• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Herder Ranks Griz 3 in Chances of Winning Next National Title

kemajic said:
PlayerRep said:
BadlandsGrizFan said:
PlayerRep said:
This is why it doesn't work:

The problem is the ncaa limitation on number of games and period when games can be played, as
well as playoff schedule. But what Im proposing would be the same number of games and during the same time period?

Even if changed, other teams would either have season end a week earlier or a bye week the week before Thanksgiving. Or play one less game and lose revenue. they wouldnt because it would be the same amount of games we have now, and during the same weeks we play now. Nothing time and date wise would have to change.

Why would 2 playoff teams, ie top 2 in conference, want to play another game a week before Thanksgiving? To be conference champions, it would again be the same schedule we have now

Why would other conferences want to change season and-or playoff schedule for the Big Sky? they wouldnt, because again, the schedule and dates games are played would not change as what it currently is

What team would you add? Some people are complaining about some of the teams the conference has. I would also be open for subtracting, I agree that the BSC is too big, unbalanced schedule is shit

Would you then do just a 6-game conference schedule? Is that a good idea? To me, that's worse than what we have now. the solution to this would be you could either play teams from the other "division" or schedule whoever you want OOC, what does the Big Ten do?

Don't think it works to schedule games a week before the last weekend, as none the schools would prepared, charters not set up, and attendance would likely be awful. this is one issue I agree could be difficult. But many schools around the BSC have shit attendances anyhow. Im sure that final game, unless it was the championship game, would be similar to the 1st round playoff games attendance now.

Good and clear response. To me, with your proposal, I see the 2 biggest impediments/questions being the last point, which you and I agree on, as well as wondering if the 2 top teams really want to have a big conference championship game as they head into the playoffs. That may not be a problem, or big problem.

I would think the last championship weekend would be a significant financial impediment. Fans wouldn't know who they'd be playing and where, until the prior weekend. Increased cost of travel, probably. Low attendance due to it being so late in the season, not being able to plan ahead, and who wants to go to a game between the worst teams in the divisions in mid November.

While I don't think this will ever happen, it's not impossible. Thanks for the response.
The CAA, with 12 teams, has been dealing with this issue for years and has never had a conf. championship game.

Thats a good point. I agree the last weekend of games would be a pain for most involved, unless it were Griz vs Cats every year lol.
 
grizindabox said:
kemajic said:
PlayerRep said:
grizindabox said:
Getting 13 schools to agree to an unknown final game of the season because of the logistics and cost of trying to arrange travel for 50+ members of a football team when you might not know your destination until the Saturday prior. If a conference isn't willing to let the team that wins the Conference host the basketball tournament because of this, they are not going to allow it for football.

This is my thought too.
And the process of separating a 13 team conference into two divisions would not be smooth and would not benefit balance in any way. A six team division and a 7 team division - all for a conf. championship game that would be another nightmare and usually be revenue negative. More basic changes are needed for this conference than this band-aid.

His plan was to expand further to 14 teams.

I mean cutting it down to 12 would probably be even better
 
grizindabox said:
kemajic said:
PlayerRep said:
grizindabox said:
Getting 13 schools to agree to an unknown final game of the season because of the logistics and cost of trying to arrange travel for 50+ members of a football team when you might not know your destination until the Saturday prior. If a conference isn't willing to let the team that wins the Conference host the basketball tournament because of this, they are not going to allow it for football.

This is my thought too.
And the process of separating a 13 team conference into two divisions would not be smooth and would not benefit balance in any way. A six team division and a 7 team division - all for a conf. championship game that would be another nightmare and usually be revenue negative. More basic changes are needed for this conference than this band-aid.

His plan was to expand further to 14 teams.
Offset past over-expansion mistakes with more expansion; I get it.
 
BadlandsGrizFan said:
grizindabox said:
kemajic said:
PlayerRep said:
This is my thought too.
And the process of separating a 13 team conference into two divisions would not be smooth and would not benefit balance in any way. A six team division and a 7 team division - all for a conf. championship game that would be another nightmare and usually be revenue negative. More basic changes are needed for this conference than this band-aid.

His plan was to expand further to 14 teams.

