Idaho president: Vandals analyzing FBS, FCS options

[dbackjon]

Common sense move for Idalol to move FB to the BSC. When that happens (yes when, not if) I say don’t do divisions (no point in doing so since there are no CCG in FCS) but expand the “rivalry” scheduling to 3 teams instead of 2, then rotate 5 other BSC teams as needed for conference play:
EWU: PSU, UI, UM
PSU: EWU, Sac, ucd
Sac: CP, PSU, ucd
CP: Sac, NAU, ucd
ucd: Sac, CP, PSU
NAU: SUU, CP, UNC
SUU: NAU, WSU, UNC
UNC: UND, SUU, NAU
UND: UNC, MSU, WSU
UM: MSU, EWU, UI
MSU: UM, UND, ISU
UI: UM, EWU, ISU
ISU: WSU, UI, MSU
WSU: ISU, SUU, UND

\


Sure - give Montana the easy games...

[Vidav]

Common sense move for Idalol to move FB to the BSC. When that happens (yes when, not if) I say don’t do divisions (no point in doing so since there are no CCG in FCS) but expand the “rivalry” scheduling to 3 teams instead of 2, then rotate 5 other BSC teams as needed for conference play:
EWU: PSU, UI, UM
PSU: EWU, Sac, ucd
Sac: CP, PSU, ucd
CP: Sac, NAU, ucd
ucd: Sac, CP, PSU
NAU: SUU, CP, UNC
SUU: NAU, WSU, UNC
UNC: UND, SUU, NAU
UND: UNC, MSU, WSU
UM: MSU, EWU, UI
MSU: UM, UND, ISU
UI: UM, EWU, ISU
ISU: WSU, UI, MSU
WSU: ISU, SUU, UND

\


Sure - give Montana the easy games...

[SuperHornet]

Common sense move for Idalol to move FB to the BSC. When that happens (yes when, not if) I say don’t do divisions (no point in doing so since there are no CCG in FCS) but expand the “rivalry” scheduling to 3 teams instead of 2, then rotate 5 other BSC teams as needed for conference play:
EWU: PSU, UI, UM
PSU: EWU, Sac, ucd
Sac: CP, PSU, ucd
CP: Sac, NAU, ucd
ucd: Sac, CP, PSU
NAU: SUU, CP, UNC
SUU: NAU, WSU, UNC
UNC: UND, SUU, NAU
UND: UNC, MSU, WSU
UM: MSU, EWU, UI
MSU: UM, UND, ISU
UI: UM, EWU, ISU
ISU: WSU, UI, MSU
WSU: ISU, SUU, UND

+ Infinity

[Jjoey52]

They said if Vandals return, they would go to divisions with a title game.

Vandals never should have gone FBS, they only did so out of jealousy for Boise. I would love to see all Idaho week resume when Vandals play the Bengals.

[clenz]

You won't see a title game....unless your done with the playoffs as a conference

[dbackjon]

You won't see a title game....unless your done with the playoffs as a conference

Correct. Unless there's an NCAA rule change there will not be A conference championship game

[dbackjon]

If Idaho went FCS I prefer the big sky split up for football only into 2 Seven team conferences - each with an auto bid to the playoffs

[JayJ79]

If Idaho went FCS I prefer the big sky split up for football only into 2 Seven team conferences - each with him auto bid to the playoffs

makes sense to me. I've never understood the logic behind the big mega-conferences in football. if you don't play all your conference-mates each year, it isn't really a conference.

[SUUTbird]

If Idaho went FCS I prefer the big sky split up for football only into 2 Seven team conferences - each with him auto bid to the playoffs

I agree with this whole heartedly, could have the following potential divisions:

BIG SKY NORTH:
-Montana
-Montana State
-Idaho
-Idaho State
-North Dakota
-Eastern Washington
-Portland State

BIG SKY SOUTH:
-UNC
-Weber State
-SUU
-Cal Poly
-UC-Davis
-Sacramento State
-NAU

With this format you have 6 Divisional games and 2 games from the other Division all going towards the overall Big Sky record. This leaves every team with 3 games to fill which allows the schools to schedule FBS games, non conference FCS and DII teams.

