The New Big Sky Conference

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Seems like its getting more likely the WAC will merge with another conference, possibly the BSC. FBS & FCS football divisions. Lots of competition, unique league. Its a good idea.

What are you even talking about here...you got any kind of link to back up that outrageous idea?

dbackjon started a thread on here about that exact viability probably 8 months ago. I don't think it would happen but there was a pretty good discussion on it and if it could happen. I'm surprised to see it surfacing now and would be interested in a link as well.

[nwFL Griz]

What are you even talking about here...you got any kind of link to back up that outrageous idea?

dbackjon started a thread on here about that exact viability probably 8 months ago. I don't think it would happen but there was a pretty good discussion on it and if it could happen. I'm surprised to see it surfacing now and would be interested in a link as well.

It doesn't make any sense to me at all. The WAC will never willingly give up it's "brand" and I highly doubt the Big Sky would either. What are the benefits of this idea? Unless you can convince one or two of the BSC teams to go FBS, it sounds like this idea just entails changing the BSC name to WAC (FCS).

Clue me in here.

(This is assuming the WAC is able to get enough members to remain an FBS conference. They are already good in b-ball, so that doesn't matter.)

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

dbackjon started a thread on here about that exact viability probably 8 months ago. I don't think it would happen but there was a pretty good discussion on it and if it could happen. I'm surprised to see it surfacing now and would be interested in a link as well.

It doesn't make any sense to me at all. The WAC will never willingly give up it's "brand" and I highly doubt the Big Sky would either. What are the benefits of this idea? Unless you can convince one or two of the BSC teams to go FBS, it sounds like this idea just entails changing the BSC name to WAC (FCS).

Clue me in here.

(This is assuming the WAC is able to get enough members to remain an FBS conference. They are already good in b-ball, so that doesn't matter.)

I didn't say I was advocating it or anything. I don't remember the benefits I just said it was interesting...for one that it was brought up in the first place and second that it appears here again many months later. I don't have time to go look for it but maybe somebody else has it bookmarked or remembers the thread title.

[nwFL Griz]

It doesn't make any sense to me at all. The WAC will never willingly give up it's "brand" and I highly doubt the Big Sky would either. What are the benefits of this idea? Unless you can convince one or two of the BSC teams to go FBS, it sounds like this idea just entails changing the BSC name to WAC (FCS).

Clue me in here.

(This is assuming the WAC is able to get enough members to remain an FBS conference. They are already good in b-ball, so that doesn't matter.)

I didn't say I was advocating it or anything. I don't remember the benefits I just said it was interesting...for one that it was brought up in the first place and second that it appears here again many months later. I don't have time to go look for it but maybe somebody else has it bookmarked or remembers the thread title.

No sweat, I wasn't necessarily directing my comments toward you, just anyone in general who felt like defending this idea. Plus the fact that it was brought up (this time) by JBB should tell you it is not really based in reality.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

I didn't say I was advocating it or anything. I don't remember the benefits I just said it was interesting...for one that it was brought up in the first place and second that it appears here again many months later. I don't have time to go look for it but maybe somebody else has it bookmarked or remembers the thread title.

No sweat, I wasn't necessarily directing my comments toward you, just anyone in general who felt like defending this idea. Plus the fact that it was brought up (this time) by JBB should tell you it is not really based in reality.

Good point.

It doesn't seem like it at the outset but there were a couple of interesting scenarios in the mix so I wish I had bookmarked it but maybe dback can find it. I just remember how crazy it sounded at first but then my stance softened as the debate moved froward...if it were a necessity kind of thing.

[JBB]

The Big Sky scheduling 13 members over 3 time zones makes just as much sense , if not less, than a WAC BSC merger featuring both FBS and FCS football divisions. There could be a divisional playoff for the conference title? The Basketball and other sports scheduling would have lots of options. There would certainly be more than 1 AQ for the Basketball tournament. It would be a big deal except 1 of the Commissioners would have to go, or be demoted to running the FCS football division. Lots of other staff would have to go too. It would be an interesting cost savings measure through consolidation of operations.

As the WAC searches for a way to survive and keep the trademark producing revenues, no idea can be dismissed.

It appears that both conferences are facing some instability with membership issues and the trend is tward larger conferences.

[SDHornet]

Interesting...but it will never happen.

[T-Dog]

Fullerton confirmed that each team will have two "rivalry" games that will be played every year. What is known so far.

UND: UNC and MSU
MSU: UND and UM
UM: MSU and EWU
EWU: UM and PSU

I've tried working it out, but unless the Cal schools don't play each other every year, then someone is biting the bullet in this.

