Fullerton Still Talking Big Sky Expansion

[GeauxSioux]

Besides the 2 Montana schools the rest of the BSC doesn't hold any more interest than any team in the Mid-Con. I don't think the alumni base would give more one way or the other. If the GWFC is stable I don't see a real advantage of the BSC (besides the Montana schools). I'm trying to figure out why most of the UND fans scum the Mid-Con and say it's BSC or nothing. Believe me when the time comes you'll jump at any DI conference invite whether it's the Mid-Con or not.

I'm not scumming the Mid-Con. The end of my post says "if given a choice". It just seems that the majority of the Bison fans that are posting here are saying that they wouldn't jump if the Big Sky did offer.

I think that you would have to admit that the Big Sky is much more in line with peer institutions than the Mid-Con.

[IowaBison]

I'm trying to figure out why most of the UND fans scum the Mid-Con and say it's BSC or nothing.

Why did the Bison do it for three years, up until they realized the Big Sky wasn't expanding to the Dakotas?

[Bison Dan]

Why did the Bison do it for three years, up until they realized the Big Sky wasn't expanding to the Dakotas?

I would say it was 50-50 on Bison Fans - you seem to say it was ALL Bison fans? Yes in a perfect world the BSC would be a better fit, but it's not a perfect world.

[IowaBison]

Two years ago among ardent Bison fans I'd put it at 80-20 at best.

Casual fans didn't know the Mid-Con existed until a few weeks ago.

[aff]

Two years ago among ardent Bison fans I'd put it at 80-20 at best.

Casual fans didn't know the Mid-Con existed until a few weeks ago.

I think a key question fans need to ask themselves is why would the big sky after three years of the SU's begging them for admission, now want to expand to the Dakotas, when both SU's will likely be in the midcon. Is UND worth that much more in october than the SU's were last spring? I'm not making a judgement, but I think the issue really comes down to this point.

[Twinsfan]

Big Sky advantage for NDSU/SDSU : football (autobid and number of opponents)

Mid-Con advantage for NDSU/SDSU : home for all other sports (except wrestling)

I think most of the coaches at the SU's except for the football coaches are happier with the prospect of joining the Mid-Con over the BSC.

[Smoggy]

I think a key question fans need to ask themselves is why would the big sky after three years of the SU's begging them for admission, now want to expand to the Dakotas, when both SU's will likely be in the midcon. Is UND worth that much more in october than the SU's were last spring? I'm not making a judgement, but I think the issue really comes down to this point.

You answered your own question. The mid-con is now involved whereas before the 'SUs had no other options. I don't know if UND has much to do with it, and the Big Skiy probably doesn't want to expand right now. At the same time, however, they might need to expand in the future and there doesn't seem to be a whole lot out west to accomplish that.

[star2city]

You answered your own question. The mid-con is now involved whereas before the 'SUs had no other options. I don't know if UND has much to do with it, and the Big Skiy probably doesn't want to expand right now. At the same time, however, they might need to expand in the future and there doesn't seem to be a whole lot out west to accomplish that.

Fullerton has stated that the Big Sky will lose up to three teams in the next conference realignment. Soon, the Big Sky will have to add a DI "core" member to protect itself. The options are limited to Denver U and SUU. If it wanted SUU, it already would have happened. The BSC needs DU.

For Denver U to jump from the SunBelt to the Big Sky (which most would view as a demotion), DU would have the ability to practically name the terms of expansion: maintaining DU's sports structure (lax, hockey, skiing, gymnastics, swimming, none of which are in the Big Sky) and have built in rivals (which it doesn't really have in the Sunbelt.) DU could enter the Big Sky as the only expansion school, but that really wouldn't be serve any of DU's goals. IMO, a Big Sky expansion of DU, UND, and the U of British Columbia would get DU to move over. With UND, DU would get a rivalry carrying over into other BSC sports (and possibly the promise of a lax rival). With UBC, DU could get a rival beyond BSC sports in hockey, lax, and skiing. BSC presidents would be thrilled with all three as academic institutions, a 12 basketball/10 football conference scheduling alignent would be perfect, Portland St/E Wash/and even Sac St would be thrilled to add UBC, the BSC's prestige would be enhanced (more DI championships, better academics, more large TV markets), the BSC would have natural future schools (U of Alberta, U of Manitoba), and the BSC could encompass more sports (e.g. lax, hockey in the event of a BTHC).

