-
Hi Guest,
We've updated the site to combine all the forums that were part of the Big Sky Fans Network into one location. This will make it easier to navigate and participate in all the discussions for each school without having to have multiple accounts, etc. We are still working out some tweaks but please let us know if you notice anything.
With the migration, in some circumstances, your username could have been merged with one of your other usernames from the other forums. If this is the case, you can request to change your username in your account details page of your profile. -
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
-
Guest, do want an ad free experience on BigSkyFans.com among other benefits? Upgrade your account today!
Simply click your profile name > account upgrades > BigSky Club > choose between the year long subscription (two free months) or month to month
Thanks for the continued support. Cheers!
IdaHO Vandals [are joining the Big Sky]
- Thread starter ajwildcat
- Start date
Lots of questions for the league, now. Do they play 22 conference games, or split into divisions and play 18? How will the conference tournament be structured? Will Idaho get a full share of the already meager NCAA/Television revenues, now divided up 11 ways? Will the league continue to pursue a WAC/Big Sky merger to increase the number of NCAA bids to two?
ajwildcat said:
Wow...this is news!! :shocking:
With this annoucement, I'm guessing that the WAC is folding. Without Idaho the WAC doesn't have much to hang their hat on. To me, at least, if anything for our Vandal Conference mates, hopefully it is screwing over Boise. But I'm guessing that Idaho's administrators saw the writing on the wall, Boise headed to Big West and possibly either, or both, Seattle and Denver getting invites to the WCC or Summit, or from somewhere.
I feel badly for NMSU. I hope they land on their feet too. Possible Southland candidates?
oldrunner
Active member
How many more nails until the WAC can be officially buried? I understand IdaHo's despair. Boise St. has stolen their thunder and their small market, much like Logan, can't carry them anywhere. They are proud, but their pride is going to cost them a lot. In the end, they will be worse off than if they simply went all in with the BSC.
They can go on the road and play all the bigtime BCS schools. They won't get the payday because they are on the same level, and they will not be able to get many home and home contracts. They still have to fund 85 scholarships and their travel expenses will be greater. Someone needs to slap those people. :thumbdown:
They can go on the road and play all the bigtime BCS schools. They won't get the payday because they are on the same level, and they will not be able to get many home and home contracts. They still have to fund 85 scholarships and their travel expenses will be greater. Someone needs to slap those people. :thumbdown:
oldrunner said:
Idaho's administration is playing a waiting game. They are going to give Independence two years, and then, after a terrible home schedule, a lot of body-bag beat downs and a total loss of morale, they can tell their fans, "Well, we tried, but it didn't work and we are going back to the Big Sky." Or, if by miracle, they have some moderate success as an indy and move forward with facility expansion, then perhaps they get the MWC invite they so desperately crave. Either way, as their president and AD both noted today, independence is "temporary."
SWeberCat02
Active member
Grow a freaking pair, Fullerton! If they won't bring their football program then I say forget 'em. Why give them special treatment, they're freaking Idaho. If they want in, then make them be all in. Anyways, don't the school presidents have to approve? I hope they feel the same way I do.
SWeberCat02 said:
If I was a betting man, I'd say that Fullerton and the presidents know the football program will rejoin. It's just a matter of when. Right now, the Vandal administration is placating the vocal minority. Idaho has to drop to the 63 scholarship level, and that can't be done realistically in one year.
Even so, Fullerton and the presidents should write up an exit fee structure for Idaho which encourages a long stay.
weberwildcat
Active member
i didnt expect to see the sky and mwc get together and decide to kill the wac but so be it.
this makes basketball interesting for lack of a better word to describe this Huge Sky of a conference and how it will play out with scheduleing, post season...etc.
im glad to play idaho in hoops, we have too many colleges in border states we never play. having said that, they shouldnt all have to be in our conference for us to play them. also i dont anticipate the vandals walking all over the sky in any sports i follow. if they can be an RPI top 200 that is as much as we can hope for in the new sky.
i wonder if idaho will join the big sky in football a few yrs down the road and even out our leage for that sport.
