|
|
Post by #1CoyoteFan (Admin) on Sept 30, 2011 23:18:24 GMT -6
No one has answered the question of if the Big Sky is actually better than the Summit if the Summit loses Oral Roberts? It isn't. Oral Roberts is a strong player, but by even losing Oral Roberts, the Summit is still stronger than the Big Sky. The Big Sky is not a strong track conference, women's basketball conference or men's basketball conference. Montana had a good run one year, and that was about it. The Big Sky basically gets no consideration in anything outside of football.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coyote Fan on Oct 1, 2011 1:21:11 GMT -6
I will say this much. The Big Sky is probably more stable than the Summit. When SDSU and NDSU first went D1 their first preference was definately the Big Sky. They were not allowed in so settled on the Summit League. If SDSU was not in the Summit League I am pretty sure USD would be in the Big Sky today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yote 53 on Oct 1, 2011 9:00:14 GMT -6
Stability is the key word. Look at college athletics today. All those conference shifts are about stability.
|
|
|
|
Post by #1CoyoteFan (Admin) on Oct 1, 2011 15:06:21 GMT -6
So there is only three conferences in all of college athletics that are stable and that's the PAC-12, Big 10 and SEC. All other conferences have had talk about a team or teams moving up or to another conference over the last year to two, even the Big Sky with the Montana schools. So the Big Sky is not as stable as you all think, and who says the Montana schools don't leave for the WAC, because TCU to the Big East made a lot of sense too....
|
|
fssd
Freshman Member
Posts: 57 
|
Post by fssd on Oct 1, 2011 17:15:02 GMT -6
No one has answered the question of if the Big Sky is actually better than the Summit if the Summit loses Oral Roberts? It isn't. Oral Roberts is a strong player, but by even losing Oral Roberts, the Summit is still stronger than the Big Sky. The Big Sky is not a strong track conference, women's basketball conference or men's basketball conference. Montana had a good run one year, and that was about it. The Big Sky basically gets no consideration in anything outside of football. Why is the Summit significantly better than the Big Sky? They both appear to be similar conferences for Mens/Womens basketball and volleyball. I must admit I know nothing about anyone’s track programs. The RPIs for both conference tend to be in the lower 1/3: BBw 2010 - Big Sky (24) .4572 and Summit (26) .4508 BBm 2010 - Summit (21) .4687 and Big Sky (24) .4650 VB - Not sure but I know UND is building a good program and I think NDSU has dominated the Summit. If you look at attendance the Big Sky has better attendance than the Summit 420,000 to 380,000 and the Summit has more teams. Plus you are they talking about losing one of the stronger programs in the Summit. They could be offset by USD and UNO but UNO is going head to head with UNL and Creighton in the Omaha market. Plus, they are more of a hockey school. USD will definitely help the Summit conference. But, the Big Sky is adding Poly & Davis in football and UND & SUU for other sports. During the TV broadcast today SUU was discussing upgrades coming to the football stadium. Increasing seating to around 17,000 and adding other facilities. Plus SUU now has natural rivals with NAU and Weber St. So, it should help SUU's basketball program with more regional games. And neither conference is safe from realignment. |
|
|
|
Post by #1CoyoteFan (Admin) on Oct 2, 2011 2:19:56 GMT -6
I just never hear of ESPN talking about the Big Sky as an upset team in the tournament. RPIs are just blah and a lot of people are getting away from those. In women's basketball, SDSU is talked about every year and NDSU and Oakland have been buzz teams for the last couple of years. Montana had buzz a couple of years ago for one year. With the similarities, wouldn't ESPN be the difference maker then?
And you are right, neither conference is safe from realignment.
Plus, USD will draw more money from play SDSU, NDSU and UNO then it would from teams such as Montana or Montana State. yes, the Dome was packed for EWU, but will it be packed for basketball teams against them?
