Investigate the Big Sky?

[2002jack]

Re: Investigate the Big Sky?

Did I miss the "official" announcement that OU is leaving the Summit? Is that still in the rumor phase?

My guess... Oakland is gone.

I think someone had suggested this before.

The Summit needs to make a hard play at UND & UNC. If we get both to commit, that gives a potential Summit football conference of UND, UNC, WIU, SDSU, NDSU, and USD. I believe 6 would qualify us for an auto bid. In turn that leaves the MVFC with 6 teams. I don't think the MVFC wants to be at just 6, so in turn, they invite all 6 summit schools to play football. This senario puts the MVFC with 12 solid teams, and the Summit with a nice core of schools built around the Dakotas and that would add the feeling of security for all.

Is UNC interested? If so, let's get it done.

I have to believe in Douple, not because I have confidence in him, but because I have no other alternative.

[2002jack]

Re: Investigate the Big Sky?

USD has had recent experience managing the travel budget when it was in the Great West. We were going from the west coast, to Jersey, to Houston in that conference. While a MVFC/Summit travel budget is much more desirable, I don't think travel in the Big Sky is too scary.

As to money, I just heard that USD has the funding in place for the new arena. Digging may start as early as this fall. I did hear they may put off the start until spring in order to raise more funds for some amenities they'd like to put in right away. Honestly, USD is getting it done when it comes to capital projects, where they need to kick it in gear is when it comes to the annual operating budget.

When you look at the Dakotas I see capital improvement projects, increasing budgets, improving programs that are going to be a force in the mid-major level of D1 athletics. While I have bagged on the Summit in the past I think it is solid with a core of the Dakotas, WIU, and DU, and even UNO. Bring in UND and UNC to really solidify things. That's why I think the Summit schools need to make a power play of sorts to force UND and UNC football into the MVFC so we can bring them into the Summit. If that option was publically on the table UND would have to accept. The political pressure and the resumption of the football series would be too great to resist.

I've said on the USD board, as our programs continue to grow I could also see the state institutions of the Valley joining with the Dakotas to create a Big Ten lite conference. This is an extreme long-term outlook.

I realize I just repeated what you said, but I like to read it in my own style.

[filbert]

Re: Investigate the Big Sky?

No, you haven't missed an official announcement.

There's renewed buzz because of discussion-board rumors and a few tweets about Oakland to the Horizon.

My strongest preference remains the Summit as NCC 2.0. Football remains the main complication. Summit League as it stands has four football schools: NDSU, SDSU, USD, Western Illinois.

The Summit League making a run at Northern Colorado and North Dakota seems to be close to a no-brainer, but to do that, you have to start Summit Football. Having the two-time national champion in NDSU as a charter member is a big advantage here. Get UNC and UND and you're at six football schools. You need a minimum of seven--and from eight to ten is optimal.

Based on geography, you have to look at either associate D-I-FCS members for football, or uplifting D-II schools to D-I, and the only other regional FCS-playing schools that would be likely prospects are in a better basketball league, the Valley. It's possible I suppose that if four of the ten MVFC schools bolt to form a Summit Football Conference of their own, you might suddenly see some of those football-playing MVC schools start considering things like a merger of the MVFC and the SFC.

Regarding D-II, and assuming that the buzz is accurate and that Oakland's gone, there's no particular reason to go after Grand Valley State in Michigan. Minnesota State-Mankato goes to the top of the list of potential D-II targets, I think. You might also want to do something really entertaining like going after Minnesota-Duluth for full membership as well--or go south to look at another MIAA school. Central Missouri, perhaps?

If the Summit doesn't want to start football, then the conference I think will have a serious problem, and the chances of the Dakota schools all heading west to the Big Sky start going up. I'm starting to think that the route to much greater stability for the Summit will be to sponsor FCS football, even if the league has to go get a couple of regional D-II teams to do it.

[zooropa]

Re: Investigate the Big Sky?

The Summit League making a run at Northern Colorado and North Dakota seems to be close to a no-brainer, but to do that, you have to start Summit Football.

Two options there:

1 - I believe the Big Sky would gladly keep UND & UNC's football programs while ditching the other sports.

2 - The Summit could pull most of, if not all of the MVFC into the Summit as football-only or full members by the following means:

6 teams give you an autobid. The Summit starts sponsoring FB with WIU, NDSU, SDSU, USD, UNC, UND. The Summit then invites any and all MVFC schools to the Summit as associate members for FB. As soon as *one* of those schools accepts the invite, the MVFC no longer has enough schools to retain an autobid. Thus all the MVFC schools end up in the Summit as either full or FB only members. Except maybe YSU joins the CAA instead. Or, the Summit presents this scenario to the MVFC presidents and obtains admission of UNC & UND to the MVFC.

