(07-30-2016 02:49 AM)00yyz Wrote:  

(07-30-2016 12:29 AM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-29-2016 11:37 AM)jacksfan29 Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 09:52 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 09:39 PM)NoQuestion Wrote:  I don't get why it is so hard for you to understand that she is talking about Idaho.

Did the Big Ten talk expansion after they added Maryland and Rutgers? No. They talked divisions.

A commish never talks expansion when they already have that team. They talk divisions. This board knows that, but NDSU, SDSU, and Idaho posters are speaking a different language because they want to badly disprove what I have said.

The XDSU's posters passionately hate the idea of Big Sky expansion and the Idaho posters disbelieve it.

When Wichita St goes to a different FBS conference than the WAC, that will prove me wrong. There are no obvious expansion candidate for the Big Sky in the west. The only ones that are possible are in the Central Time Zone. Commish Williams expansion comments were not followed up in the least because most of the Big Sky reporters are clueless.

Right now Egriz is talking about the MWC taking them. They have to be FBS first.

http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic...3&start=25

The egriz discussion seems to not fit your description.

The BSC reporters are clueless and that's the reason your magical dream hasn't been exposed? Is that why you can't provide a link? I guess we all need to read between the lines.

Oh, and she is talking divisions. Split geographically or through a seeding process providing for more fair, and better competition. Her intent is to have such divisions in place when Idaho begins play.

It's plainly obvious you have an agenda and that you think through emotions not logic and disregard what is actually in print.

In the Idaho State Journal, Williams specifically talked about expansion separate from scheduling. That can't sink into your noggin because you are petrified of the idaho contractors report, which said USD could go FBS. That's your worst nightmare and you won't admit it.

She also said there is no maximum number that they are looking at. That plainly means expansion is being considered but still denial and de-Nile come from you.

Get SDSU to offer FCOA like USD did and drop some of your bloated sports like swimming and baseball, which are in pathetic facilities anyway with a 25 m pool, to afford FBS. You already have equestrian, which counts many female manure haulers, so Title IX should not be an issue.

Do you have any inside info??
Or are you basing it solely on Williams statement and the Idaho report??

Because that Idaho report also said NAU was a perspective team to join an FBS WAC and that aint happening...
In 2012 NAU spent 26 million to remodel the football facility and they reduced capicity from 15k to 10k at that time let alone the fact that their budget is over 80% subsudies right now...

Our former women's bball coach said on his retirement that UND would be in the WAC before the decades is over several years ago. We also have a football alum who made a fortune developing gold mines who is rumored to be donating a major remodel to the stadium on campus. Our master plan for athletic facilities show that stadium to be domed.

NAU was used because they didn't want to name any Southland or MVFC teams but USD. Naming USD is interesting as it really enraged the XDSU trolls, as they have shown here.

(07-30-2016 03:05 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-29-2016 01:18 PM)SactoHornetAlum Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 11:25 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 07:35 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  If the WAC loses only New Mexico State, then the WAC will have 7 active Division I members by the time the move is complete, the bare minimum under Division I rules as Grand Canyon will have completed its transition. The WAC could actually be in a better position to invite someone from Division II, as it could invite a school closer to Seattle (Western Washington), Bakersfield (?), Utah Valley (Dixie State), UMKC (Central Missouri), or UTRGV (?). The new member may not consolidate the footprint, but may make a better travel partner for someone than New Mexico State, who really isn't that close to anyone in the WAC.

The catch is that it will likely be a non-football school since there really isn't a place for a new member to park a FCS program.

If the WAC takes any losses, it probably is go time for the Big Sky to reorganize itself into two conferences. Idaho proceeds with the downgrade, and the WAC becomes a FCS conference. UC Davis becomes a Big Sky affiliate, Cal Poly a WAC affiliate.

