The New Big Sky Conference

[SDHornet]

My opinion is that UND is in a better position being in the Big Sky for all sports than being in the MVFC (that would be a good fit)/Summit League (no name conference). Fact is that you obsess on UND too much for your own good. Fact is that your obession of UND ruins too many threads for other posters. Those are my facts.

FIFY

[EWURanger]

BTW, I did not say the Big Sky added the teams all in the name of FCS welfare. I said it was a positive to some of it's members. Good to see you are still misrepresenting what I post.

JBB's interpretation is the realistic one. There are no positives for UM, MSU, EWU, PSU, ISU and UNC, no matter how you or Fullerton try to spin it.

I wouldn't expect anything different coming from someone who hardly has anything positive to say about the BSC.

[SloStang]

EWURanger are you going to make it down to SLO next year for the EWU/Cal Poly game? If so I'd enjoy talking football with you over a couple of cold ones before the game.

[kemajic]

JBB's interpretation is the realistic one. There are no positives for UM, MSU, EWU, PSU, ISU and UNC, no matter how you or Fullerton try to spin it.

I wouldn't expect anything different coming from someone who hardly has anything positive to say about the BSC.

OK, Captian BSC, let's see your list of positives for EWU.

[JBB]

EWUR,

NDSU did not receive an invite to the BSC. I mispoke.

You and I both agree the BSC has made a mistake:

I'll agree with you on UND - with USD it made sense, without them it doesn't. The BSC should have never extended invitations to both schools without assurances that both would join. It should have been a package deal, or nothing at all.

Neither the BSC or Summit can claim any clear superiority in basketball and other sports besides football, check the RPI ratings or read threads on siouxsports or BV. They have covered this thoroughly. Neither is clearly superior.

Overall, the BSC is more D2 like in attendance and facilities in football when compared to the MVFC, very similar when compared to the Summit.

As far as credibility goes you comment is not well received. You are as poorly spoken as you friend from Ca. Mr. Slo Stang, You 2 should make fine company with your unsupported assumptions and personal attacks. What fun if you disagree with each other:

Slo Stang: You are obsessed and ruin everything when you dont agree with me

EWUR: You have no credibility

Certainly both are very convincing, well developed and mature arguments.

[EWURanger]

I wouldn't expect anything different coming from someone who hardly has anything positive to say about the BSC.

OK, Captian BSC, let's see your list of positives for EWU.

There are no great advantages in adding UND, IMO. I've already stated that I think that was a mistake, especially with USD not joining. There are the geographic concerns, but outside that it makes for an uneven 13 member football conference. Fullerton must have really been banking on South Dakota accepting. The word is that the the decision to go into the Dakotas was made out of deference to the Montana schools.

But outside of that whole situation, adding UC Davis and Cal Poly was a great move. They are both good institutions academically, and both are solid football programs with a lot of potential. I was not stating that there were any great positives for EWU specifically - but since you're asking, I would say that adding those two schools increases the exposure of the conference in California, which is somewhere EWU recruits very heavily particularly the Bay Area.

Also, as much as people dog on them, I don't think adding SUU for all sports was a bad move, either. They already fit the geographic footprint, and their football program is growing and improving. They also seem committed to improving their facilities.

So you tell me, outside of the Dakota's fiasco, which I have already stated was a bad move without USD - how is adding Davis, Poly, and SUU a bad move by the Big Sky? Let me guess - you don't like SUU because they're another directional school?

[SloStang]

The Big Sky is superior to the Summit League in the most important thing, name recognition. Ask the average Joe on the street who the schools are in each conference and where they are located and what sports if any they play. How many are going to know IUPUI, Oakland (most would think Oakland is in CA not Michigan), Centanary and IPFW? Compare that to Montana, Eastern Washington, Montana State, Sacramento State, Portland State, UC Davis, Northern Arizona....... Not even close. If you say other wise you are lying to yourself and this board.

[EWURanger]

Overall, the BSC is more D2 like in attendance and facilities in football when compared to the MVFC

Stop back peddling. You never mentioned anything about facilities or attendance in your previous post. What I called you out on was your claim that the MVFC has a better history than the Big Sky Conference. But again, I welcome you to explain how the MVFC is better in that regard.

Better travel, better coverage, better history, better for recruiting.