The catch here is that one of the schools is UND, and managing this sort of scenario requires a level of perspicacity, cooperation and finesse that, up till now, has been nonexistent at that school.

(Hammersmith outlined this scenario on B-ville some time ago)

[filbert]

Re: Investigate the Big Sky?

Two options there:

1 - I believe the Big Sky would gladly keep UND & UNC's football programs while ditching the other sports.

2 - The Summit could pull most of, if not all of the MVFC into the Summit as football-only or full members by the following means:

6 teams give you an autobid. The Summit starts sponsoring FB with WIU, NDSU, SDSU, USD, UNC, UND. The Summit then invites any and all MVFC schools to the Summit as associate members for FB. As soon as *one* of those schools accepts the invite, the MVFC no longer has enough schools to retain an autobid. Thus all the MVFC schools end up in the Summit as either full or FB only members. Except maybe YSU joins the CAA instead. Or, the Summit presents this scenario to the MVFC presidents and obtains admission of UNC & UND to the MVFC.

The catch here is that one of the schools is UND, and managing this sort of scenario requires a level of perspicacity, cooperation and finesse that, up till now, has been nonexistent at that school.

(Hammersmith outlined this scenario on B-ville some time ago)

OK, 6 schools for an FCS auto-bid, not 7. Makes it easier to accomplish, then.

And yeah, UND's leadership haven't exactly been the models of foresight and strategic, big-picture thinking, have they?

Of course, I could say the same thing about UMKC. IMHO, of course.

[yoteforever]

Re: Investigate the Big Sky?

This is going to sound snarky or maybe smacky, but that is not my intent. I have every faith that our leadership is aware of their surroundings and is working for the best interests of our school. After all they saw that a move from D-II to D-I was ultimately in the best interests of our institution. We have a track record of having vision. This is the snarky part - as a USD fan I can understand why you might feel the need to sound the alarm to make sure your leadership is on the ball. I believe in our leaders and I have faith that they will do what is best for SDSU. I am confident that they know more about what is going on then anyone on this board does.

This might sound snarky or even smacky, but it also isn't my intent. I know everyone has faith in their leadership, but so did the alumni of UCONN. Again, I'm not anti Summit, I'm just saying it doesn't hurt to have one set of RABBIT EARS on something different. And I don't think the Big Sky is better, just maybe a wee bit more secure.

[filbert]

Re: Investigate the Big Sky?

This might sound snarky or even smacky, but it also isn't my intent. I know everyone has faith in their leadership, but so did the alumni of UCONN. Again, I'm not anti Summit, I'm just saying it doesn't hurt to have one set of RABBIT EARS on something different. And I don't think the Big Sky is better, just maybe a wee bit more secure.

The fact is that the entirety of Division I college athletics is simply out of the complete control of the colleges involved. The TV networks (i.e. ESPN, mainly, but Fox, CBS, and NBC have their hands in the cookie jars as well) are driving the entire realignment circus, with the NCAA organization as eager co-conspirators.

And of course, they're all doing it for the almighty eyeball of the viewing consumer. That would be you and me, whenever we watch another "can't miss" big, big college game between Somewhere U. and Somewhere-else State, neither of which we have any relationship with other than as a sports fan.

Once you hop on the treadmill, your only options are to keep up with however fast it's moving, or to fall on your face.

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: Investigate the Big Sky?

The fact is that the entirety of Division I college athletics is simply out of the complete control of the colleges involved. The TV networks (i.e. ESPN, mainly, but Fox, CBS, and NBC have their hands in the cookie jars as well) are driving the entire realignment circus, with the NCAA organization as eager co-conspirators.

And of course, they're all doing it for the almighty eyeball of the viewing consumer. That would be you and me, whenever we watch another "can't miss" big, big college game between Somewhere U. and Somewhere-else State, neither of which we have any relationship with other than as a sports fan.

Once you hop on the treadmill, your only options are to keep up with however fast it's moving, or to fall on your face.

Thread drift warning!

If there was a sports version of Netflix (it will happen eventually), the number of cable/dish subscribers would plummet dramatically. Locking up live sports programming is pretty much their last option for keeping subscribers.

There are droves of people under 30 who don't subscribe to cable at all. I haven't had cable for the last 5 years, and the only reason I consider signing up again is to get better access to sports. Most of the time I end up at a bar to watch when I really want to, so at the end of the day its probably a wash money wise.

I thought this was interesting:

http://www.businessinsider.com/bruta...so-high-2013-1

[jackdaniel]

Re: Investigate the Big Sky?

