Split the Big Sky Conference?

[kemajic]

Man... You must be able to absolutely crush a three wood Dr. Kem. Put me down for your driving academy this spring.

71 miles is nothing, even at my age.

 

[Grizzlies1982]

As long as the Big Sky is in the FCS, there will never be a conference championship game, no matter what teams are added or kicked out or if it's split into divisions. The FCS does not have room for conference championship games and the playoffs, and while it "could" be figured out, it's not going to happen.

Havre, the premise is a split of the existing Big Sky into two separate football conferences, not two "divisions". Therefore there would be no need for any conference championship game. Plus the two conference could easily schedule each other to fill in some of their needs for out of conference games.

There would be a Big Sky champion and another champion from the hip and new 'Western Football Conference'. With the existing FCS 24 playoff team format, and the dropping of the HBC conference champ to pursue a bowl game, including another conference champ into the FCS playoffs would not be a challenge.

Not saying this split will happen but it wouldn't be too difficult to achieve. As seen in the discussion within this post, the hardest questions would be deciding who to move to the new conference... Do you split it east/west or north/south? Personally I would welcome this so we could avoid the current rotating conference nonsense.

 

[poiuyter]

For a school to move to FBS. It must be invited by an FBS conference. A conference cannot move up to FBS.

Them are the rules.

 

[Inspector Griz]

Personally I think if this split happens it should be for one FBS div and an FCS div. The fact is the P5 money games will be gone for FCS schools in a couple years. Teams in the MWC, SBS, CUSA will be the payday warm up games for P5. It would be better to be at the mid level to have those games than not! When this happens I a certain we will see a several FCS programs fold of go DII. The teams not ready in the BSC would stay FCS and as they work to a police not to transition up they can. The west coast needs a Sunbelt type of a conference. A stepping stone if you will.
I also believe that the BSC before ng FBS might lead to an opportunity to a MWC invite some day should the MWC look to expand.

 

[SoldierGriz]

Since Loghry was quoted as saying that one of the two "conferences" would retain the Big Sky name, I would assume that league would include the charter members. The Big Sky charter specifically prohibits expelling members, so unless a school voluntarily chose to leave the "Big Sky Conference" (and I'm assuming all the charters want to stay together), they could not be forced to leave.

This kind of thing is why we don't deserve to have nice things. Who, in their right mind, would approve such language?

Probably the founding institutions of the Big Sky -- way back in 1963.

It was probably dumb to draft and then approve that language back in 1963; I don't know. I do know it is clearly dumb to have that language in the charter in 2016. The CFB landscape is far different now. UM should lead the effort to remove it immediately. Schools should stand on their own, and earn their place. If they cannot muster the organizational energy to remain competitive in all facets - they should be sent packing, and replaced with schools that can.

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

I would call it the, "because I think it works good" conference split

Big Sky Division: Montana / Montana State / Idaho / UND / ISU / Weber / UNC
Great West Division: PSU / Sac / Poly / EWU / NAU / SUU / Davis

This seems like the best split - geographically and talent wise

Any true north / south or east / west stacks too much talent in one pool. This would spread it... granted it would cost a few rivalries, like UM v EWU but otherwise most others stay intact.

Talent levels change over the years, i'd keep EWU in the Big Sky. We would still get a couple of at large births if the talent level was evident. Which is should be clear is the two league scheduled quite a few pre-season games, which i'd think that they would based on geography and connections.

I'd prefer a name other than the 'Great West' because it is referencing a failed league. Perhaps a title that is in deference to the Big Sky connection, such as the Western Sky.

Coastal Sky????

 

[Griz!ron]

Personally I think if this split happens it should be for one FBS div and an FCS div. The fact is the P5 money games will be gone for FCS schools in a couple years. Teams in the MWC, SBS, CUSA will be the payday warm up games for P5. It would be better to be at the mid level to have those games than not! When this happens I a certain we will see a several FCS programs fold of go DII. The teams not ready in the BSC would stay FCS and as they work to a police not to transition up they can. The west coast needs a Sunbelt type of a conference. A stepping stone if you will.
I also believe that the BSC before ng FBS might lead to an opportunity to a MWC invite some day should the MWC look to expand.

