Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

nwFL Griz wrote:

JBB wrote: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?

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

nwFL Griz wrote:
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 wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: 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 wrote:

nwFL Griz wrote:
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 wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: 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.

T-Dog wrote: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 wrote:

T-Dog wrote: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 wrote:

kemajic wrote: 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!

SloStang wrote: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 wrote:

SloStang wrote: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.

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

SloStang wrote: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.

• • 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

SloStang wrote:

Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:
That looks like something I posted.

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

SloStang wrote: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 wrote: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

kemajic wrote:

T-Dog wrote: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.

native wrote:

kemajic wrote: 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.

bojeta wrote: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