(06-22-2017 10:53 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Falsely worded.

Again, if you ask them would that lone factor have prevented them from coming to Montana -- completely different question -- then you'll get the correct answer.


Frankly, why would you want a player from Oregon or Calif who will only come to Montana because he'll get to play on Portland St or Sac St's field maybe two or three times????? What about playing on Montana's field? Shouldn't that be what matters?

You know why it matters for the kid from Oakland who goes to Montana? So their family can see them play closer to home every other year or in the case of hoops, once a year. That's why it matters. You have no flippin clue HOW large the Western US is in terms of travel and how spread out we are. I've watched your know-it-all attitude for years on this board. You're nothing but a s*#! stirrer!!!

(06-22-2017 10:53 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Falsely worded.

Again, if you ask them would that lone factor have prevented them from coming to Montana -- completely different question -- then you'll get the correct answer.


Frankly, why would you want a player from Oregon or Calif who will only come to Montana because he'll get to play on Portland St or Sac St's field maybe two or three times????? What about playing on Montana's field? Shouldn't that be what matters?

If all else is equal between two schools except for one school plays in Cali and the other does not. Then yes.

(06-22-2017 10:58 AM)SactoHornetAlum Wrote:  You know why it matters for the kid from Oakland who goes to Montana? So their family can see them play closer to home every other year or in the case of hoops, once a year. That's why it matters.

You're implying that a kid with a full ride offer to Montana or Montana St, which no longer includes road games at Portland St and Sac St, would reject those offers for half-rides to Humbolt St and Azuza Pacific?

Bunk

(06-22-2017 11:14 AM)NoQuestion Wrote:  If all else is equal between two schools except for one school plays in Cali and the other does not. Then yes.

There is no such thing as "all else is equal", except between Montana and Montana St. Every other comparison has other factors leak into the discussion.

And since both have exactly the same conference opponents, there is no way to consider your point.

My choices:

1) Boise - regional, long history with Big Sky Schools
2) Nevada - regional, long history with Big Sky Schools
3) San Jose State - travel partner for Sac State, more access to Bay Area Recruiting

(06-22-2017 01:31 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  My choices:

1) Boise - regional, long history with Big Sky Schools
2) Nevada - regional, long history with Big Sky Schools
3) San Jose State - travel partner for Sac State, more access to Bay Area Recruiting

If you're not going to take the thread seriously, why bother posting?

(06-22-2017 01:38 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-22-2017 01:31 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  My choices:

1) Boise - regional, long history with Big Sky Schools
2) Nevada - regional, long history with Big Sky Schools
3) San Jose State - travel partner for Sac State, more access to Bay Area Recruiting

If you're not going to take the thread seriously, why bother posting?

It is as likely to happen as 90% of the posts on here.

Plus - the OP was "Who should the Big Sky try to get"


that's whom I want them to invite

(06-22-2017 02:05 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  It is as likely to happen as 90% of the posts on here.

Ha!

Colorado Mines is a pier to the Montana schools since they are R2. That school does have a long history playing ball with the D1 schools in the west including Montanas. I think they are considered #3 Colorado public school not counting Air Force.

I do see schools from large populated areas could be a target from D2. I do not think they want Dixie State just yet. Could the Big Sky target Azusa Pacific to go along with Sacramento State? They do have football, but not much to choose from D2 California schools since many of them dropped football around the same time the Big West California schools dropped football.

(06-22-2017 05:52 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Colorado Mines is a pier to the Montana schools since they are R2. That school does have a long history playing ball with the D1 schools in the west including Montanas. I think they are considered #3 Colorado public school not counting Air Force.

Mines is not the number 3 school. That would be UC-Denver. Actually it is hard to rank Boulder, UCD and CSU. It depends on the metrics used.

(06-20-2017 12:35 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Our fb coach has made integrity and disciple much higher priorities. Too many Western kids were potheads and who just didn't get with the system, so the Midwest sees much more recruiting. Our previous coach recruited west way more, as western students can participate in near reciprocity with WUE ( Western Undergrad Exchange) so scholarship costs are reduced. The Dakotas are the only Central Time Zone members of WUE. But behold, Midwestern kids are generally much better risk/reward and are winning and on track.

But we get Big Sky athletes that want to transfer to a more straight laced program. Last years starting Sac St QB is one example.

Ugh no, K-Ham left because Jody Sears and staff are complete idiots. Our coaching staff is in their final year of the contract and they are chancing their future on a FBS transfer QB with no in game experience and a JC transfer over a QB that showed potential (but played behind a horrid OL). Sears may as well just pack his sh!t now.

(06-20-2017 02:24 PM)jacksfan29 Wrote:  

(06-19-2017 11:24 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  BSC needs the trips to get in front of Cali recruits. The CA schools won't ever get involuntarily sent elsewhere.

