Why would UC Davis want to make this hypothetical move to the Big Sky, what is in it for them?

My understanding is that they like keeping their competition local when possible, and they like competing against sister UC schools like UCSB and UCI. They also like Cal Poly, which is a highly regarded State school.

An FBS conference needs eight full members playing FBS.

Why hasn't Sac St been invited to the Big West? After Pacific left for the WCC, UC Davis didn't have a natural travel partner anymore. Sac St should have been invited, yet they weren't.

The Big West has plenty if Cal States, so that isn't the reason.

If NDSU is going to participate in a new, "western" FBS league then it should be under the WAC brand. That brand already has history in DI-A and FBS and it also had participation in the BCS bowls via Boise St and Hawaii.

It shouldn't be the Big Sky brand. That brand has no history in DI-A or FBS.


But to get to that point would be one of the most far-fetched scenarios in the history of inter-collegiate athletic competition:

- NDSU, SDSU abd USD would have to leave the MVFC and Summit for the WAC
- Montana, Montana St and UND would have to leave the Big Sky for the WAC
- Idaho would have to leave the Big Sky and Sun Belt for the WAC
- New Mexico St would have to leave the Sun Belt for hte WAC

- CSU Bakersfield to the Big West?
- Grand Canyon and Utah Valley to the Big Sky?
- Chicago St and UMKC to the Summit or Horizon?
- Seattle to the Big Sky or WCC?
- UTPA to the Southland?

In such a scenario, I think I'd want to pair Idaho with Eastern Washington (contingent on football and basketball facility upgrades) and then add Portland St as a tenth member (contingent on getting the basketball facility upgraded).

It's so far-fetched to begin with, why not?

(01-13-2015 03:11 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  If NDSU is going to participate in a new, "western" FBS league then it should be under the WAC brand. That brand already has history in DI-A and FBS and it also had participation in the BCS bowls via Boise St and Hawaii.

It shouldn't be the Big Sky brand. That brand has no history in DI-A or FBS.


But to get to that point would be one of the most far-fetched scenarios in the history of inter-collegiate athletic competition:

- NDSU, SDSU abd USD would have to leave the MVFC and Summit for the WAC
- Montana, Montana St and UND would have to leave the Big Sky for the WAC
- Idaho would have to leave the Big Sky and Sun Belt for the WAC
- New Mexico St would have to leave the Sun Belt for hte WAC

- CSU Bakersfield to the Big West?
- Grand Canyon and Utah Valley to the Big Sky?
- Chicago St and UMKC to the Summit or Horizon?
- Seattle to the Big Sky or WCC?
- UTPA to the Southland?

The WAC is dead for FBS football. The waiver is gone for good and the only football the WAC can sponsor is FCS.

The chance was there but nobody took it. Any western FCS will need to be invited by the MW and any Mid west FCS team needs an invite by the MAC or CUSA. Otherwise, everyone else is stuck where they are at.

(01-13-2015 03:33 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The WAC is dead for FBS football. The waiver is gone for good and the only football the WAC can sponsor is FCS.

The chance was there but nobody took it. Any western FCS will need to be invited to the FBS and any Mid west FCS team needs an invite to the MAC or CUSA.

I wasn't suggesting that the WAC could be instantly revived as a FBS conference.

I said that the WAC's brand has history in the FBS and so it should be that brand, not the Big Sky brand, that is used for any such "new Western FBS conference".

These scenarios are crazy the next thing Half of FBS will make their own rules.
Schools will pay players and pay for family members to attend bowl games.
I guess the the next big thing is going to be conferences having their own network.

Well I am pretty sure those crazy ideas are against the rules.

(01-13-2015 03:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  In such a scenario, I think I'd want to pair Idaho with Eastern Washington (contingent on football and basketball facility upgrades) and then add Portland St as a tenth member (contingent on getting the basketball facility upgraded).

It's so far-fetched to begin with, why not?

EWU is planning an expansion to 18,000 seats: the Gateway Project.

