Vandals to the Sky???

[thewaterboy]

will the Vandals come back to the Big Sky Conf now that the Sun Belt have kicked them and New MexiHo out?
http://www.standard.net/Sports/2016/3/1/idaho-vandals-football-sun-belt-big-sky-conference
Will the Big Sky want to add both or just 1? Go 2 divisions with a North and South I guess. Will be interesting to see what happens. :thumb:

 

[SWeberCat02]

“We are still looking at different football programs out here in the west, and what could we do to enhance the Big Sky Conference and really solidify us even more,” Fullerton said in an interview last week. “We have Idaho back in the league in everything but football, but we’re working our tails off to try to get that done.”

Damn dude, how big is too big? 13 is already too big, imo. I think Foolerton would expand the league to an even 20 or 30 if he could. Good thing dude is retiring.

 

[SWeberCat02]

Interesting comments here from the conference about forming two football conferences, not just two divisions, in order to secure two auto playoff bids.

http://www.thespectrum.com/story/sports/2016/03/01/big-sky-could-idaho-footballs-future-after-leaving-sun-belt/81167778/

 

[WILDCAT]

I read something on a NMSU fan forum that said the Aggies president said they were going to try two years of Indy ball after 2017, I don't see NMSU ever coming to the Sky, and even if they drop down they will either go MVFC or Southland.

Now if Idaho comes back and the Sky does split up into 2 different conferences, I have only one condition, the charter members must stay together.

My two conferences

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

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

Geographically this is the best split, Eastern and especially NAU might not like it but this best geographically and it's very even strength wise. Plus Montana and Eastern can still schedule each other as a yearly OOC, and the same can be said for Weber and SUU

6 conference games
At least 2 ooc against sister conference, one home one away
Last 3 ooc come from any other school including sister conference, other FCS conferences, DII's and money games

 

[SDHornet]

I think it's a no brainer that Idaho moves down and joins the BSC. They really have no other choice if they want to continue FB. I like this split listed above, when I read the Loghry quote about the possibility of a new FB conference I wondered how the divide would happen. That lineup makes sense (assuming that pie in the sky FBS idea never happens).

 

[DeeWildcatTailgater]

We had a great situation with 8 teams in the early 2000's before adding Northern Colorado. In a one bid league, there is no reason to dilute your conference by adding so many teams. Why not have as many teams fighting for a top spot as possible? As an example, leagues with two division split into six teams usually have the top three teams in each division fighting for division champ, half of the conference. This makes for higher profile games instead of teams playing for 4th or 5th place. Let's split into 2 seven team leagues and have 2 autobids in every sports. Since selection committees do not give higher seeds to larger conferences, why share a bid amongst 12-14 teams when you can share with 7? As mentioned, 2 sister leagues that are willing to play as much home and home as possible and don't constantly jockey to prove they are better than each other, would all but eliminate scheduling issues. No more 3 NAIA's a year in basketball. No more nonconference games against conference teams in football. With the ball in our court, negotiating schedules would be much easier. http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/2011-01-19/new-rules-protect-wac-auto-bids

 

[AlumniWSU]

One bid league=basketball....this is the football forum, the BSC at present usually gets 3 teams into the FCS playoffs, (with technically one auto-bid). Want to combine the talk no matter? For a lot of schools, football reigns as priority one. Post season a whole different scenario between football & basketball. But I assume you know that, just saying. :twocents:

 

[oldrunner]

Splitting wouldn't change the football bids and might even add to it. 14 members is just too many. 12 is borderline.

 

[Geo-Guy15]

I read something on a NMSU fan forum that said the Aggies president said they were going to try two years of Indy ball after 2017, I don't see NMSU ever coming to the Sky, and even if they drop down they will either go MVFC or Southland.

Now if Idaho comes back and the Sky does split up into 2 different conferences, I have only one condition, the charter members must stay together.

