Big Sky Expansion Already Decided

[WYOBISONMAN]

In the end the Bison are the odds on favorite to get in. Nothing is for sure, but my money would be on the Bison....We should see some indication by the 6pm news and sports tonight. I am sure the Sky will do a study and then hand out the invites. In any event, the DU rumor seems to have lost all legitimacy.

[star2city]

Looks like the Big Sky expansion has been pushed back to next spring: BSC expansion. My hunch is still on the Denver / UNC pair.

The Portland State AD has an interesting take on this topic:

The Big Sky Conference Commissioner was recently quoted as saying that the Big Sky is looking at expansion more seriously than in recent years. Do you believe that expansion will occur and who will be selected?

I would rather not try to speculate as to who might be selected, but I do believe that expansion is going to happen. The Big Sky has eight members and that is a small number by conference standards these days. To conduct a championship in any sport you must have six members competing and you must have six championships to receive an Automatic Qualification in men’s basketball.

A nine-team league would make for better football scheduling, but it would make for more difficult scheduling of the other sports that play a home-and-home style schedule (basketball, volleyball).

He seems to imply that a 10/9 schedule (10 bball/9football) would be best, exactly what Denver has been approaching the WAC about.

[bisonguy]

He seems to imply that a 10/9 schedule (10 bball/9football) would be best, exactly what Denver has been approaching the WAC about.

Looks like the Big Sky hasn't really decided how many teams they might expand to -

From the Big Sky Conference link you provided-

The Presidents Council discussed adding between one and three schools or remaining at the current eight-team makeup.

Maybe even an 11/10 schedule (NDSU, SDSU, Denver-if they don't go to the WAC)

Fullerton has stated that he wants football attendance to average around 15,000. You can't average that many if you don't have that many seats (SDSU and NDSU are the only teams expressing interest that have that capacity- the others aren't even close).

[star2city]

Fullerton has stated that he wants football attendance to average around 15,000. You can't average that many if you don't have that many seats (SDSU and NDSU are the only teams expressing interest that have that capacity- the others aren't even close).

The stand Fullerton is making about the Big Sky potentially being a D-I football conference (rather than D-IAA) is strange. With their stadiums, Idaho State and Eastern Washington also would have no hope of meeting the 15,000 attendance requirements. What is he going to do with them? Kick them out? Fullerton's statement's seem just a ploy to keep Montana and maybe Sac State and N. Arizona happy, all of whom are possible WAC I-A candidates.

[tony]

I was wondering about that too, Star2City.

Here's the situation:

I know that Eastern Washington is spending a million or two improving their stadium, but they are only expanding it up to 11,000. However, they also play some games at nearby Albi Stadium which holds 28000+ for big games. Portland State, Sacramento State, and Montana can hold 20,000+. Northern Arizona and Montana State can hold 15000+. Idaho State can hold 12,000. They've got the capacity but there would have to be dramatic increases in crowds to get the average to 15000. Getting NDSU would help raise the average, but even NDSU would have to increase attendance substantially to make even a minor difference.

Anyway, I believe one of the ways you can satisfy the 15000 rule is to be part of a conference that averages 15000 per home game overall. Getting to that average would make for a much more stable DI-A conference if they ever decide to go that route.

[WYOBISONMAN]

My take.....NDSU needs to make sure we look good so we get a date to the big dance....the suitor is looking for a date!

[The Sicatoka]

Anyway, I believe one of the ways you can satisfy the 15000 rule is to be part of a conference that averages 15000 per home game overall. Getting to that average would make for a much more stable DI-A conference if they ever decide to go that route.

The "conference average" rule went away on 08/01/04 when the new 15000 average went into effect. The rule in place now does allow use of a "neutral" field for one game a year by a school and calling it a home game for attendance counting purposes (ala Wyoming playing Tennessee in Nashville and counting it as a home game for attendance).

20.9.6.3 Football-Attendance Requirements. [i-A]The institution annually shall average at least 15,000 in actual attendance for all home football games. (Revised: 4/25/02, effective 8/1/04)

PS - In 2003, Montana averaged over 19000. Everyone else in the BSC was under 10000. BSC #2 in attendance Montana State averaged 48 more fans per home game than North Dakota. (Data from the NCAA stats site.) We're talking a 50% increase in attendence for almost the whole league to be DI-A.

[NDSU grad]

The "conference average" rule went away on 08/01/04 when the new 15000 average went into effect. The rule in place now does allow use of a "neutral" field for one game a year by a school and calling it a home game for attendance counting purposes (ala Wyoming playing Tennessee in Nashville and counting it as a home game for attendance).

PS - In 2003, Montana averaged over 19000. Everyone else in the BSC was under 10000. BSC #2 in attendance Montana State averaged 48 more fans per home game than North Dakota. (Data from the NCAA stats site.) We're talking a 50% increase in attendence for almost the whole league to be DI-A.

[The Sicatoka]

My attendance numbers were for the 2002-2003 academic year. That would be for the 2002 football season. Sorry.

