I think it is funny that the Big Sky is all of a sudden interested in the Dakota State Universities, right after the Mid-Con names a Commish. who know and has worked with both schools.

http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=104253§ion=Sports

Expansion back on table in Big Sky

By Jeff Kolpack, The Forum
Published Thursday, September 29, 2005

The Big Sky Conference Presidents Council will discuss expansion at its annual meeting next week. The extent of the conversation, however, is still to be determined. . . .

Fullerton said he wants to make sure the league looks at the future and considers all options. That could include a 12-team, two-division conference setup. . . .

The problem with a two division setup is in football because, Fullerton said, everybody wants to play the University of Montana. The Grizzlies are the biggest home draw for the other seven Big Sky teams.

But 12 teams would be an advantage in basketball, Fullerton said. Scheduling is expected to be a hassle when the league goes to nine teams next year.

“Nine is an awkward number,” Fullerton said.

If the league went to 12 teams, Fullerton said he would organize a full 22-game schedule for all teams.

“Twenty-two Division I games is a great base to work from,” he said.

Fullerton cautioned that the Council’s agenda for the meeting is full. But he said Montana State President Geoffrey Gamble wants to keep the discussion going to see if there is further interest.

“I know there has been some talk of expansion out of Bozeman, (Mont.)” Fullerton said.


You can also here Doug Fullerton talk about it himself by clicking on the link below.

http://www.bigskyconf.com/stats/Audio/2005/commish.wma

This news item(s) really is a reflection of what is already known.

The Dakota schools biggest issue is location, location, location, location. "Those schools are just hard to get to."

And the price of gas is going up. So is the possibility of Charter flights. But what do you do with the other sports. Northwest, Delta and United have all declared bankruptcy, and American Airlines is increasing their fares due to the increase in the price of gas. This is the trend in the airline industry. How do you get anywhere with these increase in costs?

He also talked about UNC. Commissioners are public personas. They will not diss someone too much unless it is a remark that most are going to conclude. So while not mentioning the market in Dakotas he emphasizes it with UNC. They like tapping into the Denver market, a Top 25 US market. The Dakota's don't have anyone but markets in the top 175 and have the second smallest state and the 5th smallest state with competition and a slow growth state and a declining population state. North Dakota has consistently lost population since its population peak in 1930. That is the longest time that any state in this union has not exceeded its population peak. For a long term decision of conference alignment, something that is a permanent decision, the declining market of North Dakota based on an overall long term decline is not a market to tap into. He didn't mention this about the Dakotas, but he emphasized it about UNC. Market and location, both serious disdvantages of the Dakotas.

There's some oddity though in some of what Commissioner Fullerton said. If they expanded, they would like to get to an even number. They are at 9 now. If they take both Dakotas, they would be at 11, not an even number and really more disadvantageous than 9. They would need to take 3 teams. He stated that SUU is not a likely candidate. So who would be the 3rd team in this scenario? UND possibly? Maybe they can't expand unless UND moves up and expands as well.

So it seems that the Dakotas are indeed dependent upon UND in this scenario. Who else is there for the 3rd? UC Davis? Cal Poly? Who? Maybe someone eventually leaves the Big Sky 10 years from now and all 3 of these Dakota schools will be in the Big Sky and you will then invite USD. See, its either all the Dakotas or no Dakotas at all.

Even beyond all this, there is and always and continue to always be the option of not expanding at all, because the costs are just too much to be worth it.

Metro,

It was a 5 min. interview about possibly going to 12 schools and you write 4 paragraphs on market demographics, let it go you freak.

Well, most of his interview concentrated on location, location, location, Denver market, airline flights, costs of other non-revenue sports getting to the Dakotas.

There's nothing freakish about it. It is the serious constraint of the Dakotas. Its in both the SDSU and NDSU market studies as the constraints or the "lowest among all schools studied".

How about the University of Denver?

I can't believe that DU is happy in the Sub Belt.


And, while I doubt it, it's always possible that they could start a football program and play at the Broncos' stadium.


But if they didn't that would give them 9 football members (4 home games, 4 away games) and 10 basketball members (travel partner for UNC).


Might be a possibility.



