Summit Expansion?

[Hammersmith]

Actually some of the resistance to NDSU had a lot to do with our support, traditions and facilities. A few schools(especially Missouri State) were concerned about adding another strong program to an already strong conference.

Yep. I think we were just coming off our first 10-1 season when the discussion was happening. MSU and a couple others were not thrilled with adding another strong program to the conference. I believe one of the others was WIU. YSU may have been against us because of geography. They were willing to add one Dakota school, but a Dakota trip every year was not that appealing to them. SDSU's president tipped the scales when he said both or nothing. (It still took a couple days for them to make up their minds and get MSU on board.)

[Twentysix]

Yep. I think we were just coming off our first 10-1 season when the discussion was happening. MSU and a couple others were not thrilled with adding another strong program to the conference. I believe one of the others was WIU. YSU may have been against us because of geography. They were willing to add one Dakota school, but a Dakota trip every year was not that appealing to them. SDSU's president tipped the scales when he said both or nothing. (It still took a couple days for them to make up their minds and get MSU on board.)

Thank god for that. I for one am completely in support of standing by SDSU in future conference moves. Assuming they dont fall into complete ruin.

[zooropa]

Thank god for that. I for one am completely in support of standing by SDSU in future conference moves. Assuming they dont fall into complete ruin.

Well, you know what they say: 'keep your friends close and your enemies closer'.

Frankly, requiring NDSU be included was, IMO, enlightened self-interest. It's in both universities' best interests for them to be in the same conferences for all sports. This was an instance where standing up for NDSU came with no cost and little risk to SDSU.

[abc123]

Well, you know what they say: 'keep your friends close and your enemies closer'.

Frankly, requiring NDSU be included was, IMO, enlightened self-interest. It's in both universities' best interests for them to be in the same conferences for all sports. This was an instance where standing up for NDSU came with no cost and little risk to SDSU.

Here is something I've been wondering: Who do you think SDSU will be partnering with in the future if a conference comes calling and they only want one team? Would they look out for themselves or say only a package deal. And would that package deal only be them and one other team or two other teams? I have a feeling in the case of SDSU and one other team, NDSU wouldn't be the partner they choose anymore. Do you see a situation where SDSU and USD are separated conference-wise again?

Also, here's a pretty good interview with Fullerton on his thoughts and comments about expanding the Big Sky: Link

[zooropa]

Who do you think SDSU will be partnering with in the future if a conference comes calling

I see only one conference as attractive to SDSU: The MVC.

And I see SDSU's entrance to the MVC falling under two possible scenarios:

SDSU records multiple sweet 16 appearances over a comparatively short period of time (say twice in 5 years), and is sitting at ~5500 average home attendance at Frost (c. 90% of capacity). In this case, SDSU and SDSU alone might be considered for an invite to the MVC. But if this were to happen, the terms would be such that SDSU certainly wouldn't be in a position to negotiate. And in any event, I doubt that the MVC would look closely at SDSU even if they were in this position, due to the distance from Omaha.

Alternatively, a major shift in the Horizon/"A10"/Big East/Summit/MVC makeup, in which a number of the eastern/private MVC schools left for another conference, in which I doubt that SDSU would be a sole invite to the MVC, rather, an invitation would be extended to at least two of the four Summit/MVFC schools.

[zooropa]

Also, all you need to know about Fullerton is contained in his revisionist insistence that the Big Sky expansion was intended to undermine the WAC. Who honestly believes that SUU & UND were attractive to the WAC in 2010?

[dmksioux]

Also, all you need to know about Fullerton is contained in his revisionist insistence that the Big Sky expansion was intended to undermine the WAC. Who honestly believes that SUU & UND were attractive to the WAC in 2010?

Agree that the WAC wasn't targeting either UND or SUU. However, they were targeting UM and possibly MSU. Fullerton needs to keep those 2 schools in the Big Sky. The Montana President/AD were on record at the time saying they were behind expansion into the Dakotas, specifically inviting UND/USD. How much credit to give to Fullerton can be up for debate but he is smart enough to keep the Montana schools happy.

[zooropa]

Agree that the WAC wasn't targeting either UND or SUU. However, they were targeting UM and possibly MSU. Fullerton needs to keep those 2 schools in the Big Sky. The Montana President/AD were on record at the time saying they were behind expansion into the Dakotas, specifically inviting UND/USD. How much credit to give to Fullerton can be up for debate but he is smart enough to keep the Montana schools happy.