BSC Football - EWU, PSU, Idaho, ISU, Montana, MSU, UC Davis*
WAC Football - Sacramento State, NAU, SUU, Weber State, UNC, UND, Cal Poly*

Bye weeks during conference play are coordinated for rivals separated from each other to be able to still play each other out of conference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seattle/Western Washington/Central Washington (doing work on their facilities)
Bakersfield State/East Bay State/Cal-San Diego/Azusa Pacific/Sonoma State/Cal. State-L.A.
Utah Valley/Dixie State/Colorado Mesa/Western State/Fort Lewis/Colorado Mines
UMKC/Central Missouri/Missouri Southern/Missouri Western/Lindenwood/NW Missouri State
UTRGV/Texas-Permian Basin/Texas A&M-Commerce/Tarleton State/West Texas A&M/Angelo State/Midwestern State/Lamar/Sam Houston State/Texas A&M-Kingsville
Grand Canyon U./Arizona Christian?

I know not all of them could be FBS ready, but they could still be part of Big Sky football. Cal-San Diego, Azusa Pacific, East Bay State, Cal. State- LA, Tarleton State, Texas A&M-Commerce, Midwestern State, Lamar, West Texas A&M all could use a pro stadium or they have the stadium or a stadium close enough to be FBS.

So I've been reading your stuff for a longtime and I've come to the conclusion that you either A) are talking wildly out of your you know what or B) you have Aspergers of some sort. There is no way in Hades that Cal State East Bay (it's not East Bay State dude) or Cal State LA are bringing back football, ever! Not with the Cal-NOW requirements. You have no clue.

As it is, the California schools are losing students going to other states that have football. They want to keep the instate schools in California. The only way to do that is that several California schools to add football. Several Big West schools and some D2 schools are thinking about it. East Bay State was one that I saw an outline plan that was online what it would take to restart football.

If you haven't noticed and you haven't, all the public schools in CA in both the UC and CSU systems have rising enrollment. You only see what you want to see. Delusional you are!

(07-30-2016 09:32 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 11:09 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 05:46 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  if the B12 expansion somehow trickles down to a MW or C-USA spot opening up for New Mexico State, then the WAC is finally toast. I think the remaining members will be actively and publicly searching for new homes.

But - the best chances for that happening is for Boise and/or CSU to be invited to the Big 12 and neither one looks like they are receiving such an invite.

If the Big 12 expands, then NMSU's best chance is if the trickle-down results in CUSA losing either 1 or 3 schools to the AAC. If CUSA loses 0 or 2 members, they'll do nothing. If CUSA loses an odd number of members, they'll add 1 to make themselves even again for football and basketball.

I doubt C-USA wants a member west of the Rio Grande if UTEP ends up in the MW due to trickle-down effects.

Extremely unlikely that the MWC will lose any of its members to the Big 12. Almost as unlikely that the MWC will add to its current lineup.

Boise would be the only one, if Big 12 adds BYU all sports and decides that having a travel partner for them is a high enough priority.

Maybe in that case MWC stays at 10 and terminates Hawaii's football-only membership, leaving UH to schedule as an independent and take full advantage of their special exemption.

Boise is in the Big 12 FB-only discussion. If added they would put basketball back in the Big West, and be a travel partner with UC Davis. But with UCSD awaiting a guaranteed invitation the BW will look for a 12th member. Seattle? Grand Canyon?

Ain't no such thing as FB-only in the P5.

And Boise has no history with a California DI-AAA conference.

The only way the Big Twelve expansion helps an FBS Big Sky is by closing the door to FBS.

With no future path to move up possible rules changes might happen.
Then schools from Stony Brook to Liberty ,Jacksonville St, Youngstown state along with the usual MVFC and BSC schools could work together.
A fake rule like the attendance rule would probably go away.
Maybe FCS becomes fifty scholarship to both save money and create a gap in divisions.
Right now Montana,JMU and NDSU have better overall athletic programs than half of the G5 .

So go to 85 max or 50 keep all non football related rules like number of sports and scholarships.