But since you are now claiming that the MVFC has better facilties, let's take a look at the comparable facilities of both conferences.

Open-Air Stadiums:

Big Sky: Montana - Washington-Grizzly Stadium: 25,500+



MVFC: Youngstown State - Stambaugh Stadium: 20,600



Big Sky: Sac State - Hornet Stadium: 22,000



MVFC: Missouri State: Plaster Sports Complex: 16,600



Big Sky: Portland State - PGE Park: 20,000+



MVFC: Western Illinois - Hanson Field: 17,000+ Not sure how this is a 17k stadium, but ok.



Big Sky: Montana State - Bobcat Stadium: 15,000 currently - 22,000 once renovation complete



MVFC: Southern Illinois - Saluki Stadium: 15,000+



Big Sky: Weber State - Stewart Stadium: 17,000



MVFC: South Dakota State - Coughlin-Alumni Stadium: 16,000



*Big Sky: Cal Poly - Spanos Stadium: 11,000+



MVFC: Illinois State - Hancock Stadium: 15,000



*Big Sky: UC Davis - Aggie Stadium: 10,850



MVFC: Indiana State - Memorial Stadium: 12,764



Big Sky: Eastern Washington - Roos Field: ~10,000



or:

Joe Albi Stadium, Spokane: 28,700



EWU still played at Joe Albi up until a few years back, and still could if the administration chose to do so.

Big Sky: Northern Colorado - Nottingham Field: 8500



*Big Sky: Southern Utah - Eccles Colliseum: 8500



And now to the domed stadiums:

Big Sky: Northern Arizona - Walkup Skydome: 16,230



MVFC: Northern Iowa - UNI-Dome: 16,000+



*Note* The above two look pretty similar to me.

MVFC: North Dakota State: Fargodome: 19,000



*Big Sky: North Dakota - Alerus Center: 12,283



Big Sky: Idaho State - Holt Arena: 12,000



*South Dakota - DakotaDome: 10,000



Overall, the MVFC has some decent facilities. To say that the MVFC has better facilities than the Big Sky is a very big stretch. But you can see the above for yourself and make your own opinions.

There's some venues in the MVFC that are definitely nothing to write home about. Take, for example, Indiana State, SDSU, Western Illinois and look at the press boxes alone. Are you telling me those aren't, as you say "D-IIish"? UNC, SUU, and EWU (the schools I am assuming you were referring to in your comment) are not the biggest venues, but at least they all have recent/modern press boxes and media suites.

IMO, the advantage goes to the Big Sky. The only stadium in the FCS that is really on par with WA-Griz is KBS, so it sort of stands out on it's own. But take a look around the Big Sky and notice what's going on with venue improvements, The current renovations going on at PGE Park in Portland will make it an outstanding venue, albeit it's being remodeled as a soccer stadium. Then again, we're playing the NC game in a soccer stadium, so perhaps thats a non-issue. Montana State recently secured the funds to expand their stadium to 22 thousand. It's already good, but once complete, it will also be a premier venue. NAU recently approved $23.1 million in improvements to the Walkup Skydome, and started those in December (new press box, seating, audio/visual, etc).

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cal Poly (2006) and UC Davis (2007) recently completed renovations to their venues in the past few years, and both have outstanding venues.

EWU has plans in the works for further renovations in the near future, as does Weber State, SUU, ISU, Sac State, etc.

I'd give the MVFC a nod in the area of domed venues, I suppose, since I don't think NAU or UND's domes are as nice as the Fargo Dome. So I guess that's something you can hang your hat on. The Alerus center looks pretty nice, although I haven't ever been there. NAU's Walkup Skydome is pretty similiar to the Uni-Dome if you look at the pictures. Once renovations are complete there, it will be better. ISU's Holt Arena needs some serious, serious, love, but all in all still looks on-par with USD's Dakotadome, if not better.

So, JBB - tell me again. Look at all of the above, and tell me how the MVFC has better facilities than the Big Sky. Are you sure you're not just comparing the Fargo Dome (which must be what you're familiar with in your seemingly limited scope of FCS) to the worst of the Big Sky venues and making broad-brush statements?

Do you even want me to start comparing Big Sky basketball venues with the Summit?

[EWURanger]

EWURanger are you going to make it down to SLO next year for the EWU/Cal Poly game? If so I'd enjoy talking football with you over a couple of cold ones before the game.

