Big Sky, CAA, MVFC Commissioners Talk Playoff Expansion

[kalm]

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.

And developing that talent.

[EWURanger]

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.

Two wins over Idaho, one against Boise State, and a very mediocre EWU dismantled Utah State at some point in the mid to late 90's.....can't remember exactly when. The thing is, unless I am mistaken, all of those wins occurred when those teams were members of the 1A Big West, which was perhaps an even worse conference than the current incarnation of the WAC.

I honestly can't understand why some fans of various Big Sky schools are still pushing for joining the WAC. I understand the perceived name recognition of what a move to an FBS conference provides, but I just don't understand how a conference which is increasingly becoming more and more Texas or at least South-West-Centric is attractive to schools that are geographically situated on the west coast/mountain time zone. If the WAC looked something like what the old Big Sky did, with Nevada, Boise State, Idaho, etc. then I'd completely understand why people would want to make the move. I don't see how playing in a conference with New Mexico State, Texas-State, UTSA, Lamar or whoever else would be appealing.

[SDHornet]

You didn’t hear? There is a mountain of cash awaiting FCS schools in the non-AQ FBS.

[kemajic]

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.

Two wins over Idaho, one against Boise State, and a very mediocre EWU dismantled Utah State at some point in the mid to late 90's.....can't remember exactly when. The thing is, unless I am mistaken, all of those wins occurred when those teams were members of the 1A Big West, which was perhaps an even worse conference than the current incarnation of the WAC.

I honestly can't understand why some fans of various Big Sky schools are still pushing for joining the WAC. I understand the perceived name recognition of what a move to an FBS conference provides, but I just don't understand how a conference which is increasingly becoming more and more Texas or at least South-West-Centric is attractive to schools that are geographically situated on the west coast/mountain time zone. If the WAC looked something like what the old Big Sky did, with Nevada, Boise State, Idaho, etc. then I'd completely understand why people would want to make the move. I don't see how playing in a conference with New Mexico State, Texas-State, UTSA, Lamar or whoever else would be appealing.

Keep arguing away facts like the BSC does not have a single win against the WAC in recent years. Possibly you have forgotten the beatdown SJS gave EWU in '05; last I heard SJS is one of the WAC leftovers you love to deride.

[Wildcat Ryan]

Two wins over Idaho, one against Boise State, and a very mediocre EWU dismantled Utah State at some point in the mid to late 90's.....can't remember exactly when. The thing is, unless I am mistaken, all of those wins occurred when those teams were members of the 1A Big West, which was perhaps an even worse conference than the current incarnation of the WAC.

I honestly can't understand why some fans of various Big Sky schools are still pushing for joining the WAC. I understand the perceived name recognition of what a move to an FBS conference provides, but I just don't understand how a conference which is increasingly becoming more and more Texas or at least South-West-Centric is attractive to schools that are geographically situated on the west coast/mountain time zone. If the WAC looked something like what the old Big Sky did, with Nevada, Boise State, Idaho, etc. then I'd completely understand why people would want to make the move. I don't see how playing in a conference with New Mexico State, Texas-State, UTSA, Lamar or whoever else would be appealing.

Keep arguing away facts like the BSC does not have a single win against the WAC in recent years. Possibly you have forgotten the beatdown SJS gave EWU in '05; last I heard SJS is one of the WAC leftovers you love to deride.

the 2005 Eagles are a lot different than the 2011 Eagles, If the two teams would square off today, I would put my money on EWU to not only beat the Spartans, but beat them convincingly.

[EWURanger]

Two wins over Idaho, one against Boise State, and a very mediocre EWU dismantled Utah State at some point in the mid to late 90's.....can't remember exactly when. The thing is, unless I am mistaken, all of those wins occurred when those teams were members of the 1A Big West, which was perhaps an even worse conference than the current incarnation of the WAC.

I honestly can't understand why some fans of various Big Sky schools are still pushing for joining the WAC. I understand the perceived name recognition of what a move to an FBS conference provides, but I just don't understand how a conference which is increasingly becoming more and more Texas or at least South-West-Centric is attractive to schools that are geographically situated on the west coast/mountain time zone. If the WAC looked something like what the old Big Sky did, with Nevada, Boise State, Idaho, etc. then I'd completely understand why people would want to make the move. I don't see how playing in a conference with New Mexico State, Texas-State, UTSA, Lamar or whoever else would be appealing.

Keep arguing away facts like the BSC does not have a single win against the WAC in recent years. Possibly you have forgotten the beatdown SJS gave EWU in '05; last I heard SJS is one of the WAC leftovers you love to deride.

You must not have read what I posted; what facts am I arguing against? I never said the Big Sky is "better" than the WAC. It's not even a fair comparison, given the difference in scholarship levels. What I was saying was that there isn't a massive difference in talent level between a lot of the kids that go to NMSU or SJSU and the kids that get recruited to UM, MSU, EWU, or Sac State. The 22 extra scholarships is what makes the WAC "better" - it's not because they are recruiting Pac-12 level talent.

I am also saying that the WAC is a shitty FBS conference that is becoming more geographically orientated around Texas schools and I don't understand the appeal for some that still desire to join that conference. You love to "deride" the Big Sky Conference for being a home for wayward FCS programs, yet that is exactly what your precious WAC has become.

