Eleven teams would give two no-plays in football; twelve gives you three no-plays, with or without divisions. Ten teams gives you one no-play, or an unbalanced schedule.

A Ten team conference is acceptable for basketball (9 x 2 = 18 games), while twelve is the best setup for divisional play (see the SEC). Eleven is by far the worst possible number (one division would have fourteen games, the other would have 15; a double round-robin would be 20 games); even thirteen would be slightly more palatable (one division plays seventeen games and the other plays eighteen). The 22-game setup would be suicidal because it would leave so few non-conference games.

A far more interesting scenario would be if San Diego starts scholarship football:

West - EWU, Sac St, Port St, San Diego, Idaho St, No Ariz
East - Montana, MSU, No Colo, NDSU, SDSU, Weber St

What I also would suspect is the possibility the conference is aware that there might be a forthcoming movement out of the conference-such as Sac State to the WAC for all sports.

Personally, I would try to shoot for the MVC if I were at NDSU or SDSU - the geography is not nearly as bad.

There are simply strengths and weaknesses with a conference no matter what number you reach. But some have more weaknesses than strengths.

For an 8 member league you have 7 games and play everyone. But the weakness is that you have rotating years of having 4 home conference games one year and then 3 the next.

For 9 you have a balance of 4 home games every year and everyone plays everyone. But the weakness is that you rotate a team that doesn't play every week -- less flexibility for the school as it must conform to the rotating conference idle team.

For 10, you are again at 8 games and can go 4 home games every year, but you rotate 1 team that you don't play through time (like the Pac 10). Everyone doesn't play everyone in a year, but you have a balance of home and road games and there is no need for a rotating idle team.

For 11, it has the most weaknesses. You have both the rotating idle game, everyone doesn't play everyone, and the math gets complicated in selecting the two teams each member doesn't play and rotating them. In the Big 10, each member also has a number of teams they play every year no matter what based on rivalries. The 11 team format has the most weaknesses and is the reason why most conferences don't want it -- ACC. Likewise, the 13 game format has similar problems as well with two divisions. The MAC went to 14 after a while and are trying to do that now with Temple entering and trying to get WKU to move up.

The 12 team league has more balance, but you don't play 3 teams every year and there is no need for a scheduled set of rotating idle teams. Also the math is simple and very easy to implement in determining which teams you play each year and which teams you don't play. For the Big 12, its simple. All 5 of the other intradivisional games and 1/2 (or 3) of the other divisions 6 teams for 2 years and then the other half of the other division for two years. Simple, balanced scheduling with no need of a rotating idled conference team and you have 4 conference home games every year.

Really, only 9, 10, and 12 are the ideal sized leagues. 8 is acceptable too, but has a weakness. 11 is the worst do to the math, the complications with rotating idled teams and lack of numeric balance of which teams each team plays every year and what teams you rotate that you don't play every year.




The problem with U San Diego is they are located in a market where San Diego State exists, plus UCSD plays D II ball, plus the San Diego Chargers. They would need the revenue to support their program with scholarships in order to be competitive and make it worthwhile. They are not going to start a scholarship football program just because the Big Sky would offer them a league membership. They would've done it a long time ago if this was the case. What circumstances have changed since they went to non-scholarship 1-AA?




These same issues were known when the Big Sky expanded the last time with UNC and chose not to take either the Dakotas at that time as well. 8 still allows them to be a conference, after Sac State leaves, if they leave.




The MVC may be what is best for the Dakotas but it may not be best for the MVC. The MVC is made up of teams that are located in mid-major Midwestern markets (Omaha, Des Moines, Wichita, Springfield, Peoria, Evansville, Southern Illinois-Saint Louis, IL portion, NE Iowa (Waterloo/Cedar Rapids, etc). They are also somewhat tight geographically, particularly in the Illinois/IN area -- a little like the MAC. While Brookings is 240 miles from Omaha, 340 miles from Des Moines, 340 miles from Cedar Falls, and Fargo is 420 miles from Omaha, 530 miles from Des Moines and 530 miles from Cedar Falls, they are all considerable distance from the other 7 MVC members and they don't have the type of markets that meet with the league. On top of that, there is a big gap between how long the MVC teams have been playing Div 1 bball and their stature on the level of upper Midmajor -- A 10, CUSA, WAC level stature. They are not going to let in new move up teams.