Please. UND had nothing to do with the Montanas decision to stay FCS.

[Greenie]

From Fullerton's interview:

TSN: Where does the Big Sky stand on getting a 14th member in football?

DF: Well, we absolutely want to go to 14. We would like a full-fledged member. We can go to divisions, mitigate some travel in football and then in basketball and all the other sports you can have partner-scheduling, which we don't have now. That would take us to 12 in basketball and volleyball and all that. Getting to an even number is really a goal we've got.
--------------------------------------------

If the Big Sky doesn't get Idaho or New Mexico State, and UND stays in Big Sky, will they go after NDSU as the 14th member for football and 12th member for everything else? And if this happens, would the Missouri Valley want NDSU enough to invite it into their conference for all sports (and not lose NDSU to the Big Sky). All the changes in the Summit league has to have NDSU concerned about the long-term future of that league.

I would think that the Big Sky would like to partner UND with someone else for travel partners, and NDSU would be the best fit geographically and program ability.

As an aside, I think that SDSU's partner is now USD since they are in the same state and same conference for everything. Politically I don't think the state of SD would like to see them split up again. So essentially NDSU is on its own for switching conferences -- MVC or Big Sky or a FBS league.

Lastly, it was very interesting to listen to Gene Taylor and President Bresciani talk about any potential NDSU move to FBS football. To summarize, Taylor said he is concerned about all the major programs in FCS moving up and FCS essentially becoming what happened to DII. He doesn't want NDSU to get left behind again. Bresciani said it is an ever changing landscape and cost is THE major factor to moving up. I think if cost wasn't an issue, and a conference would take NDSU, they would move NDSU to FBS. If alumni/corporate partners paid for it (like how hockey was going to be paid for at MSU-Moorhead), then NDSU would move up. Don't know if any FBS would be interested in NDSU -- MAC would be the most likely. Stay tuned, I think things are going to get real interesting.

[dmksioux]

From Fullerton's interview:

TSN: Where does the Big Sky stand on getting a 14th member in football?

DF: Well, we absolutely want to go to 14. We would like a full-fledged member. We can go to divisions, mitigate some travel in football and then in basketball and all the other sports you can have partner-scheduling, which we don't have now. That would take us to 12 in basketball and volleyball and all that. Getting to an even number is really a goal we've got.
--------------------------------------------

If the Big Sky doesn't get Idaho or New Mexico State, and UND stays in Big Sky, will they go after NDSU as the 14th member for football and 12th member for everything else? And if this happens, would the Missouri Valley want NDSU enough to invite it into their conference for all sports (and not lose NDSU to the Big Sky). All the changes in the Summit league has to have NDSU concerned about the long-term future of that league.

I would think that the Big Sky would like to partner UND with someone else for travel partners, and NDSU would be the best fit geographically and program ability.

As an aside, I think that SDSU's partner is now USD since they are in the same state and same conference for everything. Politically I don't think the state of SD would like to see them split up again. So essentially NDSU is on its own for switching conferences -- MVC or Big Sky or a FBS league.

Lastly, it was very interesting to listen to Gene Taylor and President Bresciani talk about any potential NDSU move to FBS football. To summarize, Taylor said he is concerned about all the major programs in FCS moving up and FCS essentially becoming what happened to DII. He doesn't want NDSU to get left behind again. Bresciani said it is an ever changing landscape and cost is THE major factor to moving up. I think if cost wasn't an issue, and a conference would take NDSU, they would move NDSU to FBS. If alumni/corporate partners paid for it (like how hockey was going to be paid for at MSU-Moorhead), then NDSU would move up. Don't know if any FBS would be interested in NDSU -- MAC would be the most likely. Stay tuned, I think things are going to get real interesting.

Fullerton has been quoted several time in regards to realignment in the FBS. He believes the BCS schools will split from the rest of the FBS. Fullerton believes there will be a BCS, FBS, and FCS. He has stated he wants to position the Big Sky Conference to be a part of that FBS/2nd tier or whatever you want to call it. Not sure that all of the Big Sky Schools would be able to do that at the same time but that is what his vision is. I see NDSU as fitting into that Big Sky vision as well. As you said, it depends on alot of variables...ie Idaho, the BCS split occuring, Summit/MVC vision, etc. Should be an interesting few years coming up in college football...