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

How many conf games if no one joins the WAC?
Continuing 8 conf games means u dont play 5 schools.
Playing 9 games means u dont play 4 schools.

1EWU
2ISU
3UM
4MSU
5NAU
6UNC
7PSU
8Sac
9WSU

10UCD
11CP
12SUU
13UND

Personally I'd prefer 10 conf games but a school like WSU that would be a benefit and other schools in the Big Sky might not agree. It would be good for Weber because there are now no close FCS OOC games to schedule. We wouldn't have to keep playing 2 money FBS games but could do it every 4th yr, I hate playing non-DI's so that wouldn't/couldn't happen anymore. Conf games are more fun anyway since they have meaning.

I would go with 9 conf games, leaves it open for 1 FBS money game and one FCS game from outside the sky, or 2 FBS games for those that need the money. That would probably eliminate most of the DII games which would be good for the conference overall.

that would leave only 3 teams that you wouldn't play each year, meaning that you would usually play each team 3 out of 4 years. I say usually because if 2 teams are able to select each other as rivals and play every year you would skip somebody in 3 out of 4 cycles

Imagining no Big Sky non-DI games would be awesome. Wouldn't it be a bit diffcult for the Big Sky 13 to get FCS OOC games due to large geographic distance?

In the case of THIS conference, I'd say 9 is a good number considering you just added the teams you normally schedule for OOC games anyway. For east coast conferences, 8 works because there are enough other teams within short trips to fill out the OOC slate.

Is there a rule against playing teams from the other division of a conference as OOC games?


With the Big Sky now having pretty much the entire Mountain and Pacific time zone FCS teams, OOC travel games will be a bitch to scheudle

clenz wrote:Is there a rule against playing teams from the other division of a conference as OOC games?


With the Big Sky now having pretty much the entire Mountain and Pacific time zone FCS teams, OOC travel games will be a bitch to scheudle

Agreed, however has some have mentioned this does not go for everybody. SUU for example, we have a healthy series going on with Texas State right now and also have UTSA scheduled for next season for OOC. It will be a few years before both make the jump to the WAC so we will have some games there. Also as someone mentioned we will need money games more often then not, however Lamb seems to go out of his way to find teams that we have a good possibility of beating as well.

SUUTbird wrote:

clenz wrote:Is there a rule against playing teams from the other division of a conference as OOC games?


With the Big Sky now having pretty much the entire Mountain and Pacific time zone FCS teams, OOC travel games will be a bitch to scheudle

Agreed, however has some have mentioned this does not go for everybody. SUU for example, we have a healthy series going on with Texas State right now and also have UTSA scheduled for next season for OOC. It will be a few years before both make the jump to the WAC so we will have some games there. Also as someone mentioned we will need money games more often then not, however Lamb seems to go out of his way to find teams that we have a good possibility of beating as well.

SUU may be ok for a couple years, but what about the rest of the conference...sans Montana.

With 9 conference games that leaves 2 OOC games. That leaves 1 FBS for everyone and one FCS game. With no other FCS teams out west you may have to play non division teams as OOC...or two FBS.

I could see a MVFC West and Big Sky set up. USD, NDSU, UNI, could all set up OOC games with the Big Sky, but that travel is still pretty big considering the OOC games around here. UNI also seems to have a thing with the SLC as wel...or at least with McNeese and SFA as we have played them pretty frequently. I would love to see UNI play EWU, Montana, Weber State, etc... in OOC games. Maybe get a couple more games with SUU for UNI. I'd like to see the improved SUU team in the dome, rather than what we saw a couple years ago

I personally do not like a nine game conference schedule for the fact that some teams would get 5 home/4 away and some teams would get 4 home/5 away. Think you have to stay at an even number, and 10 is probably not good number, so I would guess 8.

I could also see some friction come up between the MVC, especially USD, and the BSC, especially when it comes to scheduling.

Why would there be friction with USD?

They never signed on with the BSC, and the BSC didn't offer them membership if I understand things right.

USD decided to get into a conference with a lot less travel and some natural rivals, no reason to hold that against them.

That and you don't really have a lot of other options for OOC games that don't require 1500 miles of travel for some of the schools

clenz wrote:Why would there be friction with USD?