Flame away, NDSU and SDSU fans.

[IowaBison]

1. You need to see some serious changes for the NCAA to accept Canadian schools. British Columbia is a giant school, a northern institutional peer of PAC 10 schools, certainly not the Big Sky. If, and that's a pretty big if, .... never mind it's all too much of a stretch.

2. Denver would be a good fit. However: (a) I've heard rumors that Denver thinks it's too good of a fit for the Sky and (b) I've heard with my own ears Big Sky presidents state that they will only conference members that sponsor all sports. If Denver added football and wanted in, it would have been a done deal three years ago.

3. The Big Sky would have 6 schools, and still be an bball autobid conference, if three schools left, and that's a pretty big if. Certainly not stable, but not a place where they let a potential member dictate anything.

3b. One thing that eluded Bison fans for while. Even after squinting really hard and seeing Sac State, Portland State, and whomever else leave for the WAC or elsewhere-what the hell does adding a school from the Dakotas add today. If any of these schools are feeling that they want out, adding XDSU/UXD to the mix might make things worse-hence the need for unanymous votes for entry the last time around.

In sum, I give your expansion hypothesis about a 9 out of 10, with 10 being completely out of touch with reality.

[bincitysioux]

Here's an article about Southern Utah:

More scholarships for SUU football

They are adding football schollies starting this year, in an effort to become a "counter" so that they can cash in on DI-A payday games in the future. You need to average 57 for two years to be a counter. They've been at 40.

This is significant to UND in the fact that it could, down the road, make SUU more attractive to the Big Sky. Not only could they end up taking a spot in the Big Sky that UND covets, but they could also further deplete UND's near-term future home, the Great West.

Finally, the strides being made to become a counter does nothing but help SUU's case for entry into the Big Sky. Every school in the T-Birds' ideal conference offers at the least 57 scholarship equivalencies for football.

"Most I-AA conferences won't even consider you unless you're a counter," said Beazer, who said he'd like for the program to eventually get up to the I-AA limit of 63 scholarship equivalencies. "If we're going to continue moving this program forward, we have to continue to find new revenue streams and football guarantee games are a huge part of that solution."

[biobengal]

I think the Canadian issue interesting as well, as I'm quite familiar with UBC. First, Bison is right, UBC is a monster, probably on par with UW. However, in my impression, Canadian universities don't put the emphasis on football and basketball facilities, they would not even be on par with the BSC. UBC plays in a 4,700 seat stadium. In that case, the BSC could be a good place to start.

If the Canadian universities were ever to gain entrance to the NCAA I see several expansion candidates: U British Columbia, U Alberta, U Calgary, Simon Frasure, Regina, and Saskatchewan.

Here is an interesting article about Simon Frasure and UBC about the NCAA.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...20486/-1/ZONES0

[IowaBison]

If Canadien schools' only issue is hockey it's not a big deal.

If they want to play basketball or football, it certainly is. I don't see why any special rules need to be considered.

If they want to play hockey, let 'em meet hockey requirements (they can skip the general ones). If they want to play basketball, then they need to do what everyone else does. 14/16 sports, compliance, compliance, compliance, money, money, money, and (of course) wait, wait, wait.

Considering the apparent differences between the CIS and NCAA, I don't know why they'd go further than hockey.

[star2city]

1. You need to see some serious changes for the NCAA to accept Canadian schools. British Columbia is a giant school, a northern institutional peer of PAC 10 schools, certainly not the Big Sky. If, and that's a pretty big if, .... never mind it's all too much of a stretch.

The NCAA will decide whether to accept UBC by this October. From this article, UBC hopes to compete in basketball, baseball, swimming, as well as hockey, among others. UBC has great facilities for hockey, poor for basketball, and pathetic for football.

