BSC Strength

[catdaddy7]

IMO the Big Sky is the strongest it's ever been and getting stronger
each year. Southern Utah will be in the top 25 before October and I think
that makes 6 teams from the BSC. Whether we are the strongest in the
nation is debatable but we're better now than even 3-4 years ago.It seems
the "Sky" :lol: is the limit.

You're smarter than you look.

Even a blind hog finds an acorn every now and then. :thumb:

 

[srgrizizen]

Good topic. You forgot to mention the BSC is the largest conference in FCS so numbers won't tell the whole story. I've said it before that it is the MVC that is the strongest conference in the FCS right now. In my opinion, the BSC has never been that strong of a conference but produces one or two national teams a year.

I would argue the BSC is more competitive now than it ever has been. But, as a conference, it is not as good as the MVC.

The MVC has the #1 team in NDSU, but I can't buy your strength of conference argument as long as teams like Northern Iowa and Southern Illinois keep bringing supposedly strong playoff teams to Missoula and don't even make it competitive. :roll:

 

[DoubleNicks]

There was a lot of commentary about how strong the BSC after the first week. This week they were 3-8. Of the three wins, two were to DII's, one to an NAIA. Of the 8 losses, one was to a DII. 0-7 vs. DI's, 3-1 vs. DII's/NAIA's.

It's a long season and a few weeks should be in the book before making such claims.

Well, to be fair, when you say 0-7 vs. DI, it was really 0-6 to FBS and the only FCS loss was UND's 35-28 loss to #6 South Dakota State. I don't know any other FCS conference that would have done much better (I don't think I'm a homer of the BSC, but in comparison, the majority of the FCS sucks, facilities and performance-wise). UNC's defeat was inexcusable, though.

 

[IdaGriz01]

The bottom of every conference sucks, even the SEC - there's always got to be some crappy teams in a conference, it's just the way things shake out.

Moving up to the MAC or Sun Belt would probably make us one of those lower-tier teams, hooray. Pac-12/Big-12 fodder in the OOC, less home games, long travel once in-conference, no real rivals, no playoffs, losing record, probably big financial losses, half full stadium. Sounds enticing... :|

Have to agree, and I got thinking about the notion of the “conference doormat.” So, just for the fun of it, I looked over some data from ESPN. I stuck with the “Power Five” conferences, since that seemed like where the discrepancy would really stick out. Of course, conference re-alignment complicated things somewhat, but I tried to manage.

In the (new) American Athletic Conference (previously Big East), we find the following
UConn (counting 9 years in conference, 1 year independent): They had have two years with a winning conference record, but have managed an average record of 3-4. Not exactly a doormat, but not so hot either.
South Florida (8 years in conference, 2 years previously in C-USA): Overall, they do have 3 years with a winning record in conference, but the last one was six years ago. Since then, their average record in conference is 2-7. Verdict: Doormat candidate.
Syracuse (all 10 years): Does not seem terrible at first ... they’ve had 3 winning records out of the 10 years. But their average conference record is 2-5 for the decade. Worse yet, in the seven years they did not have a winning record, they won just 7 conference games (i.e. 1-6 average record). Verdict: Conference doormat.

The ACC was more stable during this last decade. We’ll look at two of the better bad teams on the conference first.
Maryland: Two seasons out of ten with winning records in conference, typical 3-5. Still, out of the last four years, twice they won only one conference game, and once only two. Verdict: Doormat candidate, at least.
Virginia: Somewhat better, with three winning conference records in ten years and a typical record of 3.5-4.5. But again, during the past four years, they’ve had three where they only won 1 or 2 conference games. Verdict: Doormat candidate, at least.
Duke: Did not once in the last ten years win more than 3 conference games, and three time did not win any. Overall average 1.2-6.8 (call it 1-7). Verdict: Definitely a conference doormat. (But they play good basketball.)

The Big 12 has also had some upheaval, of course (but succeeded in dumping a doormat ).
Baylor has done better in the last three years, but they still have only one winning conference record in the last decade. Overall record 2.4-5.8. In the seven years before their recent “success,” they won just 10 conference games. Verdict: Doormat that may be recovering.
Kansas: One winning conference record in ten years, did not win any conference games in 2012 or 2011. Overall 2.3-5.8 (i.e. 2-8). Verdict: Doormat.
Iowa State: No winning conference records in the decade, although did manage 4-4 records in 2004 and 2005. Overall 2.6-5.7. Verdict: Doormat.