(07-30-2016 10:54 PM)SactoHornetAlum Wrote:  

(07-30-2016 03:05 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-29-2016 01:18 PM)SactoHornetAlum Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 11:25 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 07:35 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  If the WAC loses only New Mexico State, then the WAC will have 7 active Division I members by the time the move is complete, the bare minimum under Division I rules as Grand Canyon will have completed its transition. The WAC could actually be in a better position to invite someone from Division II, as it could invite a school closer to Seattle (Western Washington), Bakersfield (?), Utah Valley (Dixie State), UMKC (Central Missouri), or UTRGV (?). The new member may not consolidate the footprint, but may make a better travel partner for someone than New Mexico State, who really isn't that close to anyone in the WAC.

The catch is that it will likely be a non-football school since there really isn't a place for a new member to park a FCS program.

If the WAC takes any losses, it probably is go time for the Big Sky to reorganize itself into two conferences. Idaho proceeds with the downgrade, and the WAC becomes a FCS conference. UC Davis becomes a Big Sky affiliate, Cal Poly a WAC affiliate.

BSC Football - EWU, PSU, Idaho, ISU, Montana, MSU, UC Davis*
WAC Football - Sacramento State, NAU, SUU, Weber State, UNC, UND, Cal Poly*

Bye weeks during conference play are coordinated for rivals separated from each other to be able to still play each other out of conference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seattle/Western Washington/Central Washington (doing work on their facilities)
Bakersfield State/East Bay State/Cal-San Diego/Azusa Pacific/Sonoma State/Cal. State-L.A.
Utah Valley/Dixie State/Colorado Mesa/Western State/Fort Lewis/Colorado Mines
UMKC/Central Missouri/Missouri Southern/Missouri Western/Lindenwood/NW Missouri State
UTRGV/Texas-Permian Basin/Texas A&M-Commerce/Tarleton State/West Texas A&M/Angelo State/Midwestern State/Lamar/Sam Houston State/Texas A&M-Kingsville
Grand Canyon U./Arizona Christian?

I know not all of them could be FBS ready, but they could still be part of Big Sky football. Cal-San Diego, Azusa Pacific, East Bay State, Cal. State- LA, Tarleton State, Texas A&M-Commerce, Midwestern State, Lamar, West Texas A&M all could use a pro stadium or they have the stadium or a stadium close enough to be FBS.

So I've been reading your stuff for a longtime and I've come to the conclusion that you either A) are talking wildly out of your you know what or B) you have Aspergers of some sort. There is no way in Hades that Cal State East Bay (it's not East Bay State dude) or Cal State LA are bringing back football, ever! Not with the Cal-NOW requirements. You have no clue.

As it is, the California schools are losing students going to other states that have football. They want to keep the instate schools in California. The only way to do that is that several California schools to add football. Several Big West schools and some D2 schools are thinking about it. East Bay State was one that I saw an outline plan that was online what it would take to restart football.

If you haven't noticed and you haven't, all the public schools in CA in both the UC and CSU systems have rising enrollment. You only see what you want to see. Delusional you are!

The UofA gets thousands of CA students but it is safe to say they come here for reasons other than football...
I think most 18 to 20 year olds would rather crash their car while playing Pokeman Go than attend a football game...
The Uof A took away a complete section from the students a couple of years ago who were not going to games plus they started bribing students to attend with fourth quarter drawings for cash, xboxes, big screens, etc...

(07-31-2016 11:29 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Ain't no such thing as FB-only in the P5.

And Boise has no history with a California DI-AAA conference.

Boise State was a former Big West member when Big West sponsored football.

Former Big West members.
Boise State
Fresno State
Cal. State- Los Angeles
Idaho
UNLV
UNR
New Mexico State
North Texas
San Diego State
San Jose State
Utah State
Pacific

Schools that had football in Big West:
Boise State
Cal-Santa Barbara
Cal. State- Los Angeles
Pacific
Fresno State
San Jose State
San Diego State
Long Beach State
Fullerton State
Utah State
UNLV
New Mexico State
UNR
La. Tech
Northern Illinois
La.-Lafayette
Arkansas State
North Texas
Idaho


Boise State did have history with the Big West schools except for the new ones like Cal. Poly and Cal.-Davis.

