago. With St. Norbert leaving the MWC for the NACC, the MWC will be down at least one team. Adding three new football teams will allow the MWC to have two seven-team divisions and allow that conference to continue having an "exempt" (from regular season game limits) championship game.

   2.   Allow St. Scholastica to move completely into the MIAC, bringing the MIAC back to seven football schools – and up to 12-14 schools in other sports (allowing for two six- or seven-team divisions in those other sports). The Saints have always wanted to compete in the MIAC anyway and, even though they might start out by getting waxed by the MIAC's elite (in football), their players, alumni and administration have the guts and pride to do something about it (unlike the three MIAC schools mentioned in paragraph 1, above). It's a little more travel for some MIAC schools, but St. John's and Concordia probably wouldn't mind - trading trips to Northfield with a trip to Duluth. Plus, having two divisions in the other sports might make playoffs in those sports more manageable (e.g., having the top three or four teams in each division qualify for the playoffs).

   3.   Convince Augsburg not to vote to oust UST by allowing it to start calling itself the "University of Minnesota at Augsburg" - which is only fitting since it's already impossible to tell where the U. of M. ends and Augsburg begins, anyway. The "big school name" should allow Augsburg to continue recruiting top-notch wrestlers, who will be easily convinced to go there by telling them they'll be wrestling for the "University of Minnesota."

   4.   It sounds like St. Olaf might not be satisfied just by being allowed to move its football team out of the MIAC into a "more competitive" conference like the MWC. So, we should convince St. Olaf to stay in the MIAC for all other sports - and not seek UST's or any other school's ouster - by allowing the Oles for the next five years to play or sing "Ja, vi elsker dette landet" (the Norwegian national anthem) at the beginning of every home athletic event, with live performances by one (or more!) of the school's 147 "world renowned" musical groups.

   5.   Convince St. Mary's and St. Kate's not to seek UST's or any other school's ouster from the MIAC by threatening to have a few St. Ben's students go and beat up every student on those two campuses. Wait a minute! – After all of the events in paragraphs 1-4, above, have transpired, it won't matter what St. Mary's and St. Kate's do; they won't have the votes to force UST's ouster. Oh, well, I say we let the Bennies loose on them anyway and make them pay for their roles in this "MIAC break-up" soap opera. Bennies are tough!

      Thanks for your comment - I should probably have been clearer in stating that I was not just talking about equalizing the "home" and "away" squad sizes; I was talking about putting a cap on the size of a team's roster to 75 or so. There would obviously be no guarantee that a player who was "76th or worse" on a team like St. Thomas (and thereby not making the roster) would go to one of the MIAC's bottom-feeders just because he wanted to play football. However, the fact would remain that if team roster sizes were capped at 75 players, then no more than 675 players could be on the nine MIAC schools' rosters. Right now you've got approximately 500 players on the top four MIAC schools' rosters (UST, SJU, Bethel and Concordia). Paring that number down to 300 players among those four teams would mean that 200 players who had chosen to pay the money and go to an MIAC school and play MIAC football would need a place to play (which, I admit, wouldn't have to be an MIAC school - but I'm just trying to make a point here). Assuming those numbers would remain somewhat constant in the future, there would be an additional 200 players in the "pool" of potential MIAC football players that the other five teams would have a good chance to recruit.

       Let me also state again that I, personally, am not for a cap on team roster sizes. Plus, I don't see it happening in the MIAC, in any event, unless all of DIII went for it. But, it's certainly a point of discussion. And I have to believe there are some schools in the MIAC who would definitely be in favor of team roster caps.

     Last year UST outscored the four MIAC opponents it played at home 263-14. The Tommies also outscored its two non-conference opponents at home 125-7. Doesn't seem like having the fifth- and sixth-string teams on the sidelines during the Tommies' home games did much to keep those scores down. On the other hand, the Tommies lost two of their four away games (to Bethel and St. John's) and should have lost a third away game (to Gustavus), when the fifth-and sixth-string teams weren't available to "keep those  scores down." The Tommies outscored their opponents at home by 367 points - 388-21 - but only outscored its four away opponents by 14 points - 95-81 - when the Tommies' scores should have been higher because of the fewer "lesser-quality" players who could have played in those games. Clearly, it's the quality of the opponents that makes the difference, not the locations of the games. Making more quality players available to the "Have Not" teams by limiting roster sizes is one way to try and achieve parity. Perhaps roster sizes - both home and away - should be capped at a reasonable number, whether that number is 75 or something else.

