Would the conference ever consider moving to the northern states to pull in schools? UNI/NDSU/SDSU?

With addition of Idaho this would allow for a setup similar to the MAC (but with arguably better football).

The schools could be football only (NDSU/SDSU in summit and UNI in mvc)

(03-26-2013 06:11 PM)drewaely Wrote:  Would the conference ever consider moving to the northern states to pull in schools? UNI/NDSU/SDSU?

With addition of Idaho this would allow for a setup similar to the MAC (but with arguably better football).

The schools could be football only (NDSU/SDSU in summit and UNI in mvc)

How in the world does your geography work that you think adding NDSU/SDSU would make for a setup like the MAC??? You realize that you are talking to a conference that is mainly located in the Southeast part of the US right???

(03-26-2013 06:11 PM)drewaely Wrote:  Would the conference ever consider moving to the northern states to pull in schools? UNI/NDSU/SDSU?

With addition of Idaho this would allow for a setup similar to the MAC (but with arguably better football).

The schools could be football only (NDSU/SDSU in summit and UNI in mvc)

I'd gladly welcome UNI/NDSU/SDSU and anyone else if it keeps me out of the division that has to travel to Moscow, ID.

(03-26-2013 06:13 PM)Usajags Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 06:11 PM)drewaely Wrote:  Would the conference ever consider moving to the northern states to pull in schools? UNI/NDSU/SDSU?

With addition of Idaho this would allow for a setup similar to the MAC (but with arguably better football).

The schools could be football only (NDSU/SDSU in summit and UNI in mvc)

How in the world does your geography work that you think adding NDSU/SDSU would make for a setup like the MAC??? You realize that you are talking to a conference that is mainly located in the Southeast part of the US right???

Similar in that it could have divisions. I am aware of the location of the schools in the sunbelt. I was thinking of growing north to have snowbelt and sunbelt

(03-26-2013 06:14 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  I'd gladly welcome UNI/NDSU/SDSU and anyone else if it keeps me out of the division that has to travel to Moscow, ID.

Yeah, Troy dodged a bullet on that one.

I say 10 for FBS football but that's a dead horse now. I d0think smaller is wiser than larger so 12 makes the mose sense. We're going to want an all sports member to replace Western Kentucky or have NMSU join for all sports and add one FBS only member IMO.

UNI is a "never add" in my book as is Delaware because they'd leave the second they transitioned and were no longer destroying the conference rpi adjusting to FBS. I have the same fear regarding the Dakota schools. If they're going to end up in the MAC, I'd assume let the MAC bring them up.

NDSU and UNI play in unexpandable or hard to expand domes which aren't FBS facilities either. (correct me if Im wrong)

I'd love to see you guys get your shot at FBS, but it would have to be something that works for us.

But hey, we let in Idaho for no reason, right?

(03-26-2013 06:19 PM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  I say 10 for FBS football but that's a dead horse now. I d0think smaller is wiser than larger so 12 makes the mose sense. We're going to want an all sports member to replace Western Kentucky or have NMSU join for all sports and add one FBS only member IMO.

UNI is a "never add" in my book as is Delaware because they'd leave the second they transitioned and were no longer destroying the conference rpi adjusting to FBS. I have the same fear regarding the Dakota schools. If they're going to end up in the MAC, I'd assume let the MAC bring them up.

NDSU and UNI play in unexpandable or hard to expand domes which aren't FBS facilities either. (correct me if Im wrong)

I'd love to see you guys get your shot at FBS, but it would have to be something that works for us.

But hey, we let in Idaho for no reason, right?

Regarding ndsu. Football stadium hold 19000+ (sells out every game). I don't think that the Mac would come calling because of the location. I really believe that the only way ndsu/SDSU ever goes FBS is through a conference like this. If a few northern schools could band together there could be a pretty good northern division (ndsu/SDSU/Montana/Montana st/Idaho/UNI/und would all be options)

(03-26-2013 06:31 PM)drewaely Wrote:  If a few northern schools could band together there could be a pretty good northern division (ndsu/SDSU/Montana/Montana st/Idaho/UNI/und would all be options)

I'd be very happy to issue invites to
NDSU
SDSU
Montana
Montana State
UNI
UND

to join with Idaho and NMSU for 8 teams and then you can immediately join the WAC after transition.

If it keeps me from having to travel to Moscow, ID

I'd be open to the idea if a number of schools leave and Texas State could join the southern division. There's a lot to be said about adding a quality football program that fills its stands instead of one that doesn't have the money or infrastructure to support a move (Southland schools)

(03-26-2013 06:31 PM)drewaely Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 06:19 PM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  I say 10 for FBS football but that's a dead horse now. I d0think smaller is wiser than larger so 12 makes the mose sense. We're going to want an all sports member to replace Western Kentucky or have NMSU join for all sports and add one FBS only member IMO.

UNI is a "never add" in my book as is Delaware because they'd leave the second they transitioned and were no longer destroying the conference rpi adjusting to FBS. I have the same fear regarding the Dakota schools. If they're going to end up in the MAC, I'd assume let the MAC bring them up.

NDSU and UNI play in unexpandable or hard to expand domes which aren't FBS facilities either. (correct me if Im wrong)

I'd love to see you guys get your shot at FBS, but it would have to be something that works for us.

But hey, we let in Idaho for no reason, right?

Regarding ndsu. Football stadium hold 19000+ (sells out every game). I don't think that the Mac would come calling because of the location. I really believe that the only way ndsu/SDSU ever goes FBS is through a conference like this. If a few northern schools could band together there could be a pretty good northern division (ndsu/SDSU/Montana/Montana st/Idaho/UNI/und would all be options)

I disagree. NDSU would be a good fit in the MAC. That's who they need to appeal to.

