With 24 playoff spots for multiple Big Sky teams make it each year.
The Big Sky splitting into two divisions helps with rivalries.
They seriously considered it but UND made the split hard splitting up established rivals .
Big Sky schools already schedule each other out of conference as is.
Splitting into divisions would guarantee you play the closest six schools.
Probably still play three from the other division a lot of years with more control.
Two schools get to claim a conference championship is a plus .
Both conferences run out of BSC office PLUTO for all games.

Letting Dixie St play Big Sky football isn't a terrible idea:

North: Portland St, E Wash, Idaho, Idaho St, Montana, Montana St, Weber St
South: S Utah, Dixie St, NAU, UNC, Sac St, UC Davis, Cal Poly

Then again, the NCAA might have a problem with conferences with 14 members declaring themselves to actually be 2 for autobid purposes.

If Dixie State could add more seating to their stadium? They could go past Southern Utah to join the FBS ranks. Tarleton State and UTRGV could get a stadium or add onto their stadium to be FBS ready. West Texas A&M could still use the city stadium to be FBS in the future. That would be 5 including New Mexico State to be FBS. Would Idaho jump ship to go back to the WAC to be FBS again? You can also grab Lamar, Sam Houston State and SFA as well since they all want or thinking of going FBS. Southland fans were not happy that Houston Baptist, Incarnate Word and Abilene Christian were added which they think those schools watered down the strength of the conference.

The Dixie St addition helps sure up the WAC in the event of a defection and makes Chicago St more expendable.

I think Dixie St FCS Independent football also opens the door for others to follow in a scheduling alliance pseudo-league like the Great West was. WAC FCS football schools could potentially play in season home and homes to ease scheduling. Dixie St used to do that type of thing when their football was in the GNAC. APU and CWU are also familiar with this as well.

(01-10-2019 08:09 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Letting Dixie St play Big Sky football isn't a terrible idea:

North:
Portland St, E Wash, Idaho, Idaho St, Montana, Montana St, Weber St

South:
S Utah, Dixie St, NAU, UNC, Sac St, UC Davis, Cal Poly

Then again, the NCAA might have a problem with conferences with 14 members declaring themselves to actually be 2 for autobid purposes.

I agree with the BSC North / BSC South division groupings...if the NCAA declares 2 autobids then maybe an actual split could be at hand...

Southern UT (BSC)
Dixie St (WAC)
Northern AZ (BSC)
Northern CO (BSC)
Sacramento St (BWC)
UC Davis (BWC)
Cal Poly (BWC)

...could have different options w/autobid...

*Warning may be DavidSt-esque...

Options:
BSC South ===> 7
BSC South (7) ===> Great West FC (FCS)...
BSC South ===> Western Athletic FC (FCS)...
BSC South ===> Big West FC (FCS)...

(01-10-2019 11:03 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The Dixie St addition helps sure up the WAC in the event of a defection and makes Chicago St more expendable.

I think Dixie St FCS Independent football also opens the door for others to follow in a scheduling alliance pseudo-league like the Great West was. WAC FCS football schools could potentially play in season home and homes to ease scheduling. Dixie St used to do that type of thing when their football was in the GNAC. APU and CWU are also familiar with this as well.

(A reading from the Book of DavidSt)
Potential Options:
Simon Fraser ===> BSC North...
Central Wash ===> BSC North...
Azusa Pacific ===> BSC South...
San Diego ===> BSC South...

BSC North = 9
BSC South = 9

(01-09-2019 01:44 PM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 01:32 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Hmmm... I wonder if S. Utah would be interested in the WAC now?

That's what I was thinking.


Sac State
Tarleton
Dixie
AP
RGV
SUU
NMSU

is a nice nucleus for 2022 WAC

Grab independents UMASS and Liberty for FB only. That would provide 9 for FB with an 8 game conference schedule. The long distance schools could play four games regionally and four of eight conference games on the road with four home conference games. Doubt independents ND, BYU, and Army would be interested though.

(01-09-2019 02:23 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 02:17 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 01:32 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Hmmm... I wonder if S. Utah would be interested in the WAC now?

That would be a no.

I checked the Big Sky ByLaws. There is no provision to end associate football membership. Cal Poly and UC Davis can remain football members as long as they want, they cannot be kicked out. And nobody wants to leave the Big Sky for the WAC, nobody.

One thing I found interesting in the article is that UMKC is actively trying to exit the WAC due to travel costs. I wonder what Dixie State heard that makes that likely. There doesn't seem to be any indication the Summit wants them back.

you sure no one wants to leave the Big Sky for the WAC? Sacramento State would have another in-state member to play with. Larger markets than in the Big Sky. Higher conference prestige.

Markets? Lol. Higher Prestige? LMAO

(01-10-2019 12:41 PM)panite Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 01:44 PM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 01:32 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Hmmm... I wonder if S. Utah would be interested in the WAC now?

That's what I was thinking.


Sac State
Tarleton
Dixie
AP
RGV
SUU
NMSU

is a nice nucleus for 2022 WAC

Grab independents UMASS and Liberty for FB only. That would provide 9 for FB with an 8 game conference schedule. The long distance schools could play four games regionally and four of eight conference games on the road with four home conference games. Doubt independents ND, BYU, and Army would be interested though.

FCS Independents and FBS independents are apples and oranges.

(01-10-2019 12:34 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 08:09 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Letting Dixie St play Big Sky football isn't a terrible idea:

North:
Portland St, E Wash, Idaho, Idaho St, Montana, Montana St, Weber St

South:
S Utah, Dixie St, NAU, UNC, Sac St, UC Davis, Cal Poly

Then again, the NCAA might have a problem with conferences with 14 members declaring themselves to actually be 2 for autobid purposes.

I agree with the BSC North / BSC South division groupings...if the NCAA declares 2 autobids then maybe an actual split could be at hand...

Southern UT (BSC)
Dixie St (WAC)
Northern AZ (BSC)
Northern CO (BSC)
Sacramento St (BWC)
UC Davis (BWC)
Cal Poly (BWC)

...could have different options w/autobid...

*Warning may be DavidSt-esque...

Options:
BSC South ===> 7
BSC South (7) ===> Great West FC (FCS)...
BSC South ===> Western Athletic FC (FCS)...
BSC South ===> Big West FC (FCS)...

(01-10-2019 11:03 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The Dixie St addition helps sure up the WAC in the event of a defection and makes Chicago St more expendable.

I think Dixie St FCS Independent football also opens the door for others to follow in a scheduling alliance pseudo-league like the Great West was. WAC FCS football schools could potentially play in season home and homes to ease scheduling. Dixie St used to do that type of thing when their football was in the GNAC. APU and CWU are also familiar with this as well.

(A reading from the Book of DavidSt)
Potential Options:
Simon Fraser ===> BSC North...
Central Wash ===> BSC North...
Azusa Pacific ===> BSC South...
San Diego ===> BSC South...

BSC North = 9
BSC South = 9

I do not know if Northern Colorado going to the south or WAC. They might if Colorado Mesa makes the move. Northern Colorado would be an outlier to the south.

Tarleton State, Angelo State, West Texas A&M, Midwestern State, Commerce and Kingsville all been mentioned as D1 schools. I could throw Central Oklahoma into the mixed.

(01-09-2019 09:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 09:21 PM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  Splitting the BSC into two football only conferences makes sense.

3 Cali schools , NAU, Dixie St, SUU and Northern Colorado

PSU, EWU, UI, ISU,WSU, UM and MSU in the North.
Big Sky could run both like the MVC runs two conferences.

Don't think Davis would go for that alignment. It would destroy their football strength of schedule -- just look at this year's Big Sky standings.

Also, there's no guarantee that the FCS playoff committee would give each conference an autobid.

I'd put Weber State in the South and Northern Colorado in the North for better competitive balance.

(01-10-2019 01:03 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 12:41 PM)panite Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 01:44 PM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 01:32 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Hmmm... I wonder if S. Utah would be interested in the WAC now?

That's what I was thinking.


Sac State
Tarleton
Dixie
AP
RGV
SUU
NMSU

is a nice nucleus for 2022 WAC

Grab independents UMASS and Liberty for FB only. That would provide 9 for FB with an 8 game conference schedule. The long distance schools could play four games regionally and four of eight conference games on the road with four home conference games. Doubt independents ND, BYU, and Army would be interested though.

FCS Independents and FBS independents are apples and oranges.

Under the impression all those schools would eventually move to FBS to join NMSt for FB in the WAC. NMSt is not moving down to FCS. If the thought was for NMST to move down to FCS then NMSt and the FBS independents are off the table.

(01-10-2019 08:09 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Letting Dixie St play Big Sky football isn't a terrible idea:

North: Portland St, E Wash, Idaho, Idaho St, Montana, Montana St, Weber St
South: S Utah, Dixie St, NAU, UNC, Sac St, UC Davis, Cal Poly

Then again, the NCAA might have a problem with conferences with 14 members declaring themselves to actually be 2 for autobid purposes.

It is a terrible idea. Big Sky problem is lack of western OOC opponents. Adding another member doe snot correct that, only makes it worse, as yet another school needs three more OOC games.

But as an Independent they can provide up to about half a dozen Big Sky schools with an OOC opponent.

The Big Sky is against expansion. Part of the reason is they have no mechanism for temporary members. Even football associates Cal Poly and UC Davis are permanent members.

You guys make these suggestions as if it were as easy as hiring a contractor. In reality it is like accepting a part owner of your business with no buyout provision.

