• 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!

How does the Big Sky become a premiere FCS Conference?

A few pointers from my perspective:

Defense: The Big Sky is known for high powered, high flying offenses yet we seem to struggle against teams who have a really good defense, aka the MVC. Time to start putting some more focus on that side of the ball maybe.

Schedule better: I understand that some teams need to schedule some FBS body bag games which is fine, however we should try and stopping scheduling D2 schools as much as possible. Focus on getting series with other FCS Conference teams and FBS G5 schools to increase attention towards the team and the Conference. In particular I am very dissapointed we dont play at least a MWC team every year, was awesome when we went to Wyoming and would love to see some games against Idaho, Utah State and other MWC opponents. Also this means being willing to travel to teams out east.
 
UTGrizFan said:
A few pointers from my perspective:

Defense: The Big Sky is known for high powered, high flying offenses yet we seem to struggle against teams who have a really good defense, aka the MVC. Time to start putting some more focus on that side of the ball maybe.

Schedule better: I understand that some teams need to schedule some FBS body bag games which is fine, however we should try and stopping scheduling D2 schools as much as possible. Focus on getting series with other FCS Conference teams and FBS G5 schools to increase attention towards the team and the Conference. In particular I am very dissapointed we dont play at least a MWC team every year, was awesome when we went to Wyoming and would love to see some games against Idaho, Utah State and other MWC opponents. Also this means being willing to travel to teams out east.
Click to expand...
Just to add to this, it's not about having a great offense or a great defense....it's about being an all-around great team. This means you need both. Speaking to the Big Sky, MSU has had a great offense but a shitty defense. Before Stitt we had a good defense and a shitty offense. With the hire of Choate and Stitt, respectively, each school is trying to correct their deficiencies. However....what happens if you over-compensate?

Stitt had 15 years of experience as a head coach and OC coming into Montana. Choate had zero HC experience, and coached only the defensive and ST sides of the ball. Now I thiiiink that what we are going to see is one school over-correct, sending the other side of the ball into the gutter....while the other coach corrects the issue, while maintaining, or even improving the well-established side of the ball. Now I'm not trying to turn this into a cat-bashing thread, it's just that the Choate and Stitt hires were very similarly motivated. Fix the offense and fix the defense. I'm not saying Choate can't fix the defense while still maintaining a rockstar offense, Hauck did a pretty good job of running a well-rounded team. Hauck did take over a much better team than Choate is though.

The point being, focusing more on defense isn't the answer. For teams to be competitive they need to make hires and coach up both sides of the ball to be solid. And it's not about statistics, great offenses and defenses come out in the playoffs.
 
The Big Sky is a premiere FCS conference. Of course, the MVC is now the premiere FCS conference, with NDSU and multiple strong teams year in and year out. Has some basketball teams too. The Southern Conference is not what it once was. The CAA is still good, but not at or near the top as it was for certain years. The Southland was almost always on the bottom end of the top conferences.
 
By shedding the dead weight. And, much like my Lab this time of year, there's a whole lotta shedding to be done.
 
brewskis said:
UTGrizFan said:
A few pointers from my perspective:

Defense: The Big Sky is known for high powered, high flying offenses yet we seem to struggle against teams who have a really good defense, aka the MVC. Time to start putting some more focus on that side of the ball maybe.

Schedule better: I understand that some teams need to schedule some FBS body bag games which is fine, however we should try and stopping scheduling D2 schools as much as possible. Focus on getting series with other FCS Conference teams and FBS G5 schools to increase attention towards the team and the Conference. In particular I am very dissapointed we dont play at least a MWC team every year, was awesome when we went to Wyoming and would love to see some games against Idaho, Utah State and other MWC opponents. Also this means being willing to travel to teams out east.
Click to expand...
Just to add to this, it's not about having a great offense or a great defense....it's about being an all-around great team. This means you need both. Speaking to the Big Sky, MSU has had a great offense but a shitty defense. Before Stitt we had a good defense and a shitty offense. With the hire of Choate and Stitt, respectively, each school is trying to correct their deficiencies. However....what happens if you over-compensate?

