Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Who should the Big Sky try to get for twelve.
Author Message
Fighting Muskie Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 527
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 20
I Root For: Ohio St, MAC
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Who should the Big Sky try to get for twelve.
Regarding the OP, I actually think it's smarter to stay put and see if Northern Colorado or someone else moves out so they can stabilize at the much more managable 10 member league. Waiting also gives them a chance to let NMSU in if they decide to drop to FCS down the road.
06-17-2017 09:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chargeradio Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,495
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 63
I Root For: ALA, KY, USA
Location: Louisville, KY
Post: #32
RE: Who should the Big Sky try to get for twelve.
For the 2016-17 academic year, the Big Sky has 12 members, 11 of whom play football in the conference (no Idaho), plus two football-only members (UC Davis and Cal Poly).

For the 2017-18 academic year, the Big Sky will have 11 members, 10 of whom play football in the conference (again no Idaho), plus three football-only members (UC Davis, Cal Poly, and North Dakota).

For the 2018-19 and 2019-20 academic years, the Big Sky will have 11 members, all of whom play football in the conference, plus three football-only members (UC Davis, Cal Poly, and North Dakota).

Starting July 1, 2020, the Big Sky will have 11 members, all of whom play football in the conference, plus two football-only members (UC Davis and Cal Poly).
06-17-2017 10:01 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,017
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 42
I Root For: tOSU SJSU
Location:
Post: #33
RE: Who should the Big Sky try to get for twelve.
Correction to chargeradio dates (in bold):

For the 2016-17 and academic year, the Big Sky had 12 members, 11 of whom play football in the conference (no Idaho), plus two football-only members (UC Davis and Cal Poly).

For the 2017-18 academic year, the Big Sky will have 12 members, 11 of whom play football in the conference (again no Idaho), plus two football-only members (UC Davis and Cal Poly).

For the 2018-19 and 2019-20 academic years, the Big Sky will have 11 members, all of whom play football in the conference, plus three football-only members (UC Davis, Cal Poly, and North Dakota).

Starting July 1, 2020, the Big Sky will have 11 members, all of whom play football in the conference, plus two football-only members (UC Davis and Cal Poly).


North Dakota joins the Summit July 1st 2018, and on July 1st 2020 they will join the MVFC
06-17-2017 11:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TOPSTRAIGHT Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,061
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 40
I Root For: WKU
Location: Glasgow,KY.
Post: #34
RE: Who should the Big Sky try to get for twelve.
How does Idaho fit these timelines in football?
06-17-2017 11:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MJG Online
1st String
*

Posts: 2,217
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 27
I Root For: U I , UMich, SC
Location: Myrtle Beach
Post: #35
RE: Who should the Big Sky try to get for twelve.
I know UND is not gone yet.
Who should the Big Sky pursue it takes time. Do you think waiting until after UND is out then looking for a twelfth member makes sense? If your the Big Sky commissioner and want twelve I think NMSU is your best outcome. Doesn't mean it will happen.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app
06-17-2017 11:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stugray2 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,017
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 42
I Root For: tOSU SJSU
Location:
Post: #36
RE: Who should the Big Sky try to get for twelve.
Idaho Football joins in the 2018 season

They will play one final year in the SBC in 2017 then drop to FCS.
06-17-2017 11:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lopes87 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 217
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 3
I Root For: GCU
Location:
Post: #37
RE: Who should the Big Sky try to get for twelve.
(06-17-2017 08:15 PM)NoDak Wrote:  
(06-17-2017 07:12 PM)Lopes87 Wrote:  
(06-17-2017 04:30 PM)NoDak Wrote:  
(06-17-2017 03:21 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(06-17-2017 02:19 PM)luvyosef Wrote:  Maybe Central Washington steps up? Does anyone know if Western Washington ever plans to bring football back? Is Western Oregon interested in D1?


Big Sky and the WAC should save the GNAC football group by given them a home in D1.
Simon Fraser
Central Washington
Western Oregon
Azusa Pacific
Humboldt State

As for Western Washington? The rumor was they dropped football so that they can save money for them to go D1, and maybe re-add the sport in the future.

