The Sicatoka

Could it be that we are losing Pat Sweeney but returning to ... Hammer Time! Given the nature of the new Midco deal, I wonder if Dan Hammer wouldn't do both hockey and football for TV. I'd take that in a minute.

That's the prayer in Missoula, Montana.

Khrushchev and Mao were "First Chairman" for their respective Central Committees.

The Montanas wanted UND because UND looks like them academically and athletically, and has many of the same long-range goals and aspirations.

{DING!} You are correct, sir. Note the school of athlete number three of the four: http://www.wacsports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=45926&SPID=4116&DB_LANG=C&ATCLID=205429834&DB_OEM_ID=10100 Here's the WAC WIki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Athletic_Conference#Affiliate_members

Then something there changed for the better. (Probably surface traffic control.)

The WAC, if it doesn't sponsor football, which it wouldn't under this notion (Idaho would be FBS indy; other schools would play Big Sky FCS FB), has to play MBB and two other mens team sports. The options are baseball, hockey, lacrosse, soccer and I forget what else. (Tennis, golf, wrestling, track, CC, swimming, aren't team sports, but are considered individual sports.) So yes, I'm in GeauxSioux's boat: Baseball, which I've advocated dropping in favor of lacrosse, could work to UND's advantage in this situation because the WAC is close to having enough baseball playing members. Maybe there is a good reason why they invested in Kraft Field. The other thing I know: If Montana or Montana State foster FBS dreams they need to add two sports each. It's 14 sports to be DI (FCS); it's 16 sports to be FBS. The Montana schools are both at 14. Wouldn't it be a kick if they decided on lacrosse with Denver playing it already. The UND would probably have to relook at its mens sports alignment. (Correction: Montana is adding softball so they'll be at 15; MSU is at 15 as they sponsor womens skiing.)

Oh my oh my, no, no, no. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. I think the NCAA should rename the Executive Committee and President to Central Party Committee and First Chairman.

One more thing: I'm am definitely not in favor of how the NCAA did this. This was the Executive Committee and NCAA president making it up as they go along ... again: Another pure power-grab move.

A school transitioning from DII to DI (FCS): - no playoffs for four years - scholarships capped at 63 Penn State child sex abuse penalty: - no playoffs for four years - scholarships capped at 65 Puts a little different spin on that part of what PSU got, doesn't it. (Disclaimer: Concept stolen from another forum.)

You have to remember that number more than likely includes scholarship costs (and DU being private is not cheap). You can see the sports they sponsor here: http://www.denverpioneers.com/ DU isn't listed in here, http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-14/ncaa-college-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1 , because they are private.

Love him, hate him, miss him, whatever, here are the thoughts of "NoDak" about who wants to align with whom if all this were to come to pass. And to the point GeauxSioux drew out, is the BSC really interested in saving the WAC? Well, if you mean "Fullerton" when you say the BSC, no. He'd rather have Idaho back in the BSC and be done (and have one less competing conference to his BSC in the west). If you mean "Montana and Montana State (and probably three other BSC schools)" when you say BSC, yes. Montana and Montana State (and the others) want to keep an FBS option open to them in the west. The only way to do that is to keep the WAC alive (even if it is on life-support for a while). All I know is that Faison is "crazy like fox" in getting a "$0 buy out" from the BSC for UND when UND joined. UND may be the BSC-noob right now, but - UND's AD came from current WAC member NMSU - UND's academics rank above everyone in the BSC (and only behind DU and Idaho in this BSC / WAC conversation) - UND has a $0 buy out from the BSC if they exercise it correctly - UND got into the BSC for some reason (and the suspicion is that Montana and Montana State wanted a name, national school with aspirations and potential for higher levels) Those things make me smile because they put UND in a very nice position as all this unfolds. Mr. Faison has done some very good things in his time in Grand Forks. I wonder if he has one or two more things for us.

Stealing this data from "NoDak" (cough-wemissyoustar2city-cough) from another board: Athletic Budgets: New Mex St $27 Idaho $17.5 Boise St $37.5 (much of it football) Seattle Not avail Denver ($28 per Puck Swami) North Dakota $18.7 Montana $18.7 Montana St $20.7 Sacramento St $17.4 Portland St $11.4 Idaho St $10.5 E Wash $10.2 Weber St $11.0 S Utah $9.3 N Colo $11.0 N Ariz $10.7 Bakersfield $9.5 Utah Valley $9.1 Who are the top 3 academically on that list? Denver, Idaho, and North Dakota. Why mention that? School presidents, not ADs or fans, make conference decisions.

I don't see how you can remotely claim UND has ridden NDSU's coat tails. UND got into the conference that NDSU once aspired to (and got rejected by).

1. We continue to hear the story of how happy NDSU is in their present Summit / MVFC arrangement. Let that dog sleep. 2. NDSU's end dream is the Missouri Valley Conference (all sports). 3. NDSU would never go anywhere where it would appear that they had to ride in on UND's coat tails to get in (especially if it were true).

Trusting my memory here, but I believe NDSU has to stay in the Summit for 8 years or it's a $250k buyout. Similarly, I believe NDSU has to stay in the MVFC for 8 years or it too is a separate $250k buyout.

That name exists as a California based non-FB playing conference.

Lest we forget, when it was announced that UND was accepted to the Big Sky it was also announced that UND has no buy-out if they left the BSC. (I do believe there are certain situations or conditions are attached but were never clearly spelled out.)

What gets me is the conversations about some schools needing to add sports to be FBS (must have 16 sports). UND is currently at 21: M: baseball, basketball, CC, golf, football, hockey, S&D, tennis, T&F* W: basketball, CC, golf, hockey, soccer, softball, S&D, tennis, T&F*, volleyball * in counting "teams" T&F count "twice", once as indoor T&F, once as outdoor T&F

They couldn't be happier or better off than their situation in the Summit and MVFC. That's their story and they're stickin' to it.

I didn't think you were allowed to recruit someone who is on another team's roster ...

If this report is accurate, I have three words to describe the action: Low. Bid. Move.

And there's chatter at eGriz: http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=57748&p=773316&hilit=+Fullerton+means+that+six+schools+

You're thinking north and south. I think it's going to be more about east and west (specifically, Pacific Time Zone and not).

The other factor in this whole WAC meltdown: What happens to Seatte U (no FB), Denver (no FB), and NMSU (FBS)? We've all be thinking "Idaho" but the others are just as screwed. I saw (somewhere else) the notion of the Poly, Davis, Sac State, Portland State, NAU, and (probably) SUU forming on their own. It would get them six for FB. Convincing EWU to come with would be football gravy*. (Convincing U of San Diego to go from no scholarship to scholarship FB and join, instead of EWU, would be better.) If they grabbed up Seattle and Denver as non-FB schools they'd be sitting pretty well for an all-sports conference. Alternatively, that'd leave Montana, Montana State, Idaho State, Weber State, No Colo, and UND, and probably EWU. Then Idaho and NMSU would have to make some tough decisions. *I have my doubts if they'd get EWU. They like playing Montana.