Cal Poly and UC Davis were added to Big Sky football, to keep them from being WAC FBS candidates. The Great West wasn't viable at five teams, and the Big Sky knew they needed a home and didn't want to go FBS yet, as California was in a budget crisis.

When South Dakota turned down the Big Sky for the Slummit and MVFC, it was for budget issues too (and they would have had exit fees from the Slummit though they hadn't played a game.) Losing USD would have been a big blow to the Summit. Oral Roberts bailed in fear. UMKC saw the writing on the wall and left. Denver was the school that saved the Summit. If UND had gone to the Summit, Big Sky hopes for FBS would have been almost impossible, as that would rule out Dakota expansion and the Summit would have been secure with another team with baseball. UND only had to agree to pursue FBS facilities as part of the Big Sky offer, which they already had on the drawing board.

All the Big Sky teams that have eventual FBS hopes have expansion plans. The ones that want to stay FCS are easy to figure out.

The WAC could have been saved with Sam Houston St, Lamar, Jacksonville St, Liberty and a few other southern FCS programs, but what would have Idaho gained? Idaho wants a regional FBS league and has appealed to Emmert and will apply for an FBS conference exemption next year when their notified that the Sun Belt will not renew the four year option. The Montana's are fully supportive and want to retain the Big Sky name.

(01-13-2015 05:17 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 03:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  In such a scenario, I think I'd want to pair Idaho with Eastern Washington (contingent on football and basketball facility upgrades) and then add Portland St as a tenth member (contingent on getting the basketball facility upgraded).

It's so far-fetched to begin with, why not?

EWU is planning an expansion to 18,000 seats: the Gateway Project.

Cal Poly and UC Davis were added to Big Sky football, to keep them from being WAC FBS candidates. The Great West wasn't viable at five teams, and the Big Sky knew they needed a home and didn't want to go FBS yet, as California was in a budget crisis.

When South Dakota turned down the Big Sky for the Slummit and MVFC, it was for budget issues too (and they would have had exit fees from the Slummit though they hadn't played a game.) Losing USD would have been a big blow to the Summit. Oral Roberts bailed in fear. UMKC saw the writing on the wall and left. Denver was the school that saved the Summit. If UND had gone to the Summit, Big Sky hopes for FBS would have been almost impossible, as that would rule out Dakota expansion and the Summit would have been secure with another team with baseball. UND only had to agree to pursue FBS facilities as part of the Big Sky offer.

All the Big Sky teams that have eventual FBS hopes have expansion plans. The ones that want to stay FCS are easy to figure out.

The WAC could have been saved with Sam Houston St, Lamar, Jacksonville St, Liberty and a few other southern FCS programs, but what would have Idaho gained? Idaho wants a regional FBS league and has appealed to Emmert and will apply for an FBS conference exemption next year when their notified that the Sun Belt will not renew the four year option. The Montana's are fully supportive and want to retain the Big Sky name.

Well, the point is there will be no more new FBS conferences but there will be more FCS conferences.
And with the new autonomy rules now being made, that makes the decision to go FBS much, much harder or drop down to FCS much easier.

(01-13-2015 08:10 AM)NoDak Wrote:  An FBS conference needs eight full members playing FBS.

Why hasn't Sac St been invited to the Big West? After Pacific left for the WCC, UC Davis didn't have a natural travel partner anymore. Sac St should have been invited, yet they weren't.

The Big West has plenty if Cal States, so that isn't the reason.

I think there was essentially a gentleman's agreement between the Big Sky and Big West. In exchange for the Sky taking Cal Poly and UC Davis as football onlies, the BW would not make a play for Sac State (they are currently a Big West affiliate for men's soccer only, which is okay because the Sky doesn't sponsor that).

(01-13-2015 03:11 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  If NDSU is going to participate in a new, "western" FBS league then it should be under the WAC brand. That brand already has history in DI-A and FBS and it also had participation in the BCS bowls via Boise St and Hawaii.

It shouldn't be the Big Sky brand. That brand has no history in DI-A or FBS.


