IPFW looking to Bolt???

[propar80]

http://www.journalgazette.net/articl...0305/307089975

I guess we all have our "grand wishes", but the article doesn't exactly give me that "warm and fuzzy feeling" in regards to the future of the Summit League.

Hate to say it already, but I really think Sell, the President and SDSU need to be proactive with the Missouri Valley Conference...if they're not already.

Go Jacks!!

[JamesJacks]

Re: IPFW looking to Bolt???

I agree that this needs to be investigated. At least inquire about it. I don't understand all the factors involved with moving to a different league, but we should at least contact the MVC now, if teams are looking to leave the Summit. Maybe even contact the Horizon League. Football can still stay in the MVC.

I did not know ORU was looking to leave. Do they have a conference in mind?

[zooropa]

Re: IPFW looking to Bolt???

Would SUU rather be in the Big Sky? Yes.

Would ORU rather be in the Valley? Yes.

Would NDSU and SDSU rather be in the Valley? Yes.

Would Oakland rather be in the Horizon? Yes.

Would IUPUI rather be in the Horizon? Yes.

Would IPFW rather be in the Horizon? Yes.

My answer to all this?

Here.

[zooropa]

Re: IPFW looking to Bolt???

BTW:

IPFW, IUPUI, Oakland and WIU aren't selling anything the Horizon wants to buy.

UMKC, ORU, SDSU and NDSU have nothing the Valley needs.

Only SUU has potential value to the Big Sky---and that only if Montana and/or Montana State bolt.

[filbert]

Re: IPFW looking to Bolt???

I hate IPFW. (I hope everyone knew that was coming . . .)

[filbert]

Re: IPFW looking to Bolt???

If I commented that the article read a bit like an IPFW fan's wet dream, would or should I ban myself for doing so?

I do hate IPFW, if that's any defense.

[FargoBison]

Re: IPFW looking to Bolt???

Paul’s third wish is for the Fort Wayne community to accept IPFW as a viable, competitive university.

That should be wish #1-10. That is the only way IPFW ever gets into the Horizon or goes anywhere in DI.

But in the meantime their AD would be smart to embrace the conference they are in right now, talking about how you want to get into the Horizon isn't going to do much to draw fans in to watch you play in the Summit.

[TeaJackrabbit]

Re: IPFW looking to Bolt???

I agree that this needs to be investigated. At least inquire about it. I don't understand all the factors involved with moving to a different league, but we should at least contact the MVC now, if teams are looking to leave the Summit. Maybe even contact the Horizon League. Football can still stay in the MVC.

I did not know ORU was looking to leave. Do they have a conference in mind?

Does ORU have a conference in mind? Not really, just any conference not named the Summit. They would love to go to the Sun Belt...but the SB isn't interested in anyone that doesn't have fball. They would really love the Valley, but that's a REAL long shot. I think they are learning to be happy in the Summit where they can challenge for conference titles every year.

[TeaJackrabbit]

Re: IPFW looking to Bolt???

I think pretty much every Summit school is trying to figure a way out. I haven't thought about it much or looked into it much but the Big Sky is said to be looking at UND. They also basically admitted they errored in not adding the xDSU's.

So the Big Sky sits at 9 right now. How about they add the xDSU's and USD or maybe even go to 13 schools or let a current member go...looking at you Sacramento State or Northern Arizona...

East:
SDSU
NDSU
USD
UND
Montana
Mont St

West:
No Colorado
Weber St (Utah)
Idaho St
Northern Az
E Washington
Portland St

That would make a pretty respectable conference. Immediately turns into top-3 FCS Football conference. Yep, the Big Sky is my realistic dream. Valley and even OVC are real longshots.

[zooropa]

Re: IPFW looking to Bolt???

the Big Sky is my realistic dream. Valley and even OVC are real longshots.

Montana and Montana State will not accede to such an arrangement, nor will the travel be appealing to the xDSUs as an upgrade from the Summit slate, nor is the Big Sky a better basketball conference, nor is the Big Sky a better football conference.

[rabidrabbit]

Re: IPFW looking to Bolt???

For the Dakota schools, why would any of the 4 not want to be part of a I-29 centric D-I conference? What is the benefit to any of these four schools to not be with the other 3 in a conference?

IMHO, I'd like to see a D-I conference of all the old NCC teams now playing D-I. UNI, UNC, Creighton, Drake, the 4 Dakotas. I'd embrace and encourage UNO when they choose to leap. Some of the Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Ill, WI schools would be good also.

