Fresno St. Alum wrote:CA can't suck forever and you can always drop 12 of those 28 sports and still be FBS eligible. I believe I gave the WAC angle as the 2nd option which is still better than being Indy and playing 9 road games while only getting home games vs Humboldt St. and Dixie St.
I went to a game in that airplane hanger vs Boise St. back in the 90's. Do they still play in that?
Legalize weed and that will erase the cost of trying to police it and it will bring in tons of money because we can tax the **** out of it. Our roided up Governator should be all about drugs.
Nothing wrong with the WAC mention FSA. In a perfect world Sac State, “the farm extension”, and CP all make the jump to the WAC and join the other CA FBS schools (SJSU & Fresno State). But given the current funding issues as well as the facility issues at each school, a lot of things need to get accomplished before that can be a viable option.
I’m pretty sure CP still plays there. Sadly it’s still better than the Hornets Nest.
I agree 100% abut the legalizing weed issue…and I don’t even use the stuff anymore.
collegesportsinfo wrote:I find it amusing when Sac St. fans attempt to slam the Great West for football and the Big West for other sports. As we know, Sac St. in the Big Sky for football has been pretty ugly.
* GWFC member Cal Poly, for example has done more on it's own without the benefit of a Big Sky playoff autobid by qualifying twice since 2005.
* On the basketball side of things, the Big Sky conference has NEVER had an at-large bid. Meanwhile, the Big West has as recently as 2005.
Sac State owns the BSC in every sport except football and basketball!
If it looks like a cow, smells like a cow, and moo's like a cow, it's a UC Davis coed.
The only thing I can find that Sac. can claim to "owning" in the Big Sky Conference is womens volleyball. A quick look has Sac. with 29 ttl BSC championships.
Fresno St. Alum wrote:CA can't suck forever and you can always drop 12 of those 28 sports and still be FBS eligible. I believe I gave the WAC angle as the 2nd option which is still better than being Indy and playing 9 road games while only getting home games vs Humboldt St. and Dixie St.
I went to a game in that airplane hanger vs Boise St. back in the 90's. Do they still play in that?
Legalize weed and that will erase the cost of trying to police it and it will bring in tons of money because we can tax the **** out of it. Our roided up Governator should be all about drugs.
Nothing wrong with the WAC mention FSA. In a perfect world Sac State, “the farm extension”, and CP all make the jump to the WAC and join the other CA FBS schools (SJSU & Fresno State). But given the current funding issues as well as the facility issues at each school, a lot of things need to get accomplished before that can be a viable option.
I’m pretty sure CP still plays there. Sadly it’s still better than the Hornets Nest.
I agree 100% abut the legalizing weed issue…and I don’t even use the stuff anymore.
People talk about the WAC folding if the MWC takes Boise, Nevada, Fresno. However, I think a reloaded WAC with Poly, Sac, Davis, Utah State, Idaho, Hawaii, even Fresno and Nevada could work.
Of course that means a new South Central/Western FBS conference would need to form or absorb the New Mexico State, LaTech and the up-in-comers.
Yeah, but those are the two sports people actually care about.
Not too mention it is flat out wrong...
NAU owns Cross-Country and Indoor and Outdoor Track
NAU's Women's soccer has won the last two titles.
14 Big Sky Sports:
Football: Montana
M Basketball: Weber/Montana/NAU
W Basketball: Montana
M/W Cross-Country: NAU
M/W Indoor Track: NAU
M/W Outdoor Track: NAU
W Soccer: NAU
M/W Tennis: ???
W Golf: ???
Volleyball: Sac State
Okay so it's not entirely true, since 1996 (excluding basketball and football) Sac State has won a total of 32 BSC titles. NAU has 46, WSU has 28,EWU has 10, ISU has 7, PSU has 7, UM has 5, and MSU has 3.
Of course, teams that have been in the conference since before 1996 have more BSC titles than I have listed. I chose to list the titles since Sac entered the BSC. And 32 total title isnt bad considering Sac has only been a member since 1996. Oh, I also didnt count discontinued sports except for mens golf.
If it looks like a cow, smells like a cow, and moo's like a cow, it's a UC Davis coed.
dbackjon wrote:So NAU has owned the Big Sky Even have some football and basketball titles to go along with the other sports.
Well, at least since 1996, I didnt add up BSC titles before that year. So yes, NAU is the overall leader in BSC titles (excluding football and basketball) followed by Sac State since 1996.
If it looks like a cow, smells like a cow, and moo's like a cow, it's a UC Davis coed.
