BIG SKY Expansion & Realignment Thread

freaked4collegefb · **Joined:** Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm **Posts:** 7054

Article out of the Dakotas reporting that Monday's planned North Dakota/NCAA meeting in Indy has been rescheduled for 8-12-2011.Link at http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id ... group/News

freaked4collegefb · **Joined:** Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm **Posts:** 7054

Article out of Grand Forks discussing tomorrow's scheduled meeting in Indy between the NCAA and North Dakota delegation regarding UND nickname situation at http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/212448

mizzoufan1 · **Joined:** Sat Jun 21, 2008 11:51 am **Posts:** 96

I really wish the NCAA would back off of these matters. It's outside their perview as an association in the first place....

freaked4collegefb · **Joined:** Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm **Posts:** 7054

ABCNews running wire story reporting that after today's meeting with NCAA officials in Indy,North Dakota's Governor says that he will introduce legislation later this year to rescind earlier state statute that mandated that UND use the Sioux nickname.Link at http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=14291765

freaked4collegefb · **Joined:** Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm **Posts:** 7054

Column out of Bozeman with comments from Big Sky Commish regarding the possibility of future Big Sky expansion at http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/sp ... 002e0.html

Quinn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am **Posts:** 3757

freaked4collegefb wrote:

Column out of Bozeman with comments from Big Sky Commish regarding the possibility of future Big Sky expansion at http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/sp ... 002e0.html

I agree with him. But the path for most things in life if forward, not backwards. The idea of a commissioner publicly...so many times...commenting on schools downgrading to a lower level as an acceptable option, is just devoid of logic. The sport has changed so much just over the past 8 years in regards to economics. I just think it's foolish for someone in that role to not only use the college sports world of 20 years ago as a basis of logic in their own mind, but publicly making such comments. EVERY western FBS school knows that if something ever happened, something drastic, that the Big Sky would take them. All of them. Even SJSU.

Meanwhile, there's forward thinking. Forward thinking would be to bang the drum to get the NCAA to listen. Banging the drum to change the rules so that the Big Sky could upgrade as a conference...because it's not a big drop from the current WAC now and could compete. If Fullerton thinks his schools are in the same class as these current FBS schools that he would welcome in, then try doing something bold for the conference. Not looking at expansion as "power moves" by adding the likes of SUU and North Dakota, stretching the low revenue conference across half the US in primarily puddle sized markets...and adding FCS "football only" members.

Notsellingjeans · **Joined:** Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:35 pm **Posts:** 16

I don't really agree with that Big Sky article.

The author wrote that the Big Sky expanding to 16 "inevitable." Really?

For one, we've heard rumors that Montana and MSU are headed to the WAC, and that they are only waiting until December to do it so that they can compete in the FCS playoffs one more time.

If that does indeed happen, we have one school that is absurdly outside the footprint - North Dakota - which has no desire to be in the WAC, and would no doubt prefer to join up with NDSU, South Dakota, and SDSU elsewhere (I think it's the Summit League where those three play).

If those two things happen - neither of which is implausible - the Big Sky is sitting at 8 full-time members, and 10 football members. They have no decent candidates in the entire Western United States who are decent candidates to move up from Division II.

Plus there's always the risk that California's public education crisis prompts Sac State to slash athletic dept spending and move into the Big West, where they can take bus trips everywhere instead of expensive 1,000 mile plane flights for most their sports.

The Big Sky is not anything close to inevitably moving toward 16 members. If anything, their additions of Southern Utah and North Dakota were a proactive move against the very real threat that their two best programs - Montana and MSU - could possibly join the WAC in four months.

The other thing is his comments about money. The other acted as though there is no reason whatsoever to go FBS if you can't be a part of the BCS. He's ignoring the payouts for road games. If Cal Poly goes on the road to Wisconsin, they get $300,000. If San Jose State goes on the road to Auburn/Alabama, they get $900K. Ohio State has paid $1M (!) for a lay-down home game. What's the difference? It's the difference between I-A and I-AA status.

You can practically fund your entire football program by scheduling three lay-down road games per year in FBS.

Anyways, obviously my points are open to disagreement, but those are issues that should've been mentioned an article that a man was paid to write. We're just unpaid bloggers, and we discuss this stuff at a better level of sophistication sometimes.

SJSUFan2010 · **Joined:** Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:52 pm **Posts:** 467

Notsellingjeans wrote:

I don't really agree with that Big Sky article.

The author wrote that the Big Sky expanding to 16 "inevitable." Really?

For one, we've heard rumors that Montana and MSU are headed to the WAC, and that they are only waiting until December to do it so that they can compete in the FCS playoffs one more time.

If that does indeed happen, we have one school that is absurdly outside the footprint - North Dakota - which has no desire to be in the WAC, and would no doubt prefer to join up with NDSU, South Dakota, and SDSU elsewhere (I think it's the Summit League where those three play).

If those two things happen - neither of which is implausible - the Big Sky is sitting at 8 full-time members, and 10 football members. They have no decent candidates in the entire Western United States who are decent candidates to move up from Division II.

Plus there's always the risk that California's public education crisis prompts Sac State to slash athletic dept spending and move into the Big West, where they can take bus trips everywhere instead of expensive 1,000 mile plane flights for most their sports.

The Big Sky is not anything close to inevitably moving toward 16 members. If anything, their additions of Southern Utah and North Dakota were a proactive move against the very real threat that their two best programs - Montana and MSU - could possibly join the WAC in four months.

