Fullerton on Idaho, BSC, etc [Murphy]

[EverettGriz]

"At the first opportunity, they would be gone," he said.

Ummm, if a team would bolt your conference at their first opportunity, perhaps the problems do not lie with the team, but rather with your conference.

It's time to cast an objective eye inward, Fullerton.

So if Montana hired Bobby Petrino, and he turned around and left for Washington after a year, it would be because Montana is the problem?

Or because Petrino is an opportunistic bastard that would ditch his own mom to get a few more bucks?

Ahh, no. It would be because Washington offers a great deal more than Montana. And that's part of the problem I'd like to address: that because Montana is stuck where they are, in a conference with no money and no future, they will always be considered mearly a jumping-off point. I don't think it necessarily needs to be that way; I think there is far greater potential for a program like Montana on the national scene than many of the, "Oh, we're little ol' Montana playing in the Big Sky Conference so we can never get any bigger/better/richer" people want you to believe. However, the anchor around UM's neck -- the weaker-by-the-day BSC -- is drowning them in the sea of medicroity and preventing any forward momentum.

 

[Grizbeer]

Grizbeer, but it is not about the athletes and the scholarships that would be gone, it is about money. If the big 5 freeze all the other conferences out of the real money, many will have to look for ways to cut costs and that could equate to a reduction of scholarships.

I believe scholarships will be the last thing to go, because the schools are basically paying this scholarship money to themselves. Yes if the TV money doesn't get shared, or less is shared, there will be budget issues at the lower tier schools. I believe what will change is the arms race on facilities and coaches salaries, (until competitive pressure raise the salaries again) not the scholarships. Maybe there will be lower caps on the number of coaches allowed for FBS, or size of the traveling squads allowed as cost cutting measures, but if they keep football and just lower scholarships as an institution all they have done is stop shifting some money from the right hand into the left hand. Realistically it doesn't cost any more to educate 85 kids than it does 65. If they have any size booster organization at all they may actually reduce revenue to the University. The only way to save real money by reducing scholarships is to get rid of the entire sport.

 

[Spanky]

EverettGriz...the other anchor around our neck is Montana State and Fullerton, a bobcat uses it well against UM.

 

[dbackjon]

"At the first opportunity, they would be gone," he said.

Ummm, if a team would bolt your conference at their first opportunity, perhaps the problems do not lie with the team, but rather with your conference.

It's time to cast an objective eye inward, Fullerton.

So if Montana hired Bobby Petrino, and he turned around and left for Washington after a year, it would be because Montana is the problem?

Or because Petrino is an opportunistic bastard that would ditch his own mom to get a few more bucks?

Ahh, no. It would be because Washington offers a great deal more than Montana. And that's part of the problem I'd like to address: that because Montana is stuck where they are, in a conference with no money and no future, they will always be considered mearly a jumping-off point. I don't think it necessarily needs to be that way; I think there is far greater potential for a program like Montana on the national scene than many of the, "Oh, we're little ol' Montana playing in the Big Sky Conference so we can never get any bigger/better/richer" people want you to believe. However, the anchor around UM's neck -- the weaker-by-the-day BSC -- is drowning them in the sea of medicroity and preventing any forward momentum.

So wouldn't same logic apply to Boise? Can't have it both ways.

Unless you become a top 10 FBS program, a school is ALWAYS a jumping off spot for those ahead..

What are your expectations? What do you think the ceiling is for Montana?

 

[EverettGriz]

dbackjon, you're comparing apples and leaf blowers.

Boise's football program has already moved up and on. That ship has sailed. Mind you, we're only talking about "lesser" sports in this discussion. It's those programs that Fullerton says would bail from the BSC at first light. Doesn't that say something about the state of the BSC??

Look, I readily admit that Boise's football program deserves to be with the big boys. But beyond that, arguably Montana's athletic department has had equal or even greater success when compared to Boise's other sports, with 1/10th the budget.

Excepting football, there is no reason that the BSC shouldn't be a viable option for all of Boise's programs. But clearly it isn't. And when even the commissioner is saying so, perhaps it's time to figure out why it isn't.

 

[MooUBaby]

"At the first opportunity, they would be gone," he said.

Ummm, if a team would bolt your conference at their first opportunity, perhaps the problems do not lie with the team, but rather with your conference.

It's time to cast an objective eye inward, Fullerton.