I mean cutting it down to 12 would probably be even better

So whose out?
 
grizindabox said:
BadlandsGrizFan said:
grizindabox said:
kemajic said:
And the process of separating a 13 team conference into two divisions would not be smooth and would not benefit balance in any way. A six team division and a 7 team division - all for a conf. championship game that would be another nightmare and usually be revenue negative. More basic changes are needed for this conference than this band-aid.

His plan was to expand further to 14 teams.

I mean cutting it down to 12 would probably be even better

So whose out?

EWU. Dropping football. Haven't you heard?
 
grizindabox said:
BadlandsGrizFan said:
grizindabox said:
kemajic said:
And the process of separating a 13 team conference into two divisions would not be smooth and would not benefit balance in any way. A six team division and a 7 team division - all for a conf. championship game that would be another nightmare and usually be revenue negative. More basic changes are needed for this conference than this band-aid.

His plan was to expand further to 14 teams.

I mean cutting it down to 12 would probably be even better

So whose out?

If I actually got to pick this I would say either Northern Colorado or Southern Utah....
 
BadlandsGrizFan said:
grizindabox said:
BadlandsGrizFan said:
grizindabox said:
His plan was to expand further to 14 teams.

I mean cutting it down to 12 would probably be even better

So whose out?

If I actually got to pick this I would say either Northern Colorado or Southern Utah....

Now, do you really think the Conference would kick anyone out...and by Conference I mean the majority of BSC teams that are OK with the status quo.
 
grizindabox said:
BadlandsGrizFan said:
grizindabox said:
BadlandsGrizFan said:
I mean cutting it down to 12 would probably be even better

So whose out?

If I actually got to pick this I would say either Northern Colorado or Southern Utah....

Now, do you really think the Conference would kick anyone out...and by Conference I mean the majority of BSC teams that are OK with the status quo.

Under contracts, which must exist, how does a team get kicked out?
 
PlayerRep said:
grizindabox said:
BadlandsGrizFan said:
grizindabox said:
So whose out?

If I actually got to pick this I would say either Northern Colorado or Southern Utah....

Now, do you really think the Conference would kick anyone out...and by Conference I mean the majority of BSC teams that are OK with the status quo.

Under contracts, which must exist, how does a team get kicked out?
Don't know much about the BSC constitution but in the case of Idaho, they were voted out of the Sun Belt conference by the other members. That may be the mechanism.
 
SaskGriz said:
PlayerRep said:
grizindabox said:
BadlandsGrizFan said:
If I actually got to pick this I would say either Northern Colorado or Southern Utah....

Now, do you really think the Conference would kick anyone out...and by Conference I mean the majority of BSC teams that are OK with the status quo.

Under contracts, which must exist, how does a team get kicked out?
Don't know much about the BSC constitution but in the case of Idaho, they were voted out of the Sun Belt conference by the other members. That may be the mechanism.

Possibly, but I just don't see a majority of the Conference members voting anyone out currently...especially a full member, just to appease football.
 
grizindabox said:
SaskGriz said:
PlayerRep said:
grizindabox said:
Now, do you really think the Conference would kick anyone out...and by Conference I mean the majority of BSC teams that are OK with the status quo.

Under contracts, which must exist, how does a team get kicked out?
Don't know much about the BSC constitution but in the case of Idaho, they were voted out of the Sun Belt conference by the other members. That may be the mechanism.

Possibly, but I just don't see a majority of the Conference members voting anyone out currently...especially a full member, just to appease football.
Yeah I don't think it will happen, just speculating on the mechanism that might allow it to happen.
 
SaskGriz said:
PlayerRep said:
grizindabox said:
BadlandsGrizFan said:
If I actually got to pick this I would say either Northern Colorado or Southern Utah....

Now, do you really think the Conference would kick anyone out...and by Conference I mean the majority of BSC teams that are OK with the status quo.

Under contracts, which must exist, how does a team get kicked out?
Don't know much about the BSC constitution but in the case of Idaho, they were voted out of the Sun Belt conference by the other members. That may be the mechanism.

Good point. It looks like Idaho's contract was expiring with the conference, and the full members (Ida was only in for football) had to vote to extend or not extend. See below.

"But on March 10, it will be the Sun Belt Conference presidents and chancellors from its 11 full members who will meet in New Orleans to vote on whether to extend Idaho's football-only membership in the conference beyond the 2017 season. Idaho will need nine votes to be able to enter into a new contract."
 
