How to make the conference better?

[SWeberCat02]

So if you believe Bengal visitor (and I'm not saying I don't), then the basketball haves (Weber and UM) are rather powerless and the only viable option left for them is to leave the conference or form a new one.

 

[ISUguy]

So if you believe Bengal visitor (and I'm not saying I don't), then the basketball haves (Weber and UM) are rather powerless and the only viable option left for them is to leave the conference or form a new one.

That's a rather dire interpretation, SWeberCat. I think the "haves" can have a lot of influence on the direction of the conference. They need to look for areas of common ground with the "have-nots," and move forward. But if you're looking for a "silver bullet" to magically make the Big Sky RPI go up (and really, that's the root issue we're talking about here), I don't see one. There are too many deep-rooted, institutional issues at each of the individual member schools, and with mid-major basketball as a whole.

I'd love to see Idaho State find the funding to build a new basketball arena. If done right -- with an emphasis on quality over quantity, particularly in areas like locker room and coaches offices ("eye candy" to recruits), I think it could be a game-changer for the ISU program. Each individual program is going to have to identify ways to make their own incremental improvements, and hope that as they improve, the league as a whole will improve.

But in reality, the Big Sky has been a non-factor in college basketball for a long time. The league has won three NCAA tournament games in the last 25 years. It hasn't had a television contract for 5 or 6 years. League-wide attendance -- even at the "have" schools -- has consistently gone down over the last 25 years. Those are strong indicators of systemic problems that aren't going to go away over night.

Weber is in a particularly unique situation -- you guys have the best basketball facility and fan support in the conference. But we all know conference affiliation is driven by football. Is Weber ready to jump up to FBS level commitment in order to one day get an invite to the Mountain West? That is your challenge.

 

[ISUguy]

Where's is Bengal's statement that these teams were brought in because the conference was worried about the departure of the Montana schools, coming from?

I don't think MSU evev considered departing. UM glanced at the WAC, but don't think it seriously considered the WAC. Most people think the MT regents wouldn't allow the 2 schools to be in difference levels/conferences. North Dakota was brought in because Engstrom wanted them invited--not to keep the Montana schools. CP and Davis were offered for football, to keep them from going anywhere, like to the WAC. But they're football only schools.

Provide some links, or analysis, or reasoned speculation to back up what Bengal said.

Here's a quote from the AP article that came out when Montana announced it was not moving up in football and not going to the WAC. Perhaps it was a "coincidence" that the Big Sky chose to expand at the very same time Montana was studying whether to move up to FBS. Or perhaps Fullerton and the Big Sky presidents were smart enough to outflank the WAC and invite the very same schools they were eyeing for survival. Draw your own conclusions.

"The Western Athletic Conference had said Montana was high on its list as it looked for new members with the upcoming departures of Boise State, Nevada and Fresno State, but the league was waiting on Montana's decision about a possible move to the FBS before issuing an invitation.

Big Sky Commissioner Doug Fullerton was thrilled with UM's decision to stay in the league.

"Montana's athletics programs have flourished in the Big Sky Conference and its football program is the standard bearer in the Football Championship Subdivision," he said in a statement. "Our presidents have a vision for the future of the Big Sky, and I thank Dr. Engstrom for helping define, and believing in that vision."

The Big Sky is expanding in 2012 with the addition of Cal Poly, UC Davis, North Dakota and Southern Utah."

Thanks for the article, Bengal. Nevertheless, I don't think the article supports your prior statements. To me, you are saying that it always snows after Christmas, therefore Christmas must cause it to snow.

Some facts. UM told the WAC no in the fall of 2010. While UM and O'Day took at look at the WAC and listened to them, and O'Day had some interest, my belief is that UM didn't seriously consider the WAC. There were many factors, including move-up costs as show by the study, that dictated against a move-up. Plus, there was the instability of the WAC.

