|
Post by Yotes on Mar 29, 2018 16:02:22 GMT -6
My ideal scenario is for a split between the publics and privates in the MVC, leading to a scenario where UNI, Illinois State, Indiana State, Missouri State, and Southern Illinois agree to come to the table with the Dakotas and create a new all sports conference.
Backup is the Big Sky.
Worst case is sitting in the Summit while it subsists on undesirable WAC teams.
|
|
|
Post by leatherneckcountry on Mar 29, 2018 16:15:07 GMT -6
My ideal scenario is for a split between the publics and privates in the MVC, leading to a scenario where UNI, Illinois State, Indiana State, Missouri State, and Southern Illinois agree to come to the table with the Dakotas and create a new all sports conference. Backup is the Big Sky. Worst case is sitting in the Summit while it subsists on undesirable WAC teams. I'd say there's about zero chances of the Il ST people agreeing to that I can't speak for the rest of those fan bases.
|
|
|
Post by Coyote Fan on Mar 29, 2018 16:15:45 GMT -6
I agree the Montana's and Idaho's would be ideal. travel is still a little worrisome. But they have nothing to gain right now by doing it. Montana was a founding member of the big sky. Not sure about the other 3. Why would they ever want to change? Or leave that stability? The gain or potential gain would not be worth the risk for them. They would change because it would up their profile and it would force all schools involved to get better. It would have them playing like schools with like missions (which the president would almost certainly get behind) and would eliminate games against schools such as Sacramento State or Portland State etc. Right now the South Dakota's are strong in basketball both men and women. That would force the schools being added to up their level. For football it probably shifts the strongest conference to the one that is newly merged. The only question is which other schools would join. UNI would very tempted to make the move west IMO. Northern Colorado would be another potential add as well. As long as the core is USD, SDSU, UND, NDSU, Montana, MSU, Idaho, ISU that is a core that is going to be desirable to most mid majors to want to be a part of. The travels partners would be easy with those 8 and really couldn't be much worse for travel than the mess of a schedule that the Summit has been putting out. Some may call this a pipe dream but for all involved could they really call this conference one that isn't stronger in many ways than the ones they are currently in. I would have to say that is a resounding "No".
|
|
|
Post by Yotes on Mar 29, 2018 16:19:35 GMT -6
My ideal scenario is for a split between the publics and privates in the MVC, leading to a scenario where UNI, Illinois State, Indiana State, Missouri State, and Southern Illinois agree to come to the table with the Dakotas and create a new all sports conference. Backup is the Big Sky. Worst case is sitting in the Summit while it subsists on undesirable WAC teams. I'd say there's about zero chances of the Il ST people agreeing to that I can't speak for the rest of those fan bases. I'm sure none of them are interested, UNI certainly isn't. It would take extreme circumstances. Something like the private schools thinking they are better off without the publics. A pipe dream at this point.
|
|
|
Post by Coyote Fan on Mar 29, 2018 16:51:52 GMT -6
So let me get this straight. Everything but a Summit league held together by bailing wire is a pipe dream? I don't buy into that way of thinking and as Coyote Fans we should have high expectations of our University. I think there is an inferiority complex often times when it comes to people and their perception of USD. I don't think people should be arrogant but expectations should be higher than what they are currently. A perfect example is the WNIT. The Coyotes are on even terms with the top 4 to 5 programs in the Big 10 or Big 12. It is no longer a surprise when we beat them in Women's basketball. Just because a conference goal might seem lofty doesn't mean we should just accept the status quo and settle for being in a conference with UMKC or IPFW. Those are nice schools but they don't fit the profile of a flag ship University. Right now the iron is pretty hot with athletic success so if there is an opportunity to be had than why not take advantage of it. If Craig Smith can move to a better situation, why can't USD? I want USD to be a leader.
|
|
|
Post by yoteforever on Mar 29, 2018 17:08:54 GMT -6
Ok CF, you say things like this over and over about how USD be a leader in this move, and that’s all good. So, let’s say tomorrow Jim Abbot names you AD and says you have one job to do and that’s put a new league together. What’s your plan in detail?
|
|
|
Post by Coyote Fan on Mar 29, 2018 17:41:40 GMT -6
alright Yoteforever I will try,
First of all it would be nice to have just a little more transparency as far as what the goals are for the University as an athletic department as I have never really had that. I would also like to have a little bit more info on what the Summit League's goals are long term. Maybe there is much more info known about that on the inside right now than we all realize. I would have to have more info than what I know to be able to make informed decisions. The first thing I would do is to pull together the relevant admin and if needed donor's and have an informational and brainstorming meeting. What are the goals, where do we see ourselves in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years etc. I would start with the short term with long term goals in mind. If USD's goals are to stay in the Summit regardless of it's members than there is a good chance I am looking for other opportunities that have higher aspirations but that is from a professional stand point only.
