PSUVikings2
Active member
It seems inevitable that Boise State, and maybe even Fresno State, are on their way to the MWC. There are rumors going around that the WAC has Montana and Portland State on speed dial if you know what I mean.
-
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!
FBS Conference Realignment
- Thread starter PSUVikings2
- Start date
ManOfVision
Active member
PSUVikings said:
Ok, I'll bite. Where are you hearing these rumors?
I agree that the pending shift in FBS alignments may eventually impact PSU, but I'm not holding my breath. Given the expansion efforts in the Big Ten and Pac 10, the the MWC is likely to lose 2-4 teams to the Big 12 and Pac 10. I think it is possible that the remaining MWC conference teams could raid the WAC, but they could just form a giant conference with the remaining WAC teams rather than taking a couple of schools and leaving the WAC leftovers to raise the Big Sky and Great West. If the latter happens, PSU will be unaffected.
ManOfVision said:
WAC commissioner Benson comes to Las Cruces, discusses possible realignment in WAC
"Benson said 'four or five schools' have expressed interest in joining the WAC. Such schools could include Cal Davis, Cal Poly, Montana, Sacramento State, Portland State and Texas State."
For full article go to:
http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-sports/ci_15083029
I have a feeling that FBS and FCS will go away and D1 and D2 will be the nomenclature.
Within five years, we'll either be D1 or D2.
Within five years, we'll either be D1 or D2.
ManOfVision
Active member
martymoose said:
Do you mean two divisions within Division 1 for all sports, like a 1-AA for everything, not just football? I actually wouldn't be opposed to PSU staying 1-AA in that kind of alignment if the division was strengthened by some schools like Idaho dropping back.
ManOfVision said:
I was just referring to football.
With the move up/down moratorium, and all of the super-conference talk, it seems that something major is in the works as far as reclassification goes.
Until we have university funding on a better footing I don't see us moving even to the WAC (I assume less demanding of funds than say the Pac-10). This year the faculty took cuts (not much publicity on this, but it happened). This year we took a million plus out of student fees for athletics - that can't go on. If Chisholm can ballance the budget with what he's got, then more power to him. We simply can't afford the additional scholarships a move to WAC would entail.
ManOfVision
Active member
pdxfan said:
I understand all your points. Coming up with the additional money to fund extra football scholarships overnight is a huge challenge for PSU. The one way it would really pencil out is if you knew that football attendance at the renovated stadium would go up as we faced better, more recognizable competition.
Does anyone think that PSU would see a measurable increase in attendance playing against WAC teams vs playing Big Sky teams (keeping in mind that some of the best current WAC teams would no longer be in the conference)? What if teams like Hawaii and Nevada were the best teams leftover after realignment? How many fans would come to watch them play the Vikings?
And you have a point too. I reckon we'd double attendance in the WAC. I'm not sure ticket sales would cover the scholarships, though. You could also argue that donations would go up too. But, sorry, that's betting on the come. That might not come. I'd love to see us in the WAC, but....
Another thing to consider is revenue sharing in the WAC.
Just a message board post, but it provides a good example of the revenue sharing for the WAC.
http://www.collegefanatics.com/boards/showthread.php?t=59849
That payout in this example is on the high end of what the WAC averages I'm sure, but my point is that we'd share revenue just for being there. Combine revenue sharing with additional attendance (revenue) just for playing better competition and the numbers to support a move up with regards to football only are probably a bit more feasible. Just because we'd be at 85 scholarships doesn't mean that we would need to fill them day one.
Here's the issue. The cost issue with a jump to the WAC doesn't really lie with football. It lies with the other sports that we need to fund to be a full member of the conference. I'm not sure what the membership minimum is, but look at programs like BSU and FSU, they carry 18 and 17 sports respectively.
