The Illusion of FBS Opportunity: Fullerton

[Cats2506]

That statement is more delusional that what Fullerton is stating. When NDSU and SDSU were applying to the Big Sky, UND and Grand Valley State ruled the DII roost and were far stronger programs than NDSU or SDSU. NDSU hadn't had a home playoff game in 15 years, while SDSU rarely ever made the playoffs. UND would have been totally dominant in DII last decade if it wasn't for Brian Kelley - now Notre Dame - being at Grand Valley State then and winning most of the playoff games against us (think we were 2-4 vs GVSU).

Hadn't heard that either SDSU or NDSU have applied to the Big Sky lately. NDSU is now as dominant in FCS as it was in DII in the 80's. NDSU was a borderline DII playoff team when they beat the Griz in 2004.

Delusional? You should familiarize yourself with the facts. We're not talking here about DII and we're only talking about programs that formally applied to the BSC, so you can butt out the UND, Grand Valley St interjection. Even UNC had been a DII powerhouse and had NCs. NDSU and SDSU both had an FCS conf. championship under their belt while UND was still playing in a DII conference. UND only joined the Great West after NDSU and SDSU moved to the MVC. Prior to joining the MVC, after being turned down by the BSC, here are the five years preceeding records for NDSU and SDSU:

NDSU
2003 8-3
2004 8-3
2005 7-4
2006 10-1 (Great West Champions)
2007 10-1

SDSU
2003 7-4
2004 6-5
2005 6-5
2006 7-4
2007 7-4 (Great West Champions)

A pretty good package and willing to invest to grow their programs. Fullerton and the BSC presidents instead admitted Great West dormat UNC, who has gone 14-64 in the BSC. Seems they wanted bottom feeders rather than programs that might challenge the incumbents to keep up.

You don't have history correct to even understand the situation.

NDSU and SDSU were begging to get into the BSC in 2003-5 for the 2005 or 2006 season. UNC got the invite and they started Big Sky play in 2006. By 2006-7, NDSU and SDSU had already been accepted into the MVFC and Summit Conference for the 2008 seasons, and to leave those two conferences would have cost each school $1 million each. The 2006 and 2007 records had no impact on any BSC decision on NDSU or SDSU whatsoever.

The 2003 NDSU team - which was entirely DII recruits - was the one that beat Montana, yet NDSU didn't make the DII playoffs. In fact, NDSU hadn't had a home playoff game since at least 1993. SDSU didn't have a home playoff game from 1990 until recently. SDSU has traditionally been a very middle of the road program. You sight those two teams records up through 2007, but fail to state that those teams were largely DII teams until 2007. You can't both degrade DII recruits (from the toughest DII league in the country at the time) and then be pushing how great NDSU and SDSU were up to 2007 with DII recruits, as you are contradicting yourself. Totally illogical.

My point is that when Big Sky Presidents were rejecting NDSU and SDSU in 2003, 2004, and 2005, they were looking at their last 10 years of football performance and not attempting to project out in the future (as well as West Coast schools not wanting them). What NDSU and SDSU did do is pull in the higher regional level recruits with full scholarships (including many that otherwise would have been preferred walk ons at Wisconsin and Minnesota). Meanwhile, by 2005 UND was losing almost all its recruiting battles with NDSU (and even for the first time with SDSU) because NDSU could offer higher scholarship levels because it was now FCS and UND didn't respond with going to a larger recruiting area because of a cheap AD that wouldn't raise the funds. The recruiting impact really didn't begin to show at UND until 2008. The recruiting situation is changing again now that UND is on par in scholarships. UND's new Indoor Practice Facility will help signficantly in turning the tables. In the 90's and early 00's, UND losing a Minnesota kid to SDSU would be almost unheard of. UND could often pull South Dakota kids that SDSU was recruiting and get them at UND.