[clenz]

If Idaho went FCS I prefer the big sky split up for football only into 2 Seven team conferences - each with him auto bid to the playoffs

I agree with this whole heartedly, could have the following potential divisions:

BIG SKY NORTH:
-Montana
-Montana State
-Idaho
-Idaho State
-North Dakota
-Eastern Washington
-Portland State

BIG SKY SOUTH:
-UNC
-Weber State
-SUU
-Cal Poly
-UC-Davis
-Sacramento State
-NAU

With this format you have 6 Divisional games and 2 games from the other Division all going towards the overall Big Sky record. This leaves every team with 3 games to fill which allows the schools to schedule FBS games, non conference FCS and DII teams.

you contradicted yourself there

[dbackjon]

I agree with this whole heartedly, could have the following potential divisions:

BIG SKY NORTH:
-Montana
-Montana State
-Idaho
-Idaho State
-North Dakota
-Eastern Washington
-Portland State

BIG SKY SOUTH:
-UNC
-Weber State
-SUU
-Cal Poly
-UC-Davis
-Sacramento State
-NAU

With this format you have 6 Divisional games and 2 games from the other Division all going towards the overall Big Sky record. This leaves every team with 3 games to fill which allows the schools to schedule FBS games, non conference FCS and DII teams.

you contradicted yourself there

Just didn't express it correctly. Each team would play two nonconference games one home and one away the other conference. It would be a permanent schedule agreement since both conferences would be run out of the same office. And if those games counted towards the standings there is already a precedent for that

[clenz]

you contradicted yourself there

Just didn't express it correctly. Each team would play two nonconference games one home and one away the other conference. It would be a permanent schedule agreement since both conferences would be run out of the same office. And if those games counted towards the standings there is already a precedent for that

Right...he just said that the two cross over games would count towards Big Sky standings. That's not possible to do and maintain 2 AQ bids.

[dbackjon]

Just didn't express it correctly. Each team would play two nonconference games one home and one away the other conference. It would be a permanent schedule agreement since both conferences would be run out of the same office. And if those games counted towards the standings there is already a precedent for that

Right...he just said that the two cross over games would count towards Big Sky standings. That's not possible to do and maintain 2 AQ bids.

Tennessee State has a non-OVC game yearly that counts towards league standings. So why is it not possible?

[Jjoey52]

If Idaho went FCS I prefer the big sky split up for football only into 2 Seven team conferences - each with him auto bid to the playoffs

I agree with this whole heartedly, could have the following potential divisions:

BIG SKY NORTH:
-Montana
-Montana State
-Idaho
-Idaho State
-North Dakota
-Eastern Washington
-Portland State

BIG SKY SOUTH:
-UNC
-Weber State
-SUU
-Cal Poly
-UC-Davis
-Sacramento State
-NAU

With this format you have 6 Divisional games and 2 games from the other Division all going towards the overall Big Sky record. This leaves every team with 3 games to fill which allows the schools to schedule FBS games, non conference FCS and DII teams


Two things wrong with this, all the power is in the north and ISU and Weber are in opposite divisions.

[clenz]

Right...he just said that the two cross over games would count towards Big Sky standings. That's not possible to do and maintain 2 AQ bids.

Tennessee State has a non-OVC game yearly that counts towards league standings. So why is it not possible?

They aren't trying to get two divisions to each have an AQ, as his proposed Big Sky set up.

They would be different conferences. You couldn't have a different conference count towards conference standings.

You're both proposing one conference get two auto-bids...essentially...right?

Not going to happen. If the CAA of the mid 00s couldn't pull that off, the current BIg Sky isn't going to get it pulled off.

You either set it up as two separate conferences and they agree to a scheduling arrangement BUT IT DOESN'T COUNT TOWARDS STANDINGS

OR

Set it up as divisions and, like any "super conference" play divisional cross over games BUT YOU ONLY GET ONE AQ BID


I can't see a scenario where the NCAA would allow a Frankenstein's monster situation where you'd get to have your cake and eat it too.

If that's the case the MVFC would be right behind, likely poaching UND, and one other school and setting it up so that the MVFC gets 2 auto bids as well.

You'd HAVE to have a massive playoff field at that point.

4 bids between the MVFC and Big Sky
8 bids from the other conferences (1 each)

That's 12 bids...and you know the SLC and CAA would try to get to super conference size. and leave the PL, Big South, SoCon, OVC, etc.. at low member numbers but still at AQ status

[Mvemjsunpx]

Tennessee State has a non-OVC game yearly that counts towards league standings. So why is it not possible?

I don't think that's right. It's just that TSU plays one less conference game than everyone else.

[dbackjon]

Two things wrong with this, all the power is in the north and ISU and Weber are in opposite divisions.

SUU - 1st
PSU - 2nd
UM - 3rd
NAU - 4th


Looks pretty even to me.

And if you want to stay with WSU, then we'd have to switch PSU to the other division. Looks like all the power would be in the south.

[dbackjon]

Tennessee State has a non-OVC game yearly that counts towards league standings. So why is it not possible?