That's not exactly a Pac-10 stadium. UBC would keep its football program in the CIS.

2. Denver would be a good fit. However: (a) I've heard rumors that Denver thinks it's too good of a fit for the Sky and (b) I've heard with my own ears Big Sky presidents state that they will only conference members that sponsor all sports. If Denver added football and wanted in, it would have been a done deal three years ago.

Read the article in the first post, very slowly. Denver will not be adding football.

3. The Big Sky would have 6 schools, and still be an bball autobid conference, if three schools left, and that's a pretty big if. Certainly not stable, but not a place where they let a potential member dictate anything.

Wrong. Losing three schools would leave five core members. It needs a sixth core member now for the continuous membership critieria.

3b. One thing that eluded Bison fans for while. Even after squinting really hard and seeing Sac State, Portland State, and whomever else leave for the WAC or elsewhere-what the hell does adding a school from the Dakotas add today. If any of these schools are feeling that they want out, adding XDSU/UXD to the mix might make things worse-hence the need for unanymous votes for entry the last time around.

Adding a UBC, a DU, and a UND would give all current members at least one school that makes travel easier or adds a rivalry. It's called consensus building and its part of the political process.

In sum, I give your expansion hypothesis about a 9 out of 10, with 10 being completely out of touch with reality.

Let it soak in a little longer. Bison media types tried to hype a 10-team Big Sky with NDSU: this option has much more chance than that.

[star2city]

I think the Canadian issue interesting as well, as I'm quite familiar with UBC. First, Bison is right, UBC is a monster, probably on par with UW. However, in my impression, Canadian universities don't put the emphasis on football and basketball facilities, they would not even be on par with the BSC. UBC plays in a 4,700 seat stadium. In that case, the BSC could be a good place to start.

If the Canadian universities were ever to gain entrance to the NCAA I see several expansion candidates: U British Columbia, U Alberta, U Calgary, Simon Frasure, Regina, and Saskatchewan.

Here is an interesting article about Simon Frasure and UBC about the NCAA.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...20486/-1/ZONES0

Welcome to Siouxsports, biobengal.

Agree that UBC most resembles a PAC10 university academically, but its athletic department most resembles a DII school like St. Cloud St's or even Bemidji St's. But with more funding and scholarships, UBC could quickly become a power. As far as American conference options, the MWC wouldn't take UBC without a strong football program. The WAC's commissioner has recently stated they won't take a non-football school (although they had flirted with Denver U and really wanted Gonzaga.) The WCC might be a good fit, except that the WCC normally doesn't take public schools. The Big Sky is the only other western conference left. UBC would not be approaching the NCAA unless it already had informal discussions with some conference, IMO.

As far as other Canadian candidates, there is also the Bison of the U of Manitoba, which could be a future travel partner of UND.

[nodakvindy]

I think the likelihood of adding Canadian schools is slim and none. That would open the NCAA up to the laws of another country, including a possible erosion of powers. That simply won't happen.

But more importantly, why would UND want to be in such a 12 team Big Sky. It would be utterly geographically isolated, the only conference school in the central time zone. That puts nearly all road games with 9:00 or later start times. Not something thats going to make your media package very valuable. And this scenario seems based on three teams leaving. I'm assuming that two of those would be the Montana schools. Isn't that rivalry the primary attraction of the Big Sky. Finally, with air travel to GF only possible via Minneapolis, the only realistic direction to look for a conference is east, not west. The lack of any competition into GFK is a huge barrier for UND, creating considerable travel costs.

Logic dictates that UND's DI future lies with the Mid-Con, or some derivation of it. The ideal situation woud have UND, NDSU, SDSU and USD forming the core of a Mid-Con western division. That would restore rivalries and lower travel for all four schools.

[MplsBison]

With SUU adding scholarships, I see them in the Big Sky all the way.

UND and USD will be in the Great West and Independant in bball for a while to come.

[star2city]

I think the likelihood of adding Canadian schools is slim and none. That would open the NCAA up to the laws of another country, including a possible erosion of powers. That simply won't happen.

