CSNbbs

Sheesh, I just left a different stadium dick-measuring thread. I didn't mean to start another one.

If a conference had basically half it's schools in the Northwest. And half of it's schools in the Western upper edge of the Midwest. Why would that be a Midwestern conference?
Why couldn't the group keep the football only schools in California? Assuming it would be a new Summit football with non football teams in the Summit like Denver.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Why join?

Where is the revenue?

What playoff edge is there? The MVFC and Big Sky send more schools to the playoffs than anyone. Why fix what is working?

That UND only picked up a handful of NW and Cali kids after several years in the Big Sky shows the lack of value fo them to the BSC or the BSC to them.

And the bogus Dakota claim that Montana is like them is exploded when you look at their rosters and student bodies, which reveals their strong similarities to schools in Arizona, Utah, Washington and Oregon, even Colorado, but not at all similar to those of the Dakota schools.

This is nonsense. Why would the Montana schools want to break with their half century long rivals and their recruiting base for over half their athletes and almost all their out of state students (and growing regions I might add) for the stagnant pool of the upper Great Plains and upper Midwest, to play schools hundreds of miles farther away that nobody on campus cares about and nobody on campus comes from?

All this goes back to two strange things. NoDak's earnest desire to reclassify North Dakota as Western and not (Great Plains) Midwestern -- never mind the overwhelming evidence of the tight bonding of the population and student bodies to Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa -- and this fixation of his to have his school be a shoe string budget FBS power.

Time for this thread to die. I propose a rule. No threads about Big Sky or other Western conferences may be started by people who are from the Central or Eastern time zones (excepting those from a school in Austin Texas).

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.

(06-20-2017 01:22 AM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ]Backing up SDHornet:

Montana Football roster has

34 Montana, 5 Idaho,
13 Washington, 8 Oregon
20 California, 7 Arizona, 3 Colorado players

They also have 5 from Oklahoma, 5 from elsewhere (Texas, Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Tennessee)
// Oklahoma looks like a fluke influx of walk ons

After local kids from Montana and Idaho (39), the recruiting breaks down to 21 from the NW, 20 from CA, 10 from Southwest, 10 from elsewhere .

Nobody is from the Midwest region covered by the MVFC and SUmmit (save Denver and ORU)

For Northern Arizona
38 Arizona, 37 California, 7 other West (2 Utah, 2 Nevada, Colorado, Idaho, Oregon), 3 other (Germany, Texas, WV)

For Weber State
44 Utah, 17 California, Idaho 7, 3 Nevada, 2 Colorado, 2 Arizona, 2 Washington, 3 other (Texas, Virginia, Minnesota)

For Idaho State
29 Idaho, 20 Washington, 19 California, 4 Utah, 1 Nevada, 1 Oregon, 7 other (2 Georgia, Florida, .. 2 BYU transfers)


I think that is a good enough sampling. California is critical for the rosters of all the schools, and also for general students. What is interesting is well over 90% of the athletes are from the West. There South seems to be where many of the odd ones come from. But there is absolutely no cross pollination with the Midwest or Great Plains. These schools have almost zero contact with that region.

Now let's look at North Dakota's roster

26 Minnesota, 12 North Dakota, 11 Wisconsin, 5 Illinois, 3 Missouri, 2 Indiana, 1 Nebraska, 1 Michigan, 3 Canada
6 South (Alabama, Florida, Maryland, Louisiana, Texas), 1 other (Sweden)
4 Colorado, 3 California, 2 Washington

The impact of the Big Sky can be seen in the 9 Western players (4 are Colorado which is something of a 'tweener). But that is minimal, will likely vanish in MVFC.

There is barely a trace of overlap between UND and the Big Sky schools. No similarity in make up of the teams. The Big Sky circulates around Washington and California recruits. UND focuses on Minnesota, Wisconsin, and other Midwestern states.

Thanks for doing the work.
Montana doesn't have many Arizona or Oregon or Utah kids.
Basically the BSC schools have local 50% California 50% with a few exceptions.
The Dakota schools have mostly Dakota /Wisconsin/Minnesota.
There is no trips to Minnesota or Wisconsin shouldn't they have a bunch of Illinois kids Ohio kids.


Looks like the perfect set up for recruiting for these schools would be .
East- Dakota four Denver and UNC
West -Idaho, EWU, Montana, MSU, Portland St, and Seattle.
Add UC-Davis and Cal-Poly football only they fit the higher academics.
As far as Minnesota and Wisconsin the Dakota's are those FCS level players choice now.
NDSU, Montana, Idaho, SDSU, Montana St are all good draws in FCS. And if they wanted to could form a MAC/SBC type conference with less % of subsidies.
The other schools would be a draw for one or more rivals or bring a market in Seattle and Denver also easy travel.

(06-20-2017 11:50 AM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ]And the bogus Dakota claim that Montana is like them is exploded when you look at their rosters and student bodies, which reveals their strong similarities to schools in Arizona, Utah, Washington and Oregon, even Colorado, but not at all similar to those of the Dakota schools.

I'm not backing NoDak's idea, it won't happen. But I'm pretty sure the "Dakota claim that Montana is like them" has more to do with the schools all being larger state schools, designated as Flagship (UM, USD, UND) or Land Grant (MSU, SDSU, NDSU). It is still about academics once you step into a President's office.

One of the biggest ******* I hear out of Missoula is that larger state schools who left the BSC to move up were replaced by glorified community college/commuter schools.

(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.

(06-20-2017 02:07 PM)jacksfan29 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-20-2017 11:50 AM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ]And the bogus Dakota claim that Montana is like them is exploded when you look at their rosters and student bodies, which reveals their strong similarities to schools in Arizona, Utah, Washington and Oregon, even Colorado, but not at all similar to those of the Dakota schools.

I'm not backing NoDak's idea, it won't happen. But I'm pretty sure the "Dakota claim that Montana is like them" has more to do with the schools all being larger state schools, designated as Flagship (UM, USD, UND) or Land Grant (MSU, SDSU, NDSU). It is still about academics once you step into a President's office.

One of the biggest ******* I hear out of Missoula is that larger state schools who left the BSC to move up were replaced by glorified community college/commuter schools.

Big Sky has lost (not counting Idaho, since they are coming back) FOUR schools before NoDakota left:

1) Nevada - Flagship
2) Boise State - Glorified Community College (used to be one) & Commuter School
3) Cal State - Northridge - Commuter School.
4) Gonzaga, but that was almost 40 years ago.

The eGriz whiners believe they should be in the Pac 12 or MWC at minimum. Teh Dakotas won't make them happy. And teh whiners on eGriz are a vocal, but tiny minority.

(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.

Actually it does. With so few FCS western programs those schools were added to the big sky out of fear they may close football down, as so many other Cali schools have over the years, if they had no conference to play in. Big Sky teams did not want to lose those OOC fcs games in the west with few other western options to play in prime recruiting grounds and thus the big sky invited them in. yea there was a benefit

There is no requirement to play where you recruit. The idea is make believe.

(06-21-2017 03:36 PM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]There is no requirement to play where you recruit. The idea is make believe.

Requirement????? of course not. But to your advantage and preferred then yes it is

You can believe whatever you want to believe. I can't prove otherwise.

I simply don't believe that Montana's get any advantage in recruiting, whatsoever, by playing conference football or basketball games in Portland or Sacramento.

In other words, I don't believe a single football or basketball player on any Montana's roster that chose to come to that school and play there did so only because they were playing games in Portland and Sacramento.

(06-21-2017 03:48 PM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]You can believe whatever you want to believe. I can't prove otherwise.

I simply don't believe that Montana's get any advantage in recruiting, whatsoever, by playing conference football or basketball games in Portland or Sacramento.

In other words, I don't believe a single football or basketball player on any Montana's roster that chose to come to that school and play there did so only because they were playing games in Portland and Sacramento.

And I believe you are totally wrong. Games are on Root Northwest so everyone in the region gets it on basic TV package and mom and dad can see the game. recruiting coaches make contact and prospects in the area come watch the game and meet a recruiting coordinator to see the style of play, etc etc. Can save a lot of money in the recruiting budget and help build pipelines into the local high schools in an area where most of UM and many of MSU alumni go to live

The games would be on Root NW even if Portland St wasn't in the league. That just proves my point ...

It doesn't save money to send a whole team vs sending an asset coach out here for a week. Quite a bit more money actually.

(06-21-2017 06:12 PM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]The games would be on Root NW even if Portland St wasn't in the league. That just proves my point ...

It doesn't save money to send a whole team vs sending an asset coach out here for a week. Quite a bit more money actually.

Kills two birds with one stone. Look Talk to a recruiting coordinator and get back if there is an advantage in playing in your recruiting grounds. He will say yes there is


And no Root NW would not televise a UM versus pick a midwest team game on the road and that proves my point.

You're moving the goalposts now. No one said anything about including Midwest teams in the Big Sky. Please don't conflate NoDak's fantasies with me.

And obviously a non-conf away game won't be shown on the conference TV package. Apples to watermelons.


What actually matters: ask any Oregon or Calif player on Montana's rosters if they only chose the school because of possible road games at Port St and Sac St. Answer: nope. That proves my point.

(06-22-2017 09:41 AM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]You're moving the goalposts now. No one said anything about including Midwest teams in the Big Sky. Please don't conflate NoDak's fantasies with me.

And obviously a non-conf away game won't be shown on the conference TV package. Apples to watermelons.


What actually matters: ask any Oregon or Calif player on Montana's rosters if they only chose the school because of possible road games at Port St and Sac St. Answer: nope. That proves my point.

The only reason? Probably not. Does it help? Sure.

That's not the question, though.

The question is: if there were no possible road games at Port St and Sac St, would you have not chosen Montana's? Again, answer: the decision would be the same.

They came to Montana's because both are great schools, in great college towns, with great fan support (relative, of course), that fund their programs well and want to win.

(06-22-2017 10:06 AM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]That's not the question, though.

The question is: if there were no possible road games at Port St and Sac St, would you have not chosen Montana's? Again, answer: the decision would be the same.

Let me ask every recruit from those areas. If 100% say it wasn't a factor. Then you are correct.

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?