Just a message board post, but it provides a good example of the revenue sharing for the WAC.
http://www.collegefanatics.com/boards/showthread.php?t=59849
That payout in this example is on the high end of what the WAC averages I'm sure, but my point is that we'd share revenue just for being there. Combine revenue sharing with additional attendance (revenue) just for playing better competition and the numbers to support a move up with regards to football only are probably a bit more feasible. Just because we'd be at 85 scholarships doesn't mean that we would need to fill them day one.
Here's the issue. The cost issue with a jump to the WAC doesn't really lie with football. It lies with the other sports that we need to fund to be a full member of the conference. I'm not sure what the membership minimum is, but look at programs like BSU and FSU, they carry 18 and 17 sports respectively.
And we field 13 teams. That gives one pause for thought. Revenue sharing does seem to be a positive. At the same time, note that the "expansion fee" charged against us is $600,000, though it looks like we can pay for it over three years deducted against our revenue sharing amount. But adding four or five tems is likely a killer, you're right. Bring wrestling back? I never liked that closure. Rugby? Ice hockey? Men's golf? Women's field hockey? We can't even field full track and field teams.
BroadwayVik
Active member
Here's a plausible chain-of-events:
(1) Pac-10 takes UT & CO. Effect: Pac-10 now Pac-12 and full; Big XII down to 11, MWC down to 8.
(2) Big-10 takes MO. Effect Big-10 keeps name but is now full; Big XII down to 10.
(3) Big XII takes TCU and one other from MWC, let's say BYU. Effect: Big XII full again; MWC down to 6.
(4) MWC has made it known that it desires universities that can (a) help its BCS fortunes, (b) large population metropolitan areas and (c) quality airports. They can choose from the WAC or Big Sky.
Following the trend to 12-teams, the MWC would need (6) teams.
If they chose all from the WAC to fill their conference, the WAC would then be down to (3) teams and could literally take the entire Big Sky conference to make a 12-team conference.
So the likelihood of PSU getting into the WAC is as good as any other Big Sky team.
So, yes, going to the WAC is necessary, but staying in the WAC would be a great social loss. The best strategy we have for our social well-being is to position ourselves from now on for an invitation to the MWC where we will have airport destinations similar in quality to Portland (Albuquerque, Boise, Colorado Springs, Denver, Fresno, Las Vegas, San Diego, San Jose, etc.).
This is far better (and safer) than going to Moscow, ID, Missoula, MT, Flagstaff, AZ, Las Cruces, NM, Pocatello, ID, etc. on a regular basis as we do now. In this scenario, we would experience no social gain.
We can start a campaign based on funding our way into the MWC long-term and the WAC short-term, if at all. Calmly excited emotions derived from this vision can drive the whole campaign. I'd give $100 right now.
(1) Pac-10 takes UT & CO. Effect: Pac-10 now Pac-12 and full; Big XII down to 11, MWC down to 8.
(2) Big-10 takes MO. Effect Big-10 keeps name but is now full; Big XII down to 10.
(3) Big XII takes TCU and one other from MWC, let's say BYU. Effect: Big XII full again; MWC down to 6.
(4) MWC has made it known that it desires universities that can (a) help its BCS fortunes, (b) large population metropolitan areas and (c) quality airports. They can choose from the WAC or Big Sky.
Following the trend to 12-teams, the MWC would need (6) teams.
If they chose all from the WAC to fill their conference, the WAC would then be down to (3) teams and could literally take the entire Big Sky conference to make a 12-team conference.
So the likelihood of PSU getting into the WAC is as good as any other Big Sky team.
So, yes, going to the WAC is necessary, but staying in the WAC would be a great social loss. The best strategy we have for our social well-being is to position ourselves from now on for an invitation to the MWC where we will have airport destinations similar in quality to Portland (Albuquerque, Boise, Colorado Springs, Denver, Fresno, Las Vegas, San Diego, San Jose, etc.).
