Summit Expansion?

[EndZoneQB]

I'm having a terrible time understanding your line of thinking.

You say that the Big Sky wasn't concerned about the autobid, which means they weren't concerned about losing the autobid, in which case, why would they give a hoot what happened to SUU, Cal-Poly and UC-Davis?

Conversely, if they were concerned about losing the autobid, why didn't they wait and see what the Montanas did before committing themselves to inviting new schools to the conference?

--

Also, I don't buy this notion that 'more teams doesn't create a problem'. Where did the MWC come from? A bunch of disaffected WAC members.

--

Further, regardless of what UND did, the Big Sky definitely erred by admitting UND without USD. They were certainly free to condition UND's acceptance on USD's acceptance. They didn't and this is what they got.

The only way you have to gain by adding teams with reckless abandon is a potential BCS bid for FBS teams, aka the MWC, and I'd say they have at least cherry picked teams that could potentially aid them in that quest.

[NorthernBison]

I'm having a terrible time understanding your line of thinking.

You say that the Big Sky wasn't concerned about the autobid, which means they weren't concerned about losing the autobid, in which case, why would they give a hoot what happened to SUU, Cal-Poly and UC-Davis?

Conversely, if they were concerned about losing the autobid, why didn't they wait and see what the Montanas did before committing themselves to inviting new schools to the conference?

--

Also, I don't buy this notion that 'more teams doesn't create a problem'. Where did the MWC come from? A bunch of disaffected WAC members.

--

Further, regardless of what UND did, the Big Sky definitely erred by admitting UND without USD. They were certainly free to condition UND's acceptance on USD's acceptance. They didn't and this is what they got.

You brought up the autobid. That has zero relevance in the decision to add or not add.

The Big Sky move as it regards football was based almost exclusively on Fullerton's belief that a western "super conference" was a good idea. But, they did add Poly and Davis well before asking the other three. That indicates at least some desire to make sure the FCS didn't go backwards in the west. So, there were a couple things at work there.

I'm having a hard time understanding why you think a 11 or 12 team all sports conference is reckless expansion. Especially when the Summit was 10 not long ago.

Why is a 13 team BSC terrible but a 10 team MVFC is super? Especially when the playoff field is soon to be 24.

This all started out as a discussion about the Summit. Nobody has yet explained why the Summit shouldn't be looking hard at some additions. Let's be honest, we are in the conference of "misfit schools". Everybody in the conference is just waiting for an invite to somewhere else. Not a great long term outlook

[Hammersmith]

Large conferences are unstable. It's as close to a proven fact as you're going to get in this world of conference affiliations. Has there ever been a DI conference that passed 12 teams that didn't fall apart within 10 years? In recent memory, I'm thinking WAC, Big East, and CAA football. I don't believe many of the recent BCS moves will work in the long-term, but only time will tell in those cases.

Fullerton wasn't trying to save western FCS football or any of that crap. He bought into the WAC/Pac-16 idea that bigger was better and saw an opportunity to cripple the MVFC & Summit at the same time. He sold his idea to the conference presidents by focusing on reduced travel costs and increased FCS tourney bids. Well, Douple and Patty V. acted fast enough to stop his gambit and now the Sky is stuck in no-man's land with no easy way out. Going bigger yet is not the correct answer, but I'll bet money that that's what Fullerton will end up trying. And it's going to blow up the conference within a decade. The supposed stability of the Big Sky is now on a countdown timer.

The correct move is to cut UND loose and stop courting Idaho. Stay at 10/12 and call it a day. If you can split football into divisions and still keep everyone happy with the schedules, go for it. But I don't think that's going to happen. I think they were leaning that way before the WAC collapse. Now they think Idaho is in play, so they'll hold onto UND in anticipation of the 12/14 split they were looking for with USD. And it's going to blow up in their face in 5-10 years.

