The New Big Sky Conference

[kemajic]

Either Chadron St.(travel partner for UNC) or CWU (travel partner for EWU) would be the obvious choices if a DII move-up was the order. It would be better for the BSC if one of the current weak sisters dropped out. Or UND eventually to the MVC, where they belong. 12 is a better number than 14. You play the five other members of your subdivision each year and half the other division, alternating years, for the 8 conf. games. Of course, there can be no conf. championship game in FCS, so to determine the conf. champion, it could only be done on the basis of uneven records, if they even bother. It will lose its significance; this overexpansion is yet another Fullerton f#*kup. 13 FB; 11 BBall; ridiculous.

13 is fine for football. Each school has four permanent rivals and play every year. They rotate playing the other 8 schools every other year. 4 home and 4 away conference games each year. 2 home against rivals and 2 home against one of the other 8. 2 away against rivals and 2 away against one of the other 8.

11 for Basketball is not good though.

That must be why every conference strives for 13.

[SloStang]

13 is fine for football. Each school has four permanent rivals and play every year. They rotate playing the other 8 schools every other year. 4 home and 4 away conference games each year. 2 home against rivals and 2 home against one of the other 8. 2 away against rivals and 2 away against one of the other 8.

11 for Basketball is not good though.

That must be why every conference strives for 13.

Did not say 13 was what they should strive for. I said it was fine or in other words workable and gave a good solution how it could work. Why are you always such an @ss? At least you are consistant.

[MrTitleist]

Big Sky is WAY too bloated right now.. man, what a CF to try to schedule games..

[SuperHornet]

Big Sky is WAY too bloated right now.. man, what a CF to try to schedule games..

Agreed. UND/SUU are mistakes....

[SDHornet]

That must be why every conference strives for 13.

Did not say 13 was what they should strive for. I said it was fine or in other words workable and gave a good solution how it could work. Why you always suck an @ss? At least you are consistant.

Don't mind kem. He has been butt hurt ever since MSU told UM they will not allow them to move up to FBS. Now anything out of him is a potshot about how awful FCS/BSC is and how it doesn't stack up against FBS.

The BSC will find a way to make this odd size work. My concern is the lack of OCC teams available to schedule for football starting in 2012. I am not a fan of the idea of using BSC teams as OOC games and not having them count towards the conference record.

[SuperHornet]

Did not say 13 was what they should strive for. I said it was fine or in other words workable and gave a good solution how it could work. Why you always suck an @ss? At least you are consistant.

Don't mind kem. He has been butt hurt ever since MSU told UM they will not allow them to move up to FBS. Now anything out of him is a potshot about how awful FCS/BSC is and how it doesn't stack up against FBS.

The BSC will find a way to make this odd size work. My concern is the lack of OCC teams available to schedule for football starting in 2012. I am not a fan of the idea of using BSC teams as OOC games and not having them count towards the conference record.

Teams are available if we're willing to sign midwest and eastern teams to a home-and-home (or 2-for-1). That'll increase travel costs, and we'll run the risk of ECB elistist schools buying their way out of the game in Sac, but if that's the paradigm we have to go to, so be it. It could also open the door to more FBS body-bag games (or winnable FBS games if we travel a bit), but we'll have to keep the numbers of those balanced so we don't schedule ourselves out of the playoffs.

[SloStang]

nodakvindy over on the Sioux baord spent some time on this and this is what he came up with (rivals may be different, but you get the point how having assigned rivals would work):

