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

native wrote:

SDHornet wrote: 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.

Yeah, but half of those 3M people in SD are there illegally. Plus, they like a queer form of football called soccer.

SUUTbird wrote:

SuperHornet wrote: 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.

Do I really have to rehash this yet AGAIN?!?

There's no decent airport near SUU. We already hit Denver for UNC, and Mines is practically right across the street. Mines makes a perfect travel partner for UNC. SUU makes a perfect travel partner with NO ONE. Unless we ALSO bring in that glorified juco UVU.

Athletically, SUU can't even prevent a 3-8 team from winning a conference title.

Of course, UND was an even worse acquisition.

I've been saying this for years, and nobody's going to convince me otherwise. You've got a VERY bad memory.

For me I have always wanted SUU in the Big Sky, Weber and SUU are the only FCS programs in the State and they hardly play each other, (UNTIL THIS NEXT YEAR ) Now with BYU and Utah saying thier goodbye's there will now be another Instate Conference Rivalry, granted it wont be overly glorified like the Holy War, It will still be good for the State.

No matter what division SUU and Weber go into, They should still play each other every year. Since SUU is playing at Weber this next year, Weber should return the trip in SUU's first Big Sky season in 2012 .

On a note of conference "partners" and so on and so forth, the Charter members (Weber State, Montana, Montana State, Idaho State) should be in the same division.

Green Cookie Monster wrote: Yeah, but half of those 3M people in SD are there illegally. Plus, they like a queer form of football called soccer.

I'm sure there are plenty illegals to go around for all areas in the southwest US. And soccer is entertaining every 4 years.

SDHornet wrote:

Green Cookie Monster wrote: Yeah, but half of those 3M people in SD are there illegally. Plus, they like a queer form of football called soccer.

I'm sure there are plenty illegals to go around for all areas in the southwest US. And soccer is entertaining every 4 years.

Soccer is never entertaining

Wildcat Ryan wrote:

SDHornet wrote: I'm sure there are plenty illegals to go around for all areas in the southwest US. And soccer is entertaining every 4 years.

Soccer is never entertaining

Unless Brandi Chastain is involved.

SuperHornet wrote:

Wildcat Ryan wrote:


Soccer is never entertaining

Unless Brandi Chastain's tits are involved.

A slight change makes that statement understandable to normal men SH.

You're welcome.

SloStang wrote:

kemajic wrote: 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.

I guess anyone that holds you accountable for the stuff you post is an @ss; OK, guilty as charged.

Fact. Not a single conference has ever wanted to have 13 for football and 11 for basketball. As another poster described, it's a scheduling CF. There has to be inequitable schedules, yours included. It's a typical Fullerton f@#kup and you can count on him to lead the way to the least sensible scheduling solution.
Fact. You're trying to put frosting on a horseturd and when it's pointed out that it's a horseturd you're working with, you get defensive and didn't even notice the smell.
Fact. There are far more negatives in the New BSC for the incumbents than there are positives relative to the current conference. Any positives are for the homeless newbies or maybe SacSt, NAU and Weber who get some neighbors in. Count them and compare. I challenge you to find a single positive for Montana, MSU, EWU, PSU, ISU, UNC, which comprised 2/3 of the conference, over 80% of the revenue and every non-first round playoff win. The newbies add zero non-first round playoff wins.
Fact. There were some good reasons why the BSC for 40 years insisted that all members play all sports within the conf. That went by the wayside in Fullerton's desperation. It was held strongly enough to push Gonzaga out.
Fact. This arrangement will be metastable; it will increase expenses without increasing revenue. Fullerton got caught with his pants down. If the MVC ever decides to take UND, they will be gone. Better for both UND and the BSC. Hopefully it will also eventually drive Montana out.

kemajic wrote:Fact. You're trying to put frosting on a horseturd and when it's pointed out that it's a horseturd you're working with, you get defensive and didn't even notice the smell.

Where'd you get THAT expression?

Isn't it supposed to be "lipstick on a pig?"

Wildcat Ryan wrote:

SDHornet wrote: I'm sure there are plenty illegals to go around for all areas in the southwest US. And soccer is entertaining every 4 years.

Soccer is never entertaining

Isn't it

kemajic wrote:

SloStang wrote: 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.

I guess anyone that holds you accontable for the stuff you post is an @ss; OK, guilty as charged.