The Big Ten has some also.
Purdue: Two winning records during the decade, plus two with 4-4 in conference. Overall 3.7-4.3. Verdict: Not quite a doormat, but a team that most reasonably-good opponents would expect to beat.
Minnesota: Has had only one winning season in conference in the last decade, and that was in 2003. Overall record 2.8-5.2 (call it 3-5) for the ten years, but drops to 2-8 for the past six. Verdict: Doormat.
Illinois: One winning conference season in the decade. Overall 2-5 in conference. Verdict: Doormat.
Indiana: No winning conference records in the decade -- in fact, has only won 11 conference games in 10 years (Ouch!). Verdict: Doormat.

The Pac-12 even managed to add a doormat recently. (Since Colorado played in the Big 12, another power conference, I moved their previous record over).
Arizona: Two winning seasons in conference out of the last ten years. Overall 3.3-5.3. They have improved, compared to winning only 5 conference games in 2003 thru 2005. Verdict: Not quite a doormat, but close.
Colorado: One winning conference record in ten years, although did manage 4-4 a couple times. Overall 2.9-5.1 (played 9 conference games the past two years). However, their record for the most recent five years is 1.8-6.6 (2-7), so they’ve gotten worse. Verdict: Doormat.
Washington State: They also only have one winning conference season in the last ten years, and that was back in 2003. Overall 2.3-6.3. And, like Colorado, they’ve gotten worse, averaging 1-8 for the past five years. Verdict: Doormat.

Last, but not least, the SEC has some too.
Vanderbilt: Vandy actually ended with a winning (5-3) conference record last year. But that was their only one in the entire decade, which was otherwise dismal, ending at 2-6 overall, even with the better 2012 season. Verdict: Doormat. (But perhaps they’ve started a turn-around.)
Ole Miss: They have managed two winning seasons in conference in the past ten years, including a great 7-1 record in 2003. Overall 2.6-5.4. But it has been downhill since, averaging 2-6 for the past nine years, and they have won only 4 SEC games in the last three years. Verdict: Doormat.
Kentucky: It’s been 7 years since they have managed a break-even (4-4) record in conference, with no winning seasons at all during the decade. Overall 2-6. Verdict: Doormat.

 

[Grizzlies1982]

Has the Big Sky gotten better or has the rest of the field deteriorated?

If you've been watching this for a few years, historically the Big Sky has been one of the strongest conferences based on teams playing in championships, or running deep into the playoffs. Though clearly the Big Sky is stronger overall now than it use to be. The bottom end still sucks. Yet that is always the case. The improvement has primarily been in the middle of the pack rising to be competitive, which in turn compliments the strength of our top tier teams.

The annual guessing game of who has the strongest conference has no definitive answer (except "The Big Sky"). The schools bragging changes periodically as the NDSU, JMU, Geo So. all crow about their conferences being the best. Each can rightfully point to one or two good teams. Though when you look at their conferences top to bottom I see no reason to believe any of the others are stronger than the Big Sky.
:ugeek:

 

[AZGrizFan]

The bottom of every conference sucks, even the SEC - there's always got to be some crappy teams in a conference, it's just the way things shake out.

Moving up to the MAC or Sun Belt would probably make us one of those lower-tier teams, hooray. Pac-12/Big-12 fodder in the OOC, less home games, long travel once in-conference, no real rivals, no playoffs, losing record, probably big financial losses, half full stadium. Sounds enticing... :|

Well, aren't YOU just a ray of fucking sunshine. :? :roll:

To address your issues one at a time:

Rivalries: Rivalrys are overrated. But, if you must, we could keep MSU & EWU, and reignite Idaho & Wyoming & Boise & Nevada & start rivalries with UNLV, Utah State, Colorado State, Air Force, etc.

Travel: Does travel get any worse than traveling to UNfuckingD 3 years in a row? Or Sacramento, California twice in the same YEAR? Aren't Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Laramie, Boise, Moscow, Seattle, Pullman, Corvallis, Eugene, Las Vegas ALL closer than CPSLO, NAU, UND, Davis, Sac State?

Playoffs: This new "mid-major" level of football WILL have playoffs. Bank it. Why would the NCAA have only ONE level of playoffs NOT have football? It makes no sense...

