Big Sky vs. SumValley: 2015-16 Edition

[bincitysioux]

I think a lot of people liked the BSC tournaments being held at the regular season champion's location (something people laughed at the SL about) but now that's gone, Sioux Falls is closer than Reno for a basketball tournament. You mention WSU, but how about Sac St, ISU, NAU, EWU people still don't know who those teams are. The Dakota 3, with Omaha and Denver are well known in Grand Forks. I wouldn't mind BSC football and the SL basketball/volleyball with potential membership into the MVFC if one of those eastern teams bail. 

I agree that the Big Sky's decision to change the format of the Basketball tournament was an unfortunate one.  However, I also think the location of the Summit tournament is a weak argument as well.  Based on the number of fans that show up for games at the Sioux Center, I find it unlikely that North Dakota would have a large contingent of fans at a conference basketball tournament regardless of where it was held, except of course in Grand Forks.

I've attended games all over the country and have come to the conclusion that UND fans really don't travel well unless the game is being played on ice.

[SooToo]

my question is why do you prefer it? Not saying you should or should not. Just curious.

 

A number of reasons; 1) Aside from the Twin Cities, UND alumni tend to be located more in the west than the traditional Midwest; 2) Big Sky locations are more attractive than those in the Summit/MVFC; 3) Member schools, including the Montanas and Idahos, tend to look more like UND, academically, than Summit schools; 4) The Big Sky provides a home for most UND sports, a positive as we're already spread across multiple conferences, when hockey is factored in. This should allow fans to become accustomed to the competition; 5) Much more confidence in the leadership and the stability of the Big Sky.

When Faison discussed the decision to  cancel the Summit visit, he termed it a "no-brainer" once a Big Sky offer came through. The Sky also was the "Promised Land" at the AC, too, until they were turned down a couple of times. Their boosters in the Fargo media -- and that's the media for the entire RRV and the eastern half of the state -- have worked hard to pump the AC and SumValley, and denegrate the Big Sky, ever since. Unfortunately, lots of UND fans have swallowed the bait.

UND needs to do more to promote it participation in a very good conference. First step is putting competitive teams on the court and field. That might generate more sustainable interest from the fan base. I also wish the school was doing a whole lot more to sell the Big Sky, both formally through advertising and informally through interviews and other direct promotion. (Bohl and the AC coaches never missed an opportunity to pimp for the Summit/MVFC in their early years in D1.) 

I don't comprehend what conference affiliation has to do with your chosen style of play in football; you better have a solid defense and not be one-dimensional on offense no matter where you play. Cal Poly seems to do just fine in the Big Sky. On-the-road attendance also seems to be a red herring as even in the best scenario, only a small minority of fans are likely to travel to most road games. I guess the Summit BB tourney in SD is good if you like giving the same 1-2 teams home court advantage every year. There's also no reason UND can't play the other Dakota schools, UNI and Omaha with some regularity in non-conference play

 

[Dustin]

A number of reasons; 1) Aside from the Twin Cities, UND alumni tend to be located more in the west than the traditional Midwest; 2) Big Sky locations are more attractive than those in the Summit/MVFC; 3) Member schools, including the Montanas and Idahos, tend to look more like UND, academically, than Summit schools; 4) The Big Sky provides a home for most UND sports, a positive as we're already spread across multiple conferences, when hockey is factored in. This should allow fans to become accustomed to the competition; 5) Much more confidence in the leadership and the stability of the Big Sky.

When Faison discussed the decision to  cancel the Summit visit, he termed it a "no-brainer" once a Big Sky offer came through. The Sky also was the "Promised Land" at the AC, too, until they were turned down a couple of times. Their boosters in the Fargo media -- and that's the media for the entire RRV and the eastern half of the state -- have worked hard to pump the AC and SumValley, and denegrate the Big Sky, ever since. Unfortunately, lots of UND fans have swallowed the bait.

UND needs to do more to promote it participation in a very good conference. First step is putting competitive teams on the court and field. That might generate more sustainable interest from the fan base. I also wish the school was doing a whole lot more to sell the Big Sky, both formally through advertising and informally through interviews and other direct promotion. (Bohl and the AC coaches never missed an opportunity to pimp for the Summit/MVFC in their early years in D1.) 

I don't comprehend what conference affiliation has to do with your chosen style of play in football; you better have a solid defense and not be one-dimensional on offense no matter where you play. Cal Poly seems to do just fine in the Big Sky. On-the-road attendance also seems to be a red herring as even in the best scenario, only a small minority of fans are likely to travel to most road games. I guess the Summit BB tourney in SD is good if you like giving the same 1-2 teams home court advantage every year. There's also no reason UND can't play the other Dakota schools, UNI and Omaha with some regularity in non-conference play

 

I like everything you're saying.  The only thing I wish were different was that at least NDSU (South Dakota schools I could take or leave) were also in the Big Sky.  I too dream of a conference with all of the major state school from the northern plains and northern rockies together.