My two conferences

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

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

I think we ought to keep it as one conference, but I just think 14 teams is too big. I would like to get rid of Northern Colorado and North Dakota. North Dakota belongs in the Missouri Valley conference with their historic rivals. They are over 1000 miles away from the majority of other Big Sky schools. I have nothing against their program but they don't belong in our conference. And as for Northern Colorado, they have never been a strength to the conference in football (they were good one year in basketball). They need to explore other options...

I'd like to see a 12 team conference with two six team divisions...

Mountain Division
Montana
Montana State
Idaho State
Weber State
Southern Utah
Northern Arizona

Pacific Division
Eastern Washington
Idaho
Portland State
Sacramento State
UC Davis
Cal Poly

This works because for the most part, it keeps historic rivals together, which is huge in college football, especially at the fcs level where fan interest pales in comparison to large fbs conferences.

5 division games
3 conference games from other division
1 money game vs fbs opponent
1 gimme game vs a d-II (like most other bsc teams do)
1 other non-conference game

That's 11 games for everyone, then have the winners of each division compete for the Big Sky Conference title.

I hope the Vandals come home to the Big Sky!

 

[AlumniWSU]

Best idea I've read so far, 'Geo-Guy15'. But likely not a top plan for the BSC administrators...not prone to drop members unless they find new settings for themselves...agree that 14 teams is too big, but splitting into 2 divisions is logistically easier than forming a whole new conference and the attendant needs for NCAA postseason bids approval in all sports, setting up HQs & staff, etc. Maybe in the distant future, but not near term if Idaho joins in football (I think Idaho would push hard for a FBS conference separation, don't think Weber State wants to move up to FBS short time). :twocents:

 

[WILDCAT]

I read something on a NMSU fan forum that said the Aggies president said they were going to try two years of Indy ball after 2017, I don't see NMSU ever coming to the Sky, and even if they drop down they will either go MVFC or Southland.

Now if Idaho comes back and the Sky does split up into 2 different conferences, I have only one condition, the charter members must stay together.

My two conferences

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

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

I think we ought to keep it as one conference, but I just think 14 teams is too big. I would like to get rid of Northern Colorado and North Dakota. North Dakota belongs in the Missouri Valley conference with their historic rivals. They are over 1000 miles away from the majority of other Big Sky schools. I have nothing against their program but they don't belong in our conference. And as for Northern Colorado, they have never been a strength to the conference in football (they were good one year in basketball). They need to explore other options...

I'd like to see a 12 team conference with two six team divisions...

Mountain Division
Montana
Montana State
Idaho State
Weber State
Southern Utah
Northern Arizona

Pacific Division
Eastern Washington
Idaho
Portland State
Sacramento State
UC Davis
Cal Poly

This works because for the most part, it keeps historic rivals together, which is huge in college football, especially at the fcs level where fan interest pales in comparison to large fbs conferences.

5 division games
3 conference games from other division
1 money game vs fbs opponent
1 gimme game vs a d-II (like most other bsc teams do)
1 other non-conference game

That's 11 games for everyone, then have the winners of each division compete for the Big Sky Conference title.

I hope the Vandals come home to the Big Sky!

The only problem with that is the Big Sky would have to give the playoffs up to have a Big Sky Championship game like that. That is what the SWAC does, and it's also why they don't participate in the FCS playoffs. I would rather have the Big Sky represented in the playoffs.

I am more in favor of the two separate conferences, than separating into divisions, In basketball it would still be one solid Big SKy conference, but with football you would have two separate auto bids to the playoffs, and instead of 2 to 3 teams going to the playoffs, you could have as many as 5 or 6. THe Missouri Valley Football conference already has 10 teams so unless they think of expanding to 12 anytime soon, North Dakota is going nowhere, which is fine with me. I don't think we as Weber State fans can dog on anybody else's football program, since ours has always been historically bad. Northern Colorado is a perfect fit for the conference geographically and I don't see them going anywhere anytime soon.

