2023 MN High School Football season

Donate To GopherHole

MaxyJR1 said:
It's always interesting to see the level of knowledge kids have in their sport. I remember knowing the whole schedule by heart, knowing the section, etc. etc. I grew up in a smaller community. I think my kid on his 6A team is the only one that understand how the scheduling and playoffs work.

Most schedules for next year are simply a flip on Home and Away until they re-section for the next 2 year cycle.
Click to expand...
It's one of the things I really dislike about district football. It kills traditional rivalries.
 

disco said:
It's one of the things I really dislike about district football. It kills traditional rivalries.
Click to expand...
Last year, at least at 6A, they went back to more of a section look with games and it brought back the rivalries.
 

disco said:
This is true. All but a really small number of bowl games get better ratings than the FCS title game.
Click to expand...
Quarter final and semi final games get decent ratings. The ratings for the championship game have been down since the game moved to Sunday. But the ratings reflect a national audience. From a fan perspective looking at the entire season - I say no thanks to midweek games and empty stadiums playing for the opportunity to play in a crappy bowl game.
 

MplsGopher said:
It's not the state's cost. I disagree they have authority to disallow a decision that doesn't affect anything else at the school. I agree that they could deny NDSU the ability to raise student fees for athletics to pay for it. But if they can afford the move themselves, with donor and/or corporate partnership help, then there's nothing for the state to say.


I don't think it makes sense for NDSU to join an FBS conference in all sports. They could be FBS independents like Army and Navy were (Patriot League for most sports), or they could accept a bid to join CUSA in football only.
Click to expand...
The legislature very much has a say in what its universities can or should do, in any state. The SD universities can't even undertake building projects without legislative approval. And by law the schools cannot give coaches long term contracts (very recently, SDSU and USD coaches worked on one year contracts). I don't think either Dakota legislature has placed any kind of mandate or stipulation on level of competition or tying the Universities together in any way though. The Board of Regents has been more particular about the Division 1 process in SD. When SDSU moved up, the Regents forbade the school from funding the transition or increasing student fees for athletics, at least without the support of the students. When USD moved up, the Regents did not place the same restriction on USD and as a result, USD funds its athletics much more so on the backs of its students than SDSU does.

The reality is, too, that these programs don't attract tons of money. Even when NDSU was selling out the Fargodome, the program was losing money. A move to an FBS conference isn't necessarily going to fix that problem. The television money for the CUSA or MAC is pretty insignificant. Does the television money cover the added travel, scholarships and loss of revenue from playing in an empty home stadium on Wed night?
 


swede2 said:
Quarter final and semi final games get decent ratings. The ratings for the championship game have been down since the game moved to Sunday. But the ratings reflect a national audience. From a fan perspective looking at the entire season - I say no thanks to midweek games and empty stadiums playing for the opportunity to play in a crappy bowl game.
Click to expand...
As much as I love college football, MACtion on weeknights in November is kind of depressing.
 

MplsGopher said:
I don't think it makes sense for NDSU to join an FBS conference in all sports. They could be FBS independents like Army and Navy were (Patriot League for most sports), or they could accept a bid to join CUSA in football only.
Click to expand...
I don't know at this point is if there is any other option. It seems that at this point, conferences want all sports or none at all when it comes to football. And the days of any independent other than Notre Dame being viable seem to be done.
 

swede2 said:
I don't think either Dakota legislature has placed any kind of mandate or stipulation on level of competition or tying the Universities together in any way though.
Click to expand...
Good points all in your post Swede.

In regards to this part, it's less so a mandate, than the issue that both flagship schools in each state have their advocates and alumni on the boards of ed/regents and those rivalries show through when it comes to decision making for those schools.
 

