MplsBison Posted May 25, 2008 Share Posted May 25, 2008 If Denver dropped to DIII, they would no longer be able to offer hockey scholarships, which would practically destroy their program. CC's scholarship rights (as well as Clarkson, RPI, etc and Johns Hopkins in lacrosse) have been grandfathered into the DIII constitution. No other schools automatically get this privilege unless DIII votes on it. Of course. DIII would be contingent on ice hockey scholarships priveledges. Besides, what about Denver's top 10 DI lacrosse program. Is DI lacrosse worth the millions it takes to keep DU in DI? Not to mention operating costs increasing as an independent. Hockey always will be king at DU. I think they can live with DIII lacrosse. Esp. if they can restart the CC rivalry in all sports. Perhaps they can restart football at the DIII level as well. Another great potential rivalry with CC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted May 25, 2008 Author Share Posted May 25, 2008 Big Sky will never expand to the Dakotas.Not what I heard from Bison fans a few years back. BTW, I do now think Summit affiliation is more likely for UND than Big Sky. The rest of the conference could give a sh*t what the Montana schools want.Yeah right. Those two schools have practically the only fan bases in the conference that travel well. Montana schools are gearing up for a WAC jump anyway. Probably won't be in the Big Sky after 10 years.With the small media market of MT, the WAC wouldn't take both. IMHO, Montana/MSU will try to patch together another western IA conference (using Fullerton and the Big Sky as a platform and the SunBelt as a pattern) and offer affilate football membership to IA wannabes like UC-Davis and Cal Poly (after they get their stadiums to 15,000+). Without the Montana schools, there is zero incentive for any Dakota school to join. You're a lier if you say playing schools like Northern Colorado, Weber State and Portland State is better for UND than playing NDSU, SDSU, etc.According to Bison fans, NDSU and SDSU are going to the MVC, so the same logic applies there too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted May 25, 2008 Share Posted May 25, 2008 I would not be in favor of the MVC. I would much rather make a go of it in the SL with a new Dakota based foundation of NDSU, UND, SDSU and USD. Along with Oral Roberts, Oakland, WIU, etc. Montana and MSU wanted NDSU and SDSU in the Big Sky. The rest of the Sky told them to go **** themselves, they weren't paying the money for travel. UND and USD ain't getting in. It will be west coast or mountain teams only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herd Posted May 26, 2008 Share Posted May 26, 2008 I would not be in favor of the MVC. I would much rather make a go of it in the SL with a new Dakota based foundation of NDSU, UND, SDSU and USD. Along with Oral Roberts, Oakland, WIU, etc. Montana and MSU wanted NDSU and SDSU in the Big Sky. The rest of the Sky told them to go **** themselves, they weren't paying the money for travel. UND and USD ain't getting in. It will be west coast or mountain teams only. You are nuts and certainly no bison fan with an idiotic statement like "NDSU would stay in the SL to keep the Dakota foundation together". The MVC would be the dream conference for the Bison, and we would move there in a second with only our best interest in mind. We would not sacraifice our future and stay in the Summit. I don't mean to sound smug . . . und/usd/sds/nds . . . any of us would leap the to MVC if offered the chance as this is a top 10 basketball conference. I don't know where you make up this worthless crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 I went to a crawfish boil in Louisiana over the weekend and talked to my wife's cousins who attended UNO and follow Privateer athletics. They said that there is no way that UNO will be kicked out of the Sunbelt. UNO received a sizable donation and would be adding sports in the next couple of years. On the Denver side of the equation, they said that the Sunbelt has been trying to get rid of Denver for years due to the travel dollars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted May 27, 2008 Author Share Posted May 27, 2008 Montana and MSU wanted NDSU and SDSU in the Big Sky. The rest of the Sky told them to go **** themselves, they weren't paying the money for travel. UND and USD ain't getting in. It will be west coast or mountain teams only. Travel wasn't the main issue. In an intervew, Fullerton gave another view: the West Coast schools were concerned that the Montana schools, with their close affinity to four possible Dakota schools, would eventually tire of the Pacific schools and split off and form their own "Great Northern" conference. With NDSU and SDSU out of the picture and committed to the Gateway and Summit, that's no longer a realistic possiblity. Travel was an issue, but concerns of a later internal split were significant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted May 27, 2008 Author Share Posted May 27, 2008 You are nuts and certainly no bison fan with an idiotic statement like "NDSU would stay in the SL to keep the Dakota foundation together". The MVC would be the dream conference for the Bison, and we would move there in a second with only our best interest in mind. We would not sacraifice our future and stay in the Summit. I don't mean to sound smug . . . und/usd/sds/nds . . . any of us would leap the to MVC if offered the chance as this is a top 10 basketball conference. I don't know where you make up this worthless crap. Herd is right. NDSU needs to do what is best for it, just as UND need to do what's best for its interests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Dan Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 Herd is right. NDSU needs to do what is best for it, just as UND need to do what's best for its interests. I agree but now UND isn't driving the car but is riding in the back seat. They have little or no control of where their going. Conferences don't realign very offen, and you may have missed the boat for awhile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 I agree but now UND isn't driving the car but is riding