You could go to two separate divisions, but without a championship game, and still only one automatic bid, it would be no different than it is now with the unbalanced schedule and controversy on strength's of schedules and who is the "real" Big Sky Champ.

6 Conference games
2 games vs other conference, one home one away
1 money game
1 game vs other FCS (including other conf)
1 game vs lower division or another FCS (including other conf)

 

[Siouxfan2]

As posted here a long time ago but nearly go run off the board for blasphemy:

Research Big Sky (FBS)
Cal Poly- Portland St
UC Davis - Sacramento St
E Wash - Idaho
Mont - Mont St
UND - NDSU
USD - SDSU

Big Sky FCS Division
NAU - SUU
Dixie St - Azusa Pacific
Utah Valley - Weber St
UTRGV - UNC

The FCS teams will fold nicely into the WAC, with Grand Canyon, Bakersfield, Seattle, and add Cal Baptist.

NMSU, UMKC, and Chicago St will be goners.

 

[wsucatfan]

As posted here a long time ago but nearly go run off the board for blasphemy:

Research Big Sky (FBS)
Cal Poly- Portland St
UC Davis - Sacramento St
E Wash - Idaho
Mont - Mont St
UND - NDSU
USD - SDSU

Big Sky FCS Division
NAU - SUU
Dixie St - Azusa Pacific
Utah Valley - Weber St
UTRGV - UNC

The FCS teams will fold nicely into the WAC, with Grand Canyon, Bakersfield, Seattle, and add Cal Baptist.

NMSU, UMKC, and Chicago St will be goners.

:delete: No!!! :thumbdown: That is one crappy conference, why would WSU want anything to do with that?

 

[SWeberCat02]

As posted here a long time ago but nearly go run off the board for blasphemy:

Research Big Sky (FBS)
Cal Poly- Portland St
UC Davis - Sacramento St
E Wash - Idaho
Mont - Mont St
UND - NDSU
USD - SDSU

Big Sky FCS Division
NAU - SUU
Dixie St - Azusa Pacific
Utah Valley - Weber St
UTRGV - UNC

The FCS teams will fold nicely into the WAC, with Grand Canyon, Bakersfield, Seattle, and add Cal Baptist.

NMSU, UMKC, and Chicago St will be goners.

This is the most redicoulous post ever. Why not just include every school west of the Mississippi? And since when were half of those schools "research" schools? PSU and Sac are very similar schools as Weber.

 

[Siouxfan2]

As posted here a long time ago but nearly go run off the board for blasphemy:

Research Big Sky (FBS)
Cal Poly- Portland St
UC Davis - Sacramento St
E Wash - Idaho
Mont - Mont St
UND - NDSU
USD - SDSU

Big Sky FCS Division
NAU - SUU
Dixie St - Azusa Pacific
Utah Valley - Weber St
UTRGV - UNC

The FCS teams will fold nicely into the WAC, with Grand Canyon, Bakersfield, Seattle, and add Cal Baptist.

NMSU, UMKC, and Chicago St will be goners.

This is the most redicoulous post ever. Why not just include every school west of the Mississippi? And since when were half of those schools "research" schools? PSU and Sac are very similar schools as Weber.

Because Weber State's Prez won't commit to FBS, :yikes: that's where Weber is headed. Just the messenger.

 

[n.ogdencat]

Wow...you been getting high lately Sioux? Get off the crack bro. That above statement is so far out in left field it isn't even funny but worrisome. I worry about your sanity. I would like to see UND do what USD did. I think it would be better for everyone. I do think UND will be at the top of the Sky next year. Great team coming back. I don't think the Cats can pull out another W in Grand Forks next season. The Sioux will be too good. I hate the hawks, the Sioux is fine with me.

