(09-20-2017 02:19 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 05:58 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(09-16-2017 01:40 PM)bluesox Wrote:  They should partner with umsl and join the summit

UMSL has a piss-poor athletic department and is just a commuter school in a not-great part of North St. Louis County, they have no business being D1. If they had invested properly upon its foundation in 1963 when North County was a thriving post-WWII suburb they could be in the MAC today by carving out a niche from Mizzou's fan base in St. Louis like Toledo has done against OSU. Instead, they did nothing and they've got very little going for them today.

I think Lindenwood have overtaken them in all counts. If they do go to D1? Why not hit it out of the ball park to go FBS and used the old Rams' stadium?

Because the former Edward Jones Dome is not available.

(09-20-2017 07:40 PM)msu_bears Wrote:  UMKC should be D2 in the MIAA. NW Missouri State, Pitt State, and University of Central Missouri are nearby schools D2 schools that generate far more buzz in KC with their sports. On any given day in KC you will see more people wearing gear from those schools than UMKC. Honestly, I live downtown KC and have never meet a UMKC fan but I do know people that would go to a NW Mo state football game. Just in a couple weeks Central Missouri and NW Missouri are playing a football game at Arrowhead Stadium. Those schools deserve to be D1 over UMKC honestly.

The city doesn't need or have room for another college sports fanbase. Most people cheer for KU or Mizzou based on which side of the state line they grew up in, or which college their parents went to. Then you get a bunch of K-state, Wichita St, Nebraska, Missouri State, Iowa, Iowa St, etc fans in the area as the alumni from those schools move to KC for jobs.

If UMKC drops to DII, which would not be a bad move for them IMO, then they should join the GLVC conference, not the MIAA. The MIAA is a DII football conference, and the schools you mentioned are football schools. UMKC is definitely not a football schools. And it is very similar, institutionally, to UMSL, which is in the GLVC.

Umkc has one of the best basketball arena in the country in a town that loves basketball. They need to join the summit or mvc if possible and hire a good coach.

(09-20-2017 03:46 PM)NoDak Wrote:  When UMKC doesn't go the the Summit, your reaction will be interesting. No schools are interested in a four Dakota Summit except the Montanas and Idaho, and that still hasn't sunk in, and it probably won't until it happens

Well, of all the schools in Division I not in the Summit, UMKC would probably be the most willing to trade their current travel (Seattle, Utah, Bakersfield, Phoenix, Las Cruces, Rio Grande Valley plus Chicago) for Summit travel (Denver, Dakota x 4, Omaha, Tulsa, Macomb, Fort Wayne.) On the other hand, all of that was true when UMKC dumped the Summit for the WAC.

And we're still waiting for any evidence, at all, that the Great Northern Conference is anything but a message board topic.

(09-21-2017 03:31 AM)lew240z Wrote:  

(09-20-2017 02:19 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 05:58 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(09-16-2017 01:40 PM)bluesox Wrote:  They should partner with umsl and join the summit

UMSL has a piss-poor athletic department and is just a commuter school in a not-great part of North St. Louis County, they have no business being D1. If they had invested properly upon its foundation in 1963 when North County was a thriving post-WWII suburb they could be in the MAC today by carving out a niche from Mizzou's fan base in St. Louis like Toledo has done against OSU. Instead, they did nothing and they've got very little going for them today.

I think Lindenwood have overtaken them in all counts. If they do go to D1? Why not hit it out of the ball park to go FBS and used the old Rams' stadium?

Because the former Edward Jones Dome is not available.

It's available for football and events.

(09-21-2017 09:36 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-20-2017 03:46 PM)NoDak Wrote:  When UMKC doesn't go the the Summit, your reaction will be interesting. No schools are interested in a four Dakota Summit except the Montanas and Idaho, and that still hasn't sunk in, and it probably won't until it happens

Well, of all the schools in Division I not in the Summit, UMKC would probably be the most willing to trade their current travel (Seattle, Utah, Bakersfield, Phoenix, Las Cruces, Rio Grande Valley plus Chicago) for Summit travel (Denver, Dakota x 4, Omaha, Tulsa, Macomb, Fort Wayne.) On the other hand, all of that was true when UMKC dumped the Summit for the WAC.

And we're still waiting for any evidence, at all, that the Great Northern Conference is anything but a message board topic.

