Big Sky looking at USD

[jacksfan29]

Re: Big Sky looking at USD

There is an interesting discussion over on EGRIZ stating the SUU, USD and UND have all been invited and that the conference are waiting for answers from the UXDs. It is just a rumor but the discussion is fun to follow as there is a plenty of discussion on how the Big Sky missed the boat by not inviting the more attractive XDSUs.

[zooropa]

Re: Big Sky looking at USD

They wouldn't invite without a site visit.

[MaddogJack]

Re: Big Sky looking at USD

There is an interesting discussion over on EGRIZ stating the SUU, USD and UND have all been invited and that the conference are waiting for answers from the UXDs. It is just a rumor but the discussion is fun to follow as there is a plenty of discussion on how the Big Sky missed the boat by not inviting the more attractive XDSUs.

My memory is that the Big Sky thumbed their noses at the XSDU's and IMHO they didn't want to bring in a storied FB power from D2, that seemed poised to make some noise on the D1AA level. (Great foresight on their part - true visionaries they are, not)

I think it would only be poetic justice that they invite the UXD's. The bigger question would be how much $$ will it cost them. I'm sure that the BOR would open the checkbook to write that check. or not

[Jacks#1Fan]

Re: Big Sky looking at USD

Need to turn this discussion to some facts, which didn't appear in the Argus story. My source on these is unimpeachable, BTW.

The invite from the Big Sky was not for football only. The BSC has already invited Cal Poly and Cal Davis as football only members. Their concern if Montana and Montana State should move, would be over there other sports. So the invitation to USD, UND and SUU is for full conference membership.

That puts USD (more than UND) in a tight spot, with a major and difficult decision to make. If they choose to accept the BSC invite, they must: a) pay the $500,000 buyout to the Summit League required when they joined; b) face the complications of putting together a complete new schedule for 2011 (and contractual obligations that could result); and c) face the budget implications of travel in the Big Sky which would be major compared to the Summit (and that would be even larger if the Montana schools leave, where UNC would be the closest competitor). UND faces some of the same problems but hasn't yet accepted Summit League membership, so they are in a somewhat different boat.

Putting the squeeze on USD is that (I am told), the MVFC indicated in a query from USD that no expansion of the league is in the works. Which means USD, if they stay in the Summit, has no certainty of being in a football conference (with the demise of the Great West) and there are MAJOR problems, financially and otherwise, in trying to operate as an independent in football.

Would you like to be president, AD or coaches at USD right now? That is a VERY difficult scenario for them.

[filbert]

Re: Big Sky looking at USD

Need to turn this discussion to some facts, which didn't appear in the Argus story. My source on these is unimpeachable, BTW.

The invite from the Big Sky was not for football only. The BSC has already invited Cal Poly and Cal Davis as football only members. Their concern if Montana and Montana State should move, would be over there other sports. So the invitation to USD, UND and SUU is for full conference membership.

That puts USD (more than UND) in a tight spot, with a major and difficult decision to make. If they choose to accept the BSC invite, they must: a) pay the $500,000 buyout to the Summit League required when they joined; b) face the complications of putting together a complete new schedule for 2011 (and contractual obligations that could result); and c) face the budget implications of travel in the Big Sky which would be major compared to the Summit (and that would be even larger if the Montana schools leave, where UNC would be the closest competitor). UND faces some of the same problems but hasn't yet accepted Summit League membership, so they are in a somewhat different boat.

Putting the squeeze on USD is that (I am told), the MVFC indicated in a query from USD that no expansion of the league is in the works. Which means USD, if they stay in the Summit, has no certainty of being in a football conference (with the demise of the Great West) and there are MAJOR problems, financially and otherwise, in trying to operate as an independent in football.

Would you like to be president, AD or coaches at USD right now? That is a VERY difficult scenario for them.

Given the facts as you state them, if I was USD, I think I'd have to back out of the Summit League, take the short-term financial hit (and the PR hit that will come, too), and join the Big Sky.