They aren't trying to get two divisions to each have an AQ, as his proposed Big Sky set up.

They would be different conferences. You couldn't have a different conference count towards conference standings.

You're both proposing one conference get two auto-bids...essentially...right?

Not going to happen. If the CAA of the mid 00s couldn't pull that off, the current BIg Sky isn't going to get it pulled off.

You either set it up as two separate conferences and they agree to a scheduling arrangement BUT IT DOESN'T COUNT TOWARDS STANDINGS

OR

Set it up as divisions and, like any "super conference" play divisional cross over games BUT YOU ONLY GET ONE AQ BID


I can't see a scenario where the NCAA would allow a Frankenstein's monster situation where you'd get to have your cake and eat it too.

If that's the case the MVFC would be right behind, likely poaching UND, and one other school and setting it up so that the MVFC gets 2 auto bids as well.

You'd HAVE to have a massive playoff field at that point.

4 bids between the MVFC and Big Sky
8 bids from the other conferences (1 each)

That's 12 bids...and you know the SLC and CAA would try to get to super conference size. and leave the PL, Big South, SoCon, OVC, etc.. at low member numbers but still at AQ status

Go for it. And please, take UND

If we couldn't count them as conference games, a permanent scheduling alliance could still be set up.

[dbackjon]

Tennessee State has a non-OVC game yearly that counts towards league standings. So why is it not possible?

I don't think that's right. It's just that TSU plays one less conference game than everyone else.

I see they do that now. When I lived in Nashville, they designated one of the Classics as a conference game. The other OVC coaches hated it, which is likely why they got rid of it.

[Mvemjsunpx]

I don't think that's right. It's just that TSU plays one less conference game than everyone else.

I see they do that now. When I lived in Nashville, they designated one of the Classics as a conference game. The other OVC coaches hated it, which is likely why they got rid of it.

Ah… OK.

[clenz]

They aren't trying to get two divisions to each have an AQ, as his proposed Big Sky set up.

They would be different conferences. You couldn't have a different conference count towards conference standings.

You're both proposing one conference get two auto-bids...essentially...right?

Not going to happen. If the CAA of the mid 00s couldn't pull that off, the current BIg Sky isn't going to get it pulled off.

You either set it up as two separate conferences and they agree to a scheduling arrangement BUT IT DOESN'T COUNT TOWARDS STANDINGS

OR

Set it up as divisions and, like any "super conference" play divisional cross over games BUT YOU ONLY GET ONE AQ BID


I can't see a scenario where the NCAA would allow a Frankenstein's monster situation where you'd get to have your cake and eat it too.

If that's the case the MVFC would be right behind, likely poaching UND, and one other school and setting it up so that the MVFC gets 2 auto bids as well.

You'd HAVE to have a massive playoff field at that point.

4 bids between the MVFC and Big Sky
8 bids from the other conferences (1 each)

That's 12 bids...and you know the SLC and CAA would try to get to super conference size. and leave the PL, Big South, SoCon, OVC, etc.. at low member numbers but still at AQ status

If we couldn't count them as conference games, a permanent scheduling alliance could still be set up.

Right. That'd be the "best"/only way to make it work.

You'd also have to drop the Big Sky name from one of the two.

Essentially you'd have the Big Sky Football Conference - as it would be a football only conference even though members share a conference elsewhere...see MVFC or CAA Football Conference

The other Conference that would lose the name, likely the south, could become something like the Colorado Valley Football Conference or some shit like that

[AZGrizFan]

Two things wrong with this, all the power is in the north and ISU and Weber are in opposite divisions.

SUU - 1st
PSU - 2nd
UM - 3rd
NAU - 4th


Looks pretty even to me.

And if you want to stay with WSU, then we'd have to switch PSU to the other division. Looks like all the power would be in the south.

like Haleys Comet...a year in which UM, MSU nor EWU were the conference champs.

[Vidav]

Two things wrong with this, all the power is in the north and ISU and Weber are in opposite divisions.

SUU - 1st
PSU - 2nd
UM - 3rd
NAU - 4th


Looks pretty even to me.

And if you want to stay with WSU, then we'd have to switch PSU to the other division. Looks like all the power would be in the south.

[Jjoey52]

They could also go to an East-West arrangement:

West : SAC, CP,UCD, PSU, EWU,
ISU, UP, and Weber.
East: UND, UNC , NAU,SUU, UM ,MSU, UI

[Vidav]

They could also go to an East-West arrangement:

West : SAC, CP,UCD, PSU, EWU,
ISU, UP, and Weber.
East: UND, UNC , NAU,SUU, UM ,MSU, UI

But in this scenario Montana would win the west every year.