Catattack wrote:The only thing I can find that Sac. can claim to "owning" in the Big Sky Conference is womens volleyball. A quick look has Sac. with 29 ttl BSC championships.
Yeah, but those are the two sports people actually care about.
Not too mention it is flat out wrong...
NAU owns Cross-Country and Indoor and Outdoor Track
NAU's Women's soccer has won the last two titles.
14 Big Sky Sports:
Football: Montana M Basketball: Weber/Montana/NAU
W Basketball: Montana
M/W Cross-Country: NAU
M/W Indoor Track: NAU
M/W Outdoor Track: NAU
W Soccer: NAU
M/W Tennis: ???
W Golf: ???
Volleyball: Sac State
Im sorry, not to sound smug, because im not that way, But there is no way it is a 3 way tie between Weber/NAU/and Montana in Mens basketball. Mens Basketball is owned by Weber State, Weber has more regular season Big Sky titles than NAU and Montana combined
Catattack wrote:The only thing I can find that Sac. can claim to "owning" in the Big Sky Conference is womens volleyball. A quick look has Sac. with 29 ttl BSC championships.
So I missed a couple. You added 2 mens golf titles. and MSU has 8 not 3 how many presidents cups does Sac have? or all sports trophies when they did it? and I really hate the use of
to me it seems dumb that you guys exclude the main NCAA sports Football and Basketball. We have more NCAA Baseball championships than Boise St. or any other WAC school with 1. So...Boise St. is still better than us at football. Baseball is probably the #3 college sport still it aint football or basketball.
as an outsider again this is what comes to mind. Montana football playoffs every year. Weber St. beating N.Carolina in the Tournament. Sac St. WAC baseball. Portland St., EWU, NAU, making the NCAA bkball tournament. Montana St. making the tournament a while back. N.Colorado D-II football champs. Idaho St. Irv Cross finding a job as AD after he left NFL on CBS. S.Utah making the tournament that one time. UCD D-II champions in Basketball. Cal Poly making the fb playoffs and john madden. UND D-I hockey champs and losing to GVSU in the D-II championship. USD, Wile E Coyote until they got a new mean coyote, tom brokaw and D-II football playoffs before right before they went D-I. The Big Sky and GWC in a nut shell
Full circle, thanks FSA. I'm glad that some of these schools have found success with some of these other non-revenue sports. But you're right about the role of basketball and football. I don't want to knock the other sports, but they seem like a crutch when trying to make an argument. This is an FCS football forum and we're talking about the Great West future and it's impact on other conferences like the Big Sky or even the Big West. And the 2 sports that really are the measuring stick for me are basketball and football. But that's just my opinion...others might not share it.
The one thing I'll add...
When looking at Sac St, if one wants to focus on the sports with no potential for revenue and their schools conference affiliation...wouldn't that be an argument against being in the Big Sky? Sac St. has to travel pretty far (and pay for it) for 13 of it's sports, with 2 others in the WAC and men's soccer elsewhere. It would seem that if a school was doing well in football and basketball in the Big Sky, THAT would be the reason to justify being in a conference that requires so much travel for 13 of it's sports, vs saving money and being in a more CA based league like the Big West.
Seems the #1 reason Sac St is in the Big Sky is because the Big Sky wont permit football-only members and Sac St. needs a football home (and the GWFC won't cut it, rightly so).
Sac st. has obviously done well in the Big Sky. But the lack of FCS playoff bids and 0 conference titles in basketball are what us non-Sac St alum/fans recognize.
Good post FSA and good points CSI; I will add that if the BSC allowed football only members, I would totally support a move to the Big West in all other sports; why spend the additional money on travel if you don’t have to. However I completely support Sac State being a full BSC member. I will say that if moving to the WAC is the ultimate goal for Sac State (which I believe it is), being in the BSC definitely helps with preparation for some of the costs associated with such a move (mainly travel costs for WAC compared to BSC). There wouldn’t be such a drastic increase in travel expenses (I could be wrong here) with a move to the WAC from BSC versus a move to WAC from Big West (mainly regarding sports other than football).
As much as the non-revenue sports (does NCAA tournament appearances bring some money to the school?) aren’t as visible as basketball and football, I believe it is important to have a well rounded AD that can be successful in various sports. Sac State has been successful there; we just need to continue that success across the board.
I’ll finish with my opinion (and I would love to be wrong here) that Sac State won’t be any more successful than a middle of the road team in basketball until they get a new arena built. Hopefully that happens within the next 10 years (and it’s pretty much a requirement before any consideration of a move to the WAC). The good news for us Hornet fans are improvements and progress in both the basketball and football programs are being made and the upcoming years should be exciting for us.
