The Illusion of FBS Opportunity: Fullerton

[PlayerRep]

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.

At this point, if NDSU could magically chose between the MVC and the BSC, which would be preferable for NDSU?

What do you think NDSU will do in the future, in terms of looking at moving up, or not?

 

[kemajic]

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?

Yes. Do you think the conference's fate should be dictated by one newbie president?

 

[kemajic]

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.

An indirect result of Fullerton. He drove to bring in SacSt and PSU in his grand (failed) plan to add programs near large populations. The by-laws of the BSC are a mess; they should not have allowed two recently added programs to dictate direction that the charter and long term members favored.

 

[Cats2506]

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.

An indirect result of Fullerton. He drove to bring in SacSt and PSU in his grand (failed) plan to add programs near large populations. The by-laws of the BSC are a mess; they should not have allowed two recently added programs to dictate direction that the charter and long term members favored.

I see that you are still ignoring fact that bringing in the schools from large population centers has had exactly the results that were hoped for by admitting them.

incredible how your tunnel vision lets you be blind to everything that refutes your special "reality" :lol: :lol:

 

[PlayerRep]

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?

Yes. Do you think the conference's fate should be dictated by one newbie president?

No, but it's up to the other presidents to buck the newbie president, not the conference commissioner.

Also, if the conference is looking for a commitment of an important team like UM to stay in the conference for the longer term (and not consider accepting a move up offer), then the conference (presidents and commissioner) probably shouldn't piss off UM's newbie president.

 

[kemajic]

I see that you are still ignoring fact that bringing in the schools from large population centers has had exactly the results that were hoped for by admitting them.

Really? Help us understand the impact SacSt, PSU and UNC have had on the conference in football, both from a performance and attendance standpoint. If that's what was hoped for than pity us.

 

[Cats2506]

I see that you are still ignoring fact that bringing in the schools from large population centers has had exactly the results that were hoped for by admitting them.

Really? Help us understand the impact SacSt, PSU and UNC have had on the conference in football, both from a performance and attendance standpoint. If that's what was hoped for than pity us.

I have already established some of what PSU has brought, but in addition to their presence being instrumental in the BSC being one of the few FCS conferences to have a conference media contract, they are a committed program and now play in what may be one of the best game facility in the conference.

Sac is another committed program and despite CA's financial cuts they have continued to improve their program and facilities. Most importantly they gave the BSC a foothold in California, which is critical to the recruiting of several BSC teams. That beachhead in CA was also critical to bringing in UCD and CP-SLO which was an important step to stabilizing the conference in uncertain times and was also a factor in gaining a conference wide media contract.

While the inclusion of UNC has not yet shown the results that the other 2 you mention do, it must be mentioned that they started out a ways behind the rest in both recognition and facilities. they have however shown their commitment in facilities improvements (primarily internal so far) and finally broke through being one of the bottom ranked FB teams in the conf last year. In other sports they have done well and there is no denying their commitment to their programs and the conference

Once again Kem, you need to look at things through the big picture of the conference as a whole and the stability and longevity of the conference rather than a narrow lens of only looking at fizz athletics.

 

[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.

At this point, if NDSU could magically chose between the MVC and the BSC, which would be preferable for NDSU?

What do you think NDSU will do in the future, in terms of looking at moving up, or not?

I think our admin is happy with where we are at right now, of course that can change quickly. The MVC has been a solid football league but the conference for the rest of our sports isn't so solid.

I don't think NDSU will move up in the short term. There really isn't anywhere for us to go, I don't think our admin is very excited to be on an island with no regional rivals in say the MAC or Sun Belt. Some think we'd also have to build a new stadium first and just to get the ball rolling on that and the needed fundraising could take a long time.

 

[kemajic]

I see that you are still ignoring fact that bringing in the schools from large population centers has had exactly the results that were hoped for by admitting them.

Really? Help us understand the impact SacSt, PSU and UNC have had on the conference in football, both from a performance and attendance standpoint. If that's what was hoped for than pity us.

I have already established some of what PSU has brought, but in addition to their presence being instrumental in the BSC being one of the few FCS conferences to have a conference media contract, they are a committed program and now play in what may be one of the best game facility in the conference.

Sac is another committed program and despite CA's financial cuts they have continued to improve their program and facilities. Most importantly they gave the BSC a foothold in California, which is critical to the recruiting of several BSC teams. That beachhead in CA was also critical to bringing in UCD and CP-SLO which was an important step to stabilizing the conference in uncertain times and was also a factor in gaining a conference wide media contract.

