More news coming from North Dakota.

http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/10326756.htm

Posted on Fri, Dec. 03, 2004


DIVISION I ATHLETICS: Crunch time for UND

With Dec. 13 meeting set, school officials must decide if they want to be considered for Big Sky expansion

By Kevin Fee

Herald Staff Writer


If the Big Sky does expand, Fullerton said, it likely would create two divisions to avoid extensive travel costs. . . .




http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=77050

Letter by Kupchella to UND football lettermen on Division I issue
The Forum
Published Saturday, December 04, 2004

The following is a copy of a letter sent recently by University of North Dakota President Charles Kupchella to UND football lettermen. The letter is in response to the group's growing push to explore moving UND to Division I in sports. The group is led by Dan Martinson and Corey Colehauer. . .

Conference Affiliation


This brings us to opportunity and specifically the Big Sky Conference. And what about the 13th of December?


We have as you might expect, been keeping tabs on the Big Sky situation. The signals have been mixed and there has recently apparently been a 180 degree turn, maybe. At first, the BS said they had no interest in expanding and if they did it would be to the west. More recently, the BS has solicited, in more of a shotgun fashion, expressions of interest which you referenced. A decision as to expand, or not, and perhaps by how much and when, is apparently going to be made at a meeting next month.


According to that article on the move by NDSU and SDSU in the Star Tribune today, "Affiliating with an all sports conference is crucial to the moves being a success." Possibilities for us in the BS conference in the future is an important question for us as well because if not the BS, where?


Let's assume the BS does expand to twelve teams. What then? We understand that they already have four applicants which are already D I. If we were to decide today to go to D I, we would still have to honor our contracts for the remainder of this year and all of next. My recollection is that we would have to notify the NCC by September of the year which would be our last. We would have to notice the NCAA by December 1 of that year. This means that at the earliest, would not be able to make the move until the fall of '06. Roger can check me on this.


Given all of the above, and depending on - at least tentative - answers to the fundamental questions posed here, perhaps all we would be able to do by Dec 13 is to indicate to the BS our interest in possibly making a move to D I, indicating the earliest date we would be able to make the move. . . .


Sounds like the Big Sky is going to go to 12 and UND will not be ready for the jump. Things are looking good for SDSU, NDSU, UNC, and SUU.

For reasons beyond my comprehension, I decided to go back and run through this entire thread again. Please forgive the non-linear rambling.

Anyone else who does that should note that I've probably changed my mind once or twice in the process. I thought Northern Colorado was the best choice some time back, but their football attendance (basketball really being an afterthought in the Sky, believe it or not) doesn't auger that well. Seeing talk of facility expansion might help, however.

The Dakota schools are the obvious gems in this case.

I have a guess as to why U of North Dakota would add to consideration for moving IF D-2 scholarships were reduced, but I wouldn't mind an elaboration anyway. Related question: did NDSU and/or UND intentionally leave one another off the schedule in 2004? Something else? It's not like NDSU played a full D-1 schedule this year.

Meanwhile, while the Sky is like any 1-AA conference in needing to address geography, I can't help but think that they'll hold their nose if they have to invite Southern Utah. The Thunderbirds just don't draw for football. I don't see where SUU gets the money to compete in this situation.

I wouldn't turn my back on Idaho just yet. They got their (IMO undeserved) home game in Pullman against Washington State and still almost gakked the attendance requirement. If the Boise State game at Martin is going to be in November, they won't get the crowds they think they'll get. They also have to draw for San Jose State (if they stick around), La Tech, garden variety Aggie schools, and Nevada, and I'm beginning to see where 8 qualifying years in 10 will be a challenge.

Would Cal-Davis seek out the Big Sky? Their football facility plans scream out for something stronger than the Great West... maybe they think they can get that WAC opening San Jose eventually provides.

They're adding about 10-15 rows of high school style aluminum bleachers that run from about the 20 yard line to the other 20 on the visitor side, where there was nothing before. It's hard to say exactly how much this will add, but it could take them from 6500 - 8500. If they can average 8k or better, they should be fine.

I *do* think the Big Sky wants to upgrade it's basketball image. They already have East Wash. and Weber State. Adding SDSU will certainly help.