I know for SDSU at the least, and I would think NDSU I would hope, the Dome will be packed and so will Frost Arena and up in Fargo. If USD doesn't pack the house for games against NDSU, Oakland and IUPUI, then what makes you think they will pack them for Montana, Weber State and Northern Colorado?
|
|
fssd
Freshman Member
Posts: 57
|
Post by fssd on Oct 2, 2011 8:51:05 GMT -6
I just never hear of ESPN talking about the Big Sky as an upset team in the tournament. RPIs are just blah and a lot of people are getting away from those. In women's basketball, SDSU is talked about every year and NDSU and Oakland have been buzz teams for the last couple of years. Montana had buzz a couple of years ago for one year. With the similarities, wouldn't ESPN be the difference maker then? And you are right, neither conference is safe from realignment. Plus, USD will draw more money from play SDSU, NDSU and UNO then it would from teams such as Montana or Montana State. yes, the Dome was packed for EWU, but will it be packed for basketball teams against them? I know for SDSU at the least, and I would think NDSU I would hope, the Dome will be packed and so will Frost Arena and up in Fargo. If USD doesn't pack the house for games against NDSU, Oakland and IUPUI, then what makes you think they will pack them for Montana, Weber State and Northern Colorado? I do not watch much ESPN - not sure I agree that being mentioned as a possibly upset pick means that much. The Big Sky has a recent history of winning first round games.. Weber St had wins in the first round over North Carolina and Michigan St in the late 1990/early 2000. Montana had a win in the first round 4/5 years ago. So, the Big Sky has had some success in the tournament. The next step for the Big Sky is consistent success. I agree that the Summit is good for USD. It would be good for UND also but it was not an option. Hopefully for UND, they are able to rebuild/maintain the regional OoC games with USD, xDSU and UNO. Then build on conference rivals in the Big Sky. They would get the best of both. Right now in terms of basketball I don't see much difference between Big Sky and Summit. But, I do think that ORU leaving will hurt the Summit in terms of conference creditability and exposure. They are one of the top 3 or 4 teams in conference and I do see ORU on TV several times a year. |
|
fssd
Freshman Member
Posts: 57
|
Post by fssd on Oct 2, 2011 11:04:02 GMT -6
One other point with the Big Sky/Summit conversation:
I do think one other limitation for the Summit League going forward is the relationship with the MVFC and MV via (ISU b/r, UNI, MSU, SIU) and Summit football members wanting that (MVFC) relationship versus expanding to include football. The Summit League had on its door step the programs to needed to start a 6 team (xND, xDSU, SUU, W. Ill) football league and then invite the other MVFC to join them as affiliate members or some type of 12 team conference with two divisions. The Summit League members did not force the issue. Going forward does the MVFC and MV control who the Summit League adds? The Summit can only add basketball schools or hockey/basketball schools (UNO, Mankato or SCSU) going forward.
Given the nature of realignment going forward that cannot be a comfortable position for any conference commissioner. It just makes conversations more difficult - a core group inside and outside the conference protecting football and another core group protecting basketball only. It can pull the Summit apart at the seams and is ORU an example of this dynamic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coyote Fan on Oct 2, 2011 16:17:05 GMT -6
fssd,
Well said and very thoughtful. I agree with what you are saying regarding the Summit/MVFC always having the complication element of football schools having different goals because of having a program, which drives the entire athletic department.
As long as the Missouri Valley includes as many basketball only members as it does it will always be a crink to schools such as South Dakota, NDSU and SDSU.
A possible and very desirable option for the future is for one all sports conference to develop consisting of current member of the Summit and MVC. As of now here is what that conference would look like. This is not including non schollie football. Please correct me if I get this list wrong.
South Dakota
SDSU
NDSU
Western Illinois
Northern Iowa
Southern Illinois
Illinois State
Indiana State
Missouri State
That is 9 and UND would very quickly make it a 10 team league. Very strong all sports league with like schools.
