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

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:13 am**

http://www.mwcboard.com/www/forums/inde ... opic=41381

The OP doesnt give a link, and Im not sure where he/she heard it, but what is everyone's thoughts on this?

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:51 am**

It appears this supposed merger is based on the basketball leagues. As far as football goes, it seems like Fullerton is fairly intent on getting to 14 teams. He has stated that Idaho is welcome back, but also said he has six other teams that are interested. I'd love to know who those six others are (or maybe it's Idaho plus 5 others?).

http://lmtribune.com/blogs/idaho_vandal ... _multiline

“We have six members lined up that want to come in and we want to get to an even number. The one thing we’re missing right now is that we’re at an odd number (of 13 football-playing schools) and when you’re at an odd number you don’t have partner scheduling and it just makes it more difficult. I can’t say the door is open forever, but let me tell you, Idaho is the choice of all the institutions in the Big Sky Conference. It is the right school to be playing in the Big Sky Conference. So, I think we’ll be very patient.”

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 7:15 am**

Comes from this:

https://twitter.com/murphsturph" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 10:09 am**

Makes more sense than the MWC/CUSA merger tossed around.

Big Sky assumes administrative duties of the WAC, makes it a non-football league. The WAC would still have its qualifier in other sports because of the SEVEN team rule.

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:59 am**

They aren't really talking merger at this point, Fullerton suggested the Big Sky would let the WAC "borrow" Big Sky schools to keep their auto bid.

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:21 pm**

Not sure I like the idea of a merger, I have a feeling Weber would be seperated from thier traditional rivals, and I dont like losing rivalries

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:36 pm**

Wildcat Ryan wrote:Not sure I like the idea of a merger, I have a feeling Weber would be seperated from thier traditional rivals, and I dont like losing rivalries

Same here

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:30 pm**

Wildcat Ryan wrote:Not sure I like the idea of a merger, I have a feeling Weber would be seperated from thier traditional rivals, and I dont like losing rivalries

Boo hoo. Doesn't mean you couldn't schedule those "rivalries" as non-conference games.

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:39 pm**

AZGrizFan wrote:
Wildcat Ryan wrote:Not sure I like the idea of a merger, I have a feeling Weber would be seperated from thier traditional rivals, and I dont like losing rivalries
Boo hoo. Doesn't mean you couldn't schedule those "rivalries" as non-conference games.

You loose the guarantee. Look at rivalries such as Texas-Texas A&M and Utah-BYU

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 pm**

AZGrizFan wrote:
Wildcat Ryan wrote:Not sure I like the idea of a merger, I have a feeling Weber would be seperated from thier traditional rivals, and I dont like losing rivalries
Boo hoo. Doesn't mean you couldn't schedule those "rivalries" as non-conference games.

I like playing our rivals every year, not once every three years

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 pm**

SJHornet wrote:
AZGrizFan wrote:
Boo hoo. Doesn't mean you couldn't schedule those "rivalries" as non-conference games.
You loose the guarantee. Look at rivalries such as Texas-Texas A&M and Utah-BYU

Those were ended over pride and feelings being hurt...not conferences

Posted: **Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:21 am**

SJHornet wrote:
AZGrizFan wrote:
Boo hoo. Doesn't mean you couldn't schedule those "rivalries" as non-conference games.
You loose the guarantee. Look at rivalries such as Texas-Texas A&M and Utah-BYU

You just sign a never ending home and home agreement like we did with cal davis. For any regionally close rivalries that would be impacted, this wouldn't be a hard thing to accomplish.

Plus if there was a split, every team would have less guaranteed games via conference matchups. So to fill out a schedule there would no doubt be a lot of talks between the 2 conferences (or anyone else).

Posted: **Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:28 am**

So will it be the Big WAC or the WAC Sky?

Posted: **Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:48 am**

Big Whacky

Posted: **Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:46 pm**

clenz wrote:
SJHornet wrote: You loose the guarantee. Look at rivalries such as Texas-Texas A&M and Utah-BYU
Those were ended over pride and feelings being hurt...not conferences

Money couldn't have been an issue....

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

WAC/Big Sky Merger ???

WAC/Big Sky Merger ???

Re: WAC/Big Sky Merger ???

Re: WAC/Big Sky Merger ???

Re: WAC/Big Sky Merger ???

Re: WAC/Big Sky Merger ???

Re: WAC/Big Sky Merger ???

Re: WAC/Big Sky Merger ???

Re: WAC/Big Sky Merger ???

Re: WAC/Big Sky Merger ???

Re: WAC/Big Sky Merger ???

Re: WAC/Big Sky Merger ???

Re: WAC/Big Sky Merger ???

Re: WAC/Big Sky Merger ???

Re: WAC/Big Sky Merger ???

Re: WAC/Big Sky Merger ???