So why is the NCAA taking months to study it UBC's application? If they were going to reject it offhand, which they've done for Simon Fraser's previous application, it would have already happened. Possible answer, the NCAA wants more TV money - expanding into the Canadian market increase the market by 10%. Not saying its going to happen, but money is always tempting to the NCAA.

But more importantly, why would UND want to be in such a 12 team Big Sky. It would be utterly geographically isolated, the only conference school in the central time zone. That puts nearly all road games with 9:00 or later start times. Not something thats going to make your media package very valuable.

So why is TCU, a Central Time Zone school, the most recent addition in the MWC with Pacific and Mountain time zone schools? Why is La Tech (and formerly Rice, Tulsa, and SMU) in the WAC with Mountain, Pacific, and Hawaii time zone schools. The media packages for those conferences are worth much more. If those conferences allow schools in three or more time zones, the Big Sky, with less at stake, can too.

And this scenario seems based on three teams leaving.

Its based on three schools eventually leaving. By adding UBC and UND, the future options for the Big Sky become much more attractive. This is about being bold and building a conference that would be a future powerhouse - not settling for fourth-rate status that would only get worse if SUU was added.

I'm assuming that two of those would be the Montana schools. Isn't that rivalry the primary attraction of the Big Sky.

If something bold isn't done the Montana schools will leave, effectively destroying the conference because of the lack of core members.

Finally, with air travel to GF only possible via Minneapolis, the only realistic direction to look for a conference is east, not west. The lack of any competition into GFK is a huge barrier for UND, creating considerable travel costs.

Even if GFK had a flight to Denver, because Denver is so far south, the effective air times to Northwesterly locations are no different through Minneapolis than through Denver. If La Tech / Ruston, La can be in the WAC, UND and GFK can be in the Big SKy.

Logic dictates that UND's DI future lies with the Mid-Con, or some derivation of it. The ideal situation woud have UND, NDSU, SDSU and USD forming the core of a Mid-Con western division. That would restore rivalries and lower travel for all four schools.

A lack of vision and leadership and resignation to the status quo or worse (which you seem to be suggesting) would dictate that UND's DI futures lies with the Mid-Con. If we have to settle for the MidCon after shooting for something higher, so be it. But why aspire to be associated with what is clearly the lowest level conference in the Midwest and West. Our leadership can do better than that, even if you choose not to believe it.

[nodakvindy]

I'll admit it takes some vision to enter a conference where you are 800 miles from the closest member. And as for the media package I was talking UND's, not the conference. It's a tough to sell ad time when most of your audience is in bed. La. Tech and TCU had few options at the I-A level, so they took what they could get.

I'm not sure why the Big Sky is viewed as a bastion of stability while the Mid-Con is scorned. In the past decade, Idaho, Boise St. and Cal St. Northridge have all departed, while the additions have been Sac. St., Portland St. and UNC. All three of the new additions have been weak. And in any future conference shuffle, the Big Sky will be where the WAC looks for replacements. In addition, the Mid-Con is a better match for UND's athletic offerings.

There is a difference between settling for the worst, and being in touch with reality and not tilting at windmills. If UND is headed for the Big Sky, it will almost certainly be with NDSU, with either SDSU or Denver as the third.

[star2city]

I'll admit it takes some vision to enter a conference where you are 800 miles from the closest member. And as for the media package I was talking UND's, not the conference. It's a tough to sell ad time when most of your audience is in bed. La. Tech and TCU had few options at the I-A level, so they took what they could get.

TCU had options, including staying in CUSA. They chose the option with moderately more risk that would gain them greater reward (possibly BCS status in the MWC). BTW if Canadian schools are accepted into the NCAA, it wouldn't be a stretch to see a potential for a UND/U of Manitoba travel partnership within the next decade.

I'm not sure why the Big Sky is viewed as a bastion of stability while the Mid-Con is scorned. In the past decade, Idaho, Boise St. and Cal St. Northridge have all departed, while the additions have been Sac. St., Portland St. and UNC. All three of the new additions have been weak. And in any future conference shuffle, the Big Sky will be where the WAC looks for replacements. In addition, the Mid-Con is a better match for UND's athletic offerings.

