Big Sky takes no action

[Rabbit74]

A report on WDAY tonight indicates that the Big Sky took no action today on expansion although it was discussed. The report indicates NDSU was the main topic but that distance was the deciding factor. See the report at the link below and go to the 6 pm news at abut the 24 or 25 minute point on the news.

http://www.wday.com/

[NightHawk78]

Re: Big Sky takes no action

: Jackrabbit and Bison fans across the land go about their normal business, knowing that the BS Conference never had any plans to take action.

[filbert]

Re: Big Sky takes no action

News of the day:

1) The Big Sky once again does nothing, but does it in a way that NDSU (at least) continues to get strung along.
2) The Mid-Con commissioner says that their plan is to come to a decision on expansion within six months.

[SUPERBUNNY]

Re: Big Sky takes no action

I don't think you can trust anything from the Big Sky. Hope this doesn't slow things down with the Mid-Con.

The thread on Tom Douple from the Mid-Con is very informative.

SUPERBUNNY

[jackmd]

Re: Big Sky takes no action

News of the day:

1)  The Big Sky once again does nothing, but does it in a way that NDSU (at least) continues to get strung along.
2)  The Mid-Con commissioner says that their plan is to come to a decision on expansion within six months.

Can you say "no-brainer"?

[OKC_Poke]

Re: Big Sky takes no action

After reading all of that, I officially throw my support (if I was big-time SDSU supporter) towards the Mid-Con. At least, they don't have their heads up their rears like the Big Sky!!! :

[89rabbit]

Re: Big Sky takes no action

Here is the latest from the Big Sky:

http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs...09/1002/SPORTS

Big Sky looking at adding 10th member

Chris Solari
csolari@argusleader.com
May 24, 2006

Big Sky Conference leaders are developing a plan to look at adding a 10th member to the league.

On their last day of meetings Tuesday in Missoula, Mont., officials told Commissioner Doug Fullerton to put together a report on what a 10-team conference would look like.

The league is not looking at plans to increase its membership to 12.

Fullerton said six schools are in the mix, among which are South Dakota State and North Dakota State. He said his research will include travel amount, projected budgets and detailed look at potential schedules.

League leaders are not planning visits to any of the schools, Fullerton said. He is to give his report at their next meeting on Oct. 11 in Salt Lake City.

The Big Sky, which added Northern Colorado a year ago, took up the expansion discussion after athletic directors found it difficult to balance basketball schedules with nine teams.

"We're still wrestling with the nine-team schedule in basketball," Montana President George Dennison said. "We'll continue to wrestle with that."

Fullerton said the schools the conference is looking at are SDSU, NDSU, the University of North Dakota, Southern Utah, Denver and Utah Valley State. Southern Utah is currently a member of the Mid-Continent Conference, and Denver is in the Sun Belt Conference.

Denver and Utah Valley State do not offer football. Fullerton has said in the past that an odd number for football scheduling and an even number for basketball is optimal. . . . (read more)


With what happened yesterday, one would have to think that Denver or Utah Valley State are the front runners (I had heard Denver was the front runner and it is interesting that Utah Valley State is now in the mix).

[Jacks-D1]

Re: Big Sky takes no action

I would say that Denver is the front runner. It would make no sense to add NDSU only and not SDSU to the Big Sky because there is no travel partner possible with NDSU. Denver is an easy travel partner with Northern Colorado. If they want 9 football schools and 10 for every thing else, then Denver is the obvious choice, assuming Denver wants to join.

[Haldersham]

Re: Big Sky takes no action

Oh to be a fly on the wall, during a BSC presidents meeting.  I heard a few years back from a reliable source that the Big Sky was extremely disappointed about Sac State and Portland State and their progress to D1AA and furthermore the BSC was about to kick them out the door. These two seem to be more solid members now than what they may have been back a couple of years.

I would suspect these two PSU and UCSU are the most articularite in their opposition to considering the Dakotas. It stands to reason from a travel point of view.  Air miles from Denver to Portland is a few miles too. As Fred state on the Brad and Scotty show this morning, the BSC is already traveling great distances and the travel to the Dakotas  should not be that much of an issue.

Could travel costs over occupy the agenda at these BSC President meetings?
With the BSC conference already spread wide and long, its plausible that travel is a big concern to all current members and they can not agree on how to keep it under control.

