billings_poke
Well-known member
MrTitleist said:
too many think if the griz just sit tight it will fall into their laps. uhhh no simply too many other options out there
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
Fullerton: Take BSC to FBS and add NDSU?
- Thread starter UNDfan
- Start date
too many think if the griz just sit tight it will fall into their laps. uhhh no simply too many other options out there
Good grief! Don't these folks with their cockamammy conference alignments pay attention to what's been going on for the past 18 months. The MWC is set, the PAC12 is beyond reach, the Sun Belt and ConferenceUSA are non starters and the WAC is a handful of left behinds searching for an identity. Montana is paying the price for a series of administrations that have sat on their backsides waiting - waiting for what? The moment has come and gone for the foreseeable future...
Silvertip said:
Agree, there won't be intermingling of MWC and Big Sky teams. The MWC has much higher budgets and markets.
1. What could happen: NDSU, SDSU, USD accept invites to the Big Sky. (14 full time FCS members plus Davis and Poly as associated members plus Idaho as FBS in the Sun Belt ).
2. In a year or two: 6 Big Sky teams that want FBS now are invited to the WAC for football only but stay in the Big Sky other sports. (possibly Montana, MSU, NDSU, UND, PSU, Sac St) Those 6 begin the FBS transition and NMSU and Idaho later rejoin WAC football from the Sun Belt. Nine Big Sky teams remain in the Big Sky as FCS.
3. Once the transitions are complete, NMSU is offered a Big Sky spot and accepts. The six FBS schools finishing their FBS transition rejoin the Big Sky in football as well as Idaho, and voila, the Big Sky now has 8 members and meets the definition of an FBS conference. The 9 FCS members can continue under the Big Sky umbrella too, but as a separate division.
4. The other FCS Big Sky schools (N Colo, SDSU, USD, Weber St, S Utah, N Ariz, UC Davis, Cal Poly, and EWU) can now choose to upgrade to FBS any time.
What's in it for the WAC? The WAC will get leftover Summit League members: Omaha, W Ill, maybe Denver, and possibly IUPUI and IPFW to make a Midwestern division with Chicago St and UMKC.
Cuzin Zeek
Member
Silvertip said:
I dont' think it matters what the administration wants. The board of regents pay the bills, and they're not interested in spending any more than they do now.
UNDfan said:
I'm betting the draft copy of this post was created in crayon...
Cuzin Zeek
Member
Ursa Major said:
With all the oil money, maybe the ND board of regents would pay for the MT teams to move up. Folks, our BOR is not going to throw money for athletics - ahead of academics.
Cuzin Zeek said:
I'm betting a hypothetical referendum vote in the state of Montana to increase voter's taxes so UM & MSU could join FBS would return maybe 25% support, on a really good day. Same with most of our other financial gripes on this board including higher coaching pay or more funds for recruiting. For some reason the citizens of Montana believe that the university system is there for education not athletics. THOSE BASTARDS!
Listen...
I will type slow so some of you can keep up...
MONTANA WILL NOT MOVE TO FBS!!! because the FBS is going to Shrink!!!
If you have been paying attention over the last 20 years...
There WILL BE 3 divisions...
1- Tier 1- The big schools (Probably 64 teams) (Big Ten, Big 12, PAC 12, SEC(all will have 16 teams with 2 divisions))
2- Tier 2(Probably 96+ teams) (ACC, Conf USA, Big East, Mid-Amer., MWC, Sunbelt, WAC and Upper FCS teams)
3- The scrubs..
If you think the MWC will be part of the first tier... you are high. The USC's, Texas and Florida's have no use for ANY of the MWC teams, even Boise doesn't bring enough revenue to the party. Money is the driving force and the big boys DONT WANT TO SHARE!!!
Obviously some of the schools in tier two will "move up" to Tier one to fill gaps.
Tier 1 and Tier two schools will play each other as non-conference games.. mostly so rivalries can continue. I also believe that BOTH will have Playoffs!
MONTANA had better prepare for a move to Tier Two. That's way App State and the others have jumped... they see the future and the FBS is the SCRUB Conference to be!!!
The post was started talking about the BSC to the FBS... that's not going to happen... to many crappy facilities.
I will type slow so some of you can keep up...
