SiouxVolley Posted October 6, 2016 Author Posted October 6, 2016 1 hour ago, Gothmog said: Wow, do you actually think people should give you the same level of respect and deference given to the commissioner of the Big Sky conference on this issue? BTW - you'd do well to avoid using the phrase "done deal." Your track record on distinguishing deals that were really "done" from deals that were merely figments of your imagination isn't good. So have some balls and guarantee we'll be in the Slummit then, instead of just trolling. The WAC is the first step, as it can gain us FBS status later. It's not brain surgery. Quote
jdub27 Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 9 minutes ago, SiouxVolley said: So have some balls and guarantee we'll be in the Slummit then, instead of just trolling. The WAC is the first step, as it can gain us FBS status later. It's not brain surgery. I have no issue guaranteeing that with what is on the table right now, the Summit has at least a 1,000x better chance of happening than any sort of WAC conference. UND has openly stated that it has had conversations with the Summit. There is absolutely zero tying UND to any sort of WAC conference and the only thing that exists out there is Idaho's last ditch efforts to remain FBS and no one having any desire to join them. 2 Quote
Gothmog Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 52 minutes ago, SiouxVolley said: So have some balls and guarantee we'll be in the Slummit then, instead of just trolling. The WAC is the first step, as it can gain us FBS status later. It's not brain surgery. Unlike you, I don't make predictions without sufficient facts. But, as jdub27 has already said, it's many times more likely that UND ends up in the Summit than the WAC. Quote
North Dakota Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 1 hour ago, SiouxVolley said: So have some balls and guarantee we'll be in the Slummit then, instead of just trolling. The WAC is the first step, as it can gain us FBS status later. It's not brain surgery. Fine let me be the first. UND will be moving to the Summit. They will remain a FB affiliate member of the BSC. Badda bing badda boom! 1 Quote
Siouxperfan7 Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 17 minutes ago, North Dakota said: Fine let me be the first. UND will be moving to the Summit. They will remain a FB affiliate member of the BSC. Badda bing badda boom! This is what I think will happen as well. And actually has a chance of happening. Unlike the WACky scenario! 2 Quote
Matt Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 i'm not necessarily disagreeing about this, but i'm wondering what does the BSC get out of letting UND leave in everything but FB? The exit fee? Quote
UNDBIZ Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 8 minutes ago, Matt said: i'm not necessarily disagreeing about this, but i'm wondering what does the BSC get out of letting UND leave in everything but FB? The exit fee? Not having to travel to Grand Forks. Quote
Siouxperfan7 Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 Cal Poly and UC Davis joined the same year UND and Southern Utah did. Obviously the Big Sky was concerned about The Montana schools jumping to the FBS, so they shored up some members. Even if they were football only members like Davis and Poly. Now that that risk is essentially over, the question is will the Big Sky allow UND to be a football affiliate member like the other 2. The other Presidents surely don't have to vote if a school chooses to leave the conference. The school just pays the exit fees. But would there be a vote if UND still wanted to remain a football only member? You would think other Big Sky schools would be in favor of not having to travel half way across the country for all their sports. Only cost would be sending their football team there once every 2-3 years. Quote
North Dakota Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 16 minutes ago, Matt said: i'm not necessarily disagreeing about this, but i'm wondering what does the BSC get out of letting UND leave in everything but FB? The exit fee? Reduced traveling budgets for all of their other teams. Probably a little easier scheduling as well. Hell the BSC would probably waive the exit fee just for those items alone. Quote
jacksfan29 Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 On 10/5/2016 at 11:00 AM, SiouxVolley said: Interesting that Montana States new AD just sent an email stating that in the next 100 days, MSU will have strategic announcements that will shape MSU's goals for the next five years. To me it's being a full FBS member in the WAC. Leon very clearly states the intent in the letter. The process has been both enjoyable and intense. It's led me to believe that while the first 100 days of my time leading your athletic department have been important, the next 100 days are crucial. During this time, we will be organizing our thoughts to create a strategic plan that captures the current state of Bobcat Athletics and provide the direction for the next five years. This plan will focus on creative ways to develop our student-athletes academically, athletically, and socially. It will also entail methods to support our coaches and athletes with unique programs and updated facilities. The end result will be the framework of what Bobcat Athletics will become. So no, he isn't going to announce that MSU are moving to the WAC. He is very clear as to what he will be discussing. Besides, he came from SDSU not a P5 school. If I recall, when MSU initially hired an assistant AD from Utah you said it was a sign that they needed P5 experience to move up. Well, Leon did not come from a P5, just lowly SDSU. He is a facilities and program guy. Instrumental in updating SDSU facilities to what we have today. He is an incredibly talented and a really good guy. If you read the letter his announcement will be facility and program related. You are over reaching just like you did when the BSC were making the big app announcement. 3 Quote
