UND's DI review committee

[IowaBison]

UND doesn't need to double its bottom line. An additional 3-4 million dollars, which is a lot of money, is what would be needed.

The argument, 'if other schools can do it, so can we' makes no sense.

[The Sicatoka]

as far as nonconference, why not spend some dollars to play teams in the gliac,miacc,rmac,and once in a while bring in, or go home and home with north alabama,kennisaw state,valdosta,bloomsburg...ect...there are over 250 div2 schools in america...

The issues are money and conference.

This travel you mention is the money part of that. Explain to me how non-conference travel to all of those places as a DII is any cheaper than non-conference travel to similar distance places as a DI?

I still say conference is the issue that is more important than money when discussing DI. Why? A known conference sets about half of your travel schedule per year. Knowing travel, even part of it, makes budgeting (money) easier to do. Not having a conference (completely unknown travel) means you start each budget cycle guessing how many miles you'll be travelling. And travel, at $2+ per gallon of gas, ain't cheap.

[The Sicatoka]

The argument, 'if other schools can do it, so can we' makes no sense.

Yup, you keep quoting Dr. Kupchella on that one and you keep being correct. :lol:

The argument, 'if other schools can do it, so can we' makes no sense.

Didn't NDSU and SDSU use the "all our old rivals moved up" argument (Montana, Montana St., et al) as part of their basis? Isn't that the exact same argument?

[The Sicatoka]

But Sikatoka you know, as do I, that sponsor does not have the same definition as require.

The need for a minimum number of sports, in my opinion, is that it prevents schools from cherry picking sports which defeats the whole point of having a conference.

I know sponsor doesn't equal require. I wish more conferences would sponsor sports (and allow associate members) and require fewer.

As far as cherry-picking, "so what" is what I say. Pick a few things that you can succeed at and do them exceptionally well. If Ohio State can do exceptionally well in 36 sports good for them. I won't be jealous, I'll just hope UND can do exceptionally well in the sports it's chosen.

The minimum sports thing is just a ploy by the big-budget schools to keep the schools that could be powerhouses in one or two sports from focusing on just those. In having to focus on maintaining a minimum number of sports those schools can't build the powerhouse and thus the big-budget schools stay on top.

I say "so what" if a school like Gonzaga only had mens basketball and womens soccer (for Title IX). I say "so what" if a school like Bemidji State just had mens and womens hockey. It'd probably be better for the school's overall budget. (We all know resources that could go for academics are funnelled to athletics at just about every school out there.)

I know this is blasphemy to some, but there is nothing magical about an "all-sports" conference.

Pick a few things that you can succeed at and do them exceptionally well.

[IowaBison]

Kupchella's quote (that I think you are referring to):

"Pride and emotion are powerful enough sometimes even to overwhelm logic and other considerations. I recognize that we may have to make this move even though, ultimately it may make no otherwise logical or financial sense to do so ... "

NDSU moved to DI, under the leadership of President Chapman, to bring the University to its proper place, among its peers AFTER studying the problem. Yes, there were concerns raised (conference affiliation, costs), but after looking at the bottom line the NDSU family decided to move forward. If anything, NDSU underestimated its ability (possibly due to North Dakotan's nature of understatement and risk aversion).

I've never once heard we can do it because any other school did (especially as the Montana schools have been DI for over 20 years).

[coachdags]

The issues are money and conference.

This travel you mention is the money part of that. Explain to me how non-conference travel to all of those places as a DII is any cheaper than non-conference travel to similar distance places as a DI?

I still say conference is the issue that is more important than money when discussing DI. Why? A known conference sets about half of your travel schedule per year. Knowing travel, even part of it, makes budgeting (money) easier to do. Not having a conference (completely unknown travel) means you start each budget cycle guessing how many miles you'll be travelling. And travel, at $2+ per gallon of gas, ain't cheap.

You answered your own question...By staying Div2 in the NCC Conference , It will be alot cheaper than playing Div 1 and having to fill a schedule of which,when you look down south the last couple of years have been 70% on the road...

A little travel to 3-5 games shouldn't bust the budget..?

If you can find or create your own Div 1 Conference then the costs will not be as great...But Div1 scheduling would defintley cost more in my opinion....

[Jamestown]

There will be more Alumni that become involved in UND athletics because of the DI move. The money will be a factor though as you have stated.

There are a few Sioux jackets and sweatshirts in the crowd at Bison football games.

Check out the Circle of Champions and Teamakers donators in the Bison football and program guides, one of the top contributors is a UND graduate. His reasons, are DI and the professionalism of the NDSU staff!!