Reviewing the previous five years to when the BSC President's made their rejection in 2004:

UND
1999 9-2 lost in first round playoff
2000 8-3 no playoff
2001 14-1 Nat Champ (beat GVSU)
2002 5-6
2003 12-2 Lost to GVSU in Nat Champ
2004 11-3 Lost in semifinal
2005 10-3 Lost to GVSU in quarters
2006 12-3 Lost to GVSU in semis
2007 10-2 Lost to GVSU in quarters

And if you are going to count Great West Championships, UND in 2011. GVSU had a number of players drafted and had one of the best coaches in the country at any level in Brian Kelley. UND's offensive line during those years was tremendous, as evidenced by Denver Bronco's Chris Kuper, who the Bronco's consider their most valuable OL man.

Meanwhile
NDSU
1999 9-2 (no playoffs)
2000 12-2 (3rd round playoff)
2001 7-3 (no playoffs)
2002 2-8 (total disaster year when DI was being pushed)
2003 8-3 (no playoffs - beat Montana - last year in DII)
2004 8-3
2005 7-4
2006 10-1 (Great West Champions)
2007 10-1 (mostly FCS recruits)

NDSU's first playoff game at home since 1993 happened three years ago at the FCS level. The FargoDome, which opened in 1993, never ever hosted a DII playoff game. Meanwhile, the Alerus hosted 11 playoff games in the six years after it opened in 2001.

SDSU
1999 8-3 (no playoffs)
2000 6-5
2001 5-6
2002 6-4
2003 7-4
2004 6-5
2005 6-5
2006 7-4
2007 7-4 (Great West Champions)

SDSU rarely made playoff appearances in DII. Guess FCS must just be so much easier to get in the playoffs than DII (DII has a lot more teams and fewer playoff spots).

You will get nothing but cricket sounds from Kem responding to this post :thumb:



Kem's moto

 

[PlayerRep]

If Fullerton was the influential leader and visionary that PR claims, he would have sold the NDSU/SDSU package admission to the BSC presidents. UND and USD would have followed later in the GW consolidation and we would have a higher performance conference that makes much more sense, particularly for geographic outlieer UND. It was a major failure of the BSC leadership. Today the BSC could be a 16 team conf with north and south divisions with lower travel costs and better rivalries. At least until NDSU joins the Big 10.....

North
PSU, EWU, UM, MSU, UND, NDSU, USD, SDSU

South
SacSt, ISU, Weber, UCDavis, CPSLO, NAU, SUU, UNC

Then the influential and visionary BSC commissioner could direct his energy toward the FSC playoffs, get the number back down to 16, which could enable conf. championship games. But not to be; we have Fullerton.

20/20 hindsight :lol:

I think the Montana Schools were the only ones that voted to accept the Dakota's, at the time the primary concerns were travel expenses and taking the conference to a 9 game conference schedule. It seemed that they were viewed as a set, take both or neither. NOBODY at the time was looking to expand to a 16 team league, 9 was considered the perfect number. FCS was under the "no move up moratorium" and the landscape of DI as a whole was vastly different than it is now, the Big 10 network (2006) and the SEC/CBS media contract greatly changed the financial outlook of the top level teams and precipitated the conference shuffle that we have seen in recent years. These events of recent years have pushed the BSC to a larger conference to protect against uncertainty. None of these things were even on the radar when the conference presidents were voting to accept or decline the Dakota State Universitys into the conference.

I am not a fan of Foolerton either, but he has done a decent job of advocating what the member schools want.

I wonder if Kem understands the difference between having "vision" and being "visionary and an influential leader"?

Kem believes Fullerton should have foreseen the massive FBS realignment and changes that have occurred in the last several years. Now that's pretty funny. Most FBS leaders didn't even see that coming until it started happening.

It's interesting to see how the overwhelming desire of some to have UM move up, overwhelms and clouds their thinking.

 

[Cats2506]

If Fullerton was the influential leader and visionary that PR claims, he would have sold the NDSU/SDSU package admission to the BSC presidents. UND and USD would have followed later in the GW consolidation and we would have a higher performance conference that makes much more sense, particularly for geographic outlieer UND. It was a major failure of the BSC leadership. Today the BSC could be a 16 team conf with north and south divisions with lower travel costs and better rivalries. At least until NDSU joins the Big 10.....