It appears to me that the big five FBS conferences are trending towards creating their own playoff/scholar system, the remaining 60-70 teams will be left playing 'second tier' football. Thus a blending of the bottom half of the FBS and top half of the FCS may gradually develop. My point is that unless Montana rejoins the Pac-10, I am not sure that we should be calling it "moving-up"

 

[ISUguy]

Since Loghry was quoted as saying that one of the two "conferences" would retain the Big Sky name, I would assume that league would include the charter members. The Big Sky charter specifically prohibits expelling members, so unless a school voluntarily chose to leave the "Big Sky Conference" (and I'm assuming all the charters want to stay together), they could not be forced to leave.

This kind of thing is why we don't deserve to have nice things. Who, in their right mind, would approve such language?

Probably the founding institutions of the Big Sky -- way back in 1963.

It was probably dumb to draft and then approve that language back in 1963; I don't know. I do know it is clearly dumb to have that language in the charter in 2016. The CFB landscape is far different now. UM should lead the effort to remove it immediately. Schools should stand on their own, and earn their place. If they cannot muster the organizational energy to remain competitive in all facets - they should be sent packing, and replaced with schools that can.

Given that there are far more "have-nots" than "haves" in the Big Sky these days, I don't foresee any move by membership to place new demands on fellow members.

 

[kemajic]

Since Loghry was quoted as saying that one of the two "conferences" would retain the Big Sky name, I would assume that league would include the charter members. The Big Sky charter specifically prohibits expelling members, so unless a school voluntarily chose to leave the "Big Sky Conference" (and I'm assuming all the charters want to stay together), they could not be forced to leave.

This kind of thing is why we don't deserve to have nice things. Who, in their right mind, would approve such language?

Probably the founding institutions of the Big Sky -- way back in 1963.

Doubtful, because they booted Gonzaga when they decided to not resume a football program. The rule they had in the 60's was that members had to participate in all major sports and that held until Fullerton admitted football only schools and the Idaho deal. It was not appreciated that Gonzaga could throw all its major resources at basketball without the more costly football program.

 

[EverettGriz]

Since Loghry was quoted as saying that one of the two "conferences" would retain the Big Sky name, I would assume that league would include the charter members. The Big Sky charter specifically prohibits expelling members, so unless a school voluntarily chose to leave the "Big Sky Conference" (and I'm assuming all the charters want to stay together), they could not be forced to leave.

This kind of thing is why we don't deserve to have nice things. Who, in their right mind, would approve such language?

Probably the founding institutions of the Big Sky -- way back in 1963.

It was probably dumb to draft and then approve that language back in 1963; I don't know. I do know it is clearly dumb to have that language in the charter in 2016. The CFB landscape is far different now. UM should lead the effort to remove it immediately. Schools should stand on their own, and earn their place. If they cannot muster the organizational energy to remain competitive in all facets - they should be sent packing, and replaced with schools that can.

Soldier, you're talking about the conference that just invited every team to its basketball tournament so they could "get a taste of tournament action". In this "everyone gets a trophy", "we value our last-place team more than our first-place team" conference, what more did you expect?

 

[EverettGriz]

This kind of thing is why we don't deserve to have nice things. Who, in their right mind, would approve such language?

Probably the founding institutions of the Big Sky -- way back in 1963.

It was probably dumb to draft and then approve that language back in 1963; I don't know. I do know it is clearly dumb to have that language in the charter in 2016. The CFB landscape is far different now. UM should lead the effort to remove it immediately. Schools should stand on their own, and earn their place. If they cannot muster the organizational energy to remain competitive in all facets - they should be sent packing, and replaced with schools that can.

