Big Sky moving to IA?

[Sac_State]

Maybe that is why the Sky was hesitant with NDSU and SDSU? The conference was thinking of moving up all along.

http://www.i-aa.com/news/article_3128.shtml

[JBB]

NDSU should be prepared to join them. If that is the wave of the future NDSU has to add hockey. That takes care of the FFD. The football can move into a new stadium of say 25,000. We are DI independents now in all sports except football. Let the GWFC move up too.

[Tatanka]

I'll repeat what has been clearly stated several times: The FFD will NOT work for hockey. Or Basketball. Period. It's terrible for either of these sports. The sightlines are all wrong, and it's hard to believe the building could be retrofitted (redesigned) for arena sports for a price that the city of Fargo or NDSU is willing to pay.

Yes, these sports have both been played in the dome (OK, maybe not hockey, but the ice capades counts for something). You can tow a boat with a Porsche 911, but why would you when it clearly wasn't designed for the task.

Although I do think that eventually it would be nice to see 25000+ at Bison football games, how about we first work on getting 19000 FANS into the dome.

[WYOBISONMAN]

Thanks for the post Sac.....that was a very interesting article. If the schools in the Sky go DI-A then NDSU and SDSU need to as well. Otherwise we may just wind up back in DII, but it may have another name.

[GoAgs]

Let me be the first to say hahahahahahaha. Sac State belongs in I-A like Christopher Reeve belongs in the boxing ring. Bring back Volek, restore the tradition, Florida State of the West!

[89rabbit]

I wouldn't put to much stock into anything Doug says. *I've seen him interviewed a couple of times. *He can't seem to get past the fact that Idaho and Boise State left the Big Sky. *He wants Idaho back so bad he can taste it. *If that can't happen (because Idaho won't move back down to I-AA) then all he wants to talk about is the rest of the Big Sky moving up.

I am sure that Montana could make the jump and Montana St. might be able to as well (although most Montana fans seem to want to stay in I-AA if you look at the eGriz board) but beyond that get real. *He is just posturing.

Sac-State, this article has very little to do with why some folks have been cool towards adding the Dakotas, IMO. It may not matter anyway, if the rumors over on chicagohoops.com are correct we are going to the Mid-Con. *I personally would be ok with that since they play in what would be our natural recruiting areas (and would play many teams close to me down here in KC). *It could also be a stepping stone to the Missouri Valley/Gateway, which is my first choice.

Go State! * * ;D

[SkyRider]

GoAgs and Rabbitt, I think you're missing the point of the article. *Fullerton is not saying that tomorrow the Big Sky will jump into the I-A world. *What's he's saying (and posturing, I admit) is that there needs to be hard requirements to differentiate I-A and I-AA (such as stadium size, attendance requirements, scheduling...). *If there isn't, then what is the point of the sub-classifications? *What is the difference between Idaho and NDSU, but the classification only (when in fact, NDSU's dome seats more and is probably better attended)?

However, if the I-A requirements are done away with, then I truly believe you'll see the classification removed, and we are all division I. *The Big Sky and the other top leagues will initiate the move, and the rest will follow. *What's interesting is that a few years back, division I-AA and the BCS schools wanted to do this, but it was the non-BCS schools who screamed and kicked to keep us out (honestly, whose TV contracts and revenue sharing would our schools most affect? *The BCS schools aren't threatened by us at all). *It's a little ironic, then, that the Idaho's, Tulane's and San Jose State's of the football world who didn't want one classification, will, in the end, be the ones responsibile for bringing it around.

[89rabbit]

SkyRider,

I totally get the point. I was merle pointing out that this issue has little to do with why SDSU and NDSU were not welcomed with open arms to the Big Sky, IMO.

Ralph had a suggestion about reclassification that is far more likely then the Big Sky moving up. It may be what we are all heading for. It would certainly anger the Idahos and Troy States of the world as they would be the ones threatened by this kind of talk (as you pointed out).

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/cgi-...mp;thread=4288

Ralph wrote:

Why not BCS, D-I, D-II, D-III, non-Scholly?

[Sac_State]

I can see GoAgs childish rant of jealousy and Rabbit's 'postering' of pride, suggesting that 'lo and behold this can't be the reason the Dakota's are not in the Sky at this point.' :

In the mid-70's there were only two NCAA classifications. College(small) and University(big). Seems the article raised the ?? of if there are no or will be no 30K stadium requirements, 15K home attendance, etc. what's the point of staying I-AA? Seems that the market is shifting and concentrating the NCAA into two leagues again.

Yes, I can see the Dakota's in IA. If there is no 30K stadium requirement, etc. Even Davis would be eligible, but since the GWFC is a new conference it has limited national representation with athletic politics and direction.

Wanless was quoted in this article because Sac State recognizes this trend and will announce, on Monday, good or bad, the direction of the University with regards to athletics. The annual Big Sky meeting is being held in Sac soon, so who knows? Sac might put all its eggs into hockey? Minor league hockey has been rumored in Sac, the RWEC would provide a nice facility.

[89rabbit]

I can see GoAgs childish rant of jealousy and Rabbit's 'postering' of pride, suggesting that 'lo and behold this can't be the reason the Dakota's are not in the Sky at this point.' *:

In the mid-70's there were only two NCAA classifications. College(small) and University(big). Seems the article raised the ?? of if there are no or will be no 30K stadium requirements, 15K home attendance, etc. what's the point of staying I-AA? Seems that the market is shifting and concentrating the NCAA into two leagues again.

Yes, I can see the Dakota's in IA. If there is no 30K stadium requirement, etc. Even Davis would be eligible, but since the GWFC is a new conference it has limited national representation with athletic politics and direction.

Wanless was quoted in this article because Sac State recognizes this trend and will announce, on Monday, good or bad, the direction of the University with regards to athletics. The annual Big Sky meeting is being held in Sac soon, so who knows? Sac might put all its eggs into hockey? Minor league hockey has been rumored in Sac, the RWEC would provide a nice facility.

Sac,

Just expressing my opinion that this article has very little to do with SDSU, NDSU and the Sky. *It has everything to do with the direction that NCAA football is going. *My apologies if my response sounded insulting to you or other members of the Big Sky. *It was not my intent. *I was pointing out that, IMO, most (if not all) of the Big Sky like SDSU, and NDSU should not being classified with K-State, USC, Nebraska and the like for football. *You are right, if there are no clear cut rules why not Sac State, NDSU, and SDSU in I-A. *However I like I-AA and think it has a place. *I think Doug feels that way too.

I still don't think that there is an immanent move on the horizon for the Big Sky to I-A. *So I don't think that it had much of an effect on SDSU's and NDSU's acceptance into the Big Sky, IMHO. *Unless you think, like Doug does, that Idaho will be coming back some day. *I think in this article Doug is just saying that there needs to be a line between I-A and I-AA (posturing). *

Sac, you are right there does seem to be a movement towards elimination of the sub-classification, however I feel something will be done before that happens. *Maybe Ralph's suggestion. *Again, my apologies if I insulted you, it was not my intent. *If it was my intent you would know it, we have had our moments in the past. * ;D