And the "beat-down" San Jose State gave us? We were leading that game at half, and I would hardly call 35-24 a "beat-down". If Meyer hadn't gone out of the game in the second half who knows what could have happened, but see my previous post about what 22 more scholarships does for your depth.

[kemajic]

Keep arguing away facts like the BSC does not have a single win against the WAC in recent years. Possibly you have forgotten the beatdown SJS gave EWU in '05; last I heard SJS is one of the WAC leftovers you love to deride.

the 2005 Eagles are a lot different than the 2011 Eagles, If the two teams would square off today, I would put my money on EWU to not only beat the Spartans, but beat them convincingly.

All speculation. The '05 EWU team beat Montana by two tds in Missoula (395 yds passing) and was in the playoffs. Meyer and Kimble were every bit as good as their current cast of characters. I don't think the new group will have that kind of success in Missoula this year. And I doubt very much they would beat SJS.

[EWURanger]

the 2005 Eagles are a lot different than the 2011 Eagles, If the two teams would square off today, I would put my money on EWU to not only beat the Spartans, but beat them convincingly.

All speculation. The '05 EWU team beat Montana by two tds in Missoula (395 yds passing) and was in the playoffs. Meyer and Kimble were every bit as good as their current cast of characters. I don't think the new group will have that kind of success in Missoula this year. And I doubt very much they would beat SJS.

You begin your post with "all speculation", and then continue to speculate.

No comparison between the 2005 and 2010 teams. While one could make the argument that the 2005 team might have been more talented offensively, I'd beg to differ. Meyer was a better QB (perhaps the best to gave ever played at EWU) than Mitchell, but there is more to it than that. Kimble, Macintyre, and Vijil were great players but Kaufman, Edwards, and Herd are all bigger and more physical. There is a difference in physicality when you are talking about a starting trio of 6'5, 6'3, 6'3 versus smaller guys like Kimble who was a converted running back.

But the main difference between those teams is defense and defensive depth. The 2005 team could score a ton of points but couldn't stop anyone when it counted and that's why we surrendered a 14 point lead in the 4th quarter versus UNI in the playoffs. You wouldn't have seen that from the 2010 team.

[FargoBison]

EWU would struggle to beat SJSU? Are we talking about the same SJSU that lost to UCD and struggled to beat SUU for their only win of the 2010 season or is there another SJSU that I don't know about?

[kalm]

Two wins over Idaho, one against Boise State, and a very mediocre EWU dismantled Utah State at some point in the mid to late 90's.....can't remember exactly when. The thing is, unless I am mistaken, all of those wins occurred when those teams were members of the 1A Big West, which was perhaps an even worse conference than the current incarnation of the WAC.

I honestly can't understand why some fans of various Big Sky schools are still pushing for joining the WAC. I understand the perceived name recognition of what a move to an FBS conference provides, but I just don't understand how a conference which is increasingly becoming more and more Texas or at least South-West-Centric is attractive to schools that are geographically situated on the west coast/mountain time zone. If the WAC looked something like what the old Big Sky did, with Nevada, Boise State, Idaho, etc. then I'd completely understand why people would want to make the move. I don't see how playing in a conference with New Mexico State, Texas-State, UTSA, Lamar or whoever else would be appealing.

Keep arguing away facts like the BSC does not have a single win against the WAC in recent years. Possibly you have forgotten the beatdown SJS gave EWU in '05; last I heard SJS is one of the WAC leftovers you love to deride.

Fact: EWU, not even the most successful BSC program over the last 15 years, giving up 22 scholarships, and almost always playing on the road is over .500 against the WAC in that same time frame.

[kemajic]

Keep arguing away facts like the BSC does not have a single win against the WAC in recent years. Possibly you have forgotten the beatdown SJS gave EWU in '05; last I heard SJS is one of the WAC leftovers you love to deride.

You must not have read what I posted; what facts am I arguing against? I never said the Big Sky is "better" than the WAC. It's not even a fair comparison, given the difference in scholarship levels.

You're the one with the reading problem. I never said you said that; it was the ODU dude that did, and I responded to him; you couldn't resist jumping in with your misguided venom. Here's the exact quote from the ODU dude with 3 infinity symbols for a username, earlier in the thread:

"I like the Big Sky attitude that they're better than the WAC. And it's true." What should an ODU fan have to say about this anyhow?

Do you think defending NC Auburn would agree that the WAC leftovers are as pathetic as argued on this thread?

[EWURanger]

You must not have read what I posted; what facts am I arguing against? I never said the Big Sky is "better" than the WAC. It's not even a fair comparison, given the difference in scholarship levels.

You're the one with the reading problem. I never said you said that; it was the ODU dude that did, and I responded to him; you couldn't resist jumping in with your misguided venom. Here's the exact quote from the ODU dude with 3 infinity symbols for a username, earlier in the thread:

"I like the Big Sky attitude that they're better than the WAC. And it's true." What should an ODU fan have to say about this anyhow?

Do you think defending NC Auburn would agree that the WAC leftovers are as pathetic as argued on this thread?

Whatever. The WAC isn't as good as you make it out to be, and the Big Sky is nowhere near as bad as you make it out to be. One win over the Pac-12 today, and nearly had another if Mitchell doesn't throw that pick. The Big Sky is a great conference, deal with it.