Until the Summit schools can start consistently winning 1st round games in the MBB tourney, most other conferences will have little interest in plucking a school out of this league. In about 5-10 years, the schools at the top of the conference may find new homes. If you look at the overall performance, the three schools that leap out from the Summit are Oral Roberts, NDSU & SDSU. IMHO those three will continue to be the powers in the Summit. Oral doesn't play football, so football conferences will be reluctant to take them in. NDSU & SDSU are sound programs, and landgrants. If anyone gets invited in the next ten years, it will be the Jacks or Bison. Otherwise, it's a bb-only conference, and so far, if not Big 6 conferences, still a single invite to the 64/68, and a first round loss.

[zooropa]

Re: IPFW looking to Bolt???

If you look at the overall performance, the three schools that leap out from the Summit are Oral Roberts, NDSU & SDSU.

I'd include Oakland in that group.

After that, it gets sketchy in a real hurry (IUPUI = basketball and not much else).

[TeaJackrabbit]

Re: IPFW looking to Bolt???

Montana and Montana State will not accede to such an arrangement, nor will the travel be appealing to the xDSUs as an upgrade from the Summit slate, nor is the Big Sky a better basketball conference, nor is the Big Sky a better football conference.

Why would the Montanas have an issue?

The travel, in a 12 team conference w/ two divisions would be good enough where, given the rest of the pro's, would be well worth it.

The Big Sky would be a much superior bball conference, top to bottom, than the Summit. The only consistant bball power the Summit can claim is ORU...and Weber State or Montana trumps them.

Football might not be as good as the MVFC (or would it?) but it would still be a very strong fball conference and I would trade the small step down to be in a conference where we have same partners in at least the major sports.

There is a reason the Mid-Con/Summit has been a holding cell...

[zooropa]

Re: IPFW looking to Bolt???

Why would the Montanas have an issue?

The travel, in a 12 team conference w/ two divisions would be good enough where, given the rest of the pro's, would be well worth it.

The Big Sky would be a much superior bball conference, top to bottom, than the Summit. The only consistant bball power the Summit can claim is ORU...and Weber State or Montana trumps them.

Football might not be as good as the MVFC (or would it?) but it would still be a very strong fball conference and I would trade the small step down to be in a conference where we have same partners in at least the major sports.

There is a reason the Mid-Con/Summit has been a holding cell...

Why would the Montanas have a problem?

Because it's a over thousand miles from Missoula to Brookings.

USD and SDSU would be farther away from Missoula than any current Big Sky opponent (the farthest away? Flagstaff @ about a dozen miles shorter than the distance from Missoula to Brookings).

At the end of 2010, the Big Sky was at 69.25 mean in Sagarin, while the Summit was at 66.52 (67.76 if you toss out Centenary). That's not a meaningful difference.

But the big thing is travel. Don't assume that the distances are -gigantic- just because this is a western conference. Sacramento State to Greeley is a bit of a jaunt, as is Missoula to Flagstaff, but that's the outer extent. If you throw in four schools that are 800 miles east of the easternmost school (UNC), you're definitely creating travel headaches.

Not to mention that the SDSU travel budget wouldn't get better (Brookings to Sac-State????? No thanks).

[Nidaros]

Re: IPFW looking to Bolt???

Why would the Montanas have a problem?

Because it's a over thousand miles from Missoula to Brookings.

USD and SDSU would be farther away from Missoula than any current Big Sky opponent (the farthest away? Flagstaff @ about a dozen miles shorter than the distance from Missoula to Brookings).

At the end of 2010, the Big Sky was at 69.25 mean in Sagarin, while the Summit was at 66.52 (67.76 if you toss out Centenary). That's not a meaningful difference.

But the big thing is travel. Don't assume that the distances are -gigantic- just because this is a western conference. Sacramento State to Greeley is a bit of a jaunt, as is Missoula to Flagstaff, but that's the outer extent. If you throw in four schools that are 800 miles east of the easternmost school (UNC), you're definitely creating travel headaches.

Not to mention that the SDSU travel budget wouldn't get better (Brookings to Sac-State????? No thanks).

Travel and distance will never be overcome in our life time. I would agree with all the points that Zoo has made here.

I also recall during my student days about 1963, there was a meeting of the presidents to explore a conference formation. Those in attendence included SDSU, NDSU, USD, UND, Montana, Montana State, Idaho and Idaho State. Nothing came from this meeting as travel and distance made the conference idea unworkable. The western schools went home and formed the Big Sky. Because we look at a USA Map and see these states next to each other, we assume there should be interaction.
The problem is these states take up a lot of area with Idaho being an exception.

SDSU has went down this road more than once and each time it been found unworkable. We should be gratitful to the BSC for denying our request for membership.