chuck
Sophomore Member
Posts: 169
|
Post by chuck on Sept 20, 2011 8:26:05 GMT -6
I was just thinking this forum needs a conference realignment thread. With all the seismic changes happening at the FBS level, it seems likely it will trickle down to FCS but the eventual alignments are difficult to predict. I think we are pretty happy with where we are at even though the alphabet soup at the eastern edge of the Summit isn't all that exciting for most fans. However, it is fun to dream about a conference with a tighter geographic footprint and composed primarily of regional peer public institutions (e.g., All four Dakota schools, Montana schools, etc) mixed with some Valley schools. I realize that if we were a little further along with the transition in terms of facilities and attendance this would be more likely, but like I said it is fun to think about the possibilities. Any educated or uneducated predictions/wishes out there Coyote fans?
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on Sept 20, 2011 10:44:29 GMT -6
Looking at conference expansion/realignment on the FBS level, as things filter down with what conference is going to steal what schools from another conference, the eastern schools in the Summit are at risk of leaving (Oakland) and ORU has been rumored to be looking towards the Southland. On the flip side, the Big Sky is shaping up to be a very stable western conference. After the WAC implodes, it will grow even greater in prestige. I still maintain USD made a mistake in not going to the BSC. As this conference shifting plays out, I think I'll be proven right, but I hope I am very wrong.
|
|
|
Post by yoteforever on Sept 20, 2011 14:14:52 GMT -6
Let me throw another perspective out there and get everyones thoughts. I happen to agree with Yote53 on which conference was our best bet. I think the Big Sky would have been the best long term choice, but in all fairness, at the time the decision was being made, Montana appeared as if they had "happy feet" and was ready to bolt to the WAC. So in lieu of all things going on around them, we chose the MVC. We have to respect that decision, but here comes the different angle......
Let's say for a moment that the MVC because of all the jumping ship must turn into an "ALL SPORTS CONFERENCE" for its members. That would mean Creighton, Drake, Bradley, etc would need to fund a D-1 football program to keep them as elgible members. If you wouln't commit to that, the league would have no other choice than to disband or drop your program. That would immediately make USD, SDSU, and NDSU elgible to join a mid-major league. I don't think that is too far off topic given the climate we are in today. If that were to happen, then our decision to join the MVC looks genious, although from a practical standpoint, it would be dumb luck.
I think it could happen.
|
|
|
Post by #1CoyoteFan (Admin) on Sept 20, 2011 16:05:28 GMT -6
It's interesting, because I don't know how much the major conference's shift will affect the FCS. Villanova wants to move up, but the Big East isn't moving that fast at all on them, plus the fact that the Big East has talked about absorbing the remaining Big 12 schools.
Some conferences in the FBS could just cease to exist when this is all done, so that might take care of a school moving up.
While the Big Sky looks good now, the MVFC looks like the best bet long term and even now. USD already beat EWU, honestly, showing it could compete in that conference in football.
I think USD is good where it is, and yes, it would be great to have the Big Sky and they are a "premier" conference, but the Summit and MVFC have done a damn good job of holding their own since SDSU and NDSU joined the conference.
|
|
chuck
Sophomore Member
Posts: 169
|
Post by chuck on Sept 21, 2011 6:04:59 GMT -6
I have to disagree with the pro-Big Sky posts in this thread. I would be shaking in my boots if we were in the Big Sky. If anyone in the country were to move from FCS to FBS, it would be the Montana schools as they are definitely attractive to western conferences needing to add members for stability. The Big Sky without the Montana schools would be extremely unappealing--vast geographic spaces with remaining teams that would generate little to no interest to the typical non-message board-posting fan. In addition, it seems unlikely to me that anyone would move down to join the Big Sky (e.g., Idaho, Wyoming). To put it in local terms, would anybody be excited if David Saylor announced tomorrow that we are joining D2 Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference because they offered us stability?
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on Sept 21, 2011 7:33:59 GMT -6
Which conference are the Montanas moving up to? The WAC? No way, that conference is an unstable mess, no way do you move a program like Montana into that. There is no chance they are getting a MWC invite. In the end the Montanas will stay put.
|
|
|
Post by pierreyote on Sept 21, 2011 7:47:21 GMT -6
I agree with Chuck. I believe that the additions of NDSU/SDSU and USD, next year, makes the MVFC a very strong and much more stable football conference. I know alot of people hate the idea that this is NCC2.0 but in all honesty having games that are geographically close for all sports is very important. It helps with budgets, travel and provides fans the ability to attend road games. How many fans would Montana State bring to a home game in the Dome? How many fans will SDSU/NDSU/UNI bring to the Dome? NDSU/SDSU are wonderful institutions with solid atheltic departments. In the grand scheme those programs are still new to the D-1 ranks and both have done more, post season tournaments, than many schools who have been D-1 for years. We are still in our transition and signs are pointing up that we can compete/succeed as well. The Summit will be adding UNO another program that brings proximity. This proximity not only brings advantages to our student athletes and fans for travel purposes but also includes a possible power shift to the Dakotas for conference decisions. Yes, the eastern schools of the MVFC/Summit might have intentions to break away but the same can be said for UM/MSU of the Big SKy. If a break away does occur I would much rather deal with the consequences in the MVFC/Summit.