Here's an interesting link to how our dollars make ESPN basically a monopoly in sports programming.Interesting read.

http://www.whatyoupayforsports.com/2...nance-of-espn/

PS....Wonder if legally,ESPN has no right,specificaly stated,to televise any of the other conferences they do not pay for the rights.I suppose they (the other conferences) are desperate enough for exposure to grant them permission for nothing.Maybe we should conglomerate (sp?) and try and get something out of the cheapskates!

[OldHare]

Re: Investigate the Big Sky?

[QUOTE=jackdaniel;230364]Here's an interesting link to how our dollars make ESPN basically a monopoly in sports programming.Interesting read.
These kind of numbers indicate why Fox is now launching a competitor sport network. It may be that the mid majors might find a slot with a start up. I know there are currently regional Fox Sports Network, but there is some groundwork to expand the business. It may not answer the under 30 audience, but if the cable providers would offer the ala carte to weed out the channels I do not watch and the dollars would go to my interest. Either way, I would hope that the Summit could draw some attention for local cable providers-e.g.Midco at the basketball tourney. Douple and the Summit do have some success that could bring teams and viewers.

[jackdaniel]

Re: Investigate the Big Sky?

This is why i love broadcast tv,everythings paid for by advertising,remember when cable first came out,their primary selling point was NO advertising to put up with,how long did that last!Eventually ,their greed will be their downfall,as people would still rather eat than watch UConn, i assume.Second thought......naahhh!!!!! There's not enough money in the world to hide some peoples true charachter.Everyones subject to judgement,justly or unjustly as it may be.

[jackdaniel]

Re: Investigate the Big Sky?

[QUOTE=OldHare;230365]

Here's an interesting link to how our dollars make ESPN basically a monopoly in sports programming.Interesting read.
These kind of numbers indicate why Fox is now launching a competitor sport network. It may be that the mid majors might find a slot with a start up. I know there are currently regional Fox Sports Network, but there is some groundwork to expand the business. It may not answer the under 30 audience, but if the cable providers would offer the ala carte to weed out the channels I do not watch and the dollars would go to my interest. Either way, I would hope that the Summit could draw some attention for local cable providers-e.g.Midco at the basketball tourney. Douple and the Summit do have some success that could bring teams and viewers.

THIS would be highly appreciated by me also,let Connecticut viewers pay for UConn,not me,i'm tired of subsidizing them.I think the viewer should have more say as to what programming he wants to watch,not some ESPN guy dictating what we'll watch...are you listening Fox?Go grab that Nat'l market that everyone wants,and provide competition to ESPN.I think I'm ranting and getting out of control again.....moderators,help!Thread drift,thread drift,thread drift!!!

[joeboo22]

Re: Investigate the Big Sky?

To get somewhat back on track I think SDSU and NDSU would have problems joining the Big Sky, they had there opportunity with the schools during transition, they have had problems with scheduling in football and its easier to travel east to play then it is to travel west. I think they would be just as open to joining the WAC if had to then the Big Sky, because if they joined the WAC they could at least take over as headline schools and Sioux Falls could probably get the conference tournaments.

If Oakland leaves its not good, but UND has just as good facilities if not better, there basketball team isn't great but has improved, and I think they will be pretty good the next 2-3 years as they have some solid commitments from recruits and are finalist for a couple others. Both have baseball, travel is a little more difficult but not terrible. I really like the way their program is headed.

[Prairiehaas]

Re: Investigate the Big Sky?

Big Sky is at best a lateral move with higher travel costs. Though I did enjoy competition against Poly and Davis, best move would be to try to poach from the east half of BSC and/or other nearby conferences. None of the Mid-major/FCS conferences are stable with the changes happening at the top. If Summit can bring in schools from the upper half of other conferences they have a good shot at making through the tsunami.

Some may see the geography as a hinderance, it could though be an advantage in that for what is becoming the core of the Summit, SDSU/NDSU/UNO/USD/WIU/Denver, there are few to no better geographic options. This could be an anchor in the center of the country.

[91jack]

Re: Investigate the Big Sky?

Big Sky is at best a lateral move with higher travel costs. Though I did enjoy competition against Poly and Davis, best move would be to try to poach from the east half of BSC and/or other nearby conferences. None of the Mid-major/FCS conferences are stable with the changes happening at the top. If Summit can bring in schools from the upper half of other conferences they have a good shot at making through the tsunami.

Some may see the geography as a hinderance, it could though be an advantage in that for what is becoming the core of the Summit, SDSU/NDSU/UNO/USD/WIU/Denver, there are few to no better geographic options. This could be an anchor in the center of the country.

Poly and Davis are only in the Big Sky for football so they shouldn't factor in. I would think that the Big Sky would want to do the same thing with UND. Travel to ND isn't ideal but if they only had to do it in football every other year, it wouldn't be as bad. I just don't know how UNC factors in. Would they save much in travel costs? If they don't would they gain anything?