Big Sky looking at USD

[Hammersmith]

Re: Big Sky looking at USD

I will say this though, it is odd that the Big Sky is adding a school that they never thought was academically good enough(SUU) and two schools in states the conference had always thought was too far away.

Sioux fans seem convinced the Montana schools are staying for now.

If I were the UXD's, I'd only make a commitment to the league for as long as the Montana schools are committed.

I think that's why this is taking as long as it is. The UxDs are waiting for Montana's decision, and Montana is waiting for Hawaii, Utah State and the like to make a decision of their futures in the WAC.

[JackJD]

Re: Big Sky looking at USD

I've decided to call this one early before all the polls are closed: UXD's to the Big Sky, done deal.

For me, it's time to say congrats and good luck. And then stop talking about it. The development should minimize some of the ill will and venomous statements claiming SDSU somehow had something to do with USD's troubles in finding a conference home for all of its sports. We don't have to read one or two USD fans expressing anger toward the Jackrabbits for not doing enough to help a fellow conference mate (Summit League) get a home for football (MVFC). I'm glad that "duty" is now behind us.




People on this board agreeing with Stu Whitney? No come on folks,...get a grip!

[Yote53]

Re: Big Sky looking at USD

I never thought it was SDSU's duty, JD. I thought it was in their best interest to keep a stable, strong Summit.

[jackrabbit1979]

Re: Two more Teams??

And it's not like USD is Chicago State, for cryin' out loud. A flagship university with a Phi Beta Kappa chapter---I can't conceive of any objection being filed by any non MVFC member of the Valley.

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa...Assuming there is only one "flagship" university in each state, South Dakota's flagship school is definitely NOT located in the SE corner.

I think we have established this from discussions on this board in the past.

[SDSUAlum08]

Re: Big Sky looking at USD

I've decided to call this one early before all the polls are closed: UXD's to the Big Sky, done deal.

For me, it's time to say congrats and good luck. And then stop talking about it. The development should minimize some of the ill will and venomous statements claiming SDSU somehow had something to do with USD's troubles in finding a conference home for all of its sports. We don't have to read one or two USD fans expressing anger toward the Jackrabbits for not doing enough to help a fellow conference mate (Summit League) get a home for football (MVFC). I'm glad that "duty" is now behind us.




People on this board agreeing with Stu Whitney? No come on folks,...get a grip!

I finally read that article and I think Stu is dead on correct. But I hope they choose the Big Sky and fade into oblivion!

[zooropa]

Re: Two more Teams??

Assuming there is only one "flagship" university in each state

I'm not inclined to make that distinction.

SDSU and USD are both flagship universities, their names and their missions embrace the totality of the state.

Of course, SDSU is the better of the two, but who's keeping score?

[zooropa]

Re: Big Sky looking at USD

I think that's why this is taking as long as it is. The UxDs are waiting for Montana's decision, and Montana is waiting for Hawaii, Utah State and the like to make a decision of their futures in the WAC.

I see it the other way. I see USD, in particular as looking desperately for a reason to turn down the Big Sky.

And, IMO, if the Valley schools think that chaos in the W (the inevitable collapse of the post Montana Big Sky) and a Summit League teetering on the brink will not affect them...............

[zooropa]

Re: Big Sky looking at USD

Zoo,

That one is wayyyyyyyy to easy, but since we aren't in the smack section I won't answer it honestly.

Don't play coy.

Give me an honest answer. You have four programs geographically equivalent and roughly equivalent in the transition process.

Why would the Big Sky be interested in the UxDs when they weren't interested in the xDSUs?

Serious question, serious answer: Why?

[filbert]

Re: Two more Teams??

By that line of reasoning, DC citizens should be content to have no vote in national politics because, after all, they have an interest in the outcome.

Having an interest with no vote is meaningless.

What possible repercussions could Evansville and Bradley bring to bear on Missouri State for voting in favor of USD's admission to the MVFC?

How could such a situation rise to the scenario you outline where the opinions of the NON-MVFC members could trump all other considerations?