This is far better (and safer) than going to Moscow, ID, Missoula, MT, Flagstaff, AZ, Las Cruces, NM, Pocatello, ID, etc. on a regular basis as we do now. In this scenario, we would experience no social gain.
We can start a campaign based on funding our way into the MWC long-term and the WAC short-term, if at all. Calmly excited emotions derived from this vision can drive the whole campaign. I'd give $100 right now.
BroadwayVik
Active member
Who would the MWC be looking at for its (6) invitations?
(1) San Jose State; (2) Fresno State; (3) Hawaii; (4) Boise State; (5) LA Tech; (6) Nevada; (7) Utah State; (8) New Mexico State; (9) Idaho; (10) Montana; (11) Montana State; (12) Weber State; (13) N Arizona; (14) Portland State.
I believe E Washington and Idaho State are too small to be considered. I see UC-Davis and Sac State joining the Big West and playing football as either Independents or in the Great West. I think LA Tech will also not be considered because of its geographical lack-of-fit.
One or both of the Montana schools will very likely move up to the WAC but their sparse populations, I feel, render them unattractive to the MWC. They are running hard to overcome this weakness by trumping it with BCS quality fortune, but I feel it will not result at least in time for them.
Boise State is very likely a lock. In spite of a modest airport, I think we can count them in now for what they've achieved in terms of BCS fortunes. So now who are we down to with (5) slots to go?
(1) San Jose State; (2) Fresno State; (3) Hawaii; (4) Nevada; (5) Utah State; (6) New Mexico State; (7) Idaho; (8) Weber State; (9) N Arizona; (10) Portland State. Half will be invited, half will not.
I cannot help but feel that New Mexico will veto New Mexico State's joining. I believe this will be the way they will ensure their social status over NMSU for the forseeable future. UNLV and Boise State, on the other hand, likely do not have this kind of motivation concerning Nevada and Idaho respectively. I see Idaho on the move, developing quickly, with a good bowl game win over MAC Champion Bowling Green.
I see San Jose State and Fresno State as virtual locks on gaining invitations. San Jose State because of their metro population size and airport access, the work that Dick Tomey has done there and the fact that they CAN play very well, they just need something to tie it together and that X-factor may likely be being in the same conference as San Diego State. So that would leave the number of invitations remaining at (4).
(1) San Jose State; (2) Fresno State; (3) Hawaii; (4) Boise State; (5) LA Tech; (6) Nevada; (7) Utah State; (8) New Mexico State; (9) Idaho; (10) Montana; (11) Montana State; (12) Weber State; (13) N Arizona; (14) Portland State.
I believe E Washington and Idaho State are too small to be considered. I see UC-Davis and Sac State joining the Big West and playing football as either Independents or in the Great West. I think LA Tech will also not be considered because of its geographical lack-of-fit.
One or both of the Montana schools will very likely move up to the WAC but their sparse populations, I feel, render them unattractive to the MWC. They are running hard to overcome this weakness by trumping it with BCS quality fortune, but I feel it will not result at least in time for them.
Boise State is very likely a lock. In spite of a modest airport, I think we can count them in now for what they've achieved in terms of BCS fortunes. So now who are we down to with (5) slots to go?
(1) San Jose State; (2) Fresno State; (3) Hawaii; (4) Nevada; (5) Utah State; (6) New Mexico State; (7) Idaho; (8) Weber State; (9) N Arizona; (10) Portland State. Half will be invited, half will not.
I cannot help but feel that New Mexico will veto New Mexico State's joining. I believe this will be the way they will ensure their social status over NMSU for the forseeable future. UNLV and Boise State, on the other hand, likely do not have this kind of motivation concerning Nevada and Idaho respectively. I see Idaho on the move, developing quickly, with a good bowl game win over MAC Champion Bowling Green.
I see San Jose State and Fresno State as virtual locks on gaining invitations. San Jose State because of their metro population size and airport access, the work that Dick Tomey has done there and the fact that they CAN play very well, they just need something to tie it together and that X-factor may likely be being in the same conference as San Diego State. So that would leave the number of invitations remaining at (4).
