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

College Football Performance Awards has about 4 hours of preseason interviews wherein a number of commissioners talk about playoff expansion and conference expansion.

http://collegefootballperformance.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://collegefootballperformance.com/o ... erformers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Big Sky Commissioner talks about stealing WAC schools & future schedules
[youtube][/youtube]



CAA Commissioner talks about impact of adding ODU & Ga State
[youtube][/youtube]



Robin Harris from Ivy League talks about helmet-helmet injuries and new policies.
[youtube][/youtube]

I like the Big Sky attitude that they're better than the WAC. And it's true. In the end, FCS and FBS are just labels that that only concern those who care about what others think about them. As long as you know that your product is better and are proud of it, then nothing else matters.

∞∞∞ wrote:I like the Big Sky attitude that they're better than the WAC. And it's true. In the end, FCS and FBS are just labels that that only concern those who care about what others think about them. As long as you know that your product is better and are proud of it, then nothing else matters.

Excellent comment!

∞∞∞ wrote:I like the Big Sky attitude that they're better than the WAC. And it's true.

It's not true. If it were true it would be borne out in head-to-head competition. Since 2004, BSC members are 0-15 in games against WAC members. Illustrates how ridiculous your statement is.

kemajic wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:I like the Big Sky attitude that they're better than the WAC. And it's true.

It's not true. If it were true it would be borne out in head-to-head competition. Since 2004, BSC members are 0-15 in games against WAC members. Illustrates how ridiculous your statement is.

The old WAC no, the new WAC it certainly is just as good and maybe better. Especially if you had head to head games, that were split equally home and away between both conferences.

I looked up the schedules of Montana, Montana State and EWU since 04 and collectively they have played just one WAC game. So taking in account that the WAC hasn't played what have been the top Big Sky teams and also that multiple WAC teams have joined a new conference...the 0-15 stat you are talking about isn't really that impressive and it is really meaningless as far as this discussion is concerned.

FargoBison wrote:

kemajic wrote: It's not true. If it were true it would be borne out in head-to-head competition. Since 2004, BSC members are 0-15 in games against WAC members. Illustrates how ridiculous your statement is.

The old WAC no, the new WAC it certainly is just as good and maybe better. Especially if you had head to head games, that were split equally home and away between both conferences.

I looked up the schedules of Montana, Montana State and EWU since 04 and collectively they have played just one WAC game. So taking in account that the WAC hasn't played what have been the top Big Sky teams and also that multiple WAC teams have joined a new conference...the 0-15 stat you are talking about isn't really that impressive and it is really meaningless as far as this discussion is concerned.

Sans Boise, the WAC is something like 2-5 in meaningless bowl games since 2004. How many NC's have they won?

We haven't played a lot of WAC schools in recent years....I do recall playing San Jose State one year a while back. But other than that it's been them and the Nevada game last season which we played a lot tougher than a lot of teams in their conference. I do know EWU has wins over Boise State, Idaho, and Utah State, although I believe they all might have been Big West members at the time. Idaho stopped scheduling us after we beat them the last time we played, so there just haven't been a lot of opportunities. I'm not sure how many other Big Sky schools regularly play games against WAC schools, but for us it's usually Pac-12/Mountain West/Big XII schools that provide a better play-out.

I'm getting tired of all this talk, I just want the season to start already.

I'm getting tired of all this talk, I just want the season to start already.

I think we all wanted Thursday to be here about 3 months ago.

FargoBison wrote:the 0-15 stat you are talking about isn't really that impressive

So 0-15 isn't really that impressive; OK, what would be? Fact is there are no recent examples of BSC teams beating WAC teams on the field of play. So there is no evidence to support that the BSC is better than the WAC, then, now, whenever. Let me know when there is.

FargoBison wrote:
the 0-15 stat you are talking about isn't really that impressive
So 0-15 isn't really that impressive; OK, what would be? Fact is there are no recent examples of BSC teams beating WAC teams on the field of play. So there is no evidence to support that the BSC is better than the WAC, then, now, whenever. Let me know when there is.

The Commissioner was talking about the BSC being a better home for Idaho, San Jose State, and (New Mexico State?) because the conference has more stability. Of course, you're right he did imply that they can compete, too.

kemajic wrote:

FargoBison wrote:the 0-15 stat you are talking about isn't really that impressive

So 0-15 isn't really that impressive; OK, what would be? Fact is there are no recent examples of BSC teams beating WAC teams on the field of play. So there is no evidence to support that the BSC is better than the WAC, then, now, whenever. Let me know when there is.

