Vandals Apparently on Their Way

[isusuperfan]

Well I think it's fair to say the new commissioner has inherited a full plate.

I think you're right. Let's see how she does. It will be weird getting used to a BigSky without Doug Fullerton though.

 

[up for the challenge]

Sorry for the Vandals football interuption. If I can chime in for a second, it is NFL draft week ISU fans so will Tyler Kuder be drafted? I think he has a good chance. Good luck Tyler. Carry on with your Vandals football discussion.

 

[notabengalalum]

Just say NO!

U of I has no redeeming social or any other value. Working with UofI people over the years and sitting around them at ISU basketball this past year only cements my belief that most of them are certified assholes suffering from severe inferiority complexes. Did I mention that Moscow, the UI, and Vandals fans all SUCK?! May ISU use the Vandals to unplug clogged toilets.

There - I feel better now.

 

[biobengal]

THIS!

Should have allowed them to wither in FBS independence and revel in their grandiosity.

Just say NO!

U of I has no redeeming social or any other value.

 

[WILDCAT]

You're old fashioned Ross. -

I do my best

As an aside, while I am overall opposed to splitting the conference (I feel we need to cut some teams out), a poster on eGriz did have a pretty good idea for a split: splitting the conference (football-only) while keeping the makeup of the conference for everything else, but along the lines of an Intermountain/Pacific split, instead of a North/South one. The football-only split would go something like this:

BigSky Conference:

Idaho
Idaho State
Montana
Montana State
North Dakota
Northern Colorado
Weber State

Pacific Coast Conference:

Cal Poly
Eastern Washington
UC Davis
Sacramento State
Northern Arizona
Portland State
Southern Utah

That's pretty neat and tidy, and if it were football-only, I think that would be the best scenario for a split. Unless if New Mexico State joins up. Then we have a problem.

Hey that's me

 

[SLCBengal]

FYI: The Vandal Football Consultant Report is available, and it provides information as to the FBS/FCS split...

The report is available by clicking its link/icon from the following UI page, and the information quoted is from pages 61 & 62 of the document...

http://www.uidaho.edu/president/communications/ftball-announcement?utm_campaign=ftball-conf-announcement2016&utm_source=press-release_vandal-vibe_internal-memo&utm_medium=digital_general

Western Athletic Conference
Collegiate Consulting has had multiple discussions with the WAC regarding its grandfathered status as a FBS conference, despite not offering football as a sport for two-plus years. Marlon Edge, the WAC’s compliance officer, confirmed with the NCAA that the WAC does meet the criteria.

NCAA Bylaw 20.02.6
Football Bowl Subdivision Conference - A conference classified as a Football Bowl Subdivision conference shall be comprised of at least eight full Football Bowl Subdivision members that satisfy all bowl subdivision requirements

NCAA Bylaw 20.4.2.1.1
Eligibility for Reclassification - Before a Football Championship Subdivision institution may apply for reclassification to the Football Bowl Subdivision, the institution must receive a bona fide invitation for membership from a Football Bowl Subdivision conference or a conference that previously met the definition of a Football Bowl Subdivision conference.

If the WAC were to reinstate football, it would need eight football-playing members. There could be an opportunity with Idaho and New Mexico State. The University of Texas at Rio Grande Valley has recently released an RFP to conduct a football feasibility study. If these three institutions were to have an interest in WAC football, the conference would need to bring in five additional institutions.
Collegiate Consulting has spoken with various institutions to discuss interest in the FBS and WAC; the synopsis of information is detailed:

 North Dakota State and South Dakota State have stated publicly they do not have an interest in moving to FBS. However, it appears from discussions with each school there is not an interest in the WAC, should it reinstate football or go with a combined WAC/Big Sky option. As a side note, there has been strong speculation that both institutions could be invited to join the Missouri Valley Conference as a full member, not just the MVFC.

 If the WAC were to pursue Big Sky institutions, independent of the scenario discussed below, it seems reasonable that Montana and Montana State would make a collaborative decision.

