It is well known that SacSt and PSU fought the NDSU/SDSU additons for travel reasons. The late-comers should not have had as big a vote as charter members. Geography was the only respectable and justifiable reason, but as you say, it didn't keep them from adding UND later, so there had to be others.EWURanger wrote:And I have never understood why the Big Sky turned NDSU and SDSU when they were making their transition. The only reason may have been geography, which doesn't seem to matter much now.
Could be the presidents were not keen on adding members with ambitious programs that were capable of raising the bar of competition (as BSU, Nevada and Idaho had done), requiring existing members to either increase their commitment or suffer increasing embarrassment. Adding a UNC at the bottom of the rung was much more comfortable - a program everyone could beat without increasing their FB budget. And of course there was the badly failed Fullerton sales pitch to the presidents that the way to go was to add programs near large populations centers - PSU, Sacst, UNC, etc. Hard to respect such conference administration..