No it isn't that impressive considering most of the wins you are talking about are against teams that have left the WAC. The WAC sucks now, it is garbage and will soon be the Sun Belt's bitch.

I looked at the schedules and the teams that will be in the WAC going forward have something like four wins vs the Big Sky, three of those wins came against Idaho State. So no, I'm not impressed. Unless beating Idaho State has suddenly become an impressive feat.

FargoBison wrote:

kemajic wrote: So 0-15 isn't really that impressive; OK, what would be? Fact is there are no recent examples of BSC teams beating WAC teams on the field of play. So there is no evidence to support that the BSC is better than the WAC, then, now, whenever. Let me know when there is.

No it isn't that impressive considering most of the wins you are talking about are against teams that have left the WAC. The WAC sucks now, it is garbage and will soon be the Sun Belt's bitch.

I looked at the schedules and the teams that will be in the WAC going forward have something like four wins vs the Big Sky, three of those wins came against Idaho State. So no, I'm not impressed. Unless beating Idaho State has suddenly become an impressive feat.

It has. UM squeaked one out 12-10 in 2009, and MSU barely got by them last year 23-20.

Look for the Bungles to knock off one of the Montana schools this year.

EWURanger wrote:Look for the Bungles to knock off one of the Montana schools this year.

The big human has the MSU game circled.

No it isn't that impressive considering most of the wins you are talking about are against teams that have left the WAC. The WAC sucks now, it is garbage and will soon be the Sun Belt's @#!*% .

I looked at the schedules and the teams that will be in the WAC going forward have something like four wins vs the Big Sky, three of those wins came against Idaho State. So no, I'm not impressed. Unless beating Idaho State has suddenly become an impressive feat.

It is true that the WAC appears to be on a rather dramatic decline. Really hurts to lose Boise.

The WAC less Boise State would still have legitimacy... it would still be a lot better than the MAC, Sun Belt, or C-USA. However the WAC without Boise State, Nevada, Fresno State, and Hawaii is a pathetic conference. To help offset the loss of the four best programs, the WAC has done the unthinkable and brought in a new bottom tier of programs to fill the gap in Texas State and UTSA-- two teams that have never shown the ability to compete at the FCS level.

I don't care how you want to look at it, the remaining teams in the WAC would struggle to be much above .500 in the Big Sky. That may only be the case for football, but since it is the biggest revenue generator, that's what most people would be concerned with. Who cares if the WAC went out and got Seattle U. or Denver? Programs that don't play football are resigned to being afterthoughts.

∞∞∞ wrote:I like the Big Sky attitude that they're better than the WAC.

Perhaps the poster was implying that as a percentage in their respective different classifications, the Big Sky is better by having it's teams win a NC, multiple teams to playoffs annually, a team that has better attendance than any team left in the WAC?

The remaining WAC (all teams) are the sub .500 of that conference. And will never sniff a NC.

Don't want to put words in the Op's fingers though.

FargoBison wrote:

kemajic wrote: So 0-15 isn't really that impressive; OK, what would be? Fact is there are no recent examples of BSC teams beating WAC teams on the field of play. So there is no evidence to support that the BSC is better than the WAC, then, now, whenever. Let me know when there is.

No it isn't that impressive considering most of the wins you are talking about are against teams that have left the WAC. The WAC sucks now, it is garbage and will soon be the Sun Belt's bitch.

I looked at the schedules and the teams that will be in the WAC going forward have something like four wins vs the Big Sky, three of those wins came against Idaho State. So no, I'm not impressed. Unless beating Idaho State has suddenly become an impressive feat.

Here's how the "garbage" of the WAC has stacked up against the BSC:

San Jose St. 10-0
LA Tech 4-1
NMSU 20-8
Utah St. 74-17
Idaho 168-78

This just in; those wins were not all against Idaho St. You still have not provided a single shred of evidence to back up your silly statement. 85 schollies beat 63; it's really pretty simple.

EWURanger wrote:Look for the Bungles to knock off one of the Montana schools this year.

and let me guess they will finally beat weber too, and what about the red infernos?

kemajic wrote:

FargoBison wrote:
No it isn't that impressive considering most of the wins you are talking about are against teams that have left the WAC. The WAC sucks now, it is garbage and will soon be the Sun Belt's bitch.

I looked at the schedules and the teams that will be in the WAC going forward have something like four wins vs the Big Sky, three of those wins came against Idaho State. So no, I'm not impressed. Unless beating Idaho State has suddenly become an impressive feat.

