Fullerton Still Talking Big Sky Expansion

[Hammersmith]

FYI, 21 hockey(+playoffs), 2 football, 2 basketball; for a total of 25(+hockey playoffs).

You are correct about 5 or 6 home football games(5 this year), but more and more I-AA schools are adding some form of coverage. I would expect for 2 or 3 of our away games to be covered in some way, shape or form. And then there is basketball. I completely agree that it is currently a low draw. However, after the first NCAA Tourney appearance/win... I don't know if it's going to happen in 2009 or 2029, but I'm betting it will be big(except in DaveK's house). It might even, dare I say, overshadow Sioux hockey for a time(measured in months, not years). If I were in charge, I would get the equipment in place, use webcasts to train operators for a few years, and then make the transition to a full network shortly after the first Big Dance appearance for maximum effect. Who knows what plan the real people in charge have.

[star2city]

Seriously, if MidCon Cable, or another provider, was given a pre-produced feed and they thought they could make money on a Bison Sports Channel, they would jump on board. This is not like the Clear Channel/ForumComm situation where those companies must choose between the schools; MidCon could easily carry both sports networks on different channels for almost no extra cost if NDSU was doing all the production work. It really is possible that that's NDSU's mid-term plan.

As GeauxSioux has already mentioned, if it is so easy, why hasn't NDSU already done this? If NDSU had had a cable network in place, they could have been a more compelling pick as the Big Sky's 10th team.

IMHO, there are a number of reasons why NDSU will have a difficult time establishing a cable network: first and foremost - no hockey and the 20-odd dates that go with it, college hockey fans are fiercely loyal viewers while college basketball fans are much more fickle, UND's hockey schedule is very attractive (Big Ten schools) while NDSU's basketball home scheduling has been far from attractive (and won't be that much more attractive in the MidCon with non-hardcore fans), the REA venue gives the TV viewer the impression of an event while the BSA as a venue is not very TV marketable, and NDSU has been reluctant to sacrifice home attendance to build a cable audience. UND, on the other hand, especially in the first couple of years, sacrificed attendance at football and, to a much lesser extent, basketball, to build up the FSSN.

The bottom line is: if you are MidContinent Communications, who would you want to associate your company name with, the REA (and top tier college hockey) or the BSA (and third tier DI basketball)?

Interesting that MidContinent Communications seems to be expanding their relationship with UND and the REA:

Major Promotion

Midcontinent Communications presents the unveiling of the biggest promotion in Ralph Engelstad Arena history along with Dr. Pepper. The unveiling will take place during the UND men

[Hammersmith]

star, you're making some very good points. I would just say the following:

1. Even if NDSU had a network like ESPN at their beck and call, I don't think it would have made a difference to Big Sky. I believe that decision was based solely on geography, not on market. I think the member schools were told that Big Sky was going to expand by at least one school, and UNC was accepted as a compromise. Close enough for the western schools and enough competitive potential for the Montana's.

2. NDSU has not created a full sports network because its product is not yet marketable enough. I fully acknowledge that there are not enough football games and NDSU basketball is not yet big enough to support a fledgeling network. However, has UND hockey been popular since the dawn of time? I submit that the present is not always indicative of the future. Things change.

3. REA vs BSA television atmosphere. Again, I don't dispute that. But again, I seem to recall something about a groundbreaking for a major renovation in about six months. Might improved television presence be part of the architect's instructions?

4. Reluctance to sacrifice football attendance. I don't know if I agree with that, but even if it's true, I expect that that would not be a problem in 3 or 4 years when the Fargodome approaches a capacity average. Since our horrible 2-8 season, our average has been increasing by almost 1k a year. With 2006's average standing a good chance of reaching 16k, we could hit capacity as early as 09 or 10. Especially if we make a postseason run in 08 or later.

5. Finally, I repeat a point from my earlier post: MidCon Comm. does not necessarily have to choose between our schools; they can opt to carry both if they feel it would be profitable for them.

[bincitysioux]

FYI, 21 hockey(+playoffs), 2 football, 2 basketball; for a total of 25(+hockey playoffs).