|
|
|
|
Post by wrj on Oct 3, 2011 13:03:57 GMT -6
fssd, Well said and very thoughtful. I agree with what you are saying regarding the Summit/MVFC always having the complication element of football schools having different goals because of having a program, which drives the entire athletic department. As long as the Missouri Valley includes as many basketball only members as it does it will always be a crink to schools such as South Dakota, NDSU and SDSU. A possible and very desirable option for the future is for one all sports conference to develop consisting of current member of the Summit and MVC. As of now here is what that conference would look like. This is not including non schollie football. Please correct me if I get this list wrong. South Dakota SDSU NDSU Western Illinois Northern Iowa Southern Illinois Illinois State Indiana State Missouri State That is 9 and UND would very quickly make it a 10 team league. Very strong all sports league with like schools. This seems like a logical grouping, but I don't see the MVC schools jumping ship and moving to the Summit . . . . unless the non-football MVC schools try to move up to bigger money conferences. Stranger things have happened, but I don't think we will see it any time soon. |
|
|
|
Post by GoYotes on Oct 3, 2011 13:42:05 GMT -6
Another possible solution would be for the Summit & MVC reach some sort of long-term scheduling agreement / alliance in non-football sports in order to keep the combined MVFC together. (& if Youngstown leaves the MVFC have the Sioux join the Summit & MVFC - hard to tell what will happen with Youngstown as I beleive they are the only scholarship FCS team in the Horizon) Perhaps every MVC team agrees to play 3 - 4 games against Summit teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coyote Fan on Oct 3, 2011 16:39:56 GMT -6
fssd, Well said and very thoughtful. I agree with what you are saying regarding the Summit/MVFC always having the complication element of football schools having different goals because of having a program, which drives the entire athletic department. As long as the Missouri Valley includes as many basketball only members as it does it will always be a crink to schools such as South Dakota, NDSU and SDSU. A possible and very desirable option for the future is for one all sports conference to develop consisting of current member of the Summit and MVC. As of now here is what that conference would look like. This is not including non schollie football. Please correct me if I get this list wrong. South Dakota SDSU NDSU Western Illinois Northern Iowa Southern Illinois Illinois State Indiana State Missouri State That is 9 and UND would very quickly make it a 10 team league. Very strong all sports league with like schools. This seems like a logical grouping, but I don't see the MVC schools jumping ship and moving to the Summit . . . . unless the non-football MVC schools try to move up to bigger money conferences. Stranger things have happened, but I don't think we will see it any time soon. It wouldn't be the Summit League I am talking about. It would include the football playing Summit members but it would be a new league alltogether. I am talking about the football schools taking the bull by the horns. Football has been ruling the roost as of late in college athletics. With that mindset I don't see why this could not and should not happen. Syracuse and Pitt are leaving a very strong Big East basketball conference because of a better football situation in the ACC. I personally think the Big East is the best basketball conference in America as do many others so those are high stakes for the Orange and Panthers to leave behind. Football is king and drives the athletic boat so to speak. If this were to play out it would be a great thing for the University. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsportsfan2010 on Oct 3, 2011 17:43:59 GMT -6
This seems like a logical grouping, but I don't see the MVC schools jumping ship and moving to the Summit . . . . unless the non-football MVC schools try to move up to bigger money conferences. Stranger things have happened, but I don't think we will see it any time soon. It wouldn't be the Summit League I am talking about. It would include the football playing Summit members but it would be a new league alltogether. I am talking about the football schools taking the bull by the horns. Football has been ruling the roost as of late in college athletics. With that mindset I don't see why this could not and should not happen. Syracuse and Pitt are leaving a very strong Big East basketball conference because of a better football situation in the ACC. I personally think the Big East is the best basketball conference in America as do many others so those are high stakes for the Orange and Panthers to leave behind. Football is king and drives the athletic boat so to speak. If this were to play out it would be a great thing for the University. Whats kind of confusing about that is Syracuse and Pitt football has been nothing for a while. Cant imagine it getting better going to the ACC. But ACC basketball isnt to shabby either. |
|
|
|
Post by Coyote Fan on Oct 3, 2011 18:10:53 GMT -6
I don't really understand the two leaving either. I think the basketball conferences are a wash so it has to be for football.
The bottom line is that it would be great if the MVC and Summit League would split into two conferences with the big difference being a football conference with all sports in one conference and the non football playing schools in the other conference.
|
|
|
|
Post by pierreyote on Oct 3, 2011 18:24:10 GMT -6
I like the concept of a new conference that you broke down above. However, there is a big difference between BCS football revenue streams and FCS football revenue streams. Bowl tie ins, champsionship game revenue, TV contracts, etc. BCS football revenue can dictate to the rest of an athletic dept. FCS football can't do the same. UNI, unless the non football playing schools leave, will not vacate their spot to make a move to the Summit League.
|
|