North
PSU, EWU, UM, MSU, UND, NDSU, USD, SDSU

South
SacSt, ISU, Weber, UCDavis, CPSLO, NAU, SUU, UNC

Then the influential and visionary BSC commissioner could direct his energy toward the FSC playoffs, get the number back down to 16, which could enable conf. championship games. But not to be; we have Fullerton.

20/20 hindsight :lol:

I think the Montana Schools were the only ones that voted to accept the Dakota's, at the time the primary concerns were travel expenses and taking the conference to a 9 game conference schedule. It seemed that they were viewed as a set, take both or neither. NOBODY at the time was looking to expand to a 16 team league, 9 was considered the perfect number. FCS was under the "no move up moratorium" and the landscape of DI as a whole was vastly different than it is now, the Big 10 network (2006) and the SEC/CBS media contract greatly changed the financial outlook of the top level teams and precipitated the conference shuffle that we have seen in recent years. These events of recent years have pushed the BSC to a larger conference to protect against uncertainty. None of these things were even on the radar when the conference presidents were voting to accept or decline the Dakota State Universitys into the conference.

I am not a fan of Foolerton either, but he has done a decent job of advocating what the member schools want.

I wonder if Kem understands the difference between having "vision" and being "visionary and an influential leader"?

Kem believes Fullerton should have foreseen the massive FBS realignment and changes that have occurred in the last several years. Now that's pretty funny. Most FBS leaders didn't even see that coming until it started happening.

It's interesting to see how the overwhelming desire of some to have UM move up, overwhelms and clouds their thinking.

Well fvck, if you are agreeing with my posts, nobody is going to give them considerations.

 

[Grisly Fan]

If Fullerton was the influential leader and visionary that PR claims, he would have sold the NDSU/SDSU package admission to the BSC presidents. UND and USD would have followed later in the GW consolidation and we would have a higher performance conference that makes much more sense, particularly for geographic outlieer UND. It was a major failure of the BSC leadership. Today the BSC could be a 16 team conf with north and south divisions with lower travel costs and better rivalries. At least until NDSU joins the Big 10.....

North
PSU, EWU, UM, MSU, UND, NDSU, USD, SDSU

South
SacSt, ISU, Weber, UCDavis, CPSLO, NAU, SUU, UNC

Then the influential and visionary BSC commissioner could direct his energy toward the FSC playoffs, get the number back down to 16, which could enable conf. championship games. But not to be; we have Fullerton.

20/20 hindsight :lol:

I think the Montana Schools were the only ones that voted to accept the Dakota's, at the time the primary concerns were travel expenses and taking the conference to a 9 game conference schedule. It seemed that they were viewed as a set, take both or neither. NOBODY at the time was looking to expand to a 16 team league, 9 was considered the perfect number. FCS was under the "no move up moratorium" and the landscape of DI as a whole was vastly different than it is now, the Big 10 network (2006) and the SEC/CBS media contract greatly changed the financial outlook of the top level teams and precipitated the conference shuffle that we have seen in recent years. These events of recent years have pushed the BSC to a larger conference to protect against uncertainty. None of these things were even on the radar when the conference presidents were voting to accept or decline the Dakota State Universitys into the conference.

I am not a fan of Foolerton either, but he has done a decent job of advocating what the member schools want.

I wonder if Kem understands the difference between having "vision" and being "visionary and an influential leader"?

Kem believes Fullerton should have foreseen the massive FBS realignment and changes that have occurred in the last several years. Now that's pretty funny. Most FBS leaders didn't even see that coming until it started happening.

It's interesting to see how the overwhelming desire of some to have UM move up, overwhelms and clouds their thinking.

Well fvck, if you are agreeing with my posts, nobody is going to give them considerations.

Hell, why would anyone start now?

 

[kemajic]

You will get nothing but cricket sounds from Kem responding to this post

If you could read you would see that there was a response.