But to get to that point would be one of the most far-fetched scenarios in the history of inter-collegiate athletic competition:

- NDSU, SDSU abd USD would have to leave the MVFC and Summit for the WAC
- Montana, Montana St and UND would have to leave the Big Sky for the WAC
- Idaho would have to leave the Big Sky and Sun Belt for the WAC
- New Mexico St would have to leave the Sun Belt for the WAC

- CSU Bakersfield to the Big West?
- Grand Canyon and Utah Valley to the Big Sky?
- Chicago St and UMKC to the Summit or Horizon?
- Seattle to the Big Sky or WCC?
- UTPA to the Southland?

My two cents here, the Big West would likely get Bakersfield and at least either Grand Canyon or Seattle (SU makes more sense in the BW than the Sky, and the WCC won't take them as long as Gonzaga has their way). Grand Canyon, while a private for-profit, fits the BW geography and sports mix much better than the Big Sky too in my opinion. Either get to 11 and wait for UCSD to move up, or add all three and grow to 12.

Everything else you stated would remain the same.

(01-13-2015 07:57 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  My two cents here, the Big West would likely get Bakersfield and at least either Grand Canyon or Seattle (SU makes more sense in the BW than the Sky, and the WCC won't take them as long as Gonzaga has their way). Grand Canyon, while a private for-profit, fits the BW geography and sports mix much better than the Big Sky too in my opinion. Either get to 11 and wait for UCSD to move up, or add all three and grow to 12.

Everything else you stated would remain the same.

Big West is a California bus league, with the exception of Hawaii. Hence why I don't think they'd have any interest in an Arizona school. Or a Seattle school, for that matter.

On the other hand, Big Sky has Northern Arizona and Southern Utah. And they have Portland St and Eastern Washington for Seattle.

So I'm really just going off geography here.

(01-14-2015 01:19 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 07:57 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  My two cents here, the Big West would likely get Bakersfield and at least either Grand Canyon or Seattle (SU makes more sense in the BW than the Sky, and the WCC won't take them as long as Gonzaga has their way). Grand Canyon, while a private for-profit, fits the BW geography and sports mix much better than the Big Sky too in my opinion. Either get to 11 and wait for UCSD to move up, or add all three and grow to 12.

Everything else you stated would remain the same.

Big West is a California bus league, with the exception of Hawaii. Hence why I don't think they'd have any interest in an Arizona school. Or a Seattle school, for that matter.

On the other hand, Big Sky has Northern Arizona and Southern Utah. And they have Portland St and Eastern Washington for Seattle.

So I'm really just going off geography here.

The Sky also has the Montanas and North Dakota, plus every single member plays football. The BW geography of all California schools plus Hawaii works for Seattle and Grand Canyon.

But it's not just geography; sports mix matters too. Seattle and GCU don't have football. The Big Sky does not sponsor men's soccer or baseball. Those schools, even as privates, match up well with the Big West as they have every single conference sanctioned sport except for women's water polo

http://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/co.../21715907/


GCU is in its second year transitioning to NCAA Division I in sports, and the school, which also announced plans for a new 3,000-seat soccer stadium that is expected to open before the start of the fall season, wants soccer to resonate in the community the same way men's basketball does.

(01-13-2015 07:50 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  I think there was essentially a gentleman's agreement between the Big Sky and Big West. In exchange for the Sky taking Cal Poly and UC Davis as football onlies, the BW would not make a play for Sac State (they are currently a Big West affiliate for men's soccer only, which is okay because the Sky doesn't sponsor that).

Sac is also an affiliate in the WAC for baseball (along with fellow Big Sky members Northern Colorado and UND).

The Big West had nothing to do with Davis and Poly becoming football affiliates of the Big Sky. That was because the Great West conference folded after UND, USD and SUU left the conference.


I don't believe that Sac State has ever been invited to the Big West or ever had any desire to join the Big West. I think they were always hoping for an invitation to the WAC when San Jose and Fresno were still in the league.

It would certainly make sense for them to have the same arrangement that Davis has. It's a little silly for them spend so much money traveling to Big Sky teams in so many sports.