As for the Summit, I think we may be nearing a period of stability. I agree with zoo on the departure prospects: only Oakland is in play. The Horizon isn't interested in IUPUI or IPFW. No one is interested in WIU, UMKC. The same goes for UNO and the Dakota schools. In 5-10 years, NDSU & SDSU have the potential to be attractive to more than the Big Sky, but that's only a chance and far from a certainty. If Oakland does get a Horizon invite, we can go after a football school and get UND along with it(once they've gotten the nickname situation fixed). A 12-team MVFC is pushing the danger zone, but I think it could work in a divisional Summit/MVC format. Maybe even a formal split and permanent scheduling agreement in order to get two autobids.

And what's wrong with the NCC 2.0 thing? That's what we wanted when this whole DI thing started a decade ago. We wanted the top NCC teams to move up as a group and join with some existing DI teams in our region to form a new DI conference. Well, UND(TMWTFN) managed to screw up the timing, but we're back on that original track. I still look to the MVC for our next goal, but we need a stable place to prove ourselves. The new Summit is giving us that. I would prefer a ten-team Summit, but even eight would be okay for a few years. I make no bones that I think UND will be a good selection eventually, but we may need an eastern team to replace Oakland if they get their Horizon wish.

You need three things for long-term conference stability: Schools with similar missions, similar profiles/sizes, and geographical proximity. That's how conferences like the Big Ten, Ivy League, and WCC stay mostly unchanged for almost a century. The Dakota schools will never be in that kind of conference. Within our region, the schools with similar missions are of vastly different sizes(UMTC, UW, NU, etc.), and the schools of similar size have different missions(SCSU, UNO, UMD, etc.). Even the closest schools with a similar profile(UMT & MSU) are really in a different geographical region(Rocky Mountain vs. Great Plains). We just have to do the best we can with what's available, and I am convinced the Summit is the best choice for now.

Wow, that post went way too long. I blame Ike*.

*Military Channel is on in the background.

[JSUBison]

And the risk the Great West posed to the Big Sky was what, exactly?

I mean in your first sentence you talk about how the Big Sky is 'infinitely' more stable, then in your third paragraph, you talk about how Fullerton was interested in 'stabilizing' things. So which is it? Was the Big Sky unstable, or was Fullerton addressing an imaginary problem?

I will answer this question for you.

Fullerton was addressing an imaginary problem.

The Big Sky has been a very stable conference. Like the municipal liquor store in a small town, it's hard to go out of business when you've got a monopoly.

Fullerton apparently has no idea that as long as the Big Sky sponsors FCS football, the conference will be assured of members, and can therefore be selective about the schools it lets in.

Side point:

I'm not going to argue Big Sky stability vs. the Summit. It has unquestionably been a more stable league, but that's due to football sponsorship--nothing more.

This is also why the Summit has explored adding FCS football, and why it's not out of the question for them to consider pulling a CAA style powerplay on the MVFC somewhere down the line.

With five of the ten MVFC members, the Summit League has, theoretically, the ability to invite UND and guarantee them a spot in either the MVFC or Summit football. How it would work is this:

Summit members to the rest of the MVFC:

"We want to invite UND. You have two choices: Add them to the MVFC, or we will leave the MVFC and the Summit will begin sponsoring football. We will have the six members necessary for an auto-bid, you will not. You can either join us in the Summit, or accept UND into the MVFC. What will it be?"

I'm not saying it will happen, and I certainly wouldn't advocate it given the current disaster area that is UND athletics, but it is, as it were, the Summit's ace in the hole. If they want to add UND and UND wants in, they can get a home for UND's football program. (I think Hammersmith pointed out that the Summit, with USD in the MVFC, is now in a position to do this).

Am I missing a school or something? The MVFC is composed of 4 Summit, 5 MVC, and 1 Horizon.

NDSU
SDSU
USD
Western Illinois

Now if UNO was to bring back football, I think the Summit would be able to secure a spot in the MVFC for UNO. UNO dropping football was a blunder on so many different levels and is worthy of it's own thread.

If we get just get UMKC to add football then we'd be cooking with butter. Imagine all the tv sets between Omaha and Kansas City. Summit to FBS.

[Hammersmith]

Am I missing a school or something? The MVFC is composed of 4 Summit, 5 MVC, and 1 Horizon.

