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

Intelligent decision

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

9 conference games? Definitely NOT. Who's dumb idea was that?

I still think there will end up being 2 divisions, a Mountain division and a Pacific Division.

No championship game and people are still gonna complain about who the "real" Big Sky champ is.

The good side to divisions is a set schedule of 6 annual teams to play each year with either 2 or 3 cross division games.

Another possibility is they are waiting to see what the University of North Dakota will do.

Wildcat Ryan wrote:I still think there will end up being 2 divisions, a Mountain division and a Pacific Division.

No championship game and people are still gonna complain about who the "real" Big Sky champ is.

The good side to divisions is a set schedule of 6 annual teams to play each year with either 2 or 3 cross division games.

Another possibility is they are waiting to see what the University of North Dakota will do.

Without a championship game or 2 auto bids, why have divisions?

kalm wrote:

Wildcat Ryan wrote:I still think there will end up being 2 divisions, a Mountain division and a Pacific Division.

No championship game and people are still gonna complain about who the "real" Big Sky champ is.

The good side to divisions is a set schedule of 6 annual teams to play each year with either 2 or 3 cross division games.

Another possibility is they are waiting to see what the University of North Dakota will do.

Without a championship game or 2 auto bids, why have divisions?

Well it's either that or continue with things the way they are and continue to listen to Eastern and Griz fans complain that not everyone plays them.

Or split the conference in half and form a new conference. Out west we don't have a whole lot of options.

Personally I would rather have divisions so that there is at least a set list of teams Weber will always play. The conference will still get one autobid and like now there will still be controversy about who gets it.

Who knows maybe the NCAA will push the playoffs back a weekend or start the FCS season a week earlier and allow for a championship game. Highly doubtful.

Wildcat Ryan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Without a championship game or 2 auto bids, why have divisions?

Well it's either that or continue with things the way they are and continue to listen to Eastern and Griz fans complain that not everyone plays them.

Or split the conference in half and form a new conference. Out west we don't have a whole lot of options.

Personally I would rather have divisions so that there is at least a set list of teams Weber will always play. The conference will still get one autobid and like now there will still be controversy about who gets it.

Who knows maybe the NCAA will push the playoffs back a weekend or start the FCS season a week earlier and allow for a championship game. Highly doubtful.

But divisions wouldn't change your first point.

kalm wrote:

Wildcat Ryan wrote:


Well it's either that or continue with things the way they are and continue to listen to Eastern and Griz fans complain that not everyone plays them.

Or split the conference in half and form a new conference. Out west we don't have a whole lot of options.

Personally I would rather have divisions so that there is at least a set list of teams Weber will always play. The conference will still get one autobid and like now there will still be controversy about who gets it.

Who knows maybe the NCAA will push the playoffs back a weekend or start the FCS season a week earlier and allow for a championship game. Highly doubtful.

But divisions wouldn't change your first point.

Honestly I don't think anything would change my first point.


Maybe the Big Sky should split and form a new conference but remain one conference in Olympic sports.

[quote="Wildcat Ryan"]Personally I would rather have divisions so that there is at least a set list of teams Weber will always play. The conference will still get one autobid and like now there will still be controversy about who gets it.
[quote]

Personally I'd rather split the conference.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Wildcat Ryan wrote:Personally I would rather have divisions so that there is at least a set list of teams Weber will always play. The conference will still get one autobid and like now there will still be controversy about who gets it.

I'd be for that too, my only condition is that the Big Sky founders be in the same conference (minus Idaho cause they left), but no split is going to make everyone happy.

What I want

Big Sky Conference
Idaho State
Montana
Montana State
North Dakota
Northern Colorado
Northern Arizona
Weber State

Pacific Coast Conference
Cal Poly
Eastern Washington
Idaho
Portland State
Sacramento State
Southern Utah
UC Davis


Of course not many people are gonna be happy with that alignment. But should the Big Sky split the founding members SHOULD stay together

Wildcat Ryan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:

I'd be for that too, my only condition is that the Big Sky founders be in the same conference (minus Idaho cause they left), but no split is going to make everyone happy.

What I want

Big Sky Conference
Idaho State
Montana
Montana State
North Dakota
Northern Colorado
Northern Arizona
Weber State

Pacific Coast Conference
Cal Poly
Eastern Washington
Idaho
Portland State
Sacramento State
Southern Utah
UC Davis


Of course not many people are gonna be happy with that alignment. But should the Big Sky split the founding members SHOULD stay together

There's no advantage to keeping the founders together and every member old or new has a vote.