NDSU and SDSU do have top 175 markets: http://www.nielsenmedia.com/DMAs.html

Sioux Falls = 114
Fargo = 118

DU is not going to start a football program. Its either UND or no go. Unless you get Cal-Davis, Cal Poly or they change their minds on SUU.

The Dakotas are dependent upon one another in this situation.






The TV markets are not the entirety of what we are talking about here.

We are talking about the 3 market rings.

1. Metro area. What I was refering to when I said Denver is a top 25 market I was referring to their metropolitan size, their first ring. Fargo and Sioux Falls are not in the top 175.

2. TV Markets -- Fargo-Valley City TV market gained a whopping 500 people since 2000. That is not growing. Sioux Falls is a small growth state. Commissioner Fullterton was raving that Greeley was one of the fastest growing cities in the nation, and Denver market is rapidly growing. This is on top of them being a very large market. Fargo and Sioux Falls don't cut it here.

3. Statewide market. North Dakota has consistently been losing population since it reached its peak in 1930, 75 years ago. That is the longest time of any state in the nation from reaching its peak of any 1 of the 50 states. 2 new states were added since then, thats how long its been. South Dakota is a slow growth state. And on top of this ND and SD have nearly equal instate competition and support for neighboring state schools (UMinn, NU, UWyo, ISU and U of I). The Dakotas are the smallest markets in all of Division 1. The only way to make the most of them for a conference is to take all 4 teams. At least UND in this case for it to even happen. Otherwise there is not much gained here in market exposure with two of the 4 flagships in market size.

Commissioner Fullerton raved about the growing Denver-Greeley market that UNC provides. The combination of the problems with the location of the Dakotas and their small markets will continue to present the Dakota with a challenge for a conference unless a conference locates itself primarily in the upper midwest/northern Great Plains and/or the the two statewide markets are maximized and captured through the epansion of 3 or more of the 4 flagship schools in the Dakotas.

But beyond this, gas prices are continuing to rise, airlines are cutting back on flights, including destinations, airlines are declaring bankruptcy and an airline is raising rates to its customers in order to capture costs from increasing gas prices. How will this impact the travel of track and field teams? Tennis Teams? Volleyball teams? Bus leagues may become an element of preference in conference alignment in the near term, until we find alternative energy and vehicles that can use alternative energy and maintain costs.

Metro,

You are intellectually dishonest and lazy. Not good things to be on a chat board. Worst of all you are redundant, as if your assertions will become factual if you just repeat them often enough. ::)

What drives you? Why the need to prove that your way is the only way even when presented with evidence to the contrary. Buddy, you are on the wrong side of history on this one SDSU and NDSU will find conference homes and it will happen before '08-'09. I will enjoy coming back to read your warped explanation as to why whatever conference offers these two Flagship Universities an invite is just wrong and uninformed. By the way I really don't care what drives you, as I already understand that you are a "konw it all" and can't stand to be wrong, that is why I will be back to laugh at you when the invites come.

If you were up to date on this issue you would already know that Fullerton has had talks with the University of Denver about joining as a non-football playing member and sited as a reason that the Big Sky would have even numbers for basketball and odd numbers for football. You would also know that the political powers within the Big Sky (namely Montana and Montana State) won't allow this unless the Dakota State Universities are also included.

To wrap this thing up the Big Sky may not expand or may choose to expand by only one member. However from the story and interview it is clear that the Big Sky is still looking for a way to "make it work" because as Commissioner Fullerton said about SDSU and NDSU "They're the right kind of schools for the Big Sky" and that is why I started this thread. To talk about new developments not to give you a platform so you could write your quasi-factual nonsense for yet the 10,000 time.

Everyone who has read this forum knows how you feel about the Dakota's from a market demographics stand point. Do us all a favor if you don't have anything else to add don't bother posting.

You are not being a completist in your post. UND was sent a letter inquiring about their possibilities of being explored for membership in the Big Sky. I have also read that the University of Denver is more interested in a West Coast Conference invite or something along the lines of the Misssouri Valley Conference.

There was also no mention of the University of Denver in his conversation. He stated the "Dakotas" which includes UND.