NDSU
SDSU
USD
Western Illinois

Now if UNO was to bring back football, I think the Summit would be able to secure a spot in the MVFC for UNO. UNO dropping football was a blunder on so many different levels and is worthy of it's own thread.

If we get just get UMKC to add football then we'd be cooking with butter. Imagine all the tv sets between Omaha and Kansas City. Summit to FBS.

The scenario goes like this:

The Summit starts at nine schools(including Oakland), with the four FB schools you mentioned. Then Oakland gets a Horizon invite and leaves. With the Summit now at eight schools, they bide their time and make overtures to select schools, including those that offer football. A football school is interested but they need a home for their FB program. At this point, the Summit brings UND or another FB school into the discussion. The Summit promises a football home to these schools in exchange for membership. Now the Summit is at ten schools with six of them having FB. The Summit tells the MVFC to either accept the two new Summit schools into the MFVC, or the four existing Summit schools will leave the MVFC to form Summit football. At that point the MVFC no longer has a choice. Without the four Summit schools, the MVFC isn't really a viable conference. The Summit also puts out an offer for any MVC football school to come over to the Summit for football. If even one school chooses to do that, the MVFC is dead and all the rest have no choice but to follow over. Only YSU would have another option(the depleted CAA). The scenario is a little too close to Mutually Assured Distruction for anyone's taste, but a similar situation occurred during the changeover from A-10 football to CAA football and it might have succeeded in the long-term had the CAA not continued to expand.

[zooropa]

The Big Sky move as it regards football was based almost exclusively on Fullerton's belief that a western "super conference" was a good idea.

I understand what he was thinking. However, like Hammersmith, I have a hard time understanding why anyone would think this was a good idea.

[zooropa]

A football school is interested but they need a home for their FB program. At this point, the Summit brings UND or another FB school into the discussion. The Summit promises a football home to these schools in exchange for membership. Now the Summit is at ten schools with six of them having FB.

Ah. Thanks. I had forgotten that there needed to be a second team....

[zooropa]

UNO dropping football was a blunder on so many different levels and is worthy of it's own thread.

Oh why not toss that subject into this 'mystery meat' topic?

UNO football was struggling to draw even 4k to home games, and the school has a mammoth Title IX issue. I don't think they could do FCS football.

[NorthernBison]

I understand what he was thinking. However, like Hammersmith, I have a hard time understanding why anyone would think this was a good idea.

I think Fullerton and the Big Sky Presidents were looking at a couple things. First of all, the changes in conference affiliation were constantly changing and every day seemed to bring a new announcement that was often a total surprise. I read a lot of specualtion from National writers and from message board gurus and NOBODY predicted some of the things that ultimately happened. I think the Big Sky was trying to be proactive in positioning themselves (some can call it panic too).

The second thing they were looking at was competing against "Eastern Bias" and eliminating the GWFC from playoff contention by absorbing them. The reality was going to remain that Western Football was unlikely to get more than 3 or possibly 4 bids even with a 20 team bracket. Maybe Fullerton was thinking of killing two birds with one stone by inviting Poly, Davis, and UND and making them earn a spot if they were worthy.

I think you are correct about Oakland being the only Summit program attractive to other conferences. That says quite a bit about the League. I also believe that NDSU is WAY down the list of attractive programs and there is no way our conference mates require a "package deal" if they happen to get an invite somewhere. We might as well get used to the Summit for the long haul. That's not totally bad. We have a pretty good run of success across the sports and should be top dog in most for a long time.

I don't see much chance of UND being a Summit member. Maybe the BSC has a surprise for us but there is about zero chance of the nickname issue still being alive on June 30. It will either be killed by the June 12 vote or the Supreme Court will declare the Law Unconstitutional and the SBoHE will order it retired. That will effectively end the saga. The BSC COULD still boot UND but that would go against everything they have said publicly. I just don't expect that to happen.

[Bison bison]

there is about zero chance of the nickname issue still being alive on June 30.

NorthernBison, I'd like to be the first to welcome you back to Earth - you've obviously been on a different planet for the past seven years.