I like Jalmond's:

UM
MSU
EWU
PSU
UI
ISU
Weber

NAU misses out a little on older rivalries but they have a new one with SUU.

Split the conference and make a FB only FCS conference. It can even be operated using the same BSC admin staff to save on costs. This would create another western auto-bid (will benefit early round playoff schedule) and would provide plenty of FCS non-con games with reasonable travel out west. This makes too much sense so it definitely will not happen.

kalm wrote:

Wildcat Ryan wrote:

I'd be for that too, my only condition is that the Big Sky founders be in the same conference (minus Idaho cause they left), but no split is going to make everyone happy.

What I want

Big Sky Conference
Idaho State
Montana
Montana State
North Dakota
Northern Colorado
Northern Arizona
Weber State

Pacific Coast Conference
Cal Poly
Eastern Washington
Idaho
Portland State
Sacramento State
Southern Utah
UC Davis


Of course not many people are gonna be happy with that alignment. But should the Big Sky split the founding members SHOULD stay together

There's no advantage to keeping the founders together and every member old or new has a vote.

I like Jalmond's:

UM
MSU
EWU
PSU
UI
ISU
Weber

NAU misses out a little on older rivalries but they have a new one with SUU.

NAU
SUU
UCD
CPSLO
CSUS
UND
UNC

That is a geographic horror for North Dakota. Im not sure Cal Poly and UND would like to have to travel 2,000 miles every other year for that matchup.

Actually now that I think about it I would go with this idea to be more geographically friendly

Big Sky
Idaho
Idaho State
Montana
Montana State
North Dakota
Northern Colorado
Weber State

Pacific Coast
Cal Poly
Eastern Washington
Northern Arizona
Portland State
Sacramento State
Southern Utah
UC Davis


Of course if I could choose 7 teams for the Big Sky I would go with

Weber State
Southern Utah
Northern Arizona
Idaho State
Montana
Montana State
Eastern Washington

But that would be a pipe dream.

Wildcat Ryan wrote:

kalm wrote:
There's no advantage to keeping the founders together and every member old or new has a vote.

I like Jalmond's:

UM
MSU
EWU
PSU
UI
ISU
Weber

NAU misses out a little on older rivalries but they have a new one with SUU.

NAU
SUU
UCD
CPSLO
CSUS
UND
UNC

That is a geographic horror for North Dakota. Im not sure Cal Poly and UND would like to have to travel 2,000 miles every other year for that matchup.

Actually now that I think about it I would go with this idea to be more geographically friendly

Big Sky
Idaho
Idaho State
Montana
Montana State
North Dakota
Northern Colorado
Weber State

Pacific Coast
Cal Poly
Eastern Washington
Northern Arizona
Portland State
Sacramento State
Southern Utah
UC Davis


Of course if I could choose 7 teams for the Big Sky I would go with

Weber State
Southern Utah
Northern Arizona
Idaho State
Montana
Montana State
Eastern Washington

But that would be a pipe dream.

UND is a geographic horror, period.

Your first one would eliminate 3 bus trips and two rivals for EWU. Not happening.

kalm wrote:

Wildcat Ryan wrote:
NAU
SUU
UCD
CPSLO
CSUS
UND
UNC

That is a geographic horror for North Dakota. Im not sure Cal Poly and UND would like to have to travel 2,000 miles every other year for that matchup.

Actually now that I think about it I would go with this idea to be more geographically friendly

Big Sky
Idaho
Idaho State
Montana
Montana State
North Dakota
Northern Colorado
Weber State

Pacific Coast
Cal Poly
Eastern Washington
Northern Arizona
Portland State
Sacramento State
Southern Utah
UC Davis


Of course if I could choose 7 teams for the Big Sky I would go with

Weber State
Southern Utah
Northern Arizona
Idaho State
Montana
Montana State
Eastern Washington

But that would be a pipe dream.

UND is a geographic horror, period.

Your first one would eliminate 3 bus trips and two rivals for EWU. Not happening.

Like I said, no split is going to make everyone happy.

A 7 team conference means 6 conference games and 5 (or 6 in 12 game years) non-con games. Plenty of room to keep rivalries intact as well as plenty of room for play down and payday games as well as additional cross over matchups we currently see happening.

Actually this split would benefit EWU. EWU gets its 6 conference games, and can set up long term home and home deals with Idalol and UM (assuming both parties want to keep those matchups) meaning EWU would only have to find 3 games a year which is basically what they do now.

Wildcat Ryan wrote:The good side to divisions is a set schedule of 6 annual teams to play each year with either 2 or 3 cross division games.

