Quote from: TLU02SA on May 10, 2024, 02:01:50 PM

Quote from: TheChucker on May 10, 2024, 11:15:30 AM

Quote from: Ron Boerger on May 10, 2024, 09:59:33 AMPrior to joining the NCAA, UMHB was a member of the NAIA's Heart of Texas conference, which disbanded in 2000 after all its members left the NAIA for either D2 or D3 (latter fact courtesy St. Mary's (TX) history page). 

Prior to that, they were in the Big State Conference, which was also NAIA.

Interesting, to me at least, how the NAIA was once the dominant medium to small school collegiate athletics organization before hemorrhaging in the 1980s to 1990s leading to a different landscape now. It makes me wonder if the NCAA isn't on the cusp of big changes with huge headwinds like the CFP splitting off and NIL/portal/player compensation issues at the top levels.

I wonder about the same thing.  I would also add the college enrollment cliff to the issues causing massive changes in how college athletics will operate.

Enrollment cliff issues for small and directional state universities, and also player compensation at the Power 4 (really 3.5) level. If the big Power 4 schools start doing revenue sharing arrangements with players, that will create a big chasm between them and G5/FCS schools that might be too wide to maintain. For the past few decades, smaller schools have moved up to G5/FCS to catch a sniff of the exposure and big time money from occasionally playing Power schools, participating in bowl games (G5), and playing in the same NCAA playoff tourneys. If those coat tails are eliminated by player compensation, is there much benefit of playing FCS over D2?

That's where my wandering mind is going. The NCAA could be on the cusp of big change.

There is no "could be" they are looking down the barrel of major changes over the next 2 years.  Here's my biggest question.  Is it profit sharing of the football department, or profit sharing of the athletic department as a whole???  Those are to very big different things. There are only a few, even in "P5" that have a profitable athletic department.  And I believe that is the way this needs to be looked at.  They are all departments of the same company, essentially.  The profits from one division(football and/or basketball) support the essential, yet not profitable divisions. 

I stand by my belief that we are completely changing the face of college athletics, to the detriment of many(thousands of student athletes) to cater to the few(maybe a hundred total) athletes.  I say remove any requirement for an athlete needs any years outside of high school before going pro in their sport.  Let those few go on and go pro and leave the rest of it alone. 

Quote from: BSCpanthers on May 10, 2024, 03:45:50 PMThere is no "could be" they are looking down the barrel of major changes over the next 2 years.  Here's my biggest question.  Is it profit sharing of the football department, or profit sharing of the athletic department as a whole???  Those are to very big different things. There are only a few, even in "P5" that have a profitable athletic department.  And I believe that is the way this needs to be looked at.  They are all departments of the same company, essentially.  The profits from one division(football and/or basketball) support the essential, yet not profitable divisions. 

I stand by my belief that we are completely changing the face of college athletics, to the detriment of many(thousands of student athletes) to cater to the few(maybe a hundred total) athletes.  I say remove any requirement for an athlete needs any years outside of high school before going pro in their sport.  Let those few go on and go pro and leave the rest of it alone. 

I agree with your sentiment.  But letting athletes go pro immediately out of high school is tantamount to eliminating the best of the best that the P5 profit off of. There is no way P5 institutions like UT, A&M, Ohio State, Alabama, etc. are going to give up the cash cow that is D1 football. There is a reason why the SEC and Big 10 get the big dollar television deals and the AAC, Conference USA and Sun Belt don't. People want to watch the best on the TV, not the next best. 

In the same vein, the P5 institutions also want to find a way to prevent those dollars from going to smaller institutions and unprofitable sports.

Quote from: TLU02SA on May 10, 2024, 05:42:56 PM

Quote from: BSCpanthers on May 10, 2024, 03:45:50 PMThere is no "could be" they are looking down the barrel of major changes over the next 2 years.  Here's my biggest question.  Is it profit sharing of the football department, or profit sharing of the athletic department as a whole???  Those are to very big different things. There are only a few, even in "P5" that have a profitable athletic department.  And I believe that is the way this needs to be looked at.  They are all departments of the same company, essentially.  The profits from one division(football and/or basketball) support the essential, yet not profitable divisions. 

I stand by my belief that we are completely changing the face of college athletics, to the detriment of many(thousands of student athletes) to cater to the few(maybe a hundred total) athletes.  I say remove any requirement for an athlete needs any years outside of high school before going pro in their sport.  Let those few go on and go pro and leave the rest of it alone. 