Given that there are far more "have-nots" than "haves" in the Big Sky these days, I don't foresee any move by membership to place new demands on fellow members.

But isn't this entire problem? Shouldn't this be what the league is focused on? And why continue to reward the "have-nots"? It just makes absolutely NO sense. Until the bsc adopts the model used by every other conference of "get better or get lost" (seriously, when was the last time the Pac12 took ANY action that benefited the Cougs? Go ahead, take your time. Think it over....Let me know when you come up with one), it will always be a shitstorm conference.

 

[PlayerRep]

Of the 32 basketball conferences, 31 have conference tourneys. Only the Ivies don't. Of those 31 teams, all but 4 have neutral sites. American East, Atlantic Sun, Northeast and Patriot have campus sites. Are those the conferences the Big Sky should emulate?

Don't most conferences, or at least most of the big conferences, invite all teams. Again, who should the Big Sky emulate.

Again, I like playing the tourney at the conference winner's place. However, some of you desperately want the conference to be better and get more respect, yet you seem the tourney format to be like the little guys.

 

[WILDCATFAN]

I'll post what I posted on the Championship subdivision forum

My one and only condition, charter members stay together

Big Sky Conference
Idaho
Idaho State
Montana
Montana State
North Dakota
Northern Colorado
Weber State

(Originally went with Great West Conference but like a previous poster mentioned "failed conference" so I'm gonna call it instead....

Pacific Coast Conference
Cal Poly
Eastern Washington
Northern Arizona
Portland State
Sacramento State
Southern Utah
UC Davis

Geographically this makes the most sense, I know schools like Eastern and especially NAU would not like this but like I said geographically this is the best setup. Plus there is nothing in the rule book that says Montana and Eastern couldn't play each other every year, just like I'm sure Weber and SUU would still play a yearly game.

 

[EverettGriz]

Of the 32 basketball conferences, 31 have conference tourneys. Only the Ivies don't. Of those 31 teams, all but 4 have neutral sites. American East, Atlantic Sun, Northeast and Patriot have campus sites. Are those the conferences the Big Sky should emulate?

Don't most conferences, or at least most of the big conferences, invite all teams. Again, who should the Big Sky emulate.

Again, I like playing the tourney at the conference winner's place. However, some of you desperately want the conference to be better and get more respect, yet you seem the tourney format to be like the little guys.

What's the one thing those conferences have in common?

Let's be honest; for the time being, we ARE a little guy. In fact, we're about the littlest guy. Yes, I desperately want the conference to get better. But it's going about it in the wrong way. It's getting worse, not better. Simply emulating success doesn't breed success. You gotta do it the old fashioned way and bust your ass. And often, that means making difficult choices, including leveraging what little success you have had, perhaps at the expense of the less-successful.

A better model for the bsc would have been -- if they absolutely HAD to have a set tournament location, an argument I thing is frankly nothing but a smokescreen to ensure that the boys at SUU get a "taste of tournament experience" -- to alternate years between Ogden and Missoula. Odd years the tournament's in Ogden, even in Missoula. If you're a bsc team and you want a piece of the action, great: show us you deserve it and win the regular season, say, 2 out of 5 years.

 

[Atlanta Griz1]

I would call it the, "because I think it works good" conference split

Big Sky Division: Montana / Montana State / Idaho / UND / ISU / Weber / UNC
Great West Division: PSU / Sac / Poly / EWU / NAU / SUU / Davis

This seems like the best split - geographically and talent wise

Any true north / south or east / west stacks too much talent in one pool. This would spread it... granted it would cost a few rivalries, like UM v EWU but otherwise most others stay intact.

The old "too much talent in one pool" argument is lame. The SEC conference has it's three perennial powerhouses (Alabama, LSU, and Auburn) all in one division of the conference. Power has a way of shifting over the years. Weber State and ISU used to be one of the better teams in the Big Sky, and EWU was a pretender. Things change and you can't structure two divisions based on the last 2-3 years of power performance.