UM: MSU/EWU/UND/WSU
Year 1 PSU CP ISU SUU
Year 2 NAU UCD Sac UNC

EWU: UM/PSU/CP/Sac
Year 1 UCD UNC WSU SUU
Year 2 MSU UND ISU NAU

PSU: EWU/CP/Sac/UCD
Year 1 UM UND ISU NAU
Year 2 MSU UNC WSU SUU

ISU: UND/WSU/MSU/UNC
Year 1 UM PSU UCD SUU
Year 2 EWU Sac CP NAU

WSU: ISU/SUU/UM/NAU
Year 1 MSU UND EWU CP
Year 2 PSU UCD Sac UNC

SUU: WSU/NAU/UNC/UCD
Year 1 UM EWU ISU Sac
Year 2 MSU UND PSU CP

NAU: SUU/UNC/WSU/MSU
Year 1 UND Sac PSU UCD
Year 2 UM EWU ISU CP

UNC: NAU/UND/SUU/ISU
Year 1 MSU Sac EWU CP
Year 2 UM PSU WSU UCD

UND: UNC/MSU/UM/ISU
Year 1 PSU CP WSU NAU
Year 2 EWU Sac SUU UCD

MSU: UND/UM/ISU/NAU
Year 1 Sac UCD UNC WSU
Year 2 CP PSU EWU SUU

CP: UCD/Sac/EWU/PSU
Year 1 UM UND WSU UNC
Year 2 MSU ISU SUU NAU

UCD: CP/Sac/SUU/PSU
Year 1 MSU EWU ISU NAU
Year 2 UM UND WSU UNC

SAC: UCD/CP/PSU/EWU
Year 1 MSU SUU NAU UNC
Year 2 UM UND ISU WSU

Seems to me to be a good solution to a 13 team conference.

[djollieballs]

nodakvindy over on the Sioux baord spent some time on this and this is what he came up with (rivals may be different, but you get the point how having assigned rivals would work):

UM: MSU/EWU/UND/WSU
Year 1 PSU CP ISU SUU
Year 2 NAU UCD Sac UNC

Seems to me to be a good solution to a 13 team conference.

And it would seem that way to a fan of a team that doesn't have more than a few thousand fans and maybe a handful of die hards. Our alumni in Portland set their calendars to the Griz game there every other year. I can't wait until 2012 when that game doesn't happen. Alumni donations from the Portland area are going to absolutely dry up. Same goes for the NoCal alums that frequent the Sac away games, the Denver alums for UNC, and AZ alums for NAU etc...

Oh yeah, now half the conference gets to go every other year without having to play both UM and EWU . Some teams get to avoid both every other year, some get to avoid UM, EWU, and MSU every other year. Meanwhile, of course the Griz play EWU, MSU, AND Weber every year. Yeah, we have to play the only consistently good teams every year, while everyone else gets a break. Perfect.

Yeah, this is really going to improve the conference . I'm sure the selection committee is going to be really impressed when a 7-1 team that didn't play the Griz, EWU, or MSU gets blanked in a play-in game by the 3rd team in from the Southland.

The rest of the Big Sky doesn't get it, never will, and will never be in a position to get it.

Don't even get me started on BB which is undergoing a revival at UM right now, The Obese Sky is going to completely derail that.

This move is going to end up costing our AD and new president their jobs for allowing it to happen. That's how big of a CF this is.

[SloStang]

nodakvindy over on the Sioux baord spent some time on this and this is what he came up with (rivals may be different, but you get the point how having assigned rivals would work):

UM: MSU/EWU/UND/WSU
Year 1 PSU CP ISU SUU
Year 2 NAU UCD Sac UNC

Seems to me to be a good solution to a 13 team conference.

And it would seem that way to a fan of a team that doesn't have more than a few thousand fans and maybe a handful of die hards. Our alumni in Portland set their calendars to the Griz game there every other year. I can't wait until 2012 when that game doesn't happen. Alumni donations from the Portland area are going to absolutely dry up. Same goes for the NoCal alums that frequent the Sac away games, the Denver alums for UNC, and AZ alums for NAU etc...

Oh yeah, now half the conference gets to go every other year without having to play UM, EWU .

Yeah, this is really going to improve the conference . I'm sure the selection committee is going to be really impressed when a 7-1 Davis team that didn't play the Griz, EWU, or MSU gets blanked in a play-in game by the 3rd team in from the Southland.

The rest of the Big Sky doesn't get it.

Don't even get me started on BB which is undergoing a revival at UM right now, The Obese Sky is going to completely derail that.

This move is going to end up costing our AD and new president their jobs for allowing it to happen. That's how big of a CF this is.

Can always count on you being positive.