Didn't Montana State have the home game with Montana in 2003? It'll be interesting to see how the numbers come out this year (meaning do they oscillate based on whether or not they host Montana).

[The Sicatoka]

Sac St. and Portland St., IMO, would have no problem making 15,000 if they were IA. Weber St. and Northern Arizona would have problems. Montana St. might be able to do it if they keep winning. Out of the four schools talked about for expansion, NDSU is the only school with any possibility of making it.

As far as any chance of making it, UNC would have a great shot at making the numbers if they could play Colorado or CSU in Mile High (as a pseudo-home game).

Still, Sac State and PSU would each need to do 2.5 times attendance of what they do today. That'd take some serious work (or a home game versus Cal or Stanford in Sac State's case, or Oregon or OSU in PSU's case).

[WYOBISONMAN]

I wonder what a CSU/UNC or a CU/UNC game would draw at Mile High? Any speculation? I have absolutely no idea on that one.....

[The Sicatoka]

I'd speculate that CU or CSU would draw what they draw for a home game if they played UNC in Mile High. (Big limb to go out on there.) You wouldn't have as many students but you'd get the folks who can't get other CU or CSU "home" tickets.

The difference: UNC could count it as a home game and toward their per game average. (You can do that with one game per season.)

[WYOBISONMAN]

Fullerton mentioned that he wants to get the average attendance forthe BSC up to 15,000 for home games. Obviously you have to have 15,000 seats to do that and that is where UNC is lacking. The Mile High theory is one way they could make it, but only with the help of CU or CSU (and I actually think it would need to be CU to get a big enough crowd to offset the size of Nottingham Field). I think that in the end Fullerton would like the option of taking the BSC D1A. NDSU and SDSU already have large enough facilities. They just need to get butts in the seats. I think that Eastern Washington and Idaho State also have facilities with under the 15,000 seats (and of course you want more than 15,000 for those bad games when there would be less....so you can make the average). You need to come over to Bisonville and discuss this.....We are not supposed to discuss this on the Sioux Board according to administration .

[elmduf]

I doubt that CSU or CU would sign a contract with a 1-AA school allowing them to have a home game of any kind. The interest here would be minimal. Who would pay to drive to Mile High/Invesco to watch UNC receive a butt whooping from a D-1 school?

Wouldn't happen folks...

Looking at CSU's schedule...they play Colorado on the road (a bit of a rivalry, although CU historically dominates. Lately CSU has been winning. But it isn't anywhere near as fun as UND/NDSU was...) , USC on the road...(a $$$ game for CSU, hopefully they don't get beat up too badly..ouch!) Then come the Goofers...the only D-1 game I'll go to this year! Go Rams!!!!

After these games, they get to lick their wounds and play the 1st string in the first half against Montana State. then the 2nd and 3rd string in the second half against and collect an easy win. Montana State gets to collect extra $$$ for their efforts.

Then it's on to the Mountain West Conference schedule. Of course, the MWC is not a top D-1 conference, but it still is a huge step above 1-AA. When I was in Fargo two weeks ago, I saw the billboards for the first Divsion 1 game against Valap...whatever. I wanted to get up there and add a big "AA" after Division 1. Sorry, but D-1AA is a jump from Division II, but it still isn't D-1.

The only reason that UNC or any 1-AA (note.... 1-AA, not division 1) school plays at Colorado or Colorado State is for the $$$. Possibly against a lower level MWC school there is the off chance to get a win. However, CSU isn't a lower level MWC school. UNC would only show up in Ft. Collins to collect the $$$ and get a bit of exposure. There is no chance of CSU playing at UNC, SDSU or NDSU. Won't happen. The don't have a big enough gate to do it.

Now I hear that NDSU, SDSU and UNC are trying to get into the Big Sky. I say good luck to all of them. Seriously. I'd like to see UND go 1-AA and challenge them in the Big Sky. Maybe we'd give NDSU another shot at the nickel.

[WYOBISONMAN]

Two years ago Wyoming played Tenn. at Nashville and got to count it as a home game for Wyoming....seems strange.....doesn't seem right.....but that is what happend. I doubt too that CU or CSU would ever give a deal like that to UNC, but it would be within the rules of the NCAA.

[nodakvindy]

Tennessee and Wyoming had a traditional home and home agreement. The first game was in Knoxville. The second was supposed to be in Laramie, but the Nashville Athletic Commission offered the University of Wyoming $2 million (give or take) to play the game at Adelphia Coliseum, affectively buying them out. They accepted and were still the "home" team for the game. Nice money for the school, but a pretty shoddy thing to do to your fanbase at home. It would have been a real treat for them to see Tennessee in person. But that's life in big time college football.

[elmduf]

I agree that it would be within the rules to have a home game for UNC @ Invesco/Mile High, but it won't happen.

I read in the Denver Post that Sonny Lubick is for having a game scheduled with UNC. No doubt it will be on CSU's terms.

I also think that UNC needs to shore up it's facilities to complete @ D-1AA. Their basketball arena is a joke, but the football stadium isn't too bad. I would have to say that UND and NDSU have much better athletic facilities than UNC.

