Big Sky

[Green Cookie Monster]

Colo School of Mimes?

In Big Sky? I'd rather have Grant HS.

Nebraska Omaha, Central Washington come to mind much sooner than Mime U.

 

[SDHornet]

OK SH put an end to the Mines addition nonsense right now. I don’t care for your posting that nonsense on CS.com, but please don’t waste our time with it here on Sac Buzz. It’s obvious from the Wanless audio clip that the ONLY schools the BSC is considering for expansion are SUU and the UXD’s. Give it a rest already.

WRT whether or not invites were given to those three schools, I won’t believe it until a press release is given from the BSC or the schools themselves. All three have their draw backs.

 

[Green Cookie Monster]

All three have their draw backs.

As do we.

 

[SDHornet]

All three have their draw backs.

As do we.

And NAU, and PSU, and....

 

[Siouxfan]

http://sdsufans.com/board/showpost.php?p=161928&postcount=19

In addition to the Egriz board, the SDSU (South Dakota State for you Californians) has a rumor that UND, USD, and SUU have full invites to the Big Sky.

USD (S Dak) already has an invite to the Summit but doesn't have a home for football - and it appears the MVFC doesn't want either of us. So both of us would have to take the Big Sky's offer - I would prefer that anyway.

Tend to think that Montana is behind this: they have always wanted Dakota schools in the Sky. By inviting us, maybe both Montana and Montana now stay and the Big Sky splits into divisons:

Big Sky East/North: Montana, Montana St, UND, USD, N Colo, Idaho St
Big Sky West/South: Sac St, Portland St, WSU, SUU, NAU, EWash

Suspect that Sac State would probably leave the BSC if this happens.

 

[DrMike]

don't forget Poly and Davis are joining as football only in 2012. 14 teams for football? 2 7-team divisions? i guess you would play the 6 in your division and 2 from the other? that wouldn't too great. 12 teams for non-football? think they would play 22 conference basketball games? that's alot.

if they are looking at adding three, maybe they suspect the Montana's might bolt?

 

[SJHornet]

Is Montana starting to second guess its interest in the WAC? The Dakotas offer regional opponents, the two division conference will limit the amount of west coast/Arizona road trips and the addition of FCS ranked Cal Poly improves the conference’s standing. The comments this weekend their AD made about sticking with Montana State also makes you think the WAC may be becoming less of an option. As far as I know the WAC has no interest in Montana State.

The Dakotas and Southern Utah would make things interesting. The two divisions could cut down on travel. Southern Utah is looking good this season, UND has a good reputation and USD is, …er, USD. The Big Sky would also have 4 baseball programs if they all get full invites. Invite Utah Valley and CSU Bakersfield as baseball members and you have Big Sky Baseball.

 

[SDHornet]

I have no problem with the additions for football as DM said, there would be 14 teams playing football and the conference would no doubt be split into 7 team divisions. One issue to consider is there will be absolutely no FCS OOC schools to schedule. The nearest conference will now be the Southland which is geographically centered on Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas. So now after a FBS money game and 8 BSC games, the Hornets will have to find 2 other opponents. I’d like to believe this program has progressed to the point where scheduling a scrimmage (non-D-I) game should no longer be considered, so now the Hornets will be left searching for OOC games. My fear is that an additional FBS game will be scheduled due to budgetary issues. This additional FBS game will pretty much schedule us out of the playoffs every year and negatively impact the attrition of the team. Sure the conference has been further “solidified” (I never felt the BSC was ever in danger of falling apart) but now this bigger conference brings about its own set of issues.

If the UXD’s are brought on as full members, the hoops and other sports scheduling will have to be figured out. Personally if we are going to send all of our non-revenue sports to the Dakotas, I think it only makes logical and financial sense to bail on the BSC for everything other than football and seek membership into the Big West. If you think attendance for hoops games were bad with the current BSC lineup, just wait until the UXD’s and come to town. The majority of the Olympic sports have been competitive, if not dominate in the BSC so I don’t see that as being a hurdle into the Big West. I think it all comes down whether or not the administration realizing that the enlarged BSC puts Sac State in a considerable financial hole.