[MrTitleist]

DJollie throwin' down the consequences of this move.

[BearIt]

I don't think EWU and PSU will like not having UM at home every other year. When the Griz come to town it accounts for about 1/2 of their ticket revenue for the entire season. If they only get us once every 3rd or 4th year it will have a significant impact on their revenue.

[kalm]

I don't think EWU and PSU will like not having UM at home every other year. When the Griz come to town it accounts for about 1/2 of their ticket revenue for the entire season. If they only get us once every 3rd or 4th year it will have a significant impact on their revenue.

As slostang suggested each team would get to keep a certain amount of annual rivalry games. I'm sure EWU and UM would be this. And I know you guys travel well, but let's keep it real on the revenue impact. It's significant but nowhere near 1/2.

[ArmyOfDarkness]

UM / EWU / MSU / and most likely ISU will all stay locked based on travel distance alone. I would also think Weebs or NAU would be in this package as well. UND is pretty far from even the closest team, so no point in claiming travel distance with them.

Should be interesting how they work this all out. Hopefully everyone can agree by the end anyway.

[EWURanger]

I don't think EWU and PSU will like not having UM at home every other year. When the Griz come to town it accounts for about 1/2 of their ticket revenue for the entire season. If they only get us once every 3rd or 4th year it will have a significant impact on their revenue.

That's just a tad bit of an exaggeration. Of the roughly 12k that attended the UM-EWU game this year, somewhere around 4000+ were Montana fans. That comes nowhere near close to accounting for half of the tickets revenue for the entire season. You are absolutely correct in that we would definitely not want to see that game go away, though.

I think the best solution is that every team plays 3-4 "rival" games every year so you get the monetary aspects right in terms of geography, and then for the rest of the conference slate play different teams each year.

For example, I think EWU should play PSU, MSU, Montana, and perhaps ISU every year, and then rotate between the rest. I'd like to see us play at least one game in Northern California every year, though.

[BearIt]

Over the years EWU tactics have been to charge inflated rates, require donations to the athletic department and buy 3 game ticket packs. PSU also jacks the price up and will require purchase of three game packs.

Require purchase of 3 game packs significantly increases ticket sales.

If you look at the statistics not counting this year since the new field might skew the attendence figures, it supports my statement.
Over the last 4 years on the griz at home years EWU attendenced averaged 6,917/game (7,116 in 2006 and 6,719 in 2008) on non griz years the average was 5,343/game (5356 in 2007 and 5336 in 2008). That is a difference of 1571 people per game. Multiply by an average of 5 home games and you get 7,855. That is the equivalant of 1.5 addtional home games. If you add the actual Griz game itself it is equal to 2.5 home games. with only having to pay the overhead of hosting 1 home game. Add in the jacked up prices and fees that come with the Griz game and I think it is fair to say that it is close 50% of home revenue for the season with 5 home games.

Not trying to be a dick, but it really is a significant source of revenue EWU and PSU. As other posters stated it probably won't matter because the Big Sky will keep the EWU/Montana rivalry.

[native]

What's the possibility of UCSB or one of the other California schools resurrecting their football program? I agree, with BSC needs a 14th member for football.

Zero. And even if some wealthy alums could pony up the money to restart football at either of these schools, the school administration and students would have to be willing to fund their scholarships, operations budgets, and facility improvements/construction. So again, zero chance any CA schools restart or start football. I think UOP has the greatest shot (0.01%) as they can go non-scholie and joint the PFL. I think UOP has an old decrepit stadium that could be used to field the team. SH probably has more details of any possibility for UOP.

Unfortunately, the great state of California has a much better chance of falling off into the Pacific Ocean - or at least going bankrupt - than of any major California university resurrecting its football program.

[kalm]

Over the years EWU tactics have been to charge inflated rates, require donations to the athletic department and buy 3 game ticket packs. PSU also jacks the price up and will require purchase of three game packs.

Require purchase of 3 game packs significantly increases ticket sales.

