star2city

The Valley is about basketball. No way would Creighton, Drake, Bradley, Evansville, Wichita State vote in those two when other options like St Louis might be available. NDSU and SDSU might not have an interest in Summit football, but there choice might be take a hike or accept it. If the bylaws require the league to sponsor once an autobid is possible, NDSU and SDSU don't have the votes to stop it. In the Southland Conference, UT-San Antonio is being kicked out because they won't play football there.

It's hard to remember all the permutations of conference issues. Delaying UND's entry into the Summit helped delay Summit football talk: the Sioux nickname was a convenient excuse. Again, if the bylaws require play once autobid numbers are reached, Summit football could very well occur. The other issue is that if Illinois State somehow obtains a MAC bid to play FBS football there, the Summit may be in a position to take over the MVFC anyway, just like the CAA took over football sponsorship from the Atlantic 10.

What's amazing is that neither the Herald or the Forum addressed Summit bylaws. Unless the Summit bylaws specifically exclude football, with six teams Summit football could be forced to happen. One can rest assured that Douple wants football to happen, and likely the non-football schools want it too. NDSU and SDSU would each have to pay the MVFC $500,000 if they were required to play in the Summit. Maybe they could negotiate down that exit fee if an interlocking schedule was set up between the Summit and MVFC. .

Just a few more comments: Instead of an MVFC with two divisions, doesn't two auto bid conferences make more sense? Two autobids rather than one. Going 5-0 in the conference and 2-4 outside will still mean playoffs. Going 0-3 early wouldn't lock a school out, and the last half of the season could still be meaningful. The MVFC and Summit could still have an interlocking scheduling agreement, so the schedule wouldn't change that much. NDSU wouldn't have to contend with UNI and SIU for the autobid. Instead, they have to contend with two other schools that have dominated them recently, SDSU and UND. Nebraska-Omaha is more than likely moving to DI into the Summit (pending an invite). IF UNO is invited, even SUU potentially leaving still would likely mandate Summit football. If the Summit League adds football, their NCAA conference status changes from IAAA to FCS. If I'm not mistaken, more money would flow to the Summit, so the other non-football schools would want the status change. Montana supposedly has blackballed SUU in the past from Big Sky membership. If say Sac State is taken by the WAC, would the Big Sky take in Cal Poly and UC-Davis as football only? Would SUU be on the the outside of the Big Sky, but still have a football home in the Summit? All the football teams in the West would be taken care of. But this is the kicker for NDSU fans: a UND-NDSU series not only would return, but would be conference mandated.

USD is also a conference member officially next summer. Conference bylaws normally require schools to participate with all sports in which more than half the conference members offer the sport and / or if an autobid becomes available. If UND would be added, that likely as stated before, by conference bylaws, forces the Summit to sponsor football. All membership in the Summit would have to vote in to give football an exemption from conference requirements. But since it is a conference bylaw, a 3/4 th's vote is normally required to pass. NDSU, SDSU, and WIU would need to all five of the non-football members to vote to change conference bylaws: that's likely not to happen. As stated a number of times, SUU probably has to leave for Summit football not to be required by conference bylaws. However, if Summit football is inevitable, NDSU, SDSU, and WIU always have the option to leave the Summit. Maybe the Big Sky rethinks it's position: offering UND/NDSU or NDSU/SDSU. NDSU would probably strongly consider that option to avoid Summit Football.

Not sure how much it would cost to set up a network - probably several million. A big part of it is satellite access and equipment. Now it is probably imperative to start up with HD and even 3D. But a bigger issue is gaining access and a business relationship with local cable and then national cable. The Big Ten fought cable companies for access and finally won. Part of it is time and experience: get on local cable and/or satellite and establish a track record if you are a smaller school. The product is beyond important. Having a 7-time national championship team with a sold-out modern arena and enthusiastic fans was key to national exposure. Having 20 homes games with that type big-time atmosphere on TV is just huge. Other Summit schools can't match that. Using that exposure to establish a fan base beyond alumni and beyond the state is part of the next step. One of the reasons that I think it is important that UND establish a lacrosse program is precisely TV: the Alerus is telegenic (Kraft can never be that) with practically guaranteed start times (contrasted with baseball rainouts), higher-level players from out West, Canada, and Minnesota are available, and it would extend the televised season to May. What hurts UND now is the rebranding that is required away from Sioux to some other nickname. There are conventions dedicated what type of strategy a school should pursue: College Sports Video Summit