I basically try to work 2 angles. My first preference considering what the president is likely to want is to try to gauge interest in the liklihood of pulling the Montana's and Idaho's together for the idea of getting all the Flag Ships together and their State counterparts. Try to get the core of 8 together and everything else can build from that. If that is simply not going to happen my next goal would be to try to create one common conference involving the Valley schools where it would be an all sports conference. I would not want non football playing schools pushing their ideals on the conference as a whole. I would like to seek independence of that.
On last resort I would stop adding basketball only schools to the Summit and instead focus on building up the football membership to try to make the conference all encompassing. I just don't like having Evansville having any say in what may or may not happen to the eventuality of the MVFC. Even though they are non football playing, they could still directly have input in what happens to the conference overall.
If I am the Douple I stop acting so darn reactionary to everything. Let's have a common goal and at least give little tidbits of info to the fans of the league to create a feeling of security because since IUPUI left that hasn't happened. All we have heard is speculation on what Omaha and others may do. The less security the Summit has the more likely we are to lose a Craig Smith or lose a John Konchar to another conference.
The bottom line is that I am not leaving a rock unturned. I am exploring every option and not just settling.
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on Mar 29, 2018 18:15:17 GMT -6
I agree the Montana's and Idaho's would be ideal. travel is still a little worrisome. But they have nothing to gain right now by doing it. Montana was a founding member of the big sky. Not sure about the other 3. Why would they ever want to change? Or leave that stability? The gain or potential gain would not be worth the risk for them. They would change because it would up their profile and it would force all schools involved to get better. It would have them playing like schools with like missions (which the president would almost certainly get behind) and would eliminate games against schools such as Sacramento State or Portland State etc. Right now the South Dakota's are strong in basketball both men and women. That would force the schools being added to up their level. For football it probably shifts the strongest conference to the one that is newly merged. The only question is which other schools would join. UNI would very tempted to make the move west IMO. Northern Colorado would be another potential add as well. As long as the core is USD, SDSU, UND, NDSU, Montana, MSU, Idaho, ISU that is a core that is going to be desirable to most mid majors to want to be a part of. The travels partners would be easy with those 8 and really couldn't be much worse for travel than the mess of a schedule that the Summit has been putting out. Some may call this a pipe dream but for all involved could they really call this conference one that isn't stronger in many ways than the ones they are currently in. I would have to say that is a resounding "No". EWU would be the 9th football member. We would need 3 for basketball only, Denver, UNO, and a 3rd from out west. UNC would not make the cut, not if you want DU.
|
|
|
Post by leatherneckcountry on Mar 29, 2018 19:07:24 GMT -6
I guess I'm missing something on Idaho St outside of a number and being a state school I don't see what they bring to a conference.
|
|
|
Post by Coyote Fan on Mar 29, 2018 20:22:48 GMT -6
I guess I'm missing something on Idaho St outside of a number and being a state school I don't see what they bring to a conference. You certainly have a point there. They aren't the strongest right now. There is something to be said for their designation as a State school so I would think academically they would seem to fit. They would need to up their game for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on Mar 30, 2018 8:21:27 GMT -6
With Idaho State it is about politics, potential, and peer institution. Just because they aren't so hot now doesn't mean that can't change. That's why I put them on my wish list.
|
|
|
Post by kiyoat on Mar 30, 2018 10:17:24 GMT -6
With Idaho State it is about politics, potential, and peer institution. Just because they aren't so hot now doesn't mean that can't change. That's why I put them on my wish list. Every team has potential. Compare UMKC's men's basketball record over the last 15 years with Idaho State's: Winning seasons (2003/04-2017-18)UMKC: 5 ISU: 2 I realize that the WAC is a weaker BB conference than the Big Sky, but 4 of the 5 winning seasons were in the Summit/Midcon. Neither program has won their conference or been in the NCAA tournament in the past 30 years. It's hard to argue that Idaho State is much better than UMKC speaking specifically about Men's BB competitiveness or potential. I'll give you that they are more attractive as a peer institute, but the geography and travel budget kind-of sucks.
|
|
|
Post by elcoyote on Mar 30, 2018 10:25:22 GMT -6
I guess I'm missing something on Idaho St outside of a number and being a state school I don't see what they bring to a conference. The same probably could have been said about USD a few years ago at least in the two major men's sports. We seem to be coming along nicely in both now and are on nothing but an upward trajectory. All it takes is institutional determination and commitment. I couldn't tell you whether Idaho State has that commitment or not .