in the back seat. They have little or no control of where their going. Conferences don't realign very offen, and you may have missed the boat for awhile. Is this wishful thinking Dan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 Travel wasn't the main issue. In an intervew, Fullerton gave another view: the West Coast schools were concerned that the Montana schools, with their close affinity to four possible Dakota schools, would eventually tire of the Pacific schools and split off and form their own "Great Northern" conference. With NDSU and SDSU out of the picture and committed to the Gateway and Summit, that's no longer a realistic possiblity. Travel was an issue, but concerns of a later internal split were significant. By far the most significant issue to the western schools was travel to the Dakotas. They couldn't afford it and didn't want to think about it. UM/MSU splitting off a new conference with the Dakota 4 was never even in the forefront of the discussions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted May 28, 2008 Author Share Posted May 28, 2008 By far the most significant issue to the western schools was travel to the Dakotas. They couldn't afford it and didn't want to think about it. UM/MSU splitting off a new conference with the Dakota 4 was never even in the forefront of the discussions. Wrong again MSPBison. It wasn't in the forefront of message board discussions or even in the media, but those discussions took place at the President's level. Maybe now you'll accuse Fullerton of being a liar? Q (Bobcat Podcast): Has there been any talk of North Dakota and South Dakota coming in? Fullerton's Answer: It is a very good question . It is really a complicated answer. ... Here's the deal. ... I (Fullerton) was a proponent of taking a hard look at NDSU, SDSU, when they were available, and UND -even though they hadn't declared yet, but I thought I could have convinced them with the offer to join the BSC to move quickly - I'm sure I could have - having said that I wanted two divisions -it would have solved a lot of our problems - getting home games for basketball and keeping travel costs down for football.I think what hurt that proposal was fear politically of such a big league. There were people out there who knew of the great relationship between the Dakotas and Montanas over the years. The presidents may have looked at it like the WAC situation where the Big Sky might break up along some difference lines(with ND, SD and Montana schools?) and they would be left out and -that may have been some of the thinking that kept the Big Sky Presidents from looking at those proposals.In football, with a divisional schedule, schools didn'tlike that either Montana or Montana State would not be an annual game.They (Big Sky Presidents) still are interested in expansion. Nine is an ugly number as far as basketball.Ten or twelve would be better. Ten you would stay in one division. Twelve you would get two divisions.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 Fullerton is just a commissioner. The presidents are the ones who vote yes or no. And by far the western state presidents were concerned only with costs to travel out to the Dakotas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puck swami Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 DU ranked 43 out of 320 D-I schools in the recent NACDA standings, #1 among schools without football and tops among all schools in Colorado and Wyoming, and also put 10 of its 17 D-I teams into the NCAA tournament last year. Sports Illustrated ranked DU #23 overall among all D-I schools, and with good new facilities, and a $23 million athletic Budget, DU tends to do very well in all sports it plays, with the exception of men's hoops ( a work in progress), all within 10 years of raising all sports to D-I. Not to mention DU's 80% graduation rate and 3.2 Athletic GPA. Of course DU would like out the Sun Belt. I also love the idea of DU getting to play North Dakota in other sports, as the hockey rivalry is a great one. I hope something can be worked out, but wthout football, our options are limited, and I can't ever see DU offering football again, due to the cost it would take to do it well. As for dropping to D-III, it won't happen. There aren't very many D-III opponents in the west, and DU is doing very well at the D-I level with the mix of sports we have. They would lose their scholarships, too, and with hockey as a revenue producer, no one is going to want to pay to see DU vs Gustavus Adolphus or St. Olaf. The big problem for DU is that it has an East Coast Private school sports menu in a the west, where like-minded schools are rare. Personally, I think DU's best fit is probably the WCC or the Patriot league, with other similar privates, but our geography makes that pretty tough... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share Posted January 23, 2009 Swami: Outstanding Blog! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share Posted January 23, 2009 DU ranked 43 out of 320 D-I schools in the recent NACDA standings, #1 among schools without football and tops among all schools in Colorado and Wyoming, and also put 10 of its 17 D-I teams into the NCAA tournament last year. Sports Illustrated ranked DU #23 overall among all D-I schools, and with good new facilities, and a $23 million athletic Budget, DU tends to do very well in all sports it plays, with the exception of men's hoops ( a work in progress), all within 10 years of raising all sports to D-I. Not to mention DU's 80% graduation rate and 3.2 Athletic GPA. Of course DU would like out the Sun Belt. I also love the idea of DU getting to play North Dakota in other sports, as the hockey rivalry is a great one. I hope something can be worked out, but wthout football, our options are limited, and I can't ever see DU offering football again, due to the cost it would take to do it well. This spring may well be the time when Denver's next conference will be known. If the MWC goes to 10 (or especially 12), Denver even without football would have to be a top candidate for WAC admission. If Boise St is accepted to the MWC, the schools likely to be considered for the WAC would be UC-Davis, Cal