While the inclusion of UNC has not yet shown the results that the other 2 you mention do, it must be mentioned that they started out a ways behind the rest in both recognition and facilities. they have however shown their commitment in facilities improvements (primarily internal so far) and finally broke through being one of the bottom ranked FB teams in the conf last year. In other sports they have done well and there is no denying their commitment to their programs and the conference

Once again Kem, you need to look at things through the big picture of the conference as a whole and the stability and longevity of the conference rather than a narrow lens of only looking at fizz athletics.

Hmmm... No mention of performance and attendance.

 

[Cats2506]

I see that you are still ignoring fact that bringing in the schools from large population centers has had exactly the results that were hoped for by admitting them.

Really? Help us understand the impact SacSt, PSU and UNC have had on the conference in football, both from a performance and attendance standpoint. If that's what was hoped for than pity us.

I have already established some of what PSU has brought, but in addition to their presence being instrumental in the BSC being one of the few FCS conferences to have a conference media contract, they are a committed program and now play in what may be one of the best game facility in the conference.

Sac is another committed program and despite CA's financial cuts they have continued to improve their program and facilities. Most importantly they gave the BSC a foothold in California, which is critical to the recruiting of several BSC teams. That beachhead in CA was also critical to bringing in UCD and CP-SLO which was an important step to stabilizing the conference in uncertain times and was also a factor in gaining a conference wide media contract.

While the inclusion of UNC has not yet shown the results that the other 2 you mention do, it must be mentioned that they started out a ways behind the rest in both recognition and facilities. they have however shown their commitment in facilities improvements (primarily internal so far) and finally broke through being one of the bottom ranked FB teams in the conf last year. In other sports they have done well and there is no denying their commitment to their programs and the conference

Once again Kem, you need to look at things through the big picture of the conference as a whole and the stability and longevity of the conference rather than a narrow lens of only looking at fizz athletics.

Hmmm... No mention of performance and attendance.

Neither are or were primary concerns when they were entered into the league, but if you really want that 2 of the 3 finished last season above um. :thumb:

as far as attendance the 2012 season rankings are SAC (12), PSU (77) and UNC (93), as I said before UNC had the farthest to go but they have all continued to make improvements.

 

[kemajic]

Really? Help us understand the impact SacSt, PSU and UNC have had on the conference in football, both from a performance and attendance standpoint. If that's what was hoped for than pity us.

I have already established some of what PSU has brought, but in addition to their presence being instrumental in the BSC being one of the few FCS conferences to have a conference media contract, they are a committed program and now play in what may be one of the best game facility in the conference.

Sac is another committed program and despite CA's financial cuts they have continued to improve their program and facilities. Most importantly they gave the BSC a foothold in California, which is critical to the recruiting of several BSC teams. That beachhead in CA was also critical to bringing in UCD and CP-SLO which was an important step to stabilizing the conference in uncertain times and was also a factor in gaining a conference wide media contract.

While the inclusion of UNC has not yet shown the results that the other 2 you mention do, it must be mentioned that they started out a ways behind the rest in both recognition and facilities. they have however shown their commitment in facilities improvements (primarily internal so far) and finally broke through being one of the bottom ranked FB teams in the conf last year. In other sports they have done well and there is no denying their commitment to their programs and the conference

Once again Kem, you need to look at things through the big picture of the conference as a whole and the stability and longevity of the conference rather than a narrow lens of only looking at fizz athletics.

Hmmm... No mention of performance and attendance.

Neither are or were primary concerns when they were entered into the league, but if you really want that 2 of the 3 finished last season above um. :thumb:

as far as attendance the 2012 season rankings are SAC (12), PSU (77) and UNC (93), as I said before UNC had the farthest to go but they have all continued to make improvements.

If performance and attendance were not important, then I guess the BSC was just looking for bottom feeders to replace Nevada, Northridge, BSU and Idaho. Believeable. But it is important to the stature, competitive strength and financial stabilty of the conference in spite of your disregard. Programs that cannot draw even 10,000 are burning cash big time supporting FCS programs. While your performance anecdote is amusing, a quick look at the body of work of these programs exposes the facts.