They never signed on with the BSC, and the BSC didn't offer them membership if I understand things right.

USD decided to get into a conference with a lot less travel and some natural rivals, no reason to hold that against them.

That and you don't really have a lot of other options for OOC games that don't require 1500 miles of travel for some of the schools

The BSC offered USD full membership. Fullerton and the Big Sky played it wrong. They should have grabbed UND and USD first and then SUU. When SUU left the Summit it opened the door for USD.

As for OOC, what is really the difference between a Big Sky team flying 1500 or 2200 miles? My guess is not alot. The BSC could play SLC teams just as easy.

From what I'm reading, and I may not fully understand it, is they told USD you can join in a couple years. USD was told by the Summit and MVFC that they can stay in the Summit and join the MVFC sooner than they could join the Big Sky.

Easy choice.

clenz wrote:From what I'm reading, and I may not fully understand it, is they told USD you can join in a couple years. USD was told by the Summit and MVFC that they can stay in the Summit and join the MVFC sooner than they could join the Big Sky.

Easy choice.

Both the Big Sky and MVFC invites are/were for the 2012/2013.

SloStang wrote:

clenz wrote:From what I'm reading, and I may not fully understand it, is they told USD you can join in a couple years. USD was told by the Summit and MVFC that they can stay in the Summit and join the MVFC sooner than they could join the Big Sky.

Easy choice.

Both the Big Sky and MVFC invites are/were for the 2012/2013.

Got it.

Still seems like the smart choice was the MVFC. That natural rivalries with SDSU and UNI...both within a 4 hour drive make it the easy choice. The longest travel for USD in the MVFC is Youngstown State (950 miles, and that likely won't be an every year game. The shortest distance (outside of UND) for USD in the BSC woulld have been about 900 miles (Montana State)

clenz, I agree it was/is a no brainer for USD. Thing that gets me is that Fullerton and the Big Sky screw everything up and look stupid.

rationalgriz wrote:clenz, I agree it was/is a no brainer for USD. Thing that gets me is that Fullerton and the Big Sky screw everything up and look stupid.

The Big Sky might as well change it's name to the West of Missouri River Conference.

Isn't USD the only FCS school west of the Missouri that isn't big sky now?

clenz wrote:

rationalgriz wrote:clenz, I agree it was/is a no brainer for USD. Thing that gets me is that Fullerton and the Big Sky screw everything up and look stupid.

The Big Sky might as well change it's name to the West of Missouri River Conference.

Isn't USD the only FCS school west of the Missouri that isn't big sky now?

USD is located east of the Missouri
(actually, north of it. but more east than west)

UND is northeast of the Mo. River as well

The thing that i think may be overlooked here is the fact that there is still roughly almost 2 years before this conference change occurs (2012 at the earliest) frankly at this point anything can happen. One thing that i think may very well occur is that UND may want to stick with USD and leave the Big Sky for the same kind of setup that the Coyotes got in the Missouri Valley, or is the Summit still being uppity about the Sioux nickname? Other then that the only option for a balanced conference schedule is if Montana leaves and/or a d2 is invited up to join the conference.

The MVC won't go to 11 teams or more, I don't think.

Patty V liked the 9 team because everyone played everyone and it was 8 conference games.

10 teams gives an even split with playing all but one or two conference teams.

I don't see her going over that without some major shake ups.

The new Western America, plus Grand Forks but mins San Diego, Conference

Here's how I see Montana working it out:

Go for 8 confernce games: (ISU, UNC, SAC, PSU, UND, SUU, MSU, EWU) Add 2 D2's. Then fly in a couple of SWAC, Pioneer, MEAC, NEC or Big South teams.

8 home games with good odds of getting 7 DI wins for playoff consideration.

I say if the Big Sky stays at 13 football members they should not split into two divisions. They should have each school have 2 permanent rivals and rotate with the 10 schools to fill out an 8 or 9 game conference schedule.

Here is how I would set up the rivals:

UM: MSU/EWU
MSU: UM/UND
UND: MSU/NC
NC: NAU/UND
NAU: SUU/NC
SUU: WSU/NAU
EWU: PSU/UM
PSU: ISU/EWU
ISU: PSU/WSU
WSU: ISU/SUU
CP: UCD/Sac
UCD: CP/Sac
Sac: UCD/CP

clenz wrote:Is there a rule against playing teams from the other division of a conference as OOC games?

