Big Sky Expansion

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Sun Oct 03, 2004 4:00 pm

A couple articals I found. All I can say if we expand do it in two's.

BTW moderators feel free to switch this to the General college board if you think it is fits better there.

Big Sky too expand, and soon...
Big Sky Conference Commissioner Doug Fullerton says the conference is exploring expanding from eight schools to as many as 12 in the next two years. “We’re always looking at expansion, because every conference has to look at that as a way to protect themselves,” Fullerton says. “If it makes sense for the conference and for the school, we’ll probably expand sometime in 2006.” Schools in the Great West Football Conference, including Northern Colorado, South Dakota State, North Dakota State and Cal Davis, are likely targets for expansion. Fullerton said the Big Sky would expand primarily as a way to help its basketball programs, which often have trouble scheduling opponents. Division I conferences must have at least seven schools to receive an automatic berth in the NCAA men’s tourney; the Big Sky has eight members, just over the limit. “That tournament is worth around $3 million a year to our schools, so we’re always looking at what other conference realignments might do to our conference,” Fullerton says. “We’re looking at other schools as a way to protect ourselves in case anything unexpected happens in the near future.”

Why UC Davis to the Big Sky?
Cal Davis is considered a sho-in for expasion in the Big Sky, next year... Comcast Corp., which announced earlier this month that it would broadcast 58 preseason and regular-season Sacrmanto Kings games on a new regional sports network, announced Thursday that the network will launch Nov. 2 for the Kings' season-opening game. It also confirmed that it will broadcast a host of local college football and basketball games. The new network, dubbed Comcast SportsNet West, will be available to 700,000 Comcast cable customers in a 350-mile territory that stretches from Visalia and Fresno north to include the Modesto, Stockton, Sacramento, and Chico areas. The network, which will be channel 34 in all Comcast markets throughout the region, will also be made available to all cable and satellite operators in the area. In addition, the network's coverage area will expand into the Bay Area to include San Francisco by January 2005, although NBA restrictions prevent airing of Sacramento Kings and Monarchs games in the Bay Area. Comcast SportsNet West, which will be based in Sacramento, is the cable provider's fourth regional sports network. Others cover sports in Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington and Chicago. Upon its launch, Comcast SportsNet West will provide additional programming including warm-up and wrap-up game shows for the Kings, and WNBA basketball games featuring the Sacramento Monarchs. The network will also include college sports coverage for California State University Sacramento football games, UC Davis football and basketball games, and Fresno State football games. Additional programming on Comcast SportsNet will include selected college games from the Western Athletic Conference, Big Sky Conference and the Mountain West Conference. Comcast SportsNet West will be based in Sacramento.

bisonguy · Post by **bisonguy** » Sun Oct 03, 2004 6:44 pm

Any link for those quotes?

Fullerton was on WDAY radio (Fargo, ND) a month or so ago, and stated that both UC-Davis and Cal-Poly had received invites from the Big Sky and both had turned them down for membership in the Big West. UC-Davis would have to find homes for about six other sports that the Big Sky does not offer.

BelgradeBobcat · Post by **BelgradeBobcat** » Sun Oct 03, 2004 6:57 pm

I had always figured UC Davis was going to the Big West as well. Which, if is the case, I wonder if Sac State would do the same. It would make a lot of sense for them to be in the same conference as Davis and Cal Poly, and that league is looking pretty good football wise as well.

Thus the Big Sky does have to make some moves before they're below the minumum members.

I've read on the North Dakota and NDSU message boards that there's rumors that North Dakota is talking to the Big Sky. UND and NDSU would almost certainly be taken I would think.

CatfaninGA · Post by **CatfaninGA** » Sun Oct 03, 2004 8:27 pm

Might as well invite Idaho back to 1-AA, they suck at 1-A and are a complete joke.

89rabbit · Post by **89rabbit** » Sun Oct 03, 2004 9:17 pm

The basketball talk is good to hear. SDSU, while all right at football, is a basketball school!