BroadwayVik
Active member
Let's look at Portland State's competition for the (4) remaining invitation slots to the MWC.
Fresno State, Hawaii, Nevada, Utah State, Idaho, Weber State, N Arizona.
Now we need to think strongly, positively, proactively, in PSU's favor vis-a-vis the remaining competition.
Fresno State: They play anybody tough. They most often lose but will go after the big dogs. They have tremendous courage and are determined to get better. Moving up could make them better. Their population is sufficiently large with an airport. I believe they, too, are a virtual lock. Down to (3) invitations.
Hawaii, Nevada, Utah State, Idaho, Weber State, N Arizona
Hawaii: Capable of winning the WAC, yes, but because of their geographical distance and time-zone changes, they may not be an attract candidate. There is a reason why the MWC traded off Hawaii for UNLV when the 16-team WAC conference split in the 1990s. The travel is so burdensome and there will likely be plenty of opportunities for MWC teams to play Hawaii without having them as a conference member. So they may not receive an invitation to the MWC and may end up remaining a member of the WAC.
Nevada: Also capable of winning the WAC. They have a tremendous national-caliber offense but were completely decimated in the Sheraton Hawaii Bowl 45-10 by June Jones and SMU. PSU is installing the very same offense and will likely become a highly potent offense as well. UNLV would support their being invited but cannot control their being invited. Portland's MSA population is (6) times the size that of Reno and our airport is superior to theirs in every way. If PSU can match their football development, PSU will be in line ahead of them. I still see them as a viable candidate for one of the (3) remaining invitations.
Utah State: Utah State is improving. It is a lot like Oregon State in its character. They have tremendous basketball but the MWC is looking for football. They are not going to help any BCS fortunes in the foreseeable decade. PSU can surpass them and has already done so in terms of population and airport. USU is still viable to receive one of the (3) remaining invitations.
Idaho: They are improving. They function socially in tandem with Washington State being less than 10 miles apart from one another. Fitting into the #2 conference would feel natural to them but their remoteness and population size only benefits those who, like WSU, have been grandfathered-in. Help from Boise State will likely not help them as BSU is strong but still a new-comer to the conference. PSU can surpass them and dwarfs their population and airport. Unless they get amazing better very quickly, I do not see them receiving an invitation.
Weber State: Their student body size is about 82% of PSU's. They are by no means an insignificant school. Their team is getting better each year thanks to former Utah coach Ron McBride. They organize very well and make good investments. They scour the recruiting fields and look for innovative ways to accomplish their goals. They are spiritually galvanized and hold high expectations for themselves. They figure why not them? They're potentially as good as anyone else. They just have to put their minds to it. PSU would therefore need to at least match their progress and outshine and overshadow their population and airport. I see them as potentially viable to receive an invitation but also see their name as detractive to their cause.
N Arizona: They too are solid and getting better. They too are smart, good planners and accomplishers of goals. They have a good enrollment. If PSU matches their progress, they too will be done in by Portland's population and PDX Airport. I feel they will receive luke-warm consideration but will not be offered an invitation.
My hope is PSU will receive an invitation from the MWC and will be prepared to make the needed adjustments and so will accept the invitation. PSU is a sleeping giant. We just need heed Tom Peterson. That would make the conference look like the following:
Mountain West Conference
Coastal Division
San Jose State - Portland State
UNLV - Nevada
San Diego State - Fresno State
Mountain Division
Boise State - Utah State
Colorado State - Wyoming
New Mexico - Air Force
Fresno State, Hawaii, Nevada, Utah State, Idaho, Weber State, N Arizona.
Now we need to think strongly, positively, proactively, in PSU's favor vis-a-vis the remaining competition.