[darell1976]

A number of reasons; 1) Aside from the Twin Cities, UND alumni tend to be located more in the west than the traditional Midwest; 2) Big Sky locations are more attractive than those in the Summit/MVFC; 3) Member schools, including the Montanas and Idahos, tend to look more like UND, academically, than Summit schools; 4) The Big Sky provides a home for most UND sports, a positive as we're already spread across multiple conferences, when hockey is factored in. This should allow fans to become accustomed to the competition; 5) Much more confidence in the leadership and the stability of the Big Sky.

When Faison discussed the decision to  cancel the Summit visit, he termed it a "no-brainer" once a Big Sky offer came through. The Sky also was the "Promised Land" at the AC, too, until they were turned down a couple of times. Their boosters in the Fargo media -- and that's the media for the entire RRV and the eastern half of the state -- have worked hard to pump the AC and SumValley, and denegrate the Big Sky, ever since. Unfortunately, lots of UND fans have swallowed the bait.

UND needs to do more to promote it participation in a very good conference. First step is putting competitive teams on the court and field. That might generate more sustainable interest from the fan base. I also wish the school was doing a whole lot more to sell the Big Sky, both formally through advertising and informally through interviews and other direct promotion. (Bohl and the AC coaches never missed an opportunity to pimp for the Summit/MVFC in their early years in D1.) 

I don't comprehend what conference affiliation has to do with your chosen style of play in football; you better have a solid defense and not be one-dimensional on offense no matter where you play. Cal Poly seems to do just fine in the Big Sky. On-the-road attendance also seems to be a red herring as even in the best scenario, only a small minority of fans are likely to travel to most road games. I guess the Summit BB tourney in SD is good if you like giving the same 1-2 teams home court advantage every year. There's also no reason UND can't play the other Dakota schools, UNI and Omaha with some regularity in non-conference play

 

Correct me if I am wrong but the only sport the BSC support that the SL doesn't that UND participates in is football. Big Sky doesn't have baseball and S/D but the SL does. And as Faison saying the BSC was a no brainer had to do with a home for football, SL didn't provide that and the deal with USD going to the MVFC wasn't known at that time.

[SooToo]

Correct me if I am wrong but the only sport the BSC support that the SL doesn't that UND participates in is football. Big Sky doesn't have baseball and S/D but the SL does. And as Faison saying the BSC was a no brainer had to do with a home for football, SL didn't provide that and the deal with USD going to the MVFC wasn't known at that time.

Hockey, football and basketball are the major revenue-generating sports, and those followed by a large fan base. Football being "the only" sport not included in the Summit is a big exclusion. Entering SumValley would split major sports between 3 different leagues. Not a good thing. As to the offer from the the Big Sky, any uncertainty about football was not part of the explanation I heard at that time from Faison, who described the Big Sky as one of the "premiere" conferences in all of FCS. 

Edited September 24, 2015 by SooToo

[jackal]

2 hours ago, UND-FB-FAN said:

If he thinks that, good for him. Also in that scenario, I respectfully disagree with his assessment of the programs, and I hope UND stomps all over SDSU in the not-so-distant future. SDSU lost last season to a Big Sky Conference team in the postseason; I certainly hope UND is not that far behind or else ...

Yes, we got beat by 7. The Grizz pounded UND 42-16. The Jacks also smoked the Big Sky champ 55-10. What's your point?

[UND-FB-FAN]

3 hours ago, Sampson said:

 

Until UND actually does something in football like beat SDSU, I don't see why any football recruit, with all things equal, would choose UND over SDSU. That can change with the potential UND may have like they did in D2, but until that actually happens, UND remains a D1 team that has never even made the playoffs.  These kids don't know, and don't care what happened 10+ years ago.  It's all about what's happening right before their eyes, and right now in D1 SDSU is a much better program than UND.  The only possible thing UND could sell over SDSU is the opportunity to get the program back on the right track.

Of course you don't see how that's possible; you're horribly biased towards NDSU and the MVFC. 

SDSU is not "much better" right now.

2015 UND record: 7-4

2015 SDSU record: 8-4

Not to mention SDSU lost to Big Sky Conference opponent Montana in the playoffs. 

There's not that much discrepancy at all.

[Bison Dan]

24 minutes ago, UND-FB-FAN said:

Of course you don't see how that's possible; you're horribly biased towards NDSU and the MVFC. 

SDSU is not "much better" right now.

2015 UND record: 7-4

2015 SDSU record: 8-4

Not to mention SDSU lost to Big Sky Conference opponent Montana in the playoffs. 

There's not that much discrepancy at all.

Comparing conference records from different conferences means little.  SDSU beat the BSC conference champs 55-10 and lost to UM in the playoffs by 7 points. UM killed you guys with their 3rd string qb.   If you want think you're the same - go for it.  

[FSSD]

4 hours ago, geaux_sioux said:

Regardless of how close we are to being at that level right now we have never played in a playoff game at this level and they've played in many. If not for NDSU they would have made a few deep runs.

