ND wants to bail from sinking ship (merged topic)

[HelenaHandBasket]

Since the discussion regards opinions (your take), then this confirms in your mind there are right opinions (yours) and wrong opinions. Welcome to the box in the corner.

Yes, I have always believed that in some areas there are right opinions and wrong opinions.

If I said that my opinion is that Don Read had nothing to do with UM football becoming a strong and successful program, would you say my opinion was wrong?

No, I would simply disagree with that opinion. That's the way it should work.

You are welcome to your opinion, but in this case it's wrong. An opinion based primarily on incorrect facts is wrong.

What a shit show.

 

[Jaredkuehn]

I'm sure this is a practical decision being made my UND. You don't have to look any farther than at a map to see why they are considering a conference change.

If they leave, it'll be a loss for the BSC. Its one of the few schools the BSC has added recently that advances the overall conference rather than hinders it (institutionally and across all sports, not just football). It would be sad to lose them.

Some one else mentioned it above, but I'd have much rather seen the conference expand east to include any combination of the Dakota schools as all-sport conference members as opposed to the football only California schools. Conferences that allow one sport members seem to loose their identity.

Hind sight is 20-20. You'd have been taking a chance on schools that had all been recently playing at a lower level, though institutionally they were all flagship universities.

 

[kemajic]

Since the discussion regards opinions (your take), then this confirms in your mind there are right opinions (yours) and wrong opinions. Welcome to the box in the corner.

Yes, I have always believed that in some areas there are right opinions and wrong opinions.

If I said that my opinion is that Don Read had nothing to do with UM football becoming a strong and successful program, would you say my opinion was wrong?

No, I would simply disagree with that opinion. That's the way it should work.

You are welcome to your opinion, but in this case it's wrong. An opinion based primarily on incorrect facts is wrong.

What facts? I don't see any. "Conference does't need complaining and unappreciative fans either." is your fact? Priceless.

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

If the OP thinks the conference is a sinking ship I feel he is rather mistaken as we still are considered one of if not the best FCS conferences in regards to football and a solid conference in D1 for all other sports. If North Dakota leaves for the Summit / MVFC it makes perfect sense to me especially financially for them. That would leave the following conference members:

-Montana
-MSU
-ISU
-EWU
-Idaho
-UNC
-NAU
-WSU
-Sac State
-PSU
-SUU
-Cal Poly (Football only)
-UC-DAVIS (Football Only)

That's a solid-looking conference in regards to full-time members with the only downside being still stuck in the 13-team shenanigans that football scheduling has become. That being said however it does give us an opportunity to potentially add another school such as NMSU or maybe San Diego to the conference as a full time member. To assist with the finances in regards to travel we could break up football into 2 Divisions, for example:

Big Sky North:
-Montana
-MSU
-EWU
-Idaho
-ISU
-PSU
-WSU or Sac State

Big Sky South:
-Sac State or WSU
-Cal Poly
-SUU
-UC-Davis
-NAU
-UNC
-San Diego/NMSU

There would be no Conference Championship however you would play the teams in your division every single year and only 3 teams from the opposite division. There would be an option to schedule a single team from the opposite division every single year as a "Rival" (SUU vs WSU for example) if they wanted to and most importantly cut down on expenses for travel.

So replace one of the better schools/sports programs in the BSC with a super shitty and even further away school/program like NMSU or San Diego????

Got it.

 

[PlayerRep]

Yes, I have always believed that in some areas there are right opinions and wrong opinions.

If I said that my opinion is that Don Read had nothing to do with UM football becoming a strong and successful program, would you say my opinion was wrong?

No, I would simply disagree with that opinion. That's the way it should work.

You are welcome to your opinion, but in this case it's wrong. An opinion based primarily on incorrect facts is wrong.

What facts? I don't see any. "Conference does't need complaining and unappreciative fans either." is your fact? Priceless.

This is likely a fact, i.e. the reasons that UND is looking at switching conferences. If this is what the UND AD and president are thinking, then it's a fact.

Quote from a Sioux fan above:

"I think this is a completely financial decision that UND is trying to make. Also, aligning with the other Dakota schools has its incentives. Makes travel much easier for fans too."

 

[kemajic]

No, I would simply disagree with that opinion. That's the way it should work.

You are welcome to your opinion, but in this case it's wrong. An opinion based primarily on incorrect facts is wrong.

What facts? I don't see any. "Conference does't need complaining and unappreciative fans either." is your fact? Priceless.

This is likely a fact, i.e. the reasons that UND is looking at switching conferences. If this is what the UND AD and president are thinking, then it's a fact.