Fact. Not a single conference has ever wanted to have 13 for football and 11 for basketball. As another poster described, it's a scheduling CF. There has to be inequitable schedules, yours included. It's a typical Fullerton f@#kup and you can count on him to lead the way to the least sensible scheduling solution.
Fact. You're trying to put frosting on a horseturd and when it's pointed out that it's a horseturd you're working with, you get defensive and didn't even notice the smell.
Fact. There are far more negatives in the New BSC for the incumbents than there are positives relative to the current conference. Any positives are for the homeless newbies or maybe SacSt, NAU and Weber who get some neighbors in. Count them and compare. I challenge you to find a single positive for Montana, MSU, EWU, PSU, ISU, UNC, which comprised 2/3 of the conference, over 80% of the revenue and every non-first round playoff win. The newbies add zero non-first round playoff wins.
Fact. There were some good reasons why the BSC for 40 years insisted that all members play all sports within the conf. That went by the wayside in Fullerton's desperation. It was held strongly enough to push Gonzaga out.
Fact. This arrangement will be metastable; it will increase expenses without increasing revenue. Fullerton got caught with his pants down. If the MVC ever decides to take UND, they will be gone. Better for both UND and the BSC. Hopefully it will also eventually drive Montana out.

It's Montana's fault. We were supposed to leave, now the Big Sky is a mess because we stayed.
I can't wait to be affiliated with Utah Valley University.

Here we are talking about Utah Valley University, Colorado school of mines and Central Washington. Meanwhile in the east they are bring on teams like ODU and Georgia State and we wonder why there is ECB.

SuperHornet wrote:

kemajic wrote:Fact. You're trying to put frosting on a horseturd and when it's pointed out that it's a horseturd you're working with, you get defensive and didn't even notice the smell.

Where'd you get THAT expression?

Isn't it supposed to be "lipstick on a pig?"

kemajic wrote:

SloStang wrote: 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.

I guess anyone that holds you accontable for the stuff you post is an @ss; OK, guilty as charged.

Fact. Not a single conference has ever wanted to have 13 for football and 11 for basketball. As another poster described, it's a scheduling CF. There has to be inequitable schedules, yours included. It's a typical Fullerton f@#kup and you can count on him to lead the way to the least sensible scheduling solution.
Fact. You're trying to put frosting on a horseturd and when it's pointed out that it's a horseturd you're working with, you get defensive and didn't even notice the smell.
Fact. There are far more negatives in the New BSC for the incumbents than there are positives relative to the current conference. Any positives are for the homeless newbies or maybe SacSt, NAU and Weber who get some neighbors in. Count them and compare. I challenge you to find a single positive for Montana, MSU, EWU, PSU, ISU, UNC, which comprised 2/3 of the conference, over 80% of the revenue and every non-first round playoff win. The newbies add zero non-first round playoff wins.
Fact. There were some good reasons why the BSC for 40 years insisted that all members play all sports within the conf. That went by the wayside in Fullerton's desperation. It was held strongly enough to push Gonzaga out.
Fact. This arrangement will be metastable; it will increase expenses without increasing revenue. Fullerton got caught with his pants down. If the MVC ever decides to take UND, they will be gone. Better for both UND and the BSC. Hopefully it will also eventually drive Montana out.

Fact: You have some good points, but as usual you have to be an @ss about it.

One positive for UM, MSU, EWU, PSU, ISU and UNC is that had the Big Sky not taken in the Great West members there was a high probability that a few schools would have either moved up or folded and it would have hurt FCS in the west. FACT.

PS - Don't forget that beer you owe me.

SuperHornet wrote:

SUUTbird wrote:
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.

Do I really have to rehash this yet AGAIN?!?

There's no decent airport near SUU. We already hit Denver for UNC, and Mines is practically right across the street. Mines makes a perfect travel partner for UNC. SUU makes a perfect travel partner with NO ONE. Unless we ALSO bring in that glorified juco UVU.

Athletically, SUU can't even prevent a 3-8 team from winning a conference title.

Of course, UND was an even worse acquisition.

I've been saying this for years, and nobody's going to convince me otherwise. You've got a VERY bad memory.

Your whole "travel partner" obsession is frightening. Montana's "travel partner is 200 miles away. EWU's is 300. SUU is closer to EWU than either of those. And it's closer to Weber too. You can fly into St. George just like you can fly into Flagstaff or Missoula or Bozeman....get over it. Mines would bring the BSC down to the level of the SWAC, MEAC or Pioneer league.

Oh, please cut the melodramatics, AZ. With Montana around, the Sky will NEVER be reduced to that level.

SuperHornet wrote:Do I really have to rehash this yet AGAIN?!?

There's no decent airport near SUU. We already hit Denver for UNC, and Mines is practically right across the street. Mines makes a perfect travel partner for UNC. SUU makes a perfect travel partner with NO ONE. Unless we ALSO bring in that glorified juco UVU.

Athletically, SUU can't even prevent a 3-8 team from winning a conference title.

Of course, UND was an even worse acquisition.

I've been saying this for years, and nobody's going to convince me otherwise. You've got a VERY bad memory.

And yet AGAIN you make an argument that makes no sense at all whatsoever and proves nothing. And i remembered this conversation i just was surprised to see if you still believed in this ridiculous idea of how Mines is better then SUU and apparently you do . I dont recall any 3-8 team winning a conference title in football that SUU had to face so whats the point of that statement? And your only argument for Mines is that they are closer to an airport then SUU. Whoopdee f***ing doo, so because they are by an airport that makes them an automatic option for the Big Sky seriously?

