SHAC vs. Betty

[zonadub]

Don't hate the Summit, just prefer the Big Sky.

[sprig]

On 10/6/2016 at 5:02 AM, sprig said:

Beer stand behind the bleachers only.  Not sure what the plans are for the space that was the lounge.

The concessions and beer rooms in the old lounge are now offices, one housing the video board equipment. Hasn't been decided yet whether a portable beer vendor will be put in the lounge area. Maybe if everyone asked nicely?

[Hammersmith]

23 hours ago, The Sicatoka said:

Probably the same folks that estimated some of those old Dakota Field crowds back in the day.

These days I can believe NDSU attendance numbers. 

Exactly the same folks. I believe the FB numbers from that era just as equally as the BB numbers; i.e. not at all. Some of those reported crowds were ridiculous, and not in a good way. 

[Hammersmith]

On ‎10‎/‎7‎/‎2016 at 8:45 AM, siouxfan512 said:

I've asked this before, and I'm not sure I ever received a real answer, but what is the opposition to joining the summit? I for one, do like the Big Sky ... for the most part. About half the teams intrigue me, there are a few that don't, but overall I'm not don't know what the big difference is between Big Sky and Summit .... particularly for basketball.

Again, to be clear, I do like the Big Sky conference and am not calling for a conference change, but am inquiring about it. Big Sky and Summit both get an entry into the NCAA tourney. Summit would allow for less travel expenses. Big Sky would keep you with the one overall conference affiliation. Is it the opinion of most or some, that Summit Basketball isn't as talented as Big Sky? I'm not a great basketball mind, so I have no clue, but it seems that the Summit has done better than the Big Sky in terms of NCAA performances, at least recently.

Obviously, invitations and discussions need to be had before a conference move were to take place, just curious what the opposition is to the Summit. Personally I think you try to stick in the Big Sky, but eliminate some sports. The athletic department is just stretch too thin. I don't like eliminating sports or opportunities for kids, but that may just be the reality UND has to face.

My opinion as an outsider is that there are a few different reasons depending on the poster involved.

Some view it the same as NDSU fans did back in the early 2000s. Back then, we didn't know many FCS-level schools, and that list pretty much started and ended with Montana and Montana State. So when it came time to look for a conference, it was pretty much a given that we would look to the Big Sky. Quite honestly, it was a decision made in ignorance. I don't mean that in a bad way, just that we were uninformed when it came to DI/FCS. We latched onto the only thing we knew rather than educate ourselves as to whether it was the best situation or not. You guys were a little better off since you were able to watch us for those first four years, but I often see signs of the same attitude in UND posters that NDSU posters once had.

A second reason has to do with Douple(Summit commissioner) and the Fighting Sioux nickname. Many have not, and will never, forgive him for trying to get UND to drop the nickname. I know that some(most?) on here disagree, but I still think he was working with Kelley and was actually trying to help the school. But for those emotionally invested in the nickname, they want nothing to do with him. Their hatred of Douple extends to the conference as a whole.

Then there are a few who like the idea that UND got into the Big Sky when NDSU tried and failed to do the same. I don't think there are all that many UND fans that have that view as their primary or only reason for wanting to stay in the Big Sky, but I think there are more than a few that view it as a nice bonus when added to better reasons.

As an outsider, the whole "peer institutions" argument just seems fishy. I believe most of the posters using it do believe in what they're saying, but I just have a feeling that they are lying to themselves. I think they actually fall into one of the cases above(especially the first), but try to latch onto a reason that sounds better to themselves. But that's just opinion on my part based on some observations over the years(mainly that their reasons for staying in the Big Sky keep changing, and that "peer institutions" is the current flavor). 

[Cratter]

You must spend a lot of time analyzing UND fans.

[bincitysioux]

On 10/7/2016 at 8:45 AM, siouxfan512 said:

I've asked this before, and I'm not sure I ever received a real answer, but what is the opposition to joining the summit?

For me personally in no particular order:

• Stability.  5 of the 6 founding members of the Big Sky are members of the conference today.
• The institutions:  Particularly Montana, Montana St., Weber St., Idaho, and UC Davis.  We will always be peers/have relationships with NDSU, USD, and SDSU due to history and location.  Not so much with the other schools.
• Location:  Many Big Sky locations are near large concentrations of UND Alumni, which helps for fundraising.  Personally as someone who likes to travel to away games, it is much more enjoyable traveling to many Big Sky locales than it is to places like Macomb, Illinois and such.
• Scheduling:  I love the fact that we can schedule former NCC schools for non-confenence games and are guaranteed games against quality names like the Montanas, Weber, etc........  
• Conference Continuity:  The fewer conferences the better.  It isn't ideal to have one league for mens hockey, another for womens hockey, another for football, and another for basketball.  Hard to build rivalries
• Tom Douple:  Hammersmith is right, I can't stand that guy.