aff Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Man, Mlpsbison, if message boards actually had the power to put NDSU in the big sky, you would be well on your way there because of your hard work the last week. I never thought I would see anybody be as determined not to see NDSU in the mid con as you are. I don't know what your going to talk about after tuesday? The next big sky meeting in october? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted May 22, 2006 Author Share Posted May 22, 2006 I see neither Denver or Southern Utah going to the Big Sky. I could only see SUU if they had 60 scholarships for football which they don't. I don't know if they could afford 60 scholarships to be honest. They might drop football and just be in the Mid Con. Denver won't join the Big Sky. They don't have football and are not going to add it (even if they played in the Broncos' stadium). They want to be in the WCC and I can see them going there with time. The Big Sky doesn't have to add another core member. They already have six. They only would in case another school decided to leave. And the only one that would is Montana. I think if NDSU, UND, and SDSU are added, Montana will be happy and stick around until UNC is a core member at least. It'd probably take them that long to fun raise enough for I-A anyway. You clearly fail to grasp the seriousness of the six core member @ five years & seven core member issue. SUU will be added to the Big Sky if the Big Sky's autobid is threatened due to lack of "core" members, whether they have 60 scholarships or not. As far as Denver (without football), Fullerton recently talked about that possibility on talk radio and mentioned that possiblity two years ago. BTW, if SUU were in the Sky, they'd be more likely to afford 60 scholarships because their travel budget would go done. UNC, NDSU, SDSU, and UND would all have limited benefits to a conference as conference members until later next decade when they have attained "core" status. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DI IN FARGO Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 You clearly fail to grasp the seriousness of the six core member @ five years & seven core member issue. SUU will be added to the Big Sky if the Big Sky's autobid is threatened due to lack of "core" members, whether they have 60 scholarships or not. As far as Denver (without football), Fullerton recently talked about that possibility on talk radio and mentioned that possiblity two years ago. BTW, if SUU were in the Sky, they'd be more likely to afford 60 scholarships because their travel budget would go done. UNC, NDSU, SDSU, and UND would all have limited benefits to a conference as conference members until later next decade when they have attained "core" status. And of course we all know you can count on Fullerton's comment as the gospel truth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted May 22, 2006 Author Share Posted May 22, 2006 My 2004-05 manual says the eight-year thing was eliminated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Dan Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Man, Mlpsbison, if message boards actually had the power to put NDSU in the big sky, you would be well on your way there because of your hard work the last week. I never thought I would see anybody be as determined not to see NDSU in the mid con as you are. I don't know what your going to talk about after tuesday? The next big sky meeting in october? Probably the fact that the presidents all teleconferenced their votes in: NDSU in the Big Sky for 2006. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 Probably the fact that the presidents all teleconferenced their votes in: NDSU in the Big Sky for 2006. He must be a super-genius if he has the answer (May 22) before the question (May 23)! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted May 22, 2006 Share Posted May 22, 2006 You clearly fail to grasp the seriousness of the six core member @ five years & seven core member issue. Does a conference need six core members of seven core members to retain its autobid? If it's six then they would have six. If it's seven then they would be forced to add SUU. whether they have 60 scholarships or not.They'll be forced to. You have to have 60 football scholarships to get into the Big Sky. As far as Denver (without football), Fullerton recently talked about that possibility on talk radio and mentioned that possiblity two years ago. Denver isn't going to Big Sky. *mafia voice* FO-GET-A-BOW-DIT */mafia voice* They want the WCC and that's where they'll end up eventually. If Denver pairs up with Seattle University (former members of the WCC), that would give the WCC the lucrative Denver and Seattle markets. BTW, if SUU were in the Sky, they'd be more likely to afford 60 scholarships because their travel budget would go done. It's possible. I think having 60 scholarships would also allow them to play I-A payday games which they can't now because they don't count toward the the BCS. But they won't do it unless they get into the Big Sky. If that doens't happen the next couple rounds of expansion, I could see them giving up on football and dropping it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted May 23, 2006 Author Share Posted May 23, 2006 Does a conference need six core members of seven core members to retain its autobid? If it's six then they would have six. If it's seven then they would be forced to add SUU. Its seven, with six together for at least five years. So, yes, they would have to add SUU. They'll be forced to. You have to have 60 football scholarships to get into the Big Sky.Not if it is a matter of life/death for the conference. Denver isn't going to Big Sky. *mafia voice* FO-GET-A-BOW-DIT */mafia voice* They want the WCC and that's where they'll end up eventually. If Denver pairs up with Seattle University (former members of the WCC), that would give the WCC the lucrative Denver and Seattle markets.The Big Sky is interested in the Denver, but not so much the other way around. Agree that Denver/Seattle to the WCC would make sense, but that is a number of years away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stafford_rules Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 so does this mean that we wont have the Fighting Sioux Sports Network (FSSN, 23) anymore? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 so does this mean that we wont have the Fighting Sioux Sports Network (FSSN, 23) anymore? They are talking about the potential demise of the Mid-Continent Conference because of losing members, not Midcontinent Communications failing. FSSN is safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 Not if it is a matter of life/death for the conference. Haha. The Big Sky is not going to let any team in their conference without 60 football scholarships. Just checking SUU's website it appears that instate tuition is about $3000 and outstate tuition (about half the roster) is $10000. Pretty damn cheap. You'd think they would've been at 60 already. The Big Sky is interested in the Denver, but not so much the other way around. Nope, not buying it. You're quote is years old and they've since moved off that pie in the sky option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DI IN FARGO Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 Well for those who didn't hear it Tom Douple the commissioner of the Mid-Con was interviewed and asked about UND getting an invite to the Mid-Con prior to any announcement of moving up to DI and he said he didn't see it happening as long as he was commish of the Mid-Con. I am pretty sure you will get that answer from the BSC as well. Should put that idea to bed for good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 Well for those who didn't hear it Tom Douple the commissioner of the Mid-Con was interviewed and asked about UND getting an invite to the Mid-Con prior to any announcement of moving up to DI and he said he didn't see it happening as long as he was commish of the Mid-Con. I am pretty sure you will get that answer from the BSC as well. Should put that idea to bed for good. Dude, that quote was in an article last week. Old news. I trust Douple's words to the press as much as any other conference commissioner's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perry c Posted May 26, 2006 Share Posted May 26, 2006 The Mid-Con will meet the continuity requirement. There's no way the NCAA will put this conference out of business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted May 26, 2006 Author Share Posted May 26, 2006 The Mid-Con will meet the continuity requirement. There's no way the NCAA will put this conference out of business. perry c: Welcome to Siouxsports.com! I am skeptical that the NCAA would be all that helpful or understanding with the MidCon's situation regarding continuity of core membership. The larger DI schools would like nothing better than killing a few autobids so they get more at-large bids. Also, autobids for all other sports are less-threatened as the continuity requirements are less severe. If the MidCon lost another member, it could very well maintain auto bids for women's basketball, baseball etc., but be denied a men's basketball autobid. Effectively the MidCon would be playing for a bid to the NIT, barring an exceptional team making the at-large field. The continuity requirements are the reason the Big East must wait at least five years to split. After that time, both halves of the split conference would meet the continuity requirements, and each half would be awarded an autobid. When / if the Big East splits, the NCAA field would then be increased to 66 teams from 65. By eliminating an autobid from a lower conference, the field could be kept at 65. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted May 26, 2006 Share Posted May 26, 2006 When / if the Big East splits, the NCAA field would then be increased to 66 teams from 65. By eliminating an autobid from a lower conference, the field could be kept at 65. The Big East will split. It's a mathematical certainty. The NCAA saves nothing by going from 66 to 65. They still have to have a play in round. Expanding the tournament to 68 and then having the play in round at all four regional sites sounds about right according to the BCS conference basketball schools. It wuold basically be the lowest four conference's autobid's playing each other for the right to play the #1 seed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabidrabbit Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 NAIA to D-I? Sure we're going!!!! http://orusports.com/talk/index.php?topic=1450.0 Oklahoma City U going, and Oral Roberts (a current Mid-Con dominant school) is thrilled. A partner and fellow move-up aspirant to do many sports against during transition? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aff Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 The Big East will split. It's a mathematical certainty. The NCAA saves nothing by going from 66 to 65. They still have to have a play in round. Expanding the tournament to 68 and then having the play in round at all four regional sites sounds about right according to the BCS conference basketball schools. It wuold basically be the lowest four conference's autobid's playing each other for the right to play the #1 seed. That sure as he!l is not a mathematical certainty. I guess you problem know more about it than the administrators at the big east schools though. I guess this contract really doesn't effect the situation though... Big east contract Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MplsBison Posted June 17, 2006 Share Posted June 17, 2006 Neither the 2010-11 contract or the new 2012-2013 contract affect the situation. The basic questions remains the same: why should the football schools share the football money with the non football schools? How does having only 8 football members help in scheduling? Wouldn't 9 (at least) be better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.