SacST: 68-121 in 17 years in the BSC. Ave. 2012 attendance 9109 (37th - not 12th)
PSU: 86-102 in 17 years in the BSC. Ave. 2012 attendance 5957 (77th - but with "one of the best game facility in the conference")
UNC: 14-64 in 7 years in the BSC. Ave. 2012 attendance 4248 (93rd - 4700 for Montana/homecoming 2012)

Bottom line is Fullerton's strategy was a failure and it was thrown out the window in annexing of the Great West strandeds. These three programs combined draw about what NDSU draws, far less than Montana. In spite of what you claim, there is no clear vector of improvement and television revenue is chump change and not above what some programs could get locally without BSC control. The only reason Fullerton still has a job is because he is a willing yes man in the pocket of the presidents.

 

[Cats2506]

I have already established some of what PSU has brought, but in addition to their presence being instrumental in the BSC being one of the few FCS conferences to have a conference media contract, they are a committed program and now play in what may be one of the best game facility in the conference.

Sac is another committed program and despite CA's financial cuts they have continued to improve their program and facilities. Most importantly they gave the BSC a foothold in California, which is critical to the recruiting of several BSC teams. That beachhead in CA was also critical to bringing in UCD and CP-SLO which was an important step to stabilizing the conference in uncertain times and was also a factor in gaining a conference wide media contract.

While the inclusion of UNC has not yet shown the results that the other 2 you mention do, it must be mentioned that they started out a ways behind the rest in both recognition and facilities. they have however shown their commitment in facilities improvements (primarily internal so far) and finally broke through being one of the bottom ranked FB teams in the conf last year. In other sports they have done well and there is no denying their commitment to their programs and the conference

Once again Kem, you need to look at things through the big picture of the conference as a whole and the stability and longevity of the conference rather than a narrow lens of only looking at fizz athletics.

Hmmm... No mention of performance and attendance.

Neither are or were primary concerns when they were entered into the league, but if you really want that 2 of the 3 finished last season above um. :thumb:

as far as attendance the 2012 season rankings are SAC (12), PSU (77) and UNC (93), as I said before UNC had the farthest to go but they have all continued to make improvements.

If performance and attendance were not important, then I guess the BSC was just looking for bottom feeders to replace Nevada, Northridge, BSU and Idaho. Believeable. But it is important to the stature, competitive strength and financial stabilty of the conference in spite of your disregard. Programs that cannot draw even 10,000 are burning cash big time supporting FCS programs. While your performance anecdote is amusing, a quick look at the body of work of these programs exposes the facts.

SacST: 68-121 in 17 years in the BSC. Ave. 2012 attendance 9109 (37th - not 12th)
PSU: 86-102 in 17 years in the BSC. Ave. 2012 attendance 5957 (77th - but with "one of the best game facility in the conference")
UNC: 14-64 in 7 years in the BSC. Ave. 2012 attendance 4248 (93rd - 4700 for Montana/homecoming 2012)

Bottom line is Fullerton's strategy was a failure and it was thrown out the window in annexing of the Great West strandeds. These three programs combined draw about what NDSU draws, far less than Montana. In spite of what you claim, there is no clear vector of improvement and television revenue is chump change and not above what some programs could get locally without BSC control. The only reason Fullerton still has a job is because he is a willing yes man in the pocket of the presidents.

well that is the defined job of a conference commissioner so that does explain why he does have his job, remember that the conference is governed by the presidents and the commissioner works for their will and pleasure.

 

[kemajic]

The only reason Fullerton still has a job is because he is a willing yes man in the pocket of the presidents.

well that is the defined job of a conference commissioner so that does explain why he does have his job, remember that the conference is governed by the presidents and the commissioner works for their will and pleasure.

The better conferences have commissioners that add value beyond the presidents by providing insight that university presidents don't have. Most are academician geeks or politicians. A knowledgeable, trusted commissioner with a track record of providing good advice, strategy and leadership that has led to success, is capable of influencing presidents into good football decisions. Do you think it was presidents that envisioned the TV deals now existing in the major conferences that have changed their financial structure? This description does not fit Fullerton.

Just more "cricket" sounds....

 

[WILDCATFAN]

I have already established some of what PSU has brought, but in addition to their presence being instrumental in the BSC being one of the few FCS conferences to have a conference media contract, they are a committed program and now play in what may be one of the best game facility in the conference.