Stitt had 15 years of experience as a head coach and OC coming into Montana. Choate had zero HC experience, and coached only the defensive and ST sides of the ball. Now I thiiiink that what we are going to see is one school over-correct, sending the other side of the ball into the gutter....while the other coach corrects the issue, while maintaining, or even improving the well-established side of the ball. Now I'm not trying to turn this into a cat-bashing thread, it's just that the Choate and Stitt hires were very similarly motivated. Fix the offense and fix the defense. I'm not saying Choate can't fix the defense while still maintaining a rockstar offense, Hauck did a pretty good job of running a well-rounded team. Hauck did take over a much better team than Choate is though.

The point being, focusing more on defense isn't the answer. For teams to be competitive they need to make hires and coach up both sides of the ball to be solid. And it's not about statistics, great offenses and defenses come out in the playoffs.
Click to expand...

Did you forget Pflu? Did they put up points on he way to the semis? Seems to me that the defense was good and the offense ran NI out of the building.

Delaney had already retired once, wasn't a natty winner and didn't look like he was getting better footing so he/Haslem did the only responsible thing. Ash was stuck @ the crest of the hill with nothing looking like a positive change on the horizon and Fields did what he was told. Don't think there is a over correction in either case. Stitt played well because of the Read era - and yes, they did play some defense then. And without the Gregorak impediment, they will play defense again. Choate does represent a better shot @ playing defense and what sounds like an offense reminiscent of NDSU - hard to argue that plan. No coach comes in thinking there is one side of the ball that matters more or less. Both have a mater plan in mind that balances both and what they believe in with the realities of today's game. Give them a few years before the over compensation discussion.
 
Both Stitt and Choate were good selections for head coaching jobs. My guess is both will have their teams rolling in a few years. The REAL issue are the other coaches in the league. Some are just above high school level. On top of that some of the schools have bad to worse ADs with zero brain fodder and couple that with some dense college presidents and you have the lower rung of our conference. Period! New coaches may not be the answer because the AD and President need to be smart and on board.

Lower rung teams are a fact of life and they will be around forever. Until a school obtains a president that has sports in his or her blood the teams will sit at or near the bottom every year. Poor attendance, poor facilities, poor coaching, poor players and poor teams...that is all you can expect.
 
Win the lottery when it gets to $420 million, and give each Big Sky school $30 million....

Seriously, there is no across-the-board, silver bullet solution to improving Big Sky football. Each school has its own inherent challenges and, at the end of the day, there is a reason the two Montanas and Eastern Washington are almost always in the top 5. Montana has the facilities, the history and the revenue. Montana State has greatly improved its facilities, fan base and revenue, and Bozeman is one helluva a nice place to recruit to. Eastern Washington has its pick of the best FCS kids in the state of Washington. They have used that incredible recruiting base to slowly improve the facilities, fan base and revenue.

Everybody else: there is a reason programs rise and fall from year to year. Heck, even Idaho State had its own little mini-run in the early 2000s, when Jared Allen and company won 8 games a couple of times, tied for the league crown one year and had three winning seasons in a row. But it was not sustainable, because the NCAA tightened the academic standards ISU was using to bring in top tier talent; there are no "deep pockets" donors in eastern Idaho, and there is no natural recruiting base for Idaho State football. Nobody, not even kids who grow up in Pocatello, "dream" of one-day playing for Idaho State. (Boise State maybe). So you're not going to waive a magic wand and all of a sudden create millions of dollars for new facilities, or a fan or recruiting base that cares.

Look at PSU: yeah, Bruce Barnum, a good friend of mine, did a great job turning around that program last year. Wanna bet how long that will sustain itself? No matter how successful PSU becomes, how many Oregon or OSU fans are going to divert themselves from their Saturday drives to Eugene or Corvallis, get off the freeway in downtown Portland and give a damn about the Vikings?

How about Weber? Good young coach, going in the right direction, a few seasons of success in the not-too-distant past. They have done a nice job of improving facilities. Yeah, I could see them having a winning record for a couple of years. But sustained success? In the midst of Utah, Utah State and BYU? Competing for recruits with those schools? Again, trying to convince fans to get off 1-15 in Ogden on a Saturday afternoon instead of completing that drive to SLC or Provo? Not likely. And if you do happen to put together a couple of playoff seasons back-to-back, how long will that coach stick around to make $150 K, when those $1.5 to $3 M jobs start calling?

The list of inherent problems at all these schools goes on and on, but you get the idea. Each school has to work on addressing its own list of problems. You can't mandate solutions to each school's individual issues. Take scheduling, for example. ISU plays two "money games" a year because it has to -- it depends on that $800 K a year to balance a budget that has an average annual net income of about $33 K over the last five years. You can't legislative fans that care in places like Portland, Ogden or Sacramento, where they have far more options and allegiances. You can't require facilities upgrades in places where there are no donors to fund those upgrades. Each program has to continue to fight its own individual battles, and right now, 11 of the 14 schools are just trying to be relevant in the Big Sky Conference, they're not too worried about how they stack up with the best of other leagues.
 
Agreed good post BV, as mentioned money and support go a long way in keeping the program successful and you made several valid points in regards to several other teams. I would even put UND in that category as well just because they have to compete with NDSU for recruits and it's somewhat of a foregone conclusion where kids would rather play thanks to the exposure the Bison have received. Both the Montana schools and EWU are definitely the top of the conference in this category but I do you think that there is potential for several schools, namely the California teams, NAU and SUU. With the access to the massive recruiting pool found in California and solid athletic budgets when compared to the rest of the conference it is very surprising that Sac State, Cal Poly and UC Davis don't have more success on the football field. NAU much like EWU has the benefit of being the only FCS program in the state of Arizona which gives them access to a decent number of FCS recruits both there and in surrounding states. SUU despite having the smallest athletic budget has one thing going for it, the LDS connection and it's growing ties to BYU. Southern Utah is quickly becoming and considered by many out here as mini BYU in many aspects which gives them access to unique talent pool. If you're not good enough to play for/start for BYU then you come down to SUU as evident by the string of Quarterback transfers, Ed Lamb going to BYU and Kalani Sitake coaching there for several years on top of the first of several rumored meetings against BYU on the field.
 
The Big Sky is a premier FCS conference. Not thee premier, but top 3.

Agree that the single biggest thing the conference can do to improve, is learn how to play defense.

You see teams in the MVFC, CAA, and even top teams in the Southland Big South and and they just have dudes, for a lack of a better term, on defense.

The Big Sky has very talented skill players and standout individuals, but overall seemingly we aren't as big or as athletic as other conferences.
 
CatzWillRise said:
The Big Sky is a premier FCS conference. Not thee premier, but top 3.

Agree that the single biggest thing the conference can do to improve, is learn how to play defense.

You see teams in the MVFC, CAA, and even top teams in the Southland Big South and and they just have dudes, for a lack of a better term, on defense.

The Big Sky has very talented skill players and standout individuals, but overall seemingly we aren't as big or as athletic as other conferences.
Click to expand...

Eastern Washington and Montana State are examples of teams in the Conference with lackluster
Play from the defensive side of the ball.
 
stonecrest said:
CatzWillRise said:
The Big Sky is a premier FCS conference. Not thee premier, but top 3.

Agree that the single biggest thing the conference can do to improve, is learn how to play defense.

You see teams in the MVFC, CAA, and even top teams in the Southland Big South and and they just have dudes, for a lack of a better term, on defense.

The Big Sky has very talented skill players and standout individuals, but overall seemingly we aren't as big or as athletic as other conferences.
Click to expand...

Eastern Washington and Montana State are examples of teams in the Conference with lackluster
Play from the defensive side of the ball.
Click to expand...

As an EWU fan I'd be very happy to see lackluster defense. That would at least be a step in the right direction! That just might happen next season. Much of the defense was very young last season and towards the end, they were in a very bad spot since the offense pretty much fell apart.
 
Odd question. The Big Sky is already a premiere FCS conference. Now, if you are aiming to become the premiere FCS conference.... considering that just about every conference calls itself the "SEC of the FCS" already, I'd just crown yourselves and be done with it. Or win the national championship, which the Griz seem perfectly capable of doing, and then who cares what people think?
 
Does anyone know what the fiscal terms of the 5-year ROOT contract was? If I remember right, I think someone previously said Montana makes $100k in tv revenue/year? Does that mean the contract was $1.3 million? (13 teams x $100k) Are the tv dollars divided equally among the league members?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top