"Why not State and the U"

[EQguy]

Re: "Why not State and the U"

Rosey pictures bring money and excitement. Sounds like Ed was doing a bit of trash talking. Either that or your friend was trying to fire you up.

[Nidaros]

Re: "Why not State and the U"

It is no surprise by earlier posts that I am not in favor of playing the U's. However, we may be playing them sooner than we think according to Coach Mierkort, who was at the Yankton Quarterback Club last Wednesday. He made it sound that the Gateway and the Summitt Leagues are "courting" USD already. Although I was unable to attend, a good friend of mine was there. He told me the coach said that the Gateway wants the "flagship" school from SD in a bad way and that the Summitt will have them in sooner than later. The conferences like to have the schools with the professional people in the conference. The coach also noted that the school to the north will not be able to do anything about it since they have no clout within the conferences. Someone was telling me this at church yesterday morning and my wife had to cool me off before I said something I shouldn't. That is why I checked with my close friend today to make sure this was true.

I thought Ed was a classier guy than this but apparently he is not at least when he gets in front of the Yankton QB club. Ed has no clue any more than what we do as far as USD and the Summit and Gateway. BTW, are not pharmacists and Engineerers professionals? I dont think the Gateway is about to give SDSU the boot in order to make room for USD.

[jackmd]

Re: "Why not State and the U"

My first impressions of Ed, he'll tell you what he thinks you want to hear. Again, just my impression. I guess if they are in our conference we would be playing them. I haven't heard this from anyone but USD however.

[Grizzled_Jack]

Re: "Why not State and the U"

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/foru...ad.php?t=29143

For what it's worth...

I would think WSU would have the inside edge if they decide to start football. Could see both UxD's in the Summit long before I could see them in the Gateway.

A month ago, I would have been open to this but there is entirely too much nastiness between all four teams. They should stay in the Great West. I thought they agreed to do so.

Shockerman was the post that I quoted before, scratching his head about all this hatred. I feel the same way but it's real. Time to cool it.

[Jacks#1Fan]

Re: "Why not State and the U"

Don't get the cart before the horse (despite Meierkort's alleged remarks). There's not a single school in the Gateway who would want to look at the UxDs as potential members before they gain full Division I status (as the Jacks will do in 2008). So if somebody in the Gateway is "salivating" at the thought of USD getting into the Gateway, it's probably just a figment of Meierkort's imagination.

As for the remarks over on AGS re: a new basketball arena adjacent to the Dome (which they will of course need despite their lackey consultant saying their physical facilites are OK), they'll have to finish raising the money to pay for the Dome roof before they can whack away at that one (not to mention doubling their athletic budget in the next couple of years). USD dreams of being courted by the Summit and Gateway are just that...dreams, at least for at least three or four years.

[Hammersmith]

Re: "Why not State and the U"

Regarding USD and the Summit, the chances are far greater than they were a few months ago. Centenary has officially expressed interest in Division III and SUU is adding sports to match what the Big Sky sponsers. Additionally, SUU's AD has been making quotes to SUU booster groups that SUU is persuing BSC affiliation in a big way. If both of those schools end up leaving within the next two years, the Summit's MBB autobid is in serious jeopardy. At that point, either UTPA, Savannah St, or Chicago St would have to (re)join to have any chance of keeping the autobid. The Summit presidents would likely consider moving to 12 teams in this situation. In any case, I can't believe that either USD or UND is the top choice for the next Summit member; although they may be the second, third or fourth choice in an expansion. Another core member is needed far too much.

What does any of this have to do with the Gateway? Absolutely nothing. I cannot think of a single logical reason why the GFC would be considering USD(or UND for that matter), unless rumors of Missouri St and Indiana St dropping football(or scholarship football) are far more real that commonly thought. Until something solid(and on the record) comes out of the Gateway or a GFC coach/AD/pres, I'm filing this into the "please be excited about our progam and give us money" category of propaganda.

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: "Why not State and the U"

Until something solid(and on the record) comes out of the Gateway or a GFC coach/AD/pres, I'm filing this into the "please be excited about our progam and give us money" category of propaganda.

I agree completely with your entire post, but think this sentence is exactly how everyone should approach the reported comments.

[jackmd]

Re: "Why not State and the U"

I agree completely with your entire post, but think this sentence is exactly how everyone should approach the reported comments.

Pretty well sums up what I am hearing/seeing. Again, time will tell and WE will be actively involved in the ultimate decision regarding inclusion of the UxD's in OUR conferences. Funny how some people don't seem to understand that.

[joeboo22]

Re: "Why not State and the U"

Regarding USD and the Summit, the chances are far greater than they were a few months ago. Centenary has officially expressed interest in Division III and SUU is adding sports to match what the Big Sky sponsers. Additionally, SUU's AD has been making quotes to SUU booster groups that SUU is persuing BSC affiliation in a big way. If both of those schools end up leaving within the next two years, the Summit's MBB autobid is in serious jeopardy. At that point, either UTPA, Savannah St, or Chicago St would have to (re)join to have any chance of keeping the autobid. The Summit presidents would likely consider moving to 12 teams in this situation. In any case, I can't believe that either USD or UND is the top choice for the next Summit member; although they may be the second, third or fourth choice in an expansion. Another core member is needed far too much.