Big Sky Conference

There have been “off-line” discussions with Big Sky officials as well as several Big Sky presidents and athletic directors. Doug Fullerton, the soon-to-be-retired commissioner of the Big Sky, has stated that he would like to see Idaho join as a full member, including football, by the time of his retirement on June 30, 2016. It was also discussed if pressure would be placed on Idaho to drop to FCS or risk losing its current membership in the Big Sky. Discussions with various stakeholders have stated that “the conference, presidents and ADs are O.K. with the current situation; however, everyone has stated that it could change with the new commissioner. There are schools in the Big Sky Conference that would prefer Idaho (and New Mexico State) not join the league for football as they fear it will create an “arms race” at this level.

Big Sky Conference/Western Athletic Conference

Three years ago, Big Sky Commissioner Doug Fullerton and WAC Commissioner Jeff Hurd visited about the possibility of combining the two conferences, and having part of the league participate in FBS and the remainder in FCS for football. The idea did gain some interest, but was ultimately shot down. However, there could be an opportunity to rekindle these discussions. Here is a possible scenario should it gain traction:

Football
 FBS – Idaho, New Mexico State, Montana, Montana State, North Dakota, South Dakota, Cal Poly and Northern Arizona (8 teams).
 FCS – Eastern Washington, Idaho State, Portland State, UC-Davis, Sacramento State, Southern Utah and Northern Colorado (7 teams). If they can meet the academic criteria and budget criteria, and have an interest in “moving up” to FBS, they certainly would be considered.

Basketball
 North Division – Montana, Montana State, North Dakota, South Dakota, Eastern Washington, Portland State, Idaho State, Seattle University and Idaho (9 teams).
 South Division – Sacramento State, Southern Utah, New Mexico State, Northern Colorado, Weber State, Utah Valley, Grand Canyon State, UTRGV and CSU-Bakersfield (9 teams).

With this, most rivalries would be maintained – and some enhanced. Scheduling would be much easier, and schools would be much more similar. There would be a lot of parity in all leagues. Academic criteria under the Carnegie rating service would also be a consideration. There would also be possibilities for more revenue streams for higher-level FCS product in terms of television, ticket pricing, NCAA/conference monies and corporate dollars. Plus, with more regional competition, there could be money savings in travel, etc.

 

[biobengal]

Ultimately, throwing a life line to Idaho may eventually bite ISU in the @ss.

Still waiting to hear how ISU has/will benefit from adding this supremely selfish institution.

 

[JJB]

People forget that the reason the Big Sky went so big was to protect itself. The rapid unfolding of events a few years ago was amazing to see, and the WAC was going after the Montanas and a couple of other Big Sky schools hard. Poly and possibly Davis were in the mix to go there as well. The Big Sky, Big West, and Mountain West collectively slammed Karl Benson and the WAC over the course of just a couple of days. Looking back, it was definitely a defensive effort which quickly made itself into a giant offensive. The WAC called it "the project."

Now the problem I have with Idaho is they clearly wish they were anywhere but the Big Sky. I foresee a situation where schools break away to form their own conference, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it led by the likes of the Vandals. We've seen it happen before when schools in a large conference begin to wonder why the conference revenue they generate is being divided into too many ways and amongst the bottom feeders.

 

[PBP]

Anything is certainly possible and obviously there's a reason Big Sky presidents are visiting New Mexico State this week but my feeling right now is that there won't be any major shake-up's or changes UNLESS one scenario take place (which I'll get to in a moment)

For now it appears that Montana, Montana State have no interest in leaving nor does Portland St. or Sacramento St. (the other two BSC schools reportedly linked to the WAC in the past) I think all the schools like the stability the BSC has provided in an era of major changes.

Now to the scenario that could upset the apple cart.

Just this week a study commissioned by the Big XII stated that the chances of getting one of their schools in the football playoff would be enhanced if they went to 12 teams, two divisions and played a title game. Reaction among Big XII schools has been mixed to this in the past. Oklahoma and Kansas St. want it, others don't, Texas has never offered an opinion.

Let's say the Big XII decides to expand by two. Probably one of the first places they'd look would be the Mountain West as in Boise St. and someone else. OK, the MWC loses two schools...where do you think they are going to look first? I'd say the Big Sky as in Montana and Montana St.

That's the only situation I could see in the next few years that could dramatically change things.