(01-10-2019 01:01 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 02:23 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 02:17 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 01:32 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Hmmm... I wonder if S. Utah would be interested in the WAC now?

That would be a no.

I checked the Big Sky ByLaws. There is no provision to end associate football membership. Cal Poly and UC Davis can remain football members as long as they want, they cannot be kicked out. And nobody wants to leave the Big Sky for the WAC, nobody.

One thing I found interesting in the article is that UMKC is actively trying to exit the WAC due to travel costs. I wonder what Dixie State heard that makes that likely. There doesn't seem to be any indication the Summit wants them back.

you sure no one wants to leave the Big Sky for the WAC? Sacramento State would have another in-state member to play with. Larger markets than in the Big Sky. Higher conference prestige.

Markets? Lol. Higher Prestige? LMAO

I figure Seattle, Phoenix, Chicago and Kansas City is an easier sell than Bozeman, Missoula, Pocatello and Greenley. Plus annual conference games in Southern California can't hurt either.

(01-10-2019 07:35 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 01:01 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 02:23 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 02:17 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 01:32 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Hmmm... I wonder if S. Utah would be interested in the WAC now?

That would be a no.

I checked the Big Sky ByLaws. There is no provision to end associate football membership. Cal Poly and UC Davis can remain football members as long as they want, they cannot be kicked out. And nobody wants to leave the Big Sky for the WAC, nobody.

One thing I found interesting in the article is that UMKC is actively trying to exit the WAC due to travel costs. I wonder what Dixie State heard that makes that likely. There doesn't seem to be any indication the Summit wants them back.

you sure no one wants to leave the Big Sky for the WAC? Sacramento State would have another in-state member to play with. Larger markets than in the Big Sky. Higher conference prestige.

Markets? Lol. Higher Prestige? LMAO

I figure Seattle, Phoenix, Chicago and Kansas City is an easier sell than Bozeman, Missoula, Pocatello and Greenley. Plus annual conference games in Southern California can't hurt either.

Not really. Chicago? KC? No guarantee they will be around. Any of them, for that matter. All those schools either are actively trying to get into a different conference, or in danger of closing. And markets are overrated. Schools in the Big Sky recruit Seattle and Phoenix already - Big Sky has schools in those states/media markets currently.

If the WAC can pull together 4-5 FCS independents, then we can talk about Sacramento State. Honestly the more realistic targets might be Southern Utah and Northern Arizona - Sacramento might be in the same state as Riverside, but it’s a long way from one end of California to the other.

(01-10-2019 07:52 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 07:35 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 01:01 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 02:23 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 02:17 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  That would be a no.

I checked the Big Sky ByLaws. There is no provision to end associate football membership. Cal Poly and UC Davis can remain football members as long as they want, they cannot be kicked out. And nobody wants to leave the Big Sky for the WAC, nobody.

One thing I found interesting in the article is that UMKC is actively trying to exit the WAC due to travel costs. I wonder what Dixie State heard that makes that likely. There doesn't seem to be any indication the Summit wants them back.

you sure no one wants to leave the Big Sky for the WAC? Sacramento State would have another in-state member to play with. Larger markets than in the Big Sky. Higher conference prestige.

Markets? Lol. Higher Prestige? LMAO

I figure Seattle, Phoenix, Chicago and Kansas City is an easier sell than Bozeman, Missoula, Pocatello and Greenley. Plus annual conference games in Southern California can't hurt either.

Not really. Chicago? KC? No guarantee they will be around. Any of them, for that matter. All those schools either are actively trying to get into a different conference, or in danger of closing. And markets are overrated. Schools in the Big Sky recruit Seattle and Phoenix already - Big Sky has schools in those states/media markets currently.

The WAC has teams in the following markets:

#2 Los Angeles
#3 Chicago
#12 Phoenix
#14 Seattle
#31 Kansas City
#33 Salt Lake City

Northern Arizona is 150 miles to the north of Phoenix in the mountains. Having a school in Eastern Washington does not count as "being in the Seattle TV market." The Big Sky is located in the Sacramento, Denver and Portland markets, but the markets are not as good as the WAC.

From a competition level, the Big Sky as a conference has never ranked higher than the WAC in RPI or today's Net Ranking. Current WAC Net Ranking is #16, current Big Sky Net ranking is #26. The WAC was 8-1 versus the Big Sky in non-conference play. If we are looking at attendance, the WAC ranked at #13 among the 32 conferences last season. The Big Sky was #19.

The Big Sky is a football conference that also plays basketball. They don't have baseball or men's soccer. They do the bare minimum for Olympic sports. Good FCS football conference, bad basketball conference.

(01-10-2019 09:05 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 07:52 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 07:35 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 01:01 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 02:23 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  you sure no one wants to leave the Big Sky for the WAC? Sacramento State would have another in-state member to play with. Larger markets than in the Big Sky. Higher conference prestige.

Markets? Lol. Higher Prestige? LMAO

I figure Seattle, Phoenix, Chicago and Kansas City is an easier sell than Bozeman, Missoula, Pocatello and Greenley. Plus annual conference games in Southern California can't hurt either.

Not really. Chicago? KC? No guarantee they will be around. Any of them, for that matter. All those schools either are actively trying to get into a different conference, or in danger of closing. And markets are overrated. Schools in the Big Sky recruit Seattle and Phoenix already - Big Sky has schools in those states/media markets currently.

The WAC has teams in the following markets:

#2 Los Angeles
#3 Chicago
#12 Phoenix
#14 Seattle
#31 Kansas City
#33 Salt Lake City

Northern Arizona is 150 miles to the north of Phoenix in the mountains. Having a school in Eastern Washington does not count as "being in the Seattle TV market." The Big Sky is located in the Sacramento, Denver and Portland markets, but the markets are not as good as the WAC.

From a competition level, the Big Sky as a conference has never ranked higher than the WAC in RPI or today's Net Ranking. Current WAC Net Ranking is #16, current Big Sky Net ranking is #26. The WAC was 8-1 versus the Big Sky in non-conference play. If we are looking at attendance, the WAC ranked at #13 among the 32 conferences last season. The Big Sky was #19.

The Big Sky is a football conference that also plays basketball. They don't have baseball or men's soccer. They do the bare minimum for Olympic sports. Good FCS football conference, bad basketball conference.

Dixie State could be in the Las Vegas tv market.

(01-10-2019 09:05 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  The WAC has teams in the following markets:

#2 Los Angeles
#3 Chicago
#12 Phoenix
#14 Seattle
#31 Kansas City
#33 Salt Lake City

Is the number next to Los Angeles the number of people in Los Angeles who care about the WAC?

Being a tiny school in a big market isn't a positive. No one is starting a WAC TV network. No one is subscribing to some far flung cable channel to watch WAC (or Big Sky) basketball. Market sizes for small conferences don't matter.

(01-11-2019 10:28 AM)ccd494 Wrote:  

(01-10-2019 09:05 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  The WAC has teams in the following markets:

#2 Los Angeles
#3 Chicago
#12 Phoenix
#14 Seattle
#31 Kansas City
#33 Salt Lake City

Is the number next to Los Angeles the number of people in Los Angeles who care about the WAC?

Being a tiny school in a big market isn't a positive. No one is starting a WAC TV network. No one is subscribing to some far flung cable channel to watch WAC (or Big Sky) basketball. Market sizes for small conferences don't matter.

They can help with recruiting though, you can pitch to a player that they'll get to play a game in their hometown every year. Big markets also make travel easier/cheaper, it's a lot easier to fly into and find lodging in LA than Moscow, Idaho.

Not huge advantages, but they're still pluses.

(01-09-2019 07:25 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(01-09-2019 01:57 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  I would've thought a school named Dixie State would be in the deep south east not Utah.

Yeah, that's strange.

U learn something new everyday. I had never hear of this university or region....

Dixie region of Utah

Utah's Dixie is the nickname for primarily the populated, lower elevation area of south-central Washington County in southwestern Utah. Its climate is very mild when compared to the rest of Utah, and typical of the Mojave Desert, in which it lies. Situated below the Black Ridge and the Hurricane Cliffs, in the northeastern edge of the Mojave Desert. It was part of Mexico and settled by the Southern Paiutes. It was first inhabited by Mormon settlers in 1854, as part of Brigham Young's efforts to establish an Indian Mission in the region.[1] The settlers began growing cotton and other temperate cash crops during the later 1850s on land that had fed the Paiute. The Paiute population was decimated as a result of starvation and disease.[2][3] The largest community in the region, St. George, was founded in 1861,[4] when Brigham Young selected 300 families to take over the area and grow cotton, grapes, and other crops.[4]:3 The region was nicknamed Dixie by 1860.

Andrew Larson's [5] text on the history of the name "Dixie" in Utah states that in 1857, the first President of the Washington Stake was Robert Dockery Covington, a slave overseer and slave owner from North Carolina and Mississippi. Larson states:


Already the settled area of the Virgin Valley was being called Utah's "Dixie." The fact that cotton would grow there, as well as tobacco and other semi-tropical plants such as the South produced made it easy for the name to stick. The fact that the settlers at Washington were bona fide Southerners who were steeped in the lore of cotton culture—many of them, at least—clinched the title. Dixie it became, and Dixie it remained. ... The name "Dixie" is one of those distinctive things about this part of Utah ... It is a proud title

— Andrew Larson, I Was Called to "Dixie" (p. 185) [Emphasis in original]