|
|
|
Post by gorabbits on Mar 30, 2018 15:04:27 GMT -6
With Idaho State it is about politics, potential, and peer institution. Just because they aren't so hot now doesn't mean that can't change. That's why I put them on my wish list. Every team has potential. Compare UMKC's men's basketball record over the last 15 years with Idaho State's: Winning seasons (2003/04-2017-18)UMKC: 5 ISU: 2 I realize that the WAC is a weaker BB conference than the Big Sky, but 4 of the 5 winning seasons were in the Summit/Midcon. Neither program has won their conference or been in the NCAA tournament in the past 30 years. It's hard to argue that Idaho State is much better than UMKC speaking specifically about Men's BB competitiveness or potential. I'll give you that they are more attractive as a peer institute, but the geography and travel budget kind-of sucks. i think there is some misunderstanding of who Idaho State is as an institution. They are not a peer institution for any of the four Dakota schools in the Summit/MVFC. They are a glorified Northern State or Dakota State. The University of Idaho is both the liberal arts university and the land grant university in the mold of Nebraska or Minnesota. The same can be said about Missouri State, Indiana State and Illinois State. They are former normal schools that have had a name change in recent years. UMKC is of course a branch of the University of Missouri and is actually more of a peer to USD and SDSU. I did a little research on the National Science Foundation site that lists the research funding of all of the Universities in the country. Here are their national rankings for research. NDSU is far and away the highest ranked. The rankings for the privates are less significant in that many of them are not involved in research. SUMMIT SCHOOLS 124 NDSU 167 UND 181 SDSU 244 USD 261 DENVER 328 UNO 368 IPFW 577 WIU --- ORAL ROBERTS DOES NOT ACCEPT FEDERAL MONEY MISSOURI VALLEY SCHOOLS 195 SOUTHERN ILLINOIS 205 LOYOLA 269 ILL. STATE 429 UNI 458 MSU 460 VALPO 508 BRADLEY 541 IND. STATE 564 DRAKE 800 EVANSVILLE OTHER SCHOOLS OF INTEREST 143 MONTANA STATE 147 IDAHO 169 MONTANA 243 UMKC 268 IDAHO STATE Research funding does not relate directly to athletic performance, but it does relate rather closely to academic reputation for public/state universities. From that perspective, the USD, SDSU, NDSU, and UND are similar to Montana, Montana State and Idaho and UMKC but well ahead of Ind. State, Ill. State, Missouri State and Idaho State. Idaho State is located close to a national research laboratory and has moved up the ranks more rapidly than the other counterparts however.
|
|
|
Post by yote14 on Apr 2, 2018 13:46:54 GMT -6
Every team has potential. Compare UMKC's men's basketball record over the last 15 years with Idaho State's: Winning seasons (2003/04-2017-18)UMKC: 5 ISU: 2 I realize that the WAC is a weaker BB conference than the Big Sky, but 4 of the 5 winning seasons were in the Summit/Midcon. Neither program has won their conference or been in the NCAA tournament in the past 30 years. It's hard to argue that Idaho State is much better than UMKC speaking specifically about Men's BB competitiveness or potential. I'll give you that they are more attractive as a peer institute, but the geography and travel budget kind-of sucks. i think there is some misunderstanding of who Idaho State is as an institution. They are not a peer institution for any of the four Dakota schools in the Summit/MVFC. They are a glorified Northern State or Dakota State. The University of Idaho is both the liberal arts university and the land grant university in the mold of Nebraska or Minnesota. The same can be said about Missouri State, Indiana State and Illinois State. They are former normal schools that have had a name change in recent years. UMKC is of course a branch of the University of Missouri and is actually more of a peer to USD and SDSU. I did a little research on the National Science Foundation site that lists the research funding of all of the Universities in the country. Here are their national rankings for research. NDSU is far and away the highest ranked. The rankings for the privates are less significant in that many of them are not involved in research. SUMMIT SCHOOLS 124 NDSU 167 UND 181 SDSU 244 USD 261 DENVER 328 UNO 368 IPFW 577 WIU --- ORAL ROBERTS DOES NOT ACCEPT FEDERAL MONEY MISSOURI VALLEY SCHOOLS 195 SOUTHERN ILLINOIS 205 LOYOLA 269 ILL. STATE 429 UNI 458 MSU 460 VALPO 508 BRADLEY 541 IND. STATE 564 DRAKE 800 EVANSVILLE OTHER SCHOOLS OF INTEREST 143 MONTANA STATE 147 IDAHO 169 MONTANA 243 UMKC 268 IDAHO STATE Research funding does not relate directly to athletic performance, but it does relate rather closely to academic reputation for public/state universities. From that perspective, the USD, SDSU, NDSU, and UND are similar to Montana, Montana State and Idaho and UMKC but well ahead of Ind. State, Ill. State, Missouri State and Idaho State. Idaho State is located close to a national research laboratory and has moved up the ranks more rapidly than the other counterparts however. Is this site listing all the grant money a university receives or only grant money related to certain fields of study? I'm trying to understand what area from their website grant money to the business school for example would be listed.
|
|