But the situation is fluid like I said anything can happen.

Personal opinion on the WAC restarting football... given the teams right now in that league the caliber would be pretty bad.

PBP

 

[Skippy]

The Las Cruces Sun is reporting that New Mexico State's board of regents has decided to stay FBS and go independent after they leave the Sun Belt in 2018. So that leaves the Big Sky at 14 football teams when Idaho comes aboard. That is still a large and unruly league in my view and it brings back memories of when the WAC got way too big and splintered.

 

[PBP]

Two comments:

1. New Mexico State is flat out nuts if they think they can make it as an FBS independent.

2. I actually think Brad, a 14 team league is fine AS LONG AS you split it into two seven team divisions and perhaps have a title game which would be a first for an FCS conference.

PBP

 

[Skippy]

I think what brought the WAC down was too many different agendas and not enough shared values. Ultimately that's what concerns me about a 14-team Big Sky -- too many different agendas which could ultimately lead to a split. And I worry that ISU will wind up in the wrong group once the split occurs. But we will see.

 

[up for the challenge]

Skippy - what group are you talking about? to me, if you want to be the best than you have to play the best.

 

[Skippy]

If you're Idaho State you want to stay tied with the "originals" -- the two Montanas, Weber and Idaho. Those are the schools our fans identify with, those are the schools whose fans travel, and those are our traditional rivals. They are also the schools most likely to eventually split to move up.
If you're ISU you don't want to wind up in a division -- or a league -- that doesn't include those schools. That's what I worry about ultimately.

 

[up for the challenge]

I would not worry too much about where we end up in a division. Kramer goal is to win a championship and he does not care who we play or where we play. He said once, the Weber State game is not a rival game in his opinion even though fans may not agree with him.

 

[Skippy]

I would not worry too much about where we end up in a division. Kramer goal is to win a championship and he does not care who we play or where we play. He said once, the Weber State game is not a rival game in his opinion even though fans may not agree with him.

Well with all due respect to Mike, he doesn't have to pay the bills. When the Big Sky went to an unbalanced schedule, ISU went three years without hosting either of the Montana football teams. Needless to say, attendance went down significantly -- especially the season we did not host Weber State too. There are essentially only three teams in the Big Sky whose fans travel to games in Pocatello: the two Montanas and Weber. Hopefully, after they get over the anger of dropping down, Idaho fans will also attend games in Pocatello.

The ISU fans, meanwhile, don't have a lot of interest in teams like Northern Colorado, Portland State and the California schools. So those games don't draw huge home crowds either. ISU REALLY wants to be in the same division as the other "originals."

 

[clawsout]

...to "U of the C"....when Kramer said Weber was not a "rival game"...he clarified that by saying he meant because Weber had dominated us so badly recently and a "rival game" should be competitive...when he said that I believe he said it to light a fire under his ISU players....

...anyway....here's my thoughts about the Big Sky football schedule could be set up...if we stay with 14 teams ...match up the teams with a "natural rival" ...much like the basketball is set up...for example...

1...ISU / Weber
2...Montana / Montana St
3...Sac State / Idaho....("natural rivals" ?...maybe not....but U of I came late to this party)..
4...NAU / SUU
5...No Dakota / No Colorado
6...Eastern W / Portland State
7...Cal Poly / UC Davis

A...you play your "natural rival" every year....
B...you play one school from the other pairs for two years....home and away....so every four years you have played both of them "home and away"
c...the exception is that each year you will play one pair of them (2,3,4,5,6 or 7) both that year (one "home" and one "away") and this rotates through all the pairs of schools
....OR...instead of "C"....
d...every school is paired up with 3 schools that they would play every year....their "natural rival" and one pair from the list....example...ISU would always have Weber on our schedule and Montana and Montana State if we were matched with them (which I would hope ....so we could stay with the "charter members")

....but either way ....for example....the two options would give ISU 8 league games ...and leave 3 games available...for 2 FBS "money" games....(not that I am in favor of that)...and one DII game....(not that I am in favor of that either)...

....anyone's thoughts ? .....

 

[PBP]

Very interesting.

PBP

 

[up for the challenge]

I agree with PBP. Very Interesting. I understand where Skippy is coming from also.