Big Sky Expansion Already Decided

[The Sicatoka]

Because the SF Argus-Leader story will disappear over the weekend, I'll post it here.

This is a quote of a SF Argus-Leader story. Credit them.

Door to Big Sky still open for Jacks

Chris Solari

Argus Leader

published: 7/24/2004

School presidents to discuss expansion at Aug. 9 meeting

South Dakota State is back in the sights of the Big Sky Conference.

When the league held its preseason football meeting Monday in Flagstaff, Ariz., Big Sky Commissioner Doug Fullerton said the Aug. 9 conference presidents' meeting will focus on expansion, specifically mentioning four schools including SDSU.

"We are conducting an internal evaluation of every school that is available. ... And yes, that does include the Dakotas, yes that does include Northern Colorado, yes that does include Southern Utah - all the schools that are going to play I-AA," Fullerton said Monday, according to The Associated Press.

Those words are a distinct reverse in course from what the the Big Sky's presidents said in February 2003, the last time they met to talk about expansion. SDSU and North Dakota State jointly approached the Big Sky about membership last year, at which time Montana State President Geoffrey Gamble arranged that meeting.

Afterward, Gamble said, "The door isn't completely closed." But he also admitted that the idea of additional travel into the Dakotas made some of the league's top brass leery, and the leaders told SDSU and NDSU to look elsewhere for conference affiliation in their ascent to Division I.

"From my perspective, the Dakota schools have always been in the packages I've been interested in," Gamble said Friday.

"Part of what I hoped is that my colleagues would get to the point where they wanted to discuss expansion, and that's the point we're at now."

The Aug. 9 meeting is scheduled for 10 a.m. MDT in Salt Lake City. Dusty Clements, assistant commissioner for the Big Sky, said that it should last a few hours.

"It certainly would say that we're on their radar screen," SDSU athletic director Fred Oien said.

That radar didn't pick up SDSU last year for one major reason - geography. At that time, the Big Sky presidents felt the increased travel costs involved with adding the two Dakota schools made them unlikely targets for expansion. The presidents felt then that if expansion happened, it would be to the west.

Travel distance is certainly a topic that Gamble and his comrades will again discuss heavily this time. He said that SDSU President Peggy Miller and her NDSU counterpart Joseph Chapman have been working to allay some of those concerns.

"My perception is that my colleagues are more interested in seriously looking into expansion now than they were eight or nine months ago," Gamble said.

SDSU and NDSU enter their first year at Division I and I-AA for football as independent schools. Neither will be eligible for postseason NCAA competition until the 2008-09 school year.

"We talk about what South Dakota State could bring to a conference and our willingness to make that conference better," Oien said. "We understand we would be in the young crowd in any conference. We have some maturing to do ourselves, but we'll be able to bring things that will be beneficial to a lot of conferences."

Gene Taylor, NDSU's athletic director, told the Fargo Forum that he was "literally taken aback by the strength" of Fullerton's comments on Monday.

Fullerton was on vacation Friday and could not be reached.

One of the many rumors surrounding the Big Sky was that the conference was targeting former member Idaho for expansion if the Vandals returned to I-AA from I-A. Idaho recently accepted membership into the Western Athletic Conference, a league which plays I-A football.

Another rumor is that the entire league could potentially leave the Division I-AA football ranks for the big-time of I-A. The Big Sky presidents will also likely touch on that in Salt Lake City, Clements said.

"I think that will be discussed because (the presidents) will all be in a room at the same time, and that doesn't happen that often," Clements said.

Gamble said he doesn't expect the Big Sky to ask any schools to join at that time, but he admits that if six of the league's eight presidents vote yes that they could extend a membership offer that day. That is the required number of votes to make such a decision.

"We'll see how the conversation goes, to see if we're about to do that," Gamble said.

The presidents of the Mid-Continent Conference, the other league mentioned as a potential home for SDSU, met earlier this month and said they would continue to look at expansion. Tony Hamilton, the Mid-Continent's media director, said no further meetings have been scheduled. 

