FCS Football | Message Board | News
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=19697
Well, not in the next year or so, anyway. I still think there's a strong possibility that UM will try to bolt at some point. I like that the conference is being pro-active. Been saying all along that UND and USD aren't that great as far as geography goes, but adding two flagship universities is a good move, IMO.weberwildcat wrote:http://bigskyconf.com/news/2010/11/1/GE ... 05326.aspx
"The Big Sky does not anticipate losing any of its current nine core members."
This is great news for the current members.
or the WAC comes to us“The moves we’ve made aren’t about protection,’’ Fullerton said. “If the talk out there is true that playing at the FBS level of football is unsustainable for many schools, then FCS will play an even bigger role in the future. The Big Sky presidents want the Big Sky to be the first major player coming from the FCS ranks.
“We have to change a lot of mindsets,’’ Fullerton added. “Every time someone from our division has sustained success, the national media believes that school has to move up to the FBS level, and that’s not the case.”
I was going to post the same thing.nwFL Griz wrote:Kind of a stretch between "doesn't anticipate losing..." and "announces Montana not going to WAC", isn't it?
I'm sure the WAC didn't anticipate losing Fresno or Nevada, either. Right up until both announced they were leaving.
I would wait to hear from UM before declaring that they are not leaving.
It's all part of Montana's plan....wait for the WAC to fold and then make the jump straight to the Mountain West or Pac-10/12.bpcats wrote:When Montana can find a way to double its athletic budget including coaches salary then they will move up. WAC is in a precarious position right now anyways. Might not be around by time Montana is ready to move up.
No, I don't.....not necessarily. But what I am saying is that the BCS conferences are positioning themselves to keep the non-BCS conferences out of any BCS bowl bids. So, being in a non-BCS FBS conference is going to be less attractive for FCS programs that are looking to move up, because there's no money in those crappy bowl games.webfan wrote:How ya going to make it "less attractive" to go FBS? Do you think the minor bowls are gonna fold?
I think the only way it becomes less attractive is if the BCS conferences stop sharing any of the revenue from the BCS model.EWURanger wrote:No, I don't.....not necessarily. But what I am saying is that the BCS conferences are positioning themselves to keep the non-BCS conferences out of any BCS bowl bids. So, being in a non-BCS FBS conference is going to be less attractive for FCS programs that are looking to move up, because there's no money in those crappy bowl games.webfan wrote:How ya going to make it "less attractive" to go FBS? Do you think the minor bowls are gonna fold?
nwFL Griz wrote:Kind of a stretch between "doesn't anticipate losing..." and "announces Montana not going to WAC", isn't it?
I'm sure the WAC didn't anticipate losing Fresno or Nevada, either. Right up until both announced they were leaving.
I would wait to hear from UM before declaring that they are not leaving.