I agree with your sentiment.  But letting athletes go pro immediately out of high school is tantamount to eliminating the best of the best that the P5 profit off of. There is no way P5 institutions like UT, A&M, Ohio State, Alabama, etc. are going to give up the cash cow that is D1 football. There is a reason why the SEC and Big 10 get the big dollar television deals and the AAC, Conference USA and Sun Belt don't. People want to watch the best on the TV, not the next best. 

In the same vein, the P5 institutions also want to find a way to prevent those dollars from going to smaller institutions and unprofitable sports.

I don't think it's the NCAA that prevents players going from high school to the pros.  I think that's a collectively bargained NFL rule. 

Of course, as a practical matter, few HS seniors are ready for the pros in football (unlike in basketball).

Quote from: Kuiper on May 10, 2024, 09:32:54 PM

Quote from: TLU02SA on May 10, 2024, 05:42:56 PM

Quote from: BSCpanthers on May 10, 2024, 03:45:50 PMThere is no "could be" they are looking down the barrel of major changes over the next 2 years.  Here's my biggest question.  Is it profit sharing of the football department, or profit sharing of the athletic department as a whole???  Those are to very big different things. There are only a few, even in "P5" that have a profitable athletic department.  And I believe that is the way this needs to be looked at.  They are all departments of the same company, essentially.  The profits from one division(football and/or basketball) support the essential, yet not profitable divisions. 

I stand by my belief that we are completely changing the face of college athletics, to the detriment of many(thousands of student athletes) to cater to the few(maybe a hundred total) athletes.  I say remove any requirement for an athlete needs any years outside of high school before going pro in their sport.  Let those few go on and go pro and leave the rest of it alone. 

I agree with your sentiment.  But letting athletes go pro immediately out of high school is tantamount to eliminating the best of the best that the P5 profit off of. There is no way P5 institutions like UT, A&M, Ohio State, Alabama, etc. are going to give up the cash cow that is D1 football. There is a reason why the SEC and Big 10 get the big dollar television deals and the AAC, Conference USA and Sun Belt don't. People want to watch the best on the TV, not the next best. 

In the same vein, the P5 institutions also want to find a way to prevent those dollars from going to smaller institutions and unprofitable sports.

I don't think it's the NCAA that prevents players going from high school to the pros.  I think that's a collectively bargained NFL rule. 

Of course, as a practical matter, few HS seniors are ready for the pros in football (unlike in basketball).

As long as the P5 is getting the best of the rest, nothing will change. 

Currently the NFL requires 3 year out of high school, and now kids are leaving high school a year early, so they are technically some are eligible for the NFL by time they are 20. 

Had the NCAA busted the NIL out 40 years ago like they should have, a lot of this would not be happening today. 

Quote from: Kuiper on May 10, 2024, 09:32:54 PM

Quote from: TLU02SA on May 10, 2024, 05:42:56 PM

Quote from: BSCpanthers on May 10, 2024, 03:45:50 PMThere is no "could be" they are looking down the barrel of major changes over the next 2 years.  Here's my biggest question.  Is it profit sharing of the football department, or profit sharing of the athletic department as a whole???  Those are to very big different things. There are only a few, even in "P5" that have a profitable athletic department.  And I believe that is the way this needs to be looked at.  They are all departments of the same company, essentially.  The profits from one division(football and/or basketball) support the essential, yet not profitable divisions. 

I stand by my belief that we are completely changing the face of college athletics, to the detriment of many(thousands of student athletes) to cater to the few(maybe a hundred total) athletes.  I say remove any requirement for an athlete needs any years outside of high school before going pro in their sport.  Let those few go on and go pro and leave the rest of it alone. 

I agree with your sentiment.  But letting athletes go pro immediately out of high school is tantamount to eliminating the best of the best that the P5 profit off of. There is no way P5 institutions like UT, A&M, Ohio State, Alabama, etc. are going to give up the cash cow that is D1 football. There is a reason why the SEC and Big 10 get the big dollar television deals and the AAC, Conference USA and Sun Belt don't. People want to watch the best on the TV, not the next best. 

In the same vein, the P5 institutions also want to find a way to prevent those dollars from going to smaller institutions and unprofitable sports.

I don't think it's the NCAA that prevents players going from high school to the pros.  I think that's a collectively bargained NFL rule. 

Of course, as a practical matter, few HS seniors are ready for the pros in football (unlike in basketball).

Yes, you are correct but I don't see that rule changing, unless it is forced upon them by law. Part of what makes the NFL so intriguing is that its draft can and does result in drastically changing a team's outlook (look at the Houston Texans last year). This is due to rookies being NFL ready when they are drafted. I think most would agree that 18- and 19-years old players are not NFL ready. NCAA DI football is the NFL's minor league and it does not cost the NFL anything.  I highly doubt the NFL will take on the costs of forming a professional minor league, which they would need to do for 18- and 19-years olds, because it will be unprofitable.

