Big Sky or Summit

[UNDvince97-01]

As long as they have an autobid, they are very attractive to us no matter what the membership makeup is IMO.

On the flip side, whether a Montana school or Pacific coast school leaves the Big Sky, it creates an immediate need for the Big Sky to add SUU, and that creates another opening in the Summit.

Ok, fair enough. But the Summit also has an autobid. Given those equalities, dont you want to be in the more quality conference in terms of membership and recognition regionally?

I'm not saying you are wrong and I am right, I'm just trying to understand the Big Sky angle that the majority seem to be favoring here. I just dont get why everyone wants the Big Sky over the MVFC and Summit League. Nickname, logo and Dick Douple aside. (or is it Tom?)

[bincitysioux]

Ok, fair enough. But the Summit also has an autobid. Given those equalities, dont you want to be in the more quality conference in terms of membership and recognition regionally?

I'm not saying you are wrong and I am right, I'm just trying to understand the Big Sky angle that the majority seem to be favoring here. I just dont get why everyone wants the Big Sky over the MVFC and Summit League. Nickname, logo and Dick Douple aside. (or is it Tom?)

My preference obviously depends on any membership changes. If one or especially both Montana schools left, I'd be more apt to change my tune and possibly favor the current Summit.................If the Montana schools stayed, and it were say a Sac St. or Portland State that left the BSC, I'd prefer the Big Sky ten-fold to the current Summit. And, I'm not sure that I agree that the Summit has higher quality membership and recognition.

My own personal reasons: 1) Autobid for football..........Summit membership doesn't mean MVFC membership. 2) Opponent continuity............Since the hockey conference is already separate from everything, it'd be nice to have the same regular opponents in the other major sports of FB, MBB, and WBB. 3) Alumni base..............other than ND & MN, most of the alumni is west rather than midwest.

[Stromer]

My preference obviously depends on any membership changes. If one or especially both Montana schools left, I'd be more apt to change my tune and possibly favor the current Summit.................If the Montana schools stayed, and it were say a Sac St. or Portland State that left the BSC, I'd prefer the Big Sky ten-fold to the current Summit. And, I'm not sure that I agree that the Summit has higher quality membership and recognition.

My own personal reasons: 1) Autobid for football..........Summit membership doesn't mean MVFC membership. 2) Opponent continuity............Since the hockey conference is already separate from everything, it'd be nice to have the same regular opponents in the other major sports of FB, MBB, and WBB. 3) Alumni base..............other than ND & MN, most of the alumni is west rather than midwest.

I have to agree with what you said. It all depends on the Montana schools.

[The Sicatoka]

... and Dick Douple aside. (or is it Tom?)

No, I'm pretty sure he, Tom, is a Dick.

[The Sicatoka]

Wayne Nelson looks at the situation.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/arti...1/group/Sports/

[UNDvince97-01]

My preference obviously depends on any membership changes. If one or especially both Montana schools left, I'd be more apt to change my tune and possibly favor the current Summit.................If the Montana schools stayed, and it were say a Sac St. or Portland State that left the BSC, I'd prefer the Big Sky ten-fold to the current Summit. And, I'm not sure that I agree that the Summit has higher quality membership and recognition.

My own personal reasons: 1) Autobid for football..........Summit membership doesn't mean MVFC membership. 2) Opponent continuity............Since the hockey conference is already separate from everything, it'd be nice to have the same regular opponents in the other major sports of FB, MBB, and WBB. 3) Alumni base..............other than ND & MN, most of the alumni is west rather than midwest.

I realize that there is no guarantee regarding getting into the MVFC along with the Summit. I guess the question for me is, given both options, which would you rather have? Forget all the BS (I know, there's a lot). Lets say you can choose. Doesnt the MVFC have an autobid too? I'd much rather be playing the schools in the MVFC/Summit than the schools in the Big Sky, ESPECIALLY if Montana were to leave. The consistent travel costs would be tough on the atheltic department. Plus, which games will fans consistently travel too in the Big Sky? The closest school geographically is in Bozeman, MT, which is over 800 miles away from GF. At least the fans would be able to travel to the Dakota schools consistently AND have the rivalry games that everyone knows.

I guess we just agree to disagree. That's fine. Apparently I am in the minority anyways.