 

[kemajic]

I wonder if Kem understands the difference between having "vision" and being "visionary and an influential leader"?

Kem believes Fullerton should have foreseen the massive FBS realignment and changes that have occurred in the last several years. Now that's pretty funny. Most FBS leaders didn't even see that coming until it started happening.

It's interesting to see how the overwhelming desire of some to have UM move up, overwhelms and clouds their thinking.

As a scientist with a long commercial career, I had to have a far better understanding of vision and those that have it (visionaries) than a CYA lawyer. This one so short of the understanding of vision that he gives Fullerton credit for having some, when in fact Fullerton has only reacted and missed the real opportunities when they were in front of him.

But what does anything you've said in this post have to do with NDSU/SDSU? It was not difficult to see in 2004 that NDSU was on its way to building an exceptional football program. Maybe the CYA lawyers didn't, but football people did.

 

[kemajic]

I am not a fan of Foolerton either, but he has done a decent job of advocating what the member schools want.

And that's your idea of vision and leadership. Figures.

 

[Cats2506]

You will get nothing but cricket sounds from Kem responding to this post

If you could read you would see that there was a response.

I noticed a post which totally ignored UND's post which refuted everything you said.

 

[Cats2506]

I am not a fan of Foolerton either, but he has done a decent job of advocating what the member schools want.

And that's your idea of vision and leadership. Figures.

I never mentioned vision or leadership, I don't think I want a conf commissioner that does stuff against the wishes of the member schools either

 

[EverettGriz]

Contrary to PR and the other We're-tiny-Montana-afraid-of-our-shadow-too-small-to-ever-succeed types, those of us willing to at least consider a move to FBS were happy with where we were.

The problem is, that where we are is NOT where we were, and the trend line doesn't look promising. I love FCS football. But I don't love it in its current configuration. Montana can and deserves to play and suceed at the FBS level if that's what's best for the University, the program, the alumni and fans.

Perhaps it's just me, but I've never found the ostrich approach successful.

 

[kemajic]

I am not a fan of Foolerton either, but he has done a decent job of advocating what the member schools want.

And that's your idea of vision and leadership. Figures.

I never mentioned vision or leadership, I don't think I want a conf commissioner that does stuff against the wishes of the member schools either

PR did - and I found characterizing Fullerton as a visionary hilarious. His idea of vision was to add programs near large populations, because that what's this conference needed. So on come PSU, SacSt and UNC. Check their success and their attendance. NDSU and SDSU didn't fit the model. That's Fullerton. I want a commissioner who has knowledge and yes, vision, far above the member school administors and the ability to influence and bring them along in the right direction. Add value. You want a pocket yes man, OK, figures.

 

[kemajic]

You will get nothing but cricket sounds from Kem responding to this post

If you could read you would see that there was a response.

I noticed a post which totally ignored UND's post which refuted everything you said.

He tried by going into a lateral irrelevant diatribe about DII performance; could not refute the facts; Fullerton and the BSC missed the boat big time by not admitting NDSU and SDSU in 2004-5. UNDfan is still butthurt that UND was not invited to the party then. And butthurt even more by NDSU's back to back NCs and the "not welcome" sign for UND in the MVC.

In spite of Fullerton's "strategic" additions of PSU, SacSt and UNC and reactive additions of UND, SUU, CPSLO and UCDavis, we still have only the Montana programs that can draw in 5 figures.

Since he couldn't, what can you identify in my posts, expressed opinions aside, that were not factual.

 

[Cats2506]

You will get nothing but cricket sounds from Kem responding to this post

If you could read you would see that there was a response.

I noticed a post which totally ignored UND's post which refuted everything you said.

He tried by going into a lateral irrelevant diatribe about DII performance; could not refute the facts; Fullerton and the BSC missed the boat big time by not admitting NDSU and SDSU in 2004-5. UNDfan is still butthurt that UND was not invited to the party then. And butthurt even more by NDSU's back to back NCs and the "not welcome" sign for UND in the MVC.

