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

How about this proposal - Big Sky sponsor BOTH FBS and FCS football. All other sports together.

FBS:

San Jose
NMSU
USU
Idaho
Montana
Montana State
Portland State
Sac State

FCS:

NAU
EWU
UNC
WSU
SUU
UCD
CP
ISU

Big Sky North
Montana
Montana State
Idaho State
Idaho
Utah State
Weber State
Eastern Washington

Big Sky South
NAU
NMSU
SUU
UNC
PSU
SJSU
Sac State

I'll give you the full 6.0 for artistic impression though. I'm friends with the Russian judge.

93henfan wrote:

I'll give you the full 6.0 for artistic impression though. I'm friends with the Russian judge.

NYET!

But seriously, it's an innovative approach, but I don't think the FBS teams would go for it. The cool kids never want to be seen with the FCS geeks. The other issue is that you have mixed FCS/FBS divisions. I'm sure you could come up with a lengthy explanation of how you'd make it work, but boy that'd be a lot of work.

93henfan wrote:But seriously, it's an innovative approach, but I don't think the FBS teams would go for it. The cool kids never want to be seen with the FCS geeks. The other issue is that you have mixed FCS/FBS divisions. I'm sure you could come up with a lengthy explanation of how you'd make it work, but boy that'd be a lot of work.

Think of the Big East - you have the FBS boys, and FCS boys, and the non-football schools - separate for football, mixed for all other sports.

Let's face it - the only thing separating NMSU, SJSU, USU and Idaho from the Big Sky is 22 football schollies. Other than that, their institutional and athletic profiles fit in quite well with most of the Big Sky schools.

I don't see the upside for either group (FCS or FBS).

The FBS teams will have a hard time getting post season bowl recognition if they have a bunch of FCS opponents. It will als be harder for them to recruit. If the recruits are good enough to play FBS ball, why would they want to play against FCS teams?


The FCS teams would likely lose most of the time to the FBS teams which would take them out of FCS play off consideration. The ones that did make the playoffs would probably have multiple losses and end up on the road.

BlueHen86 wrote:I don't see the upside for either group (FCS or FBS).

The FBS teams will have a hard time getting post season bowl recognition if they have a bunch of FCS opponents. It will als be harder for them to recruit. If the recruits are good enough to play FBS ball, why would they want to play against FCS teams?


The FCS teams would likely lose most of the time to the FBS teams which would take them out of FCS play off consideration. The ones that did make the playoffs would probably have multiple losses and end up on the road.

For football, they would be in essence two separate leagues. They would not play each other, other than money games. What this set up allows for is the FBS schools to stay FBS, but also provide a home for all other sports.

dbackjon wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:I don't see the upside for either group (FCS or FBS).

The FBS teams will have a hard time getting post season bowl recognition if they have a bunch of FCS opponents. It will als be harder for them to recruit. If the recruits are good enough to play FBS ball, why would they want to play against FCS teams?


The FCS teams would likely lose most of the time to the FBS teams which would take them out of FCS play off consideration. The ones that did make the playoffs would probably have multiple losses and end up on the road.

For football, they would be in essence two separate leagues. They would not play each other, other than money games. What this set up allows for is the FBS schools to stay FBS, but also provide a home for all other sports.

Okay. I guess that could work.

For Idaho it would still make more sense to move back to FCS. Less schollies to fund, and you'd save on travel as UM, EWU, PSU, and perhaps even MSU and ISU are bus trips. You'd be more competitive and have a chance to host more home games with the playoffs.

Might be the same thing for USU and SJSU as well.

dbackjon wrote:How about this proposal - Big Sky sponsor BOTH FBS and FCS football. All other sports together.

FBS:

San Jose
NMSU
USU
Idaho
Montana
Montana State
Portland State
Sac State

FCS:

NAU
EWU
UNC
WSU
SUU
UCD
CP
ISU

Big Sky North
Montana
Montana State
Idaho State
Idaho
Utah State
Weber State
Eastern Washington

Big Sky South
NAU
NMSU
SUU
UNC
PSU
SJSU
Sac State

1. The RPI hit the FBS squads would take would be too big to choke down.

2. I have a hard time believing Sac in FBS without Cow Poly and/or the Manure Pile.

3. I think Weber could make the jump, too.

4. You have one school that there that belongs in D-III, IMO.

SuperHornet wrote:

dbackjon wrote:How about this proposal - Big Sky sponsor BOTH FBS and FCS football. All other sports together.

