southpaw

SiouxVolley's guarantees of schools moving up doesn't care about population areas: Grand Forks MSA 101,000 Brookings MSA 35,000 Vermillion MSA 14,000 Bozeman 94,000 Missoula 110,000 Hardly massive areas with a large number of fans to support the team year in and year out.

Wtf. You're so negative. Nobody has talked him into an all conference player. Nobody has said his skill was even above average, but at least you got to take some unnecessary cheap shots at a QB who was as tough as we've seen at UND in a while. You always find a way to build up a defense against an argument nobody is making. As EVERYONE has said, Keaton was tough, protected the ball and was a game-manager. That's why we are excited to see the offense with a qb who can make throws better than Keaton.

MN is probably scared of regularly scheduling MVFC teams.

And JJ at FB

Why? So there can be a competition to be the laughing stock of FBS? Raise your hand if you want to join a conference that has to play games Tuesday through Saturday to try and stay relevant.

This phrase in Miller's article makes me happy. Hopefully, we start seeing more bubble screens mixed in. "on a wide receiver bubble screen that would have gone for an 18-yard touchdown catch."

I believed UND would be in the Summit but you didn't. But now it's so important for UND to be FBS? Seems you're the one who refused to believe something good would happen, like reuniting with our historic rivals in all sports.

Don't confuse not believing SV's wild guesses as the same as not wanting UND to go FBS. I think a conference with und, ndsu, usd, sdsu, msu, um, Omaha, DU, UNC, Idaho and Weber would be great. Unfortunately, I don't think it happens and I'm positive it won't happen anywhere close to how SV reads the cards, or leaves, or jubilee.

16 teams are now all going FBS?

If the end goal is FBS, how does that explain Idaho's move to a money suck hole? They already were FBS, why not hold out for a few years for this new Summit FBS in the WAC? Why did UND need to move to the Summit to go FBS with the WAC? Why not just stay in the Big Sky until then? Not long ago you claimed UND's announcement to move to the Summit was fake and a ploy to get FBS. You said UND would never actually join the Summit. But they did and are officially a member, so how are we supposed to believe your timeline of not seeing the MVFC? And if presidents had this great vision, why does UND's move to WAC hinge on UTRGV adding football? If half the Big Sky is going FBS, plus SDSU, NDSU and USD, then why do they need UTRGV to add football?

It would have taken you about 3 seconds to test nonsense letters/words. Here's an example of why it redirects with wlacrosse and others: https://fightinghawks.com/index.aspx?path=thisis2018theinternetisfancy

If all of those teams are going to be in the same conference in 2020, why play with three Cali teams that just add ridiculous travel costs? There would be 6 wlax teams in the Summit then.

Any proof to your new timeline?

Time to rethink another projection: the MPSF no longer sponsors women's lacrosse. Edit: my mistake... they have 3 teams currently. A dream conference for UND that only includes California teams.

I imagine they didn't want to remove UND from the streaming platform because it means visiting schools couldn't have their fans watch a top notch broadcast.

Please watch your language, changing a few letters or adding an asterisk doesn't make it any better. Also, the personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with you are not only childish but also against the forum rules. I never said or even implied anything you've claimed in the above post. All I've referenced in each of the posts have maintained that your reading of the below article is once again wrong.

Only you can turn the phrases "my thoughts are from way back" and "way back then" into something about the future. And you're right, he obviously knows more about the situation than you do because he is not grasping at any straw to try and keep an obviously wrong prediction going.

Because he literally says twice that he is talking about a long time ago but that it didn't go how he wanted. What part of this talks about the future? "My thoughts, Scott, are from way back. Why we didn’t take the four Dakota teams instead of worrying about going into southern California … But that’s just my opinion. Idaho was certainly always a great rivalry. But you know, when we had the Boise State and Weber and Reno before they moved up. North Dakota, North Dakota State, South Dakota and South Dakota, I think, would have been a great fit way back then. But it didn’t happen that way. " And he still said nothing about any of those teams going FBS together. I just did a bit more reading about Delaney. He was an AD at NAIA Montana State School of Mines (Now Montana Tech) from 83-85. You're great at finding random connections that never actually mean anything, but this is an even bigger stretch.

He was referring to back when Boise was still a member of the conference so nothing new. And he was an AD of an NAIA school so not quite as influential.

Fortunately, we have you to make sure it gets delivered over, and over, and over....

DU is there as well

I really hope you start the letter with the following: A person who several years ago worked occasionally in the athletic department well before you arrived is posting mean things on the internet.

Please send her an email and post her reply here since surely you know what she approves of.

Why even subject yourself to such an incredibly boring event? If it's boring, why waste your time? If you're happy with a tie, then just leave. You're not missing anything except boringness that bothers you enough to comment about it here.

Ok, so toss out the ACT argument because a few examples you know have succeeded. USNews still ranks UCF as a "better" university.