Didn't Sac State just lose a "Cali" recruit to North Dakota? A QB who had been a starter for Sac State?

South Dakota State recruits Arizona pretty hard. Every year we bring in several really good recruits. Impact players. We've now stepped into California and Florida. The stronger FCS schools recruit outside their conference footprint. Maybe Sac State should start. How long has it been since you've had any success? If your good enough the kids will know who you are. This isn't 1985.

Sorry, but having Poly and Davis as FB only members does nothing for the BSC other then give Sac State someone closer to home to play and bringing up the academic stature of the league, for FB only.

See above post, and Sac State recruit outside of CA? That's almost as absurd as a Dakota cabal FBS conference.

(06-22-2017 02:05 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(06-22-2017 01:38 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-22-2017 01:31 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  My choices:

1) Boise - regional, long history with Big Sky Schools
2) Nevada - regional, long history with Big Sky Schools
3) San Jose State - travel partner for Sac State, more access to Bay Area Recruiting

If you're not going to take the thread seriously, why bother posting?

It is as likely to happen as 90% of the posts on here.

(06-22-2017 01:24 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-22-2017 10:58 AM)SactoHornetAlum Wrote:  You know why it matters for the kid from Oakland who goes to Montana? So their family can see them play closer to home every other year or in the case of hoops, once a year. That's why it matters.

You're implying that a kid with a full ride offer to Montana or Montana St, which no longer includes road games at Portland St and Sac St, would reject those offers for half-rides to Humbolt St and Azuza Pacific?

Bunk

That's not what he is saying. He is saying it matters to the friends/fam of athletes from Sac (in this case NorCal) to get a chance to see their kid play a game locally/regionally every so often.

I've been to Hornet games and have met opposing players families that have made the trip to Sac to see their kid play. Down play it all you want but the Montana's (and other BSC members) benefit from getting games in CA...just revisit Stu's roster breakdown if you need more proof. The Montana's ain't going anywhere, and deep down even NoDak knows it.

(06-22-2017 05:52 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Colorado Mines is a pier to the Montana schools since they are R2. That school does have a long history playing ball with the D1 schools in the west including Montanas. I think they are considered #3 Colorado public school not counting Air Force.

I do see schools from large populated areas could be a target from D2. I do not think they want Dixie State just yet. Could the Big Sky target Azusa Pacific to go along with Sacramento State? They do have football, but not much to choose from D2 California schools since many of them dropped football around the same time the Big West California schools dropped football.

A rating does not make them a peer. That long history with D1 schools lasted about 30 years and for the most part ended 80 years ago. Colorado Mines football never played Montana (never a RMAC member) and played Montana State 10 times from 1925 to 1956. Easy to research, try it. Just no to Azusa Pacific and Dixie State.

(06-23-2017 01:27 AM)AZcats Wrote:  

(06-22-2017 05:52 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Colorado Mines is a pier to the Montana schools since they are R2. That school does have a long history playing ball with the D1 schools in the west including Montanas. I think they are considered #3 Colorado public school not counting Air Force.

I do see schools from large populated areas could be a target from D2. I do not think they want Dixie State just yet. Could the Big Sky target Azusa Pacific to go along with Sacramento State? They do have football, but not much to choose from D2 California schools since many of them dropped football around the same time the Big West California schools dropped football.

A rating does not make them a peer. That long history with D1 schools lasted about 30 years and for the most part ended 80 years ago. Colorado Mines football never played Montana (never a RMAC member) and played Montana State 10 times from 1925 to 1956. Easy to research, try it. Just no to Azusa Pacific and Dixie State.

Tell me why I was correct about these schools that I had as rumors on moving up?
Old Dominion, back in 2012-2013, I predicted them to go to C-USA and in a few years, they got invited.
Around the same time period, I said that Appalachian State and Georgia Southern going to the Sun Belt, and boomed, they got invited. Back in 2011 to January of this year, North Alabama will become a D1 school? And they got an invite to join the A-Sun and and Big South.
I also predicted that Utah Valley, Grand Canyon, Cal. State-Bakersfield, Seattle and UTRGV would be invited to the WAC, and they got an invite.

People like you scoffed at me for posting these things, and they come true.

(06-23-2017 12:15 AM)SDHornet Wrote:  That's not what he is saying. He is saying it matters to the friends/fam of athletes from Sac (in this case NorCal) to get a chance to see their kid play a game locally/regionally every so often.

I've been to Hornet games and have met opposing players families that have made the trip to Sac to see their kid play. Down play it all you want but the Montana's (and other BSC members) benefit from getting games in CA...just revisit Stu's roster breakdown if you need more proof. The Montana's ain't going anywhere, and deep down even NoDak knows it.

First of all ... please, please, please, do not associate me with NoDak's agenda. That's not my game, at all.

As far as Montana/MSU playing games in California: at best, it's a "nice to have", for California players on those rosters. It does not play a role in those player's decisions to come to the Montana schools, however. They choose to go to the Montana schools because that's the best opportunity they have. Parents are not going to prevent their kids from going to the best situation possible, simply so they can drive to one game every year or two years.

Those players would each make the exact same decision, if Sac St, UC Davis, and Cal Poly were not in the Big Sky.

(06-23-2017 07:55 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(06-23-2017 12:15 AM)SDHornet Wrote:  That's not what he is saying. He is saying it matters to the friends/fam of athletes from Sac (in this case NorCal) to get a chance to see their kid play a game locally/regionally every so often.

I've been to Hornet games and have met opposing players families that have made the trip to Sac to see their kid play. Down play it all you want but the Montana's (and other BSC members) benefit from getting games in CA...just revisit Stu's roster breakdown if you need more proof. The Montana's ain't going anywhere, and deep down even NoDak knows it.

First of all ... please, please, please, do not associate me with NoDak's agenda. That's not my game, at all.

As far as Montana/MSU playing games in California: at best, it's a "nice to have", for California players on those rosters. It does not play a role in those player's decisions to come to the Montana schools, however. They choose to go to the Montana schools because that's the best opportunity they have. Parents are not going to prevent their kids from going to the best situation possible, simply so they can drive to one game every year or two years.

Those players would each make the exact same decision, if Sac St, UC Davis, and Cal Poly were not in the Big Sky.

Wasn't pinning you with that Dakota FBS idea, I just like poking fun at it because it is so absurd.

If the BSC didn't see value in keeping our Oly's they would have given us an FB only membership option when CP and davis were brought on. The BSC didn't and that alone tells you how much they value getting games in CA and its recruits.

(06-23-2017 10:12 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  If the BSC didn't see value in keeping our Oly's they would have given us an FB only membership option when CP and davis were brought on. The BSC didn't and that alone tells you how much they value getting games in CA and its recruits.

You're assuming that Sac St desired such an option and would have taken it. Not true at all, even though it should be true.

Sac St, somehow, sees Big Sky full membership as a positive/beneficial differentiator for itself from the Big West schools. While it obviously is a differentiator ... it really stops there.

(06-23-2017 03:25 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(06-23-2017 01:27 AM)AZcats Wrote:  

(06-22-2017 05:52 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Colorado Mines is a pier to the Montana schools since they are R2. That school does have a long history playing ball with the D1 schools in the west including Montanas. I think they are considered #3 Colorado public school not counting Air Force.

I do see schools from large populated areas could be a target from D2. I do not think they want Dixie State just yet. Could the Big Sky target Azusa Pacific to go along with Sacramento State? They do have football, but not much to choose from D2 California schools since many of them dropped football around the same time the Big West California schools dropped football.

A rating does not make them a peer. That long history with D1 schools lasted about 30 years and for the most part ended 80 years ago. Colorado Mines football never played Montana (never a RMAC member) and played Montana State 10 times from 1925 to 1956. Easy to research, try it. Just no to Azusa Pacific and Dixie State.

Tell me why I was correct about these schools that I had as rumors on moving up?
Old Dominion, back in 2012-2013, I predicted them to go to C-USA and in a few years, they got invited.
Around the same time period, I said that Appalachian State and Georgia Southern going to the Sun Belt, and boomed, they got invited. Back in 2011 to January of this year, North Alabama will become a D1 school? And they got an invite to join the A-Sun and and Big South.
I also predicted that Utah Valley, Grand Canyon, Cal. State-Bakersfield, Seattle and UTRGV would be invited to the WAC, and they got an invite.

People like you scoffed at me for posting these things, and they come true.

You really believe you made those "predictions"? The Sun Belt and Georgia Southern have had occasional discussions since 1990. North Alabama had been hinting at a D1 move well before the Arkie schools began talks to leave the Gulf South. The WAC was in survival mode at the time and was taking everyone. You make so many "predictions" a blind man will hit the target once in a while.

Why would the Big Sky want to expand? They get almost no TV money, football brings some money, and men's basketball is 1-bid usually 1-and-done so not much money there either. Baseball is the second biggest money-maker for the NCAA but the Big Sky does not sponsor the sport. After North Dakota leaves, there will still be 11 members being supported by limited revenue sources. Why would they want to split the revenue with more members?

What is the benefit for Azusa Pacific and Dixie State to move up? Whatever D1 conference they might join they will also have to find another conference for some sports, which is an additional cost. What's to guarantee that the Big Sky would take on these schools as football affiliates if they join another conference. Where do the APU and DSU baseball, men's soccer, and women's swimming teams go if they join the Big Sky. When Dixie State joins the RMAC in 2018, they will have all sports in one conference for the first time.

And, nice job ignoring that facts disproved another statement by you about a D2 school.