are we still happy we have UND?
overall it still makes sense to take idaho as is. this way the sky can help ensure that there is no competition in the western united states. great west gone, check, wac gone, check. who leff?
this makes basketball interesting for lack of a better word to describe this Huge Sky of a conference and how it will play out with scheduleing, post season...etc.
im glad to play idaho in hoops, we have too many colleges in border states we never play. having said that, they shouldnt all have to be in our conference for us to play them. also i dont anticipate the vandals walking all over the sky in any sports i follow. if they can be an RPI top 200 that is as much as we can hope for in the new sky.
i wonder if idaho will join the big sky in football a few yrs down the road and even out our leage for that sport.
are we still happy we have UND?
overall it still makes sense to take idaho as is. this way the sky can help ensure that there is no competition in the western united states. great west gone, check, wac gone, check. who leff?
So Im guessing that with 12 teams now, the Big Sky will see divisions to ease travel costs a North/South alignment most likely
North
Montana
Eastern Washington
Montana State
Portland State
North Dakota
Idaho
South
Weber State
Southern Utah
Northern Arizona
Northern Colorado
Sacramento State
Idaho State
???
North
Montana
Eastern Washington
Montana State
Portland State
North Dakota
Idaho
South
Weber State
Southern Utah
Northern Arizona
Northern Colorado
Sacramento State
Idaho State
???
oldrunner
Active member
If you still play everyone twice, that makes 22 conf. games. :yikes: If you play your div. twice and the other div. once, it makes 16 games. A post season tournement format could be done a variety of ways, but will likely involve 8 teams.
I hope that we start to see more than one team from the BSC getting into the big dance. If not, there could be a need to split into two leagues in the future.
I hope that we start to see more than one team from the BSC getting into the big dance. If not, there could be a need to split into two leagues in the future.
WILDCAT said:
Well that would suck. I don't like not playing UM, MSU, and Eastern every year. Look at the bright side if this break down happens. Weber would win the division every year. :rofl:
Divisions should be split up between newbs and traditional members. Won't happen, but.
Trad:
Weber
UM
MSU
ISU
UI
NAU
Newbs:
SUU
UNC
SAC
PSU
UND
EWU
Trad:
Weber
UM
MSU
ISU
UI
NAU
Newbs:
SUU
UNC
SAC
PSU
UND
EWU
oldrunner
Active member
Tal;
I think we would still play everyone, every year. We would play everyone once, and our division twice. That would give us the potential of 13 or more OOC games. That, I could live with.
What would suck is that you would only see the northern schools at the Dee every other year. The other thing is that ISU and UI may not want to be split. I can't think of another way to do this, other than some kind of a random or rotating pairing system that would have teams play some twice and others once. Any way I look at it, I can't see us playing everyone twice, in that large of a league.
I think we would still play everyone, every year. We would play everyone once, and our division twice. That would give us the potential of 13 or more OOC games. That, I could live with.
What would suck is that you would only see the northern schools at the Dee every other year. The other thing is that ISU and UI may not want to be split. I can't think of another way to do this, other than some kind of a random or rotating pairing system that would have teams play some twice and others once. Any way I look at it, I can't see us playing everyone twice, in that large of a league.
SWeberCat02
Active member
The greatest benefit of having an even number of teams is travel partners. It really cuts down on travel costs. So I think if there are divisions they will be divided using travel partners.
Divisions using best travel partners?
North:
Montana/Montana St
Eastern Wash/Idaho
N Colorado/N Dakota
South:
Weber/Idaho St
S Utah/N Arizona
Sac St/Portland St
Divisions using best travel partners?
North:
Montana/Montana St
Eastern Wash/Idaho
N Colorado/N Dakota
South:
Weber/Idaho St
S Utah/N Arizona
Sac St/Portland St
oldrunner
Active member
If you do the travel partner thing, you don't need divisions at all. You can just do a two year rotation on who you play once and who you play twice. I actually like that idea better. Who you play once and twice would change every other year. It would keep it more fair over the long run, and the post season could keep a simmilar structure. :thumb:
