Summit League Expansion

dafoeberezin3494 · **Posted:** Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:23 pm

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

It will never happen, they only need 1 full, but why give the Summit a chance to over take you, or even survive in general. They wouldn't. They already sponsor football. Its the top sport to have in a conf. That statement saying "full sponsor" makes no sense.

I was referring to the fact that the MVC and the MVFC are separate conferences. The MVC doesn't sponsor football, they just loan their name to the MVFC as a branding mechanism. If they want to sponsor football, then why don't they add the necessary schools to do so now? Or is the fact that they have their brand out there now good enough? What do you do if you are the Summit commissioner, and seemingly have no good options?

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:12 am

dafoeberezin3494 wrote:

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

It will never happen, they only need 1 full, but why give the Summit a chance to over take you, or even survive in general. They wouldn't. They already sponsor football. Its the top sport to have in a conf. That statement saying "full sponsor" makes no sense.

I was referring to the fact that the MVC and the MVFC are separate conferences. The MVC doesn't sponsor football, they just loan their name to the MVFC as a branding mechanism. If they want to sponsor football, then why don't they add the necessary schools to do so now? Or is the fact that they have their brand out there now good enough? What do you do if you are the Summit commissioner, and seemingly have no good options?

It's still the MVC's name(brand). They don't want to have to invite the Dakotas and as long as the Summit doesn't get in the way, things are good as they are. If they try you will see the MVC take the next step. They don't want a rival conference to take away their name and it's talent, putting them closer to the same level as the MVC if they allow that. It's very much like the WAC and MWC was until BYU bailed and WAC tried to sang some schools and BYU basketball. If you go back a few pages on here, we talked about this already.

dafoeberezin3494 · **Posted:** Fri Jun 17, 2011 12:10 pm

How does this situation compare to the CAA/A10 from a few years ago? The same thing: a 12 member football conference under the A-10's name, the CAA (a lesser conference) adds the right schools to start sponsoring football, then takes over sponsorship of the football conference. Has this put the CAA on par or ahead of the A-10? No. Despite the NCAA tourney runs by George Mason and VCU, the A-10 still makes more money (which is why we won't see Charlotte becoming an all-sports member of the CAA).

I don't think the A-10 has suffered a drop in perception because of the lack of football, and I don't think anything similar would happen to the MVC. I just don't see why the MVC would add two more mouths to feed to protect their name on a football conference. This is a case where the loss of value for the MVC would be minimal to none, but the gain for the Summit would be substantial.

SJSUFan2010 · **Joined:** Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:52 pm **Posts:** 470

dafoeberezin3494 wrote:

How does this situation compare to the CAA/A10 from a few years ago? The same thing: a 12 member football conference under the A-10's name, the CAA (a lesser conference) adds the right schools to start sponsoring football, then takes over sponsorship of the football conference. Has this put the CAA on par or ahead of the A-10? No. Despite the NCAA tourney runs by George Mason and VCU, the A-10 still makes more money (which is why we won't see Charlotte becoming an all-sports member of the CAA).

I don't think the A-10 has suffered a drop in perception because of the lack of football, and I don't think anything similar would happen to the MVC. I just don't see why the MVC would add two more mouths to feed to protect their name on a football conference. This is a case where the loss of value for the MVC would be minimal to none, but the gain for the Summit would be substantial.

I look at it this way, the name doesn't matter. If it was called the MVFC or the Summit Football conference or anything else it doesn't matter. The non football schools don't benefit in the MVC because it uses the same name (well, I'm assuming this, but I doubt they would). So the question everyone has to ask themselves, is it better to have two 6 team conferences or just one 10-12 team conference? I would think the larger conference would generate more income, give the schools more prestige and most of all, be much more stable.