BozoneCat · Post by **BozoneCat** » Sun Oct 03, 2004 9:21 pm

Just more idiocy from Fullerton if we invite UC-Davis. No offense to them, they have a pretty good football program and do things a heck of a lot better than Sad State ever will, but they are a horrible fit for our league. Fullerton's problem (well, one of them) is that he still thinks Sac State and Portland State are good for the Big Sky! They are the two most pathetic schools in the conference when you consider all sports. Sure, they play in huge markets, but NEWS FLASH - no one cares!!! I think Davis would be a bad move mainly because I think they will be moving up to I-A within five to seven years. Instead of making a bunch of knee jerk reactions to what other schools do, I think we should act pre-emptively and invite the schools we want, and get rid of the schools that are planning on moving. Don't be so sure it is Montana, as a lot of people think. I have a feeling it is other schools that are closer to making the jump - and for the record, I think it is a bad move for any school currently in the Big Sky to move to I-A. Everybody points to Boise State as a model... what they forget is that Boise State had better facilities, a ton more money, and a big population base to draw out of when they made the move. Look at the fistfuls of other schools that are mired in mediocrity if you want a better picture of what will almost certainly happen if and when these schools make the jump. I don't want to pray for a bid in the yearly Who Cares Bowl, I think we are at the right level and I love the opportunity to win a national championship the right way. As far as I am concerned, I'll happily put out the welcome mat for NDSU, SDSU, and UNC.

theblackgecko · Post by **theblackgecko** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 1:06 pm

Bozone Cat, I'm finding myself agreeing with you on half your points. I'm scared.

BozoneCat wrote:Don't be so sure it is Montana, as a lot of people think. I have a feeling it is other schools that are closer to making the jump - and for the record, I think it is a bad move for any school currently in the Big Sky to move to I-A.

I have to disagree with you about Montana moving. But, other than that, it would be a total joke for any of the BSC programs to go I-A.
I do think Sac and Davis are going to move to be together, in some league. It would be better if Sac went GWFC for football and Big West for all sports. I don't know what goes on in the minds of Californians and their ahtletic programs.
Regardless, taking NDSU is a given. I keep wondering what is up with UND. I know the BSC will want a travel partner for NDSU, and either UND or SDSU would make good partners, but not both. If UND has plans, they had better make them very clear. A basketball school that knows what it is doing is better than a hockey school with no clue.
As for UNC, the program doesn't excite me. Basketball is known to be terrible, football is good, but attendence isn't. Besides, the whole blue/yellow coloring, ursine mascot, and UC think really make me think it's the crappy version of Berkeley. If Sac left, they would make a good travel partner for NAU.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 1:40 pm

Davis would be a great addition to the Big Sky, but all info is that they're not interested since they have many sports that we don't. They're one of the most prestigious academic schools in the state, unlike CSUS.

I would say the team most likely to leave the Big Sky for 1A would be PSU. Nobody in Oregon cares about the Big Sky, and they have the market to move up. They did well in D2. I think Idaho did the right thing to leave. It's painful, but they seem to be getting it together slowly, and there is the money; It would have been suicide for them to not be at the same level as Boise State, as the state's flagship university.

I agree, it should be 2 schools at a time, but I don't have any particular favorites. MSU favors the Dakotas, but we are the "northeastern" member of Big Sky and it takes a majority. Geographically SUU, and UNC would fit better. Weber is dead set against SUU and UNC probably has other priorities than football, much like UCD and Cal Poly.

WYOBISONMAN · Post by **WYOBISONMAN** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:35 am

My guess on a timeline for admission to the Big Sky would be that bids go out the Spring of 2005. NDSU accepts and plays final Football season in the Great West in 2005 and as a BB indy in 2005-06. Then fall of 2006 NDSU would be a BSC member

but not elegible for playoffs.

Starting Fall of 2008 NDSU would be play-off elegible in all sports having served our sentence in NCAA purgatory.

