Big Sky moving to I-A?

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Sun May 16, 2004 2:36 pm

The i-aa.com website has an article by Division I-AA guru Otto Fad saying the Big Sky may move to Division I-A. It's the lead story on the i-aa's mainpage and it is the first in a two part series. Check it out. Quotes from Fullerton and Tony Moss that make it sound pretty likely given a few circumstances that are apt to occur.

BozoneCat · Post by **BozoneCat** » Sun May 16, 2004 4:12 pm

Fullerton is an idiot.

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Sun May 16, 2004 4:42 pm

There is no reason to go D-1A. To do so would be insane. In 1AA we have a realistic chance to every year to compete for the national championship. If we recruit the best talent in Montana and play them as much as we can we willl be successful and the fans will fill our staduims. If we go 1A you will see only 2-3 Montana players in starting line up, or teams that are the doormat of the ever powerful wester D1a teams, and most likely both. We have a good thing going now don't let Fullerton's Alligator mouth over load his Hummingbird Ass!!

CARDIAC_CATS · Post by **CARDIAC_CATS** » Mon May 17, 2004 9:16 am

Yeah, what MSLACAT said .... I totally agree!

raincat · Post by **raincat** » Mon May 17, 2004 11:24 am

About a year ago I was talking to a "well placed source" (the beer vendor at Husky Stadium, I believe it was), who was telling me there was a major move toward redefining the various divisions. It's the old story of the "haves vs. the have-nots". About 25% of D-1A is plush, 25% are ok but treading water, and the balance are in various states of financial choas. Similar story all the way through the lower divisions. So, the talk was about a total restructure of divisions and classifications, and Fullerton was involved in those discussions. Maybe..hopefully, that's what this is about. Otherwise, for the BSC to simply go 1A is fundamentally dumb, if not impossible given the current scholarship and facility requirements.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Mon May 17, 2004 11:37 am

After looking at the i-aa.com stories:
http://www.i-aa.com/

I don't think it's a journalistic analysis. Interesting, but biased in favor of I-AA. There are probably a lot more factors to consider. I'd be neutral about changing, but if the Big Sky were to change as a whole, we'd certainly want to be on the band wagon. We've been waiting years for this to shake out, and it doesn't look like anything is clearing up now.

CatfaninGA · Post by **CatfaninGA** » Mon May 17, 2004 4:30 pm

but if we were to jump up to 1-A in football just look at the potential of success we can have like our former Big Sky foes IDAHO!!! oh wait.

Idaho being allowed to jump up to 1-A in football still could be the dumbest decision allowed by the NCAA.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Mon May 17, 2004 4:46 pm

I'm thinking that the Fullerton-Fad comments might be related to re-aligning Division I Football much as Raincat alluded. Basically there would be 50, or less, programs that would compete for THEE National Championship, which would not include a playoff. The rest of Division I-A and all of I-AA would then be aligned together, and it was undecided whether to have a playoff system, or not, and how a playoff system would work if there was such a thing

The Big Sky would move up together, unless it made more sense to align the west coasters elsewhere.

I heard talk of revenue sharing, too (i.e., the Big 50 would have to share bowl revenues).

Other than the playoff deal, I didn't see much difference between 'then' and 'now' other than what division we called ourselves. I-AA by any other name is still I-AA in my opinion.

One thing is for sure: There will be a realignment by the NCAA within a few years, but my guess is that it won't be at least until after 2007(?), or whenever the Bowl Championship Series contract is set to expire. Oh, yeah, and you have to let ABC's contract w/Notre Dame run out, too.

