Question of the Week 6/25/12

[superhornet]

OK, this doesn't become official until next week, but I don't have anything else that fits in the football category. I think that next week, I might put a QOW in the "other sports" forum, so be sure to look there.

With SUU and UND now full members in the BSC, what advantages and disadvantages do you see in an expanded Big Sky? What about the addition of Cal Poly and UC Davis as associate members for football? Do you like or dislike the additions?

 

[scooter]

As a Viking fan I am very happy with the expansion - competitive programs push all of us, and I would think that having Poly & Davis close to you guys that the fervor will only be enhanced. Also, as the FCS moves to include more teams in the playoff format the BSC will hopefully provide those additional teams. Perhaps being able to bring Idaho into the fold would better balance the conference and provide two distinct divisions with built in rivalries.

 

[SDHornet]

I’m ok with the adds with the exception of UND. UND being the solo Dakota school will really impact travel budgets, especially ours. However Fullerton can add a 12th full member (Idaho, Bako, or UVU) in the next few years so the BSC can be split into divisions for Oly sports and the travel cost impact can be minimized.

I do like that Cal Poly and the farm extension are our rivals and that we will be guaranteed a home game against a regional opponent every season. This will help with attendance. I don’t like that the BSC will lose its round-robin type of format and potentially have split championships between programs that may have never played each other during the season. I’m also not a fan of the expanding FCS playoffs. 16 teams is more than enough, everything after that is just handing out participation trophies.

As far as hoops are concerned, I don’t like that every team plays each other twice. 20 games are now guaranteed to be against BSC teams and that will take away schedule spots away from a potential OOC regional game. This is bad for fans and attendance. I do like that we are still only taking the top teams (will now be 7 instead of 6) into the BSC Tournament. I do wish a site for the tournament would be selected in advance (either at a BSC venue or neutral) so fans would have time to make travel plans.

As far as the other sports go we’ll just have to see if there is any impact there. Our softball team was plucked from a travel friendly conference (PCSC) and will now be in the BSC due to the adds. See higher travel expenses complaint above.

Having said all that I’m glad we are in a stable conference and I believe this was one of the components that contributed to our 35 conference championships since 2007. These additions should strengthen the conference as a whole. :twocents:

 

[StungAlum2]

UND doesnt belong in the BSC. They are increasing travel costs and add nothing of value to the conference other than another mouth to feed. It's not like Sac, the farm extension, or Poly are going to go out and recruit North Dakota, it doesnt benefit any of the CA schools or the BSC overall.

SUU was an okay addition, however, I do not like the fact that they are now considered a "peer" institution as they are an open enrollment university like Weber. They are essentially brick and mortar University of Phoenix's.

Poly and the farm extension were good additions both athletically and academically. It makes financial sense to add a few more CA schools and it helps improve the conferences exposure in CA which helps with recruiting. However, I'm a farm extension hater 'til the day I die.