Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Who replaces North Dakota in BIG SKY in 2019?
Author Message
SDHornet Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 186
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 2
I Root For: Sac State
Location:
Post: #271
RE: Who replaces North Dakota in BIG SKY in 2019?
(07-19-2017 12:53 PM)jacksfan29 Wrote:  
(07-19-2017 01:05 AM)NoDak Wrote:  
(07-18-2017 10:20 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  The scholarship/minimum sport sponsorship levels is another point that NoDak's WAC/BSC/Summit/Who'snext FBS pipe dream completely overlooks. Most BSC schools sponsor the bare minimum at FCS so it would take significant increases in funding for scholarships, operating budgets for new sports, and facilities for those new sports.

UND had more than 200 schollies, but may not now after cutting women's hockey and M&W swimming. Every school that went FBS in the last 30 years has had issues where posters such as these said it couldn't be done. Sometimes scholarship numbers, sometimes facilities, sometimes fielding more women's teams, but the schools who didn't succeed in transitioning to FBS can be counted on one hand and maybe one finger - FAMU. Presidents normally don't tread on new or expanded athletic programs unless they have an assured funding source - which is often private. Montana has relied on the Washington's for millions in fb facility improvements, much of which generates revenue.

UND expected to pay $730k for FCOA in 2016-17, and it costs $3400 each for each FCOA on a full load scholarship, which means almost 215 scholarships were given out. Reduce the number by about 30 for the cuts, and UND would be above 200 again for FBS.

In the BSC Sac State also had over 200 as did South Dakota State in the Summit/MVFC. Neither are going FBS anytime soon.

Oh, and I don't know about Sac State but SDSU hasn't had to cut any sports, eliminate programs, cut scholarships, nor did we recently agree to pay our Men's BB coach a paltry sum of $140K annually. You seem to be missing the fact that your school, who you say is going FBS just went through a painful budget cutting process which according to recent reports, the cuts may not yet be finished.

A few years back we added Beach VB (not much of an investment needed) and our budget is now north of $25M. Currently there is no talk of cutting sports.
07-20-2017 10:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SDHornet Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 186
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 2
I Root For: Sac State
Location:
Post: #272
RE: Who replaces North Dakota in BIG SKY in 2019?
(07-20-2017 10:42 AM)SactoHornetAlum Wrote:  
(07-20-2017 10:29 AM)NoDak Wrote:  
(07-20-2017 10:20 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  If playing at the Timbers stadium isn't workable, then PSU needs to drop football.

The women's pro team, the Thorns, has priority scheduling so the Vikings-Griz game was sent to a Hillsboro HS stadium.

This is why Sac State will never move their games off-campus if the proposed MLS stadium gets built (and expansion franchise is awarded to the Sac Republic). I know there are some folks who would like to see us at that proposed venue, but the example above with PSU is alarm bells going off!

We only need to move one: Causeway. Much like moving the hardwood version to Golden1, having it in the new MLS stadium will make it an even bigger event. No other matchup can get the new MLS stadium anywhere near full.
07-20-2017 11:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,031
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 39
I Root For: tOSU SJSU
Location:
Post: #273
RE: Who replaces North Dakota in BIG SKY in 2019?
(07-16-2017 08:12 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Only one conference at the D1 level played a 20 game conference schedule last season and they are switching to an 18 game season:

http://blog.timesunion.com/collegesports...ule/22227/

Playing 20 conference games is a bad idea. The Sun Belt played a 20
game conference schedule until recently and it was not working. Playing more games against mediocre conference competition was not
helping the conference RPI. The non-conference wins help, especially against decent competition. There were also times when schools were playing five conference games in ten days.

But moreover, once the league decided to invite all teams to the post-season tournament, there was no point in a 20 game regular season schedule. The Conference RPI ranking improved from 17th to 13th in the first year of the 18 game schedule and hopefully the improvements will continue.

Last year the Big Sky RPI was 28th. You are not protecting anything. And the Big Sky simply cannot schedule high end opponents, nor do they win when they do. Different circumstances.

As for the SBC, that one year jump is mostly due to Texas Arlington's excellent performance, nothing more. Actually 11th to 19th is covered by just .0206, which is nothing. None of those conferences got a 2nd bid, nor did the ones a couple higher up the list. If UTA had not turned in a 40 instead of say 100, the SBC would have been 19th. On the flip side ULM and App St turned in 294 and 295 (yikes!). The jump is statistically meaningless. "Hoping it continues to improve" can be put in the category of "I wish I had a million dollars in cash." There is a big gap to the multi-bid conferences, and that requires two schools with top 50 RPI.

20 games makes sense for a major conference with a scaled TV contract (e.g., Big East, ACC, some others), which have higher RPI. It can aslo make sense for lower mid majors who need the revenue from an extra home game or who have issue with cohesion. The Big Sky has concerns about both of those things.