Thus, there's still plenty of time for the CATS to win a few more legit NC's!!

raincat · Post by **raincat** » Mon May 17, 2004 5:02 pm

BleedinB&G is on track with what I heard. They were not only looking for some parity, but also travel costs and rebuilding regional rivalies. THIS WAS HYPOTHETICAL, but it had the CATS and g's lining up with Idaho, Idaho State, Eastern, Weber, Utah State, NAU and New Mexico State. What about Portland State? Maybe to a WAC based configuration. Anyway, that's the way the wind was blowing last year.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Tue May 18, 2004 9:05 am

I-AA is pretty much equal to what D-2 was in the 70s. With the creation of I-AA, the Big Sky made the jump and the Dakotas did not; that was a big mistake on their part, IMHO. The Big Sky needs to be ready to make a strong move when the landscape changes, and it will. I-AA today is not financially stable and is fraying at the seams.

A realignment that puts us back with Idaho and Utah State, etc., would be good for the Big Sky schools. The Big Sky is not as good a conference as it was when Boise, Nevada and Idaho were members. It was a lot easier to get excited for those rivalries than PSU and CSUS, whose basketball teams play in small high school type gyms and who have little local support. UC-Davis was far more popular than CSUS even in D-2; and PSU wants to go I-A, as they get no respect in I-AA in the shadow of UO and OSU. Schools like Idaho and USU will never go to I-AA, but should be our rivals and I hope they one day will be.

If the opportunity for a change comes, the Big Sky core must jump (MSU, um, ISU, WSU). The other schools would be welcome, depending on what they want to do. Financially and morally, college football is broken and needs to readjust. I'm not holding my breath, though.

BozoneCat · Post by **BozoneCat** » Tue May 18, 2004 9:55 am

If (and maybe when) we do jump, or more appropriately there is a realignment, we need to drop the dead weight and align ourselves with viable programs such as Idaho and Utah State. I think those could be great rivalries. Eastern and Idaho could make a good road trip (for basketball), along with Weber and Utah State. Idaho State and NAU make tough pairs. I would have no problem dropping Sac and Portland, though. I do not want to realign into a division where we have no chance to win a national championship, though. I hope the people who make these decisions remember this when they start seeing dollar signs in their eyes.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Tue May 18, 2004 1:25 pm

I have a couple issues with what you said, Bozone. First, I don't think SAC and PSU are dead weight as you suggest. In fact, both programs could likely make the jump to D-IA in FB long before MSU could from a financial standpoint (in fact, SAC's students just approved a fee increase in order to build new athletic facilities). Plus, both programs have easily and successfully competed in the Big Sky in several sports, not just football.

Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, our trips to Sacramento and Portland in FB pays huge dividends with respect to recruiting. The exposure we get is immeasurable.

Geographically speaking, however, SAC and PSU (and NAU for that matter) really aren't in Big Sky country. From a purely financial standpoint, a Big Sky conference with Boise and Idaho is probably more cost effective. I couldn't care less about Utah State.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Tue May 18, 2004 1:44 pm

It's unlikely we'll ever be in Boise State's league in football. NAU is distant, but they fit the conference nicely, if you've ever been there. Many of the same assets as Bozeman or Missoula.

USU would be a good fit as a school and geographically, as a land grant college with much in common with MSU (other than religion).

mchammer · Post by **mchammer** » Wed May 19, 2004 9:50 am

There could be a new alignment that pits the football haves against one another, and creates another division that BSC programs would fit in with - call it I-A or whatever. But the main issue is expense, which has to address scholarship numbers, gender equity, and increased travel expenses. Idaho belongs with the BSC schools. USU would work very well. If a new football division left scholarships where they are at for I-AA it could work. But pushing us up to 85 scholarships would be a financial burden, especially considering gender equity. MSU would have to add sports for women in order to stay in compliance. I think that we are in a good place and should leave it alone. It's the have nots in the I-A football leagues that have a problem.

NavyBlue · Post by **NavyBlue** » Wed May 19, 2004 11:25 am

As a USU fan and native Montanan, I would love to see the Aggies and Bobcats (and Grizzlies) in the same conference. However, I would rather see it under the WAC umbrella than that of the Big Sky.

I think I receltly read USU has played the Cats 36 times and the Griz 34 times. Historically it would be great we would be renewing a very old series.

Big Sky moving to I-A?

Big Sky moving to I-A?

depends.... or just leave it all alone.

As a Utah State fan