(01-14-2015 01:48 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  The Sky also has the Montanas and North Dakota, plus every single member plays football. The BW geography of all California schools plus Hawaii works for Seattle and Grand Canyon.

But it's not just geography; sports mix matters too. Seattle and GCU don't have football. The Big Sky does not sponsor men's soccer or baseball. Those schools, even as privates, match up well with the Big West as they have every single conference sanctioned sport except for women's water polo

GCU might work in the Big West, if it was willing to expand its footprint to Phoenix. It's 316mi. to UC Riverside.

Only 137mi. to Flagstaff.


And Sac St of the Big Sky currently plays soccer and baseball.


Seattle makes absolutely no sense geographically in the Big West, regardless how well its sports line up. That's like saying New York Univ. lines up well with the Big West.

(01-14-2015 01:50 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 07:50 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  I think there was essentially a gentleman's agreement between the Big Sky and Big West. In exchange for the Sky taking Cal Poly and UC Davis as football onlies, the BW would not make a play for Sac State (they are currently a Big West affiliate for men's soccer only, which is okay because the Sky doesn't sponsor that).

Sac is also an affiliate in the WAC for baseball (along with fellow Big Sky members Northern Colorado and UND).

The Big West had nothing to do with Davis and Poly becoming football affiliates of the Big Sky. That was because the Great West conference folded after UND, USD and SUU left the conference.


I don't believe that Sac State has ever been invited to the Big West or ever had any desire to join the Big West. I think they were always hoping for an invitation to the WAC when San Jose and Fresno were still in the league.

It would certainly make sense for them to have the same arrangement that Davis has. It's a little silly for them spend so much money traveling to Big Sky teams in so many sports.

You are correct with Sac State. Neither side wants the other.

As to the BW having nothing to do with the football arrangements of Cal Poly and Davis...

http://www.gogriz.com/sports/m-footbl/sp...10aab.html

"We worked in cooperation with Big West Conference Commissioner Dennis Farrell, Fullerton added. "The Big West fully supports this effort, as it gives its two football-playing members a home."

(01-13-2015 05:17 PM)NoDak Wrote:  EWU is planning an expansion to 18,000 seats: the Gateway Project.

Cal Poly and UC Davis were added to Big Sky football, to keep them from being WAC FBS candidates. The Great West wasn't viable at five teams, and the Big Sky knew they needed a home and didn't want to go FBS yet, as California was in a budget crisis.

When South Dakota turned down the Big Sky for the Slummit and MVFC, it was for budget issues too (and they would have had exit fees from the Slummit though they hadn't played a game.) Losing USD would have been a big blow to the Summit. Oral Roberts bailed in fear. UMKC saw the writing on the wall and left. Denver was the school that saved the Summit. If UND had gone to the Summit, Big Sky hopes for FBS would have been almost impossible, as that would rule out Dakota expansion and the Summit would have been secure with another team with baseball. UND only had to agree to pursue FBS facilities as part of the Big Sky offer, which they already had on the drawing board.

All the Big Sky teams that have eventual FBS hopes have expansion plans. The ones that want to stay FCS are easy to figure out.

The WAC could have been saved with Sam Houston St, Lamar, Jacksonville St, Liberty and a few other southern FCS programs, but what would have Idaho gained? Idaho wants a regional FBS league and has appealed to Emmert and will apply for an FBS conference exemption next year when their notified that the Sun Belt will not renew the four year option. The Montana's are fully supportive and want to retain the Big Sky name.

- The Gateway plan is very impressive and I hope they build it. EWU with that facility in place would be a good pair with Idaho in a western FBS conference.

- The Great West existed as a five team conference from I believe 2005 through the 2011 football seasons. Seemed to be viable.

- Davis and Poly needed an FCS home for football and neither were interested or capable of considering FBS (regardless of budgets). The Big Sky didn't prevent anything by adding them. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Big Sky initially tried to demand that both join as full members before relenting and allowing them to join as football affiliates.