The Great West, with its remaining 5 teams, was ending during this time. Those teams had to go somewhere. 4 went to the Big Sky (2 generally and 2 for football). As I said, the Big Sky accepted CP and Davis as football only, to make sure they didn't go anywhere else. This occurred in Sept. 2010.

Before the offer was made to the Dakota schools, UM was asked to provide assurance that it would stay in the Big Sky.

Here's a link to an article done when the schools joined the Big Sky. Just provides a different perspective. http://ravallirepublic.com/sports/college/montana/football/article_dcc2063b-d051-5ecf-acf9-e9ddb2311a36.html

Here's a link to a conference press release on 11/1/10. http://www.bigskyconf.com/news/2010/11/1/gen_1101105326.aspx

There were multiple factors in these decisions. But again, I don't think it's correct that these teams were brought in because the conference was worried about UM departing. That doesn't appear to be the primary reason, and there were multiple other reasons.

I'm sure there were multiple reasons those teams were brought in, PlayerRep. But I would be willing to bet the primary driver was to protect the conference from losses in the event the Montana schools left, to block the WAC from recruiting the schools it needed to survive -- and to keep the WAC from poaching the Big Sky to death.

But it really doesn't matter what the motivation was -- the bottom line is those schools ARE in the Big Sky today, and they probably aren't going away anytime soon. The only change I can see on the horizon is a splinter group of schools like the Montanas, Idaho, etc., splitting off and creating their own conference. I've seen conflicting information about whether current NCAA regulations would allow that to happen. The Idaho folks have posted a couple of NCAA regulations that would appear to make that very difficult. At the same time, Fullerton and the Idaho AD are talking about the possibility of creating a separate FBS division within the Big Sky. I'm certainly no expert on NCAA rules, so I don't know what is feasible under current regulations.

 

[SWeberCat02]

So if you believe Bengal visitor (and I'm not saying I don't), then the basketball haves (Weber and UM) are rather powerless and the only viable option left for them is to leave the conference or form a new one.

That's a rather dire interpretation, SWeberCat. I think the "haves" can have a lot of influence on the direction of the conference. They need to look for areas of common ground with the "have-nots," and move forward. But if you're looking for a "silver bullet" to magically make the Big Sky RPI go up (and really, that's the root issue we're talking about here), I don't see one. There are too many deep-rooted, institutional issues at each of the individual member schools, and with mid-major basketball as a whole.

I'd love to see Idaho State find the funding to build a new basketball arena. If done right -- with an emphasis on quality over quantity, particularly in areas like locker room and coaches offices ("eye candy" to recruits), I think it could be a game-changer for the ISU program. Each individual program is going to have to identify ways to make their own incremental improvements, and hope that as they improve, the league as a whole will improve.

But in reality, the Big Sky has been a non-factor in college basketball for a long time. The league has won three NCAA tournament games in the last 25 years. It hasn't had a television contract for 5 or 6 years. League-wide attendance -- even at the "have" schools -- has consistently gone down over the last 25 years. Those are strong indicators of systemic problems that aren't going to go away over night.

Weber is in a particularly unique situation -- you guys have the best basketball facility and fan support in the conference. But we all know conference affiliation is driven by football. Is Weber ready to jump up to FBS level commitment in order to one day get an invite to the Mountain West? That is your challenge.

Valid points. But if you believe Jerry Bovee, then "we have some really weak teams that are not investing in it." If that is true, and it certainly appears to be true, then maybe it's a motivation issue with many of the conference's schools. So I would ask, how do you motivate the "weak" programs to improve? And maybe improving just isn't possible for some of these programs due to lack of money and/or support. But can you see the predicament that puts the programs that want to improve in? Because I agree with Bovee that your conference can only be as good as your weakest team.

 

[ISUguy]

So if you believe Bengal visitor (and I'm not saying I don't), then the basketball haves (Weber and UM) are rather powerless and the only viable option left for them is to leave the conference or form a new one.