In regards to the above (massively changing D1 landscape), moving up to FCS could be a fools game at this point. FCS could be the new more costly D2 after the top Power conference schools start paying players as employees. That notion probably only applies to UMHB for ASC schools, but there seem to be rumblings of more LSC schools considering a similar path as Commerce and Tarleton.

ETBU seems to have updated their 2024 roster and HSU seems to have removed graduates and added newcomers so I scraped their sites for changes.  UMHB/HSU don't have 2024 rosters up of course.  I wouldn't expect UMHB's before the first game of the season lol!

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Y7-3Q6E9h1Gj53c-Fqz7r8NnUIHF6xK59W2fL74W2UI/edit?usp=sharing

Of note, it appears Jahkamian Carr might have decided to stay at ETBU.  There are several guys on HSU's updated roster who are playing other places this coming season according to their twitter...

with all this talk of conferences and moving around divisions, could UMHB be angling for a spot in the Ivy League?

https://x.com/CruFootball/status/1790084026293694489

D3fanboy,
          Dude, you are such a loser.  Anything you can to take a poke.  I wonder what the jealousy is for?  Would UMU numbers be any better---------------doubtful!  Get a life loser, you stink!

Quote from: Crubacker on May 15, 2024, 01:21:35 PMD3fanboy,
          Dude, you are such a loser.  Anything you can to take a poke.  I wonder what the jealousy is for?  Would UMU numbers be any better---------------doubtful!  Get a life loser, you stink!

No doubt. Only losers feel the need to troll schools that they haven't even played in 6 years, especially ones that have a winning record and current scoreboard against them. A little trash talk from HSU or Trinity fans is expected, and something I can respect. This guys inferiority complex is pretty pathetic though, and is an indicator of a serious lack of a life.

I say we just go back to ignoring this chump's attention seeking attempts, and maybe he'll go away. It works with little children, so it might work with someone who has the mentality and intellect of a child.

Quote from: UMHB03 on May 15, 2024, 02:12:00 PM

Quote from: Crubacker on May 15, 2024, 01:21:35 PMD3fanboy,
          Dude, you are such a loser.  Anything you can to take a poke.  I wonder what the jealousy is for?  Would UMU numbers be any better---------------doubtful!  Get a life loser, you stink!

No doubt. Only losers feel the need to troll schools that they haven't even played in 6 years, especially ones that have a winning record and current scoreboard against them. A little trash talk from HSU or Trinity fans is expected, and something I can respect. This guys inferiority complex is pretty pathetic though, and is an indicator of a serious lack of a life.

I say we just go back to ignoring this chump's attention seeking attempts, and maybe he'll go away. It works with little children, so it might work with someone who has the mentality and intellect of a child.

inferiority to what? Mount has been a dumpster fire for the past few seasons but even that doesn't include a 6-4 season.  if the overall 2.78 gpa was propped up by the second semester 2.92, what must the first semester, in-season gpa have looked like?

Crubacker, I let one post that was basically entirely personal insult go through, but drawing the line at the second one.

Quote from: D3fanboy on May 15, 2024, 03:13:18 PM

Quote from: UMHB03 on May 15, 2024, 02:12:00 PM

Quote from: Crubacker on May 15, 2024, 01:21:35 PMD3fanboy,
          Dude, you are such a loser.  Anything you can to take a poke.  I wonder what the jealousy is for?  Would UMU numbers be any better---------------doubtful!  Get a life loser, you stink!

No doubt. Only losers feel the need to troll schools that they haven't even played in 6 years, especially ones that have a winning record and current scoreboard against them. A little trash talk from HSU or Trinity fans is expected, and something I can respect. This guys inferiority complex is pretty pathetic though, and is an indicator of a serious lack of a life.

I say we just go back to ignoring this chump's attention seeking attempts, and maybe he'll go away. It works with little children, so it might work with someone who has the mentality and intellect of a child.

inferiority to what? Mount has been a dumpster fire for the past few seasons but even that doesn't include a 6-4 season.  if the overall 2.78 gpa was propped up by the second semester 2.92, what must the first semester, in-season gpa have looked like?

6-4 season was no fun at all, worst season in 20 + years for Cru Football.

I do wonder what (last year's team) Mount Unions record would've been if they had played UWW, Trinity, River Falls & HSU. At least we played & lost to real football teams (sorry Alma) haha.

Alma was also a really good football team. They were toe-to-toe with Cortland until their QB got hurt at it got away from them in the second half.