Don't forget about football playoffs! Last year there were a total of 4 football games (2 playoff games), in '04 there were 5 football games including 3 playoff games. Only 2 basketball broadcasts this year, but they are doubleheaders so 4 games total. Last year there were six games total. IIRC the FSSN broadcast 32 UND games last year: 22 hockey, 4 football, and 6 basketball.

However, after the first NCAA Tourney appearance/win... I don't know if it's going to happen in 2009 or 2029, but I'm betting it will be big(except in DaveK's house). It might even, dare I say, overshadow Sioux hockey for a time(measured in months, not years).

I agree totally with that comment. Especially "overshadow Sioux hockey for a time(measured in months, not years).". It would be huge and this state would go absolutely nuts if either NDSU or UND made the NCAA tourney at some point down the road. But, unfortunately, I don't think it will ever be done consistently and neither school will probably ever be a real threat in March Madness. But UND hockey will always be a legitimate contender for National Championships and will always regularily compete against and beat big-time name schools like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Boston College, etc. etc.

[star2city]

star, you're making some very good points. I would just say the following:

1. Even if NDSU had a network like ESPN at their beck and call, I don't think it would have made a difference to Big Sky. I believe that decision was based solely on geography, not on market. I think the member schools were told that Big Sky was going to expand by at least one school, and UNC was accepted as a compromise. Close enough for the western schools and enough competitive potential for the Montana's.

I disagree. UNC's inclusion in the Big Sky gave the Big Sky coverage on the Altitude Network. That was a huge win. UNC had both geography and market going for it. NDSU/SDSU had neither.

BTW, if NDSU had a deal with ESPN, it would be in the Missouri Valley or in CUSA at this moment, never mind the Big Sky. ESPN is the holy grail of the college sports world; conference commissioners would be begging and pleading with Gene to accept invitations.

2. NDSU has not created a full sports network because its product is not yet marketable enough. I fully acknowledge that there are not enough football games and NDSU basketball is not yet big enough to support a fledgeling network. However, has UND hockey been popular since the dawn of time? I submit that the present is not always indicative of the future. Things change.

Without a doubt they do change. With the Old REA, Hyslop, and Memorial Stadium, a FSSN would probably not have been possible. The REA (and to a lesser extent the Alerus) changed that. The REA and Alerus both made Sioux sports entertainment events, rather than (to the dismay of pure fans) just the game itself. TV is about entertainment and perceptions.

3. REA vs BSA television atmosphere. Again, I don't dispute that. But again, I seem to recall something about a groundbreaking for a major renovation in about six months. Might improved television presence be part of the architect's instructions?

NDSU badlly needs a stand-alone arena to accomplish their longer term goals. A renovated BSA won't help that much with either a cable network or when NDSU wants to upgrade conferences. I actually admire NDSU for placing as much emphasis (and money) on sports like softball, volleyball, wrestling, and soccer, but a new arena is paramount for NDSU's future, IMHO.

4. Reluctance to sacrifice football attendance. I don't know if I agree with that, but even if it's true, I expect that that would not be a problem in 3 or 4 years when the Fargodome approaches a capacity average. Since our horrible 2-8 season, our average has been increasing by almost 1k a year. With 2006's average standing a good chance of reaching 16k, we could hit capacity as early as 09 or 10. Especially if we make a postseason run in 08 or later.

While I have never been to an NDSU football game in the FargoDome, from all reports it sounds as if the crowd is very uninvolved in the game. Even if the football approaches FargoDome capacity, more enthusiasm is needed to make it more attractive to TV.

5. Finally, I repeat a point from my earlier post: MidCon Comm. does not necessarily have to choose between our schools; they can opt to carry both if they feel it would be profitable for them.

If adding UND adds to the bottom line of other MidCon schools, UND will have an invite to the MidCon. By the same logic, it also holds for the Big Sky. I believe UND has made a case for the Big Sky schools to benefit financially (largely because of cable issues), while, unfortunately for NDSU/SDSU, they were unable to accomplish that to this date.

