OT: D1

[Chuck Norris]

Big fish, small pond. Same with the runs of Northwest Missouri State and Grand Valley State after their runs in football and men's basketball. People also like winning and they're winning. Moving up probably means less winning in the short term. See: Texas State, Georgia Southern, App State, etc. The rare case is probably James Madison.

I get all of that. As far as the comparisons to those other programs, I don’t think there is a comparison. 10 NCs in 16 years is almost silly. It’s like playing sports against that kid in your class who’s 5 and a half feet tall in 2nd grade. If they’re content, good for them. If it was me, I’d move up.

[Ship69]

Sometimes being the big fish in the small pond is good enough. That's my reasoning why Ferris State and GVSU are still D2.

They both should be long gone from our ranks (and Mercyhurst should still be here).

I agree about ND State. And they actually did move up (to FCS) some years ago. I'm old enough to remember Ship being competitive with them in a playoff game (and competitive with James Madison for that matter). Why not be the 10-time FCS champion rather than move up and have virtually no chance whatsoever to be FBS champ, especially with the new playoff system. The new system gives teams such as Boise as chance for the playoffs, but their chances of catching lightning in a bottle for four games in a row are very slim.

[Fightingscot82]

North Dakota State wins their 10th FCS title. I’m sure there plenty of factors as to why they haven’t moved up, mostly financial. But from a strictly football standpoint it seems long overdue.

Big fish, small pond. Same with the runs of Northwest Missouri State and Grand Valley State after their runs in football and men's basketball. People also like winning and they're winning. Moving up probably means less winning in the short term. See: Texas State, Georgia Southern, App State, etc. The rare case is probably James Madison.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

I don’t know about that. I think if you put them in the Mountain West today they’d be extremely competitive out of the gate. And in 5-7 years, why couldn’t they do what Boise State is doing? From a name recognition and reputation standpoint, they’re well ahead of where Boise was when they moved up.

I understand it’s all about the finances, and I’m sure that’s why they haven’t done it. But speaking strictly on the field, 10 championships at the B level is great, but I think they’ve outgrown it.

Sometimes being the big fish in the small pond is good enough. That's my reasoning why Ferris State and GVSU are still D2.

They both should be long gone from our ranks (and Mercyhurst should still be here).

[Chuck Norris]

They’d be a nothing burger in FBS.

There should be three tiers in D1…major, mid and lower. They’d be a mid team and the MAC and other weak FBS conferences get slotted there. Lower would be all those weak FCS conferences..that are really D3 in D1 clothing..like Duquesne and St Francis.

I don’t know about that. I think if you put them in the Mountain West today they’d be extremely competitive out of the gate. And in 5-7 years, why couldn’t they do what Boise State is doing? From a name recognition and reputation standpoint, they’re well ahead of where Boise was when they moved up.

I understand it’s all about the finances, and I’m sure that’s why they haven’t done it. But speaking strictly on the field, 10 championships at the B level is great, but I think they’ve outgrown it.

[IUPNation]

They would certainly struggle to generate the dollars necessary to be a factor. Appalachian State might be a good comparison. They have a nice program that is competitive in its conference and sometimes gives top-tier teams fits in non-conference games, but overall they’re not in the national conversation. I think NDSU is right where it needs to be. It’s up to other programs at that level to match what they’ve been able to do.

What we probably should be talking about is more FBS teams dropping down.

Agreed..and some programs in P4 conferences need a come to Jesus moment..either try to compete or move down. Follow Fake Indiana’s lead or go down…

[EyeoftheHawk]

They’d be a nothing burger in FBS.

There should be tiers in D1…major, mid and lower. They’d be a mid team and the MAC and other weak FBS conferences get slotted there. Lower would be all those weak FCS conferences..that are really D3 in D1 clothing..like Duquesne and St Francis.

They would certainly struggle to generate the dollars necessary to be a factor. Appalachian State might be a good comparison. They have a nice program that is competitive in its conference and sometimes gives top-tier teams fits in non-conference games, but overall they’re not in the national conversation. I think NDSU is right where it needs to be. It’s up to other programs at that level to match what they’ve been able to do.

What we probably should be talking about is more FBS teams dropping down.

[IUPNation]

North Dakota State wins their 10th FCS title. I’m sure there plenty of factors as to why they haven’t moved up, mostly financial. But from a strictly football standpoint it seems long overdue.

They’d be a nothing burger in FBS.

There should be three tiers in D1…major, mid and lower. They’d be a mid team and the MAC and other weak FBS conferences get slotted there. Lower would be all those weak FCS conferences..that are really D3 in D1 clothing..like Duquesne and St Francis.

[Chuck Norris]

North Dakota State wins their 10th FCS title. I’m sure there plenty of factors as to why they haven’t moved up, mostly financial. But from a strictly football standpoint it seems long overdue.

[IUP24]

I think targeting should be a league review issue similar to a fight because its intent to injure. Call unnecessary roughness in the game and similarly eject the player on the second penalty. If the league determines that the player used unnecessary roughness with intent to injure, then issue suspensions. I think its unreasonable to ask the officials to measure intent in every situation without reviewing film when available.

I don't disagree with the "measuring intent" position.