OOC Fodder: Take a look at the OOC schedule of UTSA. They just had Oklahoma State come TO San Antonio to play. They've managed to string together some very attractive OOC games (including many IN San Antonio) over the next 5 years, all while adding almost $8 million to their coffers. We don't have to JUST play the Pac 12 every OOC weekend...

Losing record: Why does one automatically assume we'd have a losing record? This I will never understand.

Big Financial Losses: Apparently there's a financial model the works, otherwise teams would be looking to move DOWN and not up. What are we missing here?

Half-full stadiums: Assuming this stems from a losing record? Or do you REALLY think people would be LESS interested in seeing Wyoming, Colorado State, Utah State and the like over Portland State, Oklahoma-Panhandle State & Southern Utah?

 

[bigsky33]

The bottom of every conference sucks, even the SEC - there's always got to be some crappy teams in a conference, it's just the way things shake out.

Moving up to the MAC or Sun Belt would probably make us one of those lower-tier teams, hooray. Pac-12/Big-12 fodder in the OOC, less home games, long travel once in-conference, no real rivals, no playoffs, losing record, probably big financial losses, half full stadium. Sounds enticing... :|

Well, aren't YOU just a ray of f***[*] sunshine. :? :roll:

To address your issues one at a time:

Rivalries: Rivalrys are overrated. But, if you must, we could keep MSU & EWU, and reignite Idaho & Wyoming & Boise & Nevada & start rivalries with UNLV, Utah State, Colorado State, Air Force, etc.

Travel: Does travel get any worse than traveling to UNfuckingD 3 years in a row? Or Sacramento, California twice in the same YEAR? Aren't Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Laramie, Boise, Moscow, Seattle, Pullman, Corvallis, Eugene, Las Vegas ALL closer than CPSLO, NAU, UND, Davis, Sac State?

Playoffs: This new "mid-major" level of football WILL have playoffs. Bank it. Why would the NCAA have only ONE level of playoffs NOT have football? It makes no sense...

OOC Fodder: Take a look at the OOC schedule of UTSA. They just had Oklahoma State come TO San Antonio to play. They've managed to string together some very attractive OOC games (including many IN San Antonio) over the next 5 years, all while adding almost $8 million to their coffers. We don't have to JUST play the Pac 12 every OOC weekend...

Losing record: Why does one automatically assume we'd have a losing record? This I will never understand.

Big Financial Losses: Apparently there's a financial model the works, otherwise teams would be looking to move DOWN and not up. What are we missing here?

Half-full stadiums: Assuming this stems from a losing record? Or do you REALLY think people would be LESS interested in seeing Wyoming, Colorado State, Utah State and the like over Portland State, Oklahoma-Panhandle State & Southern Utah?

+1 :clap:

 

[BWahlberg]

Rivalries: Rivalrys are overrated. But, if you must, we could keep MSU & EWU, and reignite Idaho & Wyoming & Boise & Nevada & start rivalries with UNLV, Utah State, Colorado State, Air Force, etc.

Rivalries are what make sports even that much more entertaining. Why the heck do you think there's so much talk about the Cats on this board, and about the Griz on the Bobcat board? CPSLO lost their starting QB this week as well, no one gives a damn about that - but we've got a 6 page thread dedicated to McGhee as it stands.

Rivalries create games with extra passion, back-stories, history, bad blood, etc. You don't just "start" new ones. No one in the Big Sky is UNC's rival (that I know of). They've not done a thing to "start" a rivalry.

And we couldn't "keep" MSU or EWU, we would need a guarantee game and as soon as we lose one or two of those games that rivalry would be over. It would get weighted to favor us, force all games to be in our stadium and then soon enough we'd like to make sure we don't lose to an FCS team. That's why we haven't played Idaho since 2003

Travel: Does travel get any worse than traveling to UNfuckingD 3 years in a row? Or Sacramento, California twice in the same YEAR? Aren't Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Laramie, Boise, Moscow, Seattle, Pullman, Corvallis, Eugene, Las Vegas ALL closer than CPSLO, NAU, UND, Davis, Sac State?

Yeah but those aren't the conferences we would join. It would probably be the Sun Belt as suggested or the MAC. MAC is all mid-west.

So for the Sun Belt we'd be up against, Texas State, Troy, Arkansas St, South Alabama, Western Kentucky, UL-Monroe, UL-Lafayette, Georgia State, Idaho, New Mexico State, App State, and Georgia Southern. So every other weekend we're flying across the nation. Fans would travel way less.