Fresno State: They play anybody tough. They most often lose but will go after the big dogs. They have tremendous courage and are determined to get better. Moving up could make them better. Their population is sufficiently large with an airport. I believe they, too, are a virtual lock. Down to (3) invitations.
Hawaii, Nevada, Utah State, Idaho, Weber State, N Arizona
Hawaii: Capable of winning the WAC, yes, but because of their geographical distance and time-zone changes, they may not be an attract candidate. There is a reason why the MWC traded off Hawaii for UNLV when the 16-team WAC conference split in the 1990s. The travel is so burdensome and there will likely be plenty of opportunities for MWC teams to play Hawaii without having them as a conference member. So they may not receive an invitation to the MWC and may end up remaining a member of the WAC.
Nevada: Also capable of winning the WAC. They have a tremendous national-caliber offense but were completely decimated in the Sheraton Hawaii Bowl 45-10 by June Jones and SMU. PSU is installing the very same offense and will likely become a highly potent offense as well. UNLV would support their being invited but cannot control their being invited. Portland's MSA population is (6) times the size that of Reno and our airport is superior to theirs in every way. If PSU can match their football development, PSU will be in line ahead of them. I still see them as a viable candidate for one of the (3) remaining invitations.
Utah State: Utah State is improving. It is a lot like Oregon State in its character. They have tremendous basketball but the MWC is looking for football. They are not going to help any BCS fortunes in the foreseeable decade. PSU can surpass them and has already done so in terms of population and airport. USU is still viable to receive one of the (3) remaining invitations.
Idaho: They are improving. They function socially in tandem with Washington State being less than 10 miles apart from one another. Fitting into the #2 conference would feel natural to them but their remoteness and population size only benefits those who, like WSU, have been grandfathered-in. Help from Boise State will likely not help them as BSU is strong but still a new-comer to the conference. PSU can surpass them and dwarfs their population and airport. Unless they get amazing better very quickly, I do not see them receiving an invitation.
Weber State: Their student body size is about 82% of PSU's. They are by no means an insignificant school. Their team is getting better each year thanks to former Utah coach Ron McBride. They organize very well and make good investments. They scour the recruiting fields and look for innovative ways to accomplish their goals. They are spiritually galvanized and hold high expectations for themselves. They figure why not them? They're potentially as good as anyone else. They just have to put their minds to it. PSU would therefore need to at least match their progress and outshine and overshadow their population and airport. I see them as potentially viable to receive an invitation but also see their name as detractive to their cause.
N Arizona: They too are solid and getting better. They too are smart, good planners and accomplishers of goals. They have a good enrollment. If PSU matches their progress, they too will be done in by Portland's population and PDX Airport. I feel they will receive luke-warm consideration but will not be offered an invitation.
My hope is PSU will receive an invitation from the MWC and will be prepared to make the needed adjustments and so will accept the invitation. PSU is a sleeping giant. We just need heed Tom Peterson. That would make the conference look like the following:
Mountain West Conference
Coastal Division
San Jose State - Portland State
UNLV - Nevada
San Diego State - Fresno State
Mountain Division
Boise State - Utah State
Colorado State - Wyoming
New Mexico - Air Force
This is interesting.
UM's AD and men's hoops coach seem to think that we're more likely to move to the WAC.
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20100526/SPORTS/5260315/Expanson+rumblings+could+affect+Big+Sky
UM's AD and men's hoops coach seem to think that we're more likely to move to the WAC.
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20100526/SPORTS/5260315/Expanson+rumblings+could+affect+Big+Sky
BroadwayVik
Active member
Going into the WAC is necessary but not sufficient. Portland State needs to take advantage of its population, its tremendous airport and student body size and assert itself by aligning with like-named institutions, institutions with which we share much in common.
Again, these include Boise State, San Jose State, Fresno State and San Diego State.
We can grow catalytically and especially so when those who drive the growth accurately see for the first time the vision that is clearly before them. They will see that, without question, this is the group with whom we naturally belong, that for collegiate sports, they are our natural peer group, that institutions thrive when grouped with similarly-named one, that it is important in spite of Shakespear's false statement.