FBS:

San Jose
NMSU
USU
Idaho
Montana
Montana State
Portland State
Sac State

FCS:

NAU
EWU
UNC
WSU
SUU
UCD
CP
ISU

Big Sky North
Montana
Montana State
Idaho State
Idaho
Utah State
Weber State
Eastern Washington

Big Sky South
NAU
NMSU
SUU
UNC
PSU
SJSU
Sac State

1. The RPI hit the FBS squads would take would be too big to choke down.

2. I have a hard time believing Sac in FBS without Cow Poly and/or the Manure Pile.

3. I think Weber could make the jump, too.

4. You have one school that there that belongs in D-III, IMO.

Not to mention it would make scheduling the conference championship game even tougher and that is a must.

The whole "mixed division" thing doesn't matter because the "north/south" divisions wouldn't apply to football, only for other sports (which don't have seperate subdivisions anyway).

And the FBS football teams wouldn't suffer any RPI hits because they wouldn't be playing the FCS schools (other than perhaps one, just as they do now).

Not saying that such a thing will ever happen, but the logistics could work.

The only way something like that would happen would be if the Big Sky stopped sponsoring football, and formed two seperate "football only" conferences (even if they're run out of the same office as the Big Sky).

Kind of like the MVC, and the MVFC and Pioneer League.

So you'd end up with:
- Big Sky Conference (all sports except football)
- blahblahFBS Football Conference (the 8 teams playing for a spot in a bowl game)
- blahblahFCS Football Conference (the 8 teams playing for spots in the Division I football playoffs)

Well since you have to have an invite from a FBS conference to move to FBS, the Big Sky can't be FBS. If those schools in the Sky wanted to be FBS they'd be in the WAC and WAC & Big Sky would be 2 different conferences like they are now.

Sounds like a merger of the WAC and Big Sky and, if so, they would probably take the name WAC.

dbackjon wrote:Let's face it - the only thing separating NMSU, SJSU, USU and Idaho from the Big Sky is 22 football schollies. Other than that, their institutional and athletic profiles fit in quite well with most of the Big Sky schools.

THIS really is the crux of the issue. These schools BELONG in the Big Sky. But, much like my old boss who could NEVER admit he was wrong, these schools just can't bring themselves to admit they'd be better off in the FCS and save some money in the long run.

I went to Idaho in the late '80's. The dome was PACKED. They were good, and people came out in droves to watch football. So, it's not about selling tickets, it's about having an inferiority complex to Boise State. Same with USU and Utah, same with SJSU and just about every other FBS school in California. They just need to accept their lot in life, move down, and be a bigger fish in a smaller pond.

I am still trying to figure out why you have an avatar of a dude wearing a jock that pulsates.

dbackjon wrote:

93henfan wrote:But seriously, it's an innovative approach, but I don't think the FBS teams would go for it. The cool kids never want to be seen with the FCS geeks. The other issue is that you have mixed FCS/FBS divisions. I'm sure you could come up with a lengthy explanation of how you'd make it work, but boy that'd be a lot of work.

Think of the Big East - you have the FBS boys, and FCS boys, and the non-football schools - separate for football, mixed for all other sports.

Let's face it - the only thing separating NMSU, SJSU, USU and Idaho from the Big Sky is 22 football schollies. Other than that, their institutional and athletic profiles fit in quite well with most of the Big Sky schools.

Except for the six BSC teams that are under .500 over the last ten years.

kemajic wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
Think of the Big East - you have the FBS boys, and FCS boys, and the non-football schools - separate for football, mixed for all other sports.

Let's face it - the only thing separating NMSU, SJSU, USU and Idaho from the Big Sky is 22 football schollies. Other than that, their institutional and athletic profiles fit in quite well with most of the Big Sky schools.

Except for the six BSC teams that are under .500 over the last ten years.

Average records, last 10 years:

NMSU: 4-8
SJSU: 5-7 (rounding UP)
USU: 3-9
Idaho: 3-9

Wow - those four should maybe try the Frontier Conference instead...

dbackjon wrote:

kemajic wrote: Except for the six BSC teams that are under .500 over the last ten years.

Average records, last 10 years:

NMSU: 4-8
SJSU: 5-7 (rounding UP)
USU: 3-9
Idaho: 3-9

Wow - those four should maybe try the Frontier Conference instead...

Yeah thats looks like a great conference