MaxyJR1 said:
Last year, at least at 6A, they went back to more of a section look with games and it brought back the rivalries.
Click to expand...
6a football went back to making sense mostly last year and 2024

In 2025-26 rumor is it will be completely section play. With one paired crossover (this is the relief)

The relief pool is still stupid. Buffalo and Eastview are so bad they get to go 5-3 and 4-4 while wayzata and farmington have to go 2-6 and 3-5 because they’re better than Buffalo. Illogical. Picking winners and losers. Good news is, it’s probably going away.
In the re-classification Hopkins and Burnsville will probably be down to 5a.
Moorhead, Andover, Rogers are 3 biggest 5a and are separated by less than 3 students per grade. Burnsville has 2 more kids per grade than Moorhead and Andover, has 5 more kids per grade than Rogers. Burnsville poverty rate rising and enrollment shrinking. I put it at 99.9% chance Burnsville moves down.
Hopkins has a little more cushion and demographics a little different than Burnsville. I think that one is more like 60-40 they move down. Mayo and Buffalo both small for the class, but growing.
 



swede2 said:
From a fan perspective looking at the entire season - I say no thanks to midweek games and empty stadiums playing for the opportunity to play in a crappy bowl game.
Click to expand...
You wouldn't be invited to the MAC, so no reason to keep citing this one-off thing.
 

swede2 said:
The legislature very much has a say in what its universities can or should do, in any state. The SD universities can't even undertake building projects without legislative approval. And by law the schools cannot give coaches long term contracts (very recently, SDSU and USD coaches worked on one year contracts). I don't think either Dakota legislature has placed any kind of mandate or stipulation on level of competition or tying the Universities together in any way though. The Board of Regents has been more particular about the Division 1 process in SD. When SDSU moved up, the Regents forbade the school from funding the transition or increasing student fees for athletics, at least without the support of the students. When USD moved up, the Regents did not place the same restriction on USD and as a result, USD funds its athletics much more so on the backs of its students than SDSU does.
Click to expand...
Notwithstanding that this is all good info and appreciate you sharing, only the bolded seems relevant. And like I said, if they (eg. NDSU and SDSU) can afford to move up to FBS without any state money and without increasing student fees, then with all due respect the state board shouldn't get to have a say.

swede2 said:
The reality is, too, that these programs don't attract tons of money. Even when NDSU was selling out the Fargodome, the program was losing money. A move to an FBS conference isn't necessarily going to fix that problem. The television money for the CUSA or MAC is pretty insignificant. Does the television money cover the added travel, scholarships and loss of revenue from playing in an empty home stadium on Wed night?
Click to expand...
Again the last bit is irrelevant because they're not going to the MAC.

Having an athletics department at any DI level other than the very tip-top elite programs in the country is largely not an overall profit generating balance sheet for the school.

Not having a department at all would save the most money.

So a move to FBS would be about other things, which are harder to measure.
 

disco said:
It seems that at this point, conferences want all sports or none at all when it comes to football.
Click to expand...
The insanity of the Big Ten and ACC adding teams that don't geographically belong does not have to apply in this case.

I don't think the CUSA members really would want to take trips to the Dakotas in sports outside football.

Like you've mentioned, it's special geography. That warrants special considerations. The Summit League is the correct conference for both in sports outside football.
 
Last edited:

disco said:
In regards to this part, it's less so a mandate, than the issue that both flagship schools in each state have their advocates and alumni on the boards of ed/regents and those rivalries show through when it comes to decision making for those schools.
Click to expand...
Didn't stop xDSU's last time, I don't think it would this time either.
 





MplsGopher said:
Notwithstanding that this is all good info and appreciate you sharing, only the bolded seems relevant. And like I said, if they (eg. NDSU and SDSU) can afford to move up to FBS without any state money and without increasing student fees, then with all due respect the state board shouldn't get to have a say.


Again the last bit is irrelevant because they're not going to the MAC.

Having an athletics department at any DI level other than the very tip-top elite programs in the country is largely not an overall profit generating balance sheet for the school.

Not having a department at all would save the most money.

So a move to FBS would be about other things, which are harder to measure.
Click to expand...
It is the prerogative of the legislature to give state institutions as much or as little independence as the legislature deems prudent in its discretion, or to delegate such authority, such as to the board of regents
MplsGopher said:
Maybe. It's certainly a far greater possibility than the MAC.
Click to expand...
How do you gauge any possibilty of an FBS invite? Because C-USA is a trashier conference? Why would xDSU want such an invite (apart from the dilusional few in North Fargo who think Bison would be making regular CFP appearances)?