 

[Geo-Guy15]

As posted here a long time ago but nearly go run off the board for blasphemy:

Research Big Sky (FBS)
Cal Poly- Portland St
UC Davis - Sacramento St
E Wash - Idaho
Mont - Mont St
UND - NDSU
USD - SDSU

Big Sky FCS Division
NAU - SUU
Dixie St - Azusa Pacific
Utah Valley - Weber St
UTRGV - UNC

The FCS teams will fold nicely into the WAC, with Grand Canyon, Bakersfield, Seattle, and add Cal Baptist.

NMSU, UMKC, and Chicago St will be goners.

This is the most redicoulous post ever. Why not just include every school west of the Mississippi? And since when were half of those schools "research" schools? PSU and Sac are very similar schools as Weber.

Because Weber State's Prez won't commit to FBS, :yikes: that's where Weber is headed. Just the messenger.

soiuxfan - Appreciate your participation on the board but there are about 100 reasons you're dead wrong. A few blaring, obvious ones:

1. What makes you think the schools in the Dakotas would ever leave the Missouri Valley Conference (arguable the best in fcs)?
2. To be an FBS program you have to average over 15,000 fans per game. Most of your "fbs" schools don't average that many.
3. I can't speak for the other DII programs that you've suggested should be promoted but Dixie has struggled in DII. What makes you think they can jump to fcs?
4. Have you seen Utah Valley's football team? Oh wait, it doesn't exist... nor will it ever...
5. The WAC no longer sponsors football.
6. Weber State's "Prez" doesn't have the power to declare Weber as a part of the fbs. Nor should we consider fbs anytime soon.

Do some homework dude.

 

[WILDCAT]

I don't know what the rules are for FCS and creating new conferences but you cannot just create a new conference in the FBS, I believe the rules are that you need at LEAST 8 schools that have been together so many years IN THE FBS before they can break off and form a new conference.

Right now, the only way anybody in this conference is going to the FBS is if and when the Mountain West's best teams get raided and the FCS team gets an invite, but think about it, the Mountain West is already watered down, would anybody really want to play in an even more watered down MW? The creating a new Big Sky FBS conference is just Idaho's AD's last ditch effort at staying FBS.

Like I said the conference could go to divisions, but it would still get only one automatic bid, teams wouldn't play everyone, strength of schedules and "who the real champ is" and "who should get the automatic bid" arguments would become a problem, lets say Montana and Cal Poly don't play yet both the Griz and Mustangs go undefeated in their conf games, who is the real champ? Would never know since there are NO CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP games, unless you don't want to participate in the playoffs. The divisions format is slightly worse than the current format already is.

2 Conferences, 2 auto bids, makes scheduling easier, possible more playoff teams and each conference would have a without a doubt conference champion, = Best option in my opinion.

 

[oldrunner]

There is still another issue that needs resolving over the next several years. The P5 conferences are continuing to distance themselves from FBS. Most of what is left of FBS are borderline or losing money from their football programs. There will be some reorganization taking place within the NCAA D1 football landscape. There has already been talk of consolidating all of D1 football, outside of the P5 organization. I don't know how it will all shake out, but I do think that the landscape is changing and money is behind most of it. The P5 is going to hang on to their money and everyone else will want to find a way to balance the budget and have fair competition.

My opinion is that FBS is on the way out. :twocents:

 

[AlumniWSU]

That's what the BSC Commissioner said more or less as to the future of Div I football...it will change, but how long that will take time-wise is up for debate. Idaho needs to make a decision for the '18 season, & if they decide to play in the BSC, it will be dropping down to FCS initially & likely two BSC 7 team divisions (as far as he mentioned earlier).

If I remember correctly, when the WAC was about to lose sponsoring football it was stated the NCAA requires 7 teams to be a viable FBS conference. The WAC tried to lure UM & a few other FCS teams to join & move up to FBS. It wasn't mentioned that it would be any problem other than Montana, etc. deciding in favor of the move. Obviously, they chose to stay BSC & FCS.

There can be all sorts of possibilities down the road, but that's going to take some years ahead.