Aren't we kinda-sorta doing this already anyway, with a divisional scheduling construct but not keeping divisional records?

http://www.grandforksherald.com/sports/ ... hU.twitter

Maybe this is why the Big Sky waited

Wildcat Ryan wrote:http://www.grandforksherald.com/sports/ ... hU.twitter

Maybe this is why the Big Sky waited

I wonder if the BSC will add another member to keep a 12 Oly membership count when this finally goes through.

SDHornet wrote:

Wildcat Ryan wrote:http://www.grandforksherald.com/sports/ ... hU.twitter

Maybe this is why the Big Sky waited

I wonder if the BSC will add another member to keep a 12 Oly membership count when this finally goes through.

Two teams come to mind for me as possibilities.

Utah Valley (Has shown interest in joining the Big Sky before + the possibility of adding football)

New Mexico State (Going independent in football anyway after next year. Unless they receive either an invite from the MWC or the CUSA. + the WAC as a basketball conference is possibly unstable.)


What are the chances these teams jump for a Big Sky invite?

Seattle, Grand Canyon, Denver


However part of me thinks the Big Sky will stay at 13 football (when Idaho joins) and 11 Olympic teams.

Wildcat Ryan wrote:

SDHornet wrote: I wonder if the BSC will add another member to keep a 12 Oly membership count when this finally goes through.

Two teams come to mind for me as possibilities.

Utah Valley (Has shown interest in joining the Big Sky before + the possibility of adding football)

New Mexico State (Going independent in football anyway after next year. Unless they receive either an invite from the MWC or the CUSA. + the WAC as a basketball conference is possibly unstable.)


What are the chances these teams jump for a Big Sky invite?

Seattle, Grand Canyon, Denver


However part of me thinks the Big Sky will stay at 13 football (when Idaho joins) and 11 Olympic teams.

The MBB scheduling with 11 sucked. I would hope the BSC is proactive and brings in a quality member to stay at 12.

My CA bias is for Bako, but they aren't a good sports fit. GCU brings the most to the table, Seattle would also make sense. Of the potential WAC schools to raid, UVU should be the last one talked about.

NMSU won't be an option until they stop pretending to be an FBS program, but it sounds like they are going to go FBS Indy for a few years and hope they find a landing spot.

SDHornet wrote:

Wildcat Ryan wrote:

Two teams come to mind for me as possibilities.

Utah Valley (Has shown interest in joining the Big Sky before + the possibility of adding football)

New Mexico State (Going independent in football anyway after next year. Unless they receive either an invite from the MWC or the CUSA. + the WAC as a basketball conference is possibly unstable.)


What are the chances these teams jump for a Big Sky invite?

Seattle, Grand Canyon, Denver


However part of me thinks the Big Sky will stay at 13 football (when Idaho joins) and 11 Olympic teams.

The MBB scheduling with 11 sucked. I would hope the BSC is proactive and brings in a quality member to stay at 12.

My CA bias is for Bako, but they aren't a good sports fit. GCU brings the most to the table, Seattle would also make sense. Of the potential WAC schools to raid, UVU should be the last one talked about.

NMSU won't be an option until they stop pretending to be an FBS program, but it sounds like they are going to go FBS Indy for a few years and hope they find a landing spot.

I agree about the 11 team scheduling I too hope the Big Sky brings someone in.

I'm definitely not against raiding the WAC for Grand Canyon, if they are willing to join. However would that make UNC their travel partner or NAU? Or does SUU become UNC's travel partner or does Weber?

UM/MSU
EWU/UI
ISU/WSU
PSU/CSUS
NAU/GCU
SUU/UNC

Seattle also makes an interesting travel partner scenario. Does Seattle become EWU's travel partner or PSU's? Idaho and Idaho State, Weber UNC/SUU?

EWU/Seattle
UM/MSU
UI/ISU
WSU/UNC
SUU/NAU
PSU/CSUS

Same goes for Bakersfield, Great travel partner for Sac State, but the whole "who will be UNC's travel partner" problem comes into play again.

UM/MSU
EWU/UI
CSUS/CSBU
NAU/SUU
WSU/UNC
PSU/ISU

Personally I would take Denver if they would be willing to leave the Summit conference. Adds a very close travel partner with UNC and allows all the other current travel partners to remain the same.

UM/MSU
WSU/ISU
UNC/DU
EWU/UI
SUU/NAU
PSU/CSUS

But I doubt Denver will leave the Summit so the Big Sky will have to most likely poach from the WAC.

The key with travel optimization is getting a bus trip in exchange for for a 3rd leg of flying. So that means the Montanas, WSU/ISU, and UI/EWU should never be split. SUU/NAU is bussable when the weather permits, but I've heard sometimes it's a 3 flight trip so there "could" be some wiggle room there.