 

[Green Cookie Monster]

If you think attendance for hoops games were bad with the current BSC lineup, just wait until the UXD’s and come to town.

And just wait for any Big West team other than UCFE to come to town, attendance is worse than Big Sky opponents. I know, I've seen it from the past. We wont draw anyone for UC's Riverside, Irvine, SB and definately CSU's Northridge, LB, Fullerton, etc.

At least in the BSC, the public is assured that athletics is properly funded overall.

 

[Siouxfan]

I have no problem with the additions for football as DM said, there would be 14 teams playing football and the conference would no doubt be split into 7 team divisions. One issue to consider is there will be absolutely no FCS OOC schools to schedule. The nearest conference will now be the Southland which is geographically centered on Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas. So now after a FBS money game and 8 BSC games, the Hornets will have to find 2 other opponents. I’d like to believe this program has progressed to the point where scheduling a scrimmage (non-D-I) game should no longer be considered, so now the Hornets will be left searching for OOC games. My fear is that an additional FBS game will be scheduled due to budgetary issues. This additional FBS game will pretty much schedule us out of the playoffs every year and negatively impact the attrition of the team. Sure the conference has been further “solidified” (I never felt the BSC was ever in danger of falling apart) but now this bigger conference brings about its own set of issues.

With a 14 team Big Sky football league with two divisions, six games can be scheduled within the division, two more from the other division, and the option of scheduling one more from the other division that could be designated non-conference. That would leave schools with up to three OOC games: 2 FBS and one DII.

If the UXD’s are brought on as full members, the hoops and other sports scheduling will have to be figured out. Personally if we are going to send all of our non-revenue sports to the Dakotas, I think it only makes logical and financial sense to bail on the BSC for everything other than football and seek membership into the Big West. If you think attendance for hoops games were bad with the current BSC lineup, just wait until the UXD’s and come to town. The majority of the Olympic sports have been competitive, if not dominate in the BSC so I don’t see that as being a hurdle into the Big West. I think it all comes down whether or not the administration realizing that the enlarged BSC puts Sac State in a considerable financial hole.

With a 12 team full-member Big Sky with divisions, most conferences only schedule 16 games in conference (2 x 5 =10 in division and 6 from other division). Sac State would only have to travel to the Dakotas/Montana/Idaho/Colorado every other year for basketball. Sac State's division would likely be NAU / PSU / EWU / SUU / WSU.

 

[Siouxfan]

Is Montana starting to second guess its interest in the WAC? The Dakotas offer regional opponents, the two division conference will limit the amount of west coast/Arizona road trips and the addition of FCS ranked Cal Poly improves the conference’s standing. The comments this weekend their AD made about sticking with Montana State also makes you think the WAC may be becoming less of an option. As far as I know the WAC has no interest in Montana State.

To me, it just seems Montana used the WAC interest to force changes on the Big Sky. Montana has always wanted Dakota flagship schools in the Big Sky, but the West Coast schools have always had the voting power to stop that type expansion. Montana could have basically told the Big Sky presidents it's either my way or the highway.

The Dakotas and Southern Utah would make things interesting. The two divisions could cut down on travel. Southern Utah is looking good this season, UND has a good reputation and USD is, …er, USD. The Big Sky would also have 4 baseball programs if they all get full invites. Invite Utah Valley and CSU Bakersfield as baseball members and you have Big Sky Baseball.

Would Sac State really want a Big Sky baseball league?

Sac State
SUU
N Colo
N Dakota
Cal State - Bakersfield
Utah Valley
Seattle (if they don't get in the WAC)

The Big Sky could also force a softball league on Sac State

Sac St
SUU
Weber St
N Colo
Idaho St
E Wash
N Dakota
S Dakota
Possibly add Seattle, Utah Valley, and Bakersfield and go to divisional play

 

[SactoHornetAlum]

We would pretty much dominate a Big Sky baseball and softball league. Right now in the PCSC, it's pretty much a Big Sky league with 4 WCC schools and Bako and Seattle.

