Conference Expansion and Scheduling

[sasquatch]

Some Montana State fans are saying that ISU and MSU won't play in 2012 and 2013 because of the new conference scheduling.

http://bobcatnation.com/bobcatbb/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=23971

Is this true? This is ISU's most played opponent, and we have played them every year since 1947. This would be an absolute travesty to only play this game every few years. Add in the close proximity of the schools and the Kramer factor, and you have more sold seats than you do against most other schools.

Fullerton and all of the Big Sky schools need to keep certain schools playing each other every year.

 

[Skippy]

Jeff Tingey confirmed this on the coaches' show last night. ISU's two "protected rivals" will be Weber State and Northern Colorado, meaning we will play them every season. We won't play either of the two Montanas in "conference games" in 2012 and 2013. However, Jeff said there is a possibility ISU could schedule Big Sky opponents who are not on the "conference schedule" for "non-conference games." He said Sac State has already contacted ISU about playing in those seasons when the Hornets are not on the league schedule. There will be eight "conference games" each season, and in 2012 and 2013, I think, 1-AA schools will be allowed to play 12 games. So that will open up a lot of non-conference opportunities.

Jeff also said last night the league has not decided how to crown a conference champion -- whether it will have a "league championship" game between two division winners, or some other approach. He also said the league continues to look for "the best fit" to add one more program for football. He said schools like Cal-Bakersfield and Utah Valley are very interested in joining the league and have offered to start football programs, but the league isn't too excited about them. They seem more inclined to either wait for the WAC to implode and perhaps land a San Jose State or Idaho, or wait for other developments.

 

[biobengal]

I'm still saying WTF?

Making it more difficult to get to the big dance.... along with losing two close rivals is baffling.

However, the schedule should benefit from a softened football schedule.

 

[Skippy]

The whole driver behind conference expansion was to keep the Big Sky solvent in the event the league loses members in the future to the WAC. I saw a story in the Statesman on Sunday quoting the Idaho Athletic Director as saying that the WAC is still targeting current FCS members, encouraging them to move up and join the WAC. While the two Montana schools were not ready to take the leap this past year, there is nothing to prevent them from making it in the future. So this was a protective move by the league presidents. Are there are going to be negative consequences? Absolutely, but at least the Big Sky was proactive in the wake of all the realignment craziness that occurred last year.

 

[isusuperfan]

WE HAVE NO RIVALRY WITH NORTHERN COLORADO! An Idaho/Montana competition is far more natural than an Idaho/Colorado!!! :thumbdown: :x :tothehand:

Big Sky, you FAIL again.

 

[ajwildcat]

WE HAVE NO RIVALRY WITH NORTHERN COLORADO! An Idaho/Montana competition is far more natural than an Idaho/Colorado!!! :thumbdown: :x :tothehand:

Big Sky, you FAIL again.

At least this way you should have a chance to win a "rivalry" game against UNC.

 

[sasquatch]

The charter members should play each other every year.

I don't have a problem playing UNC every year. We have as much or more history with them than we do with some other Big Sky schools. ISU was in the RMAC with Montana State and Northern Colorado for a while, starting in 1948. Webber Tech was still a JC then.

http://www.rmacsports.org/information/history/index