-
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!
New Alignment for divisions
- Thread starter EWU98
- Start date
allweatherfan2
Active member
Align by North and South Divisions?
North Dakota
Montana
Montana State
Eastern Washington
Idaho
Idaho State
Portland State
Northern Arizona
CalPoly
Cal Davis
Sacramento State
Southern Utah
Weber State
Northern Colorado
North Dakota
Montana
Montana State
Eastern Washington
Idaho
Idaho State
Portland State
Northern Arizona
CalPoly
Cal Davis
Sacramento State
Southern Utah
Weber State
Northern Colorado
marceagfan5
Active member
It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I don't think we want to lose the Cali connection so we will want at least 1 or 2 Cali teams on our schedule every year. Will be interesting how this plays out and who Idaho will get as their two rivals and how that shakes out. Hope we don't lose the Griz as one of ours...
When this was on the table before, the thought was that there would be a "Coastal" and "Mountain" division.
I would assume Eastern would be in the Coastal with Portland State, Sac State, Davis, and Cal Poly. After that it gets dicey. I'd assume Idaho would be placed wherever Eastern goes. The last team would likely be Southern Utah to the Coastal, although NAU might be a consideration, or even Idaho State to keep with Idaho.
From a practical standpoint, one would have to assume Eastern, Montana State, and Montana would be considered the top tier and split apart. Montana and Montana State would be paired together, meaning Eastern is odd-man-out.
When this was considered before, the thought was each team would keep one rivalry alive from the other side, meaning we could still be lining up against Montana every season.
The other thing to consider would be the "rivalry" games that the conference prizes. Would we continue our artificial rivalry with Portland State? No one seems to care about that one, especially on their end. Would we take Idaho and Montana as rivals? If so, that's a tough pair of games each year... but probably the best revenue drivers we could schedule from within the league.
I would assume Eastern would be in the Coastal with Portland State, Sac State, Davis, and Cal Poly. After that it gets dicey. I'd assume Idaho would be placed wherever Eastern goes. The last team would likely be Southern Utah to the Coastal, although NAU might be a consideration, or even Idaho State to keep with Idaho.
From a practical standpoint, one would have to assume Eastern, Montana State, and Montana would be considered the top tier and split apart. Montana and Montana State would be paired together, meaning Eastern is odd-man-out.
When this was considered before, the thought was each team would keep one rivalry alive from the other side, meaning we could still be lining up against Montana every season.
The other thing to consider would be the "rivalry" games that the conference prizes. Would we continue our artificial rivalry with Portland State? No one seems to care about that one, especially on their end. Would we take Idaho and Montana as rivals? If so, that's a tough pair of games each year... but probably the best revenue drivers we could schedule from within the league.
There does need to be some sort of re-alignment for football. 14 teams competing for only one auto-bid isn't ideal. The thing is, I'm not sure you can just create another Division within the contruct of the same conference and get an additional autobid. I think it would have to be a separate conference, with a different name. Could be wrong about that.
Whatever happens, we'll fight to stay aligned with the Montana and Idaho schools. Anything else doesn't make sense from a geographic standpoint.
EWU - UM - MSU - Idaho - ISU - PSU - UND?
Sac - Davis - Poly - Weber - UNC - NAU - SUU
Yeah, it'd suck to lose the Cali schools from a recruiting standpoint, but we could still play them on a rotational basis for OOC/Inter-Divisional games. We don't play them every year with the unbalanced schedule as it is now; not sure what the difference is.
Also interested in seeing how the situation with NMSU plays out. They're basically in the same boat as Idaho was, but it's even more problematic for them. At least Idaho has historical ties to the Big Sky and sits within the geographical footprint. If they do decide to move their football program to FCS, the Southland probably makes more sense than the Big Sky.
Whatever happens, we'll fight to stay aligned with the Montana and Idaho schools. Anything else doesn't make sense from a geographic standpoint.
EWU - UM - MSU - Idaho - ISU - PSU - UND?
