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

How many Big Sky fans would like to see a 10th team added to the conference?

Who should it be?

Cal Poly, Southern Utah, North Dakota State, or even South Dakota State?

What about a D2 school moving up, like maybe Central Washington?

Heard a rumor about Denver was thinking about bringing football back.

Or maybe Idaho can admit what they did was stupid and re-join the BSC.

I for one would like Cal Poly or SUU to join.

If yes, tell us why you think it would be good, and who you think it should be, if not, tell us why you dont like the idea of a 10 team conference.

Torn on this. 9 teams is ideal for football - 4 home, 4 away, 3 OOC.
9 teams suck for basketball and volleyball. Not real keen on a non-football school, but DU would make a good travel partner for UNC, and with hockey, they have a "football-like" sport so as to not gain the advantage many non-football schools have in basketball.

As I've said before, I think the Big Sky should add Utah Valley as a non-football school. It's a big school (over 20,000) that actually has a relatively large arena (unlike PSU & Sac). It also would be a better choice for travel purposes than the Dakotas or SUU since it's in the SLC/Provo metro strip.

I agree with dback that 9 teams are great for football while an even number of teams would be much better for other sports. I don't mind having a team with an advantage in not having to fund football since the Big Sky needs to up its credentials in other sports more than football anyway. The Big Sky is already a power conference in FCS football, but it's just an average mid-major in basketball.

Mvemjsunpx wrote:As I've said before, I think the Big Sky should add Utah Valley as a non-football school. It's a big school (over 20,000) that actually has a relatively large arena (unlike PSU & Sac). It also would be a better choice for travel purposes than the Dakotas or SUU since it's in the SLC/Provo metro strip.

I agree with dback that 9 teams are great for football while an even number of teams would be much better for other sports. I don't mind having a team with an advantage in not having to fund football since the Big Sky needs to up its credentials in other sports more than football anyway. The Big Sky is already a power conference in FCS football, but it's just an average mid-major in basketball.

The only problem with that idea is that Utah Valley has given a commitment to the Great West Conference in all sports including football in the future as they are hoping on having a program by 2012. Personally if it isnt to obvious i would love to see SUU in the Big Sky. Another huge rivalry game at the end of the season would be great and we have proven we can compete with big sky schools (@ montana in 2007 and NAU in 2008) and i know we could have beaten ISU, UNC, PSU and Sac State and even possibly EWU with their horrible secondary vs our pass happy offense.

Also SUU is very competitive in basketball nad have a decent baseball team and great track team, so i vote SUU!!

Why don't they just add Cal Poly, SUU, NDSU, SDSU, and Central Washington. Then the BSC could be just like the CAA.

SMFH

Wildcat Ryan wrote:How many Big Sky fans would like to see a 10th team added to the conference?

Who should it be?

Cal Poly, Southern Utah, North Dakota State, or even South Dakota State?

What about a D2 school moving up, like maybe Central Washington?

Heard a rumor about Denver was thinking about bringing football back.

Or maybe Idaho can admit what they did was stupid and re-join the BSC.

I for one would like Cal Poly or SUU to join.

If yes, tell us why you think it would be good, and who you think it should be, if not, tell us why you dont like the idea of a 10 team conference.

Not a good idea for football.

SUUTbird wrote:

Mvemjsunpx wrote:As I've said before, I think the Big Sky should add Utah Valley as a non-football school. It's a big school (over 20,000) that actually has a relatively large arena (unlike PSU & Sac). It also would be a better choice for travel purposes than the Dakotas or SUU since it's in the SLC/Provo metro strip.

I agree with dback that 9 teams are great for football while an even number of teams would be much better for other sports. I don't mind having a team with an advantage in not having to fund football since the Big Sky needs to up its credentials in other sports more than football anyway. The Big Sky is already a power conference in FCS football, but it's just an average mid-major in basketball.

The only problem with that idea is that Utah Valley has given a commitment to the Great West Conference in all sports including football in the future as they are hoping on having a program by 2012. Personally if it isnt to obvious i would love to see SUU in the Big Sky. Another huge rivalry game at the end of the season would be great and we have proven we can compete with big sky schools (@ montana in 2007 and NAU in 2008) and i know we could have beaten ISU, UNC, PSU and Sac State and even possibly EWU with their horrible secondary vs our pass happy offense.

