Conference Realignment-Big Sky Expansion Thread

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 5:17 pm

CSUS would definitely have to build a new stadium if they were to move up, though. It does seat a lot of people as is, but structurally it is nothing more than temporary bleachers with a green mesh fabric draped over the outside of the structure. A conference would almost certainly demand that something more aesthetically pleasing (permanent) be built before they gained admission into a conference.

The field, the track, and the surrounding area are great, though -- just the structure of the stadium itself needs to be torn down and rebuilt.

With the construction of the new arena, perhaps a new stadium is next on the list?

CSUS drew less than 4,000 fans for their game against Weber last week according the box score. SJSU drew just over 4,000 against Rice. SJSU is toast -- I would be surprised if they don't axe the program after this season. To say that nobody cares about football at SJSU is an understatement (I take grad school classes there, and when you get a feel for the student body, figuratively speaking, you begin to understand why sports just don't matter at that school).

BelgradeBobcat · Post by **BelgradeBobcat** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:33 am

SDSU makes its case for the Big Sky

I think most of us will enjoy the above article about SDSU's game in Bozeman. He makes some interesting comments about SDSU's ability to compete, and what they have to do to get better, including improving their stadium (makes some nice comments about our stadium).

I think SDSU would be a great Big Sky member. I liked their football team and have no doubt that with the additional scholarships, would be able to compete in our league.

But I think most observers of the game Saturday would admit that the Jackrabbits have a little ways to go. If not for a bunch of stupid MSU mistakes-the Jackrabbits would have been blown out. But they were able to stay with a more talented team because they didn't turn the ball over, or make too many big mistakes-that really was the great equalizer on Saturday. They also have a bunch of tough players that refused to give up-a lot like the Bobcats.

They also brought more fans than Weber State and Portland State combined. I think the Dakota schools would bring a lot more passionate support for the Big Sky, and that would be a good thing.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:56 am

I don't think football competitiveness is really a major factor in the conference expansion. UNC is certainly competitive, as is SUU, who beat Davis this weekend. SDSU and NDSU are certainly qualified, football wise, but that just makes them even with the other schools. Also, as the articles have hinted, there may be other schools in the mix which are keeping it quiet. I hope the SDSU fans had a good time in Bozeman, despite the miserable game time weather. I'm sure the Cats and wabbits will meet again, conference ties or not.

NavyBlue · Post by **NavyBlue** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:52 pm

I saw this on the Utah State board concerning possible realignment of D1 college football. A guy over there said he sat next to an official from the NCAA and what he said was pretty interesting. I will try to post the link.

http://mb3.theinsiders.com/futahstatefr ... 9395.topic

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:29 pm

The football side of it makes perfect sense, but I don't think the basketball piece would fly. Even the big dogs realize that the reason that the NCAA basketball tournament is so popular is precisely because of underdog schools. If they cut them out, most of the excitement of the tournament would vanish with it.

grizbeer · Post by **grizbeer** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:52 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:The football side of it makes perfect sense, but I don't think the basketball piece would fly. Even the big dogs realize that the reason that the NCAA basketball tournament is so popular is precisely because of underdog schools. If they cut them out, most of the excitement of the tournament would vanish with it.

Plus the fact that if you have all 64 "Prime" division teams in the basketball tournament why bother with the regular season?

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:54 pm

It wouldn't be popular, but if the "big dogs" wanted to do this, they could. They could simply create a new association and leave the NCAA. I would like to see it happen for football, also. What would really be fair would be revenue sharing to allow more schools to compete. It wouldn't need to be equal funding for everybody, but minimum funding for everybody, with some stiffer requirements for admission to D1.

This really sounds more or less like what people have been talking about for a while. Big Sky schools might be pretty competitive in a division without those richest schools. It might be a good thing. Who knows what will actually happen though.

SacHornetFan · Post by **SacHornetFan** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 12:23 pm

Well, judging by that post, it sounds like this will be for football only, as football is the only Div. I sport with sub-classification. I don't see this for all the other sports.

NavyBlue · Post by **NavyBlue** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:03 am

Hey Sac Fan, I just read that Sacramento State joined the WAC for baseball. And the AD said something like, "this is the first step in elevating our athletic programs in regional and national prominence."

Could this be the first foot in the door for full WAC membership?

BelgradeBobcat · Post by **BelgradeBobcat** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:55 am

Saw a brief interview with Doug Fullerton on a Bozeman sports news broadcast on Friday.

Fullerton was asked about Big Sky expansion. He mentioned that they were considering schools that don't offer every sport because football likes an odd number of schools so there's an equal number of home and away games, and basketball (and other sports) like an even number so schools could paired up as travel partners and there would be 2 conference games per team every weekend. He also mentioned the possiblity of going to a 2 division format. He specifically mentioned Cal Davis and Cal Poly-but didn't say for which sports. I'm sure CP and UCD would only be for football though, as they are in the the all California Big West for all their other sports.

Like I said, it was a very short interview-but there might be a lot to read into here...

More later as I have the time

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 11:11 am

I HATE odd number team schedules!!! Having one week where we have one conference game, to hype your rival, Montana State vrs Montana is perfect! When we are an odd number team conference, the Big Sky always tend to send us too Timbucktoo the Friday before the Cat Griz game in Missoula. The travel partner concept works so well. Can we impeach, over throw, or just retire Fulerton!!

BelgradeBobcat · Post by **BelgradeBobcat** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 11:45 am

I think there's a lot more going on here. I think Sac State is going to go Big West-leaving us with only 7 teams (and an odd number at that).

Losing Sac would be a problem because I think most of our football programs want to have a Big Sky presence in California (especially MSU)-thus the possibility of taking in the California schools as football only members solves a potential big problem.