Seattle would partner with PSU making that a bussable trip. Splitting EWU/UI makes travel worse/more expensive (a 3rd flight). This would make Sac/UNC a pair. Long trip, but flying between major cities would mean there are plenty of flight options thus helping with costs.

Sac/Bako would be a bus trip. This would mean PSU/UNC would be paired. You could split SUU/NAU to mix and match with PSU/UNC but SUU/NAU is bussable so it doesn't make sense to split them.

UNC is unbussable unless Denver is added (not happening) so it really doesn't matter who they are paired with.

GCU would be paired with NAU, which would pair SUU/UNC (flights between Denver and Vegas wouldn't be horrible).

UVU is an odd one. Would you pair WSU/UVU and leave ISU on an island? Does UVU pair with Sac and keep WSU/ISU? Plus UVU is in a market that already has BSC presence (loosely interpreted). UVU doesn't open up new markets like Seattle or GCU (Phoenix) would. Bottom line is there are options if the BSC is to be proactive about staying at 12.


Another less likely option is to let Sac State pursue BWC Oly/BSC FB membership and then get back down to 10 for Oly. It'll be interesting to see how the BSC responds to the UND move (a common sense move btw).

SDHornet wrote:The key with travel optimization is getting a bus trip in exchange for for a 3rd leg of flying. So that means the Montanas, WSU/ISU, and UI/EWU should never be split. SUU/NAU is bussable when the weather permits, but I've heard sometimes it's a 3 flight trip so there "could" be some wiggle room there.

Seattle would partner with PSU making that a bussable trip. Splitting EWU/UI makes travel worse/more expensive (a 3rd flight). This would make Sac/UNC a pair. Long trip, but flying between major cities would mean there are plenty of flight options thus helping with costs.

Sac/Bako would be a bus trip. This would mean PSU/UNC would be paired. You could split SUU/NAU to mix and match with PSU/UNC but SUU/NAU is bussable so it doesn't make sense to split them.

UNC is unbussable unless Denver is added (not happening) so it really doesn't matter who they are paired with.

GCU would be paired with NAU, which would pair SUU/UNC (flights between Denver and Vegas wouldn't be horrible).

UVU is an odd one. Would you pair WSU/UVU and leave ISU on an island? Does UVU pair with Sac and keep WSU/ISU? Plus UVU is in a market that already has BSC presence (loosely interpreted). UVU doesn't open up new markets like Seattle or GCU (Phoenix) would. Bottom line is there are options if the BSC is to be proactive about staying at 12.


Another less likely option is to let Sac State pursue BWC Oly/BSC FB membership and then get back down to 10 for Oly. It'll be interesting to see how the BSC responds to the UND move (a common sense move btw).

From what I understand and have heard, UND to the Summit is almost a lock, however UND to the MVFC is not. There is a slight possibility that UND takes their Olympic sports to the Summit but stays Big Sky for Football if the MVFC says no.

That may still give the BSC 14 football members but from what I understand UND wants both Summit/MVFC membership, which in all aspects is a good move.

How do most Sac State fans feel towards the idea of Big West Olympic and Big Sky football? I can see why Big West for Olympic sports would be beneficial to Sac. But would the Big Sky be willing to allow Sac as a football only member? They are allowing Poly and Davis to do the same.

Wildcat Ryan wrote: How do most Sac State fans feel towards the idea of Big West Olympic and Big Sky football? I can see why Big West for Olympic sports would be beneficial to Sac. But would the Big Sky be willing to allow Sac as a football only member? They are allowing Poly and Davis to do the same.

Not really sure, seems kinda split IMO. Personally I would rather have the BW Oly/BSC FB deal then full BSC. Would save us a boat load in travel and get us in a conference with other fellow CA public universities. Oly sports would be in a much tougher conference so it would force us to invest more in those sports. Quite frankly we can get away with lesser coaching salaries and investment into Oly sports as a BSC member compared to the BW.

Attendance wise I think there would be a marginal increase in interest, but no dramatic increase. I think our recruiting would benefit greatly from regular trips to SoCal.

I have no idea if our admin is pushing for a BW/BSC set up, or even if the BSC would be up for considering it. Now that there is new leadership at the BSC that seems to want a more regional footprint and more travel saving opportunities, why wouldn't they want to lighten the travel burden? The argument of the BSC needing a CA presence made sense 20 years ago, but now with the interwebs and live streaming, does the BSC need a CA school to gain access to CA recruits? Probably not.