They haven't in this thread, on this point. In other threads, I've admitted when I've been shown to be wrong.

"I talked to a Montana recruiting coordinator one time ..." doesn't prove anything.

(07-04-2017 01:30 AM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 06:58 PM)billings Wrote:  

(07-03-2017 04:15 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-02-2017 10:52 AM)SDHornet Wrote:  First the weak one about BSC not seeing value playing in front of CA recruits

The Big Sky was founded in 1963 and didn't add Sac St and Cal St Northridge until 1996.

It recruited plenty of Calif players before those two were added, didn't increase the number of Calif players it got from near Sac and the Valley (when CSUN was in the conference) during, and will continue to recruit Calif players just fine after both are gone.

(07-02-2017 10:52 AM)SDHornet Wrote:  trying to pin it on Sac State admin for not executing on a non-existent BSC FB only deal.

I said no such thing, in fact I said that the Big Sky never offered Sac St a football-only deal.

Show me the numbers. Again talk to any recruiting coordinator and ask them if it helps recruiting to play in the area where you are recruiting. go ahead ask one. It is not a magic bullet but it helps and can be a tie breaker for some athletes. Playing in front of your alumni base on the road is also huge.

Exactly. If it wasn't a big deal, Sac State would have been offered a FB only deal to reduce travel costs for all of the BSC long ago.

There is a reason Montana and WSU have made sure they "have to" travel to Sac for MBB every year since the unbalanced BSC scheduling was implemented...and it ain't to enjoy the warm confines of the Nest.

Sorry, but if I were recruiting for Montana or Weber I would not have a kid come watch in Sacramento. I would bring them to Utah and Montana. How Sacramento are able to get anyone to come play at your school in that joke is a mystery to me. Most high school gyms in California are bigger and nicer then the "nest".