Here's how the "garbage" of the WAC has stacked up against the BSC:

San Jose St. 10-0
LA Tech 4-1
NMSU 20-8
Utah St. 74-17
Idaho 168-78

This just in; those wins were not all against Idaho St. You still have not provided a single shred of evidence to back up your silly statement. 85 schollies beat 63; it's really pretty simple.

So now you want to use all-time results, hell those games could have happened 50 years ago. This is like arguing with JBB with the digging up of ancient history to prove your point once you realize you have nothing recent to fall back on.

Honestly you have proved nothing either, the 0-15 stat you used completely blew up in your face once I pointed out that most of the games were against teams who have left or are leaving the WAC. Now you want to use all-time results, which is just as meaningless.

My point is that the future Big Sky could be just as good or better. Unfortunately we will never know who is right since WAC teams cannot afford to pay most Big Sky schools the proper guarantee to get a game scheduled, that especially goes for the upper tier Big Sky programs. We both know WAC schools won't ever play in a Big Sky stadium, so in games that are played they'll always have the inherent advantage of home field.

The scholarship gap can be overcome, especially since I believe the Big Sky has more better run football programs. Most of the remaining WAC programs are in over there head and have done very little over the past decade in terms of accomplishing anything outside of being a cupcake for Boise St, Hawaii and Fresno to feast on.

FargoBison wrote:

kemajic wrote: Here's how the "garbage" of the WAC has stacked up against the BSC:

San Jose St. 10-0
LA Tech 4-1
NMSU 20-8
Utah St. 74-17
Idaho 168-78

This just in; those wins were not all against Idaho St. You still have not provided a single shred of evidence to back up your silly statement. 85 schollies beat 63; it's really pretty simple.

So now you want to use all-time results, hell those games could have happened 50 years ago. This is like arguing with JBB with the digging up of ancient history to prove your point once you realize you have nothing recent to fall back on.

Honestly you have proved nothing either, the 0-15 stat you used completely blew up in your face once I pointed out that most of the games were against teams who have left or are leaving the WAC. Now you want to use all-time results, which is just as meaningless.

My point is that the future Big Sky could be just as good or better. Unfortunately we will never know who is right since WAC teams cannot afford to pay most Big Sky schools the proper guarantee to get a game scheduled, that especially goes for the upper tier Big Sky programs. We both know WAC schools won't ever play in a Big Sky stadium, so in games that are played they'll always have the inherent advantage of home field.

The scholarship gap can be overcome, especially since I believe the Big Sky has more better run football programs. Most of the remaining WAC programs are in over there head and have done very little over the past decade in terms of accomplishing anything outside of being a cupcake for Boise St, Hawaii and Fresno to feast on.

I know we have lost to Nevada and San Jose State recently, but we also have at least a couple of wins against Idaho and one against Boise since they moved up. We are somewhere around .500 over the last 20 years or so. I also remember PSU beating one of the New Mexico's and the Griz beating Idaho. If you had home and home competition and included the upper tier BSC schools it would be very interesting indeed.

After this year, the WAC will have 0 credibility.

Wildcat Ryan wrote:After this year, the WAC will have 0 credibility.

This. Believing otherwise would be foolish.

kemajic wrote:

FargoBison wrote:
No it isn't that impressive considering most of the wins you are talking about are against teams that have left the WAC. The WAC sucks now, it is garbage and will soon be the Sun Belt's bitch.

I looked at the schedules and the teams that will be in the WAC going forward have something like four wins vs the Big Sky, three of those wins came against Idaho State. So no, I'm not impressed. Unless beating Idaho State has suddenly become an impressive feat.

Here's how the "garbage" of the WAC has stacked up against the BSC:

San Jose St. 10-0
LA Tech 4-1
NMSU 20-8
Utah St. 74-17
Idaho 168-78

This just in; those wins were not all against Idaho St. You still have not provided a single shred of evidence to back up your silly statement. 85 schollies beat 63; it's really pretty simple.

The 22 extra scholarships is ultimately what gives even mediocre FBS teams the competitive advantage over a decent FCS team. For what's left of the WAC, I don't really believe that it's because the athletes they are recruiting are that much better than the kids that a lot of the Big Sky schools are getting these days. They just have more of them I.E. more depth. So if your argument is based entirely on the difference in scholarships, I'll agree with you. Give Montana, MSU, or EWU 22 more scholarships and they'd be very competitive in the current WAC, even recruiting the same level as talent as they do currently.