That's a rather dire interpretation, SWeberCat. I think the "haves" can have a lot of influence on the direction of the conference. They need to look for areas of common ground with the "have-nots," and move forward. But if you're looking for a "silver bullet" to magically make the Big Sky RPI go up (and really, that's the root issue we're talking about here), I don't see one. There are too many deep-rooted, institutional issues at each of the individual member schools, and with mid-major basketball as a whole.

I'd love to see Idaho State find the funding to build a new basketball arena. If done right -- with an emphasis on quality over quantity, particularly in areas like locker room and coaches offices ("eye candy" to recruits), I think it could be a game-changer for the ISU program. Each individual program is going to have to identify ways to make their own incremental improvements, and hope that as they improve, the league as a whole will improve.

But in reality, the Big Sky has been a non-factor in college basketball for a long time. The league has won three NCAA tournament games in the last 25 years. It hasn't had a television contract for 5 or 6 years. League-wide attendance -- even at the "have" schools -- has consistently gone down over the last 25 years. Those are strong indicators of systemic problems that aren't going to go away over night.

Weber is in a particularly unique situation -- you guys have the best basketball facility and fan support in the conference. But we all know conference affiliation is driven by football. Is Weber ready to jump up to FBS level commitment in order to one day get an invite to the Mountain West? That is your challenge.

Valid points. But if you believe Jerry Bovee, then "we have some really weak teams that are not investing in it." If that is true, and it certainly appears to be true, then maybe it's a motivation issue with many of the conference's schools. So I would ask, how do you motivate the "weak" programs to improve? And maybe improving just isn't possible for some of these programs due to lack of money and/or support. But can you see the predicament that puts the programs that want to improve in? Because I agree with Bovee that your conference can only be as good as your weakest team.

Those are good questions, SW. If I were on the selection committee for the new Big Sky commissioner, those are certainly questions I'd ask every candidate. In my view, the conference needs to hire a commissioner with a strong personality and a vision. Of course, football will always be the No. 1 focus of the league, but I'd hope the new commissioner would also have a vision for how to improve basketball.

 

[PlayerRep]

So if you believe Bengal visitor (and I'm not saying I don't), then the basketball haves (Weber and UM) are rather powerless and the only viable option left for them is to leave the conference or form a new one.

Oops, posted in wrong place.

 

[PlayerRep]

Where's is Bengal's statement that these teams were brought in because the conference was worried about the departure of the Montana schools, coming from?

I don't think MSU evev considered departing. UM glanced at the WAC, but don't think it seriously considered the WAC. Most people think the MT regents wouldn't allow the 2 schools to be in difference levels/conferences. North Dakota was brought in because Engstrom wanted them invited--not to keep the Montana schools. CP and Davis were offered for football, to keep them from going anywhere, like to the WAC. But they're football only schools.

Provide some links, or analysis, or reasoned speculation to back up what Bengal said.

Here's a quote from the AP article that came out when Montana announced it was not moving up in football and not going to the WAC. Perhaps it was a "coincidence" that the Big Sky chose to expand at the very same time Montana was studying whether to move up to FBS. Or perhaps Fullerton and the Big Sky presidents were smart enough to outflank the WAC and invite the very same schools they were eyeing for survival. Draw your own conclusions.

"The Western Athletic Conference had said Montana was high on its list as it looked for new members with the upcoming departures of Boise State, Nevada and Fresno State, but the league was waiting on Montana's decision about a possible move to the FBS before issuing an invitation.

Big Sky Commissioner Doug Fullerton was thrilled with UM's decision to stay in the league.

"Montana's athletics programs have flourished in the Big Sky Conference and its football program is the standard bearer in the Football Championship Subdivision," he said in a statement. "Our presidents have a vision for the future of the Big Sky, and I thank Dr. Engstrom for helping define, and believing in that vision."

The Big Sky is expanding in 2012 with the addition of Cal Poly, UC Davis, North Dakota and Southern Utah."

Thanks for the article, Bengal. Nevertheless, I don't think the article supports your prior statements. To me, you are saying that it always snows after Christmas, therefore Christmas must cause it to snow.