[bincitysioux]

I think the Big Sky worries less about geography than people think. Look at how spread out it is. The Big Sky wants to be known as THE conference, outside of the major conferences of course (i.e. Big Ten, Big East, SEC, what-have-you) It wants to separate itself from the "Mid-Major" stereotype, or at least be known as the top "mid-major". If it really worried so much about geography then Sac St., Cal State-Northridge, and to a lesser extent Portland St. wouldn't have been added when they were. They were added because of the potential markets and audience that those schools could bring the conference, not because they were easy places to travel to for the core of the conference which is still Montana, Montana St., Weber St., and Idaho St. Think of the combined media market that a combo addition of UND and Denver could offer!

[nd1sufan]

Think of the combined media market that a combo addition of UND and Denver could offer!

I think you may br overestimating the draw of the 300th largest media market in the country.

[Charger]

Think of the combined media market that a combo addition of UND and Denver could offer!

Or just think of the media market that Denver could offer. Does anyone have the numbers for how many houses FSSN reaches. Denver makes since for the Big Sky, UND not so much. I think that UND will eventually be in the Mid-Con.... If they are lucky. I don't think they would get into the Big Sky without NDSU. A travel partner makes going to the Dakotas a lot more do-able, but I still do not think the the Big Sky members sees the advantage of expanding to the Dakotas.

[star2city]

Does anyone have the numbers for how many houses FSSN reaches.

For MidContinent Communications alone, every major ND or SD city except Fargo. Fargo's Cable One airs the FSSN. Other smaller systems like Jamestown area and NW Minnesota cable companies also carry FSSN.

[Gothmog]

Wrong: a distribution system is paramount. NDSU and SDSU can build production facilities, but they are going to find distribution of their broadcasts very difficult except over the internet to only hardcore fans, not the general public. Broadcast stations will not routinely preempt network broadcasts except for big games. With MidCon already a business ally of UND, NDSU and /or SDSU would likely have a difficult time getting MidCOn cable to agree to carry their networks.

MidContinent has described its relationship with FSSN as "a very tasty piece of programming." MidContinent Cable is in all probablity a key business ally of UND in moving to Division I, as more FSSN broadcast of DI football and basketball would be in the its interest. The effecctive reach of FSSN (with MidContinent) is approximately equivalent to a Sacramento metro area.

The Big Sky has a broadcasting pact with Altitude Sports, based in Denver. By associating with FSSN, Altitude could gain more broadcast events and, most importantly, gain distribution rights on Mid-Continent and other cable systems in the Dakota's. By Altitude expanding its distribution, the rights to Big Sky broadcasts become more profitable. By UND going to the Big Sky, everyone wins: Altitude, FSSN, UND, MidContinent, and the Big Sky.

Again, you manage to completely miss the point. It is not about distribution systems - they can be created. UND has no proven ability to deliver viewers for any sport other than hockey, and the Big Sky doesn't sponsor hockey. Without viewers tuned in, it simply doesn't matter how many cities the FSSN theoretically reaches.

Do you really think that people in Mobridge, SD are ever going to tune in the FSSN network? The Sioux don't even have the undivided loyalty of their home state.

[SiouxMD]

[andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!!]

[star2city]

Again, you manage to completely miss the point. It is not about distribution systems - they can be created. UND has no proven ability to deliver viewers for any sport other than hockey, and the Big Sky doesn't sponsor hockey. Without viewers tuned in, it simply doesn't matter how many cities the FSSN theoretically reaches.

Have you read the previous posts?

So when was the opportune time for NDSU to create its own distribution system? Answer: prior to moving to DI, or secondly, immediately after moving to DI, or third, as soon as possible. We are waiting .... waiting. .... waiting ... waiting .................................

If NDSU athletics had an established media network similar to FSSN, the likelihood that NDSU would have had to go begging for a conference would have been much reduced.

Do you really think that people in Mobridge, SD are ever going to tune in the FSSN network? The Sioux don't even have the undivided loyalty of their home state.

Actually, if you ask the people at MidCON, FSSN is more popular than anticipated in South Dakota.

Wait til a Montana-UND football or basketball game becomes a regular on FSSN, and NDSU is competing against W Illinois in both. What is going to bring out the most loyalty?

[Gothmog]

Have you read the previous posts?

So when was the opportune time for NDSU to create its own distribution system? Answer: prior to moving to DI, or secondly, immediately after moving to DI, or third, as soon as possible. We are waiting .... waiting. .... waiting ... waiting .................................