It's in everyone's best interests to stay one conference, rather than splitting and reloading with D-II schools to get to 8 or 10. If anything should happen though, it's those football schools that should band together and form their own all sports conference. Maybe bring Creighton, Wichita State, or North Dakota along as well.

dafoeberezin3494 · **Posted:** Fri Jun 17, 2011 1:44 pm

SJSUFan2010 wrote:

dafoeberezin3494 wrote:

How does this situation compare to the CAA/A10 from a few years ago? The same thing: a 12 member football conference under the A-10's name, the CAA (a lesser conference) adds the right schools to start sponsoring football, then takes over sponsorship of the football conference. Has this put the CAA on par or ahead of the A-10? No. Despite the NCAA tourney runs by George Mason and VCU, the A-10 still makes more money (which is why we won't see Charlotte becoming an all-sports member of the CAA).

I don't think the A-10 has suffered a drop in perception because of the lack of football, and I don't think anything similar would happen to the MVC. I just don't see why the MVC would add two more mouths to feed to protect their name on a football conference. This is a case where the loss of value for the MVC would be minimal to none, but the gain for the Summit would be substantial.

I look at it this way, the name doesn't matter. If it was called the MVFC or the Summit Football conference or anything else it doesn't matter. The non football schools don't benefit in the MVC because it uses the same name (well, I'm assuming this, but I doubt they would). So the question everyone has to ask themselves, is it better to have two 6 team conferences or just one 10-12 team conference? I would think the larger conference would generate more income, give the schools more prestige and most of all, be much more stable.

It's in everyone's best interests to stay one conference, rather than splitting and reloading with D-II schools to get to 8 or 10. If anything should happen though, it's those football schools that should band together and form their own all sports conference. Maybe bring Creighton, Wichita State, or North Dakota along as well.

I was never advocating for two 6-team conferences. I'm asking if the Summit would consider inviting 2 football playing schools (N Dakota, E Illinois) in order to sponsor football, using those two and all current schools in the MVFC (similar to the CAA "taking over" the A-10 football a few years ago). I'm saying that this does not hurt the perception of the MVC (5 football playing/10 overall members), and that they would not invite more football playing members just to protect their name on a football conference.

SJSUFan2010 · **Joined:** Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:52 pm **Posts:** 470

dafoeberezin3494 wrote:

SJSUFan2010 wrote:

dafoeberezin3494 wrote:

How does this situation compare to the CAA/A10 from a few years ago? The same thing: a 12 member football conference under the A-10's name, the CAA (a lesser conference) adds the right schools to start sponsoring football, then takes over sponsorship of the football conference. Has this put the CAA on par or ahead of the A-10? No. Despite the NCAA tourney runs by George Mason and VCU, the A-10 still makes more money (which is why we won't see Charlotte becoming an all-sports member of the CAA).

I don't think the A-10 has suffered a drop in perception because of the lack of football, and I don't think anything similar would happen to the MVC. I just don't see why the MVC would add two more mouths to feed to protect their name on a football conference. This is a case where the loss of value for the MVC would be minimal to none, but the gain for the Summit would be substantial.

I look at it this way, the name doesn't matter. If it was called the MVFC or the Summit Football conference or anything else it doesn't matter. The non football schools don't benefit in the MVC because it uses the same name (well, I'm assuming this, but I doubt they would). So the question everyone has to ask themselves, is it better to have two 6 team conferences or just one 10-12 team conference? I would think the larger conference would generate more income, give the schools more prestige and most of all, be much more stable.

It's in everyone's best interests to stay one conference, rather than splitting and reloading with D-II schools to get to 8 or 10. If anything should happen though, it's those football schools that should band together and form their own all sports conference. Maybe bring Creighton, Wichita State, or North Dakota along as well.

I was never advocating for two 6-team conferences. I'm asking if the Summit would consider inviting 2 football playing schools (N Dakota, E Illinois) in order to sponsor football, using those two and all current schools in the MVFC (similar to the CAA "taking over" the A-10 football a few years ago). I'm saying that this does not hurt the perception of the MVC (5 football playing/10 overall members), and that they would not invite more football playing members just to protect their name on a football conference.