Some facts. UM told the WAC no in the fall of 2010. While UM and O'Day took at look at the WAC and listened to them, and O'Day had some interest, my belief is that UM didn't seriously consider the WAC. There were many factors, including move-up costs as show by the study, that dictated against a move-up. Plus, there was the instability of the WAC.

The Great West, with its remaining 5 teams, was ending during this time. Those teams had to go somewhere. 4 went to the Big Sky (2 generally and 2 for football). As I said, the Big Sky accepted CP and Davis as football only, to make sure they didn't go anywhere else. This occurred in Sept. 2010.

Before the offer was made to the Dakota schools, UM was asked to provide assurance that it would stay in the Big Sky.

Here's a link to an article done when the schools joined the Big Sky. Just provides a different perspective. http://ravallirepublic.com/sports/college/montana/football/article_dcc2063b-d051-5ecf-acf9-e9ddb2311a36.html

Here's a link to a conference press release on 11/1/10. http://www.bigskyconf.com/news/2010/11/1/gen_1101105326.aspx

There were multiple factors in these decisions. But again, I don't think it's correct that these teams were brought in because the conference was worried about UM departing. That doesn't appear to be the primary reason, and there were multiple other reasons.

I'm sure there were multiple reasons those teams were brought in, PlayerRep. But I would be willing to bet the primary driver was to protect the conference from losses in the event the Montana schools left, to block the WAC from recruiting the schools it needed to survive -- and to keep the WAC from poaching the Big Sky to death.

But it really doesn't matter what the motivation was -- the bottom line is those schools ARE in the Big Sky today, and they probably aren't going away anytime soon. The only change I can see on the horizon is a splinter group of schools like the Montanas, Idaho, etc., splitting off and creating their own conference. I've seen conflicting information about whether current NCAA regulations would allow that to happen. The Idaho folks have posted a couple of NCAA regulations that would appear to make that very difficult. At the same time, Fullerton and the Idaho AD are talking about the possibility of creating a separate FBS division within the Big Sky. I'm certainly no expert on NCAA rules, so I don't know what is feasible under current regulations.

I'm fine with your "bet" (as opposed to it being a statement of fact), but I would bet against you. From what I was told, the addition of CP and Davis were done to keep them from going elsewhere and to make the conference better. You could argue that UM uncertainty was a factor in the decision to make the conference better. The Dakota schools were offered in part, or large part, because of Engstrom. He was formerly the provost at SD. Before those schools were offered, and that included SU, the conference knew UM would be staying and not going to the WAC. The conference required UM to say it was staying before deciding to make the offers. Engstrom called SD, I believe the SD president, to make the invite.

 

[evergriz]

Engstrom formerly the provost at USD (South Dakota), not UND.

 

[EverettGriz]

Engstrom formerly the provost at USD (South Dakota), not UND.

Don't confuse PR with facts. They cloud his agenda.

In any event, adding North Dakota was the only decision the bsc has made in years that actually made sense, made the league better, and with which I agreed.

 

[PlayerRep]

Engstrom formerly the provost at USD (South Dakota), not UND.

Oops, misfire. Thanks for correction. Same point, tho. Engstrom wanted the Dakota schools invited, and he called USD, the president I believe.

 

[Mousegriz]

Engstrom formerly the provost at USD (South Dakota), not UND.

Don't confuse PR with facts. They cloud his agenda.

In any event, adding North Dakota was the only decision the bsc has made in years that actually made sense, made the league better, and with which I agreed.

Engstrom became a huge fan of UND while at USD. He even hired "PR"s firm to put together a marketing campaign for USD.....but PR's firm mistakenly focused entire campaign on UND, Engstrom lost his job at USD, went looking for work, got hired by UM and the rest is history.

So.....if PR knew the difference between USD and UND his firm would have gotten Engstrom's USD marketing campaign right, he wouldn;t have lost his job at USD, UM wouldn't have hired him, enrollment wouldn't have declined, UM would have handled sexual assault situations better, UM wouldn't have lost FB scholarships, and O'Day and Pflugrad would still be here.