The Big Sky has lost 4 schools in the last twenty years (Nevada too), while the MidCon has averaged almost one defection per its 25 years. Arithmetic says the Big Sky is five times as stable as the MidCon. As far as future stability, the Big Sky will maintain at least 5 core members in the next decade, whereas every single MidCon core member wants out of there. Big Sky well exceeds the MidCon in either stability test.

There is a difference between settling for the worst, and being in touch with reality and not tilting at windmills.

If were going to go DI, no sense in doing it half-assed or creating the NCC. Been there, done that.

If UND is headed for the Big Sky, it will almost certainly be with NDSU, with either SDSU or Denver as the third.

I actually agree and still expect a DU/UND/NDSU expansion, but my point remains is that there are real options out there have not been explored on this message board before.

[IowaBison]

If were going to go DI, no sense in doing it half-assed

Really?

When are you going to do anything professionally with regards to the transition?

Poo-poo DI and NDSU for four years.

Decide to study the issue and put out a joke of a report-which does not support the move.

Announce that you will be making the move in two years, maybe.

I don't see how an institution like UND could have done this any more half-assed.

[dlsiouxfan]

Really?

When are you going to do anything professionally with regards to the transition?

Poo-poo DI and NDSU for four years.

Decide to study the issue and put out a joke of a report-which does not support the move.

Announce that you will be making the move in two years, maybe.

I don't see how an institution like UND could have done this any more half-assed.

I know it's next to impossible down there but try to be at least semi- objective. UND's move has been equally as well planned as ndsu's. I mean how is it any different hiring an outside consultant if you're just going to ignore his advice anyways. I know you hate to admit it but UND is in just as good a financial situation as ndsu was when they moved. Both schools ran deficits in the years prior to the move, just like most institutions do when it comes to athletics. Plus, it should count for something that UND has a larger alumni base than ndsu, so you're whole argument that Grand Forks can't support the move financially is a moot point when often times a university's biggest donors live elsewhere. Not too mention but Fargo's growth benefits both UND and ndsu since a large amount of Sioux fans live in Fargo and a great deal of students come northward for their education. As far as the bitching you guys have done for the last few years about us not cheering on your D-I move well what did you honestly expect. You all know you would have done the same thing to us if the situations were reversed and I'd like to invite you all to dry your tears from us hurting your feelings and get over it.

[biff]

UND's move has been equally as well planned as ndsu's. I mean how is it any different hiring an outside consultant if you're just going to ignore his advice anyways.

How do you figure? UND's president doesn't have any enthusiasm over the move and has pretty much stated they're only doing it because they have to. He's spent more time planning how to avoid the enevitable. No vison or leadership there. UND is lucky Buning was hired and Lennon is around.

[IowaBison]

UND's move has been equally as well planned as ndsu's.

Baloney. UND could have had two or three undergraduates write a better report than what was put out by UND's committee. Some of the errors and omissions in the report are down right laughable.

I agree that UND has great strength in its tradition and alumni, which, as I noted before, makes UNDs process even more embarassing, imo.

My sincere hope is that folks at UND start taking this a little more seriously and I'm assuming they will. 'Cause continuing this piece-meal, half-assed approach could damage the school.

[The Sicatoka]

Aside from (a) hiring a consultant and not following their recommendations v. doing an internal study, and (b) four years of clock time, how are the two paths (UND compared to NDSU) different?

[IowaBison]

I say that the approaches are completely different.

Chapman came in and one of his goals was moving to athletics to DI. There was a process and momentum to do it.

Kupchella has been hesitant to do it and it shows (that's not a shot at Kupchella-he has a bad taste in his mouth from his prior position, recognized a number of benefits to UND remaining DII, and saw that the finances weren't readily there).

UND's process hasn't been horrible, but the internal report was worthless and Kupchella's announcement showed no enthusiasm. Also, a number of publicly stated requirements for the move, most notably a conference invite, have not been satisfied.

This really has to make one question what is going on.