So if Montana hired Bobby Petrino, and he turned around and left for Washington after a year, it would be because Montana is the problem?

Or because Petrino is an opportunistic bastard that would ditch his own mom to get a few more bucks?

Ahh, no. It would be because Washington offers a great deal more than Montana. And that's part of the problem I'd like to address: that because Montana is stuck where they are, in a conference with no money and no future, they will always be considered mearly a jumping-off point. I don't think it necessarily needs to be that way; I think there is far greater potential for a program like Montana on the national scene than many of the, "Oh, we're little ol' Montana playing in the Big Sky Conference so we can never get any bigger/better/richer" people want you to believe. However, the anchor around UM's neck -- the weaker-by-the-day BSC -- is drowning them in the sea of medicroity and preventing any forward momentum.

Just when I think you can't get any dumber you say that and totally redeem yourself as a grade A dumbass. :clap:

 

[Herd]

How can the FCS Schools or he Big Sky move to the 2nd level of college football? I dont believe there will be a split by the top 6 conferences, but if there was, are you telling me that 50+ FBS teams in he lower 5 conferences would just drop schollarships to 63? . . . or the FCS schools would jump to 85 schollarships? No, neither would happen for many, many years.

FBS Top 6 Confereces 85 Schollarships 50+ teams
FBS Next 5 Conferences 85 Schollarships 50+ teams
FCS Football 63 schollaships 119 teams

The divide between FBS and FCS is schollarships levels. That won't change if the top 6 conferences form their own championship. IMO, the 11 FBS conferences won't split.

I believe a true FBS Championsip is needed to raise up all of college football, with 12 teams competing for the title. The 12 team playoff field would be . . . (w/ lower FBS leagues playing championship games against other leagues to detemine champ, and the WAC gone)

1) SEC Champ
2) B1G Champ
3) PAC 12 Champ
4) Big 12 Champ
5) Big East Champ
6) ACC Champ
7) MWC/MAC Champ
8) Sunbelt/Conf USA Champ
9) At Large #1
10) At Large #2
11) At Large #3
12) At Large #4

The top 4 teams in a BCS ranking system would get first round byes. Round 1&2 at site of higher seed. Round 3 at a Final Four Site. Championsip Game at Championship site. Bring excitement back to college FB, similar to NCAA basketball. Involve all the leagues. The Griz and Bison would be scrammbling to join FBS football for the opportunity to win a confernce championship and to compete against the best for a title.

 

[AZGrizFan]

I believe a true FBS Championsip is needed to raise up all of college football, with 12 teams competing for the title. The 12 team playoff field would be . . . (w/ lower FBS leagues playing championship games against other leagues to detemine champ, and the WAC gone)

1) SEC Champ
2) B1G Champ
3) PAC 12 Champ
4) Big 12 Champ
5) Big East Champ
6) ACC Champ
7) MWC/MAC Champ
8) Sunbelt/Conf USA Champ
9) At Large #1
10) At Large #2
11) At Large #3
12) At Large #4

The top 4 teams in a BCS ranking system would get first round byes. Round 1&2 at site of higher seed. Round 3 at a Final Four Site. Championsip Game at Championship site. Bring excitement back to college FB, similar to NCAA basketball. Involve all the leagues. The Griz and Bison would be scrammbling to join FBS football for the opportunity to win a confernce championship and to compete against the best for a title.

That may be where they get to....in 30 years. But in all likelihood, the MAC, MWC, Sunbelt and Conf-USA conferences will NEVER be allowed a seat at the big boy's table. EVER.

 

[EverettGriz]

Ummm, if a team would bolt your conference at their first opportunity, perhaps the problems do not lie with the team, but rather with your conference.

It's time to cast an objective eye inward, Fullerton.

So if Montana hired Bobby Petrino, and he turned around and left for Washington after a year, it would be because Montana is the problem?

Or because Petrino is an opportunistic bastard that would ditch his own mom to get a few more bucks?

Ahh, no. It would be because Washington offers a great deal more than Montana. And that's part of the problem I'd like to address: that because Montana is stuck where they are, in a conference with no money and no future, they will always be considered mearly a jumping-off point. I don't think it necessarily needs to be that way; I think there is far greater potential for a program like Montana on the national scene than many of the, "Oh, we're little ol' Montana playing in the Big Sky Conference so we can never get any bigger/better/richer" people want you to believe. However, the anchor around UM's neck -- the weaker-by-the-day BSC -- is drowning them in the sea of medicroity and preventing any forward momentum.

