|
Post by Yotes on Jun 29, 2017 19:47:08 GMT -6
The Summit will continue to exist so long as there are fringe D1 teams to fill out the league, but we would be foolish to think of the Summit as a long term home. The conference is a core of 4 Dakota schools then a bunch of leftovers that would prefer to be elsewhere. That's not a good formula. No decent school wants to join the Dakota Conference. It's neat having a D1 conference tournament in Sioux Falls, but no Dakota school is ever going to raise its profile playing in this league.
Starting to think we should have just stuck with the Big Sky. The consensus seems to be that we need to be united with our peers to the west. The MVC isn't inviting the Dakotas anytime soon, why cling to the Summit?
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on Jun 30, 2017 7:32:57 GMT -6
For the record, this is a Summit issue. As for the MVFC, I couldn't be happier. Strongest conference in FCS football filled with state universities and peer institutions. If only the MVFC was an all-sports conference, but it's not and it won't be, therefore we need to work towards a long term conference solution to put us in that position.
|
|
|
Post by yotesbacker on Jun 30, 2017 12:27:48 GMT -6
For the record, this is a Summit issue. As for the MVFC, I couldn't be happier. Strongest conference in FCS football filled with state universities and peer institutions. If only the MVFC was an all-sports conference, but it's not and it won't be, therefore we need to work towards a long term conference solution to put us in that position. Different angle, and it may be impossible; but just for conversation sake: The UND move was good for both the Summit and the MVFC. Agreed? What if Northern Colorado followed? 1. We strengthen the Summit, and Denver has a travel partner. 2. The MVFC would have 12 teams and could split into an east/west model like the the Big 10. 3. We'd have the 5 strongest NCC schools back together again. Is that a pipe dream, a good idea or both?
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on Jun 30, 2017 12:45:50 GMT -6
Sounds great for us but it has to be desirable to UNC has well.
|
|
|
Post by yotefan90 on Jun 30, 2017 13:06:34 GMT -6
Sounds great for us but it has to be desirable to UNC has well. That's how it is for all of the schools that are being brought up as potential members of this new conference. It is easy for fans of the Summit to say how this would be a great conference, and there is no denying that it would be. But all of that discussion is stemming from the fact that the Summit could very soon be in the unenviable position of being on the NCAA watch list because not enough core sports are offered. I have yet to see any discussion on any of the boards as to why UNC, any of the Montana's, Idaho, et al, should be in favor of it as well. Assuming these Big Sky members would consider a major move, and this would be a major move, the old question of "What's in it for me?" would need to be answered. I would think that the answer would have to be more than reduced travel costs and peer schools. What they have now has worked for a long time. Why take a chance on a risky new conference when you already know what you have where you are. All schools strive for conference championships, NCAA berths and relevance with the fans that hopefully leads to higher levels of fan and donor engagement. Would this new conference enhance any of those goals to the point that it makes more sense to move than it does to stay where they are at?
|
|
|
Post by elcoyote on Jun 30, 2017 14:30:32 GMT -6
Sounds great for us but it has to be desirable to UNC has well. That's how it is for all of the schools that are being brought up as potential members of this new conference. It is easy for fans of the Summit to say how this would be a great conference, and there is no denying that it would be. But all of that discussion is stemming from the fact that the Summit could very soon be in the unenviable position of being on the NCAA watch list because not enough core sports are offered. I have yet to see any discussion on any of the boards as to why UNC, any of the Montana's, Idaho, et al, should be in favor of it as well. Assuming these Big Sky members would consider a major move, and this would be a major move, the old question of "What's in it for me?" would need to be answered. I would think that the answer would have to be more than reduced travel costs and peer schools. What they have now has worked for a long time. Why take a chance on a risky new conference when you already know what you have where you are. All schools strive for conference championships, NCAA berths and relevance with the fans that hopefully leads to higher levels of fan and donor engagement. Would this new conference enhance any of those goals to the point that it makes more sense to move than it does to stay where they are at? You hit a grand slam with this reply.
|
|
|
Post by easmus on Jun 30, 2017 20:04:20 GMT -6
We do also need to keep an eye on the domino that is the Illinois schools due to the. Udget issue in that state. All 3 in the MVFC could be on shaky ground with uncertainty over their D1 futures and I would think it could also effect their other sports.
|
|
|
Post by wrj on Jul 1, 2017 9:16:56 GMT -6
It seems like there may be one too many conferences for the number of teams. The two possible solutions that come to mind would be to invite a handful of Division II teams to move up, or to merge some of the current conferences. Two conferences could merge into one, or perhaps three conferences could merge into two. Which ones would be best to merge, and the tougher question how would you possibly get all of those athletic directors and university presidents to the table?