[The Sicatoka]

Add to this part of Fullerton's quote -

Unless Denver is looking at adding a I-AA football program, I doubt the Big Sky is contacting Denver.

I think you may need to re-read Fullerton's statement:

"We are conducting an internal evaluation of every school that is available. ... And yes, that does include the Dakotas, yes that does include Northern Colorado, yes that does include Southern Utah - all the schools that are going to play I-AA," Fullerton said Monday, according to The Associated Press.

It doesn't say those they are evaluating have to play DI-AA football. It says they'll be looking at the schools that are going to be playing DI-AA, however, it does not say that will happen at the exclusion of others (those who don't play DI-AA football).

The more important words are "... of every school that is available." The Sun Belt is coming apart. Who is available?

Gamble (Montana State, where NDSU's Chapman came from) is interested, but even he reiterates the past hurdle:

Afterward, Gamble said, "The door isn't completely closed." But he also admitted that the idea of additional travel into the Dakotas made some of the league's top brass leery, and the leaders told SDSU and NDSU to look elsewhere for conference affiliation in their ascent to Division I.

[bisonguy]

Sicatoka,

That Gamble quote is from the conference meeting in 2003 -

Those words are a distinct reverse in course from what the the Big Sky's presidents said in February 2003, the last time they met to talk about expansion. SDSU and North Dakota State jointly approached the Big Sky about membership last year, at which time Montana State President Geoffrey Gamble arranged that meeting.

Afterward, Gamble said, "The door isn't completely closed." But he also admitted that the idea of additional travel into the Dakotas made some of the league's top brass leery, and the leaders told SDSU and NDSU to look elsewhere for conference affiliation in their ascent to Division I.

NDSU and SDSU haven't actually played in I-AA, yet. His last statement of "all the schools that are going to play I-AA" to me seems to be a summary of the schools under consideration. It's a little interpretation, but you'd think he would have said "schools that are going to play I-AA or don't have football", much like the WAC stated they were looking for a non-football playing member.

[Bison_Kent]

Would DU rather be in the Sun Belt or the Big Sky or WCC*?

I am not sure why Denver would want to go to the Big Sky after coming from the Sun Belt. The Big Sky has a lesser RPI then the Sun Belt. Denver might just as well stay in the Sun Belt, where every so often a second NCAA basketball team is invited. The Big Sky likely will never have two teams get in the tournament as it hasn't happened in the past 20 years.

With multiple invites, a conference will recieve a higher percentage of the revenue from the CBS deal. I would think that Denver would stay put in the Sun Belt or go to the WAC or WCC (should an invite come) long before considering the Big Sky just for that reason alone.

And like it was pointed out before, Denver would still need to find homes for roughly half of their other sports in-which the Big Sky does not offer.

[The Sicatoka]

DU ended up in the Sun Belt because there was really no other home for them at the time. Now, with NMSU and a couple others leaving the Sun Belt it's even less attractive.

From chatting with some folks more familiar with DU athletics, back when they went DI DU's preference would have been the WCC.

DU already has teams playing in other conferences while they're in the Sun Belt today (hockey, lacrosse, independent gymnastics, skiing, and others). So the BSC wouldn't support all their athletic programs: That's nothing new to DU.

[WYOBISONMAN]

I would think the WAC would fit DU better than the WCC.....just from a geographic perspective.

[The Sicatoka]

I would think the WAC would fit DU better than the WCC.....just from a geographic perspective.

Same could almost be said for Gonzaga (WCC vs WAC).

[star2city]

I am not sure why Denver would want to go to the Big Sky after coming from the Sun Belt.

[Bison_Kent]

The Big Sky basketball tournament is hosted by the regular season winner and I don't recall any sponsorship by Coors. It wouldn't make much sense if Eastern Washington is the host like they were last year for the men's tournament.

I just don't see the Big Sky presidents wanting a non-football playing member. The Big Sky, while it is a great I-AA football league, is a small Division I conference on the whole so there likely will always be members looking for that next higher step like Sac State and Portland State looking for the next level such as the WAC. The WAC is a step above and could easily find replacements for a team that might leave from the Big Sky, WCC, or Big West. The Big Sky does not have this luxury.

