Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum

UND and the Big Sky could go FBS


SiouxVolley

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, SIOUXFAN97 said:

to 98% of college football fans if your school isn't fbs you are still d2..hence the espn tweet about wentz not playing against "d1 talent each and every week"

Is there a point in there? I'm pretty sure the millions of folks who have watched NDSU in the NCAA DI Basketball tournament, or filled out a bracket, had no such misunderstanding.

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Gothmog said:

Is there a point in there? I'm pretty sure the millions of folks who have watched NDSU in the NCAA DI Basketball tournament, or filled out a bracket, had no such misunderstanding.

 

they thought they were picking bucknell but when they tuned in they told there friends that that team has a pretty good hockey team...so yeah there is probably still some misunderstanding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, bison73 said:

I found his comment they were committed to funding football for now comment strange. I would assume they are committed to funding for football---period. Not just for now.

 

Or am I reading that wrong?

Can you provide a link to where this came from? I can promise you that dropping football is nowhere even close to being on the radar and am very interested what was actually said and in what context because it seems about as dumb as the UND dropping to D-2 stuff I have been hearing from FargoU fans.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jdub27 said:

Can you provide a link to where this came from? I can promise you that dropping football is nowhere even close to being on the radar and am very interested what was actually said and in what context because it seems about as dumb as the UND dropping to D-2 stuff I have been hearing from FargoU fans.

 

If it's really what he said, I would take it as a suggestion that cuts to the football program may be necessary at some point in the future. No more, no less.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bison73 said:

I found his comment they were committed to funding football for now comment strange. I would assume they are committed to funding for football---period. Not just for now.

 

Or am I reading that wrong?

Are you going off the interview today?  Because he said NOTHING along those lines and you completely twisted the words around.  Good lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bison73 said:

I found his comment they were committed to funding football for now comment strange. I would assume they are committed to funding for football---period. Not just for now.

 

Or am I reading that wrong?

He didn't say that, as least not how you've spun it.  "[R]ight now, for this institution, we are committed to having football".  It was in the context of conference affiliation; the gist being that when they look at conference affiliation, right now, they have to have a home for football. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, lawkota said:

He didn't say that, as least not how you've spun it.  "[R]ight now, for this institution, we are committed to having football".  It was in the context of conference affiliation; the gist being that when they look at conference affiliation, right now, they have to have a home for football. 

That's really not that much different. Either way there's an implication that at some point they might not be committed to "having" or "funding" Football. He needs to be more careful with his public statements.

  

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gothmog said:

That's really not that much different. Either way there's an implication that at some point they might not be committed to "having" or "funding" Football. He needs to be more careful with his public statements.

  

No there isn't. Go listen to it instead of spouting off about what other people wrote.

Faison was talking that currently, as he is speaking to them (because they asked about right now).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gothmog said:

That's really not that much different. Either way there's an implication that at some point they might not be committed to "having" or "funding" Football. He needs to be more careful with his public statements.

  

I read what bison73 wrote so I went and listened to the podcast.  What Faison said was nothing like what bison73 implied.  At least to me.  You take whatever you want out it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bison73 said:

I found his comment they were committed to funding football for now comment strange. I would assume they are committed to funding for football---period. Not just for now.

Or am I reading that wrong?

I listened to what he said and there is nothing strange about it. The whole conversation was based on conference affiliation and he stated that UND is committed to having football at the level it is at and stating there is basically two conference options for the geography where UND is located, the Big Sky and MVFC. Basically stating that the Summit talk is a non-starter unless there would be a possibility of being a football affiliate to the Big Sky. There was zero comments about funding as it relates to football. Where the hell do you come up with this stuff?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, UND1983 said:

No there isn't. Go listen to it instead of spouting off about what other people wrote.

Faison was talking that currently, as he is speaking to them (because they asked about right now).

Sorry, but the implication IS there. Words have meaning, he choose his poorly. Remove "right now" from what he said and the implication is not there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

I listened to what he said and there is nothing strange about it. The whole conversation was based on conference affiliation and he stated that UND is committed to having football at the level it is at and stating there is basically two conference options for the geography where UND is located, the Big Sky and MVFC. Basically stating that the Summit talk is a non-starter unless there would be a possibility of being a football affiliate to the Big Sky. There was zero comments about funding as it relates to football. Where the hell do you come up with this stuff?

Where? I took his comment from a conversation I had. Obviously the message was lost in translation as Ive listened to the comments and agree---where the hell did come up with that interpretation.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Gothmog said:

The thing that's interesting about the interview is that he does confirm that there have been conversations between UND and the MVFC about the possibility of expanding.

Considering multiple posters have said multiple times that there have been informal discussions for years, not sure why that's interesting. There isn't much of a conversation though since the MVFC position has always been that they have zero intentions of having an 11 team conference. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

Considering multiple posters have said multiple times that there have been informal discussions for years, not sure why that's interesting. There isn't much of a conversation though since the MVFC position has always been that they have zero intentions of having an 11 team conference. 

It's interesting because it's an official confirmation that UND is considering changing conferences, and has gone as far as making inquiries of a potential new conference. Perhaps, that has already been confirmed. If so, I'm not aware of it.

There's a pretty big difference in credibility between some guy on an internet message board and the AD of the university.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gothmog said:

It's interesting because it's an official confirmation that UND is considering changing conferences, and has gone as far as making inquiries of a potential new conference. Perhaps, that has already been confirmed. If so, I'm not aware of it.

There's a pretty big difference in credibility between some guy on an internet message board and the AD of the university.  

 

So you are going on record that UND wants the MVFC.

You will be highly disappointed when it you learn that UND isn't even pushing for it behind the scenes.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, SiouxVolley said:

So you are going on record that UND wants the MVFC.

You will be highly disappointed when it you learn that UND isn't even pushing for it behind the scenes.

You know this for a fact?

Why are you so against the Summit and the MVFC? It's obviously working out for the rest of the Dakota schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SiouxVolley said:

So you are going on record that UND wants the MVFC.

You will be highly disappointed when it you learn that UND isn't even pushing for it behind the scenes.

Where do you come up with that stuff?  Whoa--- there mule. He never said UND wants MVFC.  Plus why would anybody be disappointed if behind the scenes  UND wasnt looking at the MVFC???

 

It was your boy BF that mentioned the MVFC. You need to talk to him. :silly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...