MONTANA WILL NOT MOVE TO FBS!!! because the FBS is going to Shrink!!!
If you have been paying attention over the last 20 years...
There WILL BE 3 divisions...
1- Tier 1- The big schools (Probably 64 teams) (Big Ten, Big 12, PAC 12, SEC(all will have 16 teams with 2 divisions))
2- Tier 2(Probably 96+ teams) (ACC, Conf USA, Big East, Mid-Amer., MWC, Sunbelt, WAC and Upper FCS teams)
3- The scrubs..
If you think the MWC will be part of the first tier... you are high. The USC's, Texas and Florida's have no use for ANY of the MWC teams, even Boise doesn't bring enough revenue to the party. Money is the driving force and the big boys DONT WANT TO SHARE!!!
Obviously some of the schools in tier two will "move up" to Tier one to fill gaps.
Tier 1 and Tier two schools will play each other as non-conference games.. mostly so rivalries can continue. I also believe that BOTH will have Playoffs!
MONTANA had better prepare for a move to Tier Two. That's way App State and the others have jumped... they see the future and the FBS is the SCRUB Conference to be!!!
The post was started talking about the BSC to the FBS... that's not going to happen... to many crappy facilities.
Screamin_Eagle174
Well-known member
Ursa Major said:
http://www.pcs-structural.com/projects/eastern-washington-university-stadium" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
:thumb:
Paytonlives said:
I think you're spot on, Payton. And I also agree that all levels will have playoffs in the very near future. Given your scenario, and given the fact that the WAC has only two football-playing members currently, there are basically two options for teams like Montana if they want to move up:
1) find 5 other FCS teams ready to move up to join Idaho and NMSU in a reconstituted WAC
2) Join Idaho, NMSU and one other school in a 16-team MWC.
And I'm not sure either of these are even remotely feasible at this point. Does anyone really think there are 5 other teams (4, assuming MSU was moving up as well) that are ready and willing to try to revive a basically defunct conference? And if not, is there even an INKLING that the MWC would be ready to extend offers to Idaho, NMSU, UM and MSU to create a 16-team "western" based Tier II league? I think it's safe to say that there are NO MWC schools on the Pac-12's radar when they look to expand to 16...and if they do take schools like Texas, Oklahoma, TCU, etc., then that leaves the Big 12 to raid some other conference, and the dominos start all over again. But until (or unless) the UM administrations decides to play the game, they'll never have a chance at a chair when the music stops. If we can all agree that there WILL be playoffs at all levels eventually, then the issue becomes money--and the fact that MSU would have to most likely come in a package deal...and the reality of it is, I just don't see Montana being able to support two schools with the financial package necessary to compete at that level, whether it be scholarships, coaching pay, facilities, whatever.
That all being said, is there ANY BSC school that seems even remotely ready (or interested) in moving up? Because if not, then our current situation may be the status quo for quite some time, whether it's Tier II or Tier III.
Grizzlies1982
Well-known member
I fully agree with Payton as to what the future holds. That writing has been on the wall for a long time.
When (not if) the Big Dogs take their ball and finally slam the door on everyone else, the real realignment begins. We (UM or Big Sky) won't be cherry picking anyone in the Pac or even Mt West to join us. Most likely "we" (the healthier Big Sky programs) will combine with Idaho & NM St as a reborn WAC, or new variation of the Big Sky. At that point "we" will be on the same level as the MAC, CUSA, Sun Belt and every other conference on the outside of the elite BCS.
We need to be ready for a change, but for now there is no point spending the big dollars to join one of these soon to be demoted middle tier schools. We just need to take care of business. Building new weight and locker room facilities. Hire a good coaching staff. Continue to recruit good talent, and win more games.
No the Board of Regents won't give additional money for any 'move'. Nor will there be any vote by MT citizens to raise taxes for college athletics. Any additional revenue will have to come from donations, and possibly by pressuring the administration to allow UM football to retain more of the revenue it already generates. Thought the latter seems more unlikely every day. So relax. Save your nickels. Then donate what you can when the time comes.