[star2city]

From the Honolulu paper today:

Benson said the WAC is considering adding a 10th member that will compete in every sport but football.

Benson confirmed that he has met with officials from the University of Denver, although no offer has been made.

My interpretation of this is that Denver has a Big Sky offer in hand, and now is shopping for a better offer.

[jackrabbit1979]

Star,

From the last article from the Honolulu paper, how do you interpret that DU has an offer in hand from the Big Sky?

[WYOBISONMAN]

Yes, that one seems like a heck of a stretch to me too.

[star2city]

Long answer:

This is what I think is happening behind the scenes. First, Denver wants out of the now all-southeastern Sunbelt and into a new conference by the fall of 2005. If a better offer is available by delaying action, they might postpone a conference decision until next summer. The main things Denver offers a conference are media exposure, corporate support, and full membership in Div I.

The Mid-Con has probably had an informal offer outstanding on Denver for several months. The Mid-Con presidents met in early July and decided nothing, likely because Denver’s wheeling and dealing resulted in getting a better offer. The Mid-Con is the least desireable of options for Denver, but Denver has used this informal offer to gain leverage and a sense of urgency with other conferences. The Mid-Con also has to wait to see what Denver does, because Denver’s move could eventually affect their current members.

I still believe that the Big Sky is interested in Denver, in spite of what Fullerton may say in public about football schools. Adding Denver and UNC makes great sense: 10/9 arrangement, regional alignment, media, corporate sponsorships, easy travel, one fully qualified DI member, and only one probationary member. With the Big Sky’s level of basketball play, Denver would have a much better chance of getting in the NCAA’s than in the Sunbelt, so a basketball tradition could be built. Denver’s basketball tradition is their major roadblock into a conference like the MoValley or WAC, as they are less than a decade removed from Division II. If the Big Sky doesn’t take Denver, I don’t think they’ll take UNC at this time either. SUU is their emergency choice, and NDSU / SDSU are possiblities in 2008 at the earliest, due to the probation issues. The commish’s will always talk a good talk to keep interest up: that’s what their jobs are. They are even more likely to flatter you before you get rejected if their interest is longer-term.

With the MoValley, two schools would need to be added for Denver to get any consideration, as the MoValley wouldn’t expand from 10 to 11, but maybe from 10 to 12. If a MidCon school like Valpo (tradition) or UMKC (media) were also added, Denver’s chances improve, but this is still probably remote. If the MoValley thinks the MAC might bite off two schools (Ill. State, S. Ill, or SW Mo St.), this might be more serious.

The West Coast Conference was Denver’s inital target. Denver’s talks with the WAC also has an alterior motive: get the WAC to take Gonzaga. Then the WCC would almost have to take Denver. Denver might also be able to gain admission if the WCC added two schools, Denver and Pacific, for a total of ten schools.

The WAC is a far stretch. A Big Sky informal offer is enough to embolden Denver to aim even higher and their commish would at least listen (as he did), as Denver would fill a major media hole in the West. If the I-A WAC, that has nine football schools, would even consider adding a non-football school, why wouldn’t the Big Sky? For I-AA all-sports conferences, only the Big Sky, Southern and Southwestern conferences do not have non-football schools.

[bisonguy]

Denver's lack of track and cross country programs could be a stumbling block for a Big Sky invite. Fullerton's 30 minute interview on WDAY-AM tonight heavily empahsized the importance of track and cross country to the Big Sky.

Fullerton's statements of "only looking at all sports members", "must have all 13 core Big Sky sports", and "absolutely no affiliate members" seem to indicate that Denver is not getting any looks from the Big Sky.

The only schools mentioned as/were potential candidates for the Big Sky were NDSU, SDSU, UNC, SUU, SJSU, NMSU, UC-Davis, Cal-Poly and Idaho. He stated the last five schools listed were no longer possible candidates.