Did Everyone Get it Wrong? Except Texas? Guess who already has a network? Guess who already has a national TV contract? Yes, admittedly there are not the Big Ten Network, but nevertheless absolutely critical for future success of athletic programs. Texas fully acknowledges this. Once A&M announced its intentions to move to the SEC if UT went to the PAC-10, UT still would have gone to the PAC-10 if the PAC-10 had allowed Texas to have their own network. A cable network was so important to Texas that they chose starting their own cable network over a PAC10 invite. One of the unstated hesitancies with the Summit League accepting UND, is that UND is so far ahead of the curve in broadcast capabilities compared to any of the other Summit schools (except possibly Oral Roberts ), that once UND starts gaining momentum in DI, it may be difficult for any other school to overcome - at least financially. UND would never abandon its own network.

What's so sad is how this issue revealed the corruption and double standards of the Standing Rock leadership. The council questions and demands validation of the 1006 or so signatures for a referendum petition, but no one - not even the media - questioned the 1100 names on the petition supporting the earlier council decision against the Sioux name. And who were the people circulating the petition? Would members of the council themselves "highly suggest" that voters sign? It's clear the Spirit Lake's council was not supportive of the name, yet they chose to let the people decide. Clearly, the level of freedom is higher at Spirit Lake than at Standing Rock, as Spirit Lake actually understands the importance of a secret ballot. The future of Spirit Lake is much brighter than Standing Rock for that reason: economic freedom flows from political freedom.

Youtube - 10,000 seat Metra - tornado stationed for 15 minutes over arena Billings Newspaper

Just wanted to express my sincere thanks to all the men and women of the Spirit Lake and Standing Rock tribes that worked so hard to keep the Sioux name. While your efforts may not have resulted in the ends that we had hoped, your passion, efforts and determination epitomized the Fighting Sioux spirit and will ultimately help heal some of the divides between Indians and non-Indians. I firmly believe that when the self-righteous 60's generation that is now in leadership dies off, the Sioux name will return by overwhelming acclamation by both tribes. You set the stage for that rebirth.

This would never happen, but if college football has a regional relegation and promotion system like the in English soccer, college football would actually have a level of fairness that supersedes money. WSJ's college football relegation system

Does Big 12 saga doom the BSC? The Big 12 was allied with the Pac 10 and Big 10 in the past to prevent a playoff. Without question, the Big 12 is no longer allied with those two (as long KU, KSU, ISU, MU, BU have votes). With Utah going to the Pac10, Texas Tech or Oklahoma State could now be left out of a PAC16, if that ever happened.

Portland State to WAC? Portland State's AD Torre Chisholm, the Vikings’ director of athletics, said "he hasn’t thought about the possibility of making the jump. But the school clearly has plenty at stake in the WAC’s decision." With Portland State's budget only $10 million, Portland State would need to up it's budget by probably $5-8 million to even be considered by the WAC. Sac State is at $15 mill and expects to add $3 mill if they go to the WAC. So far, Terry Wanless appears to be the only western AD who has support of his President in the pursuit of WAC bid. Texas State wants in, but there will be ample opportunities later for them in the Sunbelt. The Oregon article also states that the WAC will act sooner than later. Since conference membership notifications normally must occur prior to July 1st to prevent high exit fees, look for the WAC to act this week. Idaho Statesman: WAC is considering non-football school The three non-football schools that have likely expressed interest are Denver, Seattle, and Utah Valley. Adding Denver would add media exposure (Denver is on Fox Sports Rocky Mountain), provide NMSU with a travel partner when La Tech leaves, and add a solid athletic and academic school. In all likelihood, the WAC will add Sacramento State and Denver this week. If that happens, Southern Utah likely gets an immediate invite from the Big Sky. With the WAC having a goal of 12 schools sometime late in the decade, look for the WAC to add schools every two to three years.

WAC Presidents meeting today on expansion If Montana's President was willing, Montana would probably be added now. But since Dennison is steadfast against FBS, it may be a number of years before Montana has another opportunity. If UC-Davis had an FBS-ready stadium and an athletic budget that wasn't threatened, UC-Davis would be picked. But since neither of those schools have FBS plans in place and a choice has to be made now, Sacramento State is likely to be picked. Portland St possibly too. The WAC may delay any announcement until after they know La Tech is gone. If La Tech isn't gone by June 30th, the WAC may wait another year before adding a team, which might move Montana to the top.