Add-in, getting to MSU, EWU, ISU are quick(er) bus trips. Flights to Weber, Sac, Davis, Portland, and NAU are easy to connect or direct. I was told UND is a 2.5 hour charter flight, you land there, get to the hotel (which is connected to the stadium) and you go to the game, it's actually pretty easy for a team to travel to. UNC and CPSLO I've been told are the two that are tricky to get to, usually involving flight + a bus.

Playoffs: This new "mid-major" level of football WILL have playoffs. Bank it. Why would the NCAA have only ONE level of playoffs NOT have football? It makes no sense...

I'll believe it when I see it.

OOC Fodder: Take a look at the OOC schedule of UTSA. They just had Oklahoma State come TO San Antonio to play. They've managed to string together some very attractive OOC games (including many IN San Antonio) over the next 5 years, all while adding almost $8 million to their coffers. We don't have to JUST play the Pac 12 every OOC weekend...

I can play that game too.

Look at the dire financial situation UMass is in. Also their OOC, they got spanked at Wisconsin, lost to FCS Maine and then have to hit the road to play K-state and Vandy. They'll be 0-4 going into conference

Or look at our best comparison, the Idaho Vandals. Now this year they're independents but they're on the road for 7 games and get 5 at home. They're 0-2 and so far have been outscored 82-16 (against N. Texas and Wyo). They play an SEC, ACC, and PAC12 team on the road while the "best" team they host is maybe Fresno State or Temple.

Losing record: Why does one automatically assume we'd have a losing record? This I will never understand.

Please point out to me how many teams moved up and had immediate success. Or even continued success. Boise State seems like the exception and not the rule. Others like UConn have had some good years but then bad years as well. Then there's the UMass, Idaho, W. Kentucky, FAUs of the world. The bodybag teams that powerful schools like to book because beating the hell out of you on their home turf counts as an "FBS" win.

Big Financial Losses: Apparently there's a financial model the works, otherwise teams would be looking to move DOWN and not up. What are we missing here?

Yes, just about 22 of them, while even less in the FCS are. http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/06/22_college_football_programs_m.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Moving up would dramatically raise our expenses. We would need more scholarships, more athletic programs, more facilities. The money that would come back to us would either be from booking games were we get curb-stomped by an SEC team (or a host of upper tier teams) each year or by joining a conference that rakes in bowl money winnings. The challenge is that the MAC/Sun Belt doesn't do that, nor would that happen by being an independent.

Half-full stadiums: Assuming this stems from a losing record? Or do you REALLY think people would be LESS interested in seeing Wyoming, Colorado State, Utah State and the like over Portland State, Oklahoma-Panhandle State & Southern Utah?

Griz fans piss and moan about prices now, think of what costs would be placed on ticket holders with a move up. Then suddenly there's less home games as well. We would have a bad record so all of the bandwagon fans would fade away. And of the home games people would maybe get to see Wyo or CSU or one of the teams you mentioned per year. After that it would be SUU or PSU or ISU and then we'd be on the road for the other OOC games.

 

[SloStang]

There was a lot of commentary about how strong the BSC after the first week. This week they were 3-8. Of the three wins, two were to DII's, one to an NAIA. Of the 8 losses, one was to a DII. 0-7 vs. DI's, 3-1 vs. DII's/NAIA's.

It's a long season and a few weeks should be in the book before making such claims.

Seems to me you making a claim based off one week. Maybe you should have taken your own advice and posted this thread in a few weeks. Just saying.....

 

[HighLineGRIZ]

Portland State had a good showing and proved they won't be an easy W. MSU outplayed an FBS team and showed well too, regardless of how poor of an FBS team they were.

I haven't seen the BSC this strong since the 90s. Lots of parody at the top half of the conference will make for a lot of good football. There are very few teams in the conference that I would consider guaranteed Ws.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

To give some credit to UNCU, Col-Pueblo was the #1 ranked DIV II team for most of last season. I have always felt the top DII schools can play with anybody in our conference.

That's what I was telling people, but they never learn :lol:

Well we are seeing the top FCS teams are sticking with most FBS teams as well, EWU and NDSU as a great example in week 1 and while SMU and Cal aren't top-tier FBS schools MSU and PSU were just about as equal with those two schools this last week as well.