I mostly like how college hockey manages their reviews for these plays. I go to a lot of college hockey games, and it mostly seems consistent in how the rule is applied. There are many situations where within the confines of a "hockey play," there is contact with the head. They are able to avoid a ton of major penalties and ejections that way. It works for their sport and game. You can argue whether that should even be penalized if it really is not the fault of the player, but that's no different that is a player inadvertently steps on somebody's stick. The player who had the stick in the unfortunate location goes to the box, even though they did nothing wrong.

It gets fuzzier, obviously, when you are determining the 5 minute major or the "5 and a game" variety. But I think the point is the NCAA identified an issue with hockey, and the governing body and rules committee within NCAA hockey worked to fix it. There has to be a solution that exists within the football world to improve the application of the rule.

[Fightingscot82]

They need to look at how they apply the rule. I follow college hockey pretty closely and they had a massive problem with the way the "contact to the head" rule was written and applied. It's applied similar, but different in both the men's and women's games, but there were glaring issues with both.

Originally, the rule in college hockey was any contact to the head would result in a 5-minute major and an automatic ejection. They had scenarios, specifically in the men's games, where that rule was getting in the way of games. They changed the rule about 3 years ago after there were multiple ejections to key players in NCAA Tournament games due to clearly inadvertent contact with the head.

They rewrote the rule and adjusted how it is applied. Effectively, now what you see is this:

- 2 minute minor penalty for "head contact": Basically this is your inadvertent contact that a player clearly did not try to deliver

- 5 minute major penalty for an illegal check to the head: If there is a more aggressive check, but may not necessarily have been avoidable, they call this one. Or if there was a hit that was lined up as a center mass hit, but the head was struck while delivering a check to the body.

- 5 minute major and a game misconduct for an illegal check to the head: This is direct contact that was avoidable by the player who delivered the hit.

You see more of the tiered approach to the penalty application in the men's game than you do in the women's. Typically, you never see a 2-minute minor for head contact called in the women's game. Only the 5 minute major, or the player receives a 5 and a game, because women's college hockey is supposed to be a "no body checking" sport.

I think adopting some type of similar tiered approach to the targeting call in football is clearly desired by players, coaches, and fans alike.

I think targeting should be a league review issue similar to a fight because its intent to injure. Call unnecessary roughness in the game and similarly eject the player on the second penalty. If the league determines that the player used unnecessary roughness with intent to injure, then issue suspensions. I think its unreasonable to ask the officials to measure intent in every situation without reviewing film when available.

[IUP24]

I think the inconsistency of when it’s called has created the confusion. I think we’ve all seen lesser hits called targeting and others that looked worse not called. I was on the fence on this one and I think when there’s uncertainty you can’t call it. Some forms of helmet-to-helmet contact are inevitable and in this case it didn’t look like the kid attacked with the head. Still, I wouldn’t have been shocked if it went the other way.

They need to look at how they apply the rule. I follow college hockey pretty closely and they had a massive problem with the way the "contact to the head" rule was written and applied. It's applied similar, but different in both the men's and women's games, but there were glaring issues with both.

Originally, the rule in college hockey was any contact to the head would result in a 5-minute major and an automatic ejection. They had scenarios, specifically in the men's games, where that rule was getting in the way of games. They changed the rule about 3 years ago after there were multiple ejections to key players in NCAA Tournament games due to clearly inadvertent contact with the head.

They rewrote the rule and adjusted how it is applied. Effectively, now what you see is this:

- 2 minute minor penalty for "head contact": Basically this is your inadvertent contact that a player clearly did not try to deliver

- 5 minute major penalty for an illegal check to the head: If there is a more aggressive check, but may not necessarily have been avoidable, they call this one. Or if there was a hit that was lined up as a center mass hit, but the head was struck while delivering a check to the body.

- 5 minute major and a game misconduct for an illegal check to the head: This is direct contact that was avoidable by the player who delivered the hit.

You see more of the tiered approach to the penalty application in the men's game than you do in the women's. Typically, you never see a 2-minute minor for head contact called in the women's game. Only the 5 minute major, or the player receives a 5 and a game, because women's college hockey is supposed to be a "no body checking" sport.

I think adopting some type of similar tiered approach to the targeting call in football is clearly desired by players, coaches, and fans alike.

[IUP24]

The SEC had a down year. It happens.

Look at the PSAC in basketball this year. It may be, overall, historically awful. There's 1-2 good teams and a whole slew of average.

A lot changes from year to year. Next year may be totally different.

ASU best not get rail-roaded today.

ASU and Boise getting byes is a whole different discussion. What would Boise's record be playing a BIG or SEC schedule? My guess is their record would be much different.

I mostly agree with this. I rarely care at all what the bowl season records show even in the playoff years. It's funny how people grab onto narratives. There have been years where the B1G has had bowl seasons like the ACC has had this year. There's been years where the Big 12 has been the best conference in the bowl season. I just don't know why people care about it the way they do.

If you watch the games all season long, let that be your barometer. But few people "watch the games all season long," so they grab onto what they want to grab onto.

I'm of the camp that the separation between all of the Power 4 conferences, top to bottom, is far less than most pundits care to admit. I've exhausted that opinion here months back.

[IUPNation]

The press box at the erector set is no more.

[Ship69]

Can James Tenandtwo shed his reputation against heavy weight programs?

We will find out next week.

Well, I guess ND got past their albatross. That was the first major bowl they've won in forever. And some of the pundits are acting like it's a miracle that a national program that is rolling in money could win such a game. Next week's game will come down to defense. Both of those teams are flawed in the passing game, so shutting down the run becomes imperative.