Quote from a Sioux fan above:

"I think this is a completely financial decision that UND is trying to make. Also, aligning with the other Dakota schools has its incentives. Makes travel much easier for fans too."

Good pivot.

 

[PlayerRep]

You are welcome to your opinion, but in this case it's wrong. An opinion based primarily on incorrect facts is wrong.

What facts? I don't see any. "Conference does't need complaining and unappreciative fans either." is your fact? Priceless.

This is likely a fact, i.e. the reasons that UND is looking at switching conferences. If this is what the UND AD and president are thinking, then it's a fact.

Quote from a Sioux fan above:

"I think this is a completely financial decision that UND is trying to make. Also, aligning with the other Dakota schools has its incentives. Makes travel much easier for fans too."

Good pivot.

No pivot at all. This is what I've been talking about all along. Opinions based primarily on facts can often be wrong, if the opinion is based on incorrect facts. You seem to think that all opinions are correct. I don't.

 

[coyote]

Just as we were happy to see our old rival Idaho back and love to beat Boise and Gonzaga, This would put UND back with their old rivals from the Div II North Central Conference. I can't blame them.

 

[EverettGriz]

If the OP thinks the conference is a sinking ship I feel he is rather mistaken as we still are considered one of if not the best FCS conferences in regards to football and a solid conference in D1 for all other sports. If North Dakota leaves for the Summit / MVFC it makes perfect sense to me especially financially for them. That would leave the following conference members:

-Montana
-MSU
-ISU
-EWU
-Idaho
-UNC
-NAU
-WSU
-Sac State
-PSU
-SUU
-Cal Poly (Football only)
-UC-DAVIS (Football Only)

That's a solid-looking conference in regards to full-time members with the only downside being still stuck in the 13-team shenanigans that football scheduling has become. That being said however it does give us an opportunity to potentially add another school such as NMSU or maybe San Diego to the conference as a full time member. To assist with the finances in regards to travel we could break up football into 2 Divisions, for example:

Big Sky North:
-Montana
-MSU
-EWU
-Idaho
-ISU
-PSU
-WSU or Sac State

Big Sky South:
-Sac State or WSU
-Cal Poly
-SUU
-UC-Davis
-NAU
-UNC
-San Diego/NMSU

There would be no Conference Championship however you would play the teams in your division every single year and only 3 teams from the opposite division. There would be an option to schedule a single team from the opposite division every single year as a "Rival" (SUU vs WSU for example) if they wanted to and most importantly cut down on expenses for travel.

So replace one of the better schools/sports programs in the BSC with a super shitty and even further away school/program like NMSU or San Diego????

Got it.

It's what the bsc does, BLGF.

And UT, I believe you missed the point. The bsc isn't a shitty conference because it's relatively strong vis a vis other FCS conferences. It's a shitty conference because it consistently makes shitty management decisions, the vast majority of which benefit the lowest common denominators in the conference, and not the teams that SHOULD benefit (e.g. those that produce revenue, and provide championships and prestige to the league).

You ever see the SEC take any actions that directly benefit Vanderbuilt at the expense of Alabama?

 

[GrizLA]

Sorry, but I can and will express my view any way I want. I have a high degree of confidence in many of my views on football, and I'm just not going to baby posters who I don't think know what they are talking about. This is the internet. If posters are going to get their feelings hurt, then maybe they should spend their time reading books at the library.

Hahahaha! You are such a f***[*] tool.

I thought you were not going to be so negative anymore since you think it is so bad to have an opinion you don't like....hmmm

English?

Try it. Be positive or be a bad fan...

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

If the OP thinks the conference is a sinking ship I feel he is rather mistaken as we still are considered one of if not the best FCS conferences in regards to football and a solid conference in D1 for all other sports. If North Dakota leaves for the Summit / MVFC it makes perfect sense to me especially financially for them. That would leave the following conference members:

-Montana
-MSU
-ISU
-EWU
-Idaho
-UNC
-NAU
-WSU
-Sac State
-PSU
-SUU
-Cal Poly (Football only)
-UC-DAVIS (Football Only)

That's a solid-looking conference in regards to full-time members with the only downside being still stuck in the 13-team shenanigans that football scheduling has become. That being said however it does give us an opportunity to potentially add another school such as NMSU or maybe San Diego to the conference as a full time member. To assist with the finances in regards to travel we could break up football into 2 Divisions, for example:

Big Sky North:
-Montana
-MSU
-EWU
-Idaho
-ISU
-PSU
-WSU or Sac State

Big Sky South:
-Sac State or WSU
-Cal Poly
-SUU
-UC-Davis
-NAU
-UNC
-San Diego/NMSU

There would be no Conference Championship however you would play the teams in your division every single year and only 3 teams from the opposite division. There would be an option to schedule a single team from the opposite division every single year as a "Rival" (SUU vs WSU for example) if they wanted to and most importantly cut down on expenses for travel.