I'd love to make it down there some time. As I live out of the country at the moment, it's been hard. Made it back for the opening game on the red turf against Montana, and am now back in the States for the NC - but other than that I haven't been able to get back much. I'll be coming back around this time next year, though, so I may make it there for the 2012 game if that's where it's being played.

[SDHornet]

Do you even want me to start comparing Big Sky basketball venues with the Summit?

For the love of God leave the Hornet Nest out of this.

Great post though.
We added Fieldturf prior to the 2010 season and a Fieldhouse a few years before that. No idea what is on the immediate update list but we could use a new scoreboard.

[EWURanger]

Do you even want me to start comparing Big Sky basketball venues with the Summit?

For the love of God leave the Hornet Nest out of this.

Great post though.
We added Fieldturf prior to the 2010 season and a Fieldhouse a few years before that. No idea what is on the immediate update list but we could use a new scoreboard.

Yeah, I forgot about Sac's bball venue.

Anyway, if you compare a lot of the others, it's not close.

I remembered the Fieldturf (or is it Sprinturf) Sac added this year. Looks good.

We're also shooting for a new scoreboard for as early as next year. Word is that we might nab the one from Husky Stadium when they start the renovations there. Hell, whatever works I say.

[SDHornet]

Yeah the Well (building on the top of the Hornet stadium photo) was passed by the students (me included) in 2004. It just opened in fall ’10 and is a huge gym for students. I toured it while I was in town for Homecoming and it is incredible. It was suppose to also include a 6-8k capacity events center which would have finally got some respectable facilities for hoops. Unfortunately funds never materialized as the recession hit and it never got built. Hopefully this is still on the “to do list.” Looking closer at the Well, it looks like there may be room for the event center just to the left of the existing building. I have no idea where it was planned on being built but it sounded like the Well and the events center were to be in the same location.

[Green Laser]

Yeah the Well (building on the top of the Hornet stadium photo) was passed by the students (me included) in 2004. It just opened in fall ’10 and is a huge gym for students. I toured it while I was in town for Homecoming and it is incredible. It was suppose to also include a 6-8k capacity events center which would have finally got some respectable facilities for hoops. Unfortunately funds never materialized as the recession hit and it never got built. Hopefully this is still on the “to do list.” Looking closer at the Well, it looks like there may be room for the event center just to the left of the existing building. I have no idea where it was planned on being built but it sounded like the Well and the events center were to be in the same location.

I think the plan was to build the Events Center east of the stadium, north of the Alumni Center. Anyway if EWU can list Joe Albi Stadium in Spokane as a back Stadium, we can claim Arco Arena as a back up for The Nest! We have used Arco before and it was in the plans when we were considering the WAC.

[SloStang]

On top of all that the a Big Sky team just won the 2010/2011 FCS National Championship. Congrats to EWU.

[Skoal]

How did this thread about conference alignment turn into Big Sky VS. MVFC? Looks like Slo-Stang derailed another thread with his JBB obsession.

I tried googling "scheduling a 13 team conference" for ideas how other sports or leagues have done it, but all I came up with were threads from the griz and bobcat board with posters pulling their hair out trying to figure it out. I can't figure it out either. I think it will be some variation like slostang posted, but I guarantee some team/teams are going to be royally screwed by the unbalanced/strength of schedule, diminished gate sales/loss of rivals, etc.

Would going to a 9 game conference schedule help matters any? Having an unbalanced home/away conference slate isn't ideal, but could it be better? Somebody draw it up and let's see. Can't be any worse can it?

[kemajic]

How did this thread about conference alignment turn into Big Sky VS. MVFC? Looks like Slo-Stang derailed another thread with his JBB obsession.

I tried googling "scheduling a 13 team conference" for ideas how other sports or leagues have done it, but all I came up with were threads from the griz and bobcat board with posters pulling their hair out trying to figure it out. I can't figure it out either. I think it will be some variation like slostang posted, but I guarantee some team/teams are going to be royally screwed by the unbalanced/strength of schedule, diminished gate sales/loss of rivals, etc.

Would going to a 9 game conference schedule help matters any? Having an unbalanced home/away conference slate isn't ideal, but could it be better? Somebody draw it up and let's see. Can't be any worse can it?

