IowaBison

If your best teams are as good as our best teams..... arbitrary: 1.Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: 2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference

I think a lot of folks missed an important part of the proposal UND Proposal "Taylor said UND proposed the game in Minneapolis to gain exposure for the schools there."

That kind of gap.

crater is your word, not mine. And I don't disagree that there are some very good DII programs (I still follow DII) that 'could play'. I would be surprised to see GVSU, UND, or Pittsburg State to be in the top 25 in the years immediately following a hypothetical move. GVSU would be lucky to be above .500 in the Gateway (and I don't mean that to be derogatory to the Lakers). UND and Pittsburg would be about the same (at best) in the Big Sky or the Great West. I agree with Jim (who I think you can agree is quite balanced and objective) that the Bison would probably beat the Sioux right now. That would put them in the middle of the Great West and outside the top 25.

1. I agree with your points, but it is my opinion that there is a "wide" gap between the two divisions. Have you ever seen a DIAA football game? If not, go to one and then come back here and tell me there is a small gap. 2. I'm glad that you are optimistic regarding UND's success if a move is made. But you are basing this on what? Also, if you mean UND, say UND. If you mean in 2-4 years, say 2-4 years.

I'm not putting down DII, don't put words in my post.

baloney. UND has one of the best programs in DII. Playing a competitive schedule in DIAA (vs. Big Sky, Great West, Gateway and Southland Confence teams (fully funded conferences)) with this year's team, I think they'd be lucky to go 6-5. At best, they'd end up in the top 25, 7-4/8-3. So going from somewhere around 1-5 in DII to somewhere around 25-40 is a 'wide gap' to me. Honestly, I'd love to be proven wrong, but first some folks up north need to pony up some dough. I bet if you called up a mid-level BSC team, you'd probably get a game. Heck, why don't the Sioux call up Wanless at Sac State, I bet you could get a game (and if so almost certainly the win).

Thanks for the clarifications, Star2City. I do think there is a need to see what the MWC might do. There could be a domino effect, but I don't think that there are any Big Sky teams that are interested (and able) to move to DI. It is interesting that the WAC has a number of former Big Sky teams. Travel to Denver is probably the most easy city to travel to in the western U.S.. My facts are wrong, but the point is the same. As it is for the presence of Idaho, Utah St. and New Mexico State in the WAC (ie Denver hasn't long been a geographic outlier). The Spokane article that you quote also states that the WAC's focus is on football and all-sports teams. You also state that Denver said no to the Big Sky. That may be true, but I've never seen it in print (if you have a source, I'd be happy to see it).

I agree with a lot of your thoughts, Star2City. A couple of thoughts: Who said the Big Sky needs to add a single member? I don't believe the BSC is going to drop mandatory sponsorship of all sports. Sure it would cost members less if there were fewer required long distance trips, but why would they add a school(s) that would increase costs significantly more than the benefits that would accrue? Denver though outside of the SunBelt' footprint, can be reached by a single flight from any of the other member cities (minimizing the cost of travel). It was also near Idaho, Utah St., and New Mexico St. which were members at the time of admission. I'm pretty sure that both Denver and the SunBelt are eager to end their affilitation, but Denver has no where to go. Also, (I'm 92% sure) Denver was offered admission into either the WAC (also conditional on improving their basketball program) or BSC if they added football.

I agree that there are increased costs with the smaller NCC, but they absolutely pale in comparison to those NDSU is experiencing (which I would be quite similar to what UND would experience). In otherwords, there aren't similar distant places for DII and DI competition. UND football (2 flights, 4 bus trips) Ellensburg, Wash. Winona, Minn. Duluth, Minn. Mankato, Minn. Vermillion, S.D. Allendale, Mich. NDSU football (5 flights/larger team)

It also tells you something about the Big Sky.

How do you think they'll do with 40 odd scholarships during the next few years?

Kupchella's quote (that I think you are referring to): "Pride and emotion are powerful enough sometimes even to overwhelm logic and other considerations. I recognize that we may have to make this move even though, ultimately it may make no otherwise logical or financial sense to do so ... " NDSU moved to DI, under the leadership of President Chapman, to bring the University to its proper place, among its peers AFTER studying the problem. Yes, there were concerns raised (conference affiliation, costs), but after looking at the bottom line the NDSU family decided to move forward. If anything, NDSU underestimated its ability (possibly due to North Dakotan's nature of understatement and risk aversion). I've never once heard we can do it because any other school did (especially as the Montana schools have been DI for over 20 years).

UND doesn't need to double its bottom line. An additional 3-4 million dollars, which is a lot of money, is what would be needed. The argument, 'if other schools can do it, so can we' makes no sense.

But Sikatoka you know, as do I, that sponsor does not have the same definition as require. The need for a minimum number of sports, in my opinion, is that it prevents schools from cherry picking sports which defeats the whole point of having a conference.

That's quite funny and completely erroneous.

But the NCC and Mid-Con require a minimum number of sports by gender. As golf is relatively inexpensive ($16,000 according to numbers previously in this thread (mens)), why would the University ax it? That fits into your fiscal category, Sikatoka. Also, I think that NDSU would add/eliminate any sport to get into a conference right about now.

I was making the assumption that golf is less expensive than swimming and diving. Also no conference that the Bison might join require it (Big Sky, Mid-Con, the hypothetical NCC). And ignore the conference question altogether? I agree with that completely, but does that mean that the University should ignore the relative necessity of conference affiliation?

(DamStraight-Feel free to ignore this post) If you are so sure of your brilliance, why don't you run your ideas by Bunning? Please list any conference scenario where golf doesn't make sense for UND? Even if a DI NCC materialized it would likely require a minimum number of male sports, even at the height of riduculousness I'd imagine they would mandate at least 5 (as would membership in the Mid-Con and of course the Big Sky requires golf). I can't think of many non-revenue sports which are less expensive than golf. Just because it would be possible to drop and then reinstate golf, even at 'low cost'. That doesn't make any sense. You're going to tell a group of kids and a coach to get packing, only to try to reestablish a program later? It seems like you are grabbing at straws just so you can support your previous statements. I question any NCC or NSIC school moving up, the inclusion of CSP was utterly ridiculous. Your ability to name a number of current NCC members doesn't prove much of anything, let alone any institution's interest or ability to sponsor division I athletics. Please tell what above or in any previous posts that is unreasonable?

Yep, that makes perfect sense!?! Eliminate a sport that UND will almost certainly need to sponsor for conference affiliation. Also, I enjoy the inclusion of CSP on your DI NCC list, they spend how much on athletics?

Tell Doug Fullerton that UND is dropping golf.

Thanks for the emboldened and underlined characters. However, I didn't that it was necessary to qualify my previous post with comments to note its subjective nature which should have been able to be understood from its context. Heck, DamStrait could sense my seething hatred for the University, obviously I didn't need to add anything.

Then you, DamStrait, have no common sense at all. Please tell me, since you are quite confident in your statement, which current NCC schools will be going DI and when they will announce their decision to do so. Assuming SDSU and NDSU would join, which they might do in the short term (I hope you would agree that any school would immediately abandon the conference given the offer of any other conference), which other schools would move? (You need 5) 1. UND 2. 3. 4. 5.

Thats an awfully confidently worded post. Do you have anything other than your amorous feelings towards UND to support this?

My comments have not focused on the merits of maintaining baseball or softball. In my opinion, it's much more realistic to forecast the elimination of these sports and swimming and diving as well than the addition of lacrosse. Given the athletic departments current fiscal situation, the elimination of these programs is possible even if the University stays DII. And to reiterate, UND almost certainly needs to sponsor golf if it wants to find a DI conference.