|
|
larobe
Sophomore Member
Posts: 179
|
Post by larobe on Jul 1, 2017 16:40:33 GMT -6
It seems like there may be one too many conferences for the number of teams. The two possible solutions that come to mind would be to invite a handful of Division II teams to move up, or to merge some of the current conferences. Two conferences could merge into one, or perhaps three conferences could merge into two. Which ones would be best to merge, and the tougher question how would you possibly get all of those athletic directors and university presidents to the table? One of the Commissioners jobs would be eliminated,probably why there's resistance to that idea. If we merged with another conference,what would happen to Douple?Deputy Comissioner or co-Comissioners? I always thought this could benefit both conferences if they would consider merging, if they are in close proximity to one another.Maybe both are short sports membership the other could strengthen,uplift the rpi of the "new conference", etc. I suppose there might be some downside too.Largest conference,in terms of membership to date,is the 15 members of the ACC. You could surpass that if you merged together two whole conferences. Has it been done before? Maybe just dissolve both conferences and cherry pick new members for a new conference? Don't know what's legal or not. This is what happened to the Big East, but it wasn't a merger, it was a split,resulting in two separate conferences. I think if two conferences decided to merger,it'd have to be voted on by the members of both conferences and approved, for the merger to take place,with all members included to the "new" conference?.Seems to me that would be a very difficult task,a very good case would have to be made for any chance for a merger to take place.
|
|
|
Post by gopheryote on Jul 7, 2017 12:58:58 GMT -6
Here is an idea to stabilize the SL: Merge with (take over) the NCHC.
By bringing in hockey, we certainly make DU, UND, & UNO happier/stable. We also create a pathway for UMD and/or SCSU to move their other sports to D1. (It would also be a nice home to Arizona State's new hockey program that is looking for a conference.)
Also, it would seem that the addition of hockey would be a step towards football - which feels far, far away at the moment - by becoming a full-service conference. I wonder if we could recreate the SLT in Sioux Falls 'magic' with the SLT hockey tourney at the Denny?
Lastly, I think this move seems to be a good one AND one that can actually be done.
Here are the schools in the NCHC:
DU
UMD
Western Michigan
UND
SCSU
UNO
Miami (OH)
Colorado College
|
|
|
Post by Coyote Fan on Jul 8, 2017 3:51:04 GMT -6
If the Coyotes have their home games in the Premier Center I would be all over it. I think that is an opportunity that USD should explore in cooperation with corporate sponsorship from Sioux Falls. The Coyotes need their own gig that they don't have to share with anyone else in the state. That would be the perfect idea in my opinion but since that takes too much thinking outside the box so eliminate the idea.
|
|
|
Post by Yotes on Jul 8, 2017 6:35:29 GMT -6
Here is an idea to stabilize the SL: Merge with (take over) the NCHC. By bringing in hockey, we certainly make DU, UND, & UNO happier/stable. We also create a pathway for UMD and/or SCSU to move their other sports to D1. (It would also be a nice home to Arizona State's new hockey program that is looking for a conference.) Also, it would seem that the addition of hockey would be a step towards football - which feels far, far away at the moment - by becoming a full-service conference. I wonder if we could recreate the SLT in Sioux Falls 'magic' with the SLT hockey tourney at the Denny? Lastly, I think this move seems to be a good one AND one that can actually be done. Here are the schools in the NCHC: DU UMD Western Michigan UND SCSU UNO Miami (OH) Colorado College It's an interesting idea. Again the question is, what's in it for me? Why would the NCHC be open to moving under the Summit League umbrella?
|
|
|
Post by gopheryote on Jul 9, 2017 9:29:10 GMT -6
In this case, it appears the WIIFM likely favors the new teams more than the conference. Ever since the B1G started hockey and decimated the WCHA, only the eastern schools have meaning/stability at the conference level - and thus these hockey-only conferences (a bit like MVFC). Being under the umbrella of a stable, larger conference would give stability to the hockey schools. Honestly, I'm not sure there is much downside for them in this case - simply because the conference has a feel of the Great West Conference ('you got to land somewhere').
But I'm on the record here as stating I think USD & SL needs stability more than it needs some 'wow' expansion like the Montana's. And this would seem to stabilize 2 schools (DU & UNO) who could be looking around, while also providing a path to expansion.
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Jul 11, 2017 8:38:24 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Jul 11, 2017 9:06:54 GMT -6
There is quite the ongoing discussion about the Summit League's expansion targets over at the Collegiate Sports Nation BBS: csnbbs.com/thread-820639-page-33.html(33 pages from June 22 to current)
|
|