So I missed a couple. You added 2 mens golf titles. and MSU has 8 not 3 how many presidents cups does Sac have? or all sports trophies when they did it? and I really hate the use of
Point taken, I too hate the use of ...
If it looks like a cow, smells like a cow, and moo's like a cow, it's a UC Davis coed.
The first priorities for the WAC for new members are the abilities to compete and to draw in football and men's basketball. SacSt is an impressive 52-104 since joining the BSC and is a weak draw (less than 10,000); that kind of performance holds what promise when moved up to FBS? Is men's Bball any better? Who could possibly consider SacSt a candidate for the WAC in these sports when they can't be competitive in the watered-down BSC?
"People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe." - Andy Rooney
chrisattsu wrote:
People talk about the WAC folding if the MWC takes Boise, Nevada, Fresno. However, I think a reloaded WAC with Poly, Sac, Davis, Utah State, Idaho, Hawaii, even Fresno and Nevada could work.
Of course that means a new South Central/Western FBS conference would need to form or absorb the New Mexico State, LaTech and the up-in-comers.
CPSLO, SacSt and UC Davis have never beaten Montana in a regular season game in 32 tries (1-32 combined overall) and you think they would be prefered candidates to Montana? None of the three can average 10,000 attendance and Montana averages 25,000. Montana and Idaho are natural, long-time rivals. Think about it. The CA schools have not yet even established themselves as strong FCS programs. Only CPSLO has even made it to the playoffs.
LATech is likely to leave the WAC; not NMSU. UTEP is a more likely candidate to rejoin the WAC, a natural travel partner for NMSU.
"People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe." - Andy Rooney
wrong, about La Tech. No one else wants them and they don't want to go to a lesser conference like the Sun Belt. The only one that could leave the WAC is Boise St. for the MWC. WAC's list would have Montana, UTSA, Texas St. followed by any Cal school ready to move to FBS.
Fresno St. Alum wrote:wrong, about La Tech. No one else wants them and they don't want to go to a lesser conference like the Sun Belt. The only one that could leave the WAC is Boise St. for the MWC. WAC's list would have Montana, UTSA, Texas St. followed by any Cal school ready to move to FBS.
The likely spot for LATech is the Conf. USA, a partner for Tulane. After the WAC is raided by the MWC, it would not be a superior conf. to Conf. USA. Once the Big 10 and PAC 10 start the game, there will be a lot of musical chairs. Some logic might even prevail.
"People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe." - Andy Rooney
Even though the WAC makes BCS games schools still left us for CUSA. CUSA doesn't want La Tech because they are in the middle of nowhere. They'd take someone with a bowl tie in like S.Alabama or wait for UTSA or Charlotte. They'd take N.Texas or FAU over La Tech too. Tulane has a school close by, S.Miss. As you can see on the map S.Miss and S.Alabama if they were to move are much closer than La Tech http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/Cbd1.PNG
chrisattsu wrote:
People talk about the WAC folding if the MWC takes Boise, Nevada, Fresno. However, I think a reloaded WAC with Poly, Sac, Davis, Utah State, Idaho, Hawaii, even Fresno and Nevada could work.
Of course that means a new South Central/Western FBS conference would need to form or absorb the New Mexico State, LaTech and the up-in-comers.
CPSLO, SacSt and UC Davis have never beaten Montana in a regular season game in 32 tries (1-32 combined overall) and you think they would be prefered candidates to Montana? None of the three can average 10,000 attendance and Montana averages 25,000. Montana and Idaho are natural, long-time rivals. Think about it. The CA schools have not yet even established themselves as strong FCS programs. Only CPSLO has even made it to the playoffs.
LATech is likely to leave the WAC; not NMSU. UTEP is a more likely candidate to rejoin the WAC, a natural travel partner for NMSU.
I have no doubt that they want Montana, and Montana would be better fit than the Cali schools, but every report that I have read over the years says that you can't/won't move to FBS without Montana State. Could MSU support a move to the WAC.
As FresnoAlum mentioned, LAtech is not going to leave the WAC for the Sun Belt. The offer has been put out there and they feel like they are superior to Louisiana-Lafayette and UL-Monroe. They have no desire to be the same conference as those two. They joined the WAC to get inbed with the Texas CUSA teams, and shortly after they all bolted, leaving LTU behind. LTU would only leave for CUSA, and at this point they do not want them.
Talking to people from El Paso, the Miners left the WAC for CUSA to stay with the Texas schools and to get away from NMSt. The have no desire to be in the same conference.
Even have some football and basketball titles to go along with the other sports.