- USD's goal in upgrading to DI was always to join the same conference(s) as SDSU. So it's no surprise that when the opportunity presented itself, USD reneged on the Big Sky's invitation.

- The Summit lost Centenary in 2011, ORU and SUU in 2012 and UMKC and Oakland in 2013. Let's say USD went to the Big Sky in 2012 instead. The Summit would've still had NDSU/SDSU, IPFW/IUPUI and WIU the whole time. They added Omaha in 2012 and Denver in 2013. There never would've been a time that they didn't have seven members. They would've easily received a waiver to the continuity requirement (which I'm not sure even still exists).

- Which football programs currently in the Big Sky could realistically make an FBS move out of the 13? Right now, only Montana, Montana St, Portland St, Sac St and Weber St have large enough stadiums to meet a 15k attendance requirement. That's five out of 13.

- In what way has Idaho appealed? Either to the NCAA or directly to its President (is that even a thing?).

- Why would the Sun Belt will vote to remove Idaho as a football associate member? It has 11 football members with Idaho and needs 12 to hold a championship game.

- Idaho, Montana and Montana State may want to retool the Big Sky into an FBS conference, but they need at least five FBS-ready schools to join that movement and they then need to remove the rest of the members from the conference. How do you propose that to happen? Where will these teams come from and to which conferences will schools leave?

(01-14-2015 01:55 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  You are correct with Sac State. Neither side wants the other.

As to the BW having nothing to do with the football arrangements of Cal Poly and Davis...

http://www.gogriz.com/sports/m-footbl/sp...10aab.html

"We worked in cooperation with Big West Conference Commissioner Dennis Farrell, Fullerton added. "The Big West fully supports this effort, as it gives its two football-playing members a home."

Fair enough.

Perhaps the Big West commissioner called Fullerton on behalf of Davis and Poly, inquiring about possible football affiliate membership in the Big Sky.

(01-14-2015 01:50 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 07:50 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  I think there was essentially a gentleman's agreement between the Big Sky and Big West. In exchange for the Sky taking Cal Poly and UC Davis as football onlies, the BW would not make a play for Sac State (they are currently a Big West affiliate for men's soccer only, which is okay because the Sky doesn't sponsor that).

Sac is also an affiliate in the WAC for baseball (along with fellow Big Sky members Northern Colorado and UND).

The Big West had nothing to do with Davis and Poly becoming football affiliates of the Big Sky. That was because the Great West conference folded after UND, USD and SUU left the conference.


I don't believe that Sac State has ever been invited to the Big West or ever had any desire to join the Big West. I think they were always hoping for an invitation to the WAC when San Jose and Fresno were still in the league.

It would certainly make sense for them to have the same arrangement that Davis has. It's a little silly for them spend so much money traveling to Big Sky teams in so many sports.

And you are wrong. The UC-Davis/Cal Poly invite for football was based on cooperation between the Big Sky and the Big West. The Big West was looking out for two of it's members, and to lessen the likelihood they would bolt in all sports to the Big Sky. The Big Sky agreed to take the two because, hey, two more Cali schools. In return, Sac State is off limits to the Big West.

If the Big West ever took Sac State, they would not be given football affiliation with the Big Sky.

I see gaucho beat me to the punch.

(01-14-2015 02:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2015 05:17 PM)NoDak Wrote:  EWU is planning an expansion to 18,000 seats: the Gateway Project.

Cal Poly and UC Davis were added to Big Sky football, to keep them from being WAC FBS candidates. The Great West wasn't viable at five teams, and the Big Sky knew they needed a home and didn't want to go FBS yet, as California was in a budget crisis.

When South Dakota turned down the Big Sky for the Slummit and MVFC, it was for budget issues too (and they would have had exit fees from the Slummit though they hadn't played a game.) Losing USD would have been a big blow to the Summit. Oral Roberts bailed in fear. UMKC saw the writing on the wall and left. Denver was the school that saved the Summit. If UND had gone to the Summit, Big Sky hopes for FBS would have been almost impossible, as that would rule out Dakota expansion and the Summit would have been secure with another team with baseball. UND only had to agree to pursue FBS facilities as part of the Big Sky offer, which they already had on the drawing board.