When Doug Fullerton speaks, everyone should be on guard. Back in Boise, he won't even mention the Dakotas and still leaves broad hints about how Idaho won't cut it in the WAC. I'm sure they're considering the Dakotas... but I don't advise holding your breath. I could see Fullerton asking for partial travel guarantees.

Anyway, a thought:

UC Davis 20, Stanford 17.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Of course, Sac State probably has something to say about that.

Oh, to answer something else here, Sac State is NOT GOING TO THE WAC ANYTIME SOON. Put it this way... we can argue back and forth about whether the attendance standard for 1-A v 1-AA will be maintained, but the WAC will ask for a semblance of such a standard... they already have one weakling with Idaho, they don't need more pain. If the planned renovation actually does get happen and THEN starts drawing people in, we'll talk, probably in 10 years. Hornet Stadium has been big enough for a while... and they barely draw in Sacto. Heck, Sac and Davis could end up switching places.

Still, speaking of switching places, we do have to find the evidence that Davis might actually want to get out of the Big West right after getting in it.

The statement about "everyone wants Montana" is partially true. It's VERY true in Portland, who gets substantial numbers of Montana fans when they play in Portland, so that's one definite vote against the Dakotas. I almost went on a rant where Portland State's dream was to find three schools to complement Sac State and Northern Arizona in a theoretical southern division, though some of the fan base feels connected to Sac State and California recruiting, plus there's the matter of theoretically putting Weber in the North and UNC in the South. The reality is that there are no easy options for the Sky. I could argue that Fullerton really wants 12, but the schools he works for may very well not... meaning the issue could become which schools are either moving up or dropping football.

One last: the Sky is about football first, which means football money makes sense to the ADs and presidents in charge. I don't see them taking Denver.

What about Saint Cloud State, Mankato State, and Duluth? All are regional colleges that have DI hockey in the WCHA with Minnesota, Wisconsin, UND, and Denver.

All have new undergraduate freshmen enrollments of about 2200 per year (about the same as NDSU, UND, and SDSU).


Is it possible that these schools could move their football programs to Iaa?

Denver and Utah Valley State do not play football. UND is D II, but at least they play football and have a decent budget to support it.

The location issue is always going to be the constraint and with higher gas prices and bankrupting airlines for your non-football sports and the "problem with reaching the Dakotas" is a significant challenge. This is something the Big Sky and the members institutions will have to discuss and grapple with, as money is always an issue at this level, no matter the degree of success that the candidate is having. A BCS Miami or Boston College is a different story in these circumstances compared to 1-AA teams. The BSC will have to weigh all the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and constraints of this expansion decision process.

If BSC follows the previous decision making process, like they did for the UNC expansion, it will be using the consensus decision making process in which all have to agree or its a no go. This will be a challenge for PSU, Sac State and possibly NAU to be converted to a Dakota invite due to the travel costs.

Why not throw in all the Dakota-4 plus these and start a Division 1-AA North Central Conference if you are going this route. If you can get MSU-Mankato and SCSU to be able to move up without U Minn be upset, then really, a 1-AA NCC is not far away and its local-regional and doesn't require huge amounts of travel.

Where's the third team for the Big Sky to get them to an "even", "paired-up", "two-division" league then?

Denver doesn't play football and it would take a lot to get it a going. UVSC doesn't either and its academics is not even on the level of SUU. The BSC doesn't want SUU. Cal-Davis sounds like they are the most ideal, outside of Sac State being in the same market. Cal-Poly is like Cal-Davis, but aren't both wanting to being in the Big West, unless what Pounder says is possible. Where is the 3rd team to get to 12 for the Big Sky?