The SBC situation is different, and as you point out they added a round to the Conference Tournament, thus offsetting the loss of a home game. Also the SBC went from 11 schools to 12 with CCU joining; so 20 no longer worked as a full double round robin, so didn't make sense anymore.

Note: Fitting 20 games into the traditional January 2nd to March 6th time frame can be difficult as that is exact;y 10 weeks. An 18 game schedule allows two "bye" dates. But usually it's possible to schedule an extra game on the first Tuesday after January 1st, also on MLK day (Monday) and during the President's day Week (school break). But it takes some work from the league office to avoid those 5 in 10 days you mentioned. (Such things always seem to happen with Karl Benson leagues). So it's a challenge to do it well, and takes some effort and planning. (Note AD's are not passive in scheduling, it is their job to fit the dates for their school; so much blame belongs there)

Note: The Big Sky invites all schools to it's tournament, so this is not part of the equation. (Last year 11 participated as Northern Colorado had a school-imposed postseason ban on the program for 2016-17 for NCAA violations under B.J. Hill.)

Not every conference does it makes sense. For a 28th in RPI conference with 11 schools, concerned about reestablishing rivalries and cohesion, as well as needing a 10th home game (gate more important than $0 TV deal), it probably makes sense. For a conference that is chasing a 2nd at-large and where 20 fails to add big TV money (unlike say the B1G, ACC or Big East) or make a full round robin, it doesn't make sense. Depends on the situation.
(This post was last modified: 07-24-2017 01:07 AM by Stugray2.)
07-23-2017 08:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 927
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 17
I Root For: Texas State
Location:
Post: #274
RE: Who replaces North Dakota in BIG SKY in 2019?
Stu, as usual you are wrong. The Sun Belt's improvement was not about UTA. Arkansas Little Rock had an RPI of 42 in 2015-2016, won the conference tournament and beat Purdue in the tournament. UTA had an RPI of 40, lost to Texas State in the tournament, then lost to Cal State Bakersfield at home in the NIT. In fact, UTA list twice to Texas State last season. UTA was not the reason the Sun Belt was better last season. In 2015-2016, four teams in the Sun Belt had an RPI of 175 or better. In 2016-2017, eight teams had an RPI of 175 or better. The conference was better with an 18 game schedule.

Last season Sac State played an 18 game schedule, plus two conference tournament games, plus three home games against D2 opponents. That is 20 conference games plus three D2 games that do nothing for the RPI. Adding an extra conference home game does nothing for their revenue. They play in front of 1,000 or fewer fans in their gym. Adding two extra conference games will do nothing for their RPI.

No one in D1 is playing a 20 game conference schedule this season. I seriously doubt that the Big Sky is going to move to a 20 game schedule, but you can keep making the argument.

SDHornet, you guys need to build that much talked about events center and move to the WAC or the Big West. The Big Sky is a good football conference, but they barely care about Olympic sports. They are one of the worst basketball conferences in D1 and they don't play baseball or men's soccer. Sac State can do better for Olympic sports.
07-24-2017 12:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SDHornet Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 186
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 2
I Root For: Sac State
Location:
Post: #275
RE: Who replaces North Dakota in BIG SKY in 2019?
(07-24-2017 12:16 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  SDHornet, you guys need to build that much talked about events center and move to the WAC or the Big West. The Big Sky is a good football conference, but they barely care about Olympic sports. They are one of the worst basketball conferences in D1 and they don't play baseball or men's soccer. Sac State can do better for Olympic sports.

I think we break ground on the events center in the next few years. Lots of excavators moving around campus these days.

One of those D2 games was an exhibition which doesn't affect RPI. And agree with you about a move, it won't happen but I would love to see our Olys put in a more sensible conference. However given out situation, men's soccer is in a great spot (BW membership) and WAC baseball ain't all that bad (WAC will be much better RPI-wise with UND now gone and when Chi State leaves). We do need to leverage Golden1 more to get a better MBB schedule though.
07-24-2017 12:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,031
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 39
I Root For: tOSU SJSU
Location:
Post: #276
RE: Who replaces North Dakota in BIG SKY in 2019?
The ACC is about to go to 20 with thier ESPN deal

The SBC performance is a fluke one off. Take UTA out of the picture and they drop to 20th. They are not a multi bid conference. But this is neither here nor there, we need 4 or 5 years of data to make a definitive statement.

Keep in mind Bobcat, the difference between 11 and 20 is minuscule. It is easy to finish anywhere in that range on any given year. They are all between .5000 and .4800, while you need above .5200 for a 2nd bid. The difference we are talking about is "noise" not pattern. The SBC suddenly did not get a bunch of NBA prospects or a bunch of future Major 6 coaches (counting Big East here). If the SBC passes say the Mountain West, WCC or A10, then you have something. But if it stays in that .4800 to .5000 band, it's noise nothing more.
07-24-2017 01:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.