Good point. Not to mention this little gem from the history books when NDSU was still [technically] D-II:


3:05 PM ET, September 6, 2003
Washington-Grizzly Stadium, MISSOULA, MT

NDSU 25
MONT 24

 

[AZGrizFan]

Portland State had a good showing and proved they won't be an easy W. MSU outplayed an FBS team and showed well too, regardless of how poor of an FBS team they were.

I haven't seen the BSC this strong since the 90s. Lots of parody at the top half of the conference will make for a lot of good football. There are very few teams in the conference that I would consider guaranteed Ws.

:lol: :lol:

I think you meant parity.

 

[AZGrizFan]

There was a lot of commentary about how strong the BSC after the first week. This week they were 3-8. Of the three wins, two were to DII's, one to an NAIA. Of the 8 losses, one was to a DII. 0-7 vs. DI's, 3-1 vs. DII's/NAIA's.

It's a long season and a few weeks should be in the book before making such claims.

Seems to me you making a claim based off one week. Maybe you should have taken your own advice and posted this thread in a few weeks. Just saying.....

I think that was his point, slo. People were making the OPPOSITE point after just one week of play.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Rivalries: Rivalrys are overrated. But, if you must, we could keep MSU & EWU, and reignite Idaho & Wyoming & Boise & Nevada & start rivalries with UNLV, Utah State, Colorado State, Air Force, etc.

Rivalries are what make sports even that much more entertaining. Why the heck do you think there's so much talk about the Cats on this board, and about the Griz on the Bobcat board? CPSLO lost their starting QB this week as well, no one gives a damn about that - but we've got a 6 page thread dedicated to McGhee as it stands.

Rivalries create games with extra passion, back-stories, history, bad blood, etc. You don't just "start" new ones. No one in the Big Sky is UNC's rival (that I know of). They've not done a thing to "start" a rivalry.

And we couldn't "keep" MSU or EWU, we would need a guarantee game and as soon as we lose one or two of those games that rivalry would be over. It would get weighted to favor us, force all games to be in our stadium and then soon enough we'd like to make sure we don't lose to an FCS team. That's why we haven't played Idaho since 2003

Travel: Does travel get any worse than traveling to UNfuckingD 3 years in a row? Or Sacramento, California twice in the same YEAR? Aren't Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Laramie, Boise, Moscow, Seattle, Pullman, Corvallis, Eugene, Las Vegas ALL closer than CPSLO, NAU, UND, Davis, Sac State?

Yeah but those aren't the conferences we would join. It would probably be the Sun Belt as suggested or the MAC. MAC is all mid-west.

So for the Sun Belt we'd be up against, Texas State, Troy, Arkansas St, South Alabama, Western Kentucky, UL-Monroe, UL-Lafayette, Georgia State, Idaho, New Mexico State, App State, and Georgia Southern. So every other weekend we're flying across the nation. Fans would travel way less.

Add-in, getting to MSU, EWU, ISU are quick(er) bus trips. Flights to Weber, Sac, Davis, Portland, and NAU are easy to connect or direct. I was told UND is a 2.5 hour charter flight, you land there, get to the hotel (which is connected to the stadium) and you go to the game, it's actually pretty easy for a team to travel to. UNC and CPSLO I've been told are the two that are tricky to get to, usually involving flight + a bus.

Playoffs: This new "mid-major" level of football WILL have playoffs. Bank it. Why would the NCAA have only ONE level of playoffs NOT have football? It makes no sense...

I'll believe it when I see it.

OOC Fodder: Take a look at the OOC schedule of UTSA. They just had Oklahoma State come TO San Antonio to play. They've managed to string together some very attractive OOC games (including many IN San Antonio) over the next 5 years, all while adding almost $8 million to their coffers. We don't have to JUST play the Pac 12 every OOC weekend...

I can play that game too.

Look at the dire financial situation UMass is in. Also their OOC, they got spanked at Wisconsin, lost to FCS Maine and then have to hit the road to play K-state and Vandy. They'll be 0-4 going into conference

Or look at our best comparison, the Idaho Vandals. Now this year they're independents but they're on the road for 7 games and get 5 at home. They're 0-2 and so far have been outscored 82-16 (against N. Texas and Wyo). They play an SEC, ACC, and PAC12 team on the road while the "best" team they host is maybe Fresno State or Temple.

Losing record: Why does one automatically assume we'd have a losing record? This I will never understand.

Please point out to me how many teams moved up and had immediate success. Or even continued success. Boise State seems like the exception and not the rule. Others like UConn have had some good years but then bad years as well. Then there's the UMass, Idaho, W. Kentucky, FAUs of the world. The bodybag teams that powerful schools like to book because beating the hell out of you on their home turf counts as an "FBS" win.