If NDSU athletics had an established media network similar to FSSN, the likelihood that NDSU would have had to go begging for a conference would have been much reduced.

Actually, if you ask the people at MidCON, FSSN is more popular than anticipated in South Dakota.

Wait til a Montana-UND football or basketball game becomes a regular on FSSN, and NDSU is competing against W Illinois in both. What is going to bring out the most loyalty?

Are you suggesting that a Montana-UND match-up would generate a significant audience in SOUTH Dakota?

BTW - The notion that FSSN will significantly ease UND's acceptance into a DI conference, or that posessing such a system would have significantly aided NDSU's transition is exactly what I am disputing. Your argument assumes the point at issue, and is therefore fallacious.

[star2city]

Are you suggesting that a Montana-UND match-up would generate a significant audience in SOUTH Dakota?

A non-conference matchup with USD or SDSU would generate a large SD audience. A UND/UM or UND/MSU matchup would be huge in western ND and proportional to an ESPN2 matchup in SD.

BTW - The notion that FSSN will significantly ease UND's acceptance into a DI conference, or that posessing such a system would have significantly aided NDSU's transition is exactly what I am disputing. Your argument assumes the point at issue, and is therefore fallacious.

So having a system like FSSN that gains exposure for all conference schools and a business relationship with MidContinent Communications that would enhance a conference's media package ($'s) will not help attain conference affiliation? What exactly could be fallacious about that? Your argument flies in the face of all conference realignment over the past decade. Media footprint and dollars are what conferences are after.

[biff]

A non-conference matchup with USD or SDSU would generate a large SD audience. A UND/UM or UND/MSU matchup would be huge in western ND and proportional to an ESPN2 matchup in SD.

This assumes Montana sports are big in sparsly populated western North Dakota, which they're not.

[bincitysioux]

Are you suggesting that a Montana-UND match-up would generate a significant audience in SOUTH Dakota?

I don't know how significant the audience for such a game in SD would be. I assume alot of South Dakota sports fans are like me, and when I watch college sports on the weekend, I am intrigued by matchups between teams that are close or local to me. Notre Dame is on TV every weekend and I like to watch major college ball, but if they are playing the same time the Gophers have a TV game, I'll generally watch the Gopher game just because they are from Minnesota, which is right next to me (even though I hate the Gophers). I watch either or both Montana or Montana St. football games nearly every weekend, regardless of who they play. Not because I'm a fan of either school, just because they're on, and their schools from our region of the country. That makes it more entertaining than a game that is usually on ESPN74 between San Jose St. and Louisiana Tech.

[Gothmog]

A non-conference matchup with USD or SDSU would generate a large SD audience. A UND/UM or UND/MSU matchup would be huge in western ND and proportional to an ESPN2 matchup in SD.

So having a system like FSSN that gains exposure for all conference schools and a business relationship with MidContinent Communications that would enhance a conference's media package ($'s) will not help attain conference affiliation? What exactly could be fallacious about that? Your argument flies in the face of all conference realignment over the past decade. Media footprint and dollars are what conferences are after.

You have offered no evidence whatsoever to support your argument - none. No quotes from BSC officials or anyone else in a position to know. You're fond of pointing out that "it's all about the dollars", and yet I see no estimate of the TV revenue that will actually flow to BSC member institutions from the FSSN should UND be granted membership. Your argument is based entirely on the speculation, jealousy and wishful thinking of a clearly biased observer. As I see it, you couldn't stand the obvious fact that NDSU is ahead of UND in its transition to DI by a large margin, so you invented this elaborate fictitious rationale to prove that, despite all evidence to the contrary, UND is really ahead of NDSU. Arguments simply don't get any more fallacious than that.

[The Sicatoka]

Q: Did UNC's proximity to the Denver media market, and their agreements with various media outlets, (a) lend to, or (b) detract from UNC's chances of entrance to the Big Sky Conference?

[Gothmog]

Q: Did UNC's proximity to the Denver media market, and their agreements with various media outlets, (a) lend to, or (b) detract from UNC's chances of entrance to the Big Sky Conference?

Let's see, Grand Forks area population ~95,000, Denver area population ~2.5 million. Is Denver apples and Grand Forks oranges, or the other way around?