PlayerRep said:
SaskGriz said:
PlayerRep said:
grizindabox said:
Now, do you really think the Conference would kick anyone out...and by Conference I mean the majority of BSC teams that are OK with the status quo.

Under contracts, which must exist, how does a team get kicked out?
Don't know much about the BSC constitution but in the case of Idaho, they were voted out of the Sun Belt conference by the other members. That may be the mechanism.

Good point. It looks like Idaho's contract was expiring with the conference, and the full members (Ida was only in for football) had to vote to extend or not extend. See below.

"But on March 10, it will be the Sun Belt Conference presidents and chancellors from its 11 full members who will meet in New Orleans to vote on whether to extend Idaho's football-only membership in the conference beyond the 2017 season. Idaho will need nine votes to be able to enter into a new contract."

nobody wants idaho.
 
BadlandsGrizFan said:
PlayerRep said:
SaskGriz said:
PlayerRep said:
Under contracts, which must exist, how does a team get kicked out?
Don't know much about the BSC constitution but in the case of Idaho, they were voted out of the Sun Belt conference by the other members. That may be the mechanism.

Good point. It looks like Idaho's contract was expiring with the conference, and the full members (Ida was only in for football) had to vote to extend or not extend. See below.

"But on March 10, it will be the Sun Belt Conference presidents and chancellors from its 11 full members who will meet in New Orleans to vote on whether to extend Idaho's football-only membership in the conference beyond the 2017 season. Idaho will need nine votes to be able to enter into a new contract."

nobody wants idaho.
Idaho is a better member than many in the BSC.
 
kemajic said:
BadlandsGrizFan said:
PlayerRep said:
SaskGriz said:
Don't know much about the BSC constitution but in the case of Idaho, they were voted out of the Sun Belt conference by the other members. That may be the mechanism.

Good point. It looks like Idaho's contract was expiring with the conference, and the full members (Ida was only in for football) had to vote to extend or not extend. See below.

"But on March 10, it will be the Sun Belt Conference presidents and chancellors from its 11 full members who will meet in New Orleans to vote on whether to extend Idaho's football-only membership in the conference beyond the 2017 season. Idaho will need nine votes to be able to enter into a new contract."

nobody wants idaho.
Idaho is a better member than many in the BSC.

Rather have Idaho than UNC, SUU or PSU.
 
AZGrizFan said:
kemajic said:
BadlandsGrizFan said:
PlayerRep said:
Good point. It looks like Idaho's contract was expiring with the conference, and the full members (Ida was only in for football) had to vote to extend or not extend. See below.

"But on March 10, it will be the Sun Belt Conference presidents and chancellors from its 11 full members who will meet in New Orleans to vote on whether to extend Idaho's football-only membership in the conference beyond the 2017 season. Idaho will need nine votes to be able to enter into a new contract."

nobody wants idaho.
Idaho is a better member than many in the BSC.

Rather have Idaho than UNC, SUU or PSU.

The most likely football schools to be dumped are Poly and Davis. No way you dump a full member for purpose of football before the football only schools.
 
kemajic said:
BadlandsGrizFan said:
PlayerRep said:
SaskGriz said:
Don't know much about the BSC constitution but in the case of Idaho, they were voted out of the Sun Belt conference by the other members. That may be the mechanism.

Good point. It looks like Idaho's contract was expiring with the conference, and the full members (Ida was only in for football) had to vote to extend or not extend. See below.

"But on March 10, it will be the Sun Belt Conference presidents and chancellors from its 11 full members who will meet in New Orleans to vote on whether to extend Idaho's football-only membership in the conference beyond the 2017 season. Idaho will need nine votes to be able to enter into a new contract."

nobody wants idaho.
Idaho is a better member than many in the BSC.

It was a joke, have you ever not being serious your entire life??? Even your avatar has an extremely serious face.
 
EverettGriz said:
PlayerRep said:
EverettGriz said:
Article really highlights what a crock the bsc schedule is.

#bsc.

Can you expand on your comment? And compare to other conferences? I'd like to know more about what you are saying, or trying to say. Thx.

Seems fairly evident, but okay: The article highlights UM's softer schedule this year, while mentioning msu's more difficult schedule, the opposite of what happened last year.

Other conferences play every team.

Rumor has it in 2025 the UM MSU game won't be played. Griz will go to Southern Utah that week instead!
 
Back
Top