Lets ignore the fact that SUU has decent D1 facilities which are better then Mines, a better geographical location then Mines (even if they were a travel partner for UNC they would still be out of the way) and also has the academic credentials to join the Big Sky Conference, on top of an improving football team (which could compete with most if not all of the Big Sky this past season) a great top 20. ranked womens gymnastics team and track and field teams (i can admit our basketball teams suck but your good at some sports and bad at others). Come up with a better argument besides being closer to an airport.

SuperHornet wrote:

kemajic wrote:Fact. You're trying to put frosting on a horseturd and when it's pointed out that it's a horseturd you're working with, you get defensive and didn't even notice the smell.

Where'd you get THAT expression?

Isn't it supposed to be "lipstick on a pig?"

I grew up in Montana; that should explain it. It's most frequently used when you sink that 27 foot putt for a nine.

AZGrizFan wrote: Montana's "travel partner is 200 miles away. EWU's is 300. SUU is closer to EWU than either of those.

Hmmm. Google claims it's 986 miles from St. George to Cheney.

SloStang wrote:

kemajic wrote:
I guess anyone that holds you accountable for the stuff you post is an @ss; OK, guilty as charged.

Fact. Not a single conference has ever wanted to have 13 for football and 11 for basketball. As another poster described, it's a scheduling CF. There has to be inequitable schedules, yours included. It's a typical Fullerton f@#kup and you can count on him to lead the way to the least sensible scheduling solution.
Fact. You're trying to put frosting on a horseturd and when it's pointed out that it's a horseturd you're working with, you get defensive and didn't even notice the smell.
Fact. There are far more negatives in the New BSC for the incumbents than there are positives relative to the current conference. Any positives are for the homeless newbies or maybe SacSt, NAU and Weber who get some neighbors in. Count them and compare. I challenge you to find a single positive for Montana, MSU, EWU, PSU, ISU, UNC, which comprised 2/3 of the conference, over 80% of the revenue and every non-first round playoff win. The newbies add zero non-first round playoff wins.
Fact. There were some good reasons why the BSC for 40 years insisted that all members play all sports within the conf. That went by the wayside in Fullerton's desperation. It was held strongly enough to push Gonzaga out.
Fact. This arrangement will be metastable; it will increase expenses without increasing revenue. Fullerton got caught with his pants down. If the MVC ever decides to take UND, they will be gone. Better for both UND and the BSC. Hopefully it will also eventually drive Montana out.

Fact: You have some good points, but as usual you have to be an @ss about it.

One positive for UM, MSU, EWU, PSU, ISU and UNC is that had the Big Sky not taken in the Great West members there was a high probability that a few schools would have either moved up or folded and it would have hurt FCS in the west. FACT.

PS - Don't forget that beer you owe me.

Make it to Missoula in September and you'll get all the beer you can handle. But you'll have to endure a big dose of @ss....

Wildcat Ryan wrote:

SDHornet wrote: I'm sure there are plenty illegals to go around for all areas in the southwest US. And soccer is entertaining every 4 years.

Soccer is never entertaining

World Cup soccer is.

AZGrizFan wrote:Your whole "travel partner" obsession is frightening. Montana's "travel partner is 200 miles away. EWU's is 300. SUU is closer to EWU than either of those. And it's closer to Weber too. You can fly into St. George just like you can fly into Flagstaff or Missoula or Bozeman....get over it. Mines would bring the BSC down to the level of the SWAC, MEAC or Pioneer league.

To be honest, I am very surprised anyone even wasted their time responding to SH’s nonsense.

kemajic wrote:Fact. There were some good reasons why the BSC for 40 years insisted that all members play all sports within the conf. That went by the wayside in Fullerton's desperation. It was held strongly enough to push Gonzaga out.

This. As stated, the scheduling will be a complete CF.

kemajic wrote:

SloStang wrote: Fact: You have some good points, but as usual you have to be an @ss about it.

One positive for UM, MSU, EWU, PSU, ISU and UNC is that had the Big Sky not taken in the Great West members there was a high probability that a few schools would have either moved up or folded and it would have hurt FCS in the west. FACT.

PS - Don't forget that beer you owe me.

Make it to Missoula in September and you'll get all the beer you can handle. But you'll have to endure a big dose of @ss....

Look forward to it. It will be my 5th trip to Missoula and all have been great.

SDHornet wrote:

Wildcat Ryan wrote:


Soccer is never entertaining

World Cup soccer is.

No..........no its not.

Wildcat Ryan wrote:

SDHornet wrote: World Cup soccer is.

No..........no its not.

Shit, I guess all these billions of people around the world who watch it just haven't been introduced to our brand of football, where there's a whopping 11 minutes of action out of 60...