More conf. games means fewer home games and less opportunity for money games. You've added travel costs by expanding to three time zones and now you want to take away a money game. That would encourage the Montana schools to look elsewhere; that one way to get the BSC back down to a manageable size.

[kemajic]

OK, Captian BSC, let's see your list of positives for EWU.

There are no great advantages in adding UND, IMO. I've already stated that I think that was a mistake, especially with USD not joining. There are the geographic concerns, but outside that it makes for an uneven 13 member football conference. Fullerton must have really been banking on South Dakota accepting. The word is that the the decision to go into the Dakotas was made out of deference to the Montana schools.

But outside of that whole situation, adding UC Davis and Cal Poly was a great move. They are both good institutions academically, and both are solid football programs with a lot of potential. I was not stating that there were any great positives for EWU specifically - but since you're asking, I would say that adding those two schools increases the exposure of the conference in California, which is somewhere EWU recruits very heavily particularly the Bay Area.

Also, as much as people dog on them, I don't think adding SUU for all sports was a bad move, either. They already fit the geographic footprint, and their football program is growing and improving. They also seem committed to improving their facilities.

So you tell me, outside of the Dakota's fiasco, which I have already stated was a bad move without USD - how is adding Davis, Poly, and SUU a bad move by the Big Sky? Let me guess - you don't like SUU because they're another directional school?

You've never seen me use the term "directional school" other than to remind that GA Southern won six FCS NCs. You've mixed up your antagonists.

No programs were added that draw or would enhance revenue, yet travel costs go up with the enormous footprint and away games will be more difficult to attend. The conf. now is faced with woefully unbalanced schedules and there will be no significance to a BSC championship, if they bother at all. I also liked the policy to allow only members that play all sports within the conf. It's hypocritical to kick out a Gonzaga and add football only members. It's hypocritical to deny NDSU and SDSU and then add teams as distant. It was not the duty of the BSC to place the homeless from the Great West; it was done reactively, out of desperation by Fullerton, not with prudent planning and commitment. He was guarding against defections he never got, leaving the conf. in a metastable state.

[BearIt]

Do you even want me to start comparing Big Sky basketball venues with the Summit?

Please do. I enjoyed the comparison. Great work!

It would make a great offseason activity to have "best conference facilities show down." Set it up as a poll with a face off of 2 conferences each week. The winners advance to the next round. Tough to make it objective with all the homers here, but it would be fun.

[SDHornet]

I agree with kem. The added travel will be terrible, especially for the far western BSC schools (EWU, PSU, Sac, NAU). Also the added schools split any conference payouts further making each current BSC school having to find ways to make up the loss. The scheduling will be something they will have to figure out. No idea how they do it but I think they will have to do the regional rivalry style.

I also agree that these additions were made in anticipation of some BSC schools leaving. What I disagree with is that although they haven’t happened yet, they could still happen. This will all depend on if the WAC can find a stop-gap to stay afloat for a few more years. This will give time for MSU to get their shit together so then they will allow both MSU and UM to “move up.” The WAC is more desperate than a strung out crack whore right now so they will keep all their options open to stay afloat. If a few schools do decide to go to the WAC, the BSC additions will be what keeps the remaining BSC alive.

[JBB]

Nice presentation Ranger. Your point is made and taken.

Both are good conferences. I was never arguing which conference was better, that was Mr. Slo Stang.

My point, before Mr. Slo Stang jumped in with his hating, was that the BSC made a mistake by bringing in UND. It hurts the conference overall and only helps UND. The conference is actually subsidizing UND. Geographically their admittance is a financial nightmare for the other schools.

My second point was the BSC went against two of its traditional principals: Keep the footprint in the west and dont allow affiliate members in football.

SUU was the only invite that met their traditional criteria for membership.

There is plenty of agreement on those points.

Just for fun here are 2010 football attendance figures for the two conferences showing why UND is a better fit as far as program size and community interest goes.