NB: I think we can get good awfully quick, especially with our movie-subject FB-guru (and his former NFL stars) dropping in from time-to-time.
Again, these include Boise State, San Jose State, Fresno State and San Diego State.
We can grow catalytically and especially so when those who drive the growth accurately see for the first time the vision that is clearly before them. They will see that, without question, this is the group with whom we naturally belong, that for collegiate sports, they are our natural peer group, that institutions thrive when grouped with similarly-named one, that it is important in spite of Shakespear's false statement.
NB: I think we can get good awfully quick, especially with our movie-subject FB-guru (and his former NFL stars) dropping in from time-to-time.
There's been a lot of talk over on the other web sites about this supposed conference reallignment, especially concerning Montana's proposed move. All of this is kicked off by the ending of the NCAA moratorium on conference moves next summer and the assumption that all conferences will be shifting. Well, maybe so, maybe not. Montana's certainly talking about it, with the assumption that if they do it will be to the Mountain West.There's the side issue of what does Montana State do, but the biggest issue is money. They figure it will cost to start with 2 million just for the additional 22 football scholarships, and another 2 million for the necessary additional sports. The same money figures apply to us in the WAC. Can we spring a permanent additional 4 million dollars for athletics? I don't think so. And you'd have to figure another minimal 1 million for the administration of the enlarged program. Note that we already take 1 million plus from student fees.
I don't think either Montana or PSU can afford it. I hate to be a wet blanket, but......
I don't think either Montana or PSU can afford it. I hate to be a wet blanket, but......
BroadwayVik
Active member
Don't think in terms of the status quo. When "emotional-returns-to-donations" (e.g. PSU Vikings beating Gonzaga Bulldogs 77-70) are relatively rare in occurence (as they must be with PSU playing in the lowly big sky conference), you're going to witness fewer donations than when such returns are ramped up (as they would be in the Mountain West).
SEE: Howard, D. & Stinson, J., "Winning Does Matter: Patterns of Giving to Athletic and Academic Programs at NCAA Division I-AA and I-AAA Institutions," Sport Managment Review, 2008.
If Montana is aiming for the MWC, they have wise leadership. We should be competing with them directly for that slot as whoever gets it will enjoy higher social status for their university for the forseeable future. They feel they deserve it because they are similar to MWC-member Wyoming.
But the MWC has made it known they prefer large media markets with top-quality airports. Can Montana get around this issue? Have they had a long-standing conversation with the MWC that would allow them to do so? If so, hadn't we better then start communicating with the MWC and show them the clear benefits of Portland State University over the University of Montana? Ought'nt we to assert ourselves over the competition? Yes!
It is highly challenging to find people-with-money willing to contribute millions to big sky athletics (unless, perhaps, your name is synonymous with big sky), but fund-raising becomes much less viscous and sticky (and much more fun and doable) when playing in a conference with greater names, competition and television contracts. For PSU, playing against San Diego State, San Jose State, Fresno State and Boise State would make us FEEL GREAT and identified, and that feeling is highly attractive to people-with-money to donate.
As the aforementioned article shows, there's a connection between rewards-for-the-emotions and university-donations. Not only would donations for athletics go much higher (with improved conference affiliation) but so would donations for Portland State University in general.
SEE: Howard, D. & Stinson, J., "Winning Does Matter: Patterns of Giving to Athletic and Academic Programs at NCAA Division I-AA and I-AAA Institutions," Sport Managment Review, 2008.
If Montana is aiming for the MWC, they have wise leadership. We should be competing with them directly for that slot as whoever gets it will enjoy higher social status for their university for the forseeable future. They feel they deserve it because they are similar to MWC-member Wyoming.