Also SUU is very competitive in basketball nad have a decent baseball team and great track team, so i vote SUU!!

You know they could have beat Sac and PSU? That is simply fan bias, because the teams didnt play, you'll never really know. The only thing that you could possibly base any hypothetical game on from last season was the Davis game, because both Sac and SUU played them. The only diference is Sac beat Davis 29-19 where SUU lost 26-49! Going with that logic, the only real tangible fact to base your hypothetical game off of, Sac would have beaten SUU.

And PSU beat NAU 17-37, another common game that SUU lost, 14-19.

So please, explain how SUU could have beaten either one of the before mentioned teams other than saying that SUU was pass happy because both PSU and Davis were very pass happy as well!

Herky wrote:

SUUTbird wrote:
The only problem with that idea is that Utah Valley has given a commitment to the Great West Conference in all sports including football in the future as they are hoping on having a program by 2012. Personally if it isnt to obvious i would love to see SUU in the Big Sky. Another huge rivalry game at the end of the season would be great and we have proven we can compete with big sky schools (@ montana in 2007 and NAU in 2008) and i know we could have beaten ISU, UNC, PSU and Sac State and even possibly EWU with their horrible secondary vs our pass happy offense.

Also SUU is very competitive in basketball nad have a decent baseball team and great track team, so i vote SUU!!

You know they could have beat Sac and PSU? That is simply fan bias, because the teams didnt play, you'll never really know. The only thing that you could possibly base any hypothetical game on from last season was the Davis game, because both Sac and SUU played them. The only diference is Sac beat Davis 29-19 where SUU lost 26-49! Going with that logic, the only real tangible fact to base your hypothetical game off of, Sac would have beaten SUU.

And PSU beat NAU 17-37, another common game that SUU lost, 14-19.

So please, explain how SUU could have beaten either one of the before mentioned teams other than saying that SUU was pass happy because both PSU and Davis were very pass happy as well!

I still don't understand why ANYBODY would want to bring in a school that couldn't take a conference title away from a 3-8 Sac State squad.

Herky wrote:

SUUTbird wrote:
The only problem with that idea is that Utah Valley has given a commitment to the Great West Conference in all sports including football in the future as they are hoping on having a program by 2012. Personally if it isnt to obvious i would love to see SUU in the Big Sky. Another huge rivalry game at the end of the season would be great and we have proven we can compete with big sky schools (@ montana in 2007 and NAU in 2008) and i know we could have beaten ISU, UNC, PSU and Sac State and even possibly EWU with their horrible secondary vs our pass happy offense.

Also SUU is very competitive in basketball nad have a decent baseball team and great track team, so i vote SUU!!

You know they could have beat Sac and PSU? That is simply fan bias, because the teams didnt play, you'll never really know. The only thing that you could possibly base any hypothetical game on from last season was the Davis game, because both Sac and SUU played them. The only diference is Sac beat Davis 29-19 where SUU lost 26-49! Going with that logic, the only real tangible fact to base your hypothetical game off of, Sac would have beaten SUU.

And PSU beat NAU 17-37, another common game that SUU lost, 14-19.

So please, explain how SUU could have beaten either one of the before mentioned teams other than saying that SUU was pass happy because both PSU and Davis were very pass happy as well!

I would be more then happy to oblidge. Sac State played very incosistently all year long, they would be up one week and down the next so you bringing in the Uc Davis in reference to Sac State just shows they were on an up week and their embaressing loss to both NAU and upset loss to then 0-11 ISU shows that they were very inconsistent. And it was NAU that beat PSU 37-17 just so you know. I am not basing my opionions on fan bias because i do know the Big Sky has several good teams, i admit i could have wordered that better and said may have beaten, i just am confident and believe that SUU could have pulled it off .

SUUTbird wrote:

Herky wrote:
You know they could have beat Sac and PSU? That is simply fan bias, because the teams didnt play, you'll never really know. The only thing that you could possibly base any hypothetical game on from last season was the Davis game, because both Sac and SUU played them. The only diference is Sac beat Davis 29-19 where SUU lost 26-49! Going with that logic, the only real tangible fact to base your hypothetical game off of, Sac would have beaten SUU.