[The Sicatoka]

Check out the Circle of Champions and Teamakers donators in the Bison football and program guides, one of the top contributors is a UND graduate. His reasons, are DI and the professionalism of the NDSU staff!!

And I see a guy who used to be #3 in TeamMakers in the South Club Room of REA frequently. So? We all know that there are "cross-overs" and each has their individual reasons.

[The Sicatoka]

You answered your own question...By staying Div2 in the NCC Conference , It will be alot cheaper than playing Div 1 and having to fill a schedule of which,when you look down south the last couple of years have been 70% on the road...

I think you missed what I was trying to say: Assuming "in a conference" in either DI or DII, how is non-conference travel to all of those places as a DII is any cheaper than non-conference travel to similar distance places as a DI? (The key in my original statement was use of "non-conference" twice.)

The shrinking NCC (fewer conference games) is causing the travel budget to balloon because of the need to travel more often and further for non-conference games. That's just as problematic as the basic DI question and the travel that comes with it.

[IowaBison]

I agree that there are increased costs with the smaller NCC, but they absolutely pale in comparison to those NDSU is experiencing (which I would be quite similar to what UND would experience). In otherwords, there aren't similar distant places for DII and DI competition.

UND football (2 flights, 4 bus trips)

Ellensburg, Wash.

Winona, Minn.

Duluth, Minn.

Mankato, Minn.

Vermillion, S.D.

Allendale, Mich.

NDSU football (5 flights/larger team)

[bincitysioux]

When is the NCC meeting? Next week?

[star2city]

But Sikatoka you know, as do I, that sponsor does not have the same definition as require.

The need for a minimum number of sports, in my opinion, is that it prevents schools from cherry picking sports which defeats the whole point of having a conference.

Iowabison:

You are still not grasping some issues here.

With the NCAA requiring DI schools to sponsor 14 sports (16 if its DIA football), most lower-level DI schools already are stretched financially which by default limits "cherry-picking" of sports. The rationale for the Big Sky requiring sponsorship for 15 sports is a legacy of when that league had only 6 members. By requiring all members to sponsor conference sports, the conference champion automatically gains an NCAA bid. If the Big Sky goes to 12 teams, that requirement limits the Big Sky's flexibility.

IMO, with UND's geographic location, an existing conference would be more likely (not less likely) to accept a school like UND if the members of the conference did not have to send its non-revenue teams to Grand Forks.

Use Denver U as an example.

Here are Denver U's mens sports and the conference affiliation:

BBall - Sunbelt

Golf - Sunbelt

Hockey - WCHA

Lacrosse - Great Western Lacrosse

Skiing - Independent

Soccer - Mountain Pacific

Swimming - Sunbelt

Tennis - Sunbelt

The Sunbelt Conference Sponsors nine Men's Sports - Baseball, Basketball, X-Country, Football, Golf, Swimming, Tennis, Indoor Track, Outdoor Track

So DU sponsors 4 out of 9 Sunbelt men's sports and sponsors 4 other sports outside the Sunbelt.

When DU was accepted into the Sunbelt, the closest conference school was North Texas St. In fact the Sunbelt had just kicked out Texas-Pan Am partly because of travel (among other issues). UTPA was much closer to Sunbelt schools than Denver was. Denver's lack of sponsoring Sunbelt sports actually helped it get into the Sunbelt conference because the other schools were not forced to travel to Denver as extensively. With the Sunbelt having 12 schools, having 6 schools playing one sport is not difficult to acheive. By allowing DU to be flexible in its sports offering, the Sunbelt's openness toward diversity allowed DU to maintain an athletic program best geared toward its community and toward excellence. That kind of policy helps both the Sunbelt and DU prosper. With a conference like the WAC having shown interest in DU (without requiring different sports sponsorships), the Big Sky, if it moves to 12 teams, will not maintain such a limited and constraining policy on sponsoring 15 specific sports.

[IowaBison]

I agree with a lot of your thoughts, Star2City.

A couple of thoughts:

Who said the Big Sky needs to add a single member? I don't believe the BSC is going to drop mandatory sponsorship of all sports. Sure it would cost members less if there were fewer required long distance trips, but why would they add a school(s) that would increase costs significantly more than the benefits that would accrue?

Denver though outside of the SunBelt' footprint, can be reached by a single flight from any of the other member cities (minimizing the cost of travel). It was also near Idaho, Utah St., and New Mexico St. which were members at the time of admission. I'm pretty sure that both Denver and the SunBelt are eager to end their affilitation, but Denver has no where to go.

Also, (I'm 92% sure) Denver was offered admission into either the WAC (also conditional on improving their basketball program) or BSC if they added football.