UMKC left the Summit because it the Summit doesn't offer the DI demography that it wants. If that is not evidence, don't know what is. The Dakotas have always been screwed, as other DI Midwestern schools don't want to mess with them, except in hockey. So Denver is an exception. The Montanas have always wanted to associate with the Dakotas after Nevada and Idaho left, direct from an AD, but because I can't find it in print but from a personal word that is rejected by posters like you.

What evidence can these posters provide that UMKC will return to the Summit except their continued blathering and message board talk?

(09-21-2017 10:21 AM)NoDak Wrote:  

(09-21-2017 09:36 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-20-2017 03:46 PM)NoDak Wrote:  When UMKC doesn't go the the Summit, your reaction will be interesting. No schools are interested in a four Dakota Summit except the Montanas and Idaho, and that still hasn't sunk in, and it probably won't until it happens

Well, of all the schools in Division I not in the Summit, UMKC would probably be the most willing to trade their current travel (Seattle, Utah, Bakersfield, Phoenix, Las Cruces, Rio Grande Valley plus Chicago) for Summit travel (Denver, Dakota x 4, Omaha, Tulsa, Macomb, Fort Wayne.) On the other hand, all of that was true when UMKC dumped the Summit for the WAC.

And we're still waiting for any evidence, at all, that the Great Northern Conference is anything but a message board topic.

UMKC left the Summit because it the Summit doesn't offer the DI demography that it wants. If that is not evidence, don't know what is. The Dakotas have always been screwed, as other DI Midwestern schools don't want to mess with them, except in hockey. So Denver is an exception. The Montanas have always wanted to associate with the Dakotas after Nevada and Idaho left, direct from an AD, but because I can't find it in print but from a personal word that is rejected by posters like you.

What evidence can these posters provide that UMKC will return to the Summit except their continued blathering and message board talk?

Please provide a link saying they left because of demographics. It has always been widely known by everyone why they left. Two reasons. Unable to compete, ORU leaving thus no southern Summit partner. You have now given us a new reason, which fits your agenda. Why are you so afraid of UMKC coming back to the Summit?

Also, please provide a link to the statement from a Montana AD saying they wanted to be associated with the "Dakotas".

Your dream of an FBS Northern conference is not going to occur, everyone but you knows that.

(09-21-2017 01:25 PM)jacksfan29 Wrote:  

(09-21-2017 10:21 AM)NoDak Wrote:  

(09-21-2017 09:36 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-20-2017 03:46 PM)NoDak Wrote:  When UMKC doesn't go the the Summit, your reaction will be interesting. No schools are interested in a four Dakota Summit except the Montanas and Idaho, and that still hasn't sunk in, and it probably won't until it happens

Well, of all the schools in Division I not in the Summit, UMKC would probably be the most willing to trade their current travel (Seattle, Utah, Bakersfield, Phoenix, Las Cruces, Rio Grande Valley plus Chicago) for Summit travel (Denver, Dakota x 4, Omaha, Tulsa, Macomb, Fort Wayne.) On the other hand, all of that was true when UMKC dumped the Summit for the WAC.

And we're still waiting for any evidence, at all, that the Great Northern Conference is anything but a message board topic.

UMKC left the Summit because it the Summit doesn't offer the DI demography that it wants. If that is not evidence, don't know what is. The Dakotas have always been screwed, as other DI Midwestern schools don't want to mess with them, except in hockey. So Denver is an exception. The Montanas have always wanted to associate with the Dakotas after Nevada and Idaho left, direct from an AD, but because I can't find it in print but from a personal word that is rejected by posters like you.

What evidence can these posters provide that UMKC will return to the Summit except their continued blathering and message board talk?

Please provide a link saying they left because of demographics. It has always been widely known by everyone why they left. Two reasons. Unable to compete, ORU leaving thus no southern Summit partner. You have now given us a new reason, which fits your agenda. Why are you so afraid of UMKC coming back to the Summit?

Also, please provide a link to the statement from a Montana AD saying they wanted to be associated with the "Dakotas".

Your dream of an FBS Northern conference is not going to occur, everyone but you knows that.

Well forgive for not getting the SDSU memo that says Sioux Falls is the greatest venue for a college basketball tournament site. That's obviously the reason schools are applying left and right to the Summit, trying to break down the walls. Can you supply that memo that all the other SDSU fans seem to be spouting?

Yeah! This topic is BACK! Great North Conference -- I'm for it. Better that than either the Big Sky Conference For Schools Who Don't Give a Crap or Four Dakotas Plus a Few Miserable Extra Schools With Nowhere Else To Go.

But, not happening as far as I can tell.