This ain't just any "oops, misfire" PR!

.

 

[EverettGriz]

Engstrom formerly the provost at USD (South Dakota), not UND.

Don't confuse PR with facts. They cloud his agenda.

In any event, adding North Dakota was the only decision the bsc has made in years that actually made sense, made the league better, and with which I agreed.

Engstrom became a huge fan of UND while at USD. He even hired "PR"s firm to put together a marketing campaign for USD.....but PR's firm mistakenly focused entire campaign on UND, Engstrom lost his job at USD, went looking for work, got hired by UM and the rest is history.

So.....if PR knew the difference between USD and UND his firm would have gotten Engstrom's USD marketing campaign right, he wouldn;t have lost his job at USD, UM wouldn't have hired him, enrollment wouldn't have declined, UM would have handled sexual assault situations better, UM wouldn't have lost FB scholarships, and O'Day and Pflugrad would still be here.

This ain't just any "oops, misfire" PR!

.

:lol: :clap:

Great work there, Mouse!

 

[GrizLA]

Engstrom formerly the provost at USD (South Dakota), not UND.

Don't confuse PR with facts. They cloud his agenda.

In any event, adding North Dakota was the only decision the bsc has made in years that actually made sense, made the league better, and with which I agreed.

Engstrom became a huge fan of UND while at USD. He even hired "PR"s firm to put together a marketing campaign for USD.....but PR's firm mistakenly focused entire campaign on UND, Engstrom lost his job at USD, went looking for work, got hired by UM and the rest is history.

So.....if PR knew the difference between USD and UND his firm would have gotten Engstrom's USD marketing campaign right, he wouldn;t have lost his job at USD, UM wouldn't have hired him, enrollment wouldn't have declined, UM would have handled sexual assault situations better, UM wouldn't have lost FB scholarships, and O'Day and Pflugrad would still be here.

This ain't just any "oops, misfire" PR!

.

well, we will never know but we do know UM is losing students quickly, and is now known coast to coast as a place that is dangerous for women because no one defended the University as they should have.

 

[EverettGriz]

OFFS. Take that crap to one of the other 5,821 other threads where it's being discussed.


I miss the days when the trolls avoided the BB board.

 

[GrizLA]

OFFS. Take that crap to one of the other 5,821 other threads where it's being discussed.


I miss the days when the trolls avoided the BB board.

I miss the days when UM had good leadership.

 

[PlayerRep]

LA, you are so right on the sexual assault stuff. I've noticed you saying that previously too. I couldn't agree more.

 

[PlayerRep]

OFFS. Take that crap to one of the other 5,821 other threads where it's being discussed.


I miss the days when the trolls avoided the BB board.

I miss the days when posters didn't make a big deal about typos and mixing up ND and SD, and didn't spend most of their posting time just picking at other posters (and mucking up threads).

 

[GrizLA]

LA, you are so right on the sexual assault stuff. I've noticed you saying that previously too. I couldn't agree more.

A lot of people know about it down here (Bluffton, SC). I've been "kidded" a bit about it.

 

[EverettGriz]

OFFS. Take that crap to one of the other 5,821 other threads where it's being discussed.


I miss the days when the trolls avoided the BB board.

I miss the days when posters didn't make a big deal about typos and mixing up ND and SD, and didn't spend most of their posting time just picking at other posters (and mucking up threads).

Nice try. You didn't mix them up. You posted the same thing 3 different occasions.

It's okay. You have an agenda. Everyone knows it.

And if you miss those days, perhaps you should stop picking at other posters and mucking up threads. The entire board would appreciate it.

 

[WAaggieFan]

OFFS. Take that crap to one of the other 5,821 other threads where it's being discussed.


I miss the days when the trolls avoided the BB board.

I miss the days when posters didn't make a big deal about typos and mixing up ND and SD, and didn't spend most of their posting time just picking at other posters (and mucking up threads).

http://youtu.be/KwNurAxrsqY