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on Sept 21, 2011 8:47:32 GMT -6
My comments about this are in regards to the Summit. I believe the MVFC to be very stable. The Summit, too much of a history as a transitional conference and not a permanent home. More than half the teams in it want to go somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by pierreyote on Sept 21, 2011 9:25:56 GMT -6
I agree that the history of the Mid-Con/Summit has been one of transition. However, I do believe that the rebranding and the conference adding USD, SDSU, NDSU, and UNO brings stability, universities, fan bases and media that the conference needs to move forward. No doubt, schools will always look to join conferences that better their own self interest, but I feel better about being located and having the alliance on the I-29 corridor. I would rather have that alliance than trying to work with UM/MSU. I don't think being an extreme outlier in the Big Sky is an envious position. Maybe my view is skewed because I live in SD and the Summit provides me with the ability to attend more games/matches. Lastly, the Big Sky/Summit are one bid conferences. That won't change for the foreseeable future, but I like to think the Summit has a better chance of improving that status. If the MVC ever does feel the need to expand, for whatever reason, the Summit/MVFC working relationship is a not a bad feather to have in ones cap.
|
|
|
Post by GoYotes on Sept 21, 2011 9:38:24 GMT -6
I prefer the MVFC/Summit to the Big Sky primarily because of the geographic proximity of the schools in the MVFC/Summit. However, the one thing the Big Sky offered was all the sports in the same conference.
At the BCS/D1 major level, geographic proximity is becoming less and less important. It is all about maximizing revenue, and that is best done through TV contracts or in the instance of the BIG, owning your own TV network. Football is a bigger numbers game than other sports. Much larger rosters and much larger crowds. I think these forces will continue push towards the BCS schools forming their own division for football, either under the NCAA umbrella or under a separate governing body.
How does this effect USD? I am guessing that eventually the lower level of FBS and the upper level of FCS will be combined. Hopefully USD keeps advancing to be included in this grouping.
With regards to conference affiliation, it all depends on the competitive stregth of the Summit compared to the Missouri Valley in basketball. A dream scenario would be for the Summit and Valley to combine, with a football playing division and a nonfootball playing division. I am also guessing that UND will eventually be reunited with their Dakota brethern.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2011 9:48:03 GMT -6
Its all about $$$$$$$.
|
|
|
Post by yoteforever on Sept 21, 2011 10:36:50 GMT -6
My comments about this are in regards to the Summit. I believe the MVFC to be very stable. The Summit, too much of a history as a transitional conference and not a permanent home. More than half the teams in it want to go somewhere else. We are on the same page. Yote53 sums it up best for me as well. It's not that we don't want the new conferences to succeed, it is just likely the Summit as we see it probably won't as it is now. Regarding football, the MVC is equally, if not a better choice. But for all sports, I tend to think the BSC. That isn't being negative, or unappreciative of being where we are now, it's just my thought as we head into the future. I pray it all settles down and we have stable leagues for all sports.
|
|
|
Post by #1CoyoteFan (Admin) on Sept 21, 2011 12:59:15 GMT -6
My comments about this are in regards to the Summit. I believe the MVFC to be very stable. The Summit, too much of a history as a transitional conference and not a permanent home. More than half the teams in it want to go somewhere else. Is there a stable conference in football or basketball right now in the D-I level? You say the MVFC is stable, what stops the Big 10 or Big 12 from offering them an invite if they feel the need to. Villanova wants in the Big East. If Boise State stays, the Montana schools would've moved up and still could if they really wanted to. Appalachian stats has looked at moving up as well. In the higher levels, there doesn't seem to be a program besides the Sun Belt that hasn't been affected by the conference shift talk honestly. I don't feel safe calling any football or basketball conference safe, whether it's the Big Sky or the Big East. Who knew Syracuse and Pitt would leave for the ACC until Saturday? Seemed crazy right, especially for basketball. There is no one on this board that can say with certainty that one conference is more stable than the other right now in Division I in terms of football and now basketball.
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on Sept 21, 2011 14:37:20 GMT -6
I can state for certainty that the Big Ten, SEC, PAC 12, and now the ACC are as safe as can be. No way the Big Ten ever invites any school from the Valley to its conference. Missouri, Syracuse, and Pitt didn't even pass the smell test for them.
The Big 12 will continue to be on borderline implosion until they can come to an agreement on how a conference should be run that is equal for all members.
There has been a gaping, smoldering hole left in the Big East. For basketball, they have enough high profile schools, they'll be fine. For football, they can backfill with C-USA members but they will not be BCS level anymore.
The MWC has been silent but has to be nervous about getting raided by an expanding Big12. If the MWC gets raided they will backfill with members from the WAC which, in all probability, cannot take another raid and will be functionally obsolete. The remaining few members may have no choice but to seek refuge in the Big Sky.