What does any of this have to do with the Gateway? Absolutely nothing. I cannot think of a single logical reason why the GFC would be considering USD(or UND for that matter), unless rumors of Missouri St and Indiana St dropping football(or scholarship football) are far more real that commonly thought. Until something solid(and on the record) comes out of the Gateway or a GFC coach/AD/pres, I'm filing this into the "please be excited about our progam and give us money" category of propaganda.

I agree with you on most of it but I don't think it would so much be that the Summit would go after the U's unless they have to. Would a league that just excepted two Dakota schools want to accept 2 more to give them the advantage on travel. I think that they would court Wisconsin, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, as well as others before they would want the U's. I wouldn't be against accepting the U's (when they are done with the transfer). Heck it would let me see the Jacks 50 miles from my hometown. It would be really good for South Dakota but I just don't think that the summit wants the U's as much as they think they do. And as far as the Gateway I've looked at the Gateway. and look at it this way. The Dakota Dome doesn't hold 11,000.... The SDSU-UNI game drew 10,800ish on a cold day. Why would the conference want to accept a school thats sell-outs would be average crowds for SDSU, NDSU, UNI, YSU, and SIU? The grain silo has been great for the college but its going to hurt having a capacity so low when you want to get into the gateway or any other creditable conference. SDSU's media guide shows 7 crowds over 14,000. Who knows how many over 11,000. USD needs to realize that its hard to make money when a sell out at USD (10,000) would only be 350 more then SDSU's average last year in which 2 of the games were against NAIA teams and one of them was in a monsoon. So after saying all of that is the Gateway conference going to want a program that doesn't have the facilities to support the program and the conference?

[Coyote_Fan]

Re: "Why not State and the U"

Do not forget that the Dakotadome as far as I know does have the capabilities to expand by quite a bit if they build a grand stand on the other side of the field to match the one on the main side. I would imagine the seating capacity would be at least 12,000 if they did expand. If that happened the Dakotadome would be very similar to the uni dome.

[JimmyJack]

Re: "Why not State and the U"

Do not forget that the Dakotadome as far as I know does have the capabilities to expand by quite a bit if they build a grand stand on the other side of the field to match the one on the main side. I would imagine the seating capacity would be at least 12,000 if they did expand. If that happened the Dakotadome would be very similar to the uni dome.

Except that a permanent grandstand would destroy the track, unless they built it way up on that platform above the bleachers which would be odd to say the least. Given that SDSU is averaging more than 10,000 in its last six games and is planning a new 16,000 seat stadium, 12,000 wouldn't leave much room for USD to grow.

[Coyote_Fan]

Re: "Why not State and the U"

Except that a permanent grandstand would destroy the track, unless they built it way up on that platform above the bleachers which would be odd to say the least. Given that SDSU is averaging more than 10,000 in its last six games and is planning a new 16,000 seat stadium, 12,000 wouldn't leave much room for USD to grow.

I guess that may be a problem just as Frost Arena is considering that it has been downsized as of late. I am not worried about the Dome as a decent facility for football just as you are probably not worried about Frost. Technically both the Dakota Dome and Frost Arena might be outdated real soon but somehow I doubt a new arena is built anytime soon in Brookings and a new football facility is built anytime soon in Vermillion.

[BTownJack]

Re: "Why not State and the U"

I guess that may be a problem just as Frost Arena is considering that it has been downsized as of late. I am not worried about the Dome as a decent facility for football just as you are probably not worried about Frost. Technically both the Dakota Dome and Frost Arena might be outdated real soon but somehow I doubt a new arena is built anytime soon in Brookings and a new football facility is built anytime soon in Vermillion.

Frost Arena was built well beyond its years therefore we are just fine with playing in there for many years to come. The capacity has been downsized to around 6500 but that was intentional. That is plenty big for our needs and if we sell it out, like we did twice last year during the WNIT, then we are just fine with that.

[joeboo22]

Re: "Why not State and the U"

Frost Arena is bigger then Gonzaga's Arena I don't think Frost is too small by any means. I think comparing Frost to the DDome is like comparing apples and oranges. The luxury of having an outdoor stadium is that you can add seating when you need seating. You can't do that with a Dome yes USD could put a Grand Stand on the other side but how much would that actually add?

[JimmyJack]

Re: "Why not State and the U"

I guess that may be a problem just as Frost Arena is considering that it has been downsized as of late. I am not worried about the Dome as a decent facility for football just as you are probably not worried about Frost. Technically both the Dakota Dome and Frost Arena might be outdated real soon but somehow I doubt a new arena is built anytime soon in Brookings and a new football facility is built anytime soon in Vermillion.

Football and basketball are pretty different. This year for football we'll likely average more than the Dome can hold at capacity. That should suggest to you that your facility is too small.