If you look at the statistics not counting this year since the new field might skew the attendence figures, it supports my statement.
Over the last 4 years on the griz at home years EWU attendenced averaged 6,917/game (7,116 in 2006 and 6,719 in 2008) on non griz years the average was 5,343/game (5356 in 2007 and 5336 in 2008). That is a difference of 1571 people per game. Multiply by an average of 5 home games and you get 7,855. That is the equivalant of 1.5 addtional home games. If you add the actual Griz game itself it is equal to 2.5 home games. with only having to pay the overhead of hosting 1 home game. Add in the jacked up prices and fees that come with the Griz game and I think it is fair to say that it is close 50% of home revenue for the season with 5 home games.

Not trying to be a dick, but it really is a significant source of revenue EWU and PSU. As other posters stated it probably won't matter because the Big Sky will keep the EWU/Montana rivalry.

How many Griz fans do you really think purchased the three game pack? Unless most of the 4,000 did, you still don't get to half. But no one was required to buy it, tickets went on sale to the general public on September 1st. Also, I'm not sure if EWU has ever used this tactic before as the games in the past were later in the season. I'm not even sure if the base ticket price for the Griz game was more than other games. But even if those things were true, it's supply and demand. Why do you hate capitalism?

Again, I don't disagree with the impact, and we gladly thank Griz Nation for their support.

[SDHornet]

For example, I think EWU should play PSU, MSU, Montana, and perhaps ISU every year, and then rotate between the rest. I'd like to see us play at least one game in Northern California every year, though.

This will be huge for recruiting purposes. I think a lot of programs would be interested in trying to maintain at least one game in CA every year. The addition of the 13th team really screwed with this. For the unlucky programs that won't get consistent trips to CA, they probably won't be too happy.

[BearIt]

Over the years EWU tactics have been to charge inflated rates, require donations to the athletic department and buy 3 game ticket packs. PSU also jacks the price up and will require purchase of three game packs.

Require purchase of 3 game packs significantly increases ticket sales.

If you look at the statistics not counting this year since the new field might skew the attendence figures, it supports my statement.
Over the last 4 years on the griz at home years EWU attendenced averaged 6,917/game (7,116 in 2006 and 6,719 in 2008) on non griz years the average was 5,343/game (5356 in 2007 and 5336 in 2008). That is a difference of 1571 people per game. Multiply by an average of 5 home games and you get 7,855. That is the equivalant of 1.5 addtional home games. If you add the actual Griz game itself it is equal to 2.5 home games. with only having to pay the overhead of hosting 1 home game. Add in the jacked up prices and fees that come with the Griz game and I think it is fair to say that it is close 50% of home revenue for the season with 5 home games.

Not trying to be a dick, but it really is a significant source of revenue EWU and PSU. As other posters stated it probably won't matter because the Big Sky will keep the EWU/Montana rivalry.

How many Griz fans do you really think purchased the three game pack? Unless most of the 4,000 did, you still don't get to half. But no one was required to buy it, tickets went on sale to the general public on September 1st. Also, I'm not sure if EWU has ever used this tactic before as the games in the past were later in the season. I'm not even sure if the base ticket price for the Griz game was more than other games. But even if those things were true, it's supply and demand. Why do you hate capitalism?

Again, I don't disagree with the impact, and we gladly thank Griz Nation for their support.

Part of the impact is not just Griz fans, but I would like to think more EWU fans also go to that game than the other games. Many of them would be more likely buy the three game pack. No matter who buys the tickets or doesn't buy them it still doesn't refute the facts and figures. EWU and PSU are just trying to maximize the profits. It's the same at Montana for Griz/Cat or homecoming. You pay more for those games.

I'm not complaining about the pricing tactics (at least not in this thread). I'm saying that in any of the conference alignment scenarios PSU and EWU will protest not having Montana at home every other year. As I outlined above, it is a significant revenue source for those programs. EWU fans seem to not believe how much impact the Griz have to their bottom line.

[kalm]

How many Griz fans do you really think purchased the three game pack? Unless most of the 4,000 did, you still don't get to half. But no one was required to buy it, tickets went on sale to the general public on September 1st. Also, I'm not sure if EWU has ever used this tactic before as the games in the past were later in the season. I'm not even sure if the base ticket price for the Griz game was more than other games. But even if those things were true, it's supply and demand. Why do you hate capitalism?