But the MWC has made it known they prefer large media markets with top-quality airports. Can Montana get around this issue? Have they had a long-standing conversation with the MWC that would allow them to do so? If so, hadn't we better then start communicating with the MWC and show them the clear benefits of Portland State University over the University of Montana? Ought'nt we to assert ourselves over the competition? Yes!
It is highly challenging to find people-with-money willing to contribute millions to big sky athletics (unless, perhaps, your name is synonymous with big sky), but fund-raising becomes much less viscous and sticky (and much more fun and doable) when playing in a conference with greater names, competition and television contracts. For PSU, playing against San Diego State, San Jose State, Fresno State and Boise State would make us FEEL GREAT and identified, and that feeling is highly attractive to people-with-money to donate.
As the aforementioned article shows, there's a connection between rewards-for-the-emotions and university-donations. Not only would donations for athletics go much higher (with improved conference affiliation) but so would donations for Portland State University in general.
BroadwayVik
Active member
Imagine the following scenario:
"It IS a beautiful day here at PGE Park in Portland, Oregon where today the #3 Boise State Broncos meet the Portland State Vikings in a Mountain West Conference showdown. Hello, everybody, I'm Brent Musberger. With me is former NFL great Phil Simms and, Phil, how in the world are the Portland State Vikings going to contain this high-powered offense of Coach Chris Peterson?"
"Well, Brent, as Boise State showed in their game last week against Utah of the Pac-12, there probably isn't going to be much corraling of their offense, but Portland State has a bend-but-don't-break defensive approach that make well prove to be injurious to Boise State's scoring productivity."
"Last week, the Vikings held Fresno State to a single touchdown in the second half, which proved to be the difference in their 4-point win down in the San Joaquin Valley. But, Phil, you suspect that PSU may also be thinking more in terms of countering Boise State through a bit of offensive production of their own?"
"No question, Brent. The Vikings rolled up over 470 yard of offense last week and have been averaging over 400 yards per game since the beginning of the season. Granted that one of those games included a 600 yard-plus performance against their old rival Montana. But their modified Pistol offense, I'm sure, has been on the minds of the Boise State defense since the day following their thrilling win over Utah. With equally-gifted quarterbacks and skill players on either side of the line-of-scrimmage, I'm sure it's going to be a great game today."
"It's a sell-out crowd here in PGE Park on a glorious fall day here in the City of Roses. We'll be right back for the kick-off after these messages. College football on A - B - C."
"It IS a beautiful day here at PGE Park in Portland, Oregon where today the #3 Boise State Broncos meet the Portland State Vikings in a Mountain West Conference showdown. Hello, everybody, I'm Brent Musberger. With me is former NFL great Phil Simms and, Phil, how in the world are the Portland State Vikings going to contain this high-powered offense of Coach Chris Peterson?"
"Well, Brent, as Boise State showed in their game last week against Utah of the Pac-12, there probably isn't going to be much corraling of their offense, but Portland State has a bend-but-don't-break defensive approach that make well prove to be injurious to Boise State's scoring productivity."
"Last week, the Vikings held Fresno State to a single touchdown in the second half, which proved to be the difference in their 4-point win down in the San Joaquin Valley. But, Phil, you suspect that PSU may also be thinking more in terms of countering Boise State through a bit of offensive production of their own?"
"No question, Brent. The Vikings rolled up over 470 yard of offense last week and have been averaging over 400 yards per game since the beginning of the season. Granted that one of those games included a 600 yard-plus performance against their old rival Montana. But their modified Pistol offense, I'm sure, has been on the minds of the Boise State defense since the day following their thrilling win over Utah. With equally-gifted quarterbacks and skill players on either side of the line-of-scrimmage, I'm sure it's going to be a great game today."
"It's a sell-out crowd here in PGE Park on a glorious fall day here in the City of Roses. We'll be right back for the kick-off after these messages. College football on A - B - C."
pdxfan said:
Combine this with the fact that the University is going to get five million less from the State of Oregon this year.