So what's the point? Just so the name is Summit instead of MVFC? You're going to basically be in the same position as before just with a new name. If anything by putting the conference under the Summit banner and not an independent football conference, the football schools may have to share revenue with the non football schools.

More importantly, if those football schools wanted E. Illinois and/or North Dakota, they would have been invited, and that's assuming E. Illinois would even leave the OVC. Doesn't seem like the Summit nor the MVFC wants to go past 10, or they couldn't get a 12th to go with UND. Whatever the case, it aint broke so no one is gonna fix it.

Quinn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am **Posts:** 3762

dafoeberezin3494 wrote:

SJSUFan2010 wrote:

dafoeberezin3494 wrote:

How does this situation compare to the CAA/A10 from a few years ago? The same thing: a 12 member football conference under the A-10's name, the CAA (a lesser conference) adds the right schools to start sponsoring football, then takes over sponsorship of the football conference. Has this put the CAA on par or ahead of the A-10? No. Despite the NCAA tourney runs by George Mason and VCU, the A-10 still makes more money (which is why we won't see Charlotte becoming an all-sports member of the CAA).

I don't think the A-10 has suffered a drop in perception because of the lack of football, and I don't think anything similar would happen to the MVC. I just don't see why the MVC would add two more mouths to feed to protect their name on a football conference. This is a case where the loss of value for the MVC would be minimal to none, but the gain for the Summit would be substantial.

I look at it this way, the name doesn't matter. If it was called the MVFC or the Summit Football conference or anything else it doesn't matter. The non football schools don't benefit in the MVC because it uses the same name (well, I'm assuming this, but I doubt they would). So the question everyone has to ask themselves, is it better to have two 6 team conferences or just one 10-12 team conference? I would think the larger conference would generate more income, give the schools more prestige and most of all, be much more stable.

It's in everyone's best interests to stay one conference, rather than splitting and reloading with D-II schools to get to 8 or 10. If anything should happen though, it's those football schools that should band together and form their own all sports conference. Maybe bring Creighton, Wichita State, or North Dakota along as well.

I was never advocating for two 6-team conferences. I'm asking if the Summit would consider inviting 2 football playing schools (N Dakota, E Illinois) in order to sponsor football, using those two and all current schools in the MVFC (similar to the CAA "taking over" the A-10 football a few years ago). I'm saying that this does not hurt the perception of the MVC (5 football playing/10 overall members), and that they would not invite more football playing members just to protect their name on a football conference.

Here's something I wrote a long time ago that might be worth a look for ya:

The Summit League Football House of Cards
http://collegesportsinfo.com/2010/09/11 ... -of-cards/

dafoeberezin3494 · **Posted:** Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:07 pm

Quinn wrote:

Here's something I wrote a long time ago that might be worth a look for ya:

The Summit League Football House of Cards
http://collegesportsinfo.com/2010/09/11 ... -of-cards/

Alright, a few things in response to your article:

*Since you wrote the article, Southern Utah has left the Summit for the Big Sky, tightening the conference footprint around the Midwest. No surprises there.

*You said that North Dakota and South Dakota would join the Big Sky in a heartbeat. Now the Big Sky is trying to renege on inviting North Dakota, and South Dakota GAVE UP a chance to join the Big Sky in order to go to the Summit/MVFC.

*You predicted that Sacramento State would join the Big West, which did not happen.

*Again, I'm not advocating for a new football conference, just that the Summit should consider taking over the MVFC, similar to the A10 football becoming CAA football a few years ago.

*What are Butler's higher aspirations? Would they necessarily reject the MVC if they were ever offered a spot?

*What do NDSU, SDSU, UND, or USD bring to the MVC other than more mouths to feed? The MVC is one of the best non-BCS basketball conferences. I just don't see them adding two lower tier basketball members just to protect their name on a football conference.

*If protecting the football conference is so important, why didn't the A-10 do the same thing in this situation back when the CAA was adding members in 2005/2006?