So replace one of the better schools/sports programs in the BSC with a super shitty and even further away school/program like NMSU or San Diego????

Got it.

It's what the bsc does, BLGF.

And UT, I believe you missed the point. The bsc isn't a shitty conference because it's relatively strong vis a vis other FCS conferences. It's a shitty conference because it consistently makes shitty management decisions, the vast majority of which benefit the lowest common denominators in the conference, and not the teams that SHOULD benefit (e.g. those that produce revenue, and provide championships and prestige to the league).

You ever see the SEC take any actions that directly benefit Vanderbuilt at the expense of Alabama?

This is spot on...the BSC has consistently bent over backwards so the UNCs SUUs and UCDs of the conference can have a winning record every 5 years...while in the mean time making it very difficult for UM, MSU and EWU to compete with the conferences that actually operate like it is 2016, Like the Missouri Valley.

 

[GrizLA]

On the other hand, I think the BSC competes very well with other conferences, especially the Missouri Valley. EWU flubbed a kick at NDSU and lost by one point. The Big Sky is 4-4 with the Missouri Valley. The basketball programs of Montana and Weber are respected coast to coast. There are more to conferences than football. Cal Poly and UC Davis are academic powerhouses and that is what they aspire to and the taxpayers expect when we tax ourselves to ensure they are. The other schools are mostly fast growing student bodies and in that respect, UM is the odd man out..go figure.

 

[PlayerRep]

On the other hand, I think the BSC competes very well with other conferences, especially the Missouri Valley. EWU flubbed a kick at NDSU and lost by one point. The Big Sky is 4-4 with the Missouri Valley. The basketball programs of Montana and Weber are respected coast to coast. There are more to conferences than football. Cal Poly and UC Davis are academic powerhouses and that is what they aspire to and the taxpayers expect when we tax ourselves to ensure they are. The other schools are mostly fast growing student bodies and in that respect, UM is the odd man out..go figure.

Good post. I agree.

 

[kemajic]

So replace one of the better schools/sports programs in the BSC with a super shitty and even further away school/program like NMSU or San Diego????

Got it.

It's what the bsc does, BLGF.

And UT, I believe you missed the point. The bsc isn't a shitty conference because it's relatively strong vis a vis other FCS conferences. It's a shitty conference because it consistently makes shitty management decisions, the vast majority of which benefit the lowest common denominators in the conference, and not the teams that SHOULD benefit (e.g. those that produce revenue, and provide championships and prestige to the league).

You ever see the SEC take any actions that directly benefit Vanderbuilt at the expense of Alabama?

Very well expressed. A good example; NDSU and SDSU were not offered memberships, circa 2004, over strong (presumably geographic) objections and lobbying from SacSt and PSU, themselves recent additions and part of the grand Fullerton plan to urbanize the BSC. Forget what the charter members wanted to do. Instead he brought in UNC, the gem of the Denver area. When that plan had clearly failed, and he had fear of the Montana schools leaving, he then brought in what was left over of the Great West conf. USD threw him a curveball and bolted to the MVFC, leaving UND on an island and Fullerton with egg on his face. The BSC has a hill to climb to overcome the Fullerton era.

One of the probable reasons Montana does not try to flex its muscles more in BSC decisions is that the critical one remains in their favor and they do not want it to rise to discussion. Beyond the tiny TV stream, there is no revenue sharing in the BSC. If that were ever to happen you would see the wheels start to turn at both Montana and MSU.

 

[UTGrizFan]

I agree with what most of what you guys are saying, especially in regards to bending over backwards for programs/schools that clearly are not up to snuff or have not put any money or effort into their programs. That being said I don't think SUU belongs on that list, the T-Birds have proven they can compete in the conference and have a Big Sky Conference Championship under their belt (I will never agree they didn't deserve it, especially since they only skipped playing a crappy EWU team, an okay ND team and us who we could have very well lost to them that year with that defense they had). Northern Colorado is another team who over the last two seasons has shown incredible improvement, hopefully that effort continues.

