Gothmog

Sure, he's a hockey guy. But he does have connections to the athletic department. I suspect he'd know if there was a huge pending deal involving the classification and conference affiliation of UND athletics. A deal of that size and scope would be nearly impossible to hide at UND, and all of the other 8-16 public institutions involved. One more thought: why would there be a need to hide the WAC/FBS anyway?

It's interesting that she didn't just repeat the company line that the MVFC in not interesting in expanding. That plus Faison's comments on KFGO yesterday do seem to point to some sort of ongoing discussions/negotiations between UND and the MVFC. I also find this comment by Schlossman interesting: "The only options appear to be going to the Summit for all sports other than hockey, swimming and football, and partnering with either the MVFC or Big Sky for football". Obviously, he's not aware of any WAC/FBS deal.

Facts will prevail ... you have none.

Again, more wild assertions based on zero evidence.

I don't know, I guess I tend to believe the AD of the university over some guy making wild assertions on an internet message board that he can't back up with any evidence. Once again, facts have caught up with you. Brian Faison's interview on KFGO refutes your ridiculous theories.

Try some actual evidence. You have none.

So your answer is: No, I have no basis for saying that these things are actually going on.

I'm not on the record saying that. Your AD is.

It's interesting because it's an official confirmation that UND is considering changing conferences, and has gone as far as making inquiries of a potential new conference. Perhaps, that has already been confirmed. If so, I'm not aware of it. There's a pretty big difference in credibility between some guy on an internet message board and the AD of the university.

The thing that's interesting about the interview is that he does confirm that there have been conversations between UND and the MVFC about the possibility of expanding.

Sorry, but the implication IS there. Words have meaning, he choose his poorly. Remove "right now" from what he said and the implication is not there.

That's really not that much different. Either way there's an implication that at some point they might not be committed to "having" or "funding" Football. He needs to be more careful with his public statements.

If it's really what he said, I would take it as a suggestion that cuts to the football program may be necessary at some point in the future. No more, no less.

Count it twice if you want. Hockey will still be just one sport.

Is there a point in there? I'm pretty sure the millions of folks who have watched NDSU in the NCAA DI Basketball tournament, or filled out a bracket, had no such misunderstanding.

You do understand the difference between having a DI sport, and being a DI school, don't you? Bemidji State has a DI sport.

I didn't hear what he said, but the implication seems to be that, at some point in the future, they may not be committed to "funding" football. If it means anything at all, it must mean at the current level.

It'll be interesting to see how SV deals with this if it progresses. I'm betting on "this is a ruse by Kennedy/Faison to a) extract more money from donors for the inevitable FBS WAC, or b) curry favor with the legislature to get approval and funding for the inevitable FBS WAC."

Imagine whatever you want.

Well, we'll never know what might have happened if UND had moved up at the same time as the XDSUs. But, whose fault is that?

No, hotbed, or not, Wichita State will have a whole lot of competition from better established nearby schools. They're unlikely to get more than table scraps .

It's probably worth noting Wichita's proximity to Big 12, Big 10, and SEC schools.

Yes, SDSU has done remarkably well in FCS, better than might have been reasonably expected.. But many of the schools listed as part of this theoretical conference are also fairly recent DII move ups, and some of them were more successful at the DII level than was SDSU. If they have not had much success moving up to FCS, why would anyone assume that they will have more success moving to FBS?

That'll be a great FBS conference. Eight current FCS schools, only two of which have had much success at that level, plus two schools that previously dropped football, and two other schools that got kicked out of a lower-level FBS conference. I believe the 6 FCS schools listed, excluding the Montana schools, have a grand total of 1 FCS(1AA) playoff victory ... one.

I stand corrected, 6 years of nonsense not 9. Not that it matters. You'll just change the deadline again anyway.