The Bobcat Nation

Why did the Big Sky Conference add Northern Colorado over North Dakota State? Did they not want in or something? And why did they say to add them we would have to expand to 12 teams? Anyone?

longhorn_22 wrote:Why did the Big Sky Conference add Northern Colorado over North Dakota State? Did they not want in or something? And why did they say to add them we would have to expand to 12 teams? Anyone?

I believe geography was the main reason for adding UNC over NDSU. From what I can gather, some of the BSC members weren't comfortable expanding that far east.

However, if the BSC expanded to 12 teams, theoretically it could split into 2 divisions (East / West?), which might be promising for schools like NDSU or North Dakota (if they decide to move up).

Just my $0.02

That far East? Its the next state over from Montana. I say add NDSU and UNC. Thats 10 teams. Two divisions would work for that. If not, add SDSU and Cal Poly or UC Davis.

Fargo is a looooong way away from Bozeman, even though it's only "one state over"! I can see why the presidents of the west coast schools and NAU would not want NDSU or SDSU in the Big Sky...I guess we'll have to make do with just UNC for now. I'd still like to see Denver U. as a non-football member and travel partner for UNC, but it sounds like that won't happen.

I'd be surprised if the Big Sky would ever add a non-football member. I think Gonzaga got pushed out in 1979 because they didn't play football. Denver would make sense as a travel partner for Northern Colorado. I just don't see it happening.

bozbobcat wrote:I'd be surprised if the Big Sky would ever add a non-football member. I think Gonzaga got pushed out in 1979 because they didn't play football. Denver would make sense as a travel partner for Northern Colorado. I just don't see it happening.

Neither do I. I like the idea of the 12 team thing that would look like this:

East Division:
Montana State
Montana
NDSU
SDSU
UNC
Weber St.

West Division:
EWU
Cal Poly
UC Davis
Portland State
Northern Arizona
Idaho St.

Kick Sac St. out in this format.

longhorn_22 wrote:
Neither do I. I like the idea of the 12 team thing that would look like this:

East Division:
Montana State
Montana
NDSU
SDSU
UNC
Weber St.

West Division:
EWU
Cal Poly
UC Davis
Portland State
Northern Arizona
Weber St.

Kick Sac St. out in this format.

You forgot Idaho State....don't think we want to boot them out! Also, Weber might get a bit overworked playing in two divisions at once.

The reason I bring up Denver as a non-football member is because while an odd number of teams is great for football scheduling (4 Home games and 4 away games per year), it causes problems when trying to put together BB and VB schedules. It's much more convenient if each team has a travel partner.

<<You forgot Idaho State....don't think we want to boot them out! Also, Weber might get a bit overworked playing in two divisions at once. >>




L O L !!!!!

I meant to put them in instead of Weber in that second one.

Last rumor was that since Idaho is doing so poorly and barely hanging on to IA status, they would like to drop back to the Sky and become the 12th

catamaran wrote:Last rumor was that since Idaho is doing so poorly and barely hanging on to IA status, they would like to drop back to the Sky and become the 12th

I have heard this from fans, but their administration has said on a number of occasions that they will not drop back down to 1-AA.

From watching a few of their games this year, they're already at the IAA level

Fullerton has already approached Denver and they said "no", Denver is or was hoping for the WAC or the WCC. And both of those conferences do not want them.

FWIW, the vast majority of Idaho fans that I intereact with are very excited about thier future in the WAC and DO NOT want to return to I-AA. You could go to thier board and ask them if you do not believe me.

http://mb4.scout.com/fidahofrm1

I don't think you need a traveling partner for UNC. The current conference has 8, which means you have either 4 home games and 3 away or 3 home and 4 away. A huge advantage to the team that has 4 at home any given year (given how tough the BSC is).

What is nice about one team (in this case UNC) is for football it makes it 4 and 4. For basketball and volleyball, you can just schedule a non-conference game with Colorado, Colorado State, SDSU, or Wyoming that weekend when away.

BobcatLionFan wrote:I don't think you need a traveling partner for UNC. The current conference has 8, which means you have either 4 home games and 3 away or 3 home and 4 away. A huge advantage to the team that has 4 at home any given year (given how tough the BSC is).

What is nice about one team (in this case UNC) is for football it makes it 4 and 4. For basketball and volleyball, you can just schedule a non-conference game with Colorado, Colorado State, SDSU, or Wyoming that weekend when away.

Basketball scheduling will be a mess with a nine team conference. A football only school would have been better. Cal Poly probably would have joined if given a football only option.

In my opinion, UNC was added because Fullerton belives that a certain program will leave for the WAC in the next five years. However, by locking all BSC schools into perpetual home - home series with UNC, schools with good attendance will be hurt financially. as they are forced to make trips to Greely. Consider the following revenue options, for Montana State:

UNC in 'Sky:
First year - Home game against UNC $250,000
Next year -Road game at UNC No revenue, travel expenses

No UNC in 'Sky:
First year - Home game against UNC $250,000 - $60,000 guarantee
Next year - Additonal home game against Great West team $250,000 - $60,000 guarantee OR game against BCS foe $250,000

Football games are very limited quantities, and it is not worthwhile for the bigger BSC (Montana, Montana State) teams to go to Greely every two years. On the other hand, Portland State and Sac State benefit for bringing UNC into the conference.

The only problem with the rumor of "a certain program" leaving to go IA is that if they are of the state of Montana, the regents have linked their fate together....one goes, all go

..you really think the WAC would want Western, Northern and Tech??

Thanks for the Griz logic but I think everyone else got the point

btw, your "point" is wrong..at no time has the Board of Regents said that MSU and UM have to be "joined at the hip". In fact, it might be better if they weren't.

There is no doubt that it would be wrong....look at the example of Boise and UI. UI wasn't ready because their facilities are always crap...It hasn't been formal but always known that the two universities would be linked