And it's not like USD is Chicago State, for cryin' out loud. A flagship university with a Phi Beta Kappa chapter---I can't conceive of any objection being filed by any non MVFC member of the Valley.

Actually. . .

It seems to me that you're the one arguing in essence that DC residents should have no interest in national elections BECAUSE they have no vote.

You can certainly regard that interest as meaningless but that does not remove the fact that the interest exists.

But perhaps I am not adequately understanding your point . . .

[zooropa]

Re: Two more Teams??

DC residents should have no interest in national elections BECAUSE they have no vote.

Your suggestion seems to be that interest in a matter is analogous to having a say in the matter. Or that, at the very least, it's 'the real question' in this discussion.

Undoubtedly all Valley teams have an interest in the Valley trademark.

However, interest alone does not assure you input into the matter, as certain residents of DC would be quick to inform you.

IMO, in absence of any conceivable evidence to the contrary the operating assumption should be that the non-MVFC schools have no say whatsoever in the membership of the MVFC.

[Crashola]

Big Sky Accelerating Plans

My apologies if this has already been posted, but the WAC has announced that it is accelerating its plans to extend invites. The league alleges that negative recruiting has forced them to move up their timeframe. Invites are now expected to come by late November. And this article suggests that the Texas schools are a high priority.

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefoot...nsion-86618409

[filbert]

Re: Two more Teams??

Your suggestion seems to be that interest in a matter is analogous to having a say in the matter. Or that, at the very least, it's 'the real question' in this discussion.

Undoubtedly all Valley teams have an interest in the Valley trademark.

However, interest alone does not assure you input into the matter, as certain residents of DC would be quick to inform you.

IMO, in absence of any conceivable evidence to the contrary the operating assumption should be that the non-MVFC schools have no say whatsoever in the membership of the MVFC.

You are in error. Go re-read my original post. Carefully this time.

[SUPERBUNNY]

Re: Big Sky Accelerating Plans

My apologies if this has already been posted, but the WAC has announced that it is accelerating its plans to extend invites. The league alleges that negative recruiting has forced them to move up their timeframe. Invites are now expected to come by late November. And this article suggests that the Texas schools are a high priority.

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefoot...nsion-86618409

Very interesting read.

This is going to get really interesting. A good game of University Hold'em. Who's going to blink.

After reading the numerous links and comments it is very obvious that nobody has a great handle on how this is going to turn out. If the WAC makes the first move then everyone will fall like dominoes. With that uncertainty it wouldn't surprise me if a couple of the other conferences and schools "blink" early look to shore themselves up.

Stay tuned!

SUPERBUNNY

[zooropa]

Re: Two more Teams??

You are in error. Go re-read my original post. Carefully this time.

I've read it. I understand it. You say that 'the real question' involves non-voting non-members of the MVFC.

And as I've said, they have no role in the decision making process. Your 'real question' isn't really a question at all. It's a dead end.

This is the relevant paragraph:

The real question is: How do Bradley, Creighton, Drake, Evansville, and Wichita State feel about a potential membership of USD in the Missouri Valley Football Conference--and how do their positions affect the other MVC members of the MVFC: Northern Iowa, the ISU's, Missouri State, and Southern Illinois? Even if none of the non-football MVC's officially have no say about MVFC membership, it's naive to think that they don't have a serious interest in the Valley brand, an interest that their football-playing MVC conference-mates will take into account when making MVFC membership decisions.

Specifically this:

an interest that their football-playing MVC conference-mates will take into account

Specifically your idea that changing the name of the Gateway Conference compromised the independence of the MVFC to act as it sees best for its own interests.

To suggest (as you do) that *this* is the missing link, the 'real question' is preposterous.

You are saying, "The real question is whether the MVFC is independent."

To me that smacks of a straw man argument cloaked in the garb of a conspiracy theory.

[LakeJack]

Re: Big Sky looking at USD

Stuff from GF

http://siouxfb.areavoices.com/2010/1...tter-part-iii/

Sounds as though SUU to BSC is all but a formality, regardless of the Dakota schools.
UND & USD are apparently a package deal.
Because of scheduling, our guess is that UND wouldn’t start BSC play until 2013 at the earliest.