BREAKING: Idaho football....

Football Championship Subdivision discussions
User avatar
kemajic
Level2
Level2
Posts: 796
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 5:43 pm
I am a fan of: Montana
A.K.A.: Kemajic

Re: BREAKING: Idaho football....

Post by kemajic »

EWURanger wrote:And I have never understood why the Big Sky turned NDSU and SDSU when they were making their transition. The only reason may have been geography, which doesn't seem to matter much now.
It is well known that SacSt and PSU fought the NDSU/SDSU additons for travel reasons. The late-comers should not have had as big a vote as charter members. Geography was the only respectable and justifiable reason, but as you say, it didn't keep them from adding UND later, so there had to be others.

Could be the presidents were not keen on adding members with ambitious programs that were capable of raising the bar of competition (as BSU, Nevada and Idaho had done), requiring existing members to either increase their commitment or suffer increasing embarrassment. Adding a UNC at the bottom of the rung was much more comfortable - a program everyone could beat without increasing their FB budget. And of course there was the badly failed Fullerton sales pitch to the presidents that the way to go was to add programs near large populations centers - PSU, Sacst, UNC, etc. Hard to respect such conference administration..
"People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe." - Andy Rooney
User avatar
Grizalltheway
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 35688
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 10:01 pm
A.K.A.: DJ Honey BBQ
Location: BSC

Re: BREAKING: Idaho football....

Post by Grizalltheway »

Herky wrote:
Grizalltheway wrote:
Georgia v Boise State
LSU v Oregon

I'm sure there are more, but you get the idea.
It doesnt happen often and took years for anyone to step up and play Boise. It doesnt happen nearly as much as it should, Mr. Bigcock with balls.
As often as it should? I think they've demonstrated over the last decade that they're the best FBS conference in terms of winning national titles. What else is left to prove?
User avatar
Wildcat Ryan
Level3
Level3
Posts: 2798
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:59 pm
I am a fan of: WEBER STATE
A.K.A.: WILDCAT, WILDCATFAN

Re: BREAKING: Idaho football....

Post by Wildcat Ryan »

Grizalltheway wrote:
Herky wrote:
You just described the SEC's mentallity... They fear playing good teams outside of the SEC.
Georgia v Boise State
LSU v Oregon

I'm sure there are more, but you get the idea.

Now I dont disagree with you that the SEC is the best conference, but the problem is the SEC teams are stay at home teams, those two games you mentioned were home games for those SEC teams.

The SEC teams this year each have 4 OOC games, 56 total games for the 14 SEC teams, 45 of those games are home games for the SEC, which leaves 11 road games. 5 SEC teams dont even play a road game OOC, those who are;

Arkansas @ ULM
Florida @ Florida State
Kentucky @ Louisville
Miss State @ Troy
Missouri @ UCF
Ole Miss @ Tulane
S. Carolina @ Clemson
Texas A&M @ Louisiana Tech and @ SMU
Vanderbilt @ Northwestern and @ Wake Forest

Kudos to Arkansas, Miss State, Mizzou, Ole Miss and Texas A&M for scheduling down road games.

Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, LSU and Tennessee play all OOC games at home. :roll:
Image
User avatar
SDHornet
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19496
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:50 pm
I am a fan of: Sacramento State Hornets

Re: BREAKING: Idaho football....

Post by SDHornet »

kemajic wrote:
EWURanger wrote:And I have never understood why the Big Sky turned NDSU and SDSU when they were making their transition. The only reason may have been geography, which doesn't seem to matter much now.
It is well known that SacSt and PSU fought the NDSU/SDSU additons for travel reasons. The late-comers should not have had as big a vote as charter members. Geography was the only respectable and justifiable reason, but as you say, it didn't keep them from adding UND later, so there had to be others.

Could be the presidents were not keen on adding members with ambitious programs that were capable of raising the bar of competition (as BSU, Nevada and Idaho had done), requiring existing members to either increase their commitment or suffer increasing embarrassment. Adding a UNC at the bottom of the rung was much more comfortable - a program everyone could beat without increasing their FB budget. And of course there was the badly failed Fullerton sales pitch to the presidents that the way to go was to add programs near large populations centers - PSU, Sacst, UNC, etc. Hard to respect such conference administration..
Looks like Idaho will get the chance to raise the BSC bar again pretty soon.
Post Reply