Big Sky Loses Fighting Hawks to MVFC

89Hen · Post by **89Hen** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 12:40 pm

SuperHornet wrote:Lose?!? THis is more a case of "don't let the door hit you on the way out", and hopefully they take SUU with them....

Meanwhile the rest of the league is wishing SacSt would leave.

Wildcat Ryan · Post by **Wildcat Ryan** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:11 pm

89Hen wrote:
SuperHornet wrote:Lose?!? THis is more a case of "don't let the door hit you on the way out", and hopefully they take SUU with them....
Meanwhile the rest of the league is wishing SacSt would leave.

Except for the Weber fans on the Weber board who would rather have UNC get kicked out

Mvemjsunpx · Post by **Mvemjsunpx** » Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:54 pm

SuperHornet wrote:Lose?!? THis is more a case of "don't let the door hit you on the way out", and hopefully they take SUU with them....

What's wrong with SUU? They fit regionally, they have decent facilities, and they're a good travel partner for NAU—a much better one than Sac State was.

Wildcat Ryan · Post by **Wildcat Ryan** » Tue Jan 31, 2017 1:27 pm

Mvemjsunpx wrote:
SuperHornet wrote:Lose?!? THis is more a case of "don't let the door hit you on the way out", and hopefully they take SUU with them....
What's wrong with SUU? They fit regionally, they have decent facilities, and they're a good travel partner for NAU—a much better one than Sac State was.

The Weber/ISU series isn't the rivalry it used to be (heck even Kramer says it's not a rivalry game) So it's nice to have the Thunderbirds in the Sky and a real meaningful rivalry again.

The Beehive Bowl

UCD_MOO_COW · Post by **UCD_MOO_COW** » Thu Feb 02, 2017 10:20 am

Ultimately the trips all the way to Grand Forks for the western teams will not be missed. I'm probably moving to ND so while I will miss seeing my team play, I'd be a lot happier with a CA/AZ/Mountain conference.

Post by **SeattleGriz** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 7:38 pm

Did we really lose them, or did we foster their growth.

I think you know the answer.

I am giddy.

Gil Dobie · Post by **Gil Dobie** » Mon Feb 13, 2017 5:38 am

SeattleGriz wrote:Did we really lose them, or did we foster their growth.

I think you know the answer.

I am giddy.

Dear Giddy,

Your gain is the MVFC loss.

Signed Dismayed

Post by **SDHornet** » Mon Feb 13, 2017 8:44 am

Mvemjsunpx wrote:This became inevitable after the nickname issue was resolved & the football cold war with NDSU ended. Geographically speaking, the four Dakotas fit much better in the Summit/MVFC than the Big Sky.

Nothing really needs to change for football, but I do wonder if the Big Sky will look to add a basketball-only member to replace UND (Utah Valley? CSU-Bakersfield?). Scheduling with an even number of teams is so much easier and equitable than having an odd number.

Those schools have sports offerings that better align with the WAC (mens soccer & baseball). I don't think any of them move to the BSC...also the WAC is adding Cal Baptist so they are on more stable ground and ready to absolve Chi State's demise. NMSU is likely the only possible BSC addition if they try to hang onto FB once their FBS Indy situation finally implodes. But if they drop FB altogether they will have better MBB options than the BSC.

The BSC going back to an unbalance travel situation will really suck...especially for UNC since they are the ones losing their travel partner. Curious to see if they go a 3 team rotation with SUU/NAU or just do the lone wolf thing again. Either way I'm just glad Sac won't get screwed being the odd man out in the travel situation this time around.

Post by **SDHornet** » Mon Feb 13, 2017 8:48 am

89Hen wrote:
SuperHornet wrote:Lose?!? THis is more a case of "don't let the door hit you on the way out", and hopefully they take SUU with them....
Meanwhile the rest of the league is wishing SacSt would leave.

Sac State wishes it also.

SuperHornet · Post by **SuperHornet** » Mon Feb 13, 2017 10:52 am

SDHornet wrote:
89Hen wrote: Meanwhile the rest of the league is wishing SacSt would leave.
Sac State wishes it also.

Not everyone at Sac State....

Post by **SDHornet** » Mon Feb 13, 2017 1:04 pm

SuperHornet wrote:
SDHornet wrote: Sac State wishes it also.
Not everyone at Sac State....

WAC or BWC saves us bundles of money on travel. That alone should be reason enough to pursue a BSC exit...that is assuming FB can stay BSC.

Wildcat Ryan · Post by **Wildcat Ryan** » Tue Feb 14, 2017 6:27 am

SDHornet wrote:
SuperHornet wrote:
Not everyone at Sac State....
WAC or BWC saves us bundles of money on travel. That alone should be reason enough to pursue a BSC exit...that is assuming FB can stay BSC.

I doubt the Big Sky would allow that, plus there are a few Big Sky schools (UM, Weber) that recruit the state of California pretty heavily in basketball and would hate to lose that trip and possible recruiting tool.