Sac is another committed program and despite CA's financial cuts they have continued to improve their program and facilities. Most importantly they gave the BSC a foothold in California, which is critical to the recruiting of several BSC teams. That beachhead in CA was also critical to bringing in UCD and CP-SLO which was an important step to stabilizing the conference in uncertain times and was also a factor in gaining a conference wide media contract.

While the inclusion of UNC has not yet shown the results that the other 2 you mention do, it must be mentioned that they started out a ways behind the rest in both recognition and facilities. they have however shown their commitment in facilities improvements (primarily internal so far) and finally broke through being one of the bottom ranked FB teams in the conf last year. In other sports they have done well and there is no denying their commitment to their programs and the conference

Once again Kem, you need to look at things through the big picture of the conference as a whole and the stability and longevity of the conference rather than a narrow lens of only looking at fizz athletics.

Hmmm... No mention of performance and attendance.

Neither are or were primary concerns when they were entered into the league, but if you really want that 2 of the 3 finished last season above um. :thumb:

as far as attendance the 2012 season rankings are SAC (12), PSU (77) and UNC (93), as I said before UNC had the farthest to go but they have all continued to make improvements.

If performance and attendance were not important, then I guess the BSC was just looking for bottom feeders to replace Nevada, Northridge, BSU and Idaho. Believeable. But it is important to the stature, competitive strength and financial stabilty of the conference in spite of your disregard. Programs that cannot draw even 10,000 are burning cash big time supporting FCS programs. While your performance anecdote is amusing, a quick look at the body of work of these programs exposes the facts.

SacST: 68-121 in 17 years in the BSC. Ave. 2012 attendance 9109 (37th - not 12th)
PSU: 86-102 in 17 years in the BSC. Ave. 2012 attendance 5957 (77th - but with "one of the best game facility in the conference")
UNC: 14-64 in 7 years in the BSC. Ave. 2012 attendance 4248 (93rd - 4700 for Montana/homecoming 2012)

Bottom line is Fullerton's strategy was a failure and it was thrown out the window in annexing of the Great West strandeds. These three programs combined draw about what NDSU draws, far less than Montana. In spite of what you claim, there is no clear vector of improvement and television revenue is chump change and not above what some programs could get locally without BSC control. The only reason Fullerton still has a job is because he is a willing yes man in the pocket of the presidents.

Yet you desire to be affiliated With an Idaho Vandals program that went 1-11 last year and has been anything but successful since moving up and had the 3rd worst total attendance last year in the FBS

By the way, Boise State the Mountain West's Golden Child ranked 67th in attendance out of 120. The Mountain West is ANYTHING but glamorous

 

[kemajic]

If performance and attendance were not important, then I guess the BSC was just looking for bottom feeders to replace Nevada, Northridge, BSU and Idaho. Believeable. But it is important to the stature, competitive strength and financial stabilty of the conference in spite of your disregard. Programs that cannot draw even 10,000 are burning cash big time supporting FCS programs. While your performance anecdote is amusing, a quick look at the body of work of these programs exposes the facts.

SacST: 68-121 in 17 years in the BSC. Ave. 2012 attendance 9109 (37th - not 12th)
PSU: 86-102 in 17 years in the BSC. Ave. 2012 attendance 5957 (77th - but with "one of the best game facility in the conference")
UNC: 14-64 in 7 years in the BSC. Ave. 2012 attendance 4248 (93rd - 4700 for Montana/homecoming 2012)

Bottom line is Fullerton's strategy was a failure and it was thrown out the window in annexing of the Great West strandeds. These three programs combined draw about what NDSU draws, far less than Montana. In spite of what you claim, there is no clear vector of improvement and television revenue is chump change and not above what some programs could get locally without BSC control. The only reason Fullerton still has a job is because he is a willing yes man in the pocket of the presidents.

Yet you desire to be affiliated With an Idaho Vandals program that went 1-11 last year and has been anything but successful since moving up and had the 3rd worst total attendance last year in the FBS

By the way, Boise State the Mountain West's Golden Child ranked 67th in attendance out of 120.

Irrelevant argument. The debate was whether Fullerton made the right moves in bringing in programs like PSU, SacSt and UNC instead of NDSU and SDSU. Try to catch up.

But since you interject, yes, it's a shame that our long rivalry (84 games) with Idaho is dormant and that is my only "affiliation" regarding Idaho. It's a bus ride away and the Little Brown Stein has been gathering dust in UM's trophy case for 10 years. Despite a bad stadium and team, Idaho's attendance still easily beats all but two BSC programs. With Petrino now running the program, do not look for many 1-11 seasons in the future and as they improve they will put ticket pressure on the stadium limitation. AD Rob Spear is from Butte and a good AD.