UND/NDSU is a bitter, bitter rivalry. UND refused to play NDSU after they went DI.

UND simply won't stand be 2nd fiddle to NDSU. The only reason they didn't move up is before their current president had a very rough time @ SE Missouri St. when they moved up and wants to take things *very* slow and make sure there is a massive amount of money for scholoarship's etc. UND football fans are getting impatient, esp. since NDSU got ranked in the top 25 in football.




I doubt highly that SUU will get in. The BSC prezs. don't think highly of their academics and while their football team was pretty good this year, they draw at high school levels.




I would say you're right if I didn't think that there is going to be a grandfather rule passed that will null this rule for current DIas.

However, I'm sure the Sky and Idaho State would love for them to come back down to DIaa. However, with Idaho finally getting into the WAC (and back with Boise State), I think they would drop football before returning to the Sky.




I'd much rather see Davis in the sky than Sac. I would absolutely love it for them to switch places. However, are they even interested? It's very hard to say seeing how the Big West is going to be an all-california bus league next season. We can only hope!

Idaho State is a bit less than 2 hours from Weber State. For the entire time I've lived here, Idaho v Boise State has been MUCH bigger than Idaho v Idaho State. It's not like Idaho State wouldn't view Boise as a bigger rival if at the same level, but in the interim, Idaho State still has something of a rival. Check out the drive from Moscow to Pocatello some time to understand why.

However, Montana would LOVE it if Idaho came back. Potentially even more true for Montana State and Eastern Washington. EWU seems to have finally gotten off the bench about facility issues, which would help both schools.

Now, let's get to an "honorary sportsgeog rule," even though he didn't actually come up with it. A "flagship" in a state big enough to care does NOT drop football. I can't begin to speculate as to Vermont's motivations. That is NOT happening at Idaho, plain and simple. There's enough backing for the overall program, and enough alumni who didn't mind the Big Sky, that I believe they would move down if it came to that.

All that being said... I'll actually argue that Idaho's savior in the WAC would be- if they choose to move up- Montana. That's a trip of 3-4 hours that usually wouldn't happen in November, and it would do substantial business at Martin Stadium.

Montana can't move up without Montana State who I don't think wants to go anywhere.

I would love to see Idaho back in the BSC, but now that they're in the WAC I don't see it happening.

Vermont is one of the most liberal universities in the nation. As I recall, a feminist president eliminated football.

Of course, they still play hockey.

I'm surprised it survived the "elephant walk" controversy around Y2K...

The University of Alaska-Fairbanks also doesn't play football.

UVM and UAF are the only flagships to not field a football team. UND and USD are the only "Non Div. 1-A/Non Div. 1-AA" flagship football schools.

Also SUNY Binghamton doesn't field a football team.

SUNY Binghamton is one of the Quad Doctoral SUNY Flagships.

These SUNY Quad Doctoral Flagships do field either a 1-A or a 1-AA fball team:

Buffalo (1-A MAC school)
Albany (1-AA)
Stony Brook (1-AA)

Also, Cornell U, as a private Ivy League school has a contract with the SUNY system to provide the state's Ag School, Human Ecology school, Vet School and Industrial/Labor Relations school. Its a pseudo-5th Flagship in this respect, and as a Ivy League school, fields a 1-AA fball team.

So add SUNY Binghamton to UAF and UVM as the only flagship and flagship-like schools without a football team.

UAF, UND, and USD are not the flagships in their states.

UAF is the Land Grant U for Alaska.

UA-Anchorage and UA-Southeast (Juneau) are both branches. UAF was established long before UAA and UASE. I don't have the years.

Here, read the UAF website, which proves that UAF is indeed the Flagship University of the U of Alaska system:

http://www.uaf.edu/uaf/about/index.html




As for ND and SD.

Both of those states follow the 2 Flagship rule.

They have an historical liberal arts-comprehensive flagship (UND and USD), and the Morrill Act of 1862 Land Grant Act Flagship (NDSU and SDSU), which act as a flagship of the entire NDSU and SDSU campus and county extension office system.

