82SiouxGuy Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Finish the following sentences . . . NDSU received an invite to the MVFC . . . before? (or) after? . . . accepting a Summit invite, SDSU received an invite to the MVFC . . . before? (or) after? . . . accepting a Summit invite. USD received an invite to the MVFC . . . before? (or) after? . . . accepting a Summit invite. You see, there is a trend above. With a commitment to the Summit, the MVFC said yes to all of the above. The same would have been true for UND if desired. UNO and MVFC is not even a discussion as they could not afford the sport in DI, as I have stated . . . so please remove that notion from your mind, it is not a factor in UND's situation with the MVFC. Those situations don't prove any kind of cause and effect relationship. And they were all different situations. There was no guarantee of a MVFC invite even if UND accepted a Summit invite. There is a very good chance that UND would have been left as an independent in football. But thanks for your revisionist version of history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Regarding the MVFC, weren't some concessions recently, when USD was added, made to the eastern schools in that league, specifically that schedules would have to be set up so that (for example) Indiana State would only have to travel to just one of Dakota schools (NDSU, SDSU, USD) each season. I believe at least one other MVFC got that same concession. The "why" behind it was that Indiana State didn't have the travel budget to make two trips to the Dakotas per season. Given that, tell me exactly how Indiana State would look upon adding UND and effectively force themselves into two trips to the Dakotas per season. The eastern wing of the MVFC doesn't like going to the far western hinterlands (Fargo, Brookings, Vermillion) now. They'd really want to add going to Grand Forks too? I guess I'm what you'd call skeptical of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herd Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Those situations don't prove any kind of cause and effect relationship. And they were all different situations. There was no guarantee of a MVFC invite even if UND accepted a Summit invite. There is a very good chance that UND would have been left as an independent in football. But thanks for your revisionist version of history. UND decided to separate itself from USD. Otherwise, they could have joined forces and leveraged a move to either the BSC or the Summit/Valley. Staying together they had options. The States decided that they were stronger together, while the U's were more concerned about their own interests, due partly to the nickname situation to be fair. Just dIfferent philosophies I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 UND decided to separate itself from USD. Really? Really? C'mon Herd ... USD had a Big Sky invitation, right along side UND, but instead got coerced and manuvered into going where SDSU was. Now tell me again who separated from whom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeAreNorthDakota Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 ONLY if all four schools are together again in the Big Sky. I don't see that happening, but I do not want to leave the Big Sky just to be back with the other Dakota schools. The Big Sky is a great place for UND athletics. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 UND decided to separate itself from USD. Otherwise, they could have joined forces and leveraged a move to either the BSC or the Summit/Valley. Staying together they had options. The States decided that they were stronger together, while the U's were more concerned about their own interests, due partly to the nickname situation to be fair. Just dIfferent philosophies I guess. Were you paying attention when UND was announced as a new member of the Big Sky? And they were waiting for the official acceptance from USD? Even though USD had gone off on their own to get entry into the Summit, UND and the Big Sky had convinced them to join the Big Sky so they had a spot for football. All USD had to do was work out the exit from the Summit and get approval from the South Dakota Board of Regents. Doesn't that sound like they were working together. Instead, USD got pulled back into the Summit, Douple did some arm twisting, and USD got a spot in the MVFC. And the Summit/MVFC didn't make a move on UND. Yeah, that sounds like UND's fault for not working together and waiting for the MVFC to create a spot for them some time in the next decade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 UND decided to separate itself from USD. Otherwise, they could have joined forces and leveraged a move to either the BSC or the Summit/Valley. Staying together they had options. The States decided that they were stronger together, while the U's were more concerned about their own interests, due partly to the nickname situation to be fair. Just dIfferent philosophies I guess. UND had to look for a football conference first then other sports later, well the Summit was good for the later part but no home for football so UND did what was in its best interest and join the BSC who offered a home for ALL of UND sports not just football. I didn't see the MVFC opening its doors to UND. So actually both teams went its own direction for the best interest of their own schools. UND found a conference home for all sports and USD found a home for all its sports without forking over a huge conference exit fee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND1983 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Finish the following sentences . . . NDSU received an invite to the MVFC . . . before? (or) after? . . . accepting a Summit invite, SDSU received an invite to the MVFC . . . before? (or) after? . . . accepting a Summit invite. USD received an invite to the MVFC . . . before? (or) after? . . . accepting a Summit invite. You see, there is a trend above. With a commitment to the Summit, the MVFC said yes to all of the above. The same would have been true for UND if desired. UNO and MVFC is not even a discussion as they could not afford the sport in DI, as I have stated . . . so please remove that notion from your mind, it is not a factor in UND's situation with the MVFC. So you don't think that NDSU had talked to Patty before they accepted the Summit invite? They just took their chances that the MVFC, who they had never spoken to and had no relationship with, would accept them? UND had spoken to Patty along with Douple, that is a fact. And the package deal was not there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND1983 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 UND decided to separate itself from USD. Otherwise, they could have joined forces and leveraged a move to either the BSC or the Summit/Valley. Staying together they had options. The States decided that they