Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Fullerton said they would like the conf to be 2 divisions and 12 teams.

lets see UND , USD....SUU is the only choice

Fullerton said this is the first part of an expansion process, an exercise that could lead to a 12-team football conference that would split into two six-team divisions.

Idaho, Utah State, San Jose St, Central Washington

All a stretch, but all more preferable imo. And it would pretty hilarious if we set up divisions and Sac State jumped ship like a week later.

Silenoz wrote:Idaho, Utah State, San Jose St, Central Washington

All a stretch, but all more preferable imo. And it would pretty hilarious if we set up divisions and Sac State jumped ship like a week later.

Then again, this could be a preemptive move for when Montana/MSU/Sac State all jump ship to the WAC.

I think it was a preemptive move for Sac St. jumping to the WAC and keeping CA in the footprint. If SUU is added then maybe not, but why just 2 now and not all 3 if they really think there will be 12 in the conf.

If SUU is added and Sac St. leaves then they call UND.

Silenoz wrote:Idaho, Utah State, San Jose St, Central Washington

All a stretch, but all more preferable imo. And it would pretty hilarious if we set up divisions and Sac State jumped ship like a week later.

I'd agree with all of the above except Central Washington.........you laugh at our Football facilities.....theirs are ten times worse. I won't even get into their other facilities. Plus they would have to add sports and football scholarships. I'd much rather a program that is already established in FCS join than have the conference weakened by more transitional Division II schools......

It would be nice if Idaho ever came to their senses and moved back to the Big Sky. But alas, they will probably prefer to be mired in mediocrity in some new perversion of the WAC or some other BS FBS conference like the Sun Belt.

weberwildcat wrote:Fullerton said they would like the conf to be 2 divisions and 12 teams.

lets see UND , USD....SUU is the only choice

Idaho or SJSU come to mind. He also said schools are reevaluating what they spend on athletics and what they can spend realistically. He also said Poly and Davis fit the other Big Sky schools academically, which SUU does not.

Green Cookie Monster wrote:

weberwildcat wrote:Fullerton said they would like the conf to be 2 divisions and 12 teams.

lets see UND , USD....SUU is the only choice

Idaho or SJSU come to mind. He also said schools are reevaluating what they spend on athletics and what they can spend realistically. He also said Poly and Davis fit the other Big Sky schools academically, which SUU does not.

Concur. This is the reason that SUU was held out in the past. However, Davis and Poly are both good fits academically in the BSC.

if the wac dies as fast as the great west....


san jose and idaho will have no home. usu to mwc, nmsu sunbelt.

is san diego really in the discussion?

weberwildcat wrote:is san diego really in the discussion?

No. I believe they are non-scholarship in football. No chance.

I don't get it, what's so bad about SUU's academics? And, would that really exclude them from the BSC?

Herky wrote:I don't get it, what's so bad about SUU's academics? And, would that really exclude them from the BSC?

It's probably not that their academics are "bad", I just don't think they offer as much academically as the other schools in the conference do. I think their enrollment is somewhere around 7000. Unless I am mistaken, the next smaller school is EWU with 11,500 - big difference there. I could be wrong, though.......UNC might be smaller.

EWURanger wrote:

Herky wrote:I don't get it, what's so bad about SUU's academics? And, would that really exclude them from the BSC?

It's probably not that their academics are "bad", I just don't think they offer as much academically as the other schools in the conference do. I think their enrollment is somewhere around 7000. Unless I am mistaken, the next smaller school is EWU with 11,500 - big difference there. I could be wrong, though.......UNC might be smaller.

It could also be the programs offered for undergrad, masters, and PhD level classes. Those are just as big in terms of conference alignment (more so in the non BCS conferences) as athletics.

Herky wrote:I don't get it, what's so bad about SUU's academics? And, would that really exclude them from the BSC?

ya and i heard this same stuff about boise state. when a conf is avoiding going extinct academics don't mean a damn thing. ask the WAC.

EWURanger wrote:

Herky wrote:I don't get it, what's so bad about SUU's academics? And, would that really exclude them from the BSC?