NDSU....................15,944
Youngstown..........15,110
Northern Iowa........12,997
Southern Illinois....10,890
SDSU....................10,023
Western Illinois......9,232
Missouri St...............9,028
University of South Dakota will fit here
Illinois St.................6,958 D2 like from here on down
Indiana St................5,478

Montana------------------25,448
Montana St.--------------14,298
Cal Poly---------------------8,760 D2 like from here on down
North Dakota--------------8,154
UC Davis-------------------8,115
Sacramento St.-----------7,576
Northern Arizona---------7,398
Southern Utah------------7,077
Weber St.------------------6,913
Eastern Washington---6,455
Idaho St.-------------------5,388
Northern Colorado-----5,023
Portland St.---------------4,895
Lots of empty seats in those big stadiums

[JBB]

2 divisions might work playing every team in your division, and 1 or 2 from the other division, an OOC game or two to allow an FBS payday? Maybe have a championship game?

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

2 divisions might work playing every team in your division, and 1 or 2 from the other division, an OOC game or two to allow an FBS payday? Maybe have a championship game?

There are not going to be any championship games as I don't think they are allowed in FCS considering the playoffs and so forth. You would have to give up the playoff berths I think.

[EWURanger]

There are no great advantages in adding UND, IMO. I've already stated that I think that was a mistake, especially with USD not joining. There are the geographic concerns, but outside that it makes for an uneven 13 member football conference. Fullerton must have really been banking on South Dakota accepting. The word is that the the decision to go into the Dakotas was made out of deference to the Montana schools.

But outside of that whole situation, adding UC Davis and Cal Poly was a great move. They are both good institutions academically, and both are solid football programs with a lot of potential. I was not stating that there were any great positives for EWU specifically - but since you're asking, I would say that adding those two schools increases the exposure of the conference in California, which is somewhere EWU recruits very heavily particularly the Bay Area.

Also, as much as people dog on them, I don't think adding SUU for all sports was a bad move, either. They already fit the geographic footprint, and their football program is growing and improving. They also seem committed to improving their facilities.

So you tell me, outside of the Dakota's fiasco, which I have already stated was a bad move without USD - how is adding Davis, Poly, and SUU a bad move by the Big Sky? Let me guess - you don't like SUU because they're another directional school?

You've never seen me use the term "directional school" other than to remind that GA Southern won six FCS NCs. You've mixed up your antagonists.

No programs were added that draw or would enhance revenue, yet travel costs go up with the enormous footprint and away games will be more difficult to attend. The conf. now is faced with woefully unbalanced schedules and there will be no significance to a BSC championship, if they bother at all. I also liked the policy to allow only members that play all sports within the conf. It's hypocritical to kick out a Gonzaga and add football only members. It's hypocritical to deny NDSU and SDSU and then add teams as distant. It was not the duty of the BSC to place the homeless from the Great West; it was done reactively, out of desperation by Fullerton, not with prudent planning and commitment. He was guarding against defections he never got, leaving the conf. in a metastable state.

I agree with the majority of what you're saying. It was a stretch to add the Dakota's, even when they were perceived to be a package deal. Now with UND, it just doesn't make sense.

However, I will maintain that adding the 2 Cali schools was a great move. It can't be argued that they are not good schools academically and both have solid football programs with good facilities. The BSC went no farther outside the current footprint by adding those two schools than they did back in the 90's when Northridge and Sac State were granted membership.

[SloStang]

I have never said that the Big Sky was better than the MVFC. Way to misrepresent what I write again. I said that UND was better off in the Big Sky for ALL their sports (except Hockey) that being in the MVFC (which would be a good fit) for football and the Sumit League for all there other sports. The Summit is full of teams that most people have never heard of. IUPUI, IUPFW, Centenary and Oakland. That is my opinion. I am entitled to my opinion.

[EWURanger]

My second point was the BSC went against two of its traditional principals: Keep the footprint in the west and dont allow affiliate members in football.

SUU was the only invite that met their traditional criteria for membership.

No arguments here on any of that. I do think it was somewhat hypocritical to add affiliate members, and also to expand into the Dakota's when they previously would not do so.

However, all of this has to be taken into context some. Back when NDSU and SDSU were trying to achieve BSC membership, the landscape of FCS out west was different. If the Big Sky would have tried to add Davis and Poly as all sports members from the beginning, maybe they wouldn't have had to resort to allowing affiliate members into the conference. I don't necessarily agree with the affiliate membership thing, but as I have stated I do think they will add a lot in terms of football to the Big Sky - even more so if they would have been all-sports members. It is what it is, I suppose. You're correct, IMO, that it's not a conferences job to take in orphaned programs, but this was done to solidify FCS football out west and protect the Big Sky against a dying WAC pillaging it's members.