 

[SDHornet]

With a 14 team Big Sky football league with two divisions, six games can be scheduled within the division, two more from the other division, and the option of scheduling one more from the other division that could be designated non-conference. That would leave schools with up to three OOC games: 2 FBS and one DII.

I hate this option but yes, that is a possibility. I have an eerie feeling that financially the Hornets are not far from having to schedule two FBS schools to pay the bills. I hope I am wrong.

With a 12 team full-member Big Sky with divisions, most conferences only schedule 16 games in conference (2 x 5 =10 in division and 6 from other division). Sac State would only have to travel to the Dakotas/Montana/Idaho/Colorado every other year for basketball. Sac State's division would likely be NAU / PSU / EWU / SUU / WSU.

Assuming that the six games from the other division is scheduled such that each team is played at least once; that means at least one trip per year to the Dakotas, Montanas, or Idaho/Colorado for both men’s and women’s hoops. Not much of a cost savings just from glancing at it from the surface…and actually it would be more expensive if either the Montana’s or Dakota’s weren’t scheduled as both away games in the same weekend. If a true 50-50 home away scheduling split was to occur, that means an additional road trip to either ISU or UNC would have to happen or worse case both of them are scheduled as away games and the terrible travel from Pocatello to Greeley would occur in the same weekend. This new conference layout is a travel nightmare anyway you look at it. God help us and our (all BSC schools) travel budgets. :|

 

[Siouxfan]

Assuming that the six games from the other division is scheduled such that each team is played at least once; that means at least one trip per year to the Dakotas, Montanas, or Idaho/Colorado for both men’s and women’s hoops. Not much of a cost savings just from glancing at it from the surface…and actually it would be more expensive if either the Montana’s or Dakota’s weren’t scheduled as both away games in the same weekend. If a true 50-50 home away scheduling split was to occur, that means an additional road trip to either ISU or UNC would have to happen or worse case both of them are scheduled as away games and the terrible travel from Pocatello to Greeley would occur in the same weekend. This new conference layout is a travel nightmare anyway you look at it. God help us and our (all BSC schools) travel budgets. :|

To me, it seems inevitable that Sac State will move to the Big West and just keep football in the Big Sky. Few other Big Sky schools have options that wouldn't require major travel.

As a replacement, the Sky could offer Bakersfield or Utah Valley and stay with a 12 full / 14 football arrangement.

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20101026/SPORTS0203/10260341/1002/SPORTS

 

[Green Laser]

Assuming that the six games from the other division is scheduled such that each team is played at least once; that means at least one trip per year to the Dakotas, Montanas, or Idaho/Colorado for both men’s and women’s hoops. Not much of a cost savings just from glancing at it from the surface…and actually it would be more expensive if either the Montana’s or Dakota’s weren’t scheduled as both away games in the same weekend. If a true 50-50 home away scheduling split was to occur, that means an additional road trip to either ISU or UNC would have to happen or worse case both of them are scheduled as away games and the terrible travel from Pocatello to Greeley would occur in the same weekend. This new conference layout is a travel nightmare anyway you look at it. God help us and our (all BSC schools) travel budgets. :|

To me, it seems inevitable that Sac State will move to the Big West and just keep football in the Big Sky. Few other Big Sky schools have options that wouldn't require major travel.

As a replacement, the Sky could offer Bakersfield or Utah Valley and stay with a 12 full / 14 football arrangement.
http://www.argusleader.com/article/20101026/SPORTS0203/10260341/1002/SPORTS

As I understand it Bakersfield just became D1 and is already either in or applying to the Big West. Why would they want to give that up and travel halfway across the country as a Big Sky member. Utah Valley could fill the slot but that still leaves the Big Sky without a presence in California other than football. The Big Sky added Sac State and Northridge in 1996 to have a presence in the California media and recruiting market. I really don't see them too willing to give that up.

 

[SJHornet]

Ok, what about this scenario:

Montana stays: SUU and the Dakotas come in and then add Utah Valley allowing Sac to go Big West.