[Riverman]

As I see it, you couldn't stand the obvious fact that NDSU is ahead of UND in its transition to DI by a large margin, so you invented this elaborate fictitious rationale to prove that, despite all evidence to the contrary, UND is really ahead of NDSU. Arguments simply don't get any more fallacious than that.

So inYho, UND has no idea what they are doing??

When you say

elaborate fictitious rationale

isn't that saying opinion?

I don't see any links from you on how star2city is wrong.

Why don't YOU prove him wrong and show us poor Sioux fans the light

maybe a link that backs your opinion?

FYI G-mog, last time I checked this is a Fighting Sioux board not a bison board.

[GeauxSioux]

You have offered no evidence whatsoever to support your argument - none. No quotes from BSC officials or anyone else in a position to know. You're fond of pointing out that "it's all about the dollars", and yet I see no estimate of the TV revenue that will actually flow to BSC member institutions from the FSSN should UND be granted membership. Your argument is based entirely on the speculation, jealousy and wishful thinking of a clearly biased observer. As I see it, you couldn't stand the obvious fact that NDSU is ahead of UND in its transition to DI by a large margin, so you invented this elaborate fictitious rationale to prove that, despite all evidence to the contrary, UND is really ahead of NDSU. Arguments simply don't get any more fallacious than that.

This is not something that Star2City dreamed up in the last couple of months and has nothing to do with jealousy. If you look back into old threads (I don't have the time right now to do it), Star2City predicted that UNC and Denver would get invites into the Big Sky due to the Altitude Network. UNC got in and Denver was possibly was invited but rejected their invitation. Dig around. It' there.

As far as FSSN. You have to admit, that it looks appealing when shopping for a conference.

[Gothmog]

So inYho, UND has no idea what they are doing??

When you say

isn't that saying opinion?

I don't see any links from you on how star2city is wrong.

Why don't YOU prove him wrong and show us poor Sioux fans the light

maybe a link that backs your opinion?

FYI G-mog, last time I checked this is a Fighting Sioux board not a bison board.

Certainly the "elaborate fictiticious rationale" comment is an opinion, that's why I prefaced it with "as I see it".

My contention is that: 1) Grand Forks, and for that matter the whole state of ND, is a relatively small market; 2) Big Sky has shown a clear preference for large metropolitan areas in the past, for instance Portland, Sacramento and Denver; 3) I'm unware of any official of the Big Sky Conference or a member institution ever making a comment regarding the FSSN, or any direct comment that UND is being seriously considered for membership. Points 1 & 2 are true on their face and don't require a link, no link is possible for point 3. If you have a link to disprove point 3, please provide it.

Given all the facts available, is it possible that UND will be admitted to Big Sky without major changes to the conference's current membership? SURE. Is it likely? NO.

[Gothmog]

This is not something that Star2City dreamed up in the last couple of months and has nothing to do with jealousy. If you look back into old threads (I don't have the time right now to do it), Star2City predicted that UNC and Denver would get invites into the Big Sky due to the Altitude Network. UNC got in and Denver was possibly was invited but rejected their invitation. Dig around. It' there.

As far as FSSN. You have to admit, that it looks appealing when shopping for a conference.

Wow! Star2City must have a crystal ball. How else would he have figured out the the BSC would prefer schools in large media markets within its existing footprint.

I never said that the FSSN would not help UND at all, only that any benefit that UND gets out of the FSSN would not be significant enough to overcome the geography and perception problems faced by all the Dakota schools. In my biased opinion, there are a few members of the Big Sky conference that are just too arrogant and image-conscious to ever swallow their pride and vote to expand to the flat wind-blown plains of North Dakota. It's a pity, NDSU, SDSU and (gasp) UND could be excellent members. It just ain't gonna happen.

[Riverman]

Given all the facts available, is it possible that UND will be admitted to Big Sky without major changes to the conference's current membership? SURE. Is it likely? NO.

IYHO correct?

Why would I have a link to your opinion?

3) I'm unware of any official of the Big Sky Conference or a member institution ever making a comment regarding the FSSN, or any direct comment that UND is being seriously considered for membership. Points 1 & 2 are true on their face and don't require a link, no link is possible for point 3.