[The Sicatoka]

If the BSC is only looking at those remaining four, let's see how they fit into the BSC:

School - City, State Lat Lon

Montana - Missoula, MT 46.86 114.01

Montana State - Bozeman, MT 45.68 111.04

Weber State - Ogden, UT 41.23 111.97

Idaho State - Moscow, ID 46.73 117.00

E. Washington - Cheney. WA 47.49 117.59

Portand State - Portland, OR 45.52 122.68

N. Arizona - Flagstaff, AZ 35.19 111.65

Sacramento St. - Sacramento, CA 38.58 121.49

Big Sky Conference

Average 43.41 115.93

Max 47.49 122.68

Min 35.19 111.04

Possible expansion cities:

NDSU - Fargo, ND 46.88 96.79

SDSU - Brookings, SD 44.31 96.79

UNC - Greeley, CO 40.42 104.69

SUU - Cedar City, UT 37.79 113.07

I only see one that is within the existing footprint (max-mins): Cedar City, UT (SUU). I see one that is fairly close to being in the footprint (and it offers a United Airlines hub airport a short drive away plus a major western media market, namely Denver, nearby): Greeley, CO (UNC).

The other two are 15 degrees of longitude east of the eastern-most point of the footprint. That works out to be about 700 miles east of the eastern-most point, and about 1000 miles to the BSC "geographic average" point.

Geography just doesn't bode well for a couple of those remaining four.

[bisonguy]

Fullerton stated the academic profile and commitment to athletics was much more important than geography.

[NDSU grad]

I don't really think we need a detailed analysis of the latitude and longitude of the four schools to know that NDSU and SDSU are farther away from the Big Sky schools than SUU and UNC. As Bisonguy stated, that is one of many criteria. I'm not saying the SU's are a lock for the Big Sky, but it does look brighter than just a few months ago.

[Bison_Kent]

By the way, I saw a mistake in The Sicatoka longitude and latitude claim anyway. Idaho State is in Pocatello, not Moscow. U of Idaho is in Moscow and that school is now in the WAC.

[The Sicatoka]

I grabbed the wrong city off the NCAA list I have. Apologies.

However, Moscow, Pocatello, I'm sure that radically changes the geographic center of the Big Sky and definitely moves Bozeman closer than 700 miles away.

[WYOBISONMAN]

.....all I want to know is whether or not these Sioux fans will buy me a beer when they are proven wrong on this and the Bison are in the Sky.....after all, any vital issue really is over beer....

[PCM]

What the heck. I'll buy you a virtual beer right now.

[WYOBISONMAN]

Damnit.....I have to sit at my desk until 5pm and look at that beer....

[star2city]

.....all I want to know is whether or not these Sioux fans will buy me a beer when they are proven wrong on this and the Bison are in the Sky.....

According to this article (already posted on Bisonville), in spite of its support for an NDSU-Montana State rivalry, today may be another cry-in-your-beer-day for NDSU fans:

Here's another rumor, and it probably makes the most sense: That Northern Colorado will win this little mini-"Bacholerette" show and garner an invite. There's another rumor that UNC and the University of Denver will both get an invite, with Denver playing all sports but football.

For somebody like Sacramento State, Northern Colorado makes more sense. On Saturday Big Sky commissioner Doug Fullerton told the Fargo Forum, "There is one major problem (with the NDSU Bison), and that is where they live."

[tony]

Hahahahaha! Classic thread!

Sounds like a some of the UND fans/NDSU haters are sweating bullets...

[ScottM]

Sounds like a some of the UND fans/NDSU haters are sweating bullets...

Not as much as Chaps & Co., or the Fraud's editors, who hope and pray that they don't look like the biggest fools on the northern plains. Again.

Wonder if they've factored in increasing fuel prices into their travel "budgets"? Then again, in "Stream Yellow-ville" monetary issues are brushed aside in favor of fancies of playing Minnesota in the MetroDump, filling the FloodDome's seats with scarecrows and determining if nanotech can really co-exist with a flight path ...