Football setup:

North Division
Eastern Washington
Idaho State
Montana
Montana State
North Dakota
Northern Colorado
South Dakota

South Division
Cal Poly
Northern Arizona
Portland State
Sacramento State
Southern Utah
UC Davis
Weber State

All other sports:

East Division
Idaho State
Montana
Montana State
North Dakota
Northern Colorado
South Dakota

West Division
Eastern Washington
Northern Arizona
Portland State
Southern Utah
Utah Valley
Weber State

Montana ditches: Dakotas may say no thanks, so invite SUU and Utah Valley as a full members and Sac let Sac go BWC

Football setup:

Cal Poly
Eastern Washington
Idaho State
Montana State
Northern Arizona
Northern Colorado
Portland State
Sacramento State
Southern Utah
UC Davis
Weber State

All other Sports:

Eastern Washington
Idaho State
Montana State
Northern Arizona
Northern Colorado
Portland State
Utah Valley
Weber State

 

[DrMike]

Somewhat related note, Bay Area papers are reporting that Texas St. and Texas-San Antonio will be invited to join the WAC and start play in 2012. I don't quite get that. Texas State is FCS and UTSA hasn't fielded a football team yet (they start in 2011). Sounds like Fresno and Nevada will stick through 2011. No invite to Montana.

San Jose State must be thrilled at losing their two closest rivals, in exchange for two teams in Texas - one an average FCS team, the other having never played a game.

Can't believe Hawaii is long for this version of the WAC.

 

[SJHornet]

Somewhat related note, Bay Area papers are reporting that Texas St. and Texas-San Antonio will be invited to join the WAC and start play in 2012. I don't quite get that. Texas State is FCS and UTSA hasn't fielded a football team yet (they start in 2011). Sounds like Fresno and Nevada will stick through 2011. No invite to Montana.

San Jose State must be thrilled at losing their two closest rivals, in exchange for two teams in Texas - one an average FCS team, the other having never played a game.

Can't believe Hawaii is long for this version of the WAC.

I thought teams had to play at least two years of FCS before being able to go FBS. Am I mistaken?

I agree, SJSU can't be happy with the way the new WAC is looking. I don't see Hawaii sticking around too long with out some west coast rivals. Whether its Sac, Poly, Davis, Portland or whoever the WAC better start looking west. I would have thought the WAC would be more concerned with keeping Hawaii than LA Tech.

 

[superhornet]

Somewhat related note, Bay Area papers are reporting that Texas St. and Texas-San Antonio will be invited to join the WAC and start play in 2012. I don't quite get that. Texas State is FCS and UTSA hasn't fielded a football team yet (they start in 2011). Sounds like Fresno and Nevada will stick through 2011. No invite to Montana.

San Jose State must be thrilled at losing their two closest rivals, in exchange for two teams in Texas - one an average FCS team, the other having never played a game.

Can't believe Hawaii is long for this version of the WAC.

I thought teams had to play at least two years of FCS before being able to go FBS. Am I mistaken?

I agree, SJSU can't be happy with the way the new WAC is looking. I don't see Hawaii sticking around too long with out some west coast rivals. Whether its Sac, Poly, Davis, Portland or whoever the WAC better start looking west. I would have thought the WAC would be more concerned with keeping Hawaii than LA Tech.

I doubt they'll get away with it, but if the WAC is truly going after UTSA, they could be relying on the HS precedent of having schools in leagues with higher-level schools. So UTSA would schedule FCS OOC while conference games would count as FBS games with the theoretical potential of UTSA going to the FCS. The HS example I'm pointing to here is the presence of D-IV Stockton-St. Mary's in the otherwise D-I San Joaquin Athletic Association.

I'm not saying this is viable at the college level. It probably wouldn't work in practice, at least not very well. More likely is abolition of the minimum FCS-time rule. But this COULD be a possiblility. For a conference as desperate as the WAC, anything is possible.

 

[DrMike]

i thought it was strange too....but....who knows what the NCAA is doing these days. South Alabama is 'unclassified' this year, but, supposed to be in the Sun Belt in 2013. Maybe with all the movement, they need to make concessions to fill these conferences with SOMEONE.

DeVry advertises on this message board..maybe the WAC can extend an invite to them!