Just when I think you can't get any dumber you say that and totally redeem yourself as a grade A dumbass. :clap:

Coming from you, that's a complete compliment.

Thanks!

:thumb: :thumb:

 

[SDHornet]

That may be where they get to....in 30 years. But in all likelihood, the MAC, MWC, Sunbelt and Conf-USA conferences will NEVER be allowed a seat at the big boy's table. EVER.

This. Even this new “+1” talk that is going around FBS is followed by a quick, “we don’t want this expanding beyond 4 teams” tag line. The top conferences have no intention of sharing the revenue and opportunity to the bottom tier FBS conferences. We just saw greed at the top tier of FBS destroy rivalries that have been around since the game was created and common sense alignments and geographical footprints destroyed all for the sake of pulling in some more bucks. There is no reason these top conferences couldn’t break away from the NCAA or create their own subdivision if they wanted to.

 

[grizindabox]

Everett, football is the reason the BSC is not a viable long term option for the other sports at Boise St. It is not ideal for Boise to have sports in separate conferences, and they would jump at the first chance to get all sports in the same conference, and that would be dictated by football. It really has nothing to do with the BSC. Boise would bail in a millisecond to have it's other sports follow football to a conference.

 

[EverettGriz]

Everett, football is the reason the BSC is not a viable long term option for the other sports at Boise St. It is not ideal for Boise to have sports in separate conferences, and they would jump at the first chance to get all sports in the same conference, and that would be dictated by football. It really has nothing to do with the BSC. Boise would bail in a millisecond to have it's other sports follow football to a conference.

Not certain I agree. Do you think Boise looks forward to sending their non-revenue sports (cross country, tennis, gymnastics, track, etc) all the way across the country multiple times each season to play teams in the Big East conference? Doubtful.

Placing those programs in the BSC makes much, much more sense (as well as cents). There would be geographic rivalries as well as huge cost savings. So, there must be more behind the scenes, such as, the BSC has nothing to offer other than its geography.

 

[getgrizzy]

teams like tcu, utah and boise state got onto the national scene by being able to win lots of games against mediocre teams. they were able to do that because they were in mediocre to poor conferences. don't hold your breath waiting for utah to win the pac12 or tcu bring home the big 12 title. bsu has a chance to make some noise in the big east, but they need to do it before they get put on probation, which will taint their successes. the big schools and conferences are working to eliminate them from ever playing in a meaningful game. by the time we (heaven forbid) move up that window will be closed forever. the best we can hope for is the ncaa to create a third subdivision between fbs and fcs.

we'll be a jumping off point even if we move up. we know this because other fbs schools in the mwc, mac, wac, cusa, lower level bcs confernce schools are also jumping off points. there are about 30 schools that aren't jumping off points. we'll never be one of those. the only differeence will be that we're a jumping off point to unlv, wyoming, wsu, utah state right now, and we'll be a jumping off point for usc, nd, texas, ou, florida, bama, lsu, osu, michigan if we move up. those schools don't have much more luck retaining coaches than we do.

 

[AZGrizFan]

we'll be a jumping off point even if we move up. we know this because other fbs schools in the mwc, mac, wac, cusa, lower level bcs confernce schools are also jumping off points. there are about 30 schools that aren't jumping off points. we'll never be one of those. the only differeence will be that we're a jumping off point to unlv, wyoming, wsu, utah state right now, and we'll be a jumping off point for usc, nd, texas, ou, florida, bama, lsu, osu, michigan if we move up. those schools don't have much more luck retaining coaches than we do.

I think the list is actually shorter than 30. Hell, Saban left LSU and ended up in Alabama....who would have ever thought LSU was a "jumping off point"? How about Tennessee's coach bolting for USC after one year? I mean, he was in the SEC for God's sake....isnt' THAT the mecca of college football? I think there MIGHT be ten schools that are "career" stops. Other than that, it's a free-for-all.

USC
Ohio State
Michigan
LSU
Alabama
Texas
Nebraska
Florida

Really, are there any others?