The MVC is a financially viable, highly-ranked non-BCS basketball conference. FCS football doesn't really affect that reputation. The Summit League is a lower tier conference, but is tightening their footprint and is on the rise. FCS football would help their reputation. I'm not saying my scenario is imminent, and it is only my speculation. But if I were the Summit commissioner, I would be looking at a real possibility of sponsoring football. And that's based on something a lot stronger than a house of cards.

SJSUFan2010 · **Joined:** Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:52 pm **Posts:** 470

dafoeberezin3494 wrote:

Quinn wrote:

Here's something I wrote a long time ago that might be worth a look for ya:

The Summit League Football House of Cards
http://collegesportsinfo.com/2010/09/11 ... -of-cards/

Alright, a few things in response to your article:

*Since you wrote the article, Southern Utah has left the Summit for the Big Sky, tightening the conference footprint around the Midwest. No surprises there.

*You said that North Dakota and South Dakota would join the Big Sky in a heartbeat. Now the Big Sky is trying to renege on inviting North Dakota, and South Dakota GAVE UP a chance to join the Big Sky in order to go to the Summit/MVFC.

*You predicted that Sacramento State would join the Big West, which did not happen.

*Again, I'm not advocating for a new football conference, just that the Summit should consider taking over the MVFC, similar to the A10 football becoming CAA football a few years ago.

*What are Butler's higher aspirations? Would they necessarily reject the MVC if they were ever offered a spot?

*What do NDSU, SDSU, UND, or USD bring to the MVC other than more mouths to feed? The MVC is one of the best non-BCS basketball conferences. I just don't see them adding two lower tier basketball members just to protect their name on a football conference.

*If protecting the football conference is so important, why didn't the A-10 do the same thing in this situation back when the CAA was adding members in 2005/2006?

The MVC is a financially viable, highly-ranked non-BCS basketball conference. FCS football doesn't really affect that reputation. The Summit League is a lower tier conference, but is tightening their footprint and is on the rise. FCS football would help their reputation. I'm not saying my scenario is imminent, and it is only my speculation. But if I were the Summit commissioner, I would be looking at a real possibility of sponsoring football. And that's based on something a lot stronger than a house of cards.

Starting to think you may have been ahead of the curve on this one. Looks like the Big Sky won't be inviting UND which means that they will have to beg and plead to get into the Summit/MVFC. If the Missouri State rumors are indeed true, the Summit taking over would go from no way to likely. It requires MSU to move (which I don't think will happen) but starting to see how it could happen.

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:35 pm

SJSUFan2010 wrote:

dafoeberezin3494 wrote:

Quinn wrote:

Here's something I wrote a long time ago that might be worth a look for ya:

The Summit League Football House of Cards
http://collegesportsinfo.com/2010/09/11 ... -of-cards/

Alright, a few things in response to your article:

*Since you wrote the article, Southern Utah has left the Summit for the Big Sky, tightening the conference footprint around the Midwest. No surprises there.

*You said that North Dakota and South Dakota would join the Big Sky in a heartbeat. Now the Big Sky is trying to renege on inviting North Dakota, and South Dakota GAVE UP a chance to join the Big Sky in order to go to the Summit/MVFC.

*You predicted that Sacramento State would join the Big West, which did not happen.

*Again, I'm not advocating for a new football conference, just that the Summit should consider taking over the MVFC, similar to the A10 football becoming CAA football a few years ago.

*What are Butler's higher aspirations? Would they necessarily reject the MVC if they were ever offered a spot?

*What do NDSU, SDSU, UND, or USD bring to the MVC other than more mouths to feed? The MVC is one of the best non-BCS basketball conferences. I just don't see them adding two lower tier basketball members just to protect their name on a football conference.

*If protecting the football conference is so important, why didn't the A-10 do the same thing in this situation back when the CAA was adding members in 2005/2006?