 

[marceagfan5]

Perhaps look at dropping some teams rather than forming two conferences

UNC is dead weight, SUU could be dropped, so could Davis and Poly as they are football only members. UND is close to no one so there is an option. Cut the fat, form a conference with the best teams...

 

[kemajic]

I would call it the, "because I think it works good" conference split

Big Sky Division: Montana / Montana State / Idaho / UND / ISU / Weber / UNC
Great West Division: PSU / Sac / Poly / EWU / NAU / SUU / Davis

This seems like the best split - geographically and talent wise

Any true north / south or east / west stacks too much talent in one pool. This would spread it... granted it would cost a few rivalries, like UM v EWU but otherwise most others stay intact.

The old "too much talent in one pool" argument is lame. The SEC conference has it's three perennial powerhouses (Alabama, LSU, and Auburn) all in one division of the conference. Power has a way of shifting over the years. Weber State and ISU used to be one of the better teams in the Big Sky, and EWU was a pretender. Things change and you can't structure two divisions based on the last 2-3 years of power performance.

Agree, what do you do - re-juggle the split every time there is change in balance of power? Of course not. The most glaring weakness of the BSC is attendance. You use geography for the split to optimize existing rivalries and to provide the best chances for fan travel to road games. It also cuts costs as there can be more bus travel.

One of things that seems to escape several posters is that the BSC has only one autobid. Splitting the conference is not going create another autobid. And since there can't be a conf. championship game, determining that autobid continues to get more dicy as the conf. expands.

 

[ISUguy]

Of the 32 basketball conferences, 31 have conference tourneys. Only the Ivies don't. Of those 31 teams, all but 4 have neutral sites. American East, Atlantic Sun, Northeast and Patriot have campus sites. Are those the conferences the Big Sky should emulate?

Don't most conferences, or at least most of the big conferences, invite all teams. Again, who should the Big Sky emulate.

Again, I like playing the tourney at the conference winner's place. However, some of you desperately want the conference to be better and get more respect, yet you seem the tourney format to be like the little guys.

What's the one thing those conferences have in common?

Let's be honest; for the time being, we ARE a little guy. In fact, we're about the littlest guy. Yes, I desperately want the conference to get better. But it's going about it in the wrong way. It's getting worse, not better. Simply emulating success doesn't breed success. You gotta do it the old fashioned way and bust your ass. And often, that means making difficult choices, including leveraging what little success you have had, perhaps at the expense of the less-successful.

A better model for the bsc would have been -- if they absolutely HAD to have a set tournament location, an argument I thing is frankly nothing but a smokescreen to ensure that the boys at SUU get a "taste of tournament experience" -- to alternate years between Ogden and Missoula. Odd years the tournament's in Ogden, even in Missoula. If you're a bsc team and you want a piece of the action, great: show us you deserve it and win the regular season, say, 2 out of 5 years.

Here is the root cause of the problem in the Big Sky Conference -- you have two "power schools" in basketball, and a bunch of have-nots. You have three perennial power schools in football (Montana, MSU and EWU), with much better fan support, facilities, etc. And then you have the rest of the have-nots. Some of the have-nots have better facilities, some have better fan support, some have better financial resources, but in general, the have-nots will always struggle to keep up with the haves. The have-nots are going to vote to govern the conference in the way they believe it best suites their interests. Sure, they are going to listen to the concerns of the "haves," but they are not going to be intimidated by them.

Now you can argue that the "have-nots" should be more visionary and more committed to improvement, and maybe there are areas where they can be. But the have-nots are not going to always make decisions that make the haves happy. The solution for the haves, of course, is to work with the have-nots to identify areas of common interest and try to move forward in those areas, while holding their nose and living with the areas of disagreement. Or, the "haves" can find greener pastures and hit the road. Since the only "greener" pasture right now would appear to be the Big West -- and they don't appear to have any room in their pasture right now, it looks like it's nose-holding time for the "haves" for awhile.