[UNDvince97-01]

I realize that there is no guarantee regarding getting into the MVFC along with the Summit. I guess the question for me is, given both options, which would you rather have? Forget all the BS (I know, there's a lot). Lets say you can choose. Doesnt the MVFC have an autobid too? I'd much rather be playing the schools in the MVFC/Summit than the schools in the Big Sky, ESPECIALLY if Montana were to leave. The consistent travel costs would be tough on the atheltic department. Plus, which games will fans consistently travel too in the Big Sky? The closest school geographically is in Bozeman, MT, which is over 800 miles away from GF. At least the fans would be able to travel to the Dakota schools consistently AND have the rivalry games that everyone knows.

I guess we just agree to disagree. That's fine. Apparently I am in the minority anyways.

I will also say that it wouldnt be the end of the world if we ended up in the Big Sky.

[dmksioux]

I realize that there is no guarantee regarding getting into the MVFC along with the Summit. I guess the question for me is, given both options, which would you rather have? Forget all the BS (I know, there's a lot). Lets say you can choose. Doesnt the MVFC have an autobid too? I'd much rather be playing the schools in the MVFC/Summit than the schools in the Big Sky, ESPECIALLY if Montana were to leave. The consistent travel costs would be tough on the atheltic department. Plus, which games will fans consistently travel too in the Big Sky? The closest school geographically is in Bozeman, MT, which is over 800 miles away from GF. At least the fans would be able to travel to the Dakota schools consistently AND have the rivalry games that everyone knows.

I guess we just agree to disagree. That's fine. Apparently I am in the minority anyways.

Well I guess that means we will end up with the Summit...you know since the Minority tends to get their way

I voted for Summit/MVFC for the reasons which you have already stated.

[UNDvince97-01]

Couple other thoughts:

1. The closest school in the Big Sky from GF is in Bozeman - 811 miles. There are 5 schools closer than that in the Summit and 6 schools closer than that in the MVFC.

2. If you are a fan and want to travel to road games in the Big Sky, which are you planning on going to? For me personally, I'm only planning on making it to Missoula every other year for sure. Bozeman? Maybe?

I'm for sure planning on going to NDSU, SDSU, USD, UNI and SIU(for obvious reasons, even though its a ways away). I might consider going to WIU and Missouri St. Again, this is just me personally.

K, I'll shut up now.

[UND Fan]

Couple other thoughts:

1. The closest school in the Big Sky from GF is in Bozeman - 811 miles. There are 5 schools closer than that in the Summit and 6 schools closer than that in the MVFC.

2. If you are a fan and want to travel to road games in the Big Sky, which are you planning on going to? For me personally, I'm only planning on making it to Missoula every other year for sure. Bozeman? Maybe?

I'm for sure planning on going to NDSU, SDSU, USD, UNI and SIU(for obvious reasons, even though its a ways away). I might consider going to WIU and Missouri St. Again, this is just me personally.

K, I'll shut up now.

I agree with all of your thoughts. Our being the only Dakota school in the Big Sky would be very difficult. We need to be in the Summit and with the three other ND/SD schools for multiple reasons: travel costs, rivalries, fan interest, etc. Now, if we don't get in the MVFC anytime soon, I may have been wrong in my thinking!

[star2city]

Couple other thoughts:

1. The closest school in the Big Sky from GF is in Bozeman - 811 miles. There are 5 schools closer than that in the Summit and 6 schools closer than that in the MVFC.

2. If you are a fan and want to travel to road games in the Big Sky, which are you planning on going to? For me personally, I'm only planning on making it to Missoula every other year for sure. Bozeman? Maybe?

I'm for sure planning on going to NDSU, SDSU, USD, UNI and SIU(for obvious reasons, even though its a ways away). I might consider going to WIU and Missouri St. Again, this is just me personally.

K, I'll shut up now.

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.

[UNDvince97-01]

Its official: Boise to Mountain West.

[star2city]

Its official: Boise to Mountain West.

Next move, WAC.

[FargoBison]

I still don't know what would make the MWC move now, maybe they think Boise makes them look more appealing to potential Big 12 teams. Maybe the Big 12 won't die.

[dakotadan]

I still don't know what would make the MWC move now, maybe they think Boise makes them look more appealing to potential Big 12 teams. Maybe the Big 12 won't die.

This is the first question I had. Why would the MWC add BSU before knowing what was going to play out with the Big 12. If there is any chance at all that the MWC could pick up a few leftover schools from a disbanded Big 12 you would think they would hold out before making any other decisions. Is the Big 12 already looking to steal a few MWC schools to keep the Big 12 alive and the MWC knows this and is being preemptive?

[GeauxSioux]

Interesting thread going on over at Egriz on the possible move to FBS. Seems many think that they couldn't afford it and the state wouldn't approve the additional funding. Which amazes me, as they get 30% ($5,035,937) of the their revenues through ticket sales and only 27% of their revenue through Direct Institutional Support, which I postulated on here, using UND's numbers.

[The Sicatoka]

I still don't know what would make the MWC move now, maybe they think Boise makes them look more appealing to potential Big 12 teams. Maybe the Big 12 won't die.

Let's get wild with speculation ...

Scenario 1:

Texas A&M and Baylor go to the SEC.

Texa$, OU, OSU, and TTU go to the Pac-10 with Colorado. That only makes 15, so ...

Utah to Pac-10.

Boise to MWC to replace Utah.

Scenario 2:

Kansas, KSU, ISU, Missouri, Baylor scoop up the FB playing part of the Big East.

That leaves nothing for MWC to pick up.

[star2city]

This is the first question I had. Why would the MWC add BSU before knowing what was going to play out with the Big 12. If there is any chance at all that the MWC could pick up a few leftover schools from a disbanded Big 12 you would think they would hold out before making any other decisions. Is the Big 12 already looking to steal a few MWC schools to keep the Big 12 alive and the MWC knows this and is being preemptive?

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.

[star2city]

Let's get wild with speculation ...

Scenario 1:

Texas A&M and Baylor go to the SEC.

Texa$, OU, OSU, and TTU go to the Pac-10 with Colorado. That only makes 15, so ...

Utah to Pac-10.

Boise to MWC to replace Utah.

Scenario 2:

Kansas, KSU, ISU, Missouri, Baylor scoop up the FB playing part of the Big East.

That leaves nothing for MWC to pick up.

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.

[star2city]

Interesting thread going on over at Egriz on the possible move to FBS. Seems many think that they couldn't afford it and the state wouldn't approve the additional funding. Which amazes me, as they get 30% ($5,035,937) of the their revenues through ticket sales and only 27% of their revenue through Direct Institutional Support, which I postulated on here, using UND's numbers.

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.

[bincitysioux]

I realize that there is no guarantee regarding getting into the MVFC along with the Summit. I guess the question for me is, given both options, which would you rather have? Forget all the BS (I know, there's a lot). Lets say you can choose.

For me I would choose to be affiliated with the current Big Sky over the current Summit/MVFC. Aside from the 3 main reasons I outlined, I think it'd be pretty killer to have Montana, Montana St., Weber St., and potentially non-conference FB games from a combination of NDSU, SDSU, and USD in a given year.

Same goes for basketball, volleyball, and other minor sports. Big Sky conference games, OOC games against the other Dakota schools would still happen as we move forward.

Like I (and you) said, if the Montana schools aren't in the mix it would certainly tip the scales in favor of the Summit/MVFC.

My biggest concern is solidifying the football program. While it is apparent that there will be changes/openings in the Summit in the future, I don't see those potential openings in the MVFC as being as highly probable.

One last thing, I think the Big Sky gets much more exposure than the MVFC. Other than local broadcasts for NDSU games, you can probably find 3 times the number of televised Big Sky games versus MVFC on DirecTV and other media over the course of a football season.

But I would be ecstatic to be in either league.

I guess we just agree to disagree. That's fine.

Just a couple different perspectives, nothing wrong with that!

[bincitysioux]

A combo of Summit/Big Sky (football) is much more likely than the all-sports Big Sky.

And that would probably be an ideal situation for North Dakota.

[UND1983]

This may have been stated already but it seems to me that we would want Sac State to go the WAC thus opening up a spot for somebody. Granted, if there is only one spot it would probably be filled by Southern Utah, but it would be best for us to have Sac State or Portland State move on and Montana stay.

[star2city]

This may have been stated already but it seems to me that we would want Sac State to go the WAC thus opening up a spot for somebody. Granted, if there is only one spot it would probably be filled by Southern Utah, but it would be best for us to have Sac State or Portland State move on and Montana stay.

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.

[MplsBison]

It's tough to tell if star2 is really that glib when he goes into "ss.com's contracted conference expansion expert" mode.

Anyone who thinks that Montana is going to be looked-over because of this or that, it doesn't matter what petty reason you come up with. They're the only team in the Big Sky that is potentially FBS bound.

UC Davis (not in Big Sky obviously) is another one to watch.