Boise St. sells out nearly every game - over 35,000. Try getting a ticket to one of their better games. Stadium expansion is on the way. It is still a young program. Only you would try to knock it.

 

[WILDCATFAN]

If performance and attendance were not important, then I guess the BSC was just looking for bottom feeders to replace Nevada, Northridge, BSU and Idaho. Believeable. But it is important to the stature, competitive strength and financial stabilty of the conference in spite of your disregard. Programs that cannot draw even 10,000 are burning cash big time supporting FCS programs. While your performance anecdote is amusing, a quick look at the body of work of these programs exposes the facts.

SacST: 68-121 in 17 years in the BSC. Ave. 2012 attendance 9109 (37th - not 12th)
PSU: 86-102 in 17 years in the BSC. Ave. 2012 attendance 5957 (77th - but with "one of the best game facility in the conference")
UNC: 14-64 in 7 years in the BSC. Ave. 2012 attendance 4248 (93rd - 4700 for Montana/homecoming 2012)

Bottom line is Fullerton's strategy was a failure and it was thrown out the window in annexing of the Great West strandeds. These three programs combined draw about what NDSU draws, far less than Montana. In spite of what you claim, there is no clear vector of improvement and television revenue is chump change and not above what some programs could get locally without BSC control. The only reason Fullerton still has a job is because he is a willing yes man in the pocket of the presidents.

Yet you desire to be affiliated With an Idaho Vandals program that went 1-11 last year and has been anything but successful since moving up and had the 3rd worst total attendance last year in the FBS

By the way, Boise State the Mountain West's Golden Child ranked 67th in attendance out of 120.

Irrelevant argument. The debate was whether Fullerton made the right moves in bringing in programs like PSU, SacSt and UNC instead of NDSU and SDSU. Try to catch up.

But since you interject, yes, it's a shame that our long rivalry (84 games) with Idaho is dormant and that is my only "affiliation" regarding Idaho. It's a bus ride away and the Little Brown Stein has been gathering dust in UM's trophy case for 10 years. Despite a bad stadium and team, Idaho's attendance still easily beats all but two BSC programs. With Petrino now running the program, do not look for many 1-11 seasons in the future and as they improve they will put ticket pressure on the stadium limitation. AD Rob Spear is from Butte and a good AD.

Boise St. sells out nearly every game - over 35,000. Try getting a ticket to one of their better games. Stadium expansion is on the way. It is still a young program. Only you would try to knock it.

It wasn't Fullerton who blocked NDSU and SDSU, they were blocked by certain West Coast schools who didnt want to travel to Fargo and Brookings. I know you dislike Fullerton, but you should really be blaming the West coast schools who blocked them instead.

When PSU and Sac joined the SKY, there was no NDSU or SDSU in the mix, the Sky lost teams and needed to fill the spots, so they added the only available (at the time) schools.


And Idaho has had plenty of years to get the FBS train rolling, you say they wont continue to have 1-11 seasons? Well I'll believe it when it actually happens.

 

[kemajic]

It wasn't Fullerton who blocked NDSU and SDSU, it was blocked by certain West Coast schools who didnt want to travel to Fargo and Brookings. I know you dislike Fullerton, but you should really be blaming them.

It was Fullerton's grand plan that brought the West Coast programs in in the first place. It did not deliver what he promised. Then he was not strong enough to rally the other presidents to override the newbies when NDSU/SDSU applied. Instead of correcting the problem, he kept up his grand plan by adding UNC after NDSU/SDSU were declined. The three have not added a fraction of the value that NDSU/SDSU would have. He could have had a stronger 10 team conference in 2005. He would likely have 16 today instead of the awkward 13. His leadership is a trainwreck.

 

[UNDfan]

It wasn't Fullerton who blocked NDSU and SDSU, it was blocked by certain West Coast schools who didnt want to travel to Fargo and Brookings. I know you dislike Fullerton, but you should really be blaming them.