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 11:55 am

Sac. State wants to go D-1a! Now thant is interesting. I saw something on the Net stating N. Colorado is the first choise of the Big Sky to to its roster, I still think that would be a good move. Am I missing something.

BelgradeBobcat · Post by **BelgradeBobcat** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 12:14 pm

No-not D-1A. Some may classify the Big West as D-1AAA because they don't sponsor football at all. I think Sac State will eventually go to the Big West for all their sports except football because it is an all California D-1 conference. Travel costs would be reduced significantly, their main rival, Cal Davis is already accepted into the Big West for everything except football. It just makes too much senset to me for Sac to go to the Big West-except for football.

Now if you're talking potential D-1A from the Big Sky-how about this can-o-worms? I think Montana will received an invite from the WAC within the next couple of years and I would not be surprised if Montana goes for it. It will be a huge controversy.

The Big Sky office has to at least have a contingency for such a happening-they shouldn't bury their heads in the sand and think the griz will stay in the Big Sky forever.

More later...

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 12:18 pm

CSUS has a big enrollment and is committing some big bucks to their athletic facilities, so I do see them moving up, quite possibly. I think Fullerton's ideas are very intriguing. CP and UCD would be real plum additions to the conference, even if just for football. UNC for all sports would be good, too. Don't forget, Fullerton doesn't decide anything. The presidents make the decisions. Also, don't forget that Bozeman is on the geographic fringe of the conference, not the center, so other schools may not agree with us on who should join. I do think a California presence is a plus. A couple of games close to home can't hurt recruiting.

I would like to see a mid major division, including all non-CFA schools and the top 1AA schools that would blur the division between 1A and 1AA, someday. A division that would have us playing the likes of Idaho, Wyoming and USU, again, on a more even basis.

BelgradeBobcat · Post by **BelgradeBobcat** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:22 pm

Here's one far flung theory I have based on the following:

All Big Sky schools recruit California heavily-the Big Sky wants and needs a presence in California.

The Dakota schools and Northern Colorado want in the Big Sky really bad, and they have a lot to offer any I-AA conference.

MSU President Gamble is on record of being in favor of bringing in the Dakota schools for sure.

Fullerton is on record as at least exploring a two division format, bring in schools that don't play all Big Sky sports, and specifically mentioning Cal Poly and Cal Davis as possibilities.

It is unlikely that schools like PSU and Sac St. would be in favor of taking in the Dakota schools unless...

The Big Sky absorbs most or all of the Great West Conference for football only and goes to a two division alignment set up like the Atlantic 10 already does for I-AA football. Each Division would have 7 teams that would play each other every year. Teams would play 2 or 3 games against the other division.

The divisional set up could look something like this:

East

NDSU
SDSU
UNC
MSU
um
EWU
ISU

West

WSU
PSU
Sac
Cal Poly
UC Davis
Southern Utah
NAU

(I would probably swap WSU for UNC as UNC is pretty isolated anyway and I would want to keep the current core Big Sky schools together as much as possible)

A couple of wildcards here: I still think um might be making the jump to 1-A soon.

I read on the North Dakota boards of Fullerton sightings at the University of North Dakota. I think they'll eventually jump to D-1 to join their hated bretheren at NDSU-especially if they can jump right into a conference. UND is playing things very close to the vest.

I'm most unsure about Southern Utah. I've heard they don't fully fund their program with 63 scholarships. That could keep them out.

Remember this alignment would apply to football only!

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:33 pm

That's an interesting possibility. Can't say I have a strong opinion on it right now. One concern is that a much bigger conference means fewer championships to go around, but maybe a division championship would be part of the picture.

Of course, one of the most important issues for the conference is having enough basketball schools to maintain the automatic bid. If the Dakotas and UNC were full members that would be taken care of, but what if PSU leaves, as well as CSUS? It's interesting to know that people are thinking "outside the box". The outcome could be revolutionary for Big Sky history. "Big Sky" is a great name for a conference. Doesn't look like we'll be seeing any long term stability any time soon. Aren't the friz joining the frontier conference?

BelgradeBobcat · Post by **BelgradeBobcat** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:40 pm

I've got another theory regarding basketball that involves a couple of schools that don't play football. I'll get to that later on.

A championship football game between division winners wouldn't work out right now because it would conflict with the 1-AA playoffs. The A-10 doesn't have a championship game.

I think the merged conferences would provide for a couple of at-large playoff spots most years-along with the automatic bid.

It will be interesting to see how conservative the Presidents are when they have their meetings this winter/early spring (I think Fullerton said they could be deciding on expansion in March).

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:45 pm

I do not understand the advantage of one conference and two divisions. One conference with two divisions gets 1 automatic bid to the playoffs. Two conferences gets two bid. At least in basketball that is a difference of $250,000 or more, and exposure for teams.

BelgradeBobcat · Post by **BelgradeBobcat** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 6:02 pm

The 2 divisions in football doesn't hurt you as far as tourney $ goes-most I-AA schools actually lose money when they go to the playoffs.

There's a good argument to keep the numbers down in basketball so there are fewer teams to split the NCAA tourney money. But there is a fine line. If you have small membership and you lose a couple for whatever reason suddenly your automatic bid and thus tourney money is in jeopardy.

The other reason for adding members was touched on by Mick Durham on the radio a couple of weeks ago. Scheduling for him can be a nightmare. It's really tough to get D-1 teams to come to Bozeman. He said a few more teams in the conference and having fewer non-conference games to schedule would be helpful.

Conference Realignment-Big Sky Expansion Thread

Hmmmm...

Sac Hornet Fan