In spite of Fullerton's "strategic" additions of PSU, SacSt and UNC and reactive additions of UND, SUU, CPSLO and UCDavis, we still have only the Montana programs that can draw in 5 figures.

Since he couldn't, what can you identify in my posts, expressed opinions aside, that were not factual.

Well if nothing else UND's post showed that you certainly have 20/20 hindsight, but not much vision. You state that the BSC missed the boat in 04-05 and show info after that to prove the point and indicate that the same was true before that time, UND's post show's that you are clearly wrong about the situation as it was in 04-05. Secondly you make assumptions about why the xDSU's were not admitted, all of those assumptions are wrong also. While their attendance is not high, the decision to admit PSU into the leauge looks like the right move today, the reasoning behind adding population centers is to get media exposure, since the BSC is now one of the few FCS leagues with a TV contract and that contract is from a media company that covers the pac NW region, it makes sense that the BSC would likely not have that contract without PSU in the league.

Kem you have a tunnel vision problem and need to take off the maroon glasses and step back and get the big picture :thumb:

 

[UNDfan]

You will get nothing but cricket sounds from Kem responding to this post

If you could read you would see that there was a response.

I noticed a post which totally ignored UND's post which refuted everything you said.

He tried by going into a lateral irrelevant diatribe about DII performance; could not refute the facts; Fullerton and the BSC missed the boat big time by not admitting NDSU and SDSU in 2004-5. UNDfan is still butthurt that UND was not invited to the party then. And butthurt even more by NDSU's back to back NCs and the "not welcome" sign for UND in the MVC.

In spite of Fullerton's "strategic" additions of PSU, SacSt and UNC and reactive additions of UND, SUU, CPSLO and UCDavis, we still have only the Montana programs that can draw in 5 figures.

Since he couldn't, what can you identify in my posts, expressed opinions aside, that were not factual.

Fullerton wanted NDSU and SDSU in the Big Sky back in 2004-5. It was the other Big Sky Presidents - other than MSU and UM - that didn't want anything to do with them. UNC was taken for media such as Altitude sports and Denver being an air hub to allow expansion east later. Fullerton asked NDSU and SDSU to be patient: both said piss on the Big Sky. Soon after the repeated BSC rejections, Valparaiso left the MidCon and Chicago St was ejected, so the Summit came begging to NDSU and SDSU when before the MidCon (now Summit) wasn't especially interested. The MVFC had also repeatedly rejected NDSU and SDSU too, until W Kentucky announced that it was moving football up to FBS in the Sun Belt, and then the MVFC wanted SDSU. NDSU was only granted MVFC admission on the insistence of SDSU.

Personally, never wanted UND to have anything to do with the Summit or MVFC, so you''re way off course, Kemajic. The West is where UND alumni are, other than MSP, and the hockey side connects UND alumni in MSP and Minnesota with UND athletics. The Summit / MVFC has zero Minnesota or Wisconsin presences, so both conferences are basically worthless as way of connecting UND alum to sporting events, unlike Big Sky locations especially Denver, Arizona, Portland, and Washington. The western half of ND strongly connects with the Big Sky, and its very important that UND continue its connection with the oil industry (which is building a new building for UND's fast growing Petroleum Engineering major and our Geology school - which has a drill core library that is now like a gold mine). NDSU's alumni base in MInnesota and the West really can't connect directly with NDSU athletics in any sport (except for occasional Gopher games): they could be convinced today to move to the Big Sky (but highly doubt USD or SDSU have much of any interest unless the Summit League is forced to disband).

Back in 2002-3 when NDSU and SDSU made their DI choices, UND was still digesting the $220 million in new facilities in 2001 - if they would continue to cash flow was unknown at the time (nobody knew at the time if hockey would continue to draw sellout crowds with nearly 250,000 attendance annually - more than doubling attendance pre-2001) - as well as $1 billion in local damages and $100 million in campus flood damages from 1997. Going DI at the time would have been a huge risk for UND and really strapped then the still recovering local business community (which was then strapped with special taxes on a $400 million flood protection system).