Thanks for the clarification.

I didn't include USD because they are not on the same level compared to SDSU relative to UND compared to NDSU.

They only enrolled about 1000 new undergraduate freshman a year, they have no engineering program, etc. That puts them about the same level as SUU except they have a med school, law school, and strong liberal arts.


I know Mankato, St Cloud, and Duluth could compete decently in basketball and olympic sports. Not sure if their football programs could make it in Iaa, though. Even if they could someone find a way to get to 60 scholarships.

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of Georgia both do not have engineering schools but they are indeed flagships. The University of Georgia does not have an medical school whereas the University of North Carolina and the University of South Dakota both have medical schools and law schools but not engineering schools. Also, the University of North Carolina at Chappel Hill has less enrollment and enrolls less freshman than North Carolina State. So what, its still the flagship of the state of North Carolina while NCSU is the land grant.

Most people in the academic world view the University of South Dakota and South Dakota State on equal or nearly equal levels. This is a quote from Encyclopedia of the Great Plains which was edited by University of Nebraska-Lincoln geography professor David Wishart who is also a professor of the Center for Great Plains Studies. This quote comes from the entry "Land Grant Universities" and it regards many schools we talk about in this forum, including USD and SDSU:

"Land Grant Universities: ......During the Civil War, only two states, Iowa in 1862 and Kansas in 1863 passed land grant resolutions. Not until after 1865 could most states refocus their attention on higher education. Kansas was the first Plains state to take on the conditions of the Morrill Act, with Kansas Agricultural College (Manhattan), founded in 1863. Nebraska was next with the University of Nebraska (Lincoln), founded in 1869. Other Plains states and territories followed, with Texas A & M University in 1876, Colorado State University (Fort Collins) in 1879, South Dakota State University (Brookings) in 1881, The University of Wyoming (Laramie) in 1887, North Dakota State University (Fargo) in 1890, and Oklahoma State University (Stillwater) in 1890. Since the land grant universities were founded to be the the agricultural and mechanical schools, some states established state universities with an emphasis on liberal arts. Kansas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota for example, each established two universities, one land grant and one state university. Nebraska and Wyoming combined both the land grant purpose and the liberal arts into one consolidated university...."

In the eyes of the Center for Great Plains Studies, which is a 10-state/3 Canadian Province consortium of universities and colleges located on the Great Plains, the University of South Dakota is a flagship university and South Dakota State is a land grant (which is a dual flagship role with USD for the State of South Dakota). If this wasn't the case, it wouldn't be stated this way in a published book about the Great Plains.

SUU is barely above a Junior College. Its about like UVSC. Whereas, the University of South Dakota is a flagship school with research function. SUU doesn't have doctorates, and doesn't offer all that many master degrees, whereas USD offers doctorate degrees. USD far exceeds SUU in academic standing.

Also, the enrollment isn't that big of a difference and their attendance at the football and basketball games (Mens and Womens) isn't that big either. I still can't find the attendance for SDSU for last year's fball and bball (2004-05). They are relatively the same and really not any different than most flagship/land grant dual roled universities in the nation. The University of Michigan has 6K less in enrollment compared to Michigan State University. The University of Kansas has less attendance than Kansas State in football. So what?! In the academic world they are in the same peership of flagship/land grants, whether it be Montana and Montana State or Iowa and Iowa State or South Dakota and South Dakota State. Relatively speaking universities that carry equal weight and noteriety on the state and national levels.