(07-30-2016 11:56 AM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-30-2016 02:49 AM)00yyz Wrote:  

(07-30-2016 12:29 AM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-29-2016 11:37 AM)jacksfan29 Wrote:  

(07-28-2016 09:52 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Did the Big Ten talk expansion after they added Maryland and Rutgers? No. They talked divisions.

A commish never talks expansion when they already have that team. They talk divisions. This board knows that, but NDSU, SDSU, and Idaho posters are speaking a different language because they want to badly disprove what I have said.

The XDSU's posters passionately hate the idea of Big Sky expansion and the Idaho posters disbelieve it.

When Wichita St goes to a different FBS conference than the WAC, that will prove me wrong. There are no obvious expansion candidate for the Big Sky in the west. The only ones that are possible are in the Central Time Zone. Commish Williams expansion comments were not followed up in the least because most of the Big Sky reporters are clueless.

Right now Egriz is talking about the MWC taking them. They have to be FBS first.

http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic...3&start=25

The egriz discussion seems to not fit your description.

The BSC reporters are clueless and that's the reason your magical dream hasn't been exposed? Is that why you can't provide a link? I guess we all need to read between the lines.

Oh, and she is talking divisions. Split geographically or through a seeding process providing for more fair, and better competition. Her intent is to have such divisions in place when Idaho begins play.

It's plainly obvious you have an agenda and that you think through emotions not logic and disregard what is actually in print.

In the Idaho State Journal, Williams specifically talked about expansion separate from scheduling. That can't sink into your noggin because you are petrified of the idaho contractors report, which said USD could go FBS. That's your worst nightmare and you won't admit it.

She also said there is no maximum number that they are looking at. That plainly means expansion is being considered but still denial and de-Nile come from you.

Get SDSU to offer FCOA like USD did and drop some of your bloated sports like swimming and baseball, which are in pathetic facilities anyway with a 25 m pool, to afford FBS. You already have equestrian, which counts many female manure haulers, so Title IX should not be an issue.

Do you have any inside info??
Or are you basing it solely on Williams statement and the Idaho report??

Because that Idaho report also said NAU was a perspective team to join an FBS WAC and that aint happening...
In 2012 NAU spent 26 million to remodel the football facility and they reduced capicity from 15k to 10k at that time let alone the fact that their budget is over 80% subsudies right now...

Our former women's bball coach said on his retirement that UND would be in the WAC before the decades is over several years ago. We also have a football alum who made a fortune developing gold mines who is rumored to be donating a major remodel to the stadium on campus. Our master plan for athletic facilities show that stadium to be domed.

NAU was used because they didn't want to name any Southland or MVFC teams but USD. Naming USD is interesting as it really enraged the XDSU trolls, as they have shown here.

Nope, not enraged. Just find almost every one of your posts to be laughable. It is now August 1, you still around?

FCOA? We are offering it in Men's and Women's BB and will begin FB next year. We don't just jump around in a panic following NDSU. We wait to have our funding in place, than we announce. It is how we have upgraded our athletic facilities to the extent we have. I'm pretty happy being where we are, and am happy with our success in the short time since our transition to D1. As our AD obviously told the Idaho Consultants, we have a plan and the WAC and BSC are not part of the plan.

The only way USD goes to the WAC would be for Olympic only and would only happen if the Summit implodes with the loss of both SDSU and NDSU. SDSU moving? Obviously not to the WAC or BSC. The only place SDSU would go is to the MVC for Olympic sports. A fantasy? Maybe. But not so far fetched when you realize our Women's BB program would immediately be #1 in the conference and our Men's BB would be top 4.

Here is the link to the Idaho story you are hanging your hat on. Since you won't post it I figured I would take care of it for you. The only way you can get to the place your at in her comments is by reading between the lines in an effort to move forward your strange agenda.

http://idahostatejournal.com/members/isu...20822.html

August is here... tick tick tick