SiouxFan Realignment Nonesense

[SDHornet]

Had to merge the "Is the Big Sky too Big" thread with the "SiouxFan Realignment Nonesense" thread since it's now clearly in that territory.

My understanding is the BSC has no by-laws on kicking out a member (full or affiliate) so any idea of any current members getting kicked out is utter nonsense.

But that is far less nonsensical than SF's Great Northern Conference where the montuckies and their groupies abandon their presence in the BSC's prime recruiting grounds and join up with the Dakota's to pick through whatever talent is leftover after the B1G gets first dibs.

Any movement between the BSC, summit and WAC will be a result of fallout from the P4 consolidation/realignment coming in the next 5ish years.

 

[BuckeyeHornetFan]

Had to merge the "Is the Big Sky too Big" thread with the "SiouxFan Realignment Nonesense" thread since it's now clearly in that territory.

My understanding is the BSC has no by-laws on kicking out a member (full or affiliate) so any idea of any current members getting kicked out is utter nonsense.

But that is far less nonsensical than SF's Great Northern Conference where the montuckies and their groupies abandon their presence in the BSC's prime recruiting grounds and join up with the Dakota's to pick through whatever talent is leftover after the B1G gets first dibs.

Thanks for merging.

Also agree about the recruiting presence. That was brought up in the article that was posted and was one of many chief reasons I said I liked the current setup and why I think this whole thread is BS.

 

[Siouxfan]

There are two interesting articles in the Bozeman paper last week.

One said the BSC needed to split or get lower in number. I am saying that too.

The second article said there are facility haves and have nots in the BSC. I say that too, and that will be the reason for the split.

Small town college newspapers get their ideas from the actual AD, who gave them the ideas to further what he knows is coming.

Mont St just completed an $18 mill FBS training facility and is moving soon to FBS. It will need to be FBS before 2025 when the new CFP contract starts.

Sac St, Davis and Poly are moving to FBS too. Playing SDSU, Fresno and SJSU will go much further with fans than playing SUU and Idaho State.

 

[Kadeezy]

There are two interesting articles in the Bozeman paper last week.

One said the BSC needed to split or get lower in number. I am saying that too.

The second article said there are facility haves and have nots in the BSC. I say that too, and that will be the reason for the split.

Small town college newspapers get their ideas from the actual AD, who gave them the ideas to further what he knows is coming.

Mont St just completed an $18 mill FBS training facility and is moving soon to FBS. It will need to be FBS before 2025 when the new CFP contract starts.

Sac St, Davis and Poly are moving to FBS too. Playing SDSU, Fresno and SJSU will go much further with fans than playing SUU and Idaho State.

If your nonsense were true in this instance, I would be very happy.

 

[Siouxfan]

Had to merge the "Is the Big Sky too Big" thread with the "SiouxFan Realignment Nonesense" thread since it's now clearly in that territory.

My understanding is the BSC has no by-laws on kicking out a member (full or affiliate) so any idea of any current members getting kicked out is utter nonsense.

But that is far less nonsensical than SF's Great Northern Conference where the montuckies and their groupies abandon their presence in the BSC's prime recruiting grounds and join up with the Dakota's to pick through whatever talent is leftover after the B1G gets first dibs.

Any movement between the BSC, summit and WAC will be a result of fallout from the P4 consolidation/realignment coming in the next 5ish years.

The schools with FBS aspirations will be leaving to other conferences, not kicked out. The BSC or the other conferences will not evict any school.

You simply do not follow.

 

[Sac Rat 3.0]

You simply can't be taken seriously, but this too much fun.

You propose a WAC conference including Witchita State. The Shockers dropped football in the 80s, and recently bolted the Missouri Valley Conference for the American Athletic Conference to take their successful basketball program to a higher level. You seriously think WSU would reverse course to a far flung Podunk conference? Preposterous. If they were to add football I think staying in the AAC would make more sense.

Also, you claim UCD would get invited to the MWC due to their AAU designation. Only 60 universities have that status and none of them are MWC including the crown jewel of academic prowess known as Fresno State.

Nor would a UOP desert the WCC to join a reconfigured WAC after toiling in the Big West comprised of state schools.

To those schools who want to move up to FBS and join another conference, all the best. The Big Sky can survive without them and still field 8 schools not likely to make the move: PSU, ISU, UNC, Sac State, WSU, NAU, SUU, and Dixie State. I'm not convinced IU or EWU make the move.

Another alternative is for Sac State to join the Big West and latch on to a conference as an associate football member.

But FightinSue, I am more than willing to put on my tinfoil hat, entertain all your hypotheticals, and debate them until this thread is removed, or I'm removed from the board, or you quit out of exhaustion before 2025.

 

[BuckeyeHornetFan]

There are two interesting articles in the Bozeman paper last week.

One said the BSC needed to split or get lower in number.

No, that’s not what that article said. You are suffering from confirmation bias.

I read the article. In full. Unlike you, I didn’t extract from it only what fit a particular narrative.

It clearly quoted opinions on both sides. While a couple coaches didn’t like the current setup, several others clearly stated that they liked it or were ok with it. Even the BSC commissioner.

The article title posed the question, and people involved weighed in. But in no way was a conclusion drawn.

But here you are citing it as evidence that you’re opinion is somehow validated.

That said, I hope you’re right about Sac State going FBS. That’s where I’d like to see them one day soon. However, I don’t know that they’re setup for it. I mean, can their basketball team qualify FBS with that HS gym? I don’t believe so.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but they can’t selective move football to FBS and not other sports. Also, doesn’t average attendance have to reach a certainly level? Again, I don’t believe they’re there yet.

 

[Siouxfan]

You simply can't be taken seriously, but this too much fun.

You propose a WAC conference including Witchita State. The Shockers dropped football in the 80s, and recently bolted the Missouri Valley Conference for the American Athletic Conference to take their successful basketball program to a higher level. You seriously think WSU would reverse course to a far flung Podunk conference? Preposterous. If they were to add football I think staying in the AAC would make more sense.

Also, you claim UCD would get invited to the MWC due to their AAU designation. Only 60 universities have that status and none of them are MWC including the crown jewel of academic prowess known as Fresno State.

Nor would a UOP desert the WCC to join a reconfigured WAC after toiling in the Big West comprised of state schools.

To those schools who want to move up to FBS and join another conference, all the best. The Big Sky can survive without them and still field 8 schools not likely to make the move: PSU, ISU, UNC, Sac State, WSU, NAU, SUU, and Dixie State. I'm not convinced IU or EWU make the move.

Another alternative is for Sac State to join the Big West and latch on to a conference as an associate football member.

But FightinSue, I am more than willing to put on my tinfoil hat, entertain all your hypotheticals, and debate them until this thread is removed, or I'm removed from the board, or you quit out of exhaustion before 2025.

Wichita State started a large marching band for the bb court? The only way the AAC would take in the Shocker fb is if the started outside it and got good. Their late President wanted fb as he watched it all day Saturday. Wichita St needs more Texas students and football is one way to get them.

Davis will get in regardless of how Fresno votes. Presidents love AAU schools because of elitism.

Never ever mentioned UOP.

Idaho last President lost his job because of losing FBS. The current one would be a hero for bringing it back.

EWU has struggled to afford modifying their stadium to 15k, but EWU has grown into the most successful BSC team because of WA recruiting. They were only invited because of Spokane and they don't want to lose ground to CWU when it moves up.

 

[Sac Rat 3.0]

So fightinsue,
Are you saying the AAC will kick out or ask a full fledged member they recently invited to the conference to leave it because they "might" start a football program not worthy of the ECUs, Tulsas and Tulanes of the world? Nor did I know that expanding the size of the band indicates the birth of a football program. But, I do think starting a football program because the most recent but dead president watched football on Saturdays (was this on TV?) might be a more compelling reason. As for those Texas kids, why pay out of state tuition to go to a basketball school that just started football when you can slum at North Texas, U of Houston, Texast State, or UTSA who have football?

I don't care how Fresno votes. MWC presidents inviting UCD because of their AAU affiliation, despite none of their schools being part of the AAU club, is ironic, don't you think? It's like rain on...nevermind.

As for EWU, fly away to FBS. Let's how many fans they pull in at little ole Cheney with Pullman right up the road. IU too. In the scenario above, Big Sky can survive without both.

Your turn.

 

[Siouxfan]

So fightinsue,
Are you saying the AAC will kick out or ask a full fledged member they recently invited to the conference to leave it because they "might" start a football program not worthy of the ECUs, Tulsas and Tulanes of the world? Nor did I know that expanding the size of the band indicates the birth of a football program. But, I do think starting a football program because the most recent but dead president watched football on Saturdays (was this on TV?) might be a more compelling reason. As for those Texas kids, why pay out of state tuition to go to a basketball school that just started football when you can slum at North Texas, U of Houston, Texast State, or UTSA who have football?

I don't care how Fresno votes. MWC presidents inviting UCD because of their AAU affiliation, despite none of their schools being part of the AAU club, is ironic, don't you think? It's like rain on...nevermind.

As for EWU, fly away to FBS. Let's how many fans they pull in at little ole Cheney with Pullman right up the road. IU too. In the scenario above, Big Sky can survive without both.

Your turn.

You dont seeem capable of reading.

The AAC wouldn't kick the Shockers out for starting fb, but would demand a good G5 program before granting them a fb membership. The marching band was announced last year and it will have several hundred members, some with scholarships, for the express purpose of fb, IMHO
. WSU has unique programs in aerospace and entrepreneurship that would appeal to Texans if they have fb. WSU has money behind any initiative, unlike Sac St.

So Colo St, UNM, and UNLV don't want to be in the company of an AAU? The four schools that left the Big12 were all AAU. The SEC didn't have many before, but doubled that number with Mizzou and A&M.

Cheney is by and large a suburb while Wash St in a couple hours drive. Its like demanding your kid to commute to Stanford when he lives in SAC.

 

[Kadeezy]

You simply can't be taken seriously, but this too much fun.

You propose a WAC conference including Witchita State. The Shockers dropped football in the 80s, and recently bolted the Missouri Valley Conference for the American Athletic Conference to take their successful basketball program to a higher level. You seriously think WSU would reverse course to a far flung Podunk conference? Preposterous. If they were to add football I think staying in the AAC would make more sense.

Also, you claim UCD would get invited to the MWC due to their AAU designation. Only 60 universities have that status and none of them are MWC including the crown jewel of academic prowess known as Fresno State.

Nor would a UOP desert the WCC to join a reconfigured WAC after toiling in the Big West comprised of state schools.

To those schools who want to move up to FBS and join another conference, all the best. The Big Sky can survive without them and still field 8 schools not likely to make the move: PSU, ISU, UNC, Sac State, WSU, NAU, SUU, and Dixie State. I'm not convinced IU or EWU make the move.

Another alternative is for Sac State to join the Big West and latch on to a conference as an associate football member.

But FightinSue, I am more than willing to put on my tinfoil hat, entertain all your hypotheticals, and debate them until this thread is removed, or I'm removed from the board, or you quit out of exhaustion before 2025.

Lol, I’m so happy you’re back!

 

[Sac Rat 3.0]

Fan of Sue, or is it SiouxVolley? Wink wink.

Bless your heart. I know you think I'm not capable of reading, and the truth be told I did not matriculate from an AAU school you hold in such high esteem. But I can read well enough to see the snake oil your selling is as welcome as a pig in Tehran on other boards. You accusing members on bobcatnation not capable of doing math rings familiar. But, I dally.

It was you who took creative license to create a WAC that included Wichita State. That idea lacks informed reason and they aren't going to leave the AAU if they add football to fulfill the wishes of a dead president who watched it on TV all day on Saturdays.

And, I'm sure UNLV, CSU and UNM just dream and wish they could have a AAU school in the fold to remind them of what they are not. Kinda like bobcatnation posters welcoming you with open arms to remind them how intellectual inferior they are to you. But then I must have missed all those ESPUN pundits discussing conference expansion and how important it was for the SEC to add AAU schools.

 

[SDHornet]

Had to merge the "Is the Big Sky too Big" thread with the "SiouxFan Realignment Nonesense" thread since it's now clearly in that territory.

My understanding is the BSC has no by-laws on kicking out a member (full or affiliate) so any idea of any current members getting kicked out is utter nonsense.

But that is far less nonsensical than SF's Great Northern Conference where the montuckies and their groupies abandon their presence in the BSC's prime recruiting grounds and join up with the Dakota's to pick through whatever talent is leftover after the B1G gets first dibs.

Any movement between the BSC, summit and WAC will be a result of fallout from the P4 consolidation/realignment coming in the next 5ish years.

The schools with FBS aspirations will be leaving to other conferences, not kicked out. The BSC or the other conferences will not evict any school.

You simply do not follow.

No I follow. Where you lose me is when you call it "FBS". I see no movement so long as FBS remains in its current state with its current (broken) economic model. Now fallout from the P4 consolidation/realignment that results in the leftovers in the current FBS and the top (budgetary) tier FCS schools having their own realignment to fall in line with whatever the "new FBS" structure will be then sure, I can see some significant movement happening there.

 

[SDHornet]

But FightinSue, I am more than willing to put on my tinfoil hat, entertain all your hypotheticals, and debate them until this thread is removed, or I'm removed from the board, or you quit out of exhaustion before 2025.

This thread is the sandbox for whatever realignment craziness SF (or others) brings to this board. When it spills over into other threads, they'll either be merged or deleted. I don't plan on issuing any bannings over realignment discussions no matter how ridiculous they get.

 

[Siouxfan]

Have a historical perspective on this issue that others don’t have.

The Montanas were invited to the WAC just before it’s FBS status was lost. Both turned it down because they didn’t want Texas schools in the conference, would have caused a cash crunch expanding the stadium for Montana St, building new FBS practice and academic facilities, and just the general expansion of athletics to FBS. They decided to go FBS over ten years but needed and wanted partners and absolutely wanted a part of the CFP payout, which means they all have to be FBS by 2024..

The Great West was quickly absorbed with Davis, Poly, SUU, and UND to keep them from the WAC for ten years.

At the next Presidents meeting. Commish Fullerton, always a Montana shrew, asked who was in favor of FBs for the ten years from then. Davis was a yes, Poly was a yes, Sac St was a yes, Weber was a yes, EWU was a tentative yes, UND was a yes if the other Dakotas were aboard.

The FCS crowd knew they were short of the required six, so they asked Denver and Seattle to start FCS teams for a Big Sky bid. Both said no. The FCS crowd made a deal with the WAC to invite Dixie St which would move over to the Sky when a split happened and eventually CWU.

The facility decisions have since confirmed that those schools saying yes have committed to FBS at the same time.

Southland schools like Sam Houston St and Lamar have long wanted in the SunBelt but were turned down. McNeese St and UIW have confirmed in their local papers that thei working toward FBS. UTRGV wants fb to be part of this. The new WAC will be Texas to California at the insistence of NMSU. The new Summit will be the Montanas and Dakota with Spokane, Salt Lake, Denver, and MSP as the terminals. The eastern Summit has somehow disappeared: Oakland, IUPUI, IPFW, and soon to be WIU.

 

[Sac Rat 3.0]

So, when did this meeting occur when then Commissioner Fullerton asked the question? Who represented Sac State at this meeting? And, what is your source? First hand, friend if a friend, or published reporting?

 

[Siouxfan]

So, when did this meeting occur when then Commissioner Fullerton asked the question? Who represented Sac State at this meeting? And, what is your source? First hand, friend if a friend, or published reporting?

A Denver U blogger stated the upfront details. That blog has since been deleted. Fullerton stated to the press that a very difficult meeting with a key question had been held, which was the first Presidents meeting of the newly bloated Big Sky.

 

[superhornet]

I've been positing UOP to the Big Sky on the Cow Poly-Manure Pile program (associate membership for football only) for years. The rest of the UOP fans are so into hoops that they don't care to talk about anything else. It drives me nuts. About the only UOP fans who seem to want football back are the ones who were personally connected to the football program in one way or another, like the players....

 

[Sac Rat 3.0]

@fightinsue. When did Fullerton state the discussion to the press? Timeframe? Did the press write about it? If so, what newspapers?

 

[Siouxfan]

@fightinsue. When did Fullerton state the discussion to the press? Timeframe? Did the press write about it? If so, what newspapers?

Fullerton never stated FBS, but he said a very important and controversial issue was presented to the teams and they had to support it or oppose it. Could have been 2012. It was in the Montana papers.