Big Financial Losses: Apparently there's a financial model the works, otherwise teams would be looking to move DOWN and not up. What are we missing here?

Yes, just about 22 of them, while even less in the FCS are. http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/06/22_college_football_programs_m.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Moving up would dramatically raise our expenses. We would need more scholarships, more athletic programs, more facilities. The money that would come back to us would either be from booking games were we get curb-stomped by an SEC team (or a host of upper tier teams) each year or by joining a conference that rakes in bowl money winnings. The challenge is that the MAC/Sun Belt doesn't do that, nor would that happen by being an independent.

Half-full stadiums: Assuming this stems from a losing record? Or do you REALLY think people would be LESS interested in seeing Wyoming, Colorado State, Utah State and the like over Portland State, Oklahoma-Panhandle State & Southern Utah?

Griz fans piss and moan about prices now, think of what costs would be placed on ticket holders with a move up. Then suddenly there's less home games as well. We would have a bad record so all of the bandwagon fans would fade away. And of the home games people would maybe get to see Wyo or CSU or one of the teams you mentioned per year. After that it would be SUU or PSU or ISU and then we'd be on the road for the other OOC games.

2 comments:

1) Just because we play the same teams year after year doesn't make them rivalries.
2) That link you posted is for Athletic Department profitability. And let's face it...unless/until the Griz football team has a different arrangement regarding Wa/Griz rent AND the sale of Griz gear in the bookstore, there will be NO financial model that will work for moving up.

 

[kemajic]

There was a lot of commentary about how strong the BSC after the first week. This week they were 3-8. Of the three wins, two were to DII's, one to an NAIA. Of the 8 losses, one was to a DII. 0-7 vs. DI's, 3-1 vs. DII's/NAIA's.

It's a long season and a few weeks should be in the book before making such claims.

Seems to me you making a claim based off one week. Maybe you should have taken your own advice and posted this thread in a few weeks. Just saying.....

I think that was his point, slo. People were making the OPPOSITE point after just one week of play.

Needs to change his handle to SLOWstang. There was no claim at all in my post.

 

[PlayerRep]

Rivalries: Rivalrys are overrated. But, if you must, we could keep MSU & EWU, and reignite Idaho & Wyoming & Boise & Nevada & start rivalries with UNLV, Utah State, Colorado State, Air Force, etc.

Rivalries are what make sports even that much more entertaining. Why the heck do you think there's so much talk about the Cats on this board, and about the Griz on the Bobcat board? CPSLO lost their starting QB this week as well, no one gives a damn about that - but we've got a 6 page thread dedicated to McGhee as it stands.

Rivalries create games with extra passion, back-stories, history, bad blood, etc. You don't just "start" new ones. No one in the Big Sky is UNC's rival (that I know of). They've not done a thing to "start" a rivalry.

And we couldn't "keep" MSU or EWU, we would need a guarantee game and as soon as we lose one or two of those games that rivalry would be over. It would get weighted to favor us, force all games to be in our stadium and then soon enough we'd like to make sure we don't lose to an FCS team. That's why we haven't played Idaho since 2003

Travel: Does travel get any worse than traveling to UNfuckingD 3 years in a row? Or Sacramento, California twice in the same YEAR? Aren't Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Laramie, Boise, Moscow, Seattle, Pullman, Corvallis, Eugene, Las Vegas ALL closer than CPSLO, NAU, UND, Davis, Sac State?

Yeah but those aren't the conferences we would join. It would probably be the Sun Belt as suggested or the MAC. MAC is all mid-west.

So for the Sun Belt we'd be up against, Texas State, Troy, Arkansas St, South Alabama, Western Kentucky, UL-Monroe, UL-Lafayette, Georgia State, Idaho, New Mexico State, App State, and Georgia Southern. So every other weekend we're flying across the nation. Fans would travel way less.

Add-in, getting to MSU, EWU, ISU are quick(er) bus trips. Flights to Weber, Sac, Davis, Portland, and NAU are easy to connect or direct. I was told UND is a 2.5 hour charter flight, you land there, get to the hotel (which is connected to the stadium) and you go to the game, it's actually pretty easy for a team to travel to. UNC and CPSLO I've been told are the two that are tricky to get to, usually involving flight + a bus.