If you are saying DII performance is irrelevant at the FCS level, then the same has to be said for Appy State, Ga Southern, and Montana's performance at an FBS level. A DII program has to demonstrate the ability to bring in fans, make some money, and have a good foundation to go to FCS, every bit as much as an FCS program making a move to FBS. From 1990 to 2004 (when NDSU stopped playing us), UND was the dominant program in wins, playoff appearances, and standout players. What NDSU and SDSU did do well is use their first DI mover to their advantage. Effectively, they steered what otherwise would have been the top players in our from DII league (as well as more preferred walkons and selective recruiting in the South and Southwest) into their own teams. There football teams became what in pre-DI days would have been conference all-star teams. The same thing happened in basketball: NDSU men's basketball had forever been a mediocre program compared to schools like UND and Minnesota State until NDSU moved to DI. SDSU's star player Wolters, who could possibly be drafted in the first round next week, didn't believe he was DI caliber and really wanted to go to DII St Cloud St, which was also in UND / NDSU / SDSU / USD's former league. The DII North Central Conference performed above the level of a number of the DI/FCS bottom level conferences in multiple sports.

NDSU and SDSU (relatively reluctantly, as SDSU filed to go DI just days before the deadline) gambled big, and they executed. UND's leadership didn't respond quickly (due in part to a fired AD), especially with regards to football and UND lost the lead it had retaken from NDSU. NDSU football in the 80's was like a machine, with the 60's also successful for them. UND regained dominance in the 70's and 90's. If you think UND is permanently usurped by NDSU in football, you're in for a surprise because you just don't know history. UND has big donors that come through.

 

[PlayerRep]

I am not a fan of Foolerton either, but he has done a decent job of advocating what the member schools want.

And that's your idea of vision and leadership. Figures.

I never mentioned vision or leadership, I don't think I want a conf commissioner that does stuff against the wishes of the member schools either

PR did - and I found characterizing Fullerton as a visionary hilarious. His idea of vision was to add programs near large populations, because that what's this conference needed. So on come PSU, SacSt and UNC. Check their success and their attendance. NDSU and SDSU didn't fit the model. That's Fullerton. I want a commissioner who has knowledge and yes, vision, far above the member school administors and the ability to influence and bring them along in the right direction. Add value. You want a pocket yes man, OK, figures.

Is there your idea of characterizing Fullerton as "visionary"? Here's my post on the subject. "Good vision", Kem. Good vision, not visionary. You are either senile or are just plain dishonest.

"Fullerton actually has very good vision. It's just that the Windmill Chasers want something else. Fullerton also has to deal with reality and economics."

PlayerRep
eGriz Lifer

Posts: 8608
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:06 am

 

[kemajic]

And that's your idea of vision and leadership. Figures.

I never mentioned vision or leadership, I don't think I want a conf commissioner that does stuff against the wishes of the member schools either

PR did - and I found characterizing Fullerton as a visionary hilarious. His idea of vision was to add programs near large populations, because that what's this conference needed. So on come PSU, SacSt and UNC. Check their success and their attendance. NDSU and SDSU didn't fit the model. That's Fullerton. I want a commissioner who has knowledge and yes, vision, far above the member school administors and the ability to influence and bring them along in the right direction. Add value. You want a pocket yes man, OK, figures.

Is there your idea of characterizing Fullerton as "visionary"? Here's my post on the subject. "Good vision", Kem. Good vision, not visionary. You are either senile or are just plain dishonest.

"Fullerton actually has very good vision. It's just that the Windmill Chasers want something else. Fullerton also has to deal with reality and economics."

PlayerRep
eGriz Lifer

Posts: 8608
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:06 am

Since you choose to split hairs, how was his vision when USD bolted from his grasp?

 

[RE Hammond]

Contrary to PR and the other We're-tiny-Montana-afraid-of-our-shadow-too-small-to-ever-succeed types, those of us willing to at least consider a move to FBS were happy with where we were.

