The Commish (Fullerton) of the Big Sky Conference is talking today....

Craig Haley @CraigHaley · 4h

Fullerton: Idaho, New Mexico St. out there as possible 14th Big Sky football members. Only when time is right. #BigSkyKickoff


Craig Haley @CraigHaley · 4h

Fullerton: "I'm really optimistic that there's some really good things in this new governing structure." #BigSkyKickoff



Craig Haley @CraigHaley · 4h

Fullerton: New governing structure could be announced in next 10 days involving five major conferences on FBS level. #BigSkyKickoff



Craig Haley @CraigHaley · 4h

AT #BigSkyKickoff, commissioner Doug Fullerton reflects on many topics involving NCAA, FBS/FCS, Big Sky future.

I'm really curious as to what could be so exciting in the new governing structure for the Big Sky conference...

Fullerton has had many wet dreams in the past that he's talked about. I'll believe it when I see it.

(07-14-2014 01:52 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  I'm really curious as to what could be so exciting in the new governing structure for the Big Sky conference...

Because the new structure has nothing to do with the FCS conferences. In fact, the new structure for FBS may actually give the Big Sky Idaho football. And not only that, several schools may find out its better not to be part of the new structure and the increase cost of the student-athletes benefits.

(07-14-2014 01:52 PM)TardisCaptain Wrote:  Fullerton has had many wet dreams in the past that he's talked about. I'll believe it when I see it.

He got Idaho back for all sports except football. Its only a matter of time. Especially, when playing Montana or Montana St will be received better than the Sun Belt teams.

the thing that is interesting though is that while we started the FBS split in 78 with 140- dropped pretty quickly down to about 105- it got back up to 120 and now we're going to be up to 129 again. Same thing will likely happen again.

I think the quotes in the OP aren't directly related to each other. On the one hand, he seems to be saying we will hear something soon regarding P5 autonomy. On a separate matter, he seems to be suggesting that New Mexico State and Idaho may be opting out of the FBS. Given their distance from the rest of the SBC, that move would seem to be the only viable option to football independence, which I doubt either is powerful enough to pull off.

(07-14-2014 01:52 PM)TardisCaptain Wrote:  Fullerton has had many wet dreams in the past that he's talked about. I'll believe it when I see it.

Exactly what I was thinking.

He once convinced the the Management Council to consider 17,000 actual butts in seats every year as the minimum standard for I-A membership. All it took was one person asking what studies had been done to arrive at that number and it went away.

Then he convinced the MC to consider 15,000 actual butts in seats every other year and the prepared answer was 30k was the then minimum for a I-A stadium so one-half was reasonable. Actually got it out of the MC and the Presidents stomped all over it until they had created enough holes to insure that no one would be reclassified.

Presidents have never been big on kicking people out of the room.

(07-14-2014 02:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  I think the quotes in the OP aren't directly related to each other. On the one hand, he seems to be saying we will hear something soon regarding P5 autonomy. On a separate matter, he seems to be suggesting that New Mexico State and Idaho may be opting out of the FBS. Given their distance from the rest of the SBC, that move would seem to be the only viable option to football independence, which I doubt either is powerful enough to pull off.

If Idaho can't get in the MWC, yeah I think it's logical that they might eventually land a president with the stones to take on the vocal alums and go to the Sky in football.

NMSU is a long way away from everyone in the Sun Belt, but they are a long way from everyone in the Big Sky or Southland.

I don't think NMSU can save enough money playing FCS to make it worthwhile and as long as UTEP and New Mexico are willing to play them home and home, I don't see any reason why NMSU would risk losing annual games against schools they've played 91 times (UTEP) or 104 times (New Mexico) on a home and home basis and convert them to pay games on the road.

(07-14-2014 02:49 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 02:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  I think the quotes in the OP aren't directly related to each other. On the one hand, he seems to be saying we will hear something soon regarding P5 autonomy. On a separate matter, he seems to be suggesting that New Mexico State and Idaho may be opting out of the FBS. Given their distance from the rest of the SBC, that move would seem to be the only viable option to football independence, which I doubt either is powerful enough to pull off.

If Idaho can't get in the MWC, yeah I think it's logical that they might eventually land a president with the stones to take on the vocal alums and go to the Sky in football.

NMSU is a long way away from everyone in the Sun Belt, but they are a long way from everyone in the Big Sky or Southland.

I don't think NMSU can save enough money playing FCS to make it worthwhile and as long as UTEP and New Mexico are willing to play them home and home, I don't see any reason why NMSU would risk losing annual games against schools they've played 91 times (UTEP) or 104 times (New Mexico) on a home and home basis and convert them to pay games on the road.

There are quite a few Idaho alums calling to go Big Sky in football also.

