(12-02-2017 12:12 AM)NoDak Wrote:  Idaho moved from the WAC to the Big Sky to be with the Montana's and EWU when they could have stayed in the WAC and been Seattle's travel partner. That move wasn't about the Big Sky but about a subset of it they need to associate with.

EWU is desperately trying to raise funds for an FBS minimum stadium. That tells me a lot.

All of the football schools have taken steps in which FBS is more probable, except Idaho of course but associating with the Montana's and EWU again will make FBS more financially viable.

Idaho moved to the Big Sky because the WAC looked (and still looks) in danger of imminent collapse, and in order to associate with the Montanas. I'm sure the identity of their travel partner had nothing to do with it. Travel partners are for the convenience of the other members of a conference, not the travel partners themselves.

And nobody at EWU is desperately doing anything. They hired a consultant to help figure out if they're even capable of raising money to do any facility improvements at all. Last relevant article: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/ma...ing-prosp/

Relevant passage:

Five years ago, Eastern announced plans for the Gateway Project, a multi-use facility that failed to get off the ground for lack of donors.

Four years later, Cullinan gave athletic director Bill Chaves an open-ended directive to “explore options” regarding improvements to Roos Field.

However, since taking office in 2014, Cullinan has offered no comments either for or against any improvements or renovations. Neither has the Board of Regents, the university’s governing body.

Smits will begin work on May 30. An assessment phase is expected to last four months, and will include interviews with more than 30 people on campus. The second phase, implementation of recommendations from the assessment will take eight months.

What part of that screams "desperately trying to raise funds for an FBS minimum stadium"?