Pretty good read today.
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2006/01/25/sports/sports02.txt
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2006/01/25/sports/sports02.txt
-
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!
Good BSC Stuff in the Paper Today
- Thread starter Montana Gym Rat
- Start date
Grizbeer
Well-known member
The NAU attendance information was interesting. Attendance league wide next year will be interesting, with 1/4 of the conference games being Monday night, 1/4 Thursday, and 1/2 on Saturday, an nor travel partner, especially since Fullerton says this will mean the biggest games (is there a BSC game bigger than UM-MSU?) will likely be played on Mondays and Thursdays.
Could see a new league low for attendance next year.
Could see a new league low for attendance next year.
SactoHornetFan
Well-known member
Fullerton is the biggest moron. He and the doofuss who runs the Big Worst are definitely in bed with each other.
golfinggriz
Well-known member
I liked the little blurb about Ellis. He was definately the difference in Bozeman and has emerged as a great presser along with being able to shut down the other team's best guard.
NavyBlue
Well-known member
I will start by saying I am not a fan of Doug Fullerton and the way he has been "running" the Big Sky Conference. But the thing is DF may have wanted to add NDSU but it is the university presidents who VOTE on it. It is the fault of the conference presidents and not Doug Fullerton.
Doug Fullerton serves at the pleasure of the presidents of the Big Sky Conference schools, they collectively, are his boss.
UM, MSU, and others wanted to add NDSU and SDSU but Sac St. and Portland State did not, so appearantly the votes were not there. Again, I am no fan of Fullerton, I just don't think all this can be pinned on Fullerton, the blame falls more on the short-sighted presidents at NAU, Sac and Portland. UM and MSU, are basically the standard bearers of the Big Sky Conference, and they were not happy, from what I understand about the last round of expansion they wanted the two Dakota States.
Part of the problem UM (and MSU) have is that with thier "1-AA or nothing" attitude is they have no leverage with those other schools (NAU, Sac, PSU) they think there is no danger that UM and MSU will ever leave because of thier loyalty to 1-AA. Those schools are not afraid that if they don't give the Montana schools there way, that the Montana schools might leave, since UM has slammed the door on the WAC's offers. If UM said "if we don't get our way, we might just join the WAC", I gaurantee PSU and Sac would fall in line immediatly, if not sooner.
If UM were to leave the rest of the conference would be in a world of hurt, and I am sure that most people would think that MSU would follow at that point as soon as they could. Instead of UM publically saying "we will NEVER be 1-a", they should say "we are always looking at all our options", even if they never really plan on going 1-A. A little leverage would go a long way in these situations.
If UM and MSU's desires continue to be snubbed when it comes to important conference issues, like expansion I wouldn't be surprised if that was another thing that might make them consider the WAC.
Doug Fullerton serves at the pleasure of the presidents of the Big Sky Conference schools, they collectively, are his boss.
UM, MSU, and others wanted to add NDSU and SDSU but Sac St. and Portland State did not, so appearantly the votes were not there. Again, I am no fan of Fullerton, I just don't think all this can be pinned on Fullerton, the blame falls more on the short-sighted presidents at NAU, Sac and Portland. UM and MSU, are basically the standard bearers of the Big Sky Conference, and they were not happy, from what I understand about the last round of expansion they wanted the two Dakota States.
Part of the problem UM (and MSU) have is that with thier "1-AA or nothing" attitude is they have no leverage with those other schools (NAU, Sac, PSU) they think there is no danger that UM and MSU will ever leave because of thier loyalty to 1-AA. Those schools are not afraid that if they don't give the Montana schools there way, that the Montana schools might leave, since UM has slammed the door on the WAC's offers. If UM said "if we don't get our way, we might just join the WAC", I gaurantee PSU and Sac would fall in line immediatly, if not sooner.
If UM were to leave the rest of the conference would be in a world of hurt, and I am sure that most people would think that MSU would follow at that point as soon as they could. Instead of UM publically saying "we will NEVER be 1-a", they should say "we are always looking at all our options", even if they never really plan on going 1-A. A little leverage would go a long way in these situations.
If UM and MSU's desires continue to be snubbed when it comes to important conference issues, like expansion I wouldn't be surprised if that was another thing that might make them consider the WAC.
