• 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!

Montana Staying

S

SWeberCat02

Active member
http://www.ktvq.com/news/um-staying-in-big-sky-conference/

http://www.montanagrizzlies.com/news/index.aspx?n=2010/114/9294&m=0
 
I for one am thrilled to see the Grizz stay in the Big Sky!! Although the WAC has got to feel like shizz for being turned down by the Griz. :lol:
I think they Big Sky is going to be DAMN tough in football for a long long time.
 
Here's my question: Why isn't Weber the new non-football member instead of Denver? I wonder if WSU administration pursued the non-football opening offered by the WAC. I love the direction the football program is going under MAC, but the reality is that WSU will always be a basketball school. When Davis and Poly were allowed to join the Sky as football members only, it opened the door for Weber to do the same thing. Wouldn't it be better for the WSU to be in the Big Sky for football and WAC in all other sports? Better conference RPI for basketball, better TV contract, more exposure, etc. Perhaps WSU did go after this option only to be blocked by Utah State. Surely we would be considered a threat to them if we were in the same conference. Are there any athletic department insiders that have some insight?
 
This means the WAC still needs one more football member for better scheduling. Does that mean Portland State and Sac State are back on the list? Or will the WAC pursue North Texas? Also, has anyone heard if Hawaii is still looking at Big West/Independent football?
 
With Montana staying, the Big Sky is at some awkward numbers. 13 for football and 11 full members. 13 doesn't divide well for divisions (and you could argue that it's just too dang big), and 11 doesn't provide for travel partners for the other sports. Not to mention, North Dakota doesn't fit geographically real well and adds travel costs. I think the conference really had egg on it's face when South Dakota turned them down. I read a quote that the conference feels like they were "stabbed in the back". If the conference really wanted to add the Dakota schools, they should have conditioned it upon both joining. And they shouldn't have jumped the gun and announced the additions until it was a done deal. Now there aren't any other real options out there to get the conference to 14 football playing schools. They could add a school for all other sports to get to 12, but there aren't any real good options for this. Seattle is a smaller faith based private school that wouldn't fit well, and I know how some of you feel about UVU. My hope is that North Dakota realizes that the Sky isn't great for them and they jump ship and join the two conferences the rest of the Dakota schools are in. And then we would have 12 and 10. Problem fixed.
 
SWeberCat02 said:
With Montana staying, the Big Sky is at some awkward numbers. 13 for football and 11 full members. 13 doesn't divide well for divisions (and you could argue that it's just too dang big), and 11 doesn't provide for travel partners for the other sports. Not to mention, North Dakota doesn't fit geographically real well and adds travel costs. I think the conference really had egg on it's face when South Dakota turned them down. I read a quote that the conference feels like they were "stabbed in the back". If the conference really wanted to add the Dakota schools, they should have conditioned it upon both joining. And they shouldn't have jumped the gun and announced the additions until it was a done deal. Now there aren't any other real options out there to get the conference to 14 football playing schools. They could add a school for all other sports to get to 12, but there aren't any real good options for this. Seattle is a smaller faith based private school that wouldn't fit well, and I know how some of you feel about UVU. My hope is that North Dakota realizes that the Sky isn't great for them and they jump ship and join the two conferences the rest of the Dakota schools are in. And then we would have 12 and 10. Problem fixed.
Click to expand...


I agree with all of your post.

It wont hurt my feelings to see North Dakota stay, and look forward to playing them, but It wouldnt hurt my feelings if they jumped ship and went to the MVC for football.

How about this Idea, I thought SD did well by going to the MVC for football, but should have went to the Big Sky for Basketball, the Summit is weak.

So this is what the Big Sky should do, let North Dakota in as basketball only members, and bring in UVU as the other basketball only member, that would give us 12 bball members and 12 football members. 8-)

(North Dakota goes to the MVC for football by the way.)

Or heck just join UVU as a b-ball member anyway, UVU has stated that if they started football they would want in the Big Sky. maybe UVU should move a little faster.
 
hdqweber said:
Here's my question: Why isn't Weber the new non-football member instead of Denver? I wonder if WSU administration pursued the non-football opening offered by the WAC. I love the direction the football program is going under MAC, but the reality is that WSU will always be a basketball school. When Davis and Poly were allowed to join the Sky as football members only, it opened the door for Weber to do the same thing. Wouldn't it be better for the WSU to be in the Big Sky for football and WAC in all other sports? Better conference RPI for basketball, better TV contract, more exposure, etc. Perhaps WSU did go after this option only to be blocked by Utah State. Surely we would be considered a threat to them if we were in the same conference. Are there any athletic department insiders that have some insight?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't want Weber to move into the WAC. They have a much better opportunity of going to the Dance if they stay in the Sky. We already play in a conference that is pretty similar to the WAC except for powerhouses Utah State and Nevada. Aside from those two teams, what does the WAC have on the Big Sky? Weber would probably finish in the top 3-5 and not even be considered for the NCAA tournament.
 
UH leaving WAC

http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/20101119_UH_leaving_WAC.html

It continues to look like Montana turning down the WAC was a good move on their part. With Hawaii now leaving, the WAC is really no better than the Big Sky, and maybe even worse. The WAC is really irrelevant in the FBS. They would be wise to move to the FCS.

An interesting quote from UH head football coach:

McMackin said he expects the college football landscape to shift, with more schools changing conferences.

"I think there's going to be another earthquake," McMackin said. "It will be good to be in a solid league when that happens."
 
At this point, the rest of the WAC should just drop down and join the Big Sky. On second thought, there are only a few schools in the WAC that I would even want in the Big SKy.
 
ajwildcat said:
At this point, the rest of the WAC should just drop down and join the Big Sky. On second thought, there are only a few schools in the WAC that I would even want in the Big SKy.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and well said.

Hawaii joining the Mountain West only accentuates the fact that Utah State was offered and declined to go to the MWC. The WAC (What A Catastrophe) continues it's downward spiral to failure, and Hawaii only got the chance when the Big West lifted it's moratorium earlier this week.

Big Sky is still a very very competitive conference, and WSU will have to be on top of their game to continue to build on Coach Mac's success.

GO CATS
 
If Hawaii stays in the WAC, I would argue that it is still a stronger conference for Weber with Cats staying in the Sky for football only. In hoops they are stronger top to bottom.( SJSU and Boise are still better than ISU, SAC, and Eastern) Plus the WAC would still have UH, NMSU, and USU. They also have a ESPN deal, and the geography is better. I agree the Sky is a mess that is too big and will have an identity crisis soon.
 
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/sports/50730373-77/benson-conference-hawaii-wac.html.csp

"Benson also asked Cal-Davis to rethink its move to the Big Sky, but was rebuffed."

"But if the WAC has just seven football-playing members in July 2012, it would lose its status as a Football Bowl Subdivision conference. Because of this, Benson says he’s aggressively pursuing other football-playing schools"

The WAC is trying to poach football programs from any and everywhere, including the Big Sky, just to survive. It is really laughable that the WAC has now been turned down by at least 2 Sky schools (that we know of). They've also been turned down by Sun Belt member North Texas. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top