Assuming, of course, that the Big Sky isn't just jerking them around. They've been known to do that.

[zooropa]

Re: Big Sky looking at USD

If I were Sayler, I would not place the future of the USD athletic program in the hands of the Montana schools.

USD needs to control its own destiny. They can't hang around waiting for Montana to crap or get off the pot.

In fact, if I were Sayler, I'd be rather miffed by the BSC's timing, conditions, and disregard for conference affiliation: "We didn't want you three years ago, but it looks like we might be able to squeeze you in, on the chance that our most prestigious schools, the only flagship schools in our conference, by the way, decide to leave. Oh, and good luck paying the Summit League buyout. Just remember. We have football!! Of course travel costs will be higher than they were in the Great West, but, uh, we have football."

[RabbitObsessed]

Re: Big Sky looking at USD

If I were Sayler, I would not place the future of the USD athletic program in the hands of the Montana schools.

USD needs to control its own destiny. They can't hang around waiting for Montana to crap or get off the pot.

In fact, if I were Sayler, I'd be rather miffed by the BSC's timing, conditions, and disregard for conference affiliation: "We didn't want you three years ago, but it looks like we might be able to squeeze you in, on the chance that our most prestigious schools, the only flagship schools in our conference, by the way, decide to leave. Oh, and good luck paying the Summit League buyout. Just remember. We have football!! Of course travel costs will be higher than they were in the Great West, but, uh, we have football."

Agree with this.

[Iowayotefan]

Re: Big Sky looking at USD

Isn't that like saying Sayler can't wait for the MVFC to wait around to expand as well? Seriously, 9 is the dumbest number I have ever heard for a football conference. Why not make it 10. What big difference would that make honestly. One less non-con game against Delaware? How did that go this year? Everyone can still get in their FCS game and play a good amount of conference games in a very strong conference. The MVFC is the only one not look at changes it seems, especially the unprogressive ones. Seriously, when most schools and conferences would like to find ways to move forward, the MVFC is taking the MAC route and staying pat with everything.

[jacksfan29]

Re: Big Sky looking at USD

Isn't that like saying Sayler can't wait for the MVFC to wait around to expand as well? Seriously, 9 is the dumbest number I have ever heard for a football conference. Why not make it 10. What big difference would that make honestly. One less non-con game against Delaware? How did that go this year? Everyone can still get in their FCS game and play a good amount of conference games in a very strong conference. The MVFC is the only one not look at changes it seems, especially the unprogressive ones. Seriously, when most schools and conferences would like to find ways to move forward, the MVFC is taking the MAC route and staying pat with everything.

How many years ago was it that they added SDSU and NDSU? Just because the USD fans are becoming frustrated please don't become UND, bashing anyone not jumping up and down to let you in.

Also, please don't compare us to the MAC. From top to bottom the FCS MVFC is likely stronger then the FBS MAC.

[JackJD]

Re: Big Sky looking at USD

Seems some Jackrabbit detractors like to point out the instability of our conferences as demonstrated by the number of teams who have entered and left the conferences over the past 20 years. And now the MVFC is being criticized for wanting a little stability and not wanting to make a change?

I like the 9-member size. Playing a quality out-of-conference opponent may help the league get more than just the auto-qualifier to the post season.

[Hammersmith]

Re: Big Sky looking at USD

Isn't that like saying Sayler can't wait for the MVFC to wait around to expand as well? Seriously, 9 is the dumbest number I have ever heard for a football conference. Why not make it 10. What big difference would that make honestly. One less non-con game against Delaware? How did that go this year? Everyone can still get in their FCS game and play a good amount of conference games in a very strong conference. The MVFC is the only one not look at changes it seems, especially the unprogressive ones. Seriously, when most schools and conferences would like to find ways to move forward, the MVFC is taking the MAC route and staying pat with everything.

