[Conference Realignments - Take 2]

On 5/17/2017 at 9:44 PM, SiouxVolley said:

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/may/12/ewu-initiates-process-to-examine-fundraising-prosp/

So why is EWU so concerned about keeping up with the Montanas in the facilities race if everything will stay status quo, as numerous trolls and posters have said?  But in the very slight chance that those schools are moving to the Slummit and FBS, then is a very big deal for EWU.  EWU has been fundraising for some time for an alternative stadium or bigger Roos, but just hasn't made headway.

 

That's not keeping up. That's trying to get a facility that's actually FCS quality. 

[UND to Summit/MVFC]

40 minutes ago, darell1976 said:

Hilarious when we win the conference in year one?  

Considering you barely squeaked by USeD last year during your best season to date, I would be willing to wager a healthy sum that won't happen.

[UND to Summit/MVFC]

On 3/27/2017 at 6:25 PM, SIOUXFAN97 said:

about a 100 years of kicking the asses of ndac, sdac, and the teachers college of vermillion might lead me to believe the next 100 are gonna be a bitch for those schools. again.

Lol, whatever helps you sleep at night skippy. I really can't wait for your entrance to the MVFC. That's going to be hilarious. 

[UND to Summit/MVFC]

1 minute ago, SWSiouxMN said:

If Daum is still around by then, he could go pro next year

Pretty sure every Summit League mbb fan and coach prays for that before bed every night lol

[UND to Summit/MVFC]

On 3/11/2017 at 2:03 PM, SIOUXFAN97 said:

it does seem stupid it took the summit people so long to take und...we instantly make the league more stable, respectable, and competitive...not to sound cocky but we instantly bc the big dog/ top dog in the league

Um, no. Maybe fighting for 3rd/4th. Your wbb isn't top tier for the Summit, it just isn't close to SDSU, USeD, IUPUI, and what WIU had this year. Your men's team is going to be in for a rude awakening when they get to face some veteran Summit squads that have been on the upswing and will have their best players as seniors that year (Mooney, Daum, Konchar). 

[Big Sky Tournament]

23 hours ago, jdub27 said:

Big Sky has only been a 16 seed twice in the last decade.

2016: SDSU - 12 and Weber - 15 - Summit
2015: NDSU - 15 and EWU - 13 - Big Sky
2014: NDSU - 12 and Weber - 16 - Summit
2013: SDSU - 13 and Montana - 13 - Push
2012: SDSU - 14 and Montana - 13 - Big Sky
2011: Oakland - 13 and UNC - 15 - Summit
2010: Oakland - 14 and Montana - 14 - Push
2009: NDSU - 14 and Portland State - 13 - Big Sky
2008: ORU - 13 and Portland State - 16 - Summit
2007: ORU - 14 and Weber - 15 - Summit

Avg for the Summit: 13.4
Avg for the Big Sky: 14.3

While the Summit has had a slightly better seed in the last decade (less than 1 spot), the respect and attention nationally is a little bit of a stretch.

As has been stated a million times, the Summit has had a lot easier route to boosting their RPI strictly based on proximity to higher ranked schools and having a couple extra OOC games to schedule. As I stated earlier in this thread: the Summit has 9 teams and went 4-28 against top 100 teams, however of those games, they played 15 against top 50 RPI teams (0-15). The Big Sky has 12 teams was 3-25 against top 100 teams, however they only played 6 games against top 50 RPI teams (0-6). Games against top 100 teams is almost identical in terms of record and games played, but the difference in games against top 50 programs has a huge effect on RPI.

Thanks, I didn't know. I think the playing top 50 schools is a bit disingenuous to be honest. I mean USD played Gonzaga and SDSU traveled to Cal. There may be more top 100 schools closer to Summit schools but there's a lot more schools around to schedule them in the area as well. It's more of a want to improve your conference issue IMO. Look at the wbb in the Summit, AJ challenged the other schools to go schedule better and the conference RPI has really gone up. The fact that you have 3 more teams and played less top 100 schools isn't just location. 

Anyways, I'm happy with you guys coming into the Summit. Should help the conference and add to the Summit Tournament atmosphere even more. Not a fan of adding to the MVFC personally for scheduling purposes, but hey, it's happening. I'll get over it. 

[Big Sky Tournament]

17 hours ago, siouxfan512 said:

In the last 5 years, they have made the tourney 3 times, being seeded 12, 13 and 14. This year, I'll give you the use of inferior team ... and they will still be seeded higher than UND, if we make it.