(07-14-2014 02:49 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 02:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  I think the quotes in the OP aren't directly related to each other. On the one hand, he seems to be saying we will hear something soon regarding P5 autonomy. On a separate matter, he seems to be suggesting that New Mexico State and Idaho may be opting out of the FBS. Given their distance from the rest of the SBC, that move would seem to be the only viable option to football independence, which I doubt either is powerful enough to pull off.

If Idaho can't get in the MWC, yeah I think it's logical that they might eventually land a president with the stones to take on the vocal alums and go to the Sky in football.

NMSU is a long way away from everyone in the Sun Belt, but they are a long way from everyone in the Big Sky or Southland.

I don't think NMSU can save enough money playing FCS to make it worthwhile and as long as UTEP and New Mexico are willing to play them home and home, I don't see any reason why NMSU would risk losing annual games against schools they've played 91 times (UTEP) or 104 times (New Mexico) on a home and home basis and convert them to pay games on the road.

You have to read between the lines a lot on Twitter. The quote mentions both Idaho and NMSU, but refers to the "14th" member. They already have 13, so I now infer he meant that it was an "either/or", not a "both/and" move in the offing. Clearly, Idaho is the more logical.

(07-14-2014 02:49 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 02:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  I think the quotes in the OP aren't directly related to each other. On the one hand, he seems to be saying we will hear something soon regarding P5 autonomy. On a separate matter, he seems to be suggesting that New Mexico State and Idaho may be opting out of the FBS. Given their distance from the rest of the SBC, that move would seem to be the only viable option to football independence, which I doubt either is powerful enough to pull off.

If Idaho can't get in the MWC, yeah I think it's logical that they might eventually land a president with the stones to take on the vocal alums and go to the Sky in football.

NMSU is a long way away from everyone in the Sun Belt, but they are a long way from everyone in the Big Sky or Southland.

I don't think NMSU can save enough money playing FCS to make it worthwhile and as long as UTEP and New Mexico are willing to play them home and home, I don't see any reason why NMSU would risk losing annual games against schools they've played 91 times (UTEP) or 104 times (New Mexico) on a home and home basis and convert them to pay games on the road.

Agree on both counts. Idaho is a natural fit in the BSC. NMSU isn't a fit anywhere - MWC is the best fit, but even that is spread thin.

(07-14-2014 03:10 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 02:49 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 02:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  I think the quotes in the OP aren't directly related to each other. On the one hand, he seems to be saying we will hear something soon regarding P5 autonomy. On a separate matter, he seems to be suggesting that New Mexico State and Idaho may be opting out of the FBS. Given their distance from the rest of the SBC, that move would seem to be the only viable option to football independence, which I doubt either is powerful enough to pull off.

If Idaho can't get in the MWC, yeah I think it's logical that they might eventually land a president with the stones to take on the vocal alums and go to the Sky in football.

NMSU is a long way away from everyone in the Sun Belt, but they are a long way from everyone in the Big Sky or Southland.

I don't think NMSU can save enough money playing FCS to make it worthwhile and as long as UTEP and New Mexico are willing to play them home and home, I don't see any reason why NMSU would risk losing annual games against schools they've played 91 times (UTEP) or 104 times (New Mexico) on a home and home basis and convert them to pay games on the road.

You have to read between the lines a lot on Twitter. The quote mentions both Idaho and NMSU, but refers to the "14th" member. They already have 13, so I now infer he meant that it was an "either/or", not a "both/and" move in the offing. Clearly, Idaho is the more logical.

Yes - BSC has 13 in football right now (Cal Poly and UC-Davis are affiliates in football) and 12 in all other sports (Idaho is in as of July 1st for all non-football sports).

(07-14-2014 03:41 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 02:49 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 02:19 PM)ken d Wrote:  I think the quotes in the OP aren't directly related to each other. On the one hand, he seems to be saying we will hear something soon regarding P5 autonomy. On a separate matter, he seems to be suggesting that New Mexico State and Idaho may be opting out of the FBS. Given their distance from the rest of the SBC, that move would seem to be the only viable option to football independence, which I doubt either is powerful enough to pull off.

If Idaho can't get in the MWC, yeah I think it's logical that they might eventually land a president with the stones to take on the vocal alums and go to the Sky in football.

NMSU is a long way away from everyone in the Sun Belt, but they are a long way from everyone in the Big Sky or Southland.

I don't think NMSU can save enough money playing FCS to make it worthwhile and as long as UTEP and New Mexico are willing to play them home and home, I don't see any reason why NMSU would risk losing annual games against schools they've played 91 times (UTEP) or 104 times (New Mexico) on a home and home basis and convert them to pay games on the road.

Agree on both counts. Idaho is a natural fit in the BSC. NMSU isn't a fit anywhere - MWC is the best fit, but even that is spread thin.

I could see NMSU in C-USA also. That's where UTEP is, plus UTSA, North Texas and Rice. If Texas State also went with them, taking C-USA to 16, that's six schools in the neighborhood.

It will be interesting to see but I don't know what it will take to get Idaho to throw in the FBS towel.

