Sounds like whitebread is the TS2 of the west, doesnt want his school hurt by the lost of the powerful program of the conference.

It would appear that the meeting hardly addressed expansion at all.

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2006/05/25/sports/zsports01.txt

Well, the gift to UND didn't pan out as they were speculating. No immediate move up in sight as some of their more optimistic fans were predicting.

Interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

Makes it obvious that the Dakota schools dont fit. The conference doesn't want to cover a larger area because enough schools can find a closer out of conference games than going to Fargo or Brookings.

Sportkc what school are you talking about?

Montana is the big school in the Sky.

If SUU could get their academics up to Sky standards, we could have the following:

North
Sacramento State / Portland State
Eastern Washington / Idaho State
Montana / Montana State

South
Northern Arizona / Southern Utah
Weber State / Utah Valley State (non-football)
Northern Colorado / Denver (non-football)

The South Division has a nice contiguous layout (Arizona, Utah, Colorado), and the North Division keeps Sacramento State and Idaho with Montana, as well as Sacramento State with their coastal rivals. Both divisions make for excellent travel pairings with the exception of Sacramento/Portand, due to Sacramento's distance from other schools in the conference.

The two California schools in the Great West could then be offered football-only memberships and play in the South. NDSU and SDSU could then try to play football in the Gateway Conference, or hope they get in the Mid-Con with some football-playing upgrades from Division II. Adding the two California GWFC schools could also ensure every school at least one trip to California each year in football, assuming members play eight conference games (five division, three non-division, with all members playing each other home-and-away over a four year period).

I don't think UVSC has much appeal. A.) They are 2 years from being a JC and B.) They aren't eligible until '08 or '09.

I really like the ide aof Denver in the Big Sky. It's the largest market in the Big Sky footprint and membership woul dbe a boost to the rest of the Denver athletics. But if I were the Big Sky, I'd hold off on any other expansion. NoCo and Denver as 9th and 10th members; 9 football-10 other sports.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Not too sure about Denver.

A message that came out of their May meeting: all-sports only.

Never saw it in print, but heard it on tv, from the President of UM.

I'm sure they would want Denver to add football at Invesco Field.

Not going to happen, even though the Broncos actually played some of their early AFL games at University of Denver's football stadium.

I say if they want all-sports it will be Southern Utah. Non-fb then Denver will be it. Plus I say if they want 12 for fb purposes then Cal Poly and Cal Davis could be affilate members as they have no desire to leave the Big West.

Big Sky - two divisions
North
Eastern Washington
Montana
Montana State
Idaho State
Portland State
Weber State

South
Cal Davis
Cal Poly
Northern Arizona
Northern Colorado
Sacramento State
Southern Utah

10 team travel partners:
Eastern Washington/Portland State
Montana/Montana State
Idaho State/Weber State
Northern Arizona/Northern Colorado
Sacramento State/Southern Utah

Those last four are a little harder to match up.

Doug Fullerton was on Culhane Sports today. He says the BSC wants to expand. The only thing wrong with the Dakota schools, and he included Und is location. Otherwise they are #1 on the list. He implied it would take a major shakeup, mentioned the WAC taking up to 3 more BSC members, to put the Dakota Schools on the BSC map.

Looks like the Mid Con is going to be the move up conference for a some DIIs and the BSC will turn to the Mid Con if they lose members to the WAC.

If a couple of schools leave the Big Sky ie Montana, what would be so appealing to the Big Sky over the Mid-Con? Especially if some of the NCC members move up.

The other thing I am wondering about is if a couple or three teams from the BSC left, would the attitude of the remaining 6 or 7 members change regarding Southern Utah. If the BSC did take SUU, then the Mid Con would need a another team to replace them, ie a possible NCC school.

Of course one then may ask what appeal would the BSC have to SUU over the Mid Con, if a Montana, Montana State or a Sac State left? Possibly travel would lead them to take a BSC spot if offered in such a situation.

I actually don't think Montana is the main reason Southern Utah is not in the Big Sky. I think Weber jealously guards their position, and I think they get some buy-in from a couple other choice schools.

That being said, as Montana travels "well enough," if Montana is gone, I suspect Weber changes their position. I suspect the Sky HAS to go after SUU in that scenario.

If the Big Sky wants expansion, and Montana wants the Dakotas, what do the other schools want? I'm REALLY curious to know if this means Sac State wants UC Davis in the Sky. Poly? I think several schools want every excuse to make more recruiting trips to California, but I wonder (1) if those schools want both Davis and Poly, and (2) would they jump from the Big West? I'd think both schools would have a better chance maintaining football than Northridge State did.