This is not unlike the situation in the following states which use this 2-flagship model:

Washington:

UW and WSU

Oregon:

UO and OSU

Montana:

UM and MSU

Utah:

UU and USU

Colorado:

CU and CSU

New Mexico:

UNM and NMSU

Texas:

UT and TAMU

Oklahoma:

OU and OSU

Kansas:

KU and KSU

Iowa:

U of I and ISU

Indiana:

IU and Purdue

Michigan:

U of M and MSU

Mississippi:

Ole Miss and MSU

Alabama:

U of Alabama and Auburn

North Carolina:

UNC and NCSU

South Carolina:

USC and Clemson

Virginia:

UVa and VPI & SU (Va Tech)

the UND and NDSU / USD and SDSU follow this 2-flagship model.

UAF:UAA = Idaho:Boise St.

Yes, and U Idaho is the state Flagship school for all of the state of Idaho and Boise State is a commuter school for the Boise Metropolitan Area, as stated on their website:

http://www.boisestate.edu/visitors/welcome.asp




This is the same relationship as the University of Nevada flagship (located in Reno), and UNLV (Nevada's metro, i.e. "Commuter"/branch university).

With that in mind, all three of those schools enroll more freshman than their "flagship".

Even Idaho State (which you didn't put down under your little 2 flagship thing) enrolls more than UIdaho.

So, enrollment has nothing to do with what is a "flagship" and what isn't a flagship.

It has more to do with the function/mission/purpose/history of the university, and not enrollment, or even the sports they play.

The 2-flagship rule is this. There are two state universities. They both grant numerous PhD's in different fields +, they have these programs/roles/missions:

Flagship 1: Is the oldest public university in the state (usually, but not always), primary purpose is doctorate-granting, liberal arts/comprehensive and professional grad programs, and contain the oldest medical school and law school in the state. The historical critical mass of this school is with liberal arts, med school, and law school. Usually called "University of's _______(insert state name)".

Flagship 2: In 1862, the U.S. Congress passed the Morrill Act of 1862, which established Land Grants to all of the U.S. States (since expanded to U.S. Territories), given land to each state that established 1 public university devoted to the fields of Agricultural and Mechical Arts. The purpose of this act was to provide an education to the common man. Every U.S. State has one of these schools. A number of them became a part of an expanded role of Flagship 1 (such as the University of Minnesota, University of Wisconsin, University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign, University of Missouri, etc). Other states established a second major state university campus separate from the Flagship 1, thus, becoming Flagship 2. These are like Iowa State, Michigan State, Colorado State, Purdue, Clemson, Auburn, Mississippi State, Montana State, South Dakota State, and North Dakota State. All of these "Land Grant" Universities grant PhD's. They serve as flagships, even if they don't have branch campuses (like Montana State has a branch campus in Billings called MSU-Billings), but even if they don't have a branch campus, they have County Extension offices in every county. In 1913, I believe, U.S. Congress amended the Morrill Act of 1862 to establish Cooperative Extension offices in every county that are affiliated with the State's Land Grant University -- the Flagship of this system. County Extension offices "extend" the university to "every man, woman, and child" in the state. They provide practical education to citizens of the state. These schools, sometimes, in addition to County Extension, have Veterinary Schools, in addition to their Agricultural schools. They are usually, but not always called "_________(insert state name here) State University".

See this link for more on the Morrill Act of 1862:

http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/morrill.html

Idaho State, is not the Land Grant school in Idaho. The University of Idaho is the Land Grant school. U of Idaho follows the University of Minnesota/University of Wisconsin/University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign/University of Missouri model of a single flagship for the state.

Idaho State was originally a tech school/community college that evolved into a 4 year institution. It was also a branch of the University of Idaho, called the University of Idaho-Southern Branch. It is simply called Idaho State in the same vein as Illinois State or Indiana State, or Arkansas State. None of those three are the Land Grant Universities for their respective states, as the University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign, Purdue, and the University of Arkansas are for those states. They just simply call themselves "_______State University" because the name was available. I think Illinois State University could've been called Central Illinois University if they wanted to. Illinois State University is a shortening of their former name of Illinois Normal State University, as they were a teacher's college, hence the name "Normal" in their name.

So the 2-Flagship rule has nothing to do with a name, but with the function/history/mission and peership (across the country) of the institution.