 

[EverettGriz]

Of the 32 basketball conferences, 31 have conference tourneys. Only the Ivies don't. Of those 31 teams, all but 4 have neutral sites. American East, Atlantic Sun, Northeast and Patriot have campus sites. Are those the conferences the Big Sky should emulate?

Don't most conferences, or at least most of the big conferences, invite all teams. Again, who should the Big Sky emulate.

Again, I like playing the tourney at the conference winner's place. However, some of you desperately want the conference to be better and get more respect, yet you seem the tourney format to be like the little guys.

What's the one thing those conferences have in common?

Let's be honest; for the time being, we ARE a little guy. In fact, we're about the littlest guy. Yes, I desperately want the conference to get better. But it's going about it in the wrong way. It's getting worse, not better. Simply emulating success doesn't breed success. You gotta do it the old fashioned way and bust your ass. And often, that means making difficult choices, including leveraging what little success you have had, perhaps at the expense of the less-successful.

A better model for the bsc would have been -- if they absolutely HAD to have a set tournament location, an argument I thing is frankly nothing but a smokescreen to ensure that the boys at SUU get a "taste of tournament experience" -- to alternate years between Ogden and Missoula. Odd years the tournament's in Ogden, even in Missoula. If you're a bsc team and you want a piece of the action, great: show us you deserve it and win the regular season, say, 2 out of 5 years.

Here is the root cause of the problem in the Big Sky Conference -- you have two "power schools" in basketball, and a bunch of have-nots. You have three perennial power schools in football (Montana, MSU and EWU), with much better fan support, facilities, etc. And then you have the rest of the have-nots. Some of the have-nots have better facilities, some have better fan support, some have better financial resources, but in general, the have-nots will always struggle to keep up with the haves. The have-nots are going to vote to govern the conference in the way they believe it best suites their interests. Sure, they are going to listen to the concerns of the "haves," but they are not going to be intimidated by them.

Now you can argue that the "have-nots" should be more visionary and more committed to improvement, and maybe there are areas where they can be. But the have-nots are not going to always make decisions that make the haves happy. The solution for the haves, of course, is to work with the have-nots to identify areas of common interest and try to move forward in those areas, while holding their nose and living with the areas of disagreement. Or, the "haves" can find greener pastures and hit the road. Since the only "greener" pasture right now would appear to be the Big West -- and they don't appear to have any room in their pasture right now, it looks like it's nose-holding time for the "haves" for awhile.

This is a very good post.

My only comment would be that while I fully agree that it's the job of the individual ADs and Presidents to look out for their own interests, I believe it is the job of the Commissioner to look out for the best interest of the conference as a whole. And this, I believe, is where Fullerton has failed. He too easily buckled to appease the have-nots, when standing firm was likely the best course of action for the conference. Let's hope the new Commish is stronger willed.

 

[stonecrest]

Personally I think if this split happens it should be for one FBS div and an FCS div. The fact is the P5 money games will be gone for FCS schools in a couple years. Teams in the MWC, SBS, CUSA will be the payday warm up games for P5. It would be better to be at the mid level to have those games than not! When this happens I a certain we will see a several FCS programs fold of go DII. The teams not ready in the BSC would stay FCS and as they work to a police not to transition up they can. The west coast needs a Sunbelt type of a conference. A stepping stone if you will.
I also believe that the BSC before ng FBS might lead to an opportunity to a MWC invite some day should the MWC look to expand.

It appears to me that the big five FBS conferences are trending towards creating their own playoff/scholar system, the remaining 60-70 teams will be left playing 'second tier' football. Thus a blending of the bottom half of the FBS and top half of the FCS may gradually develop. My point is that unless Montana rejoins the Pac-10, I am not sure that we should be calling it "moving-up"

100 percent correct. Not very hard to understand.