         There are other ways to "level the playing field" between the football "Haves" and  "Have Nots" in a D3 conference like the MIAC. One way would be to limit the sizes of the rosters on each team. I believe the NESCAC has (or had) a "Rule of 75," which limited football rosters to 75 players after the start of the fall term. Thus, NESCAC teams could have more than 75 players participate in preseason practice, but the rosters had to be trimmed down to 75 players for the season. I realize that the NESCAC doesn't participate in the D3 playoffs – and that its teams don't play non-conference foes. However, MIAC teams with 100+ player rosters (e.g., St. Thomas, St. John's, Bethel, Concordia) are able to "stockpile" players the way Ohio State and Michigan did back in the days of the "Big 2 and Little 8," before scholarships were whittled down to their current 85. In the years since FBS scholarships were reduced, there has been more football parity in the Big Ten (except, of course, for the Gophers). With 75-man roster limitations in the MIAC, coaches would have to be more particular in who they recruited. It would seem to follow that a lot of the players who might have gone to one of the "big roster" MIAC schools in the past might decide to go to a different MIAC school if they weren't heavily recruited, or if it appeared they weren't going to make the 75-man roster at the school of their choice. With some MIAC schools struggling just to field 50-player rosters (e.g., Hamline, Carleton), the additional pool of players available to them might be the "kick in the rear" they needed to put some new-found energy into their recruiting – and to convince their administrations to finally invest some decent dollars into their football programs.
   A variation of the "reduced roster" method of evening things out would be to not restrict the sizes of rosters but, instead, to limit the number of players who could suit up for a home game – say, down to only 60 (that's still more than the MIAC's current travel squad limitation of 55 players). Players who were happy just being on a "big roster" team could still be on the team. The D3 mantra of "participation" could still be observed. (That's the major difference between this method and the "reduced roster" parity method.) And rosters could certainly change for every home game, just as travel rosters could change. However, overall team roster sizes would gradually dwindle in time, as many players wouldn't want to be on a team if it appeared unlikely they would ever get to even suit up for a game – home or away.
   I, personally, wouldn't want to see any of the above "remedies" happen – and I seriously doubt they will happen unless all of D3 implemented the change(s). I only mention them as possible ways to obtain more parity in the MIAC short of expelling one or more of its members and, essentially, breaking up the conference. But, I have to believe there are a lot of people who would love to see one or the other (or BOTH) of the proposed rule changes implemented. I'm wondering if, perhaps, the "anti-Tommie" MIAC school presidents have a "fall back" position or a "bargaining chip" involving one of those remedies – or something similar – as an alternative to booting St. Thomas out of the conference??

Quote from: Gregory Sager on November 28, 2017, 02:28:57 PM

Quote from: Flynntowne on November 28, 2017, 02:21:24 AM

Quote from: Texas Ole on November 22, 2017, 03:47:46 PM

Quote from: 57Johnnie on November 22, 2017, 02:26:19 PM

Quote from: DuffMan on November 22, 2017, 10:23:36 AM

Quote from: Tom Thumb on November 22, 2017, 10:09:05 AM
Interesting article on the MIAC: https://www.minnpost.com/sports/2017/11/miac-without-mercy-can-minnesota-intercollegiate-athletic-conference-solve-its-footba

I am dumber for having read Mr. Joel Stegner's comment.

I'm dumber for letting you sucker me into looking at what you were referring to. 

That article was just bad on so many levels.  St. Olaf got throttled a few weeks ago.  I was not happy with both St. Olaf and St. Thomas, but I have to remember that St. Olaf used to win by some of those scores years ago.  The biggest issue I had with that game was the final score.  The one that happens on second down with 7 seconds to go.  There is this thing called taking a knee.  It was clear that St. Thomas just wanted to make a statement, and they did.

I would like to address a few issues.  First of all there are options when it comes to blowouts and time.  The length of the quarters can be shortened.  I think Clemson did that a few years ago.  There is also the option to play with a running clock.  That was used this year with KU and TCU.  KU's offensive coordinator had the same position at TCU last year.  There were options.  I do think the road rosters need to expanded.  That has been an issue for years.  I assume part of it is travel and facilities, but other than a few trips I don't think that is a huge issue.