It's probably not that their academics are "bad", I just don't think they offer as much academically as the other schools in the conference do. I think their enrollment is somewhere around 7000. Unless I am mistaken, the next smaller school is EWU with 11,500 - big difference there. I could be wrong, though.......UNC might be smaller.

Well, maybe it's an enrollment issue then. I read some other posts that talked about SUU's academics and it was the first time I had ever heard anything negative.

Thanks for clarifying.

weberwildcat wrote:

Herky wrote:I don't get it, what's so bad about SUU's academics? And, would that really exclude them from the BSC?

ya and i heard this same stuff about boise state. when a conf is avoiding going extinct academics don't mean a damn thing. ask the WAC.

That's true, they lost some research institutions and to stay alive that allowed some liberal arts institutions in. But, having good academics and being a researh university arent synonymous.

If you mean by good academics having a good education, good teaching faculty, you're right - good academics doesn't necessarily equal research institutions. Research schools typically have 80% grad students and adjuncts teaching. They get their "reputations" from the number of nobel prize winners on staff (they often doen't teach), number of Phds graduating each year, and amount of research grants they gather each year. We're talking about Berkeley and Stanford here, emphatically not SUU. And definitely not Boise State. The WAC has a very modest academic dimension and very weak football teams. Somehow they squeezed into the FBS, and they're hanging on to it by the skin of their teeth. Boise State may "go up", but only in football; it will remain WAC or BSC in academics. SUU may 'go up" to the Big Sky, but - no offense intended - it needs another couple of decades to catch up to the Big Sky in both research and good education.

I doubt with the state of affairs regarding funding in the western states, that many DII's out west will have the money or resources available for a move up. That itself, may be why both Cal Poly and UC-Davis made a lateral move to the Big Sky instead of holding out for a possible WAC invite. The WAC is still FBS and Poly and Davis may have realized how much money would have been necessary to bring themselves up to that level.

JALMOND wrote:I doubt with the state of affairs regarding funding in the western states, that many DII's out west will have the money or resources available for a move up. That itself, may be why both Cal Poly and UC-Davis made a lateral move to the Big Sky instead of holding out for a possible WAC invite. The WAC is still FBS and Poly and Davis may have realized how much money would have been necessary to bring themselves up to that level.

They didn't make a lateral move. They went from a non-auto-bid conference to an autobid conference. It's the FBS equivalent of going from the MWC to the Pac 10.

AZGrizFan wrote:

JALMOND wrote:I doubt with the state of affairs regarding funding in the western states, that many DII's out west will have the money or resources available for a move up. That itself, may be why both Cal Poly and UC-Davis made a lateral move to the Big Sky instead of holding out for a possible WAC invite. The WAC is still FBS and Poly and Davis may have realized how much money would have been necessary to bring themselves up to that level.

They didn't make a lateral move. They went from a non-auto-bid conference to an autobid conference. It's the FBS equivalent of going from the MWC to the Pac 10.

Lateral in that they already had FCS facilities and would not have to add anything. In terms of competition, I will give you that one.

AZGrizFan wrote:

JALMOND wrote:I doubt with the state of affairs regarding funding in the western states, that many DII's out west will have the money or resources available for a move up. That itself, may be why both Cal Poly and UC-Davis made a lateral move to the Big Sky instead of holding out for a possible WAC invite. The WAC is still FBS and Poly and Davis may have realized how much money would have been necessary to bring themselves up to that level.

They didn't make a lateral move. They went from a non-auto-bid conference to an autobid conference. It's the FBS equivalent of going from the MWC to the Pac 10.

More like moving from the WAC to the Pac 10. The WAC is currently short of being a counting conference as is the GWC. 3 soon to be 2 when SUU joins as a full member later.

SJSU would just drop football after a couple of years if the WAC died. Maybe you guys could hold out for Idaho who would at least rough it as an Indy for a bit. NMSU and La Tech would join the SBC and Utah St./Hawaii might get a life raft from the MWC.