To add to this, when was the last time a Big Sky team got better than a 16 seed? I honestly have no idea and am curious. This will be the first time in a while that the Summit has gotten a 16, and that was from a mid pick team that got hot in a year where everyone was jumbled together. Also it was the first year that a 1 or a 2 seed wasn't in the championship game since the 90's I believe. The bottom line is that the Summit gets more respect and attention nationally as a conference and for the atmosphere of the tournament and it shows when seeds are handed out to the big dance. Also, I would be willing to bet the first two days of the women's tournament in the Summit out drew the Big Sky tournament men's and women's combined or was close. Not tryin to rag on the Sky, really I'm not, but to try and say the Summit is worse in comparison is at best dishonest.

[Stony Brook Seawolves]

46 minutes ago, UND-1 said:

The case was proven over and over again last year.  Don't come in now and act like it there is a new argument.  Every media member possible couldn't understand how they took UNH and EIU's resume over UND.  

Well, now I know this board is pretty much bisonville with a !@#!$ team. At least you'll be able to whine about not making the playoffs for as long as bison fans have whined about the bill Fette call. Except it doesn't look like your team is going to have a positive response to it. 

[Stony Brook Seawolves]

9 minutes ago, UND-1 said:

Those would have given them 8 wins (not applicable to the conversation).  UND had 7 wins, like the teams picked in front of them (EIU-UNH).  

The difference was that UND lost to a horribly bad Idaho State team and the committee held that against them, instead of rewarding them for ROAD wins at Wyoming and Portland State (Top 8 seed).  

If UND had lost to Wyoming and beat Idaho State they would have gotten in the playoffs.  That is based on everybody I talked to in the program after all conversations were had.   That is how F'ed up the committee was.  

Or, you know, don't lose to freaking Idaho State. Cause the fact that you have to say that with that win that situation wouldn't have happened in the first place shows how stupid your argument is. A win is better than a loss, and the fact that to make your argument you have to qualify that with a win in that game this conversation wouldn't be happening proves how dumb it is. Holy crap guy.

[Stony Brook Seawolves]

As an outside observer who listened to the game tonight it's way too early for you guys to hit the panic button. Your defense should be good enough to keep you in most any game and you have a green o line. Give it a couple of weeks.

[Stony Brook Seawolves]

1 hour ago, TRex said:

Very big difference in quality.  USD smoked the Bison last year whereas SDSU laid down and got beat.  USD game will show what our guys have in them.  No reason not to win though

You're not seriously so out of the loop in FCS football that you think USD is the far better of the two teams are you? 

 

Cause one has made the playoffs four years straight and has the second longest streak of being ranked in the top 25 while the other hasn't finished in the top half of the MVFC since they joined the conference.

[President Kennedy Message on Athletics]

56 minutes ago, SiouxVolley said:

An FBS move wouldn't start till later when ND will be financially in better shape  (think oil trust funds).  A WAC move now would cut travel to the west coast, as those teams would move to the Big Sky.  Most FBS schools lose less on football than FCS schools.  That should compute in your brains but it doesn't seem to.

So was reading through cause you guys have an interesting situation going on and this is wildly inaccurate. And I know you're in left field with this stuff as it is, but here's reality. The money from TV contracts are gone for any team outside the Power 5 conferences. You can see from the new Conference USA deal that just got done. The schools are going from receiving 1.1 million a year to 200,000. 200,000 to play crappy Tuesday games and take on all the added expenses of a FBS program. The big networks aren't going to pay for the G5 conference TV rights anymore. Sorry. http://pilotonline.com/sports/college/old-dominion/football/conference-usa-tv-revenue-to-plummet-to-million-per-year/article_1dd435cb-800e-574d-be6d-0afa42d957e7.html

Number two: FBS schools lose less money than FCS schools. Wrong again. Not only is that not true, but the NCAA found in a 2012 study that overall the FCS is growing revenue at a faster pace than FBS schools, while the expenses are raising at a slower rate than FBS schools.  In fact, the G5 schools lose an average of $17.5 million, annually. http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/08/ncaa_study_finds_all_but_20_fb.html

Oh, and you're worried about a deficit of $1.4 million for the athletic department? Do you dream of making the money of Cincinnati? Maybe of the University of Houston? Or maybe UNLV or Memphis? They've all been to some glitzy bowl games and are on ESPN. And each one has over a $19 million athletic department deficit or larger. Up to $30 million plus. http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/uab-football-isnt-alone-in-losing-money-for-athletic-departments/

So argue for FBS as much as you want but use facts.