Playoffs: This new "mid-major" level of football WILL have playoffs. Bank it. Why would the NCAA have only ONE level of playoffs NOT have football? It makes no sense...

I'll believe it when I see it.

OOC Fodder: Take a look at the OOC schedule of UTSA. They just had Oklahoma State come TO San Antonio to play. They've managed to string together some very attractive OOC games (including many IN San Antonio) over the next 5 years, all while adding almost $8 million to their coffers. We don't have to JUST play the Pac 12 every OOC weekend...

I can play that game too.

Look at the dire financial situation UMass is in. Also their OOC, they got spanked at Wisconsin, lost to FCS Maine and then have to hit the road to play K-state and Vandy. They'll be 0-4 going into conference

Or look at our best comparison, the Idaho Vandals. Now this year they're independents but they're on the road for 7 games and get 5 at home. They're 0-2 and so far have been outscored 82-16 (against N. Texas and Wyo). They play an SEC, ACC, and PAC12 team on the road while the "best" team they host is maybe Fresno State or Temple.

Losing record: Why does one automatically assume we'd have a losing record? This I will never understand.

Please point out to me how many teams moved up and had immediate success. Or even continued success. Boise State seems like the exception and not the rule. Others like UConn have had some good years but then bad years as well. Then there's the UMass, Idaho, W. Kentucky, FAUs of the world. The bodybag teams that powerful schools like to book because beating the hell out of you on their home turf counts as an "FBS" win.

Big Financial Losses: Apparently there's a financial model the works, otherwise teams would be looking to move DOWN and not up. What are we missing here?

Yes, just about 22 of them, while even less in the FCS are. http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/06/22_college_football_programs_m.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Moving up would dramatically raise our expenses. We would need more scholarships, more athletic programs, more facilities. The money that would come back to us would either be from booking games were we get curb-stomped by an SEC team (or a host of upper tier teams) each year or by joining a conference that rakes in bowl money winnings. The challenge is that the MAC/Sun Belt doesn't do that, nor would that happen by being an independent.

Half-full stadiums: Assuming this stems from a losing record? Or do you REALLY think people would be LESS interested in seeing Wyoming, Colorado State, Utah State and the like over Portland State, Oklahoma-Panhandle State & Southern Utah?

Griz fans piss and moan about prices now, think of what costs would be placed on ticket holders with a move up. Then suddenly there's less home games as well. We would have a bad record so all of the bandwagon fans would fade away. And of the home games people would maybe get to see Wyo or CSU or one of the teams you mentioned per year. After that it would be SUU or PSU or ISU and then we'd be on the road for the other OOC games.

Even by your high standards, that was a terrific and informative post.

 

[stubbins]

I would pay double to see boise, air force, unlv, Wyoming, csu and the likes. I sure as fuck am not wasting a day or money to see panhandle university college....I hope like hell the Griz move up some day, but I aint a holdin my breath.

 

[PlayerRep]

I would pay double to see boise, air force, unlv, Wyoming, csu and the likes. I sure as f*** am not wasting a day or money to see panhandle university college....I hope like hell the Griz move up some day, but I aint a holdin my breath.

I wouldn't nor would alot of Griz fans. They want conference championships or a chance to get there. They want the playoffs. They want the wins. Watching your team lose consistently is not what builds big attendance.

 

[AZGrizFan]

I would pay double to see boise, air force, unlv, Wyoming, csu and the likes. I sure as f*** am not wasting a day or money to see panhandle university college....I hope like hell the Griz move up some day, but I aint a holdin my breath.

I wouldn't nor would alot of Griz fans. They want conference championships or a chance to get there. They want the playoffs. They want the wins. Watching your team lose consistently is not what builds big attendance.

PR: I flew home from San Antonio for the ASU game. I am not flying home for any other game this year. I'm flying to Laramie next year, and possibly Fargo. I'll leave you to figure out why that might be.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Rivalries: Rivalrys are overrated. But, if you must, we could keep MSU & EWU, and reignite Idaho & Wyoming & Boise & Nevada & start rivalries with UNLV, Utah State, Colorado State, Air Force, etc.

Rivalries are what make sports even that much more entertaining. Why the heck do you think there's so much talk about the Cats on this board, and about the Griz on the Bobcat board? CPSLO lost their starting QB this week as well, no one gives a damn about that - but we've got a 6 page thread dedicated to McGhee as it stands.