 

[mtgrizrule]

we'll be a jumping off point even if we move up. we know this because other fbs schools in the mwc, mac, wac, cusa, lower level bcs confernce schools are also jumping off points. there are about 30 schools that aren't jumping off points. we'll never be one of those. the only differeence will be that we're a jumping off point to unlv, wyoming, wsu, utah state right now, and we'll be a jumping off point for usc, nd, texas, ou, florida, bama, lsu, osu, michigan if we move up. those schools don't have much more luck retaining coaches than we do.

I think the list is actually shorter than 30. Hell, Saban left LSU and ended up in Alabama....who would have ever thought LSU was a "jumping off point"? How about Tennessee's coach bolting for USC after one year? I mean, he was in the SEC for God's sake....isnt' THAT the mecca of college football? I think there MIGHT be ten schools that are "career" stops. Other than that, it's a free-for-all.

USC
Ohio State
Michigan
LSU
Alabama
Texas
Nebraska
Florida

Really, are there any others?

Notre Dame, Penn State (pre scandal)

 

[AZGrizFan]

we'll be a jumping off point even if we move up. we know this because other fbs schools in the mwc, mac, wac, cusa, lower level bcs confernce schools are also jumping off points. there are about 30 schools that aren't jumping off points. we'll never be one of those. the only differeence will be that we're a jumping off point to unlv, wyoming, wsu, utah state right now, and we'll be a jumping off point for usc, nd, texas, ou, florida, bama, lsu, osu, michigan if we move up. those schools don't have much more luck retaining coaches than we do.

I think the list is actually shorter than 30. Hell, Saban left LSU and ended up in Alabama....who would have ever thought LSU was a "jumping off point"? How about Tennessee's coach bolting for USC after one year? I mean, he was in the SEC for God's sake....isnt' THAT the mecca of college football? I think there MIGHT be ten schools that are "career" stops. Other than that, it's a free-for-all.

USC
Ohio State
Michigan
LSU
Alabama
Texas
Nebraska
Florida

Really, are there any others?

Notre Dame, Penn State (pre scandal)

So, exactly 10. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Hammer]

we'll be a jumping off point even if we move up. we know this because other fbs schools in the mwc, mac, wac, cusa, lower level bcs confernce schools are also jumping off points. there are about 30 schools that aren't jumping off points. we'll never be one of those. the only differeence will be that we're a jumping off point to unlv, wyoming, wsu, utah state right now, and we'll be a jumping off point for usc, nd, texas, ou, florida, bama, lsu, osu, michigan if we move up. those schools don't have much more luck retaining coaches than we do.

I think the list is actually shorter than 30. Hell, Saban left LSU and ended up in Alabama....who would have ever thought LSU was a "jumping off point"? How about Tennessee's coach bolting for USC after one year? I mean, he was in the SEC for God's sake....isnt' THAT the mecca of college football? I think there MIGHT be ten schools that are "career" stops. Other than that, it's a free-for-all.

USC
Ohio State
Michigan
LSU
Alabama
Texas
Nebraska
Florida

Really, are there any others?

Depends on the coach. If a coach has NFL aspirations then all of those schools are jumping off points.

 

[AZGrizFan]

we'll be a jumping off point even if we move up. we know this because other fbs schools in the mwc, mac, wac, cusa, lower level bcs confernce schools are also jumping off points. there are about 30 schools that aren't jumping off points. we'll never be one of those. the only differeence will be that we're a jumping off point to unlv, wyoming, wsu, utah state right now, and we'll be a jumping off point for usc, nd, texas, ou, florida, bama, lsu, osu, michigan if we move up. those schools don't have much more luck retaining coaches than we do.

I think the list is actually shorter than 30. Hell, Saban left LSU and ended up in Alabama....who would have ever thought LSU was a "jumping off point"? How about Tennessee's coach bolting for USC after one year? I mean, he was in the SEC for God's sake....isnt' THAT the mecca of college football? I think there MIGHT be ten schools that are "career" stops. Other than that, it's a free-for-all.

USC
Ohio State
Michigan
LSU
Alabama
Texas
Nebraska
Florida

Really, are there any others?

Depends on the coach. If a coach has NFL aspirations then all of those schools are jumping off points.

As Saban has already proven.

 

[MooUBaby]

Wait for it...........I got an idea. Let's see how many threads you guys can start about the same ol' we should move up or at least justify it thread. Again you crazy libs crack me :lol: :lol:

 

[Spanky]

Then stay on the state college board. :thumb: