-
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!
Upcoming interview with the Big Sky Commissioner
- Thread starter billbradleysac
- Start date
GoldenEagleHornet
Active member
Green Cookie Monster said:
After adding Hawai'i last year, BW's commish said that there would be no further expansion. He apparently is firm to his word. UC San Diego, who is in DII CCAA, completed a feasibility report that concluded that UCSD should play in DI. UCSD's AD approached the BW and were told that they weren't accepting any more application.
Like you said GCM, fiscally, the BW make sense for Sac St's oly sports. Athletically and competition wise, BSC make more sense.
StungAlum2
Active member
I really hope they start a Big Sky Network (TV Channel) where you can add the channel on Dish... Only thing is, UNC wouldnt be able to broadcast their events as evidenced in last weeks game. NAU already has their own channel, so get that game every other year, but I want to watch all the Hornet games on TV and I'm willing to pay for a subscription.
I don't really understand how the BSC is going to fill a "void" out west while the WAC still exists. Fullerton made some comments about how the BSC is expected to be bigger/better than the WAC in the coming years, but he didnt ellaborate.
When he talked about how good football was in the Sky this year, he mentioed EWU's loss to UW, WSU's loss to Wyo, and SUU's win over UNLV. Where in the crap is the love for Sac State and beating a Pac 12 team?!?! SUU's not even a member yet!
There were a lot of references to UM and MSU, he used all comparisons to compare to one of those two institutions. Seemed odd and disrespectful. I have a suspicious feeling that UM and MSU are somehow going to make out very well in any TV deal that may come along with the BSC while leaving the rest of the programs to fight over crumbs.He seems to be on Um and MSU's jock...
Also, is it me, or did Fullertons responses sound like a car salesmans pitch?
I don't really understand how the BSC is going to fill a "void" out west while the WAC still exists. Fullerton made some comments about how the BSC is expected to be bigger/better than the WAC in the coming years, but he didnt ellaborate.
When he talked about how good football was in the Sky this year, he mentioed EWU's loss to UW, WSU's loss to Wyo, and SUU's win over UNLV. Where in the crap is the love for Sac State and beating a Pac 12 team?!?! SUU's not even a member yet!
There were a lot of references to UM and MSU, he used all comparisons to compare to one of those two institutions. Seemed odd and disrespectful. I have a suspicious feeling that UM and MSU are somehow going to make out very well in any TV deal that may come along with the BSC while leaving the rest of the programs to fight over crumbs.He seems to be on Um and MSU's jock...
Also, is it me, or did Fullertons responses sound like a car salesmans pitch?
After reading the interview I have a few comments. First congrats to Bill Bradley for landing this interview. I think this lets us in on what Fullerton is thinking. Here are my comments:
Fullerton seemed to contradict himself time and time again throughout the interview. He harped about the playoffs being great then got on his knees and talked about how he would be a proponent of the FBS bowl system if he were in the FBS. For someone who spent the interview harping about how it is important to understand funds and money associated with a vision/plan, he should in most cases schools loose lots of money when participating in a bowl. I don’t see how anyone can take each side of the argument here. You are either pro-playoff or not.
The CP and farm extension adds were done just to block the WAC. Fullerton said otherwise but it’s obvious that is why they were added. Anyone thinking otherwise is foolish.
Fullerton had to have had his head in the sand on UND’s name issue. From what I understand it has been hanging around for the better part of a decade. For him to say he was unaware of it or that it didn’t exist at the time of the invite is mind blowing. Epic fail on his behalf. Now the BSC members will be the ones stuck with the bill to participate in events in ND.
I agree with his view about the bottom end of the FBS schools. With the mega conferences aligning in such a way to control the majority of the TV revenue, the programs left out will be hosed from a financial standpoint. For those programs who will be left out of the shuffle, they will have to either move down or die. The ball is in your court Idalol. USU & SJSU might be lucky enough to land in a patched together MWC conference at some point. If not they will be in the same boat as Idalol.
Fullerton mentioned BSC basketball having an impact out west…well that just won’t happen. Between the Pac-12, WCC, MWC, and WAC there is just no reason to care about the BSC hoops excitement.
It’s obvious Fullerton has no idea who the 14th (12th full) member will be. Looks like his only hope is for a WAC leftover when that conference finally implodes. As far as a media deal is concerned, it will probably be with a regional cable network catered towards the Montana’s and other mountain centric members. If free or cheap access to view Hornet sporting events is eliminated, the growth of the fanbase will cut off at the knees as well as a reduction in fund raising potential. At that point the athletic department would be on the clock as far as closing down some of its programs (football).
Fullerton seemed to contradict himself time and time again throughout the interview. He harped about the playoffs being great then got on his knees and talked about how he would be a proponent of the FBS bowl system if he were in the FBS. For someone who spent the interview harping about how it is important to understand funds and money associated with a vision/plan, he should in most cases schools loose lots of money when participating in a bowl. I don’t see how anyone can take each side of the argument here. You are either pro-playoff or not.
The CP and farm extension adds were done just to block the WAC. Fullerton said otherwise but it’s obvious that is why they were added. Anyone thinking otherwise is foolish.
Fullerton had to have had his head in the sand on UND’s name issue. From what I understand it has been hanging around for the better part of a decade. For him to say he was unaware of it or that it didn’t exist at the time of the invite is mind blowing. Epic fail on his behalf. Now the BSC members will be the ones stuck with the bill to participate in events in ND.
I agree with his view about the bottom end of the FBS schools. With the mega conferences aligning in such a way to control the majority of the TV revenue, the programs left out will be hosed from a financial standpoint. For those programs who will be left out of the shuffle, they will have to either move down or die. The ball is in your court Idalol. USU & SJSU might be lucky enough to land in a patched together MWC conference at some point. If not they will be in the same boat as Idalol.
HUH? Does this statement make any sense to anyone!?!? Another clueless comment by Fullerton. The last thing I can see Sac fans doing is going to some random BSC sports event because they hate some vague and random BSC member. We have no rivals with any of the BSC members and never will.
Fullerton mentioned BSC basketball having an impact out west…well that just won’t happen. Between the Pac-12, WCC, MWC, and WAC there is just no reason to care about the BSC hoops excitement.
It’s obvious Fullerton has no idea who the 14th (12th full) member will be. Looks like his only hope is for a WAC leftover when that conference finally implodes. As far as a media deal is concerned, it will probably be with a regional cable network catered towards the Montana’s and other mountain centric members. If free or cheap access to view Hornet sporting events is eliminated, the growth of the fanbase will cut off at the knees as well as a reduction in fund raising potential. At that point the athletic department would be on the clock as far as closing down some of its programs (football).
billbradleysac
Active member
StungAlum2 said:
Hi stung, he did mention the Hornets' victory over Oregon State earlier in the Q&A. I'm sure he didn't mention it again to avoid repeating himself.
Bill
superhornet
Active member
In general, you're right, SD. I kinda disagree with you about the BSC rivalry thing, though, but my disagreement isn't very strong. We have a bit of a rivalry with Weber (going back to the incident where a Sac DB spit on the current Raiders Special Teams Coordinator after a game at Hornet Stadium during the late '90s) and with Montana (over the Hornets' failure to win until this year). The reason I say that my disagreement isn't very strong is that this is more of a players' rivalry, not a students' rivalry a la UCD. In terms of a students' rivalry, you are quite correct.
I get the feeling that Fullerton is approaching this whole thing from a Montana centric viewpoint as well. He mentioned in passing other schools, but constantly quoted stats about the Montana's. If all of Fullerton's focus is on two teams and he's hanging his hat on that, then he doesn't have anything. Two out of 14 teams does not make a conference great. I don't know how you sell that. Tell us how the Big Sky is deep, but then can't tell us anything meaningful beyond what is going on with two of the schools. He needs to go home and study up on some of the other schools in the conference, so next time he does an interview with a Sacramento journalist, he will have something to say about that school. Speak to your audience. I don't really care how many season tickets Montana sold. I mean.....lie to me and tell me you brought in Davis and Cal Poly in part to help Sac State. Don't tell me you did it simply to keep the Montana's from getting poached.
This is why I am not really excited about a tv deal. I'll take a wait and see approach, but I don't want to anticipate something great and be disappointed. I'm positive it will be a great deal for Montana. However, if people in Sacramento have to pay for an extra channel to see the games, then it does us no good. Our games need to be on ESPN2 or one of the CSN channels. I don't know how realistic that is, but nothing else really helps our cause.
This is why I am not really excited about a tv deal. I'll take a wait and see approach, but I don't want to anticipate something great and be disappointed. I'm positive it will be a great deal for Montana. However, if people in Sacramento have to pay for an extra channel to see the games, then it does us no good. Our games need to be on ESPN2 or one of the CSN channels. I don't know how realistic that is, but nothing else really helps our cause.
josephpoint
Active member
Was struck as well by the focus on the Montana schools for an interview by sac state sports.com.
The Montana schools who will both enjoy their 4th home football game of the season tomorrow. The Montana schools who have 6 home games and never travel away more than one week the whole season.
Looking forward to Sac State's 2nd home game of the season next week.
Go Hornets!!
The Montana schools who will both enjoy their 4th home football game of the season tomorrow. The Montana schools who have 6 home games and never travel away more than one week the whole season.
Looking forward to Sac State's 2nd home game of the season next week.
Go Hornets!!
I agree with what H25 and jp said above. Fullerton has nothing to hang his hat on other than the Montana’s at this point. Home attendance averages not including this week:
I just don’t see how a significant TV contract can generate a sizable revenue stream for all the conference members given these deplorable attendance numbers halfway through the season. The network that cuts this deal will be doing so because of the Montana’s, so more than likely that is where a lot of the money will go to. The rest of the other conference can only hope that there will be flexibility to land their own independent contracts with regional networks which is how the current deal is set up.
- • Montana: 26.2k, 3 games (1st BSC, 2nd FCS)
• Montana State: 19.9k, 3 games (2nd BSC, 13th FCS)
• Sac State: 12.7k, 1 game (3rd BSC, 28th FCS)
• farm extension: 9.9k, 2 games (40th FCS)
• Cal Poly: 9.2k, 2 games (45th FCS)
• Eastern Washington: 8.9k, 2 games (4th BSC, 49th FCS)
• Weber State: 8.3k, 1 game (5th BSC, 54th FCS)
• Idaho State: 7.9k, 4 games (6th BSC, 58th FCS)
• North Dakota: 7.8k (Transitioning team, not ranked)
• Northern Arizona: 7.1k, 3 games (7th BSC, 66th FCS)
• Southern Utah: 6.6k, 3 games (77th FCS)
• Portland State: 6.4k, 3 games (8th BSC, 79th FCS)
• Northern Colorado: 3.7k, 3 games (9th BSC, 98th FCS)
I just don’t see how a significant TV contract can generate a sizable revenue stream for all the conference members given these deplorable attendance numbers halfway through the season. The network that cuts this deal will be doing so because of the Montana’s, so more than likely that is where a lot of the money will go to. The rest of the other conference can only hope that there will be flexibility to land their own independent contracts with regional networks which is how the current deal is set up.
GoldenEagleHornet
Active member
State of Montana bias? Let's see the commish is the ex-AD at MSU. I see why there is that bias. He kept going on and on and on about the success that BSC has. But really he was talking about the success that the Montanas have. Saying BSC was really just disguising it. The way he talked about the Montanas, I couldn't help but be skeptical about if any special relationship exist between Fullerton and the ADs from the Montanas. It almost appears to be like ex-Big XII commih Beebe's relationship with Texas. And with the tv contract negotiations coming, I wouldn't be surprised if the Montanas got the sweetest deal. He stated how they're already on ESPN (who I like to call the Bristol Mafia) and that the BSC gets a six figure pay-check when they play against each other. And, no dismay here if his Montanas bias lead to tremblors or even a schism in the BSC ala Beebe-Texas. And as for adding the Mustangs and Aggies the only reason, in my opinion, he was able to land Cal Poly and UCD is because either schools isn't ready to leave the Big West for the WAC or MWC. I suspect that both schools are using BSC as a stepping stone.
I agree with everything you said up until the last part about CP and the farm extension. If they were serious about FBS, they would have move all sports to the BSC as that would prepare the travel budget to be in line with what they would see in the WAC. Also the WAC is another western defection (USU or more importantly SJSU) away from having absolutely no appeal to the potential CA FCS programs. As of now, Wanless’ & Gonzo’s decision to stay put in the BSC is absolutely brilliant. A move to the current WAC would have been disastrous and will remain so until Benson can stabilize the WAC.
GoldenEagleHornet
Active member
Right that makes sense. And definitely, once SJSU and USU are gone, there will be very little to no appeal to WC FCS programs to join the WAC.
One thing I forgot to state in my earlier post, Fullerton speaks of what he calls "the California Model"- Lower tier FBS programs that play until they run out of funds. And how a school such as SJSU should consider playing at the FCS level in the BSC. But, I'd like to know if he did everything w/in his power to keep the Matador (CSUN) football program alive before the administration decide to shut down football back in 2001. With that in mind, it's hard for me to believe his claim that the BSC or any FCS conference can be a safety net for any FBS team not performing at that level.
One thing I forgot to state in my earlier post, Fullerton speaks of what he calls "the California Model"- Lower tier FBS programs that play until they run out of funds. And how a school such as SJSU should consider playing at the FCS level in the BSC. But, I'd like to know if he did everything w/in his power to keep the Matador (CSUN) football program alive before the administration decide to shut down football back in 2001. With that in mind, it's hard for me to believe his claim that the BSC or any FCS conference can be a safety net for any FBS team not performing at that level.