Sac is not short of fans, their game against Weber showed that, they just need to build themselves a new arena. It doesn't have to be super large but similar to what Portland is doing.

SuperHornet · Post by **SuperHornet** » Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:20 am

I'll admit that BWC would be better than WAC in terms of travel...AND in terms of schools with legit I-AAA credentials...with the exception of UC Riverside, of course. The WAC is full of wannabes from the SLC (the LESSER parts of the old SLC, BTW) and is almost as bad as the Sun Belt in terms of travel....

Mvemjsunpx · Post by **Mvemjsunpx** » Tue Feb 14, 2017 7:35 pm

SDHornet wrote:
SuperHornet wrote:
Not everyone at Sac State....
WAC or BWC saves us bundles of money on travel. That alone should be reason enough to pursue a BSC exit...that is assuming FB can stay BSC.

The Big West should save travel money, but that's mitigated somewhat by the Hawai'i trip.

How does the WAC save travel money? The WAC stretches all the way to Chicago & southern Texas.

Post by **SDHornet** » Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:12 pm

Mvemjsunpx wrote:
SDHornet wrote: WAC or BWC saves us bundles of money on travel. That alone should be reason enough to pursue a BSC exit...that is assuming FB can stay BSC.
The Big West should save travel money, but that's mitigated somewhat by the Hawai'i trip.

How does the WAC save travel money? The WAC stretches all the way to Chicago & southern Texas.

The Hawaii trip is over estimated. Besides an annual trip for M&W hoops, everything else is every other year. And the meet sports probably only take the occasional trip to the Islands...if ever.

WAC now has 4 members in the Pac time zone, and another in UT. I guarantee you a flight to Chicago or El Paso (NMSU) is far cheaper than getting to some of the remote places in the BSC. Granted with UND gone, the largest outlier and travel expense goes with them so the gap is not as large as it was.

From a Sac perspective:
Bako - Bus trip vs 0 bus trips in the BSC, in-state rival (something we'll never have in the BSC)
Seattle/UVU - Short cheap flights between SLC-Seatac
Cal Baptist/Grand Canyon - Short cheap flights in and out of PHX/Ontario with a 5 hr bus trip in between
UMKC/Chi State - Flights in and out of major hubs (Chi State's D1 days are numbered)
NMSU/UTRGV - UTRGV would be the "worst" leg of them all, however its still accessible via 2 International airports (HRL has 4 main carriers connecting through Houston) and plenty of options to El Paso.

Going in and out of International airports means more flight carrier options, more varying time availability, more direct flights, and more capacity; thus reduced costs.

Post by **SDHornet** » Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:15 pm

Wildcat Ryan wrote:
SDHornet wrote: WAC or BWC saves us bundles of money on travel. That alone should be reason enough to pursue a BSC exit...that is assuming FB can stay BSC.

I doubt the Big Sky would allow that, plus there are a few Big Sky schools (UM, Weber) that recruit the state of California pretty heavily in basketball and would hate to lose that trip and possible recruiting tool.

Sac is not short of fans, their game against Weber showed that, they just need to build themselves a new arena. It doesn't have to be super large but similar to what Portland is doing.

Nothing against what PSU is doing, but anything smaller than 5k is a total waste IMO. The events center will need to serve the campus at large so it needs to be sized accordingly.

Wildcat Ryan · Post by **Wildcat Ryan** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:36 am

SDHornet wrote:
Wildcat Ryan wrote:

I doubt the Big Sky would allow that, plus there are a few Big Sky schools (UM, Weber) that recruit the state of California pretty heavily in basketball and would hate to lose that trip and possible recruiting tool.

Sac is not short of fans, their game against Weber showed that, they just need to build themselves a new arena. It doesn't have to be super large but similar to what Portland is doing.
Nothing against what PSU is doing, but anything smaller than 5k is a total waste IMO. The events center will need to serve the campus at large so it needs to be sized accordingly.

I do agree there, I think an arena like the Centrum at SUU would be a perfect fit for teams like Sac and ISU. The Centrum seats around 5,500 and I've been in it when it was full and the place can get very loud. I know ISU is trying to get funding for a new arena and they sorely need it so I hope it eventually goes through.

Post by **SDHornet** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:56 pm

Wildcat Ryan wrote:
SDHornet wrote: Nothing against what PSU is doing, but anything smaller than 5k is a total waste IMO. The events center will need to serve the campus at large so it needs to be sized accordingly.

I do agree there, I think an arena like the Centrum at SUU would be a perfect fit for teams like Sac and ISU. The Centrum seats around 5,500 and I've been in it when it was full and the place can get very loud. I know ISU is trying to get funding for a new arena and they sorely need it so I hope it eventually goes through.

One of the main drivers for us is to get graduation back on campus. Anything less than 5 won't meet that need. I'd like to see it somewhere between 5k and 8k. I don't think we will have a need for anything larger with the Golden 1 Center just a few minutes down the road.

houndawg · Post by **houndawg** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:28 am

clenz wrote:**** this move.