I have always found the MVFC beating up on each other and preventing deep runs for SDSU interesting.  The Big Sky has ended SDSU season more often - Montana (2), EWU (1).  And NDSU/MVFC (2).

[UND-FB-FAN]

26 minutes ago, Bison Dan said:

Comparing conference records from different conferences means little.  SDSU beat the BSC conference champs 55-10 and lost to UM in the playoffs by 7 points. UM killed you guys with their 3rd string qb.   If you want think you're the same - go for it.  

UND also played that game without their starting QB. Also, UND's best defensive back was slowed down with injury, so, what's your point? You're commenting just to pound your figurative NDSU chest; good for you. 

[geaux_sioux]

22 minutes ago, FSSD said:

I have always found the MVFC beating up on each other and preventing deep runs for SDSU interesting.  The Big Sky has ended SDSU season more often - Montana (2), EWU (1).  And NDSU/MVFC (2).

The two times NDSU beat them they had really really good teams that could have pushed deep into the playoffs.

[nodak651]

46 minutes ago, Bison Dan said:

Comparing conference records from different conferences means little.  SDSU beat the BSC conference champs 55-10 and lost to UM in the playoffs by 7 points. UM killed you guys with their 3rd string qb.   If you want think you're the same - go for it.  

Montana lost two 3 Big Sky teams this year, and only beat ISU as a result of lucky play in overtime.  Yet Montana beat both NDSU and SDSU this year.  Big Sky isn't as bad as you want to believe.

[The Sicatoka]

This thread is best summed up as ...

[UNDBIZ]

19 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

This thread is best summed up as ...

[darell1976]

Our conference is better than yours. 

[fgoSioux]

On 9/24/2015 at 7:11 PM, geaux_sioux said:

Our top three sports are hockey football and basketball. We're in a solid hockey only conference so that's irrelevant in the conference discussion. MVFC > Big Sky, by a lot. It also fits our recruiting footprint better and our philosophy better. It's also easier to get people to come and see teams they used to come and see than teams like Sac St Idaho St EWU Weber St and so on, nobody around here cares about or knows about them. Even EWU. Outside of MSU and Montana there is no interest at all. The Summit > BigSky in basketball. The Big Sky is terrible for basketball and also doesn't fit our recruiting. Throw in the money saved on travel and how easy it would be to market familiar opponents and it seems like an obvious choice if there's an opportunity. 

Nailed it...Imagine a parent in Wisc, or the twin Cities.   Now figure their costs to away games VS driving to UNI, ILL St. ECT...No comparison    Or kids in Illinois... This area of the country the MV/Summit is just a better fit by far...Not sure how anyone can argue different..

[homer]

26 minutes ago, fgoSioux said:

Nailed it...Imagine a parent in Wisc, or the twin Cities.   Now figure their costs to away games VS driving to UNI, ILL St. ECT...No comparison    Or kids in Illinois... This area of the country the MV/Summit is just a better fit by far...Not sure how anyone can argue different..

Your example is great for a family in Wisconsin.  Use those same examples for a family in Dickinson, Bismarck or Minot.  Location is a tough argument.  

In my view facilities, winning and relationships are more important for recruiting.  

Also need to factor the location of alumni after they leave GF.

[fgoSioux]

52 minutes ago, homer said:

Your example is great for a family in Wisconsin.  Use those same examples for a family in Dickinson, Bismarck or Minot.  Location is a tough argument.  

In my view facilities, winning and relationships are more important for recruiting.  

Also need to factor the location of alumni after they leave GF.

But we get way more kids from Minnesota/Wisconsin/SD/NEB  then out west.  Not even comparable.  Really doesn't matter where alumni live because they usually don't attend away games.   That said I would guess a high percentage of alum live in Minneapolis area compared to out west.     

 

I guess we will agree to disagree, I think other than the Montana schools the Big Sky doesn't offer us much.   Nobody cares about Port ST, Idaho ST, Sac St N Arizona ect....

[homer]

5 minutes ago, fgoSioux said:

But we get way more kids from Minnesota/Wisconsin/SD/NEB  then out west.  Not even comparable.  Really doesn't matter where alumni live because they usually don't attend away games.   That said I would guess a high percentage of alum live in Minneapolis area compared to out west.     

 

I guess we will agree to disagree, I think other than the Montana schools the Big Sky doesn't offer us much.   Nobody cares about Port ST, Idaho ST, Sac St N Arizona ect....

We'll agree to disagree.  Kids want to play where they win.  

I live in Fargo hear the same arguments as above.  I don't buy into any of them.  

[jdub27]

13 minutes ago, fgoSioux said:

I guess we will agree to disagree, I think other than the Montana schools the Big Sky doesn't offer us much.   Nobody cares about Port ST, Idaho ST, Sac St N Arizona ect....

What schools do people care about in the Summit/MVFC? NDSU and maybe the South Dakota schools? Both conferences have more than their share of what can be considered undesirables.