This is a very interesting column by Brian Murphy of the Statesman.
The "operating" part that I'm referring to in the thread title headline comes about halfway down the story.
I don't see why the Big Sky would want to do this but if this happens the fascinating question is, who gets moved?
To the best of my knowledge the WAC from a basketball standpoint is composed of Idaho, New Mexico State, Seattle and Denver. Everyone else has left or is leaving next year.
Another option of course could be complete realignment based on geography. The "new" Big Sky for example could be Eastern Washington, Seattle, Portland State, Sacramento State, Idaho, Idaho State, Montana and Montana State. Everyone else goes to the "new" WAC.
The Mountain West and the Sun Belt were trying to work out something like this the past year but it's now off the table because of legal issues.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/08/12/2228640/vandals-need-a-conference-decision.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
PBP
The "operating" part that I'm referring to in the thread title headline comes about halfway down the story.
I don't see why the Big Sky would want to do this but if this happens the fascinating question is, who gets moved?
To the best of my knowledge the WAC from a basketball standpoint is composed of Idaho, New Mexico State, Seattle and Denver. Everyone else has left or is leaving next year.
Another option of course could be complete realignment based on geography. The "new" Big Sky for example could be Eastern Washington, Seattle, Portland State, Sacramento State, Idaho, Idaho State, Montana and Montana State. Everyone else goes to the "new" WAC.
The Mountain West and the Sun Belt were trying to work out something like this the past year but it's now off the table because of legal issues.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/08/12/2228640/vandals-need-a-conference-decision.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
PBP
