Press Conf Today: big sky/cal poly/uc davis

Football Championship Subdivision discussions
rationalgriz
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 am
I am a fan of: Montana

Re: Press Conf Today: big sky/cal poly/uc davis

Post by rationalgriz »

Still the only confirmed news conferences are Cal Poly and the Big Sky Conf. I have seen only rumor about UC Davis and absolutely nothing on the SUU front
User avatar
weberwildcat
Level2
Level2
Posts: 1649
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 9:17 pm
I am a fan of: WEEber State
A.K.A.: WeberHoops.com
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Press Conf Today: big sky/cal poly/uc davis

Post by weberwildcat »

AZGrizFan wrote:
BearIt wrote:I'm going to backtrack a little. The only other incentive I could see is that it might reduce some travel costs. I don't know how significant the savings would be when you still would have to play a couple teams from the other division.


North: Montana, Montana State, ISU, EWU, Portland State, Weber
South: Cal Poly, UC davis, Sac State, SUU, NAU, UNC

Or do East and west

East: Montana, MSU, ISU, EWU, Weber, UNC
West: CPSLO, UC davis, Sac State, SUU, NAU, PSU
With this slate of teams, UNC is really an outlier. :coffee: :coffee:
i think they could break up the charter members but then make sure they always play every yr like how they did with mich/osu in the big 11.
Image
User avatar
weberwildcat
Level2
Level2
Posts: 1649
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 9:17 pm
I am a fan of: WEEber State
A.K.A.: WeberHoops.com
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Press Conf Today: big sky/cal poly/uc davis

Post by weberwildcat »

i would like to go to the big sky press conf if it is open to the public. wsu is 10 min from big sky HQ
Image
User avatar
EWURanger
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 4712
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 1:06 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern Washington

Re: Press Conf Today: big sky/cal poly/uc davis

Post by EWURanger »

rationalgriz wrote:Nothing says it would be only 3.
Exactly. The point I was trying to illustrate was that if we got 3 in last year with only a 9 member conference, it stands to reason we could potentially get 4 in with a 12 member conference.....if that's the way it went. (See CAA)
Image
User avatar
SDHornet
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 19511
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:50 pm
I am a fan of: Sacramento State Hornets

Re: Press Conf Today: big sky/cal poly/uc davis

Post by SDHornet »

AZGrizFan wrote:
SDHornet wrote:I think the point he is making is that there will now be MORE teams competing for those 3 playoff bids.
No there won't. SUU and UC Davis couldn't compete for bids when they WEREN'T in the conference. They certainly won't when they ARE in the conference. :lol: :lol:
I don’t disagree, but the point was there are more teams battling for the spots. Whether or not those teams are in contention is another matter.
User avatar
EWURanger
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 4712
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 1:06 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern Washington

Re: Press Conf Today: big sky/cal poly/uc davis

Post by EWURanger »

I suppose there's always the argument that we could be stuck with three spots, even as a larger conference......since the BSC in it's current form always gets two.........the third spot was essentially the spot that could have gone to one of the GWFC teams if they had been eligible.
Image
rationalgriz
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 am
I am a fan of: Montana

Re: Press Conf Today: big sky/cal poly/uc davis

Post by rationalgriz »

Teleconference move to 5PM Mountain, but a press release should be out around 2PM Mountain.
User avatar
EWURanger
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 4712
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 1:06 pm
I am a fan of: Eastern Washington

Re: Press Conf Today: big sky/cal poly/uc davis

Post by EWURanger »

rationalgriz wrote:Teleconference move to 5PM Mountain, but a press release should be out around 2PM Mountain.
Are you talking about the Cal-Poly press conference, or BSC?
Image
rationalgriz
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 am
I am a fan of: Montana

Re: Press Conf Today: big sky/cal poly/uc davis

Post by rationalgriz »

Big Sky Conference.
User avatar
kemajic
Level2
Level2
Posts: 796
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 5:43 pm
I am a fan of: Montana
A.K.A.: Kemajic

Re: Press Conf Today: big sky/cal poly/uc davis

Post by kemajic »

The rumors seem to be converging around CPSLO and UCDavis being added to the BSC for football only and SUU being added as a full member. That would establish a 12 team league for football (until there are defections) and a ten team bball league, which they prefer. Presumably the football league would be split into two six team geographical divisions to reduce travel and keep conference games to eight (5 in division, 3 out, on a rotating basis). UM would resist a higher number of conf. games because it would reduce their number of home games, for which they make a lot of money. It hedges the BSC's bet to defections to either the WAC or dropping programs. It's also consistent with some recent comments by UM AD Jim O'Day.

But, they're still just rumors.
"People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe." - Andy Rooney
User avatar
Silenoz
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 3849
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:10 am
I am a fan of: Montana

Re: Press Conf Today: big sky/cal poly/uc davis

Post by Silenoz »

kemajic wrote:The rumors seem to be converging around CPSLO and UCDavis being added to the BSC for football only and SUU being added as a full member. That would establish a 12 team league for football (until there are defections) and a ten team bball league, which they prefer. Presumably the football league would be split into two six team geographical divisions to reduce travel and keep conference games to eight (5 in division, 3 out, on a rotating basis). UM would resist a higher number of conf. games because it would reduce their number of home games, for which they make a lot of money. It hedges the BSC's bet to defections to either the WAC or dropping programs. It's also consistent with some recent comments by UM AD Jim O'Day.

But, they're still just rumors.
Unless we keep the 8 game conference schedule and split into divisions with rotating opponents. Then we could maintain the 6-7 home games a year
User avatar
kemajic
Level2
Level2
Posts: 796
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 5:43 pm
I am a fan of: Montana
A.K.A.: Kemajic

Re: Press Conf Today: big sky/cal poly/uc davis

Post by kemajic »

AZGrizFan wrote: With this slate of teams, UNC is really an outlier. :coffee: :coffee:
UNC is an outlier with the current slate of teams, in more ways than one.
"People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe." - Andy Rooney
User avatar
AZGrizFan
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 59959
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:40 pm
I am a fan of: Sexual Chocolate
Location: Just to the right of center

Re: Press Conf Today: big sky/cal poly/uc davis

Post by AZGrizFan »

kemajic wrote:
AZGrizFan wrote: With this slate of teams, UNC is really an outlier. :coffee: :coffee:
UNC is an outlier with the current slate of teams, in more ways than one.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
Image
User avatar
weberwildcat
Level2
Level2
Posts: 1649
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 9:17 pm
I am a fan of: WEEber State
A.K.A.: WeberHoops.com
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Press Conf Today: big sky/cal poly/uc davis

Post by weberwildcat »

there would be no reason to assume we would play more than 8 conf games even with 12 teams.
Image
Ursus A. Horribilis
Maroon Supporter
Maroon Supporter
Posts: 21615
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 12:17 pm
I am a fan of: Montana Grizzlies
A.K.A.: Bill Brasky

Re: Press Conf Today: big sky/cal poly/uc davis

Post by Ursus A. Horribilis »

EWURanger wrote:I suppose there's always the argument that we could be stuck with three spots, even as a larger conference......since the BSC in it's current form always gets two.........the third spot was essentially the spot that could have gone to one of the GWFC teams if they had been eligible.
It's pretty doubtful that would remain at three anyway but we normally get two, very infrequently get three. With the liklihood that playoffs will be expanding even further in the next 4 to 5 years it's gonna open up even more.

The way it looks right now it's a win for all involved because at the 12 team it is likely that we wouldn't have less than three going forward and getting four in would be a good possibility even in average years and a very strong possibility in years that the teams are pretty strong.

I don't see the downside on this for anyone involved.
Post Reply