• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts, upgrade to remove ads and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your BigSkyFans.com experience today!

Big Sky Changes

Utah Tech is located in St. George. Great golfing. They are located squarely within in the western United States. I.e., travel and other logistic costs are minimized. With realignment seemingly happening daily, it is good to keep your school numbers up. Need to replace Sac St and possibly UC Davis. Who knows about the Montana schools. Keeps softball and Men's golf viable with auto-bids to NCAA playoffs. Why do you think it is a bad thing or not adding anything?
 
Zornes65 said:
Utah Tech is located in St. George. Great golfing. They are located squarely within in the western United States. I.e., travel and other logistic costs are minimized. With realignment seemingly happening daily, it is good to keep your school numbers up. Need to replace Sac St and possibly UC Davis. Who knows about the Montana schools. Keeps softball and Men's golf viable with auto-bids to NCAA playoffs. Why do you think it is a bad thing or not adding anything?
Click to expand...
My concern is that we will play the Montana schools less frequently now that the conference expanded. I wouldn't complain about scheduling either of these schools but if adding them means playing the Montana schools every other year it is a net negative. It will also create non-conference schedule issues in football for all schools. Do we really want to play Central Washington every year?
 
I don't mind the addition of Utah Tech; they seem interested in trying to build their program. SUU? No thanks.

I do wonder how this will impact Weber regarding a dilution of talent due to having two additional FCS conference teams in the state.

I'm sure we can always schedule OOC conference games like we've done in the past with Montana State in years we don't play certain teams.
 
ewudood05 said:
I don't mind the addition of Utah Tech; they seem interested in trying to build their program. SUU? No thanks.

I do wonder how this will impact Weber regarding a dilution of talent due to having two additional FCS conference teams in the state.

I'm sure we can always schedule OOC conference games like we've done in the past with Montana State in years we don't play certain teams.
Click to expand...
(y) Yes, though some of us prefer a football membership smaller in number in order to have a schedule playing all conf. teams each season. Also the NCAA has approved a 12 game each regular season allowance in FCS. But change to bigger seems to be the trend mostly. Weber State maybe gains more draw for fans with SUU & UTU in it, but both have been playing FCS football in the disintegrating WAC for a few years, so nothing changes as to talent recruiting.
 
If the BSC will go to 9 games, it will result in a better and more balanced conference schedule and make it easier to schedule just 3 OOC games. I'm pulling for that.
 
The thing that concerns me is that Southern Utah bounced a couple of years back. Now they're stuck. I don't recommend living life with resentment, but hell, why help them out? They didn't care before, nor did they never put butts is seats. Why now?

I get the St George / Cedar City bit, it's a monster growth market. Sort of like Missoula and Bozeman. Yet both schools thought the WAC was their answer.
 
I didn't realize the two were so close so as much as I wouldn't want to take back SUU, it could a good decision. But that assumes the two schools saw benefits of being conference mates in the WAC.

I'd wager that for Utah Tech, the WAC was the answer to move to FCS. And that to me would be reasonable. Maybe the Big Sky didn't want to take a transitioning program in.

But SUU? Clearly they thought being in the Big Sky was the wrong answer so what changed over the last few years? I guess there's a reason I don't vote on these things because I'd have voted against SUU out of spite.
 
ewudood05 said:
I didn't realize the two were so close so as much as I wouldn't want to take back SUU, it could a good decision. But that assumes the two schools saw benefits of being conference mates in the WAC.

I'd wager that for Utah Tech, the WAC was the answer to move to FCS. And that to me would be reasonable. Maybe the Big Sky didn't want to take a transitioning program in.

But SUU? Clearly they thought being in the Big Sky was the wrong answer so what changed over the last few years? I guess there's a reason I don't vote on these things because I'd have voted against SUU out of spite.
Click to expand...
Good points...just inputting a couple of others; the admins who made the decision at SUU are no longer there. There might have been regrets with placing too much emphasis on the two joining up & being in the WAC where Utah Valley was & things offered a bright outlook? The WAC has turned out to be a revolving door where schools joined a few years then looked to exit. Remember back when they were trying to remain FBS & wanted Montana to move up & join amongst others? To now, UVU just left for the Big West, GCU, etc. exited. Latest is a reorganizing with another conf. going on to set up some rebranding for the WACs 3 remaining members, etc. Just saying, but yes, SUU did burn a bridge then, at least partly, it's apparently been repaired.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top