Sac - Davis - Poly - Weber - UNC - NAU - SUU
Yeah, it'd suck to lose the Cali schools from a recruiting standpoint, but we could still play them on a rotational basis for OOC/Inter-Divisional games. We don't play them every year with the unbalanced schedule as it is now; not sure what the difference is.
Also interested in seeing how the situation with NMSU plays out. They're basically in the same boat as Idaho was, but it's even more problematic for them. At least Idaho has historical ties to the Big Sky and sits within the geographical footprint. If they do decide to move their football program to FCS, the Southland probably makes more sense than the Big Sky.
eaglesfootball
Active member
I think a split will happens and when it does we want to be aligned with the traditional big sky schools that are in our neck of the woods. inevitably when a conference gets too big you get a group of school that start thinking "we're more like this group than this other group." Just look at what happened with the WAC and MWC. And we all know what happened with the WAC. All the best programs went to the mwc and the remainder were left to fend for themselves once the WAC folded. I wouldn't want to see us aligned with any of the newcomers or schools that are way outside of our area.
West:
EWU
PSU
Idaho
Idaho State
Sac St
UC Davis
Cal Poly
East:
Weber State
Northern Arizona
Southern Utah
Montana
Montana State
North Dakota
Northern Colorado
EWU could schedule Montana or Montana State for OOC game(s) the years that do not have them on the schedule. I believe the above divisions are more evenly split than a north/south split and would love to keep EWU in the same division as Cal Poly. Also having all three California schools in EWU's division insures at least one trip a year to California which would be good for your recruiting.
EWU
PSU
Idaho
Idaho State
Sac St
UC Davis
Cal Poly
East:
Weber State
Northern Arizona
Southern Utah
Montana
Montana State
North Dakota
Northern Colorado
EWU could schedule Montana or Montana State for OOC game(s) the years that do not have them on the schedule. I believe the above divisions are more evenly split than a north/south split and would love to keep EWU in the same division as Cal Poly. Also having all three California schools in EWU's division insures at least one trip a year to California which would be good for your recruiting.
When the Big Sky looked at possible expansion to 14 before, the thought was PST teams and MST teams, basically... "Coastal" and "Mountain." You could pretty much split the conference evenly by time zone. It would also be an equitable distribution of teams, with Eastern and Idaho leading a faction including playoff-part-timers Southern Utah, Cal Poly, and Portland State; Montana and Montana State would lead NAU and Weber and a rising UND.
Splitting North and South mean you have one great set of teams, and one that doesn't feature any regular playoff teams. I don't think that benefits the Big Sky to have two widely different divisions.
Splitting North and South mean you have one great set of teams, and one that doesn't feature any regular playoff teams. I don't think that benefits the Big Sky to have two widely different divisions.
ewueagle2010
Active member
Looking at the differences, I really like to the Coastal and Mountain option best. I hate losing Montana and Montana State, but keeping Idaho is good. I also like having Cal Poly and Portland State included with Eastern. Splitting North and South would cause a massive separation between the two conferences and truly would not be fair.
marceagfan5
Active member
WILDCAT said:
Swapping NAU and IDAHO and you have it. Idaho won't be in a different division than Eastern.
Obzerver
Active member
With costs being a major concern for athletic budgets, travel costs will be a driver on any conference spilt. EWU and Idaho should be together and I'm sure where Idaho goes so does ISU. This may not be cost effective for EWU but (West)EWU, UI, ISU, PSU, Poly, Davis,SS then (East)UM, MSU, UND, WSU, UNC, NAU, SUU...this way Montana can become relevant again.
FormerEag
Active member
Obzerver said:
But but! They won the National Championship in 2001! They have a big stadium! North End Zone! Monte won the Capital One Mascot Challenge! Rhodes Scholars! Forget the last 6 years- they have a better head to head record!
*Insert high school stadium/tampax field insult here*
Eagle Talon
Active member
This is a complicated topic, but if there's a way to split into two Divisions and gain an additional playoff auto bid while keeping the conference intact I think that's the way to go. If the Big Sky splits into two different conferences for football and either one loses one member they're screwed because there are literally no other schools two draw from. I believe the minimum to retain autobid status is 7 schools. Anyone know for sure?