[kemajic]

Fullerton confirmed that each team will have two "rivalry" games that will be played every year. What is known so far.

UND: UNC and MSU
MSU: UND and UM
UM: MSU and EWU
EWU: UM and PSU

I've tried working it out, but unless the Cal schools don't play each other every year, then someone is biting the bullet in this.

These should be called "geographic games." Most aren't rivalries at all. It's Fullerton's lame attempt to limit the travel cost increase he has created by this ill-conceived and unecessary expainsion. This just contributes to an already unbalanced schedule by making it even less equitable. He would love to level the playing field.

[BlackFalkin]

Fullerton confirmed that each team will have two "rivalry" games that will be played every year. What is known so far.

UND: UNC and MSU
MSU: UND and UM
UM: MSU and EWU
EWU: UM and PSU

I've tried working it out, but unless the Cal schools don't play each other every year, then someone is biting the bullet in this.

These should be called "geographic games." Most aren't rivalries at all. It's Fullerton's lame attempt to limit the travel cost increase he has created by this ill-conceived and unecessary expainsion. This just contributes to an already unbalanced schedule by making it even less equitable. He would love to level the playing field.

"Rivalries"

Cal Poly -UCD & SSU
Montana -MSU & EWU
UC Davis -CPU & SSU
Idaho State -WSU & UNC
Weber State -ISU & SUU
North Dakota -MSU & UM
Portland State -EWU & ISU
Southern Utah -WSU & NAU
Montana State - UND & UM
Northern Arizona -SUU & UNC
Sacramento State -UCD & CPU
Northern Colorado -ISU & NAU
Eastern Washington -PSU & UM


BULLET PROOF!








The University of Idaho would make this perfect!

[Hambone]

These should be called "geographic games." Most aren't rivalries at all. It's Fullerton's lame attempt to limit the travel cost increase he has created by this ill-conceived and unecessary expainsion. This just contributes to an already unbalanced schedule by making it even less equitable. He would love to level the playing field.

"Rivalries"

Cal Poly -UCD & SSU
Montana -MSU & EWU
UC Davis -CPU & SSU
Idaho State -WSU & UNC
Weber State -ISU & SUU
North Dakota -MSU & UM
Portland State -EWU & ISU
Southern Utah -WSU & NAU
Montana State - UND & UM
Northern Arizona -SUU & UNC
Sacramento State -UCD & CPU
Northern Colorado -ISU & NAU
Eastern Washington -PSU & UM


BULLET PROOF!








The University of Idaho would make this perfect!

The only flaw I see is that you have Montana listed as three school's rivals, and UND only listed as one schools rival....

[SloStang]

That and he has SUU as rivals with Cal Poly, UC Davis, Weber State and Northern Arizona.

I'd say it is anything but bullet proof.

[SloStang]

More likely:

CP = NAU & UCD
UCD = CP & Sac
Sac = UCD & PSU
PSU = Sac & EWU
EWU = PSU & UM
UM = EWU & MSU
MSU = UM & UND
UND = MSU & UNC
UNC = UND & ISU
ISU = UNC & WSU
WSU = ISU & SUU
SUU = WSU & NAU
NAU = CP & SUU

[Screamin_Eagle174]

More likely:

CP = NAU & UCD
UCD = CP & Sac
Sac = UCD & PSU
PSU = Sac & EWU
EWU = PSU & UM
UM = EWU & MSU
MSU = UM & UND
UND = MSU & UNC
UNC = UND & ISU
ISU = UNC & WSU
WSU = ISU & SUU
SUU = WSU & NAU
NAU = CP & SUU

That looks like something I posted.

[kemajic]

Brilliant. You guys could give Fullerton a run for his money.

[SloStang]

More likely:

CP = NAU & UCD
UCD = CP & Sac
Sac = UCD & PSU
PSU = Sac & EWU
EWU = PSU & UM
UM = EWU & MSU
MSU = UM & UND
UND = MSU & UNC
UNC = UND & ISU
ISU = UNC & WSU
WSU = ISU & SUU
SUU = WSU & NAU
NAU = CP & SUU

That looks like something I posted.

What's that saying about great minds? Don't mind Kem, he just a grumpy old man.

[SDHornet]

What's that saying about great minds? Don't mind Kem, he just a grumpy old man.

He is still trying to recover from MSU keeping UM in FCS…recovery may take some time…

[SDHornet]

That and he has SUU as rivals with Cal Poly, UC Davis, Weber State and Northern Arizona.

I'd say it is anything but bullet proof.