All the Big Sky teams that have eventual FBS hopes have expansion plans. The ones that want to stay FCS are easy to figure out.

The WAC could have been saved with Sam Houston St, Lamar, Jacksonville St, Liberty and a few other southern FCS programs, but what would have Idaho gained? Idaho wants a regional FBS league and has appealed to Emmert and will apply for an FBS conference exemption next year when their notified that the Sun Belt will not renew the four year option. The Montana's are fully supportive and want to retain the Big Sky name.

- The Gateway plan is very impressive and I hope they build it. EWU with that facility in place would be a good pair with Idaho in a western FBS conference.

- The Great West existed as a five team conference from I believe 2005 through the 2011 football seasons. Seemed to be viable.

- Davis and Poly needed an FCS home for football and neither were interested or capable of considering FBS (regardless of budgets). The Big Sky didn't prevent anything by adding them. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Big Sky initially tried to demand that both join as full members before relenting and allowing them to join as football affiliates.

- USD's goal in upgrading to DI was always to join the same conference(s) as SDSU. So it's no surprise that when the opportunity presented itself, USD reneged on the Big Sky's invitation.

- The Summit lost Centenary in 2011, ORU and SUU in 2012 and UMKC and Oakland in 2013. Let's say USD went to the Big Sky in 2012 instead. The Summit would've still had NDSU/SDSU, IPFW/IUPUI and WIU the whole time. They added Omaha in 2012 and Denver in 2013. There never would've been a time that they didn't have seven members. They would've easily received a waiver to the continuity requirement (which I'm not sure even still exists).

- Which football programs currently in the Big Sky could realistically make an FBS move out of the 13? Right now, only Montana, Montana St, Portland St, Sac St and Weber St have large enough stadiums to meet a 15k attendance requirement. That's five out of 13.

- In what way has Idaho appealed? Either to the NCAA or directly to its President (is that even a thing?).

- Why would the Sun Belt will vote to remove Idaho as a football associate member? It has 11 football members with Idaho and needs 12 to hold a championship game.

- Idaho, Montana and Montana State may want to retool the Big Sky into an FBS conference, but they need at least five FBS-ready schools to join that movement and they then need to remove the rest of the members from the conference. How do you propose that to happen? Where will these teams come from and to which conferences will schools leave?

First off, the Summit could be back on a grace period, as baseball with only the minimum teams would knock out the Summit autobid if they lose one. The Summit's far from a secure conference, and ORU returning only saved it last year. Because they offer no football, they must offer two other men's sports other than basketball. Baseball and soccer both are slippery slopes: if IUPUI or IPFW or Denver or ORU leave, its lights out.

THe Sun Belt has no intention of signing Idaho to a four year term again. Moscow is just to far and the Sun Belt has the needed team to be FBS now, as App St and Ga So have one year in their transition to go. Furthermore, Idaho is a horrible partner for the Sun Belt for bowls. The Sun Belt would need to trade one of its bowls with the MAC for the Potato Bowl, otherwise Idaho being in one of their Bowls would be a disaster. The Sun Belt will sign one or two more teams this year (EKU, maybe Mo St or JMU), and they won't have a need for Idaho anymore.

Sac St have a football stadium that will fulfill FBS now. UC Davis and Cal Poly would need expansions, as would UND and EWU. When Idaho and the Big Sky get an FBS exemption because of hardship, UC Davis, Cal Poly, EWU, and UND would begin to build. FBS stadiums wouldn't be needed until 2019. 2018 would be the first transition year.

NDSU was essentially invited to the Big Sky by Fullerton in a North Dakota paper. From that article, tt was clear that he would like to see all the Dakota schools in the Big Sky. The Sky has 14 FCS schools already, so some would have to go. Fullerton himself has said the league has already divided itself among potential FBS and those that want to stay FCS. If Portland St or Cal Poly later discern that they can't go FBS on the timeline, then they can stay FCS if Dakota schools replace them.