No. Delaware has done it at least twice in the past (Hofstra and UNH of the CAA North both came to Newark for an OOC game).

Here is an even better idea I got from the Sioux board.

Give each team 4 rivals that play every year and then play 4 of the other 8 teams every other year.

Possible rivals:

UM: MSU/EWU/UND/WSU
EWU: UM/PSU/CP/Sac
PSU: EWU/CP/Sac/UCD
ISU: UND/WSU/MSU/UNC
WSU: ISU/SUU/UM/NAU
SUU: WSU/NAU/UNC/UCD
NAU: SUU/UNC/WSU/MSU
UNC: NAU/UND/SUU/ISU
UND: UNC/MSU/UM/ISU
MSU: UND/UM/ISU/NAU
CP: UCD/Sac/EWU/PSU
UCD: CP/Sac/SUU/PSU
Sac: UCD/CP/PSU/EWU

I like it. I like it a lot.

SloStang wrote:Here is an even better idea I got from the Sioux board.

Give each team 4 rivals that play every year and then play 4 of the other 8 teams every other year.

Possible rivals:

UM: MSU/EWU/UND/WSU
EWU: UM/PSU/CP/Sac
PSU: EWU/CP/Sac/UCD
ISU: UND/WSU/MSU/UNC
WSU: ISU/SUU/UM/NAU
SUU: WSU/NAU/UNC/UCD
NAU: SUU/UNC/WSU/MSU
UNC: NAU/UND/SUU/ISU
UND: UNC/MSU/UM/ISU
MSU: UND/UM/ISU/NAU
CP: UCD/Sac/EWU/PSU
UCD: CP/Sac/SUU/PSU
Sac: UCD/CP/PSU/EWU
I like it. I like it a lot.

That's pretty good, but I might want to consider swapping EWU for Weber.

SloStang wrote:Here is an even better idea I got from the Sioux board.

Give each team 4 rivals that play every year and then play 4 of the other 8 teams every other year.

Possible rivals:

UM: MSU/EWU/UND/WSU
EWU: UM/PSU/CP/Sac
PSU: EWU/CP/Sac/UCD
ISU: UND/WSU/MSU/UNC
WSU: ISU/SUU/UM/NAU
SUU: WSU/NAU/UNC/UCD
NAU: SUU/UNC/WSU/MSU
UNC: NAU/UND/SUU/ISU
UND: UNC/MSU/UM/ISU
MSU: UND/UM/ISU/NAU
CP: UCD/Sac/EWU/PSU
UCD: CP/Sac/SUU/PSU
Sac: UCD/CP/PSU/EWU

I like it. I like it a lot.

I like that too, with one change to make it 9 conference games if a team so chooses;

Block A would be the 4 teams played every year.
Blocks B and C would be the remaining 8 split into two.
Home = h
Away = a

Rotated on an 8 year cycle, you'd have:

Year 1: A1h, A2a, A3h, A4a, B1h, B2a, B3h, B4a, C1h + 2 OOC
Year 2: A1a, A2h, A3a, A4h, C1a, C2h, C3a, C4h, B1a + 2 OOC
Year 3: A1h, A2a, A3h, A4a, B1h, B2h, B3a, B4h, C2a + 2 OOC
Year 4: A1a, A2h, A3a, A4h, C1h, C2h, C3h, C4a, B2a + 2 OOC
Year 5: A1h, A2a, A3h, A4a, B1a, B2h, B3h, B4a, C3a + 2 OOC
Year 6: A1a, A2h, A3a, A4h, C1a, C2a, C3h, C4h, B3a + 2 OOC
Year 7: A1h, A2a, A3h, A4a, B1h, B2a, B3h, B4h, C4a + 2 OOC
Year 8: A1a, A2h, A3a, A4h, C1h, C2h, C3a, C4h, B4a + 2 OOC

Each team from blocks B and C would be played 3 years in a row at some point in the rolling 8 year cycle, then every other year after that. Starting year 9, you'd play the same schedule through again, but flip the home and away.