(09-21-2017 10:21 AM)NoDak Wrote:  What evidence can these posters provide that UMKC will return to the Summit except their continued blathering and message board talk?

I don't think there is anything concrete. It's plausible--the Summit can use another member, the geography is a fit, the WAC is at constant risk of implosion. But that doesn't mean that The Powers That Be see it the same way.

Of course, there is the fact that UMKC is cutting their athletic budget, and studying their classification and conference realignment options. I don't know if replacing plane rides to Bakersfield and Corpus Christi with bus rides to Denver and Sioux Falls helps their budget picture much, but it might.

Quote:Please provide a link saying they left because of demographics. It has always been widely known by everyone why they left. Two reasons. Unable to compete, ORU leaving thus no southern Summit partner. You have now given us a new reason, which fits your agenda. Why are you so afraid of UMKC coming back to the Summit?

Well, I can't google up anything saying that ORU leaving and UMKC being bottom feeders in the Summit were the reasons for leaving. Most of the commentary I remember, and can find on google, was of the "WTF are they doing?" variety.

(09-21-2017 09:16 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Umkc has one of the best basketball arena in the country in a town that loves basketball. They need to join the summit or mvc if possible and hire a good coach.

In the 50's maybe. They don't play at the Sprint Center, so I don't see how they have one of the best arenas in the country.

It looks like the full report will be released in mid-October, and they recognize that there are benefits to being D1 that don't show up in accounting ledgers.

https://www.umkc.edu/facultysenate/curre...%20(1).ppt

Their considering adding football I read. Does that mean Summit football and do they have a stadium available?

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

There's always Arrowhead.

(09-26-2017 03:04 PM)MJG Wrote:  Their considering adding football I read. Does that mean Summit football and do they have a stadium available?

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Would wager that there is a fooball fire being started being stoked by the Summit, as it knows that it cant survive without fb, and UMKC is floating an actual reason now to go back.

But the whole idea of UMKC football doesn't make much sense unless there were major backers. Chicago St floated football too and it is now obvious why they did.

(09-26-2017 06:08 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 03:04 PM)MJG Wrote:  Their considering adding football I read. Does that mean Summit football and do they have a stadium available?

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Would wager that there is a fooball fire being started being stoked by the Summit, as it knows that it cant survive without fb, and UMKC is floating an actual reason now to go back.

But the whole idea of UMKC football doesn't make much sense unless there were major backers. Chicago St floated football too and it is now obvious why they did.

The whole reason the SUmmit "can't survive without football" is that you need basketball plus football or 2 other mens' team sports; and Fort Wayne is a flight risk.

Isn't the problem solved by having UND act like a real Division I program and start up soccer and baseball?

(09-26-2017 08:08 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 06:08 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(09-26-2017 03:04 PM)MJG Wrote:  Their considering adding football I read. Does that mean Summit football and do they have a stadium available?

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Would wager that there is a fooball fire being started being stoked by the Summit, as it knows that it cant survive without fb, and UMKC is floating an actual reason now to go back.

But the whole idea of UMKC football doesn't make much sense unless there were major backers. Chicago St floated football too and it is now obvious why they did.

The whole reason the SUmmit "can't survive without football" is that you need basketball plus football or 2 other mens' team sports; and Fort Wayne is a flight risk.

Isn't the problem solved by having UND act like a real Division I program and start up soccer and baseball?

None of the Dakotas have men's soccer and USD doesn't have baseball either. If the other Dakotas had started hockey instead of mocked it, there wouldn't be a Summit issue.

Just waiting for the Montanas and Idaho to come calling.

The Summit has a few outs:

(1) Sponsor FCS football with a minimum of six schools (no affiliates): North Dakota, NDSU, South Dakota, SDSU, Western Ililnois, +1 more
(2) Add a school who sponsors baseball. In addition to satisfying the first criteria, Northern Colorado, as an example, also works here.
(3) Sponsor hockey with a minimum of six schools; if soccer is using affiliates, then hockey can not (or vice versa). Currently the Summit would need three existing Division I schools if it wants to use this before 2022.

Note that in (2) and (3), both sports may have affiliates as long as at least six full members sponsor one team sport, and four full members sponsor the other team sport.

UMKC just needs to start baseball.

(09-26-2017 06:04 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  There's always Arrowhead.

Tried to Google options
The soccer stadium held 3500 at one point maybe it still does?
Add one grand stand that seats seven thousand and their good.
Seventeen thousand students football should be possible.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app