Poly, Montana, Sac St, and Denver. A 10 basketball / 9 football arrangement would be ideal and DU gives that option. The WAC would have almost no choice but to offer Denver if the MWC went to 12 (adding Boise and Fresno from the WAC, Houston or UTEP from CUSA, in turn, CUSA would likely take a third school from the WAC, La Tech). Even if the MWC does nothing, the Big Sky still must prepare for future WAC raids, and the only core member choice available is Southern Utah. In that case, a Summit membership would gain some level of appeal for DU, especially if UND was also added. DU-UMKC UND-NDSU USD-SDSU ORU-CC WIU-IUPUI Oakland-IPFW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 DU ranked 43 out of 320 D-I schools in the recent NACDA standings, #1 among schools without football and tops among all schools in Colorado and Wyoming, and also put 10 of its 17 D-I teams into the NCAA tournament last year. Sports Illustrated ranked DU #23 overall among all D-I schools, and with good new facilities, and a $23 million athletic Budget, DU tends to do very well in all sports it plays, with the exception of men's hoops ( a work in progress), all within 10 years of raising all sports to D-I. Not to mention DU's 80% graduation rate and 3.2 Athletic GPA. Of course DU would like out the Sun Belt. I also love the idea of DU getting to play North Dakota in other sports, as the hockey rivalry is a great one. I hope something can be worked out, but wthout football, our options are limited, and I can't ever see DU offering football again, due to the cost it would take to do it well. As for dropping to D-III, it won't happen. There aren't very many D-III opponents in the west, and DU is doing very well at the D-I level with the mix of sports we have. They would lose their scholarships, too, and with hockey as a revenue producer, no one is going to want to pay to see DU vs Gustavus Adolphus or St. Olaf. The big problem for DU is that it has an East Coast Private school sports menu in a the west, where like-minded schools are rare. Personally, I think DU's best fit is probably the WCC or the Patriot league, with other similar privates, but our geography makes that pretty tough... Clearly I never said that DU would drop down to DIII in hockey. That is out of the question. The entire point was to get into the exact same situation that Colorado College is in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted January 23, 2009 Author Share Posted January 23, 2009 Clearly I never said that DU would drop down to DIII in hockey. That is out of the question. The entire point was to get into the exact same situation that Colorado College is in. CC is grandfathered in. DU can't be grandfathered under current rules, because it wasn't a DIII school offering hockey scholarships at the time of the NCAA legislation. For DU, DI scholarship hockey depends on it staying DI in all sports (or going back to the DII RMAC with DI hockey - not going to happen). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 CC is grandfathered in. DU can't be grandfathered under current rules, because it wasn't a DIII school offering hockey scholarships at the time of the NCAA legislation. For DU, DI scholarship hockey depends on it staying DI in all sports (or going back to the DII RMAC with DI hockey - not going to happen). Exceptions to rules can and will be made. The NCAA is a group of college presidents who all know each other. What's a few ice hockey scholarships among friends? We're not talking about letting a convicted murderer walk free, here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puck swami Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Exceptions to rules can and will be made. The NCAA is a group of college presidents who all know each other. What's a few ice hockey scholarships among friends? We're not talking about letting a convicted murderer walk free, here. I still don't quite understand your line of thinking. Why would DU ever want to be DIII when they are already the most successful non-football D-I athletic school in America? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kermit Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I still don't quite understand your line of thinking. Why would DU ever want to be DIII when they are already the most successful non-football D-I athletic school in America? Don't worry, swami, nobody understands MplsBison's line of thinking about a lot of things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammersmith Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Don't worry, swami, nobody understands MplsBison's line of thinking about a lot of things. Damn, and I went and held back from saying that very thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I still don't quite understand your line of thinking. Why would DU ever want to be DIII when they are already the most successful non-football D-I athletic school in America? I've already said it, to be in the exact same situation as CC. Denver could play up to DI in hockey and still participate in the skiing championship. What other DI sports matter? You guys suck at basketball and no one cares -- it's not hockey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tho0505 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I say they drop down to D-III in hockey too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmrg74 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Clearly I never said that DU would drop down to DIII in hockey. That is out of the question. The entire point was to get into the exact same situation that Colorado College is in. And just what is so great about the situation that Colorado College is in? A D3 school that had to drop football because of all of the travel cost it has for its league in D3, all the while, bussing right on pass perfectly fine D2 schools in the RMAC. They should have moved up to D2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 If CC and Denver dropped down to the RMAC, that would work too. The point being that hockey is the only sport anyone cares about at the two schools and that sport would be scholarship DI in the WCHA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.