I will probably go to the NDSU/UNC game and maybe another game or two in Greeley this year. I think they have a decent schedule and the games should be fun...inexpensive and not the huge hassle it is to go to both CSU and CU games. I look forward to it. Anyone coming down for the NDSU/UNC game?

[star2city]

A couple of further comments from yesterday:

From the Big Sky press release, there was one especially curious statement: “official letters of interest” will be required. To my knowledge, that is an uncommon and publicly awkward requirement by a conference, especially for schools already in another conference. Last week’s comment to the media by the WAC Commissioner, Karl Benson, on the possibility of going to a 10/9 arrangement and more specifically, naming Denver as a school he has talked with, seemed timed perfectly to cause a disruption. My point is this: by publicly revealing that Denver was talking with the WAC, Benson immediately and maybe purposely raised eyebrows among Big Sky presidents, privately causing them to question Denver’s potential commitment to the Big Sky. The letter of intent would force Denver’s hand. If Benson really was serious about adding Denver, and Denver really had an imminent deal with the Big Sky, Benson’s calculated statements bought the WAC time.

Secondly, it was really rather curious (IMO anyway), that on the same day that Northern Colorado did not receive immediate acceptance into the Big Sky, the Altitude network immediately thereafter announces a deal with UNC. Circumstantial?

Thirdly, in the Sioux Falls A-L this week, there was this quote from U of Montana President Dennison:

"We thought it was important, or at least some people thought it was important, to let things settle out (with other conferences) before we went ahead," Dennison said. "It's always been clear we could use one to three more members to hedge against that lower limit to qualify for tournaments, basketball specifically." . . .

Let’s see, potential members that hedge against the lower limit:

Southern Utah: immediate hedge

Northern Colorado: provides hedge in 2007-2008

NDSU & SDSU: provide hedge in 2008-2009

Denver: provides immediate hedge

So, if youre buying insurance, who are you going to pick: a company that provides immediate coverage or a company that will provide coverage in four years, but you’ll have four years of premiums either way?

Delaying the expansion only helps NDSU and SDSU’s cause. By being involved in a conference “beauty contest” over the winter, it certainly can’t hurt their recruiting or fan interest until at least next spring. The biggest supporter of NDSU and SDSU, Montana State’s President Gamble certainly must understand this. It's rather ironic that he's the only prez that missed the meeting, due to a flight cancellation.

Finally, wouldn’t it be hilarious if Terry Wanless is selected as the AD for the traveling review committee? Would bisson backers be able to stomach sucking up to him? Not that Terry would expect that or anything, but I'd like to be a fly on the wall during that visit.

[aff]

A couple of further comments from yesterday:

From the Big Sky press release, there was one especially curious statement:

[The Sicatoka]

Yet all through this, one troubling item, one item that Fullerton even recently specifically mentioned, remains.

[UND92,96]

If I had to guess, I would say UNC, NDSU, and SDSU all get in.  NDSU/SDSU come as a pair and offer good fb/bb repectively to the conference, as well as excellent facilities. 

Not that it really has much of anything to do with the premise of this thread, but seriously, since when is the BSA an excellent basketball facility? On the contrary, I think most NDSU basketball fans feel the BSA is in dire need of a major renovation, or better yet that a new facility be constructed.

[NDSU grad]

[UND92,96]

Believe it or not, the BSA is an excellent bball facility compared to UNC's.  And if you have decent attendance, does it really matter? 

I certainly wouldn't dispute that both the UNC basketball program and facility are jokes. It wasn't my intention to use the quality of b-ball facilities as a measure of who will or should be invited to join the Big Sky. Frankly, it is of no particular relevance to me. Rather, I am interested in a Bison fan's opinion of whether the BSA needs to be renovated, replaced or left as it is.

You are correct with regard to the fact that ultimately, if attendance is good enough it probably doesn't matter. However, it does or at least can matter with regard to recruiting. And considering that NDSU men's basketball was generally a middle-of-the-pack program in the NCC, it would seem that a new facility could be the impetus behind getting the men's program to the level where I'm sure it wants to be, both in terms of recruiting and generating fan interest. One thing is for certain--NDSU needs its men's basketball program to make money. Whether it can do so in a fairly out-of-date facility, especially considering the probable difficulty there will be in scheduling non-conference games against quality opponents, is an unknown.

[The Sicatoka]

From the BSC press release:

Some of the established criteria will include academic quality, athletic competitiveness, commitment to gender equity, commitment to student-athlete success and geography with regards to cost of travel and travel time.

Seems like geography and cost are relevant.

[WYOBISONMAN]

They are, but with a travel partner I would suspect many the NDSU/SDSU pair would be cheaper than some of the other BSC travel partners. Also remember that the BSC teams are still traveling long distances to play non-conference dates. This just means that travel money goes to conference travel instead of non-conference travel. The net result is probably nil in the budgets. The total number of games being played would not increase...only the number of conference games.