For us I don’t think it will really matter. I think there will be defacto schools playing each other year in and year out due to geography. For Sac State, ucd and CP or PSU will be Fullerton’s “official” rivalries, but I would think the annual BSC matchups will be:

• • ucd (locked and this ain’t changing)
  • CP (if not listed as “rivals” I don’t see why the BSC won’t schedule them every year)
  • PSU
  • SUU
  • NAU

So that’s 4 BSC matchups with the other 4 BSC games rotating with however they decide on a rotation. I would think something similar would happen for pretty much everyone else.

[Screamin_Eagle174]

That looks like something I posted.

What's that saying about great minds? Don't mind Kem, he just a grumpy old man.

They copy from SE174?
viewtopic.php?p=436103#p436103" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SuperHornet]

That and he has SUU as rivals with Cal Poly, UC Davis, Weber State and Northern Arizona.

I'd say it is anything but bullet proof.

Actually, you fell into his trap, Slo. For CP/UCFE, that "SSU" isn't a typo for "SUU." It's Sac State. To prevent the confusion, perhaps "CSUS" (or, preferrably, just "Sac") should have been used.

[BlackFalkin]

More likely:

CP = NAU & UCD -Sacramento State?
UCD = CP & Sac
Sac = UCD & PSU
PSU = Sac & EWU
EWU = PSU & UM
UM = EWU & MSU
MSU = UM & UND
UND = MSU & UNC
UNC = UND & ISU
ISU = UNC & WSU
WSU = ISU & SUU
SUU = WSU & NAU
NAU = CP & SUU

You break up the California schools? Its only right that they be each others' rival.

[native]

Fullerton confirmed that each team will have two "rivalry" games that will be played every year. What is known so far.

UND: UNC and MSU
MSU: UND and UM
UM: MSU and EWU
EWU: UM and PSU

I've tried working it out, but unless the Cal schools don't play each other every year, then someone is biting the bullet in this.

These should be called "geographic games." Most aren't rivalries at all. It's Fullerton's lame attempt to limit the travel cost increase he has created by this ill-conceived and unecessary expainsion. This just contributes to an already unbalanced schedule by making it even less equitable. He would love to level the playing field.

Good point about geographic games. I still like the concept of the expanded BSC, though.

[kemajic]

These should be called "geographic games." Most aren't rivalries at all. It's Fullerton's lame attempt to limit the travel cost increase he has created by this ill-conceived and unecessary expainsion. This just contributes to an already unbalanced schedule by making it even less equitable. He would love to level the playing field.

Good point about geographic games. I still like the concept of the expanded BSC, though.

I think it was more reaction than concept.

[SloStang]

If the Big Sky is going to stay at 13 teams for football I like the model that each team has 4 rivals and alternates the other 4 games with between the other 8 teams. That way you see your rivals (the 4 teams that are closet to you) every year and every other team once every two years. For Cal Poly that means only traveling to North Dakota once every 4 years. Helps to build rivals and cuts down on travel expense.

[collegesportsinfo]

Definitely agree that the Big Sky needs to find a 14th member. I'm gonna make an argument for UCSB. Here's a portion of a response I posted in UC Santa Barbara's Nexus newspaper:

....The opportunity to capitalize on that in `92 after moving to DII was ripe, but lack of communication and misinformation killed that opportunity. Now, there is an outstanding opportunity again. Cal Poly and UC Davis just moved to the Big Sky Conference, one of the top FCS conferences in the nation. UCSB has both the facilities, the location, the academic focus and the student body to compete at the FCS level. If only they could find the collective will to do so. First, however, they need to be informed. Having previously competed at a lower division, the move to FCS should be without sanctions. The Big Sky is ideal geographically for minimizing travel expense and rivalries with Davis, Sac and Poly would be built into the equation. Harder Stadium is an ideal FCS facility with over 17,500 existing seats and room for expansion if needed. The surrounding population is affluent and many are alumni of either UCSB, Cal Poly, Davis or one of the other member schools. I myself along with my daughter are Cal Poly alumni. My wife, two siblings and a niece are UCSB alumni and my daughter is currently working on her Ph.D at UC Davis. I know many people supporting each of these institutions; alumni, students, faculty etc. This would be a great thing for each school and each community. I strongly recommend it be considered with open minds. Here are some photos of UCSB football from the early 60's when they were DI to the late 80's when they were DIII and then DII Got to love that pic from `71 when Palamino is getting crushed by the entire Tennessee defense! lol

As a frequent visitor to Santa Barbara, I've always felt they would be perfect for FCS. It's a good sized community that could easily support football at the FCS level. I went out of my way to goto SB last spring when UCSB was in the NCAa tourney. It was spring break, but the town was still in full support with bars packed...despite the students not being their.