The other thing is his comments about money. The other acted as though there is no reason whatsoever to go FBS if you can't be a part of the BCS. He's ignoring the payouts for road games. If Cal Poly goes on the road to Wisconsin, they get $300,000. If San Jose State goes on the road to Auburn/Alabama, they get $900K. Ohio State has paid $1M (!) for a lay-down home game. What's the difference? It's the difference between I-A and I-AA status.

You can practically fund your entire football program by scheduling three lay-down road games per year in FBS.

Anyways, obviously my points are open to disagreement, but those are issues that should've been mentioned an article that a man was paid to write. We're just unpaid bloggers, and we discuss this stuff at a better level of sophistication sometimes.

Yeah, unless they know something we don't you're right, 8 is far more likely than 16. I'm not sure how Fresno St and SDSU are about to get left out in the cold.

But I'd sure love to see the Big Sky move up together and bring in SJSU and Idaho. But that probably only happens if the BCS splits off.

At this point though, nothing would surprise me anymore.

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Fri Sep 16, 2011 2:42 pm

How many schools do you know that dropped from FBS to FCS. I believe 0. If a FBS school can't hang in the FBS they drop the sport. Long Beach St., Pacific, CS Fullerton, Wichita St. come to mind.

tkalmus · **Joined:** Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm **Posts:** 1035

SJSUFan2010 wrote:

Notsellingjeans wrote:

I don't really agree with that Big Sky article.

The author wrote that the Big Sky expanding to 16 "inevitable." Really?

For one, we've heard rumors that Montana and MSU are headed to the WAC, and that they are only waiting until December to do it so that they can compete in the FCS playoffs one more time.

If that does indeed happen, we have one school that is absurdly outside the footprint - North Dakota - which has no desire to be in the WAC, and would no doubt prefer to join up with NDSU, South Dakota, and SDSU elsewhere (I think it's the Summit League where those three play).

If those two things happen - neither of which is implausible - the Big Sky is sitting at 8 full-time members, and 10 football members. They have no decent candidates in the entire Western United States who are decent candidates to move up from Division II.

Plus there's always the risk that California's public education crisis prompts Sac State to slash athletic dept spending and move into the Big West, where they can take bus trips everywhere instead of expensive 1,000 mile plane flights for most their sports.

The Big Sky is not anything close to inevitably moving toward 16 members. If anything, their additions of Southern Utah and North Dakota were a proactive move against the very real threat that their two best programs - Montana and MSU - could possibly join the WAC in four months.

The other thing is his comments about money. The other acted as though there is no reason whatsoever to go FBS if you can't be a part of the BCS. He's ignoring the payouts for road games. If Cal Poly goes on the road to Wisconsin, they get $300,000. If San Jose State goes on the road to Auburn/Alabama, they get $900K. Ohio State has paid $1M (!) for a lay-down home game. What's the difference? It's the difference between I-A and I-AA status.

You can practically fund your entire football program by scheduling three lay-down road games per year in FBS.

Anyways, obviously my points are open to disagreement, but those are issues that should've been mentioned an article that a man was paid to write. We're just unpaid bloggers, and we discuss this stuff at a better level of sophistication sometimes.

Yeah, unless they know something we don't you're right, 8 is far more likely than 16. I'm not sure how Fresno St and SDSU are about to get left out in the cold.

But I'd sure love to see the Big Sky move up together and bring in SJSU and Idaho. But that probably only happens if the BCS splits off.

At this point though, nothing would surprise me anymore.

If they go down to 8 would they consider a joining up with the SLC to form a 16 team football league?

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Fri Sep 16, 2011 3:26 pm

na, they've had 8 before, in FCS you only need 6 to count as a fb conf. They could always start allowing non fb members in the conf. like UVU and CSUB.

pizzapizza123 · **Joined:** Thu Aug 25, 2011 8:26 pm **Posts:** 15

Upgrade with what money????

Sure they can make more money on road games....

BUT....Have you ever looked and seen how much money the WAC and MWC schools are making....They are not making a dime....They are losing millions of dollars every year, which I hope is worth it to them from an advertising perspective.

They road games do not pay the bills. If you look at their balance sheets they are breaking even by using student fees (in multi millions), the general college fund (in multi millions), and directly payments from the state (in multi millions).

Out of all the NCAA programs only 22 actually broke even or turned a profit. And they are all in BCS conferences.

Why is it if you cant play FBS football you should not play at all....Why not take that logic on step further and just shut down the whole athletic program...All I watch is football anyway.....

pf9 · **Joined:** Sat Nov 17, 2007 3:36 am **Posts:** 185

2 possible new non-FB members could be CSU Bakersfield and Utah Valley.

pizzapizza123 · **Joined:** Thu Aug 25, 2011 8:26 pm **Posts:** 15

I do not believe the Big Sky will let any non-football members in.

They are probably better candidates for a non-football WAC if they get raided in conference Armageddon

And in Big Sky news... Conference AD says they will probably sign a TV contract....
http://sacstatesports.com/2011/10/14/sa ... fullerton/

Quinn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am **Posts:** 3757

pizzapizza123 wrote:

I do not believe the Big Sky will let any non-football members in.

They are probably better candidates for a non-football WAC if they get raided in conference Armageddon

And in Big Sky news... Conference AD says they will probably sign a TV contract....
http://sacstatesports.com/2011/10/14/sa ... fullerton/

I think to be specific, one could say the Big Sky wouldn't let in lesser programs that offer little for non-football. I think they would be willing to bend for say Air Force and Boise St. since especially BSU would bring some national attention due to football. That, and they are now the big brand in the region due to football.

BIG SKY Expansion & Realignment Thread

Who is online