With all this going on in FBS, the Montanas would be crazy to risk the financial stability they enjoy for a chance to join an FBS conference that won't even be there, and even if the WAC survives has the reputation as the Sun Belt-lite. No, I don't see the Montanas going anywhere. I see the BSC being very safe.
I see the Summit as being vulnerable though as the Horizon, Southland, and other conferences will pull teams from us to refill their ranks if they lose any members.
The Dakota schools have no chance, no way, no how to get in the Valley (basketball, not MVFC, totally unrelated). Not now, not unless we went on a serious run of consecutive tournament appearances, upsets, and runs to the Sweet 16. If USD somehow pulled out a miraculous, Gonzaga-like streak like that and elevated its program, then the Valley might consider us. After we have an adequate arena.
Ask this question, could you see the Summit raiding another conference for members? No. No way nobody would move into it from another D1 conference. Could you see the Big Sky raiding a conference for members? I just did, that just happened.
|
|
|
Post by #1CoyoteFan (Admin) on Sept 22, 2011 1:01:48 GMT -6
I can state for certainty that the Big Ten, SEC, PAC 12, and now the ACC are as safe as can be. No way the Big Ten ever invites any school from the Valley to its conference. Missouri, Syracuse, and Pitt didn't even pass the smell test for them. The Big 12 will continue to be on borderline implosion until they can come to an agreement on how a conference should be run that is equal for all members. There has been a gaping, smoldering hole left in the Big East. For basketball, they have enough high profile schools, they'll be fine. For football, they can backfill with C-USA members but they will not be BCS level anymore. The MWC has been silent but has to be nervous about getting raided by an expanding Big12. If the MWC gets raided they will backfill with members from the WAC which, in all probability, cannot take another raid and will be functionally obsolete. The remaining few members may have no choice but to seek refuge in the Big Sky. With all this going on in FBS, the Montanas would be crazy to risk the financial stability they enjoy for a chance to join an FBS conference that won't even be there, and even if the WAC survives has the reputation as the Sun Belt-lite. No, I don't see the Montanas going anywhere. I see the BSC being very safe. I see the Summit as being vulnerable though as the Horizon, Southland, and other conferences will pull teams from us to refill their ranks if they lose any members. The Dakota schools have no chance, no way, no how to get in the Valley (basketball, not MVFC, totally unrelated). Not now, not unless we went on a serious run of consecutive tournament appearances, upsets, and runs to the Sweet 16. If USD somehow pulled out a miraculous, Gonzaga-like streak like that and elevated its program, then the Valley might consider us. After we have an adequate arena. Ask this question, could you see the Summit raiding another conference for members? No. No way nobody would move into it from another D1 conference. Could you see the Big Sky raiding a conference for members? I just did, that just happened. Well, it's good to know that ignorance is bliss. In terms of the Big East, all they need to do is get a Villanova or some bottom feeder. Actually, Temple and East Carolina are both interested in the Big East. BOTH of which are stronger options than Syracuse right now, which hasn't had a legit football program since McNabb left. They have already replaced Pitt with TCU, which has been a stronger program over the last five years, and maybe even over the last decade than Pitt. In terms of the MWC, they just gained Boise a year ago and thought they were stable and lost TCU, so I bet they are trying to replace TCU, still, because that's a big shoe to fill. Also, they lost Utah and BYU, so pretty sure they are on the lookout, still. In terms no one wanting Missouri, the Big 10 took a look but they couldn't find another school when Notre Dame said no and they realized that Rutgers and Syracuse did not hold enough power in New York, so they went with the strong program of Nebraska over Missouri. If one other team said yes, Missouri had it's choice of the Big 12 and Big 10, and still does if the Big 10 ever finds another partner. Same with Missouri to the SEC, that is still in the works, as is Clemson to the SEC. It's another dual package it sounds like. A&M going there is a done deal and the SEC would love to get to that 16, basically. Oklahoma is passing on the PAC 12 for now because it wants to replace Beebe, but if Beebe isn't replaced, the PAC 12 will take Oklahoma, Okie State, Texas and Texas Tech. If the Big 12 does work things out, look for them to invite BYU and Houston with one other name in the mix that no one knows yet. Also, Notre Dame is being coveted by the ACC right now, more than they are the Big 10. It is also not unrealistic to have the Big 10 invite UNI. UNI would fit in well with the basketball program and in terms of football, they are stronger than Indiana and competed with Iowa a year ago. It wouldn't be unrealistic to see UNI be a middle of the run team in the Big 10 over the long haul. In terms of the Montana schools not fitting in the WAC, the WAC added Texas-San Antonio, so it's not like the WAC is ignoring the Montana schools. It still wants them and EWU. They feel all of those programs could build up enough to compete in the conference, which definitely isn't unrealistic. In terms of teams moving down to the FCS level, not one during any of this have I heard about a football team moving down to FCS. Not a single team, just movement up, so that seems like the most unrealistic thing. The minute you think these teams are done adding schools and this is over, is the minute you will be eating your words. I heard more of the "this is over thing." Last year. You are just fooling yourself if you think this is over. Anything, and everything is one the table.
|
|