You must be new to this or something. 9 and 12 are the perfect numbers for football and everyone knows it. Both have 8-game conference schedules that allow for an even balance of home and away games(4 of each). A 9-team conference allows for a full round-robin, while a 12-team conference allows for 5 games within your division and 3 games from the other. At our level(FCS), the 9-team conference is slightly preferred because we don't have the option for a conference championship game without giving up the chance for the playoffs(à la the SWAC). A 12-team conference is preferred in the FBS because of the money that can be made off of a televised championship game. Also, the 8-game conference schedule is perfect with an 11-game overall schedule. Three OOC games give you the best choices for scheduling. You can pick the blend of FBS money games, FCS home/homes, and FCS/DII/NAIA patsies that best suits your program and budget. Dropping to only two OOC games severely limits your choices.

None of this means you can't make a 10-team conference work, it just means there have to be some pretty darn good positives to balance out the hassles and negatives that come with it. And, sorry, but USD football alone isn't enough. If it was USD, UND, and a decent third program, then a case could be made for going to 12 and saving a little money in travel costs with a divisional format(YSU would probably love it). If it looked like USD was facing the end of its FB program because it couldn't find a home, that might do it too. But we're years away from that point. Also, the MVFC will not look at you unless you have a stable conference home. USD has that now, but UND doesn't. The MVFC doesn't want a school to join and then leave after a couple years because they found an all-sports home. That's why they wouldn't look at the xDSUs until after the Summit invites(they said so in the press conferences).

If you're a USD fan, I think your best hope is if UND turns down the Big Sky in favor of the Summit and USD does the same. Then, find a good 12th candidate for the MVFC(and maybe another non-FB member for the Summit if that MVFC candidate also needs an all-sports home). You could also consider something I'm sure you're loath to do and go non-scholie and join the Pioneer Football League; I think they pretty much welcome all comers.

[m11jacks]

Re: Big Sky looking at USD

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't an odd number ideal for a conference as it allows equal number of home & away conference games?

[Nidaros]

Re: Big Sky looking at USD

Seems some Jackrabbit detractors like to point out the instability of our conferences as demonstrated by the number of teams who have entered and left the conferences over the past 20 years. And now the MVFC is being criticized for wanting a little stability and not wanting to make a change?

I like the 9-member size. Playing a quality out-of-conference opponent may help the league get more than just the auto-qualifier to the post season.

I too like the 9 member size, since you only need three non conference to fill the schedule. It works out good and just listen Craig Bohl's comments during the press conference yesteday. The MVFC commissioner was within feet of Craig Bohl and he thanke her for the scheduling since NDSU has a bye next week and gives them a break to allow injured players to return. I guess SDSU's bye was in week 1 of the MVFC schedule so this year we dont get this break. I mention this since a 9 member conference allows this.

As far as AD Sayler, I think he will have to be very careful what he says and also he has to weigh all the options. Montana might just be happy with big fish in a small pond and stay with the BSC. There are less than 100,000 people in Missoula and they have maxed out in drawing crowds at 22,000. This would mean the BSC becomes the home for all the Great West Conference. Not a bad thing either.

[jackrabbit1979]

Re: Big Sky looking at USD

Isn't that like saying Sayler can't wait for the MVFC to wait around to expand as well? Seriously, 9 is the dumbest number I have ever heard for a football conference. Why not make it 10. What big difference would that make honestly. One less non-con game against Delaware? How did that go this year? Everyone can still get in their FCS game and play a good amount of conference games in a very strong conference. The MVFC is the only one not look at changes it seems, especially the unprogressive ones. Seriously, when most schools and conferences would like to find ways to move forward, the MVFC is taking the MAC route and staying pat with everything.

What a ridiculous post...the MVFC isn't inviting you right now so you turn to insulting them as a conference. Good idea.

Why not make it 10? Because it limits the opportunity to play a FBS every year AND have a home game and an away game with a quality FCS opponent. These OOC games strengthen your national presence, one of the reasons for moving to division 1 in the first place.

9 is the perfect number for an FCS football conference.

[filbert]

Re: Big Sky looking at USD

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't an odd number ideal for a conference as it allows equal number of home & away conference games?

For football, yes. For almost everything else, no.