so s2c, I hate to be blunt, but frankly, if you don't want to be here, dont' be here. We don't really need trolls trying to stir up things rather than just doing your homework first and posting something beneficial.
So let me get this straight:
I posted 13 very factual and thoughtful reasons why UND would prefer to stay in the Big Sky over the MVFC/Summit.
Immediately, in the next post, apparently rejecting all of that homework and facts, it was implied that UND would accept the MVFC/Summit combination if offered. If facts were of paramount importance here, my earlier post would have been questioned and discussed. But now I am accused of not bringing facts to the table.
The idea of Big Sky full membership is something UND has always dreamed up, but was only made available recently - likely by Montana's enhanced bargaining position in the Big Sky. Full membership in the Big Sky - rather than Big Sky football affiliate membership changed UND's outlook on conference affiliation. I stated that UND is no longer not interested in the Summit. Apparently you disagree. Where are your facts?
Certainly you are capable of understanding my frustration with this board.
BTW, Fresno State fan posts on multiple boards, and I really value his opinion.
Look, we get it, you're a UND fan. That's great and it's always expected that a fan will have a high level of optimism in their program (and the decisions made by the school administrators).And now UND is headed to the Big Sky and that's where the immediate future will be.
But what is a fact is that the preference for UND was to be in the MVFC. And doing so they would be in said conference with the other 3 Dakota schools. Unfortunately for UND, that was not something the MVFC was interested in.
What is a fact is that it came down to simple math: the MVFC wanted 10 or 12 schools. It all hinged on SUU. Don't be so quick to forget that the Summit/MVFC merger came close to happening, but SUU was straight forward in telling the Summit/MVFC that they eventually hoped to be in the Big Sky with NAU and Weber St. You're opinion based on your last post is that UND would have turned down the MVFC and instead joined the Big Sky. Odd that USD had (2) options instead of just one, and they chose the opposite of UND. Are we to assume they just were in favor of making a decision that made less economic sense? Or maybe they made the decision that was in their best economic interests.
What is a fact is that Montana had been discussing internally leaving the Big Sky to join FBS and the WAC. The UND move to the Big Sky was done under the impression that Montana might not even be there.
In what one can only assume is blind optimism, you seem to be trying to tell us that you honestly think that UND prefers to NOT be with the other 3 Dakota schools. And that they do NOT want to be in the MVFC for football. And those assumptions are incorrect based on multiple sources. UND's first choice was to join the MVFC and be a part of the Summit League for it's other sports. But football needed a home and the Big Sky was the only option. The Big Sky invitation to North Dakota was extended under the assumption that the MVFC was not going to expand and the UND AND USD would be joining. The only issue was USD working out the exit situation with the Summit, which they hadn't fully joined yet. And at the last minute, the MVFC made it's offer to USD...the same offer that UND had hoped for and unfortunately for them, never got.
Conference realignment comes down to simple economics. And if the Summit League does expand with UNO, something that has been discussed, UNO will only be upgrading if they have a football home. The struggles at UND and USD (RE: football home) are enough to make any program find assurances before upgrading now. And if Douple works with the MVFC on UNO membership, it still comes down to the 10/12 issue. Unless a program like YSU or WIU leaves for another conference, there will be no open 10th spot.
And the economics are very basic to understand: the savings on travel costs for all sports are huge for UND in the Summit/MVFC compared to the Big Sky. And if the MVFC does lose a school, you can bet the farm that UND will listen to join as a replacement. And if UNO does enter the picture for an upgrade, there is a strong likelihood that UND would be approached beforehand since the the MVFC would stick to the 10 or 12 model.
As for your frustration, my response derives from exactly that FSA posted: some newcomer comes in here and posts without reading enough of the forum to be able to make a value judgement. Had you, you would know that this forum places a premium on the facts and the top conference realignment factors: economic opportunity. Similarities in school mindsets, etc, are all luxury items that follow AFTER economics. Look no further than the Big East, a hybrid of some of the stronger academic schools (private basketball schools) with some of the lowest ranked large state schools.
And when dealing with the bottom of the barrel conferences like the Asun, Big Sky, Summit League...those with less options...indeed, geography is a factor because we're talking about conferences with minimal revenue streams. The primary motive behind the historical push by SUU to get into the Big Sky has been to cut on travel expenses by being in a better regional footprint. Same with Denver to the WAC. At the top of the conference landscape you have much more money, so a school like TCU is not going to have to factor in location and would jump at a chance to join the Pac-10 or even Big East (for all sports). But of course, the Big 12 is their top preference, in their own backyard.
But if you're going to come in here and post about false assumptions and make statements assuming that people think one way and "it's all about geography", it's well worth telling you that you are mistaken. But that doesn't change the fact that one should not have to tell you this. You should do your homework first before making false assessments. And if you are frustrated and don't want to put in the time to understand what the real mindset is of the posters here, then it's as simple as not coming. Just like USD in recent weeks, you have choices. And it requires exactly zero effort to just no visit. We're all dedicated to this topic here, and would always prefer the membership to be quality rather than quantity. Because it only takes a few posters before a forum is borderline unusable like a number of forums I used to frequent more often in the past.