[Hansel]

In fact the Sunbelt had just kicked out Texas-Pan Am partly because of travel (among other issues).

I am guessing the main reason UTPA got boosted were NCAA issues regarding their BB team

[star2city]

Who said the Big Sky needs to add a single member? I don't believe the BSC is going to drop mandatory sponsorship of all sports. Sure it would cost members less if there were fewer required long distance trips, but why would they add a school(s) that would increase costs significantly more than the benefits that would accrue?

It is rumored that the MWC may go to 10 or 12: if it can get the higher rated WAC/CUSA teams (like UTEP, Boise State, and Fresno State) it could possibly get BCS status. That is why TCU joined the MWC, because both the MWC and TCU saw the potential for an auto BCS bid if the MWC power rankings meet or exceed the Big Easts. If the MWC adds teams, the WAC will be poaching the Sky or Great West (Davis) for teams. The Big Sky needs to have more than 9 teams if this occurs.

Denver though outside of the SunBelt' footprint, can be reached by a single flight from any of the other member cities (minimizing the cost of travel).

Not true for Troy, South Alabama, La-Monroe, La-Lafayette, Ark St., or W. Kentucky.

It was also near Idaho, Utah St., and New Mexico St. which were members at the time of admission.

Also a false statement. Denver joined in 1999, while NMSU joined in 2001. Idaho and Utah St were football-only members after NMSU joined.

http://denverpioneers.collegesports.com/sc...o/timeline.html

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_i...state/index.php

Also, (I'm 92% sure) Denver was offered admission into either the WAC (also conditional on improving their basketball program) or BSCif they added football.

Denver has been waiting for the WAC. If a nine-team league like that WAC that is one step above the Big Sky would be interested in Denver w/o football, it would be insanity for the Big Sky not to have also been interested in a football-less Denver. Denver has said no to the Big Sky.

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/allstories-...604&ID=s1516798

A nine-team conference is beneficial for football scheduling, providing each team four home games and four away. A 10-team conference is tidy for basketball scheduling. It's possible the WAC could add Denver, which doesn't offer football, for basketball purposes

[IowaBison]

Thanks for the clarifications, Star2City.

I do think there is a need to see what the MWC might do. There could be a domino effect, but I don't think that there are any Big Sky teams that are interested (and able) to move to DI. It is interesting that the WAC has a number of former Big Sky teams.

Travel to Denver is probably the most easy city to travel to in the western U.S.. My facts are wrong, but the point is the same. As it is for the presence of Idaho, Utah St. and New Mexico State in the WAC (ie Denver hasn't long been a geographic outlier).

The Spokane article that you quote also states that the WAC's focus is on football and all-sports teams.

You also state that Denver said no to the Big Sky. That may be true, but I've never seen it in print (if you have a source, I'd be happy to see it).

[star2city]

Periodically, the NCAA has had moratoriums that prevent schools from moving up to DI. Seems as if the NCAA convention is contemplating another such period starting as early as 2007, which may cause UND to be all the more serious about this study period.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...ts/13580449.htm

Would like to stem the migration from Division II. Many schools are opting to move to I-AA for more visibility. The NCAA is already looking at possible reconfigurations of Division I.

Any NCAA proposals that come out of the convention are merely recommendations. They would not be voted on by NCAA leaders until at least February 2007, according to the NCAA's legislative cycle.

[GeauxSioux]

Division I Task force holds first meeting

.

http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/13592132.htm

[IowaBison]

I really think that in light of the possible moratorium on reclassification to Division I that UND should SERIOUSLY consider hiring a consultant.

[PCM]

I really think that in light of the possible moratorium on reclassification to Division I that UND should SERIOUSLY consider hiring a consultant.

So we can ignore him?

[CoteauRinkRat]

In the story about the committee, it eludes to exploring what alumni and the public think about the move. I wonder how that will be done. Send out questionnaires to 100 pre-selected alumni?

[IowaBison]

In the story about the committee, it eludes to exploring what alumni and the public think about the move. I wonder how that will be done. Send out questionnaires to 100 pre-selected alumni?

I think in the same article it discusses (or I've read it somewhere else) a survey around March 1.

[IowaBison]

So we can ignore him?

If need be.

[PCM]

If need be.

I'll make a deal with UND. They can hire me as their consultant and ignore me at half what it cost NDSU and SDSU.

[Bison Dan]

I'll make a deal with UND. They can hire me as their consultant and ignore me at half what it cost NDSU and SDSU.

I don't remember the consultants saying don't go DI. Must be UND logic. What are you going to say when UND decides to go DI under the same circumstances as NDSU and SDSU. All UND would have done then is be 5 or more years behind. Great leadership!