Again, I don't disagree with the impact, and we gladly thank Griz Nation for their support.

Part of the impact is not just Griz fans, but I would like to think more EWU fans also go to that game than the other games. Many of them would be more likely buy the three game pack. No matter who buys the tickets or doesn't buy them it still doesn't refute the facts and figures. EWU and PSU are just trying to maximize the profits. It's the same at Montana for Griz/Cat or homecoming. You pay more for those games.

I'm not complaining about the pricing tactics (at least not in this thread). I'm saying that in any of the conference alignment scenarios PSU and EWU will protest not having Montana at home every other year. As I outlined above, it is a significant revenue source for those programs. EWU fans seem to not believe how much impact the Griz have to their bottom line.

I agree with you. Can we please schedule a home and home series with you every season?

[BearIt]

I hope UM, PSU and EWU continue home/home scheduling. EWU and PSU are about the only Montana games I can get to these days. Going to Missoula is a stretch for me without taking some extra days off. Plus I like the rivalry we have going with EWU. It isn't completely filled with bitterness and hate, unlike with Weber and MSU.

[native]

For example, I think EWU should play PSU, MSU, Montana, and perhaps ISU every year, and then rotate between the rest. I'd like to see us play at least one game in Northern California every year, though.

This will be huge for recruiting purposes. I think a lot of programs would be interested in trying to maintain at least one game in CA every year. The addition of the 13th team really screwed with this. For the unlucky programs that won't get consistent trips to CA, they probably won't be too happy.

Good point. California is a rich recruiting ground because there are fewer DI program per capita than in other places.

Compare San Diego to Mississippi, for instance. There is only ONE schollie DI program in a county of roughly 3 million people, compared to SIX schollie DI programs in Mississippi, which also has a population of about 3 million.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Part of the impact is not just Griz fans, but I would like to think more EWU fans also go to that game than the other games. Many of them would be more likely buy the three game pack. No matter who buys the tickets or doesn't buy them it still doesn't refute the facts and figures. EWU and PSU are just trying to maximize the profits. It's the same at Montana for Griz/Cat or homecoming. You pay more for those games.

I'm not complaining about the pricing tactics (at least not in this thread). I'm saying that in any of the conference alignment scenarios PSU and EWU will protest not having Montana at home every other year. As I outlined above, it is a significant revenue source for those programs. EWU fans seem to not believe how much impact the Griz have to their bottom line.

I agree with you. Can we please schedule a home and home series with you every season?

Even two of the more level headed EWU fans saw Bear It as saying that it was Montana fans doing all the work. I could see from the first post he made on the subject that he was talking about the game not just Montana fans going there but the local fans etc...

If you EWU fans don't change your attitude we're gonna jettison you.

[bincitysioux]

Would it be more equitable to adopt a MAC-style divisional schedule minus the championship game? One 7 team division and one 6 team division with 5 divisional games and 3 cross-divisional games. The members of the 7 team divison would skip one team in that division each year as the MAC East does.

Big Sky 7
Eastern Washington
Portland St.
Sacramento St.
Northern Arizona
Cal Poly
UC Davis
Southern Utah

Big Sky 6
Idaho St.
Montana
Montana St.
Weber St.
North Dakota
Northern Colorado

Just throwing another idea out there...........................

[SUUTbird]

Agreed. UND/SUU are mistakes....

Um if i may inquire how is SUU a mistake? The UND argument i can understand because of how far away they are but id love to see how SUU is a horrible fit for the Big Sky. Geographically, academically and our athletic teams are not to bad and are a perfect fits for the Big Sky. Please id love to hear how Colorado School of Mines is better then SUU

Besides addressing that i think UVU also would be a decent addition to the Big Sky. The campus is rapidly growing and i do remember the news that if they were to join a conference they would want to get a football team which i think would be another great especially since it would have 3 teams from Utah in the conference which geographically isnt bad at all.