The MVC is a financially viable, highly-ranked non-BCS basketball conference. FCS football doesn't really affect that reputation. The Summit League is a lower tier conference, but is tightening their footprint and is on the rise. FCS football would help their reputation. I'm not saying my scenario is imminent, and it is only my speculation. But if I were the Summit commissioner, I would be looking at a real possibility of sponsoring football. And that's based on something a lot stronger than a house of cards.

Starting to think you may have been ahead of the curve on this one. Looks like the Big Sky won't be inviting UND which means that they will have to beg and plead to get into the Summit/MVFC. If the Missouri State rumors are indeed true, the Summit taking over would go from no way to likely. It requires MSU to move (which I don't think will happen) but starting to see how it could happen.

MSU rumors are false, they've come out and said it.

Is UND officially out? If so it had mostly to do with them wanting to be 10/12 or 11/13 and having an outlier that was supposed to come w/ USD. If they Sky was at 9/11 or 11/13 right now w/o UND needing them to make things even. I bet they'd be in.

Quinn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am **Posts:** 3762

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

SJSUFan2010 wrote:

dafoeberezin3494 wrote:

Quinn wrote:

Here's something I wrote a long time ago that might be worth a look for ya:

The Summit League Football House of Cards
http://collegesportsinfo.com/2010/09/11 ... -of-cards/

Alright, a few things in response to your article:

*Since you wrote the article, Southern Utah has left the Summit for the Big Sky, tightening the conference footprint around the Midwest. No surprises there.

*You said that North Dakota and South Dakota would join the Big Sky in a heartbeat. Now the Big Sky is trying to renege on inviting North Dakota, and South Dakota GAVE UP a chance to join the Big Sky in order to go to the Summit/MVFC.

*You predicted that Sacramento State would join the Big West, which did not happen.

*Again, I'm not advocating for a new football conference, just that the Summit should consider taking over the MVFC, similar to the A10 football becoming CAA football a few years ago.

*What are Butler's higher aspirations? Would they necessarily reject the MVC if they were ever offered a spot?

*What do NDSU, SDSU, UND, or USD bring to the MVC other than more mouths to feed? The MVC is one of the best non-BCS basketball conferences. I just don't see them adding two lower tier basketball members just to protect their name on a football conference.

*If protecting the football conference is so important, why didn't the A-10 do the same thing in this situation back when the CAA was adding members in 2005/2006?

The MVC is a financially viable, highly-ranked non-BCS basketball conference. FCS football doesn't really affect that reputation. The Summit League is a lower tier conference, but is tightening their footprint and is on the rise. FCS football would help their reputation. I'm not saying my scenario is imminent, and it is only my speculation. But if I were the Summit commissioner, I would be looking at a real possibility of sponsoring football. And that's based on something a lot stronger than a house of cards.

Starting to think you may have been ahead of the curve on this one. Looks like the Big Sky won't be inviting UND which means that they will have to beg and plead to get into the Summit/MVFC. If the Missouri State rumors are indeed true, the Summit taking over would go from no way to likely. It requires MSU to move (which I don't think will happen) but starting to see how it could happen.

MSU rumors are false, they've come out and said it.

Is UND officially out? If so it had mostly to do with them wanting to be 10/12 or 11/13 and having an outlier that was supposed to come w/ USD. If they Sky was at 9/11 or 11/13 right now w/o UND needing them to make things even. I bet they'd be in.

Ha. Same basic points I made in the BSky thread: UND was supposed to come with USD...balance out travel and region. UND alone is expensive for everyone especially the western schools. 10/12 works better than 11/13.

mizzoufan1 · **Joined:** Sat Jun 21, 2008 11:51 am **Posts:** 97

This may be a bit of old news but wasn't UMKC supposed to add baseball for the 2012 season? I have checked around and they have not even hired a coach for baseball.
Also, the state of Missouri cut back a little bit education funding. Rumors a few years ago were that UMKC may have to downgrade back to D-II for athletic financial purposes due to the fact that the 'Roos have done ZIP as a D-1 school for nigh on to 20 years now. What does a UMKC removal from the Summit affect?