SIOUXFAN97 Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 how about we "punish" just one team (mens hockey) and go back to the ole WCHA and save all that money on travel and whatnot and "spare" all the other programs from having to play uipui, oofeyi, and western illinois (if they are still around in five years)? 1 Quote
Gothmog Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 32 minutes ago, SIOUXFAN97 said: how about we "punish" just one team (mens hockey) and go back to the ole WCHA and save all that money on travel and whatnot and "spare" all the other programs from having to play uipui, oofeyi, and western illinois (if they are still around in five years)? Oh, c'mon. Don't you think that games against USD, SDSU, NDSU, Denver, and perhaps UNO would be more interesting to the average UND fan than any of the Big Sky schools? 1 Quote
SIOUXFAN97 Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 4 minutes ago, Gothmog said: Oh, c'mon. Don't you think that games against USD, SDSU, NDSU, and Denver would be more interesting to the average UND fan than any of the Big Sky schools? we already play them non-conf...and "fans" still don't show up. the ndac is the only school that moves the needle thats why whatever happens und the ndac need to make up and realize they are inthis together because of our (ndac included) "outlier" status for any conference. 1 Quote
Goon Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 On 10/5/2016 at 2:21 PM, John W. said: Hockey is nice, locally, but in the grand scheme....pretty non-grattus....UND being FBS might balance the media/blog bias which hockey now enjoys.....It's getting like the UND hockey crowd is as obnoxious as the Bison football following......"Fair and balanced".....where have I heard that one?????? 2 I'd like to drill down on this one. I think Football gets a lot of coverage and it's fair, too. The Herald has two writers covering the team on any given day. Let's not forget the Sioux Football insiders that are also covering the team. Quote
Goon Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 2 hours ago, UNDBIZ said: Not having to travel to Grand Forks. Weren't the schools out west complaining about traveling to North Dakota? Quote
UNDBIZ Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 17 minutes ago, Goon said: Weren't the schools out west complaining about traveling to North Dakota? Just Sacramento State, as far as I remember. They (Sac St) don't really matter to anyone. Quote
Goon Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 Just now, UNDBIZ said: Just Sacramento State, as far as I remember. They (Sac St) don't really matter to anyone. Yeah, that's right. Sac State wasn't happy about the Travel. Quote
Rick Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 20 minutes ago, Gothmog said: Oh, c'mon. Don't you think that games against USD, SDSU, NDSU, Denver, and perhaps UNO would be more interesting to the average UND fan than any of the Big Sky schools? No, I'll take Cal Poly, Montana, Montana State, UC Davis, Idaho, Eastern Washington anytime over that group. 1 Quote
Gothmog Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 10 minutes ago, Rick said: No, I'll take Cal Poly, Montana, Montana State, UC Davis, Idaho, Eastern Washington anytime over that group. Please elaborate. Quote
dmksioux Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 18 minutes ago, Rick said: No, I'll take Cal Poly, Montana, Montana State, UC Davis, Idaho, Eastern Washington anytime over that group. Need to cross off UC Davis and Cal Poly as they are football only. Gothmog was referring to Summit Schools (non-football). So add Weber St. To the list. Quote
Gothmog Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 25 minutes ago, dmksioux said: Need to cross off UC Davis and Cal Poly as they are football only. Gothmog was referring to Summit Schools (non-football). So add Weber St. To the list. With or without Weber State, do you really think that the average UND fan would rather play those schools than the ones I listed? Be honest. Quote
UNDBIZ Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 5 minutes ago, Gothmog said: With or without Weber State, do you really think that the average UND fan would rather play those schools than the ones I listed? Be honest. No. But we may not have a choice if the BSC doesn't let us stay on as a football-only affiliate. 1 1 Quote
Gothmog Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 5 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said: No. But we may not have a choice if the BSC doesn't let us stay on as a football-only affiliate. I don't know if they'll be able to pull it off, but given no exit fees and a home for football it's a no-brainer, UND will be in the Summit. 1 Quote
dmksioux Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 13 minutes ago, Gothmog said: With or without Weber State, do you really think that the average UND fan would rather play those schools than the ones I listed? Be honest. I'm pretty impartial. When we first went DI, I was hoping for the Summit/MVFC. Both the Summit and Big Sky have schools I like to see UND play. Both conferences also have some dogs as well. Both are fine conferences and I'd be happy with UND in either the Big Sky or Summit. Right now Men's Bball is arguably the third most popular sport on campus. Our fan base didn't even get too excited when UNI came to town as a top 20 team...which is a bit sad. Quote
Gothmog Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 4 minutes ago, dmksioux said: I'm pretty impartial. When we first went DI, I was hoping for the Summit/MVFC. Both the Summit and Big Sky have schools I like to see UND play. Both conferences also have some dogs as well. Both are fine conferences and I'd be happy with UND in either the Big Sky or Summit. Right now Men's Bball is arguably the third most popular sport on campus. Our fan base didn't even get too excited when UNI came to town as a top 20 team...which is a bit sad. You need to re-energize your basketball fan base. An NCAA hoops tournament appearance would do wonders. Quote
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.