I only mentioned what I did above because it seems the goal of Fullerton was to have a 12 team full time membership and then the California schools for Football and call it good. Unfortunately playing out West we are pretty limited in regards to school options as to who we could add to the conference. Perhaps that will change with new leadership, however besides adding another school I don't see any other options except kicking out certain schools and that I feel will never happen.

 

[EverettGriz]

UT, you make a good point about some teams becoming more competitive, and they should be commended for that. Now those teams need to improve their PROGRAMS. We have far, far too many programs who do not have DI facilities, in both FB and BB.

And I agree, the BSC will never have the leadership to force uncommitted programs to leave. But they absolutely must have the leadership to force them to get better. The BSC consistently has 8 or 9 teams with basketball RPIs well over 300. That's purely and completely unacceptable, and the BSC brass fails to address it every year.

Montana deserves better.

 

[UTGrizFan]

I agree that Montana in a lot of ways has outgrown the Big Sky especially in terms of facilities and product we have put on the field over the years. One of the reasons why I am an advocate for moving up to the FBS along with Montana State, at the same time though if we do move up we need to be smart about it, I would love to try and get into the MWC.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

I agree that Montana in a lot of ways has outgrown the Big Sky especially in terms of facilities and product we have put on the field over the years.

Not sure this is currently the case.

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

So replace one of the better schools/sports programs in the BSC with a super shitty and even further away school/program like NMSU or San Diego????

Got it.

It's what the bsc does, BLGF.

And UT, I believe you missed the point. The bsc isn't a shitty conference because it's relatively strong vis a vis other FCS conferences. It's a shitty conference because it consistently makes shitty management decisions, the vast majority of which benefit the lowest common denominators in the conference, and not the teams that SHOULD benefit (e.g. those that produce revenue, and provide championships and prestige to the league).

You ever see the SEC take any actions that directly benefit Vanderbuilt at the expense of Alabama?

Very well expressed. A good example; NDSU and SDSU were not offered memberships, circa 2004, over strong (presumably geographic) objections and lobbying from SacSt and PSU, themselves recent additions and part of the grand Fullerton plan to urbanize the BSC. Forget what the charter members wanted to do. Instead he brought in UNC, the gem of the Denver area. When that plan had clearly failed, and he had fear of the Montana schools leaving, he then brought in what was left over of the Great West conf. USD threw him a curveball and bolted to the MVFC, leaving UND on an island and Fullerton with egg on his face. The BSC has a hill to climb to overcome the Fullerton era.

One of the probable reasons Montana does not try to flex its muscles more in BSC decisions is that the critical one remains in their favor and they do not want it to rise to discussion. Beyond the tiny TV stream, there is no revenue sharing in the BSC. If that were ever to happen you would see the wheels start to turn at both Montana and MSU.

The BSC would never consider revenue sharing to be on the table...the minute they go there and both Montana schools are gone, essentially leaving the BSC with a really good D2 conference.

 

[mcg]

So replace one of the better schools/sports programs in the BSC with a super shitty and even further away school/program like NMSU or San Diego????

Got it.

It's what the bsc does, BLGF.

And UT, I believe you missed the point. The bsc isn't a shitty conference because it's relatively strong vis a vis other FCS conferences. It's a shitty conference because it consistently makes shitty management decisions, the vast majority of which benefit the lowest common denominators in the conference, and not the teams that SHOULD benefit (e.g. those that produce revenue, and provide championships and prestige to the league).

You ever see the SEC take any actions that directly benefit Vanderbuilt at the expense of Alabama?

Very well expressed. A good example; NDSU and SDSU were not offered memberships, circa 2004, over strong (presumably geographic) objections and lobbying from SacSt and PSU, themselves recent additions and part of the grand Fullerton plan to urbanize the BSC. Forget what the charter members wanted to do. Instead he brought in UNC, the gem of the Denver area. When that plan had clearly failed, and he had fear of the Montana schools leaving, he then brought in what was left over of the Great West conf. USD threw him a curveball and bolted to the MVFC, leaving UND on an island and Fullerton with egg on his face. The BSC has a hill to climb to overcome the Fullerton era.

One of the probable reasons Montana does not try to flex its muscles more in BSC decisions is that the critical one remains in their favor and they do not want it to rise to discussion. Beyond the tiny TV stream, there is no revenue sharing in the BSC. If that were ever to happen you would see the wheels start to turn at both Montana and MSU.

The BSC would never consider revenue sharing to be on the table...the minute they go there and both Montana schools are gone, essentially leaving the BSC with a really good D2 conference.

How is the gate revenue from BSC football games allocated? 50/50 home team and away team?