Driver 8 · **Joined:** Wed Sep 01, 2010 11:30 am **Posts:** 26

mizzoufan1 wrote:

This may be a bit of old news but wasn't UMKC supposed to add baseball for the 2012 season? I have checked around and they have not even hired a coach for baseball.
Also, the state of Missouri cut back a little bit education funding. Rumors a few years ago were that UMKC may have to downgrade back to D-II for athletic financial purposes due to the fact that the 'Roos have done ZIP as a D-1 school for nigh on to 20 years now. What does a UMKC removal from the Summit affect?

In my opinion, a UMKC downgrade changes nothing for the Summit in the short term. After all, if they truly aren't doing squat in D-I, how much can they missed? On the other hand, a UMKC downgrade could have a longer-term impact if it induces Oral Roberts to leave the conference for a more geographically friendly group like the Southland. Once Southern Utah leaves (and with Centennary gone), Oral Roberts will be the biggest "outlier" in the Summit (though admittedly it is probably easier to travel to Tulsa, Oklahoma than it is to the more "central" Western Illinois in Macomb). If UMKC leaves, Oral Roberts loses their closest neighbor in the Summit, which *might* be the tipping point to encourage them to look a new conference. Then, if that happens, things get interesting, because the Summit would be left with only eight members, and presumably USD and UNO would still be re-classifying, which I believe means they would have only six "active" D-I members, which is below the minimum of seven required. Granted, a lot hinges on exactly when these various actions occur, and I'll admit I'm not 100% sure what constitutes an "active" D-I member under the NCAA's rules (if someone understands this better, please feel free to enlighten me), but at the very least the Summit would be right at the edge of viability for a while.

Regards, Driver 8

wbyeager · **Posted:** Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:34 pm

South Dakota (and North Dakota) becomes a Division I member at the start of the 2012-13 academic year. Nebraska-Omaha (the first Division II upgrade after the moratorium) becomes a Division I member at the start of the 2015-16 academic year. Once a school completes its transitional status, it becomes an active member unless if subject to a penalty under APR.

So if UMKC and ORU left:

North Dakota State (Active)
South Dakota (2012)
South Dakota State (Active)
Nebraska-Omaha (2016)
Western Illinois (Active)
IUPUI (Active)
IPFW (Active)
Oakland, MI (Active)

By the time UMKC left, South Dakota will count as an active member.

If further losses happen, here is the glass to be broken in case of emergency:

Chicago State (Active) - forced to resign from the Summit when it was the Mid-Continent, still very much near the center of the conference footprint
UTPA (Active) - dismissed from the Sun Belt in 1998 for failure to maintain certification with the NCAA
Houston Baptist (2011) - completed reclassfication from NAIA, now an active member of Division I
UALR (Active) - content as a member of the Sun Belt, but literally the odd school out in an FBS conference; may be on Southland's radar as well, and doesn't make much sense without ORU and UMKC
North Dakota (2012) - still has nickname issue to resolve, and would need a place to park its football program
Utah Valley (Active) - would prefer the Big Sky or WAC
Longwood (Active) - would probably be happy to be in a conference not named the Great West
NJIT (Active) - would be happy to get out of the Great West
Eastern Illinois (Active) - probably content in the OVC, but I'm sure MVFC membership (perhaps alongside North Dakota?) might be the motivation they need to leave the geographically tight OVC

If UMKC and ORU leave, adding North Dakota also screws up travel pairings, as Nebraska-Omaha would likely get paired with Western Illinois.

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Fri Aug 05, 2011 5:40 pm

When the NCAA says 7 core members are needed to make up a conference it means that the school has been a full D-I member for 8 years. So UTPA and Chicago St. are core members. S.Dakota would be a core member in 2020. I'm not sure what you're asking, I'm guessing you're wondering what the status of the Summit would be if ORU and UMKC(I don't see them going anywhere) left.

Summit League Expansion

Who is online