Idaho is not going to be permanent, of that I'm certain. They will improve their facilities, learn to compete, and get into the MWC in the next decade. Or they will realize their future is in FCS and put football back in the Big Sky. But the SBC is a place between, not the final destination.

My thoughts on "numbers"

8 minimum for NCAA FBS conferences. Produces unbalanced schedule.

9 produces a balanced schedule but requires someone always has an open date. Real hassle in basketball because someone is always missing a profitable Saturday date. Produces nice 16 game hoops schedule despite the missed dates. Makes season a week longer in hoops to deal with skipped dates.

10 produces balanced schedule if you skip one opponent each year. No mandatory open dates, nice 18 game hoops schedule that can be played in same time as a 16 game schedule for a 9 team league.

11. Just a mess

12. Allows for divisions. In football you can do an 8 game schedule with ease, 5 divisional games 3 crossover. Play everyone in football at home as quickly as four years. Basketball easily can play 16 game schedule (divisional) or as few as 14 (tri-divisional).

13. Nightmare for football, on an 8 game schedule the 7 team division ends up skipping some divisional opponents and requires annual waiver from NCAA to hold title game (see MAC). Messy for basketball.

14. Really messier than it appears on first glance. Choice one no open dates so every week someone plays a crossover game gives you the mess of divisional title coming down to a crossover game on the last Saturday of the season. In basketball you have that mess as well having to choose between open dates or crossover games. Can be up to 7 or 8 years before a cross-division opponent comes to your place in football. Basketball you choose between a 19 game schedule (division twice crossover once) or 20 (play one crossover twice) or scrap divisions and play 14 (everyone once, one twice) or 16 (everyone once, three twice).

15. Mess for football. Does lend itself to tri-divisions for hoops (8 games in division, 10 crossover) but open dates and last day of season crossover are part of the deal.

16. Works pretty well for football 7 divisional games with one crossover no mandatory open dates or late season crossover. Only see crossovers in football once every 16 years, if you don't care about those other guys, works well! Basketball has some flexibility. Play everyone once and one twice for 16 games or everyone once and three twice for 18 or everyone once and five twice for 20. Or you can play 14 divisional home/home plus however many crossover you want.

17. Too much to think about.

18. Totally self-contained in football on an 8 game schedule. Have mandatory open dates. Can be self-contained in basketball for 16 games or two or four crossover in hoops for 18 or 20. Can play everyone once for 17 and one twice for 18. Open dates mandatory unless playing crossover in basketball.

If I'm a commissioner and want the least amount of hassle from coaches, ADs, and fans then I want either 9, 10, 12, or 16.

(03-26-2013 07:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  My thoughts on "numbers"

8 minimum for NCAA FBS conferences. Produces unbalanced schedule.

9 produces a balanced schedule but requires someone always has an open date. Real hassle in basketball because someone is always missing a profitable Saturday date. Produces nice 16 game hoops schedule despite the missed dates. Makes season a week longer in hoops to deal with skipped dates.

10 produces balanced schedule if you skip one opponent each year. No mandatory open dates, nice 18 game hoops schedule that can be played in same time as a 16 game schedule for a 9 team league.

11. Just a mess

12. Allows for divisions. In football you can do an 8 game schedule with ease, 5 divisional games 3 crossover. Play everyone in football at home as quickly as four years. Basketball easily can play 16 game schedule (divisional) or as few as 14 (tri-divisional).

13. Nightmare for football, on an 8 game schedule the 7 team division ends up skipping some divisional opponents and requires annual waiver from NCAA to hold title game (see MAC). Messy for basketball.

14. Really messier than it appears on first glance. Choice one no open dates so every week someone plays a crossover game gives you the mess of divisional title coming down to a crossover game on the last Saturday of the season. In basketball you have that mess as well having to choose between open dates or crossover games. Can be up to 7 or 8 years before a cross-division opponent comes to your place in football. Basketball you choose between a 19 game schedule (division twice crossover once) or 20 (play one crossover twice) or scrap divisions and play 14 (everyone once, one twice) or 16 (everyone once, three twice).

15. Mess for football. Does lend itself to tri-divisions for hoops (8 games in division, 10 crossover) but open dates and last day of season crossover are part of the deal.

16. Works pretty well for football 7 divisional games with one crossover no mandatory open dates or late season crossover. Only see crossovers in football once every 16 years, if you don't care about those other guys, works well! Basketball has some flexibility. Play everyone once and one twice for 16 games or everyone once and three twice for 18 or everyone once and five twice for 20. Or you can play 14 divisional home/home plus however many crossover you want.

17. Too much to think about.

18. Totally self-contained in football on an 8 game schedule. Have mandatory open dates. Can be self-contained in basketball for 16 games or two or four crossover in hoops for 18 or 20. Can play everyone once for 17 and one twice for 18. Open dates mandatory unless playing crossover in basketball.

If I'm a commissioner and want the least amount of hassle from coaches, ADs, and fans then I want either 9, 10, 12, or 16.

Sixteen would work with 4 four team divisions with a nine game conference schedule. Each team could have a 3 game divisional schedule, with three permanent non divisional conference games with one team from each of the other three divisions, and three home & home rotational games with with one team from each of the other three divisions, The three non divisional rotational games would be on a six year cycle. Sounds confusing but it's really not.
The conference championship could be determined based on the two teams from separate conferences with the best in conference record, and if a tie breaker is needed then to include ooc record as well.