:ugeek:
When (not if) the Big Dogs take their ball and finally slam the door on everyone else, the real realignment begins. We (UM or Big Sky) won't be cherry picking anyone in the Pac or even Mt West to join us. Most likely "we" (the healthier Big Sky programs) will combine with Idaho & NM St as a reborn WAC, or new variation of the Big Sky. At that point "we" will be on the same level as the MAC, CUSA, Sun Belt and every other conference on the outside of the elite BCS.
We need to be ready for a change, but for now there is no point spending the big dollars to join one of these soon to be demoted middle tier schools. We just need to take care of business. Building new weight and locker room facilities. Hire a good coaching staff. Continue to recruit good talent, and win more games.
No the Board of Regents won't give additional money for any 'move'. Nor will there be any vote by MT citizens to raise taxes for college athletics. Any additional revenue will have to come from donations, and possibly by pressuring the administration to allow UM football to retain more of the revenue it already generates. Thought the latter seems more unlikely every day. So relax. Save your nickels. Then donate what you can when the time comes.
:ugeek:
Screamin_Eagle174 said:
Well... Your HS gym doesn't get it done
BTW... EWU Football Stadium... "You cant shine a TURD"
Jerry Punch
Well-known member
kemajic said:
I remember a time when you fervently argued for joining the WAC. Your agenda seems to have leveled out after gaining some perspective.
Cujo said:
You've got two schools (CP & Suck St) on there that reside in a state that is horribly in debt and considering CUTTING sports support and another (NAU) that is in a state that has considered dropping NAU football as recently as 2-3 years ago.
Honestly, if THAT is the new WAC (or FBS BSC, whatever you want to call it) then why bother making ANY change?
Paytonlives said:
Good post. The ACC will remain Tier 1. With their new media package (if a team leaves they forfeit their media rights), none of their teams are going anywhere - and with their new look, they will remain a top conference. Also Big East is now American Athletic or some such thing. Tier 2 is more likely to add a couple of the power FCS conferences.
So more likely you're looking at 5 Tier 1 conferences (70-80 schools), 8 Tier II conferences (CUSA, MAC, SunBelt, former Big East, MWC, variation of Big Sky, MVFC, something FCS east - based with remnants of CAA schools); which will be 96-112 schools). Although they don't participate in the playoffs, one has to think the Ivy's may end up in Tier II also. Hard to believe they would want to fall to a 3rd tier. Not sure about the historical black colleges either.
CatzWillRise
Well-known member
If we are taking Big Sky teams with us, the ones I'd bring are:
MSU
UM
EWU
PSU
UND
UC Davis
Cal Poly
and Sac State to make it 8
PSU because it's in Portland. If they were relevant on a bigger scale I'd have to think attendance could increase upwards of 20,000. The same goes for Sac State. UCD has the alumni support and stadium already. Poly seems committed to having a winning program. UND has a nice stadium and can and will fill it. EWU is in the process of remodeling their stadium and will soon have some of the nicer sky boxes in FCS.
NAU and Weber are on the cusp. When Weber first hired McBride back, they had 18k fans at their home opener. They have a big enough stadium, but it's tough being 4th fiddle behind BYU, Utah, and Utah State - and that wouldn't change in FBS. NAU's dome isn't great but it isn't terrible, but only holds around 11k.
SUU seems like an up and comer, but they have a long ways to go. UNC is just... UNC. Maybe if they start winning consistently again the fans will show up, but it still doesn't even hold 7k.
MSU
UM
EWU
PSU
UND
UC Davis
Cal Poly
and Sac State to make it 8
PSU because it's in Portland. If they were relevant on a bigger scale I'd have to think attendance could increase upwards of 20,000. The same goes for Sac State. UCD has the alumni support and stadium already. Poly seems committed to having a winning program. UND has a nice stadium and can and will fill it. EWU is in the process of remodeling their stadium and will soon have some of the nicer sky boxes in FCS.
NAU and Weber are on the cusp. When Weber first hired McBride back, they had 18k fans at their home opener. They have a big enough stadium, but it's tough being 4th fiddle behind BYU, Utah, and Utah State - and that wouldn't change in FBS. NAU's dome isn't great but it isn't terrible, but only holds around 11k.
SUU seems like an up and comer, but they have a long ways to go. UNC is just... UNC. Maybe if they start winning consistently again the fans will show up, but it still doesn't even hold 7k.