And PSU beat NAU 17-37, another common game that SUU lost, 14-19.

So please, explain how SUU could have beaten either one of the before mentioned teams other than saying that SUU was pass happy because both PSU and Davis were very pass happy as well!

I would be more then happy to oblidge. Sac State played very incosistently all year long, they would be up one week and down the next so you bringing in the Uc Davis in reference to Sac State just shows they were on an up week and their embaressing loss to both NAU and upset loss to then 0-11 ISU shows that they were very inconsistent. And it was NAU that beat PSU 37-17 just so you know. I am not basing my opionions on fan bias because i do know the Big Sky has several good teams, i admit i could have wordered that better and said may have beaten, i just am confident and believe that SUU could have pulled it off .

You might also consider the game against CSU, where Sac lost by 3 because our back up RB fumbled the ball. SUU didnt play very well against Air Force, another MWC team. It's true that Sac was a bit up and down last season, but a lot of that was due to key players being injured and returning before they were healed just to become injured again. Had Sac played SUU I doubt, depending on the week the teams met, that they could have handled the Hornets' at full strength without inuries to said key players. But again, we'll never know as it never happened and all we are doing is talking about what-ifs.

But, I'll agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Maybe Sac and SUU should Schedule each other in the near future, then that debate would be settled.

Wildcat Ryan wrote:Maybe Sac and SUU should Schedule each other in the near future, then that debate would be settled.

Unfortunately neither one of us has control over scheduling.

Herky wrote:

Wildcat Ryan wrote:Maybe Sac and SUU should Schedule each other in the near future, then that debate would be settled.

Unfortunately neither one of us has control over scheduling.

I would definetly like to see that, and again herkley i never meant anything like Sac State was a bad team or anything, just me being optomistic, and agree to disagree sounds good with me

Dback, is NAU keeping football? If yes then you can go either way with a 10th member. Denver, Utah Valley, or S.Utah. If there is fear they will drop it then keep NAU in for all other sports and add S.Utah. NDSU & SDSU have good conferences now. N.Dakota & S.Dakota along with the other 2 Daks are on the eastern border of the state and not easy to sell to the Sky members other than Montana, Montana St., & UNC.

Cal Poly & UC Davis won't leave their all Cal conference for an all sport in the Sky. They have way to many sports that aren't in the Sky (Ultimate Frisbee, Hackeysack, boogieboarding, sailing)

to put it in perspective a D-I Map
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/Cbd1.PNG

NAU is keeping football.

The whole rumors started when it looked like the state was going to cut 400 million in funding, and the University President said EVERYTHING was on the table to cut, and some egghead professor wrote an editorial calling for football (and all athletics) to be eliminated.

Funding was not cut but anywhere close to that.

And I have assurances that if the admin is in dire straits, they will go the public fundraising route first.

dbackjon wrote:NAU is keeping football.

The whole rumors started when it looked like the state was going to cut 400 million in funding, and the University President said EVERYTHING was on the table to cut, and some egghead professor wrote an editorial calling for football (and all athletics) to be eliminated.

Funding was not cut but anywhere close to that.

And I have assurances that if the admin is in dire straits, they will go the public fundraising route first.

Glad to hear that it was ended up being just a bunch of BS dback.

Yeah no kidding, I like NAU, I would hate to see something like that happen to them, so its good to hear.

SUUTbird wrote:

Herky wrote:
You know they could have beat Sac and PSU? That is simply fan bias, because the teams didnt play, you'll never really know. The only thing that you could possibly base any hypothetical game on from last season was the Davis game, because both Sac and SUU played them. The only diference is Sac beat Davis 29-19 where SUU lost 26-49! Going with that logic, the only real tangible fact to base your hypothetical game off of, Sac would have beaten SUU.

And PSU beat NAU 17-37, another common game that SUU lost, 14-19.

So please, explain how SUU could have beaten either one of the before mentioned teams other than saying that SUU was pass happy because both PSU and Davis were very pass happy as well!