Western Washington has similar politics to Evergreen St, meaning both have no chance at starting football, unless there were football teams for males, females and transgender.

The other side of the Cascades yields totally different students, but they have no money. C Washington doesn't have a chance at DI unless a sugar daddy stepped up.


I have family that work Washington State and they have heard that CWU plans to expand enrollment up to 20-25k between 2020-2025. WSU is skeptical but who knows. They could jump and be a Big Sky lifer.
CWU only has an $18 million endowment. But anything is possible. Remember when E Washington moved up and there were many doubters.

Evergreen St is distingrating so fast, CWU will have to take up the slack. Heard that an Ellensburg lawmaker wants to defund Evergreen - it makes sense for his district.

Evergreen St needs to be turned into a UW/WSU branch campus that keeps its athletics in the NAIA like they do now or D3. I think in the last 3 weeks the Campus has been shut down 3 or 4 time due to threats and other unsafe measures.
06-17-2017 11:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SDHornet Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 185
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 2
I Root For: Sac State
Location:
Post: #38
RE: Who should the Big Sky try to get for twelve.
I agree with Stu in that the BSC is in no hurry to backfill to 12. The schools in the WAC that fit the geographic profile don't have the right sports mix, and I don't think the BSC wants to take in another D2 move up (if there are any considering moving up).

UND was a good add. They would have been a great add if they were 500 miles closer. Their addition would have been more than tolerable had USD stuck to their guns and joined the BSC with them. I thought the Idaho add alleviated some of the logistical issues. Oh well, UND to the Summit is a no brainer move especially given their budget slashing situation.
06-18-2017 01:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,532
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 179
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #39
RE: Who should the Big Sky try to get for twelve.
(06-17-2017 01:17 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  I would love for Sac State to have our Olys in the WAC...or BW. Either spot would be much better than the BSC.

(06-17-2017 02:12 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The most likely "expansion" moves of the Big Sky are seeing Portland State to the door if they cannot keep football (hello WAC), or watching Sac State switch Olympics to the Big West as the 12th there (this requires UC San Diego and Cal State Bakersfield to join as a pair first).

Sac St and Portland St were part of the failed experiment to add Pacific schools from markets, along with long departed CSU Northridge (in Big West now). I'd like both to leave the Big Sky. Both can remain football affiliates, as long as needed. Both can either join the WAC, or Sac St can join the Big West. That's what I want to see.

That would give four decent sets of geographic pairs (EW-Idaho, Montanas, ID St-Weber St, N AZ-S UT) plus an outlier in N CO. I'd take N CO in the Summit in a second, if that were a thing. Though it could also look at joining the WAC with Big Sky football affiliation.


(06-17-2017 11:46 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Idaho Football joins in the 2018 season

They will play one final year in the SBC in 2017 then drop to FCS.

That's the working theory.

It's never too late for the right thing to be done ...
06-18-2017 09:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MJG Online
1st String
*

Posts: 2,217
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 27
I Root For: U I , UMich, SC
Location: Myrtle Beach
Post: #40
RE: Who should the Big Sky try to get for twelve.
I like to look at how scenarios can happen for example eight like maplebison wrote.

The Big Sky commissioner has mentioned splitting football into two conferences.
That could conceivably give Sac St, Portland St, and Northern Colorado freedom to leave.
place the Six BSC programs closest to The Montana's and longest members on average in one FCS conference.
Place PSU, Sac St, UNC, UC-Davis, Cal-Poly,NAU and SUU in a confernce WACFC.
That would give a school like Sacramento St freedom to join the WAC or Big West.

Not sure if eight is an ideal number with basketball games hard to schedule.
One move leads to another so realignment is impossible to predict a hundred percent.
If CSU and UMKC leave the WAC adding PSU and Sac St saves everyone travel.
Two nine-team conferences two FCS conferences lower travel cost.
These two could work out some scheduling arrangement playing travel partners in the other conference for more home games.
For example, play your sixteen game conference schedule then two pairs of travel partners in the other conference. Gives teams ten home games to start with without sharing more conference revenue.
06-18-2017 12:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.