Rivalries create games with extra passion, back-stories, history, bad blood, etc. You don't just "start" new ones. No one in the Big Sky is UNC's rival (that I know of). They've not done a thing to "start" a rivalry.

And we couldn't "keep" MSU or EWU, we would need a guarantee game and as soon as we lose one or two of those games that rivalry would be over. It would get weighted to favor us, force all games to be in our stadium and then soon enough we'd like to make sure we don't lose to an FCS team. That's why we haven't played Idaho since 2003

Travel: Does travel get any worse than traveling to UNfuckingD 3 years in a row? Or Sacramento, California twice in the same YEAR? Aren't Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Laramie, Boise, Moscow, Seattle, Pullman, Corvallis, Eugene, Las Vegas ALL closer than CPSLO, NAU, UND, Davis, Sac State?

Yeah but those aren't the conferences we would join. It would probably be the Sun Belt as suggested or the MAC. MAC is all mid-west.

So for the Sun Belt we'd be up against, Texas State, Troy, Arkansas St, South Alabama, Western Kentucky, UL-Monroe, UL-Lafayette, Georgia State, Idaho, New Mexico State, App State, and Georgia Southern. So every other weekend we're flying across the nation. Fans would travel way less.

Add-in, getting to MSU, EWU, ISU are quick(er) bus trips. Flights to Weber, Sac, Davis, Portland, and NAU are easy to connect or direct. I was told UND is a 2.5 hour charter flight, you land there, get to the hotel (which is connected to the stadium) and you go to the game, it's actually pretty easy for a team to travel to. UNC and CPSLO I've been told are the two that are tricky to get to, usually involving flight + a bus.

Playoffs: This new "mid-major" level of football WILL have playoffs. Bank it. Why would the NCAA have only ONE level of playoffs NOT have football? It makes no sense...

I'll believe it when I see it.

OOC Fodder: Take a look at the OOC schedule of UTSA. They just had Oklahoma State come TO San Antonio to play. They've managed to string together some very attractive OOC games (including many IN San Antonio) over the next 5 years, all while adding almost $8 million to their coffers. We don't have to JUST play the Pac 12 every OOC weekend...

I can play that game too.

Look at the dire financial situation UMass is in. Also their OOC, they got spanked at Wisconsin, lost to FCS Maine and then have to hit the road to play K-state and Vandy. They'll be 0-4 going into conference

Or look at our best comparison, the Idaho Vandals. Now this year they're independents but they're on the road for 7 games and get 5 at home. They're 0-2 and so far have been outscored 82-16 (against N. Texas and Wyo). They play an SEC, ACC, and PAC12 team on the road while the "best" team they host is maybe Fresno State or Temple.

Losing record: Why does one automatically assume we'd have a losing record? This I will never understand.

Please point out to me how many teams moved up and had immediate success. Or even continued success. Boise State seems like the exception and not the rule. Others like UConn have had some good years but then bad years as well. Then there's the UMass, Idaho, W. Kentucky, FAUs of the world. The bodybag teams that powerful schools like to book because beating the hell out of you on their home turf counts as an "FBS" win.

Big Financial Losses: Apparently there's a financial model the works, otherwise teams would be looking to move DOWN and not up. What are we missing here?

Yes, just about 22 of them, while even less in the FCS are. http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/06/22_college_football_programs_m.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Moving up would dramatically raise our expenses. We would need more scholarships, more athletic programs, more facilities. The money that would come back to us would either be from booking games were we get curb-stomped by an SEC team (or a host of upper tier teams) each year or by joining a conference that rakes in bowl money winnings. The challenge is that the MAC/Sun Belt doesn't do that, nor would that happen by being an independent.

Half-full stadiums: Assuming this stems from a losing record? Or do you REALLY think people would be LESS interested in seeing Wyoming, Colorado State, Utah State and the like over Portland State, Oklahoma-Panhandle State & Southern Utah?

Griz fans piss and moan about prices now, think of what costs would be placed on ticket holders with a move up. Then suddenly there's less home games as well. We would have a bad record so all of the bandwagon fans would fade away. And of the home games people would maybe get to see Wyo or CSU or one of the teams you mentioned per year. After that it would be SUU or PSU or ISU and then we'd be on the road for the other OOC games.

Even by your high standards, that was a terrific and informative post.

Sure, because he agrees with you. There's not a lot of actual "facts" in it. Just a lot of supposition, hyperbole and hysteria.