Remember....UND is at least 3 years behind us in the process....probably more....therefore I would doubt that the rumors that UND is a potential Big Sky member are credible.

Eagle_Power04 · Post by **Eagle_Power04** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 6:26 pm

My guess is that both the Dakota Schools would get in, putting us at ten members. I don't know why the Big Sky seems so ademate about getting California schools into the conference. It seems like it would be a good thing for Sac to bail and join the GWFC for football and the Big West for everything else. I think the Big Sky would look something like this in another couple years.

Montana
Montana State
Eastern Washington
Idaho State
Weber State
Northern Arizona
Portland State
North Dakota State
South Dakota State
Northern Colorado*

*-Not so sure about this school, but I thought I would throw them in there anyways

BelgradeBobcat · Post by **BelgradeBobcat** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 8:37 pm

I agree it seems logical for Sac to go to the Great/Big West. But they won't bail on the Big Sky unless the Great West is stable. I wouldn't be totally surprised if Portland State wasn't enticed by the Great West/Big West senario. The Big West could really use a couple more members after losing Idaho and Utah State.

I think the major reason the Big Sky powers that be would go after a Cal Davis before the Dakotas is simply that every Big Sky school (with the possible exception of EWU) relys heavily on California players. Having a California school (or two) in the league helps recruiting because a school can always promise a kid they'll be playing in their home state regularly.

Thus MSU keeps Cal Poly on the schedule despite their horrendous luck against the Mustangs.

theblackgecko · Post by **theblackgecko** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 10:38 am

BelgradeBobcat wrote:I think the major reason the Big Sky powers that be would go after a Cal Davis before the Dakotas is simply that every Big Sky school (with the possible exception of EWU) relys heavily on California players.

While some have no problem with being Cal State Boz-Angeles, I would have to disagree with the above statement. Montana runs a smattering of California players, but gets plenty of Montana players.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 10:57 am

theblackgecko wrote:
BelgradeBobcat wrote:I think the major reason the Big Sky powers that be would go after a Cal Davis before the Dakotas is simply that every Big Sky school (with the possible exception of EWU) relys heavily on California players.
While some have no problem with being Cal State Boz-Angeles, I would have to disagree with the above statement. Montana runs a smattering of California players, but gets plenty of Montana players.

So does MSU, and all of the other programs gets lots of non-CA players as well. That doesn't mean that the quality of the conference wouldn't take a dive in quality if the BSC lost all of its CA players. That certainly includes the Griz.

BozoneCat · Post by **BozoneCat** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 3:17 pm

theblackgecko wrote:
BelgradeBobcat wrote:I think the major reason the Big Sky powers that be would go after a Cal Davis before the Dakotas is simply that every Big Sky school (with the possible exception of EWU) relys heavily on California players.
While some have no problem with being Cal State Boz-Angeles, I would have to disagree with the above statement. Montana runs a smattering of California players, but gets plenty of Montana players.

A secret unbeknownst to many Bobcat fans (and ignorant friz fans) is that the almighty Montana grizzlies have but ONE Montana kid starting for their offense, although they have 5 starters on defense. For a collective group of idiots who claim Montana dominance and all that crap we have heard time and again, this is a pretty telling statistic. Seems all their vaunted Montana boys pretty much sit on the bench and run the scout teams.

CARDIAC_CATS · Post by **CARDIAC_CATS** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 3:33 pm

BozoneCat wrote:
theblackgecko wrote:
BelgradeBobcat wrote:I think the major reason the Big Sky powers that be would go after a Cal Davis before the Dakotas is simply that every Big Sky school (with the possible exception of EWU) relys heavily on California players.
While some have no problem with being Cal State Boz-Angeles, I would have to disagree with the above statement. Montana runs a smattering of California players, but gets plenty of Montana players.
A secret unbeknownst to many Bobcat fans (and ignorant friz fans) is that the almighty Montana grizzlies have but ONE Montana kid starting for their offense, although they have 5 starters on defense. For a collective group of idiots who claim Montana dominance and all that crap we have heard time and again, this is a pretty telling statistic. Seems all their vaunted Montana boys pretty much sit on the bench and run the scout teams.