The media and message boards just don't do their research on Montana. Just because Montana draws 24,000, does not mean they are FBS-bound. And just because Portland St and Sac St don't average 15,000, doesn't mean they aren't WAC bound. To gain acceptance, a school needs a plan, finances, a decent media market, stadium capacity of 15,000+, and the school leadership in pursuing FBS. Portland State has 4 of those Sac State has 4 of those Montana has 1 of those Montana's leadership needs to do an about face within 3 weeks. It is entirely possible that both Portland St and Sac State will be gone from the Big Sky, soon.

Montana student voted down an activity fee increase, which greatly harmed Montana's chances of moving up. Also, UND numbers need to be taken with a couple grains of salt as they don't fully integrate (to my knowledge) the REA's income and expenses.

By that logic, I quess we should only sign gals from Kittson County or Roseau Country, where we have had terrific recruits. Those counties are more like North Dakota than Twin Cities recruits, and yet they yielded two of the best players in Sioux history.

If Utah is gone and TCU is gone, the MWC wouldn't obtain a BCS berth (if the BCS still exists). The problem with the MWC is that they are on CSTV: nobody of consequence wants that TV deal.

The Big12 leftovers still have more power than the MWC. The Big12 leftovers have two options: add MWC schools or add Big East schools (after Rutgers and maybe Syracuse / UConn are gone). The Big 12 leftovers put together a conference of: Kansas Kansas St Iowa St Missouri Baylor or Houston TCU Cincinnati Louisville WVU Pitt USF UCF or Memphis That is an incredibly strong basketball conference and still decent in football, with access to Texas and Florida in football recruiting.

Sioux to play at Wisconsin, November 14th

Texas supposedly announces move to Pac 10 on Tuesday. OU, OSU, TTU will quickly follow once UT moves. Missouri has "recommitted" itself in its marriage to the Big 12. Texas A&M is flirting with the SEC. The SEC wants another Big 12 school: it might even take Baylor it that brings Texas A&M and it's TV market and Texas recruiting. If Texas A&M goes to the SEC, Utah would likely bet chosen as the replacement for the Pac 10. Kansas, Kansas St, Missouri, Iowa State etc are supposedly in negotiations to absorb Big East Football schools. A Big 12 could still exist, but it could include UConn, WVU, Louisville, Cinn, Pitt etc, but with some Big East schools headed for the Big 10 or ACC. Houston and TCU would also be in the new Big 12. The Big East basketball schools would retain their conference name and expand - likely St Louis, Xavier, maybe Dayton, possibly Creighton. The remaining Big 12 schools could obtain a huge $ amount from schools leaving: up to $15 million / school in exit fees + basketball credits. The Big 10 is still targeting Notre Dame, + Rutgers, Maryland, + Syracuse or Virginia. Reports are that the SEC wants Va Tech + UNC in the east. Will settle for NCSU. As seems likely, if the Big East basketball schools are jettisoned from the football schools, the whole eastern and midwestern basketball league lineup will be affected. The Summit League and Big Sky can now both expect membership changes.

Next move, WAC.

813 - that is truly pathetic for an APR score. Are scholarships even offered for men's cross country? If they are, they likely are no more.

What still doesn't seem to be understood here is that Big Sky may very well have to be looking at affiliate members for football: such as UND, UCDavis, and Cal Poly. The Montana AD himself stated that. Keeping football UCDavis of Cal Poly, which will never join the Big Sky as full members because the Big West sports offerings are such better fits, has to be an absolute priority for the Big Sky. For UCDavis, Cal Poly, and UND to be offered football-affiliate membership, the membership policy has to be changed by vote of the Big Sky Presidents. Until that policy change, Big Sky Commission Fullerton is not going to state that UND can become a football-only member. Football only membership is really what is on the table. A combo of Summit/Big Sky (football) is much more likely than the all-sports Big Sky. A Big Sky football-only membership would then mean 8 conference games + (perhaps) NDSU + likely one South Dakota school + an FBS opponent. So likely six games would be in the Dakotas. Finally, Montana is not going to FBS in the near term. Their anti-FBS President is in office until August, and won't have a replacement until next year. With Montana education leadership that will be making any FBS decision during that time, Montana State would have to be included in the WAC expansion. Montana State needs a number of years in order to be FBS ready.

Might expect the SEC to make one last ditch attempt on adding Texas (four teams of UT, aTm, TTU, and Baylor). Although the SEC would want OU and doesn't want TTU or Baylor, UT would catch *@)$# if it screwed TTU when the Pac10 had an open offer. In that case Oklahoma and Okie State could also be really messed with. Without Texas, the Pac10 isn't offering Oklahoma schools.