The MIAC has had athletic/academic issues for decades now.  There is a reason why Mac doesn't play football in the MIAC.  Part of it deals with the priorities of each individual school.  We have those that want build their reputation with academics which is great.  There are also those that build their reputation through athletics which is hard to argue especially when they are national television and receive other attention for those accomplishments.  The issue in the MIAC is that this divide is getting bigger, and there are few solutions.  If 3 schools leave the MIAC for football the conference loses its AQ status.  Hockey and other sports would also suffer.  There are schools that would love to join the MIAC, and Mac could return under certain conditions.  St. Olaf and Carleton have been in other Midwest Conference which is an option, but the travel costs and stresses on the students would be tough.  It is also important to note that graduate programs in the MIAC are increasing while the MIAC remains one of the few conferences to not allow for graduate students.

Moving up to a different division presents some challenges.  St. Thomas has the enrollment if you want to use that number.  They have more students than about 15% of the FBS schools.  Their issue might be facilities.  Those would need some serious upgrades especially with a school that is pretty well landlocked when it comes to space.  There are also other costs that would likely come with a move for them that might make it a challenge.  St. John's has an issue when it comes to enrollment.  Even doubling the enrollment or adding the St. Ben's enrollment to get a comparable number it is still relatively small.  I don't they they would have the same issue with the facilities as St. Thomas.  Ideally the two schools would stay in the same conference, but what level.  There are some sports that are not supported at the D2 level so they would likely have to go D1 in those.  That is not a huge issue.  There is also the option of FCS, but I am not sure that is viable in the immediate.  Then we add Title IX issues which would present another set of complex problems.  The final question is whether or not either school has the money and desire to spend it that would be required to make that move.

TexasOle, Your statement that St. Thomas has more students than all but 15% of FBS schools is ridiculously incorrect. St. Thomas has 6,200 undergrads, according to its own website. That number would make UST the 7th smallest FBS school, out of 130, ahead of only the three service academies, plus the University of Tulsa, Rice and Wake Forest. I think any conversation about UST going to the FBS is ludicrous in the first place and not worth anyone's time. But, I couldn't just let your baseless statement go uncorrected.

You misread TexasOle's post, Flynntowne. He said that St. Thomas has "more students than about 15% of the FBS schools." You read that the exact opposite way, claiming that he said that UST "has more students than all but 15% of FBS schools" in your reply. In other words, Texas Ole said that UST would be on the low end of FBS undergrad enrollment -- not, as you read it, on the high end.

After re-reading Texas Ole's post, I see that you are correct, Mr. Sager; I misread Texas Ole's statement comparing the size of UST's enrollment to the enrollments of FBS schools. I therefore apologize to Texas Ole for saying his statement was "ridiculously incorrect."  The statement was still incorrect, but not to the extent I had read it to be. For example, based on the list of FBS school enrollments I had found, St. Thomas had more undergraduate students than only six FBS schools. That would have meant that St. Thomas had more students than only about 4.6% of FBS schools, not 15%. Even adding in St. Thomas' 4,200 graduate students would not have propelled UST ahead of 15% of the FBS schools on that list. Nevertheless, I did misread Texas Ole's post and I am sorry for my mistake.

Quote from: Texas Ole on November 22, 2017, 03:47:46 PM

Quote from: 57Johnnie on November 22, 2017, 02:26:19 PM

Quote from: DuffMan on November 22, 2017, 10:23:36 AM

Quote from: Tom Thumb on November 22, 2017, 10:09:05 AM
Interesting article on the MIAC: https://www.minnpost.com/sports/2017/11/miac-without-mercy-can-minnesota-intercollegiate-athletic-conference-solve-its-footba

I am dumber for having read Mr. Joel Stegner's comment.

I'm dumber for letting you sucker me into looking at what you were referring to. 

That article was just bad on so many levels.  St. Olaf got throttled a few weeks ago.  I was not happy with both St. Olaf and St. Thomas, but I have to remember that St. Olaf used to win by some of those scores years ago.  The biggest issue I had with that game was the final score.  The one that happens on second down with 7 seconds to go.  There is this thing called taking a knee.  It was clear that St. Thomas just wanted to make a statement, and they did.