were stronger together, while the U's were more concerned about their own interests, due partly to the nickname situation to be fair. Just dIfferent philosophies I guess. The MVFC did not want 11 teams, they wanted 9 or 12. They ended up with 10 due to a reactionary move to help out the Summit League. Douple knows he needs to keep adding teams every 5 years because half the teams want to leave eventually. If you forecast out a ways, the Summit will be NCC 2.0 like everybody says. Just a matter of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Dan Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 The MVFC did not want 11 teams, they wanted 9 or 12. They ended up with 10 due to a reactionary move to help out the Summit League. Douple knows he needs to keep adding teams every 5 years because half the teams want to leave eventually. If you forecast out a ways, the Summit will be NCC 2.0 like everybody says. Just a matter of time. That's suppose to be a bad thing? Kind of like your new hockey conference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND1983 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 That's suppose to be a bad thing? Kind of like your new hockey conference. Oh, so now Bison fans are excited about being back in a conference with all the old NCC teams. Go read BV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagger Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 If this situation were opposite and NDSU were in the Big Sky and UND was in the Summit what do you think the reaction would be out of Fargo. If UND was in the Summit and the Summit was starting to fall apart because ORU and probably Oakland were leaving and it was quickly becoming the old NCC, the Bison fans would be having a hayday on the websites makibng fun of UND. NDSU fans would be gloating about the impressive Big Sky. The MVFC is a fine football conference. Over the most recent years the Big Sky has been a better football conference but at the present they are very similar. The Big Sky for the other sports is a much better and more stable situation for other sports though. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zonadub Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 If this situation were opposite and NDSU were in the Big Sky and UND was in the Summit what do you think the reaction would be out of Fargo. If UND was in the Summit and the Summit was starting to fall apart because ORU and probably Oakland were leaving and it was quickly becoming the old NCC, the Bison fans would be having a hayday on the websites makibng fun of UND. NDSU fans would be gloating about the impressive Big Sky. The MVFC is a fine football conference. Over the most recent years the Big Sky has been a better football conference but at the present they are very similar. The Big Sky for the other sports is a much better and more stable situation for other sports though. that's the bottom line, isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnboyND7 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 The MVFC did not want 11 teams, they wanted 9 or 12. They ended up with 10 due to a reactionary move to help out the Summit League. Douple knows he needs to keep adding teams every 5 years because half the teams want to leave eventually. If you forecast out a ways, the Summit will be NCC 2.0 like everybody says. Just a matter of time. A possibility. Probable. As long as it isn't bad quality of teams I won't mind. I do really like the quality of the MVFC. Hopefully that never changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mg2009 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 the instability of the summit is way over blown. ndsu, sdsu, usd, uno, umkc and w.ill aren't going anywhere. If UND were hypothetically in that group, you have a stable conference, with pretty good athletics across the board.. Oakland and the indiana schools likely aren't going anywhere, and the summit was almost a two bid league in basketball last year. Had ORU not fled to easier basketball confines it would be a very good league, much better than the big sky. If UND has the opportunity for to join a football conference in the midwest, they should absolutely jump at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southpaw Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 the instability of the summit is way over blown. ndsu, sdsu, usd, uno, umkc and w.ill aren't going anywhere. If UND were hypothetically in that group, you have a stable conference, with pretty good athletics across the board.. Oakland and the indiana schools likely aren't going anywhere, and the summit was almost a two bid league in basketball last year. Had ORU not fled to easier basketball confines it would be a very good league, much better than the big sky. If UND has the opportunity for to join a football conference in the midwest, they should absolutely jump at it. I think you'll find most people here don't really want a football conference in the midwest. While there aren't any close teams right now in the Big Sky, many feel it's a much better conference for UND. Many of our alumni live in Big Sky territory, myself included, and are very excited to see UND football, basketball and even other sports come to town on a regular basis. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 the instability of the summit is way over blown. ndsu, sdsu, usd, uno, umkc and w.ill aren't going anywhere. If UND were hypothetically in that group, you have a stable conference, with pretty good athletics across the board.. Oakland and the indiana schools likely aren't going anywhere, and the summit was almost a two bid league in basketball last year. Had ORU not fled to easier basketball confines it would be a very good league, much better than the big sky. If UND has the opportunity for to join a football conference in the midwest, they should absolutely jump at it. The instability of the Summit is not overblown, it has been proven time and time again. There is a good chance Oakland is gone, they would jump at a invite the Horizon league. And would you like a pat on the back for the Summit "almost" being a two bid league? With ORU leaving and Oakland half way out the door, the attractivenes of the Summit isn't there for me. I'll take the stability of the Big Sky the common oppenents for all sports and the extra travel that goes along with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDColorado Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 I think you'll find most people here don't really want a football conference in the midwest. While there aren't any close teams right now in the Big Sky, many feel it's a much better conference for UND. Many of our alumni live in Big Sky territory, myself included, and are very excited to see UND football, basketball and even other sports come to town on a regular basis. I second this. Big Sky is a great conference and we will fit in well once things get going. I may be a bit selfish here but now I get to see Football, in addition to hockey playing down here often. Plus, direct flights to GF from DIA make it possible to hop up there for a weekend. Things are looking up for UND and it's fans! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammersmith Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 The instability of the Summit is not overblown, it has been proven time and time again. There is a good chance Oakland is gone, they would jump at a invite the Horizon league. And would you like a pat on the back for the Summit "almost" being a two bid league? With ORU leaving and Oakland half way out the door, the attractivenes of the Summit isn't there for me. I'll take the stability of the Big Sky the common oppenents for all sports and the extra travel that goes along with it. Okay, that's just a silly argument. Number of conferences UND will be in after Big Sky: 5 (NCHC, Big Sky, swimming & diving, baseball, men's golf) Number of conferences UND would be in after Summit: 3 (NCHC, Summit, football) From a commonality perspective, the Summit is a much better fit than the Big Sky. Go ahead and use other arguments to support Big Sky over Summit, but not that one. Personally, I think UND would be better off in the Summit in the long-term, but you guys are now locked into the Big Sky so it's a moot point and not worth rehashing all the pros and cons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoggy Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Okay, that's just a silly argument. Number of conferences UND will be in after Big Sky: 5 (NCHC, Big Sky, swimming & diving, baseball, men's golf) Number of conferences UND would be in after Summit: 3 (NCHC, Summit, football) From a commonality perspective, the Summit is a much better fit than the Big Sky. Go ahead and use other arguments to support Big Sky over Summit, but not that one. Personally, I think UND would be better off in the Summit in the long-term, but you guys are now locked into the Big Sky so it's a moot point and not worth rehashing all the pros and cons. And yet you had to list just "football". There is no conference invite for that so why would we want in the Summit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Okay, that's just a silly argument. Number of conferences UND will be in after Big Sky: 5 (NCHC, Big Sky, swimming & diving, baseball, men's golf) Number of conferences UND would be in after Summit: 3 (NCHC, Summit, football) From a commonality perspective, the Summit is a much better fit than the Big Sky. Go ahead and use other arguments to support Big Sky over Summit, but not that one. Personally, I think UND would be better off in the Summit in the long-term, but you guys are now locked into the Big Sky so it's a moot point and not worth rehashing all the pros and cons. How many people show up to watch swimming & diving, golf or baseball anyways? Not many. It wouldn't matter if we were in the Big10, no one is showing up to watch golf or S&D or baseball in March or April. When getting into a new conference I'll take common opponents for football, mens and womens basketball and volleyball. Having that and being able to schedule NCC 2.0 as nonconference cannot be spun into a bad thing. Hockey has always been in its own conference and has established itself with those opponents and is doing just fine where its at. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Okay, that's just a silly argument. Number of conferences UND will be in after Big Sky: 5 (NCHC, Big Sky, swimming & diving, baseball, men's golf) Number of conferences UND would be in after Summit: 3 (NCHC, Summit, football) From a commonality perspective, the Summit is a much better fit than the Big Sky. Go ahead and use other arguments to support Big Sky over Summit, but not that one. Personally, I think UND would be better off in the Summit in the long-term, but you guys are now locked into the Big Sky so it's a moot point and not worth rehashing all the pros and cons. I am surprised you didn't use the boilerplate NDSU talking point in favor of the Summit League: we have a great Men's Basketball RPI Rating! The Summit League is a hodge-podge, ticky-tack conference for schools that don't have any better place to go. I have held this position right from the start and I was so happy that the Big Sky came calling. NDSU had better hope that the Missouri Valley Conference (Northern Iowa, Creighton, Southern Illinois) has openings in the future because I don't think the Summit League will be around in 5 years or so. And I suppose Kolpack and company will blame UND for that too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeAreNorthDakota Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Okay, that's just a silly argument. Number of conferences UND will be in after Big Sky: 5 (NCHC, Big Sky, swimming & diving, baseball, men's golf) Number of conferences UND would be in after Summit: 3 (NCHC, Summit, football) From a commonality perspective, the Summit is a much better fit than the Big Sky. Go ahead and use other arguments to support Big Sky over Summit, but not that one. Personally, I think UND would be better off in the Summit in the long-term, but you guys are now locked into the Big Sky so it's a moot point and not worth rehashing all the pros and cons. No, I'll continue to use that argument. If UND were to join the Summit, the most important sport, hockey, would be in one conference, the second most important sport, football, would be in another conference, and everything else would be in another conference. Hockey has always been fine in its own conference, but I would prefer our 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th most important sports to all be in one conference with common opponents. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Dan Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 No, I'll continue to use that argument. If UND were to join the Summit, the most important sport, hockey, would be in one conference, the second most important sport, football, would be in another conference, and everything else would be in another conference. Hockey has always been fine in its own conference, but I would prefer our 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th most important sports to all be in one conference with common opponents. Have you guys thought of how hard it's going to be the AQ with 13 teams? You're not going to get 2 teams in for anything but FB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 Have you guys thought of how hard it's going to be the AQ with 13 teams? You're not going to get 2 teams in for anything but FB. Serious question cause I don't know the answer- When is the last time the representative from the Summit league was seeded 4th or lower entering the tourney? How about 6th or lower? 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.