It was Fullerton's grand plan that brought the West Coast programs in in the first place. It did not deliver what he promised. Then he was not strong enough to rally the other presidents to override the newbies when NDSU/SDSU applied. Instead of correcting the problem, he kept up his grand plan by adding UNC after NDSU/SDSU were declined. The three have not added a fraction of the value that NDSU/SDSU would have. He could have had a stronger 10 team conference in 2005. He would likely have 16 today instead of the awkward 13. His leadership is a trainwreck.

Just because NDSU isn't in the Big Sky now, doesn't mean it won't happen. There have been a number of times that UND/NDSU have expressed interest in joining the Big Sky: late 1970's, late 1990's (when the west coast schools were added). Montana schools were always interested but those moves were always blocked. South Dakota schools are much less interested in the Big Sky, IMHO.

Although athletically SUU is doing much better than last decade, that addition was only done to placate Weber St and NAU and probably ISU. Adds very little, and drags the Sky down academically. If there is a addition to complain about - other than Northridge - Sac St and PSU far exceed SUU as strategic additions.

Personally, I think UND owes a great debt of gratitude to your former AD, O'Day, and MSU's President. If he hadn't been attending WAC expansion meetings and making some noise about moving up, or if Cruzado hadn't rushed through fundraising for stadium expansion to exceed the FBS minimum, the rest of the Big Sky never would have taken Montana (and Montana St) serious about going FBS. Those two are who put the fear of God into the rest of the Big Sky Presidents and opened them up to eastern geography.

The Summit Conference could very well be dead by the end of next spring, so that could force NDSU into the Big Sky. The Summit League can't lose any more schools and already is on NCAA probation for not sponsoring enough sports with six members. If any one of its members in the east (IUPUI, IPFW, or W Ill) leave, that conference is dead. USD and SDSU would more likely go to the WAC (other than football) and stay in the MVFC for that. USD and SDSU have a lot of affinity with the Kansas City and Omaha markets, which would also be WAC schools.

 

[kemajic]

It wasn't Fullerton who blocked NDSU and SDSU, it was blocked by certain West Coast schools who didnt want to travel to Fargo and Brookings. I know you dislike Fullerton, but you should really be blaming them.

It was Fullerton's grand plan that brought the West Coast programs in in the first place. It did not deliver what he promised. Then he was not strong enough to rally the other presidents to override the newbies when NDSU/SDSU applied. Instead of correcting the problem, he kept up his grand plan by adding UNC after NDSU/SDSU were declined. The three have not added a fraction of the value that NDSU/SDSU would have. He could have had a stronger 10 team conference in 2005. He would likely have 16 today instead of the awkward 13. His leadership is a trainwreck.

Just because NDSU isn't in the Big Sky now, doesn't mean it won't happen. There have been a number of times that UND/NDSU have expressed interest in joining the Big Sky: late 1970's, late 1990's (when the west coast schools were added). Montana schools were always interested but those moves were always blocked. South Dakota schools are much less interested in the Big Sky, IMHO.

Although athletically SUU is doing much better than last decade, that addition was only done to placate Weber St and NAU and probably ISU. Adds very little, and drags the Sky down academically. If there is a addition to complain about - other than Northridge - Sac St and PSU far exceed SUU as strategic additions.

Personally, I think UND owes a great debt of gratitude to your former AD, O'Day, and MSU's President. If he hadn't been attending WAC expansion meetings and making some noise about moving up, or if Cruzado hadn't rushed through fundraising for stadium expansion to exceed the FBS minimum, the rest of the Big Sky never would have taken Montana (and Montana St) serious about going FBS. Those two are who put the fear of God into the rest of the Big Sky Presidents and opened them up to eastern geography.

The Summit Conference could very well be dead by the end of next spring, so that could force NDSU into the Big Sky. The Summit League can't lose any more schools and already is on NCAA probation for not sponsoring enough sports with six members. If any one of its members in the east (IUPUI, IPFW, or W Ill) leave, that conference is dead. USD and SDSU would more likely go to the WAC (other than football) and stay in the MVFC for that. USD and SDSU have a lot of affinity with the Kansas City and Omaha markets, which would also be WAC schools.

Interesting perspective; seem to be a lot of moving parts in the Dakotas. I agree with your SUU assessment and UNC is no more promising. Personally, I suspect there was more than travel that threw fear into the dissident presidents; bringing NDSU into the fold would have raised the bar on the cost to compete. UNC didn't. They prefer programs beneath them, not above them.

Northridge was actually quite competitive in its years in the BSC prior to giving up football. Better than PSU, far better than SacSt or UNC.