Here in Michigan, when I talk to University of Michigan grads, it sounds like they have "land grant envy". But then when I talk to Michigan State University grads, it sounds like they have "flagship envy". When I lived in Iowa, Iowa State University grads had "flagship envy" while the University of Iowa grads had "land grant envy". I just think to myself and remember, that these people are very myopic and subjective in their viewpoints and search and seek objectivity to overcome the flagship envy and land grant envy they are expousing. If I don't, it all seems to get too much like a dysfuntional schism within these two envious groups, that is not healthy for the situation and lacks serious objectivity. Its easier to deal with hearing such "flagship envy" and "land grant envy" from that approach, and know that they lack objectivity in their envy.

I agree with Metro. :o USD is far better then SUU and is a flagship. I have seen this definition before and I like it:

Chancellor Robert M. Berdahl’s - University of California, Berkeley wrote, “What do we mean by the term "Flagship" universities? The term applies, in all the cases I can think of, to the fully mature public universities serving most of states. In most cases, these institutions were the first public universities to be established in their states. Many of what we now call the Flagship campuses were established in the extraordinary period of university building that took place in the United States in the roughly three decades from the mid-1850s to the mid-1880s. Many came into being after the Morrill Act of 1863 provided the federal grants of land to the states to establish public universities. Some states built two institutions, a land-grant college focused on agriculture and the "mechanical arts" as well as general education, and another more directed at classical education and the other professions. For example, Michigan, Indiana, Iowa, Washington, and Texas, among others, built separate institutions, while Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio, and California combined the land-grant and liberal arts function on a single campus. These institutions formed the core of the public systems of higher education in their respective states. State teachers colleges, later evolving into regional state colleges or universities, formed the rest of the higher education institutions in most states.”


What will keep USD from making the jump to D-I is $$$$. This has been brought up before by others but since it is at the heart of the matter I will re-post it. Here is a story from the USD school paper from this spring.


http://www.volanteonline.com/news/2005/03/23/Sports/Deficit.Focus.Of.Pro posal-901208.shtml

Deficit focus of proposal

USD faces 'chronic funding issue'

By Jeremy Hoeck
Published: Wednesday, March 23, 2005

In what administrators are calling a "chronic funding issue," the USD athletic department has a budget deficit that is reported to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars range.

Athletic Director Joel Nielsen, Assistant Athletic Director Jeanette Hubert and Vice President of Finance and Administration Greg Redlin are working together to come up with solutions to remedy the deficit.

"We are all working together to identify ways to cover the increases in our expenses," Nielsen said. "We are also working with a 'funding model' to stop the systemic problem." . . .

For the fiscal year of 2005, it was reported that the operating budget for USD's athletic department was $2,823,749. However, Redlin and his associates have not calculated the exact deficit. . . .

The three administrators are in the process of coming up with proposals that include possible ways to cover the debt and are planning to finish within the next few weeks. From there, they will give the proposals to USD President Jim Abbott with some recommendation of one that they think will work the best.

"In each proposal, we will include some adjustments to the way we do business," Nielsen said. "With any funding model, you have to make assumptions and you just do your best to anticipate what might happen in the future. It's a complicated and challenging job." . . .

Unlike last spring's decision, Nielsen said that cutting another program is likely out of the question despite the desparate times of the department.

"When we go into this process, we put everything on the table," Nielsen said. "One of the first things we address is not reducing opportunities. We will only make adjustments in our program as a last resort. That is a last resort option for us." . . .


Bottom line if USD is having trouble making ends meet with their $2.8 million dollar D-II budget and thinking about cutting yet more programs they are in no shape to make a move to D-I in the near future. To give you a frame of reference, SDSU last D-II budget was in the $4.3 million dollar range. This past season, our first in D-I, SDSU upped that number to $6.5 million and the budget will be greater still this season as we ramp up additional scholarships and add the Women's sport of Equestrian (must stay compliant with Title IX).

Heck SDSU is right in the middle of a scoreboard upgrade project for our Stadium and Arena (separate from the athletic budget) that is larger, $3 million, then USD's whole athletics budget for last season.

USD could make the jump someday I am sure but it won't be in time for this round of Confernce expansion.