I would like to address a few issues.  First of all there are options when it comes to blowouts and time.  The length of the quarters can be shortened.  I think Clemson did that a few years ago.  There is also the option to play with a running clock.  That was used this year with KU and TCU.  KU's offensive coordinator had the same position at TCU last year.  There were options.  I do think the road rosters need to expanded.  That has been an issue for years.  I assume part of it is travel and facilities, but other than a few trips I don't think that is a huge issue.

The MIAC has had athletic/academic issues for decades now.  There is a reason why Mac doesn't play football in the MIAC.  Part of it deals with the priorities of each individual school.  We have those that want build their reputation with academics which is great.  There are also those that build their reputation through athletics which is hard to argue especially when they are national television and receive other attention for those accomplishments.  The issue in the MIAC is that this divide is getting bigger, and there are few solutions.  If 3 schools leave the MIAC for football the conference loses its AQ status.  Hockey and other sports would also suffer.  There are schools that would love to join the MIAC, and Mac could return under certain conditions.  St. Olaf and Carleton have been in other Midwest Conference which is an option, but the travel costs and stresses on the students would be tough.  It is also important to note that graduate programs in the MIAC are increasing while the MIAC remains one of the few conferences to not allow for graduate students.

Moving up to a different division presents some challenges.  St. Thomas has the enrollment if you want to use that number.  They have more students than about 15% of the FBS schools.  Their issue might be facilities.  Those would need some serious upgrades especially with a school that is pretty well landlocked when it comes to space.  There are also other costs that would likely come with a move for them that might make it a challenge.  St. John's has an issue when it comes to enrollment.  Even doubling the enrollment or adding the St. Ben's enrollment to get a comparable number it is still relatively small.  I don't they they would have the same issue with the facilities as St. Thomas.  Ideally the two schools would stay in the same conference, but what level.  There are some sports that are not supported at the D2 level so they would likely have to go D1 in those.  That is not a huge issue.  There is also the option of FCS, but I am not sure that is viable in the immediate.  Then we add Title IX issues which would present another set of complex problems.  The final question is whether or not either school has the money and desire to spend it that would be required to make that move.

TexasOle, Your statement that St. Thomas has more students than all but 15% of FBS schools is ridiculously incorrect. St. Thomas has 6,200 undergrads, according to its own website. That number would make UST the 7th smallest FBS school, out of 130, ahead of only the three service academies, plus the University of Tulsa, Rice and Wake Forest. I think any conversation about UST going to the FBS is ludicrous in the first place and not worth anyone's time. But, I couldn't just let your baseless statement go uncorrected.

Quote from: RoyalsFan on September 10, 2016, 11:47:43 PM
Looks to be a long year for the Royals. The weak spot is definitely the secondary. #16 didn't give up any long tds like last week but I think he was so concerned about getting beat deep that he gave up too big of a cushion. I think the first 3 passes that went his way today went for 36, 22 and 24 yards. The rest of the secondary didn't look much better. The tight ends down the seam were open all day long.

Bethel played a good first half, leading 28-12 at halftime, due in large part to a pick 6 and a blocked punt that gave the offense the ball inside the 10. The second half the defense wore down and gave up 22 points and the offense couldn't do anything until the final drive of regulation where they tied it up but then missed the extra point. Carthage then won it in overtime on 2 running plays right up the gut that they ran all 4th quarter and Bethel couldn't stop. Carthage had close to twice the possession time at about 40 minutes to 20. Maybe the new no huddle offense is hurting the defense more than helping the offense.

At this point, I guess I would rather see them get Trey Anderson some more experience at qb as it appears they aren't going to be contending for anything this year. I didn't think Dzurik was very accurate with his passing today and they were only able to gain 65 yards on the ground.

On a side note, I thought it was odd on a play where Carthage was throwing a screen pass and it hit one of the linemen in the back but no penalty was called. It should have been an illegal touching penalty but nothing was called other than an incomplete pass. It's hard to believe all the refs didn't see that or that none of them knew it should have been a penalty.

Actually, I think that in order for there to be an illegal touch the ineligible player must intentionally touch the ball.  Here's the rule:

                               Illegal Touching
ARTICLE 11. No originally ineligible player while inbounds shall
intentionally touch a legal forward pass until it has touched an opponent
or an official (A.R. 5-2-3-I and A.R. 7-3-11-I-II).
PENALTY—Five yards from the previous spot [S16].