They are a land grant school in a growing state. The SBC is full of FCS upgrades right now and if they could win 8-10 football games consistently may have a shot at the MWC

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(07-14-2014 02:49 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  NMSU is a long way away from everyone in the Sun Belt, but they are a long way from everyone in the Big Sky or Southland.

I don't think NMSU can save enough money playing FCS to make it worthwhile and as long as UTEP and New Mexico are willing to play them home and home, I don't see any reason why NMSU would risk losing annual games against schools they've played 91 times (UTEP) or 104 times (New Mexico) on a home and home basis and convert them to pay games on the road.

Yeah, they don't have a long menu of options to choose from. NMSU is also a long way away from no-football D-I conferences like the MVC or Summit. Their only realistic options are to keep their status quo (most likely), or drop football while keeping their other sports in the WAC (least likely), or hope to get an all-sports invitation to the SBC (probably not happening any time soon).

In another thread several months ago, I had stated that it never made sense to take Idaho for non-football sports unless the Big Sky intended at least part of the conference to go FBS. (Montana, MSU, UC Davis, Portland St, Sac St, Cal Poly, E Wash, N Dakota and maybe a few others) Seattle was a much better non-football choice for travel and eyeballs, but Idaho makes it possible for an opening for the Big Sky to go FBS with a P5-G5 split. The rules will be written by the P5, and they want more G5 schools for lower cost guarantees. The Big Sky already has a football broadcast contract with Root Sports. That could go considerably higher as well as ESPN or Fox Tuesday night games.

Montana chose not to go to the WAC because it was on probation then and wanted facility upgrades and most of the other Big Sky teams weren't ready for FBS. Portland St Sac St, and MSU are now ready, and the others have plans for >15,000 seat stadiums.

(07-14-2014 04:06 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  It will be interesting to see but I don't know what it will take to get Idaho to throw in the FBS towel.

They are a land grant school in a growing state. The SBC is full of FCS upgrades right now and if they could win 8-10 football games consistently may have a shot at the MWC

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Idaho has scheduled FBS non-conference games through 2020. It would contractually be very expensive to go FCS.

(07-14-2014 06:08 PM)NoDak Wrote:  In another thread several months ago, I had stated that it never made sense to take Idaho for non-football sports unless the Big Sky intended at least part of the conference to go FBS. (Montana, MSU, UC Davis, Portland St, Sac St, Cal Poly, E Wash, N Dakota and maybe a few others) Seattle was a much better non-football choice for travel and eyeballs, but Idaho makes possible opening for the Big Sky to go FBS with a P5-G5 split. The Big Sky already has a football broadcast contract with Root Sports. That could go considerably higher as well as ESPN or Fox Tuesday night games.

Montana chose not to go to the WAC because it was on probation then and wanted facility upgrades and most of the other Big Sky teams weren't ready for FBS. Portland St Sac St, and MSU are now ready, and the others have plans for >15,000 seat stadiums.

Unless something radical happens to split the P5 off from the rest of FBS, there won't be any mechanism for any Big Sky members to move up to FBS. Montana, MSU, Sac State and company missed their chance when they decided not to gamble on the WAC. They had every right to do what they thought made sense at the time but it was tantamount to a long-term commitment to FCS and they knew it.

(07-14-2014 06:48 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(07-14-2014 06:08 PM)NoDak Wrote:  In another thread several months ago, I had stated that it never made sense to take Idaho for non-football sports unless the Big Sky intended at least part of the conference to go FBS. (Montana, MSU, UC Davis, Portland St, Sac St, Cal Poly, E Wash, N Dakota and maybe a few others) Seattle was a much better non-football choice for travel and eyeballs, but Idaho makes possible opening for the Big Sky to go FBS with a P5-G5 split. The Big Sky already has a football broadcast contract with Root Sports. That could go considerably higher as well as ESPN or Fox Tuesday night games.

Montana chose not to go to the WAC because it was on probation then and wanted facility upgrades and most of the other Big Sky teams weren't ready for FBS. Portland St Sac St, and MSU are now ready, and the others have plans for >15,000 seat stadiums.

Unless something radical happens to split the P5 off from the rest of FBS, there won't be any mechanism for any Big Sky members to move up to FBS. Montana, MSU, Sac State and company missed their chance when they decided not to gamble on the WAC. They had every right to do what they thought made sense at the time but it was tantamount to a long-term commitment to FCS and they knew it.

The P5 could write into the FBS rules that any FCS Conference with an FBS member can transition to FBS. The P5 wants that because it would make its guarantee games cheaper, with more G5's. What the P5 wants, it can get. A conference like the PAC12 wants the Big Sky FBS, so it has more regional options. If it only had the MWC in its turf, it would be much more expensive for the PAC12 to get their 7 home games. With the Big Sky FBS, the PAC12 would have a very easy and cheaper time scheduling, especially when it has threatened to outlaw FCS games by members.