Cats have what 2 starters on O (Birkeland/Elliot) and 3 on defense? (Clark/Marudas/Mollohan). I would think Barnhardt/Beniger should join them next year on O to make 5 (maybe more). So as far as numbers starting wise, we are pretty close with the Griz on Montana kid starters. 5 to 6 this year.

HelenaCat95 · Post by **HelenaCat95** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 3:37 pm

Don't forget Chad Gluhm....i think he's from Park City, MT

BobcatLionFan · Post by **BobcatLionFan** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 3:49 pm

With Hirst back full speed next year and Bolton moving back to Guard. No a lot of space for Beniger with an OL that is playing better and better and very young already and DeCock there as a 6th. Maybe the year after with Bolton leaving

Barnhardt isn't making any splash this year catching the ball. Might have a little completion at Tight end with new guys coming in to fill a hole, so don't count that until it happens.

BozoneCat · Post by **BozoneCat** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 4:04 pm

Whatever our numbers are, I would venture to surmise that most Bobcat fans don't go around telling anyone who will listen, along with those who could care less, that they are "Montana's team" and that they have all the "good" Montana players, while Montana State is made up of the "Montana rejects" and a bunch of thugs from Los Angeles. Hell, they even write crappy newspaper articles in Butte's crappy paper about it during Cat/friz week. I think we all like to see Montana kids come in and do well, but most of us could care less where any Bobcat player grew up, because they are part of the Bobcat Family now. I know that I am proud of all our guys for the hard work they put in on and off the field. I think players from different places add much needed diversity and different perspectives to a pretty homogenous place that sorely needs it. Anyone who thinks this is a bad thing can shove it, as far as I am concerned. It doesn't bother me one single bit that the griz have only 6 Montana kids starting for them - what bothers me is when we hear crap like "Cal-BozAngeles" (very original, by the way) and they actually take the time to count how many kids each team has from Montana on the roster.

WYOBISONMAN · Post by **WYOBISONMAN** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:32 am

I think that it is not even realistic to think that programs that are based in rural states will have very many players from their home state on the roster. I know that NDSU recruits very heavily outside North Dakota, and that is fine with me. My goal is to see the Bison field the most solid team possible....not whether or not there are a bunch of North Dakota kids playing.

CARDIAC_CATS · Post by **CARDIAC_CATS** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:03 am

BozoneCat wrote:Whatever our numbers are, I would venture to surmise that most Bobcat fans don't go around telling anyone who will listen, along with those who could care less, that they are "Montana's team" and that they have all the "good" Montana players, while Montana State is made up of the "Montana rejects" and a bunch of thugs from Los Angeles. Hell, they even write crappy newspaper articles in Butte's crappy paper about it during Cat/friz week. I think we all like to see Montana kids come in and do well, but most of us could care less where any Bobcat player grew up, because they are part of the Bobcat Family now. I know that I am proud of all our guys for the hard work they put in on and off the field. I think players from different places add much needed diversity and different perspectives to a pretty homogenous place that sorely needs it. Anyone who thinks this is a bad thing can shove it, as far as I am concerned. It doesn't bother me one single bit that the griz have only 6 Montana kids starting for them - what bothers me is when we hear crap like "Cal-BozAngeles" (very original, by the way) and they actually take the time to count how many kids each team has from Montana on the roster.

Its just another way the Griz help relieve some stress on themselves when our BozAngeles team crushes them .. that is all! They need some way to justify why their ELITE team lost and that is all they can come up with. I just laugh it off

The third win is gonna be the kicker one this year! I'm telling you, all the pressure is on the Grizzlies this year. I hope we sock it to them and then get to host next year for a 4th straight win (and boy will we be DEEP next year).