The football side would be compromised as well by having 11 members. He talked about "pairs". You don't accomplish that with 11 football members.

Honesty is needed when talking about all the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and constraints. The airline industry and the possibility of increased gas prices is not going to be a conducive trend that will support long distant conference memberships of almost any conference, especially fledging mid majors.

I added what I did in this post about markets and location because it was the majority of what Commissioner Fullerton stated in his 5 minute interview and it confirmed what I have mentioned as well what is mentioned in the SDSU study. If you are going to post his interview, then expect people here to listen to it and discuss what he said. If you don't want people to discuss what he said, including everything he said, then don't post it here.

As a DU alum, I would love to see us join the West Coast Conference, but from a reality standpoint the Big Sky would also be good for it could be the impudus for us to reinstate a football program over time. If University of North Dakota joins they are already a major hockey rival of DU and DU and Northern Colorado would be great travel partners.

Commissioner Fullerton mentions the Dakotas is a scenario that would include a divisional lineup. In order to get to two divisions, you need three more. UND was sent a letter, and plays both football and basketball along with other sports. Unless they change their mind on SUU or Cal-Davis or Cal Poly would change their minds, there's not really any other choice but 3 from the Dakotas to acheive the Divisional/Dakota Scenario and to achieve the goal of an "even number" that Commissioner Fullerton mentions.

Over 20 schools received letters from the Big Sky concerning expansion.UND is one of many.


Why add three schools from the Dakotas? Seems like it would be a nightmare for travel partners.

Doesn't it make sense to have an odd number for football since you get the same number of home and away conference games?

And then doesn't it also make equal sense to, at the same time, have an even number for basketball so you get a travel partnet for everyone?


I think UND, DU, NDSU, and SDSU are all possibilities for the Big Sky because they might end up losing Montana to the WAC or MWC one day.

UNC is currently the odd one out. UND/NDSU could be travel partners and SDSU and UNC can be travel partners. There's not really a travel partner nearby to UNC that is possible that has both football and basketball. EWU/PSU, ISU/WSU, UM/MSU, SSU/NAU, UND/NDSU and SDSU/UNC could be the partners.

There is no mention anywhere from the BSC that Denver is a likely candidate, especially from both these articles posted.

The Big Sky conference is already sprawled out anyway. This is one of the major problems with expanding to the east in the Dakotas in the first place, some 750 miles to 1,750 miles from all the conference members for a fledgling 1-AA league.

The Big Sky has made expansion decisions through consensus recently. Sac State, PSU, and NAU are not going to mold to a consensus very easily or very likely on the Dakotas given shear one-half continent distance. Other than a even number, there's really no reason to expand, and these members may care more about travel costs than an even number.

But if they are going to two-division format and pairing up teams, well UND is about it, unless they change their minds on SUU, or Cal-Davis, and Cal Poly change their minds. If Cal-Davis or Cal-Poly changed their minds, with the exception of being in the Sacremento market already, those are better academic schools than the Dakotas. Especially Cal-Davis, a member of the AAU (Pac 10 level academics). If they are going to a two-division format and need pairs, there's really no other option.

Who were the 20 schools?

Western Washington?

Western Oregon?

Eastern New Mexico?

Utah Valley State (which is barely not a Junior College)?

Colorado State-Pueblo?

Western State College?

Cal-State schools?

Who?

If they want Academics/flagships/research, outside of Cal-Davis, well, UND meets those more than any of the above.

Commissioner Fullerton only talked about the Dakotas in the concept of "pairs", "even number" and "two divisions".

A 9 team format works better than an 11 team format for football. There is no balance to a 11 team format for scheduling. 9 is not a prime number, it is divisional by 3. 11 is a prime number and is only divisional by either 1 or 11. Their is no ability to establish travel partners through the league and you need to rotate some schools throughout the year that do not play a game. It takes flexibility away from the school for scheduling. See the Big 10 and the ACC-pre Boston College with their scheduling problems. If the need is to get to an even number of teams for basketball, then there is a simple solution. They could add DU and that's it and not even leave their footprint and not even add the Dakotas at all.

However, Commissioner Fullerton mentioned "pairs", "even number" and "two divisions" in relationship to the Dakotas.