I would be more then happy to oblidge. Sac State played very incosistently all year long, they would be up one week and down the next so you bringing in the Uc Davis in reference to Sac State just shows they were on an up week and their embaressing loss to both NAU and upset loss to then 0-11 ISU shows that they were very inconsistent. And it was NAU that beat PSU 37-17 just so you know. I am not basing my opionions on fan bias because i do know the Big Sky has several good teams, i admit i could have wordered that better and said may have beaten, i just am confident and believe that SUU could have pulled it off .

Let's get off the speculation BS and back to the facts. SUU has won an average of ONE FCS game per year over the last four and is firmly entrenched as the dormat of the Great West. The last Great West addition by the BSC, UNC, is similarly entrenched as the dormat of the BSC. There is no reason to repeat that mistake; we do not need a partner for UNC in the BSC. The BSC desperately needs a school that can compete with Montana on an annual basis. The only suggested school that makes sense is Idaho (or USU) if there are hopes of improving the competition. Either CWU or Chadron would be better bets than SUU. The BSC had its chances for NDSU and SDSU and they are gone; I'm sure they are very happy where they are and have no further interest in the BSC.

Has Chadron St. or C.Washington made any noise about going D-I? I'm on the D-II board all the time, I've heard nothing. The Sky will go after what is on the table if they want anyone, SUU, Denver, Utah Valley, Seattle. 3 of the 4 would need the Sky to change the must have football rule. It could happen, the OVC dropped that rule and added SIUE. Morehead St. was grandfathered in since they went non-scholly after being in the OVC.

Fresno St. Alum wrote:Has Chadron St. or C.Washington made any noise about going D-I? I'm on the D-II board all the time, I've heard nothing. The Sky will go after what is on the table if they want anyone, SUU, Denver, Utah Valley, Seattle. 3 of the 4 would need the Sky to change the must have football rule. It could happen, the OVC dropped that rule and added SIUE. Morehead St. was grandfathered in since they went non-scholly after being in the OVC.

Maybe not; I didn't say CWU or Chadron was trying. I said either would be better than SUU. However, with WWU dropping FB, CWU is running out of regional D-II's to play; they already play many opponents twice in the same year. There is no evidence the BSC has any shines on expansion; there is certainly no need to take on another member that would bring no more to the conference than the other recent additions. More is not better. The two biggest problems of the BSC is that it only has three teams that have played .500 ball over the last five years, and aside from the MT schools, they do not draw. How much did SUU draw for Youngstown St., probably the biggest FCS name to ever play at SUU? 1714! But maybe the SUU record against the current BSC members or 19-56-1 should stand on its own.

The motivation the BSC would have to change the rule escapes me. None of the prizes you listed would appear to provide it.

Denver is in a FBS conference, I hear they have to leave it in 2011 or 2012, some agreement. 9 football 10 bball. Nothing special though. Denver won the NCAA hockey title.

CWU, is hoping that GNAC adds Simon Fraser and UBC who are both supposed to apply for D-II membership. GNAC is also going after Carroll (NAIA Football Champs). That would put them at 8 for football. But yeah they're playing home & home now and Azusa Pacific, S.Oregon give them games.

GNAC FB
CWU, WOU, Humboldt St., Dixie St., Grand Canyon (2010). yikes!

Wildcat Ryan wrote:
Or maybe Idaho can admit what they did was stupid and re-join the BSC.

.

They can stay where they are and take ISU with them. Those are the two worst places to see a game in the Sky. Those fuc**ng domes suck. And sorry Dback not much happier with NAU's. Why colleges feel it is necessary to build these POs is beyond me. Dam pussies...

Oh,and add Davis, for all the obvious reasons.

What does it matter.....you'll still only Montana in the playoffs....

SUUTbird wrote: .... we have proven we can compete with big sky schools (@ montana in 2007 and NAU in 2008).....

Did suu **PROVE** they could compete in the 'SKY??? Im not sure they did.
I would consider "COMPETING" as finishing in the top 4 consistantly. if you can't do that... dont bother.. bc the sky doesnt need ANOTHER NorCol.

SUUTbird wrote: .....i know we could have beaten ISU, UNC, PSU and Sac State and even possibly EWU .....

Wow! Whens the last time SUU beat Eastern Wash?

listen guy, if that team cant win the 5 or 6 team great west..... they will get their ass handed to them in the Sky.

nothing against SUU, in fact I think they have a gutsy program. just don't thing you'll see the Sky expand to just 10 teams.