So if its DU or UV as the front runner its very odd since neither has football and whether they are going to invest in a program remains to be seen. I kind of doubt it as you need at least a million bucks to get things going. What about a facility? I can't rationally believe that either school is being considered. If they are then its about some poltical issue within the boardroom that we know nothing of. There is more here than what meets the eye.

I think our BSC chances might improve if the next SDSU president was a VP from Idaho State, Montana, Montana State or even Eastern Washington. We would then have some clue as to what all the BSC presidents are thinking and talking about.  I HAVE NO CLUE IF SUCH A PERSON HAS SUBMITTED A RESUME TO SDSU, but I sure hope someone from these institutions has done so.

[OKC_Poke]

Re: Big Sky takes no action

I would say that Denver is the front runner.  It would make no sense to add NDSU only and not SDSU to the Big Sky because there is no travel partner possible with NDSU.  Denver is an easy travel partner with Northern Colorado.  If they want 9 football schools and 10 for every thing else, then Denver is the obvious choice, assuming Denver wants to join.  

That does make sense. Plus to add, moving out of the Sun Belt will probably save who knows how much $$$$ in travel costs for the University of Denver.

The only surprise, at least to me, is why the Big Sky apparently decided against having a 12 team, 2 division league.

[jackmd]

Re: Big Sky takes no action

[quote author=Jacks-D1 link=1148432600/0#7 date=1148479055]I would say that Denver is the front runner.  It would make no sense to add NDSU only and not SDSU to the Big Sky because there is no travel partner possible with NDSU.  Denver is an easy travel partner with Northern Colorado.  If they want 9 football schools and 10 for every thing else, then Denver is the obvious choice, assuming Denver wants to join.  

That does make sense.  Plus to add, moving out of the Sun Belt will probably save who knows how much $$$$ in travel costs for the University of Denver.

The only surprise, at least to me, is why the Big Sky apparently decided against having a 12 team, 2 division league.[/quote]

Why not 12? Fullerton doesn't have the vision to expand the conference or perhaps a few of the members are opposed to the increased competition.

[Jacks15]

Re: Big Sky takes no action

It could also be because there is not another 1-AA football team that the Big Sky likes to bring it to twelve. There appears not to be much interest in Southern Utah, otherwise they would be in already. It keeps on looking as if they will be looking to add one school that is non football playing and keep it at 9 for football and 10 for basketball.

[Haldersham]

Re: Big Sky takes no action

It could also be because there is not another 1-AA football team that the Big Sky likes to bring it to twelve.  There appears not to be much interest in Southern Utah, otherwise they would be in already.  It keeps on looking as if they will be looking to add one school that is non football playing and keep it at 9 for football and 10 for basketball.  

When you put it those terms, then maybe it makes sense at least from what is being made public. Not a good deal for the Dakotas though.

[MilwaukeeJacksAlum]

Re: Big Sky takes no action

Initially when I read the title to this thread, I expected the response to be: and in other news the sun rose in the east this morning. Realistically, though, I don't see them adding JUST NDSU as that big of a stretch. Sure, Denver is closer and more of a logical choice on the basis of existing travel schedules. However, the Big Sky is a football conference. NDSU has very quickly established themselves as a team riding a bullet in D1AA right now. As much as it pains me to say it, we're not there yet. Don't get me wrong, I think our football program is more exciting than it's been in years - maybe ever. But, we're still the program who is playing 7 ranked teams this season and will be the underdog in all 7. NDSU brings added credibility to an already loaded football conference. I HOPE I'M WRONG, but I wouldn't be shocked if that was part of the conversation when determining they only wanted one school. I think it's a choice of 2 schools. 1) Denver = proximity or 2) NDSU = football.

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: Big Sky takes no action

If I remember correctly, when adding UNC the Big Sky stated that the presidents liked the fact that this would more exposure in the Denver metro area. Adding Denver makes too much sense for both parties not to be the way they are looking. NDSU alone presents travel problems in everything, even though it would be great for football. Denver fits with everything but FB, and the BSC seems to like where they are at in FB. I would assume Denver will save on travel expenses, and probably view the BSC as a step up from their current affiliation.