It completely **** scheduling in the MVFC.

**** this bullshit.

This.

Scheduling. Travel. No natural rivalries. There has to be someone closer by.

SuperHornet · Post by **SuperHornet** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:11 pm

houndawg wrote:
clenz wrote:**** this move.

It completely **** scheduling in the MVFC.

**** this bullshit.
This.

Scheduling. Travel. No natural rivalries. There has to be someone closer by.

No "natural rivalries" for the Sioux in the MVFC? Say what? There were no natural rivalries for them in the Big Sky, but now they get NDSU back. Are they not a "natural rival?" And USD/SDSU as well....

houndawg · Post by **houndawg** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 6:23 pm

SuperHornet wrote:
houndawg wrote:
This.

Scheduling. Travel. No natural rivalries. There has to be someone closer by.
No "natural rivalries" for the Sioux in the MVFC? Say what? There were no natural rivalries for them in the Big Sky, but now they get NDSU back. Are they not a "natural rival?" And USD/SDSU as well....

the Dakota schools have their rivalries of course, but with the rest of the MVC it isn't a natural fit from a fan's POV.

Wildcat Ryan · Post by **Wildcat Ryan** » Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:44 am

houndawg wrote:
SuperHornet wrote:
No "natural rivalries" for the Sioux in the MVFC? Say what? There were no natural rivalries for them in the Big Sky, but now they get NDSU back. Are they not a "natural rival?" And USD/SDSU as well....
the Dakota schools have their rivalries of course, but with the rest of the MVC it isn't a natural fit from a fan's POV.

Unfortunately a fan's pov means absolutely nothing in the grand views and schemes of NCAA sports affiliations.

SUUTbird · Post by **SUUTbird** » Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:13 am

SuperHornet wrote:Lose?!? THis is more a case of "don't let the door hit you on the way out", and hopefully they take SUU with them....

Nice to see you still are butt hurt that SUU has done well since joining the conference and dominated your Hornets.

This move makes sense for North Dakota however it does make me a little annoyed that once they leave we will be back to the 13 team conference and the scheduling shenanigans that come along with it. Any chance we drop another team or add another before Dakota leaves?

Post by **clenz** » Wed Apr 05, 2017 10:47 am

SUUTbird wrote:
SuperHornet wrote:Lose?!? THis is more a case of "don't let the door hit you on the way out", and hopefully they take SUU with them....
Nice to see you still are butt hurt that SUU has done well since joining the conference and dominated your Hornets.

This move makes sense for North Dakota however it does make me a little annoyed that once they leave we will be back to the 13 team conference and the scheduling shenanigans that come along with it. Any chance we drop another team or add another before Dakota leaves?

What's the difference in 14 team shenanigans and 13 team shenanigans?

Mvemjsunpx · Post by **Mvemjsunpx** » Wed Apr 05, 2017 11:04 am

clenz wrote:
SUUTbird wrote:
Nice to see you still are butt hurt that SUU has done well since joining the conference and dominated your Hornets.

This move makes sense for North Dakota however it does make me a little annoyed that once they leave we will be back to the 13 team conference and the scheduling shenanigans that come along with it. Any chance we drop another team or add another before Dakota leaves?
What's the difference in 14 team shenanigans and 13 team shenanigans?

There isn't really one. The odd/even thing only matters for basketball.

Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Big Sky Loses Fighting Hawks to MVFC

Re: Big Sky Loses Fighting Hawks to MVFC

Re: Big Sky Loses Fighting Hawks to MVFC

Re: Big Sky Loses Fighting Hawks to MVFC

Re: Big Sky Loses Fighting Hawks to MVFC

Re: Big Sky Loses Fighting Hawks to MVFC

Re: Big Sky Loses Fighting Hawks to MVFC

Re: Big Sky Loses Fighting Hawks to MVFC

Re: Big Sky Loses Fighting Hawks to MVFC

Re: Big Sky Loses Fighting Hawks to MVFC

Re: Big Sky Loses Fighting Hawks to MVFC

Re: Big Sky Loses Fighting Hawks to MVFC

Re: Big Sky Loses Fighting Hawks to MVFC

Re: Big Sky Loses Fighting Hawks to MVFC

Re: Big Sky Loses Fighting Hawks to MVFC

Re: Big Sky Loses Fighting Hawks to MVFC

Re: Big Sky Loses Fighting Hawks to MVFC

Re: Big Sky Loses Fighting Hawks to MVFC

Re: Big Sky Loses Fighting Hawks to MVFC

Re: Big Sky Loses Fighting Hawks to MVFC

Re: Big Sky Loses Fighting Hawks to MVFC

Re: Big Sky Loses Fighting Hawks to MVFC

Re: Big Sky Loses Fighting Hawks to MVFC

Re: Big Sky Loses Fighting Hawks to MVFC

Re: Big Sky Loses Fighting Hawks to MVFC

Re: Big Sky Loses Fighting Hawks to MVFC