Conference Realignment-Big Sky Expansion Thread

BelgradeBobcat · Post by **BelgradeBobcat** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:07 am

One of my favorite subjects:

We have Fullerton quoted a couple of weeks ago as saying the Big Sky may lose a couple of teams to other conferences, but he didn't say who (Sac State and/or PSU to the Great West? Montana to the WAC? Dare I say MSU to the WAC too? nah that one won't happen). So the Big Sky will be changing, and adding some new members (ND State, SD State, N Colorado, North Dakota, etc.).

This much is true-NDSU and SDSU want in the Big Sky real bad. They played each other this past weekend with SDSU pulling off the mild upset. They hope the win makes them look more attractive to the Big Sky:
Souix Falls Argus Leader, South Dakota State wants in the Big Sky

Then there's North Dakota. They're a little more hard headed (nobody ever said that about a North Dakotan

) about going D-1, but I don't think there's any doubt they'll get there. Evenutally they're going to get sick of beating up on the tiny schools they have left to play in D-II.

Grand Forks Herald, UND on the D-1 fence

BelgradeBobcat · Post by **BelgradeBobcat** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:52 am

Boise State-First Class Program Requires Expansion

BSU is probably the poster child for every aspiring 1-AA program that want's to be 1-A, "If Boise can do it, why can't we?" But look at the $ they want to come up with. I also find it interesting that they basically rip on the league they're in and aspire to something greater. They probably won't be happy until the NFL sends them an invite

Keeping the Coach Happy is Expensive

BelgradeBobcat · Post by **BelgradeBobcat** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:43 am

This article from the NCAA is now circulating through various message boards. Pretty interesting stuff, with a few somewhat confusing quotes by Fullerton and other I-AA conference commissioners.

Enhancing I-AA

BelgradeBobcat · Post by **BelgradeBobcat** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:53 am

I watched a bit of the Northern Colorado-Florida Atlantic game replay on Fox Sports yesterday. When it first came on I thought is was a replay of the griz-EWU game because their stadium setup looked so similar to EWU. A few bleachers on the far sideline, a track around the field and a small main grandstand and press box. The box score says that they had about 6,400 in attendance.

I mention this because we all know Northern Colorado wants in the Big Sky. If they do get in I expect them to be a lot like EWU. Always good because of the number of instate athletes available to them, but with limited fan support. They toil in the considerable shadow of Colorado State, CU, and even Denver's pro teams. Much like EWU has to compete against Washington State, Gonzaga, UW etc.

I caught Fullerton's interview during the second half of the griz-EWU game. He said NDSU, SDSU, Northern Colorado, and Southern Utah have publicly announced that they have submitted letters of interest to the Big Sky. But he said there were some other schools also under consideration, but didn't say who.

He mentioned it might be favorable to include one team in the league that doesn't sponsor football because football favors and odd number of teams to have an even number of conference home and away games, and other sports like basketball scheduling favors an even number of teams.

A while back I read about a rumor of UNC coming in to the league with Denver University as their travel partner (DU doesn't sponsor football). I wonder if this is what Fullerton is thinking. I can't think of too many other non-football playing schools that would work-unless of course Gonzaga decides to come back to the Big Sky (not gonna happen). DU seems to be an uneasy fit in the Sun Belt Conference.

I think the DU possibility fits in with Fullerton's past flirtation with Big City markets.

NavyBlue · Post by **NavyBlue** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:57 am

Belgrade Bobcat,

Nice thread. I posted about a year ago on a few boards that I could see the possibility of UD and UNC coming into the Big Sky together as a travel pairing. I was blasted for it. Now, Fullerton states that the BSC might consider a non-football member and you are right who else could it be?

As a native Montanan, and a USU alum I would love to see the Cats and Griz in the WAC now that USU will be in that league next year, but I just don't see it happening at least not in the near future. But I have noticed that 1-aa plays at a pretty high level and the 1-a/1-aa distiction is more of a technicality than anything. Why not just mandate a minimum number of schalarships to be Div. 1 and eliminate the 1-aa and 1-a classifaications. You could have the BCS with the big six conferences (BE,ACC,B10,B12,SEC,P10) than a playoff with everyone else similar to the current 1-aa playoffs for all the other d1 conferences with a chance for the BCS if they qualify.

So if you are a member of the big 6 conferences you could not participate in the playoffs because the BCS is stacked in your favor. But the other D1 leagues would have a 16 team playoff with the possibility of 1 team to opt out of the playoffs and participate in the BCS if they qualify.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:04 am

Navy,

Your comments make a lot of sense. One big draw-back to 1-AA is that a lot of people mix up the other sports with it. I saw an article in the paper a few days ago, where someone referred to 1-AA volleyball programs. There is no such thing as a 1-AA volleyball program!!!

NavyBlue · Post by **NavyBlue** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:21 pm

Exactly, VC, this 1-aa label which basically implies "lower level" is obsolete. Especially when as a USU fan I know the Cats or Griz might beat a team like mine, probably easily. And then they apply the 1-aa label to other sports (like basketball and volleyball) where it is not even relevant. I have told several people that there is no 1-aa in college basketball.

Then there are the scholarship reductions for 1-aa which I keep hearing that are probably on the horizon. Like I posted on egiz (1-aa football section). Pushed no doubt by eastern no scholarship and non-scholarship teams. I suppose that these limits are probably opposed by a 1-aa power conference like the Big Sky. Let those schools have D2 football and all other sports be at the D1 level. Mandate that D1 football schools need to have something like a minimum of 70 and a maximum of 85 scholarships. The football post season could be like I described above (or in more detail on the egriz board).

To me it seems like a win-win for everybody. Schools that are currently power 1-aa schools will now be able to play regional schools that are now 1-a on a more regular basis. Example, a school like Utah State would be more willing to play MSU (even in Bozeman). Because there would be no stigma attached to losing to a lower classification team. It would be like, both schools are D1, so no big deal. It would also make more sense under this system for schools like EWU and Washington State play one another.

And the schools that are non scholarship (or reduced scholarship) 1-aa now could drop down in football and play likeminded schools in D2 or D3 and still play D1 basketball. Which they would probably like to do anyway.

BelgradeBobcat · Post by **BelgradeBobcat** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:43 pm

Hi Navy. I've read your efforts on other boards to persuade Montana fans to purue 1-A and the WAC. I have no doubt that the WAC would grab Montana in a heart beat, and that might be on the horizon-who knows?

I agree the I-AA designation is a stumbling block.

I think they should do away with the totally arbitrary attendance requirements for 1-A football, and tie the requirements to budget, number of sports offered, and total number of scholarhips offered in all sports. That way if a school wants to spend themselves into oblivion to be 1-A, they can do it without building big stadiums in which no one will sit. It will also take a lot of pressure of conferences where at any one time several of their members are a threat to be demoted because they can't avereage 15,000 fans.

The attendance requirements also create these silly situations like Idaho using Washington State's stadium and counting the Wazzu game as a home game for Idaho, or the situation at Middle Tennesee where they've booked a concert right after their home game to increase attendance.

But I don't think it's realistic to just go with a BCS division and then put everyone else in a D-1 playoff senario. There are too many second tier bowl games that would have to go away, and there is too much money lost for anyone to allow that to happen.

As far as MSU and WAC is concerned-we need to average another 3000 per home game before we even start thinking about I-A (should the WAC consider the MT schools as a package deal) unless they do away with the attendance requirements. Then you also have the necessity to add a couple of more sports and add more scholarships-both of which are big bucks.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:51 pm

That's why Idaho doesn't play the friz or EWU anymore.
What would make sense to me would be to somewhat reduce the scholarships for the big time schools, who don't need more than 100 players. Many of the better 1-AA programs (and some of the worst) have well fewer than 63 scholarships anyway. It would be more fun it there were a way to play similar regional schools again, such as USU, Idaho or Nevada, maybe even with a home and home. I'm not sure it would be much fun to play BSU anymore. MSU had a home and home rivalry with Fresno State for many years.

NavyBlue · Post by **NavyBlue** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:48 pm

Hi guys. As I stated before I would really like to see UM and MSU in the WAC although I don't see it happening for awhile. I grew up in the Missoula area, I was always more of a Bobcat fan growing up. I still like both Montana schools. I have pushed more for UM to join the WAC more because I think they are more ready. I also think if UM were to join the WAC and 1-a the Cats would follow when they were ready, which I would like. Personally, I think MSU has more to offer the WAC than does Idaho. Like I posted a long time ago on the USU and WAC board, MSU has a better team than Idaho plus MSU has a STADIUM.

Belgrade, I agree with you on the attendance requirement. The game is played on the field not in the stands, let the individual schoools and conferences decide what level they want to play at. And I agree with you on scheduling gimmicks. I just see the 1-aa and 1-a as a barrier keeping schools from playing each other that should be playing each other. For instance for the last two years USU has played in the Sun Belt because it is a 1-a league. That is stupid. We should be playing schools like Nevada, Boise State, UM, and MSU. We have much more in common with those schools. I know for a fact that MSU would be a better draw in Logan than Middle Tennessee! Plus road games in Bozeman or Missoula our fans could drive to. And MSU fans could drive to games in Logan. I would just like to see more regional non-conference games. It has always seemed to me that USU and MSU should play, not that far apart, both land grant ag schools. The WAC now has some sort of academic alliance, which is to support cooperation with research. With UI, Reno, and USU there MSU would be a natural in that regard.

You are right about the second tier bowls. I would add that probably the majority of those slots are going to go to teams from BC$ leagues anyway.
They would take a 6-5 Notre Dame over a 10-1 Wyoming, if given the chance.

Velo, I think the max number of 1-a scholarships is now 85. So if those 1-aa's that are now 63 went up to 70 like I proposed they would only have to add 7. It is true that some good 1-aa programs do have fewer than 63. I think Southern Utah has less than 63. I guess I would really like to see everyone be able to play more regional schools, which I think would generate more fan interest and excitement.

Well anyway congrats on the great season you are having. I hope the Cats advance far into the playoffs!

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:56 am

From today's Great Falls Tribune:

Saturday's nonconference clash in Bozeman between Montana State and South Dakota State is significant for both teams, and perhaps overly meaningful for the visiting Jackrabbits.

Officials at South Dakota State, in its first season as affiliated with NCAA I-AA after many years in the Division II North Central Conference, would love to join the Big Sky Conference.

"The most popular question this week is, how will this game play out in terms of us getting accepted in the Big Sky?" admitted SDSU head coach John Stiegelmeier. "I would expect the Big Sky wants good programs so we need to make a good showing on Saturday. It all goes hand in hand."

South Dakota State and North Dakota State, now members of the Great West Conference, are among a handful of schools that are interested in joining the Big Sky.

Big Sky commissioner Doug Fullerton said the league presidents will consider the issue at their Dec. 13, but stressed that expansion is not necessarily imminent.

"It's not a done deal at all," said Fullerton. "One thing the presidents are not interested in doing is taking in schools that would cause others to leave the conference. So I think the presidents will listen long and hard to people who have real strenuous objections for any reason."

Travel, of course, is the key stumbling block for schools such as SDSU and NDSU. The closest Big Sky school to South Dakota State is Montana State, and Bozeman is about 700 miles west of Brookings, S.D.

Fullerton said the issue of expansion will be resolved soon.

"It's a good-faith attempt on the part of our presidents to take a look at these institutions," Fullerton said. "We think we owe (a decision) to them, up or down, so that they don't hang onto these hopes. And then we'll move on."

*
*
*

NavyBlue · Post by **NavyBlue** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:28 am

Fullerton's couple of sentences don't look to hopeful for the Dakota States, IMHO. It will be interesting who the Big Sky picks. Seems to me that Southern Utah would be a natural. And would give NAU a travel partner.

BelgradeBobcat · Post by **BelgradeBobcat** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:07 pm

SUU would be a good fit geographically-but I would be surprised if the Big Sky ever takes them. Though another possibility with the idea of taking one school that doesn't offer football to even out the schedule would be Utah Valley State. They're making the jump to D-1 this year-MSU men's b-ball plays a home and home with them I believe. I suppose an SUU-Utah Valley pairing could be what Fullerton is thinking, instead of Denver and UNC?

Personally, I think the Big Sky should take a State "Flag Ship" University over a directional school with limited following-even if the State school is a little farther away. I'm guessing by Fullerton's comments that the West Coast schools(SAC and PSU) have said if the Dakota's are in we're out.

NavyBlue · Post by **NavyBlue** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 7:27 am

Good points Belgrade, especially about the if the Dakotas get in PSU and CSUS may want to go. There has in the past, been some noise from those two about going 1-a, but I don't think those two could do it.

I have never been UVSC's arena but I have seen it on the outside it looks fairly big and nice. I'm not sure UM (and maybe MSU) would be to thrilled with SUU and UVSC coming into the Big Sky.

BTW, do you know if the Ags and Cats are going to play in basketball in time soon?

BelgradeBobcat · Post by **BelgradeBobcat** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 10:22 am

South Dakota State Petitions for Big Sky Affiliation

The above is a link to the Bozeman Chroncile about SDSU's hopes of joining the Big Sky.

Navy: I haven't heard that USU is on any future b-ball schedules. I wish they were. We did a home and home in 2001 I believe. USU beat MSU pretty easily in Bozeman (partially due to poor scheduling in my opinion-it was the same day as the Cat-griz football game). The game in Logan was closer, but USU also won that. However MSU got sweet revenge by beating USU in Logan in the opening round of the NIT later that season.

SacHornetFan · Post by **SacHornetFan** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 11:06 am

Our president does want us eventually to go to the WAC and I-A. He wants us to succeed in football and basketball in The Sky for at least 4-5 more years before we make a move. He wants the teams to win for the fan base to be consistent, at least into the 13-15,000 range.

The problem here in the capital of California is we get no coverage whatsoever, plus, the perception is that I-AA is not Division I, which is a shame. The Big Sky has great football, this is the best football conference in I-AA. Why is it that no one from the A10 or SoCon wants to play us during the regular season. Because they have seen what we usually do to Southland teams when we schedule them. A shame too.

Now, if the Big Sky were to move up as a whole, then it might be worth staying put. However, people here don't associate with Montana, Montana State, etc. The media wants to see Fresno State, Nevada, San Jose State, San Diego State.

NavyBlue · Post by **NavyBlue** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 11:43 am

Belgrade, yeah I know we got you guys in Bozeman and Logan during the season and the Cats won it in Logan for the NIT. I think it is kind of hard to beat a good team 3 times in the same season. I think USU and MSU should play once a year alternating between Bozeman and Logan. Seems like I read other than the Utah schools we have played MSU the most, and I heard other than UM historically the Cats have played USU the most. Ofcourse, that would have been a long time ago. I wonder if that is true.

I would have liked to have seen the Cats or Griz come and play at USU when I was a student there. If the Aggies were out of town, and UM or MSU was playing at Weber I used to go to those games.

NavyBlue · Post by **NavyBlue** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 11:55 am

SacFan, I would not mind seeing Sac in the WAC (nice ring to it). I am not sure they have the support to go 1-a. What kind of attendance do you guys have? Do you have an on campus stadium? Most of the Cal States we used to play in the Big West have dropped football due to the lack of support.

I am sure another California school would help SJSU with thier attendance problems. It seems that in CA the people thier would rather see them play other CA schools, and the people in the rocky mountain states would rather see those teams than CA schools. I would like to see the WAC have a good mix of CA and non-CA schools. We could really use another strong CA school in the WAC. Most people seem to think it will be UC-Davis in 4 or 5 years. I am not sure SJSU has the 4 or 5 years to wait for UCD or Sac St. though. It would be a shame to see them drop football.

An "Aggie" is someone who goes to an agricultural based college. USU was originally called the Utah State Agricultural College. People refered to us as "Aggies" because we went to the "Ag College". I think Montana State was known as Aggies up to the 20's or 30's before they became the Bobcats. Colorado State used to be known as Aggies before they were the Rams.

SacHornetFan · Post by **SacHornetFan** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 3:50 pm

NavyBlue: I know what an Ag is. I was saying it tongue i cheek because davis is our arch-rival and the mascot is a mustang, yet they are the Aggies.

We have an on-campus 21,195 seat stadium. Come the end of the year, we will break ground on a new 8,000 seat on campus arena. The problem with Davis is that they have to wait until 2008-09 before they can advance to the NCAA tournament in most sports except I-AA football, which they can in 2007. For them to move to the WAC, they would probably want to win a few Big West Tournament championships in hoops before a move like that. So at the earliest, I don't see davis going to the WAC until at least 2012 to 2015.

Our attendance has been down the last few years for football primarily because we have stunk. But, we when posted winning seasons in 1999 and 2000, we averaged over 11,000 fans a game from 99-01. Right now, we even outdraw San Jose State in football. Our 11K per game would probably have been closer to 18-19,000 if we were I-A, possibly higher. There is a perception in California that I-AA football is like D2, especially with the media. Which is a shame because it is just as good as some of the lower I-A conferences.

NavyBlue · Post by **NavyBlue** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:25 pm

Sac, sorry about that upon reading your post again, I see that the Ag thing was "rivalry speak". I thought it was a question, people have asked me what an Aggie is before quite a few times.

Sounds like your stadium is not that much smaller than ours. I think If Sac State was in the WAC you guys could build a pretty good 3 way rivalry with Fresno and SJSU. And if UCD came they are already your schools rival. That could go a long way in helping interest in college football in Northern CA. I hope you guys do it. Ofcourse being raised in Montana I would love to see UM and MSU in the WAC also. I just think they won't go to 1-a in the near future if ever.

I do remember hearing the BSC commish saying they might be losing a team or two and the announcement would be in the next 6 months. Have you heard anything about the Hornets going? I'm sure SJSU would give thier right arms for another Nor Cal school.