The problem is, that where we are is NOT where we were, and the trend line doesn't look promising. I love FCS football. But I don't love it in its current configuration. Montana can and deserves to play and suceed at the FBS level if that's what's best for the University, the program, the alumni and fans.

Perhaps it's just me, but I've never found the ostrich approach successful.

Thank you, city of Everett. I knew at some point there would be some resonance.

Finger in a dyke (spelled this way on purpose) Player Rep has been reduced to patronization.

BSC should not stop until there is no shadow of DII.

It's not just football and the FCS to FBS issue. Every other program is DI in every way.

Adams State University finished with an aggregate result at the DII cross country championships that was superior to DI champion OSU (the orange and black Cowboy version). Moreover, Adams State has been both DII XC and T&F (indoor and outdoor) national champions in the last 18 months. Why do I obsess on ASU? No BSC program is even close, on the aggregate, when it comes to performance in these two sports. There is every opportunity - climate-wise, resource-wise, ambition-wise (by any running, jumping, or throwing athlete), etc., in the BSC to be as good or better than the RMAC. What the hell is up? What the farg is up?

If you think OPSU is thinking about you, think again, as they have to face a consistent 100 yard ground gaining (at the end of the 2012 season) running back at ASU, the week before they make the long drive to the Treasure State. This athlete would have basically tied the school record at Griz for the 100m this past season. And, he just finished his freshman year of eligibility (true or RS???).

Further, how many BSC basketball teams would relish taking on Metro State???

What and/or who were the last two BSC national champions in T&F? Lopez Lomong of NAU in 2007, or so, and Dan Brown(e) of MSU in 1991???

Who does the BSC need? Someone like the AD at Louisville. The last special teams player to be the offensive MVP in the BSC. A bowl win and and national championship in basketball??? This guy was interviewed on one of the NAU America One (oh yes, the current douche AD at Griz did his Mitt shit and made Griz games no longer available on B2TV - uh, yeah, I need megabucks to refill my state-of-the-art SUV) broadcasts in 2011 and stated that basketball was as important, if not more, than football. But, in his admission of where the money really comes from, Louisville-wise, he still does things that will make Louisville a mainstay at the BCS level (as long as they can find the right conference to take-up permanent residence in - kind of like Jimmy Caan taking-up permanent residence in the Playboy west mansion in the early 1980's). Freaking brilliant.

 

[kemajic]

We need a contest for length of post.....

 

[PlayerRep]

I never mentioned vision or leadership, I don't think I want a conf commissioner that does stuff against the wishes of the member schools either

PR did - and I found characterizing Fullerton as a visionary hilarious. His idea of vision was to add programs near large populations, because that what's this conference needed. So on come PSU, SacSt and UNC. Check their success and their attendance. NDSU and SDSU didn't fit the model. That's Fullerton. I want a commissioner who has knowledge and yes, vision, far above the member school administors and the ability to influence and bring them along in the right direction. Add value. You want a pocket yes man, OK, figures.

Is there your idea of characterizing Fullerton as "visionary"? Here's my post on the subject. "Good vision", Kem. Good vision, not visionary. You are either senile or are just plain dishonest.

"Fullerton actually has very good vision. It's just that the Windmill Chasers want something else. Fullerton also has to deal with reality and economics."

PlayerRep
eGriz Lifer

Posts: 8608
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:06 am

Since you choose to split hairs, how was his vision when USD bolted from his grasp?

USD not coming to the BSC had nothing to do with vision. There is nothing that could have been done to avoid that. It was a possibility, due the approval system in SD. While I assume most everyone thought that USD wouldn't get a late offer from the MV, as they weren't able to get one previously, they got this late one after the BSC invite became public.

What do you think Fullerton and the conference should have done differently? Did you think Fullerton and the conference should have gone against Engstrom's wishes to invite USD?

 

[FargoBison]

Sac State and Portland State are the two reasons why NDSU is not in the Big Sky today. NDSU actually had some decent support from the other Big Sky members but those two would have nothing to do with it and a consensus was needed to move forward.

Our president at the time was a huge proponent of joining the Big Sky, he came to NDSU from MSU.