Geography and market size are the biggest impediment to the Dakota schools getting invites to an FBS conference.
 

swede2 said:
It is the prerogative of the legislature to give state institutions as much or as little independence as the legislature deems prudent in its discretion, or to delegate such authority, such as to the board of regents
Click to expand...
That's great. And?

I'll maintain my contention that if no state or student fee increase money would be used, there would be no leg to stand on.

swede2 said:
Because C-USA is a trashier conference?
Click to expand...
Well ... yeah! Though obviously such a disrespectful word wouldn't be used.

Liberty is there. JSU, Sam Houston. Delaware is going there. None of these schools are better than xDSU's. Just have luckier geography.

swede2 said:
Why would xDSU want such an invite
Click to expand...
The discussion was the ability to move to FBS at all. Beggars in that sense can't be choosers.

swede2 said:
Geography and market size are the biggest impediment to the Dakota schools getting invites to an FBS conference.
Click to expand...
Yes
 



MplsGopher said:
That's great. And?

I'll maintain my contention that if no state or student fee increase money would be used, there would be no leg to
Click to expand...
You can maintain all you want but you couldn't be more wrong, even if we were talking CU to Big 12, Washington and Oregon
to Big 10 or any other bits you've been so wrong on.

The way you think things should be in whatever padded walled ward you live on is one thing. The way things are are another.
 

swede2 said:
You can maintain all you want but you couldn't be more wrong
Click to expand...
If you're basing this on something more than "because I say so", then maybe I will concede the point. But you'll have to elaborate on that, sir.

No need for personal insults here.
 

MplsGopher said:
If you're basing this on something more than "because I say so", then maybe I will concede the point. But you'll have to elaborate on that, sir.

No need for personal insults here.
Click to expand...
See my prior explanation re: legislature prerogative over state institutions, including state universities, which are not entities in and of themselves, but a creature of state government, subject to the prevue of the legislative body. It couldn't be any more simple than that and if you can't comprehend that, then that's on you.
 

swede2 said:
See my prior explanation re: legislature prerogative over state institutions, including state universities, which are not entities in and of themselves, but a creature of state government, subject to the prevue of the legislative body. It couldn't be any more simple than that and if you can't comprehend that, then that's on you.
Click to expand...
Could either Dakota state government choose to get involved for the explicit purpose of blocking a self-funded, no student fee increase move to FBS for the respective xDSU?

Sure.

You did say: "I don't think either Dakota legislature has placed any kind of mandate or stipulation on level of competition or tying the Universities together in any way though."

That seems the correct and reasonable default stance on such an issue.

I would think it would take it being a highly provocative proposal -- like massive student fee increases and/or issuing large bonds that ultimately state taxpayers may end up paying a piece of -- for it to rise to the level of getting on the state gov's radar and them actually doing something about it.
 

MplsGopher said:
Could either Dakota state government choose to get involved for the explicit purpose of blocking a self-funded, no student fee increase move to FBS for the respective xDSU?

Sure.

You did say: "I don't think either Dakota legislature has placed any kind of mandate or stipulation on level of competition or tying the Universities together in any way though."

That seems the correct and reasonable default stance on such an issue.

I would think it would take it being a highly provocative proposal -- like massive student fee increases and/or issuing large bonds that ultimately state taxpayers may end up paying a piece of -- for it to rise to the level of getting on the state gov's radar and them actually doing something about it.
Click to expand...
You obviously haven't been outside of the 494/694 loop, let alone to the Dakotas. The legislature very much guards it prerogative over its institutions even if budget neutral (see for instance, legislative approval requirements for new and renovated school facilities that are privately funded).
 

swede2 said:
You obviously haven't been outside of the 494/694 loop, let alone to the Dakotas.
Click to expand...
Well, I lived for five years in Fargo, for what it's worth. Moved down to the Cities and never looked back. Have only visited SF a couple times for a day or two, definitely don't have a sense of SD politics. You got me there.

swede2 said:
The legislature very much guards it prerogative over its institutions even if budget neutral (see for instance, legislative approval requirements for new and renovated school facilities that are privately funded).
Click to expand...
I am not claiming otherwise.

I am questioning that they would have a prerogative to guard in the first place. They let the xDSU's move from DII to DI. This would just be a move from FCS to FBS.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom