Conference Realignments

[Hansel]

when was the last time the Big Sky had two bids?

Answer- Never, just found a nice site http://www.bbstate.com/conferences/BIGSKY

Summit Conf NCAA history

All time record: 8-26 (.235)

last at large 1991- N. Illinois

last win 2005- Oakland

Big Sky NCAA history

All time record: 11-45 (.196)

last at large- Never

last win 2006- Montana

[ndsubison1]

When UND played Northern Iowa in 2006 I didn't know any other team in the MVC (Gateway). They are well known in Fargo because of who NDSU plays ask Joe Blow in Maine who is well known BSC or the MVC....thats your answer. When you say BSC = Montana. MVC = UNI? SIU? or just Indiana State (Larry Bird).

joe blow from maine would most likely say the MVC because of basketball

[ndsubison1]

What?

^

||

Huh?

Before NDSU & SDSU joined the Summit (Mid Con), I would be willing to go out on a limb and state that the Big Sky coverage in our area eclipsed the sum total of Gateway and MidCon coverage. When the Bison and Jackrabbits moved to D-I and began playing in the Summit and the MVFC, that all changed. Today, coverage of the Summit and Missouri Valley are relevant to and well covered in the Dakotas. But while NDSU and SDSU have been members of the Summit and MVFC, we are still exposed to the Big Sky in both national and regional sports coverage.

The Missouri Valley Conference is a strong basketball conference and I understand that the Bison are dreaming of one day being invited to the MVC, but the Bison are still playing in the Summit for the foreseeable future. On the other hand, historically the Big Sky is a strong mid major conference and has had a lot of coverage in North Dakota for many years. That is why NDSU and SDSU wanted to be invited to the Big Sky when they moved to D-I in 2004. They have made the most of their conference affiliations and probably elevated and stabilized their conferences by their presence, but admit it, the Big Sky was their first choice too.

As for strength of football conferences, you cannot claim the MVFC is stronger than the BSC. The BSC has had more FCS championship game appearances and FCS Championships than the MVFC in the last decade, two decades and three decades, pick your timeframe.

as of right now overall the MVFC is a stronger conference than the BSC. BSC has the best team (EWU) but top to bottom the MVFC is better.

[ndsubison1]

UND has a current RPI of 322 (out of 345 teams) and had a final RPI of 339 last year. Sac State is 1-8 (RPI 342), UND's other DI win was over E. Mich (0-8, RPI 340), while they may improve- It is safe to say that UND would be one of the worst teams in the league.

In 2009 Port St beat Mont St in front of 1500 fans in the Big Sky final when the host Weber lost in the semis. If the reg season champ does not make the final the conference tourney is a bust. If UND were to make the Conference tourney play in round as a 3-6 seed and win- how many fans would be able to make it to a conference tourney in Bozeman/Sacramento/Flagstaff/Ogden etc with only 3-5 days notice?

Hansel, please stop throwing around facts

[ShilohSioux]

No question, UND would be well placed to be in the MVFC, or if all four Dakota schools somehow finagled spots into the regular MVC. But look at the Summit then look at the Big Sky below. If you take out the three Dakota schools the Summit is deplorable, and the crowds at nearly all the other venues rival those at lower-level Big Sky arenas.

Missouri Valley Football Conference

Illinois State *

Indiana State *

Missouri State *

North Dakota State

Northern Iowa *

Southern Illinois *

South Dakota

South Dakota State

Western Illinois

Youngstown State

* Members of MVC too

Missouri Valley Conference

Bradley

Creighton

Drake

Evansville

Illinois State

Indiana State

Missouri State

Northern Iowa

Southern Illinois

Wichita State

Summit League

Centenary

Oakland

Oral Roberts

IUPU Fort Wayne

IUPU Indianapolis

North Dakota State

South Dakota

South Dakota State

Southern Utah

UMKC

Western Illinois

Big Sky Conference

Cal Poly *

Cal Davis *

Eastern Washington

Idaho State

Montana

Montana State

North Dakota

Northern Arizona

Northern Colorado

Portland State

Sacramento State

Southern Utah

Weber State

[FargoBison]

If you take out the three Dakota schools the Summit is deplorable, and the crowds at nearly all the other venues rival those at lower-level Big Sky arenas.

2009-2010 Summit League Men's basketball average attendance

ORU-4662

NDSU-2792

Oakland-2733

SDSU-2204

SUU-2098

IPFW-1947

UMKC-1749

IUPUI-1314

WIU-983

CC-881

Average 2110

2009-2010 Big Sky average attedance

Weber St 5310

Montana State 3389

Montana 3382

UNC 2271

ISU 2167

EWU 1564

PSU 1009

NAU 839

Sac St 680

Average 2400

I won't break down these seasons team by team, but here are the averages...

2008-2009

Summit 2,579

Big Sky 2,298

2007-2008

Summit 2,312

Big Sky 2,329

So far this season...

Summit 2,328

Big Sky 1,949

[bincitysioux]

Can we just agree that most NDSU fans prefer the Summit/MVFC and most North Dakota fans prefer the Big Sky and leave it at that?

Arguing over which league is better because it is two spots higher in the bottom 1/3 of the RPI or arguing over which league is better because its basketball games draw 200 more people than the other seems relatively pointless.

North Dakota is delighted to be a member of one of the top 3 FCS conferences in the nation that has quality rivals in a bordering state. NDSU is delighted to be a member of one of the top 3 FCS conferences in the nation that has quality rivals in a bordering state.

Personally, I think that the Big Sky is a much better league overall and fits UND and its mission better than the Summit would have. I can't prove it, it is just my opinion. I'm sure that Hansel, Fargobison, and ndsubison1 feel the same way about NDSU and the Summit and MVFC, and I can't prove that they are wrong either.

I also am of the opinion that if the Big Sky would have invited NDSU back in 2004 that most NDSU fans would feel that the Big Sky was the premier league in FCS and would be touting it as the best possible fit for them. Same goes for UND..............if we would have been invited to the Summit a year and a half ago when USD was, followed by an invite to the MVFC, most of us would pounding our chest about how great the Summit/MVFC is and start referring to the Big Sky as the Big Fluffy like MVFC and CAA fans do.................

Funny how stuff works out.......................and I'm pretty happy with the way it all did.

IN MY OPINION, the following are the reasons that I PERSONALLY THINK that the Big Sky is better for UND than the Summit:

1) Opponent Continuity---I feel it is easier to build rivalries when you have the same opponents for all sports

2) Alumni base--Other than the Twin Cities, most alumni of UND head west, often near Big Sky locales

3) Notoriety & Academics--Big Sky has larger recognizable schools often named for their state or large metro city. Distinguished research schools at UM, MSU, Davis, & Poly

4) Most desirable possible schedules---NDSU, USD, SDSU, UNI are just a short bus-ride ride away, to go along with guaranteed games against UM, MSU, Weber, UNC, ISU, Poly, & Davis

5) Stability---Big Sky still has 4 charter members going back to nearly 50 years ago. Virtually every Summit member wants to be in either the MVC or Horizon league

6) Women's sports---WBB is a very important sport at UND. Big Sky is a much better WBB conference. Volleyball is emerging at UND and alot of talent in the region........BSC is a better Volleyball conference. Softball struggles at UND, but there is much more talent to recruit in the west than in the midwest.

[Bison Dan]

Can we just agree that most NDSU fans prefer the Summit/MVFC and most North Dakota fans prefer the Big Sky and leave it at that?

Arguing over which league is better because it is two spots higher in the bottom 1/3 of the RPI or arguing over which league is better because its basketball games draw 200 more people than the other seems relatively pointless.

North Dakota is delighted to be a member of one of the top 3 FCS conferences in the nation that has quality rivals in a bordering state. NDSU is delighted to be a member of one of the top 3 FCS conferences in the nation that has quality rivals in a bordering state.

Personally, I think that the Big Sky is a much better league overall and fits UND and its mission better than the Summit would have. I can't prove it, it is just my opinion. I'm sure that Hansel, Fargobison, and ndsubison1 feel the same way about NDSU and the Summit and MVFC, and I can't prove that they are wrong either.

I also am of the opinion that if the Big Sky would have invited NDSU back in 2004 that most NDSU fans would feel that the Big Sky was the premier league in FCS and would be touting it as the best possible fit for them. Same goes for UND..............if we would have been invited to the Summit a year and a half ago when USD was, followed by an invite to the MVFC, most of us would pounding our chest about how great the Summit/MVFC is and start referring to the Big Sky as the Big Fluffy like MVFC and CAA fans do.................

Funny how stuff works out.......................and I'm pretty happy with the way it all did.

IN MY OPINION, the following are the reasons that I PERSONALLY THINK that the Big Sky is better for UND than the Summit:

1) Opponent Continuity---I feel it is easier to build rivalries when you have the same opponents for all sports

2) Alumni base--Other than the Twin Cities, most alumni of UND head west, often near Big Sky locales

3) Notoriety & Academics--Big Sky has larger recognizable schools often named for their state or large metro city. Distinguished research schools at UM, MSU, Davis, & Poly

4) Most desirable possible schedules---NDSU, USD, SDSU, UNI are just a short bus-ride ride away, to go along with guaranteed games against UM, MSU, Weber, UNC, ISU, Poly, & Davis

5) Stability---Big Sky still has 4 charter members going back to nearly 50 years ago. Virtually every Summit member wants to be in either the MVC or Horizon league

6) Women's sports---WBB is a very important sport at UND. Big Sky is a much better WBB conference. Volleyball is emerging at UND and alot of talent in the region........BSC is a better Volleyball conference. Softball struggles at UND, but there is much more talent to recruit in the west than in the midwest.

You're basing most of your list on 2 schools, UM and MSU, who might not be there in a few years.

[The Sicatoka]

Each school made the best possible move given situation and circumstance at the time.

And the landscape will keep changing around them and each will keep acting according to their best interests.

Folks, we all need to revisit this simple concept:

What is best for NDSU may not be best for UND.

What is best for UND may not be best for NDSU.

To believe otherwise is foolhearty.

[coach daddy]

You're basing most of your list on 2 schools, UM and MSU, who might not be there in a few years.

The President of UM said they weren't going anywhere. If and when those 2 decide to leave, maybe to a FBS conference, UND is now in a position to go with them.There is a lot going on the West and now we can potentially be a player. I'm excited for the opportunity UND now has playing west of the Mississippi. We need to go get players.

[Hansel]

Can we just agree that most NDSU fans prefer the Summit/MVFC and most North Dakota fans prefer the Big Sky and leave it at that?

Arguing over which league is better because it is two spots higher in the bottom 1/3 of the RPI or arguing over which league is better because its basketball games draw 200 more people than the other seems relatively pointless.

North Dakota is delighted to be a member of one of the top 3 FCS conferences in the nation that has quality rivals in a bordering state. NDSU is delighted to be a member of one of the top 3 FCS conferences in the nation that has quality rivals in a bordering state.

Personally, I think that the Big Sky is a much better league overall and fits UND and its mission better than the Summit would have. I can't prove it, it is just my opinion. I'm sure that Hansel, Fargobison, and ndsubison1 feel the same way about NDSU and the Summit and MVFC, and I can't prove that they are wrong either.

I also am of the opinion that if the Big Sky would have invited NDSU back in 2004 that most NDSU fans would feel that the Big Sky was the premier league in FCS and would be touting it as the best possible fit for them. Same goes for UND..............if we would have been invited to the Summit a year and a half ago when USD was, followed by an invite to the MVFC, most of us would pounding our chest about how great the Summit/MVFC is and start referring to the Big Sky as the Big Fluffy like MVFC and CAA fans do.................

Funny how stuff works out.......................and I'm pretty happy with the way it all did.

IN MY OPINION, the following are the reasons that I PERSONALLY THINK that the Big Sky is better for UND than the Summit:

1) Opponent Continuity---I feel it is easier to build rivalries when you have the same opponents for all sports

2) Alumni base--Other than the Twin Cities, most alumni of UND head west, often near Big Sky locales

3) Notoriety & Academics--Big Sky has larger recognizable schools often named for their state or large metro city. Distinguished research schools at UM, MSU, Davis, & Poly

4) Most desirable possible schedules---NDSU, USD, SDSU, UNI are just a short bus-ride ride away, to go along with guaranteed games against UM, MSU, Weber, UNC, ISU, Poly, & Davis

5) Stability---Big Sky still has 4 charter members going back to nearly 50 years ago. Virtually every Summit member wants to be in either the MVC or Horizon league

6) Women's sports---WBB is a very important sport at UND. Big Sky is a much better WBB conference. Volleyball is emerging at UND and alot of talent in the region........BSC is a better Volleyball conference. Softball struggles at UND, but there is much more talent to recruit in the west than in the midwest.

One could make a case for the either MVFC/Summit or Big Sky being a better option (and with Faison's scheduling prowess- being a FB independent was not an option). However some fans seem to think that the Big Sky is a multiple bid league in all sports with sold out arenas- which is is simply not the case.

Big Sky is much better WBB conference

The "New Summit" has would be the 19th rated conference.... with the "new Big Sky" being ranked 20th.

I couldn't find the actual RPI values posted for VB but the individual rankings for the schools are as follows- you might be able to give a slight edge to the Big Sky... but not by much.

NDSU 85

IPFW 114

SDSU 178

Oakland 182

ORU 210

USD 219

IUPUI 261

UMKC 277

WIU 306

UNC 81

UND 92

PSU 126

Idaho St 158

Sac St 193

SUU 198

Montana 203

NAU 217

EWU 251

MSU 275

Weber 290

[GeauxSioux]

One could make a case for the either MVFC/Summit or Big Sky being a better option (and with Faison's scheduling prowess- being a FB independent was not an option). However some fans seem to think that the Big Sky is a multiple bid league in all sports with sold out arenas- which is is simply not the case.

Big Sky is much better WBB conference

The "New Summit" has would be the 19th rated conference.... with the "new Big Sky" being ranked 20th.

I couldn't find the actual RPI values posted for VB but the individual rankings for the schools are as follows- you might be able to give a slight edge to the Big Sky... but not by much.

The current RPI ratings for WBB show....

Big Sky 19

Summit 26

The data for your "new" conferences may will change by the time those changes occur and have little value.

[Hansel]

The current RPI ratings for WBB show....

Big Sky 19

Summit 26

The data for your "new" conferences may will change by the time those changes occur and have little value.

Centenary is essentially a DIII team this year (their last year in the league) and is huge anchor on the ratings, just by dropping them the Summit moves ahead of the Big Sky in women's RPI

[GeauxSioux]

Centenary is essentially a DIII team this year (their last year in the league) and is huge anchor on the ratings, just by dropping them the Summit moves ahead of the Big Sky in women's RPI

But they are still there now. Next year the numbers may be completely different for both conferences. The old saying....Past Performance Does Not Guarantee Future Results.

[ShilohSioux]

You're basing most of your list on 2 schools, UM and MSU, who might not be there in a few years.

Montana isn't going anywhere -- their internal report clearly made the case that it would be financial suicide to move to FBS under the current system. And MSU is much worse off financially. Both are staying in the BSC for a long, long time. Actually, it's much more likely that the BSC will pick up Idaho and maybe even Utah State for non-football sports in the next five years.

[dakota fairways]

Each school made the best possible move given situation and circumstance at the time.

And the landscape will keep changing around them and each will keep acting according to their best interests.

Folks, we all need to revisit this simple concept:

What is best for NDSU may not be best for UND.

What is best for UND may not be best for NDSU.

To believe otherwise is foolhearty.

agreed. in fact, this arrangement will likely have recruiting focii in different parts of the country

The President of UM said they weren't going anywhere. If and when those 2 decide to leave, maybe to a FBS conference, UND is now in a position to go with them.There is a lot going on the West and now we can potentially be a player. I'm excited for the opportunity UND now has playing west of the Mississippi. We need to go get players.

precisely!

Centenary is essentially a DIII team this year (their last year in the league) and is huge anchor on the ratings, just by dropping them the Summit moves ahead of the Big Sky in women's RPI

So, using this logic, since UND is in transition, UND does not count against the 'new' Big Sky? I already hear your argument that USD is also in transition, so don't waste a post.

Give the Sioux a chance to recruit with the Big Sky on the schedule, the players will come. I still believe that Bozeman, Misssoula, Cedar City, Flagstaff, San Luis Obispo and almost everywhere else in the BSC give the recruits' families destinations they want to visit and will be a positive recruiting tool. Actually, Grand Forks will be the least desireable destination on the Big Sky schedule.

[dakota fairways]

However some fans seem to think that the Big Sky is a multiple bid league in all sports with sold out arenas- which is is simply not the case.

I missed that... where?

[Bison Dan]

Give the Sioux a chance to recruit with the Big Sky on the schedule, the players will come. I still believe that Bozeman, Misssoula, Cedar City, Flagstaff, San Luis Obispo and almost everywhere else in the BSC give the recruits' families destinations they want to visit and will be a positive recruiting tool. Actually, Grand Forks will be the least desireable destination on the Big Sky schedule.

I don't doubt that having a conference helps any program in recruiting but you and others are kidding yoursefves if you think that is the only reason most of your sports are struggling during your transition. The SU's and even underfunded USD all had or are having a better transition to DI than UND. Better schedules, bigger wins and even besting the "BIG" boys once and awhile. Something that UND has failed to deliver to it's fans.

[gjw007]

when was the last time the Big Sky had two bids?

As I noted, as posted by others. I had never looked it up. I think they may have meant multi wins (but nothing really over the last 10 years - the most multi wins in the tournament came in the 70s) rather than multi bids as there have been several years where the team from the Big Sky didn't go one and out. I had also said though that the Big Sky and the Summit are 1-bid conferences.

[gjw007]

I don't doubt that having a conference helps any program in recruiting but you and others are kidding yoursefves if you think that is the only reason most of your sports are struggling during your transition. The SU's and even underfunded USD all had or are having a better transition to DI than UND. Better schedules, bigger wins and even besting the "BIG" boys once and awhile. Something that UND has failed to deliver to it's fans.

I think the jury may be still out on this as the priorities during the transition were also different for each school. The goal had been for UND to be competitive after the transition and use the transition to let UND build itself up. That remains to be seen as football team the last season shows what appears to be a lack of progress although to be fair, the team was very young. The men's basketball team hasn't really been competitive for the last several years. The major team that seems to be affected the most was probably women's basketball as it no longer is as dominant as it had been in the past. If you use the criteria that UND had to show immediate success, then UND's transition has not been successful. If you use the criteria that UND was using the transition to build its base with a losses here and there but is building a better foundation for the future then it remains an open question whether it has been successful and this can only be determined several years after the fact. UND fans probably expected better results during the transition but it could have been worse and if UND fails to build the base correctly, it could be considered less than satisfactory but for now, the jury is still out.

[ShilohSioux]

I don't doubt that having a conference helps any program in recruiting but you and others are kidding yoursefves if you think that is the only reason most of your sports are struggling during your transition. The SU's and even underfunded USD all had or are having a better transition to DI than UND. Better schedules, bigger wins and even besting the "BIG" boys once and awhile. Something that UND has failed to deliver to it's fans.

I've always assumed USD is "underfunded" compared to the other Dakota schools because of a smaller enrollment. Is that the reason? And why is USD so much smaller than SDSU? Odd for the state's "flagship" university...at least on the surface.

NDSU – 11,733 undergraduates

UND – 10,440 undergraduates

SDSU – 10,794 undergraduates

USD – 7,098 undergraduates

[JackJD]

I've always assumed USD is "underfunded" compared to the other Dakota schools because of a smaller enrollment. Is that the reason? And why is USD so much smaller than SDSU? Odd for the state's "flagship" university...at least on the surface.

NDSU 11,733 undergraduates

UND 10,440 undergraduates

SDSU 10,794 undergraduates

USD 7,098 undergraduates

Browsing through this thread while watching the Mizzou v Iowa football game, two things come to mind:

1. The debate on whether the Big Sky or the Summit/MVFC is better seems to never go away on this message board but on Bisonville it's hardly mentioned. I think that says something...not exactly sure what but it says something.

2. Many would disagree that USD is South Dakota's "flagship" university. Many would contend it is SDSU and use the very enrollment figures cited above as support for that position. Of course, USD fans will disagree. Bottom line: what the heck does flagship even mean anyway? And, whatever it may mean in North Dakota, it may have a slightly different meaning in South Dakota.

Sheesh, Iowa just intercepted and ran it in, Iowa 27, Missouri 24 with a little more than 5:00 to go.

[Risky]

The main reason there is so much back and forth is because Bison fans are on here stirring it up. The fact that UND got into the Big Sky really hit a nerve for them. The bottom line is both schools are happy. So just enjoy.

[FSSD]

I think historically people knew about the MVC and that dates all the way back to Larry Bird playing for Indiana State. That is why the Gateway changed their name to the Missouri Valley, people are much more familiar with that brand.

The Summit would be a different story but I would never put the Big Sky on the level of the MVC brand. People around here are much more familiar with that conference and would regard it to being better than the Big Sky. A conference that is known as being the Montana's and those other schools.

I am not sure how much of the Missouri Valley brand has carried over on a national level for football because the MVFC conference plays at the FCS level. I would say that Missouri Valley Football and Big Sky are peer conferences in football.

I would agree that the Missouri Valley brand has greater national recognition than the Big Sky and Summit in basketball. Hey - how do you guys feel about the name "Summit League". It has always seemed strange to me kind of like the Big Ten using Legends and Leaders. Something just seems off with the name.. I wonder with the recent dumping of Cent C, Chicago St. and SUU and addition of USD if they will rethink the name?

[FSSD]

In 2009 Port St beat Mont St in front of 1500 fans in the Big Sky final when the host Weber lost in the semis. If the reg season champ does not make the final the conference tourney is a bust. If UND were to make the Conference tourney play in round as a 3-6 seed and win- how many fans would be able to make it to a conference tourney in Bozeman/Sacramento/Flagstaff/Ogden etc with only 3-5 days notice?

I am not sure about your definition of tournament bust based on the attendance of one game.

Year - Conference - Tournament Avg Att..

2009 - BS - 3,714

2009 - SL - 4,421

2010 - BS - 4,156

2010 - SL - 3,574

2010 Data Source

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/8753820042742b01b8b6be967b4a3893/Awide_Mbkbattlists.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=8753820042742b01b8b6be967b4a3893

2009 Data Source

http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=375643

In reference to your comments about the structure of the conference tournaments between Big Sky and SL. I think both have pros and cons:

NOTE: I understand that the Big Sky could change how the tournament works going forward with the addition of teams. It would be a good question to the fans. What is your preferred approach for conference tournaments - central location or host school?

Hosted by Regular Season Champ

Pro: Nice reward to individual school, helps to build local support, and typically has solid attendance. I also like the fact that only 6 teams make the conference post season. It makes the regular season more meaningful. In addition, I like first round games being hosted by the 3 and 4 seeds. So, the reward of hosting post season is shared by multiple schools.

Cons: too much of a home court advantage, short notice travel plans for fans.

Central Host:

Pro: Set location and date makes it more of a planned event. If planned correctly it can continue to grow on annual basis.

Cons: too much of neutral court -if the game continues in SF will they alienate schools on the edges of the conference ie SL - Oakland and ORU.