Has this been reported on either way?

Big Sky commish was quoted in the media that they're concerned that Boise STate would just use them to park their non-fb for a few years until a better arrangement came along.

(06-27-2012 12:12 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Big Sky commish was quoted in the media that they're concerned that Boise STate would just use them to park their non-fb for a few years until a better arrangement came along.

I am shocked they wouldn't just agree to a big buyout. I doubt anything less than an unlikely Big 12 or Pac 12 bid would move BSU's non-fb.

Everything reported to date suggests the Big Sky is only interested in Idaho, which would round out its membership at 14 for football and 12 for Olympic sports. There was an article recently that quoted Fullerton as saying he is willing to "talk" to both BSU and NMSU, but then going on to say that any expansion beyond adding Idaho could potentially destabilize the conference.

I actually think Boise went to the Big Sky first and was shot down. I think that is when Karl Benson said he would bring Boise back. I am still not sure why the Summit League was never a factor with the Big West playing hard ball. I know the MVC came out and said for no one to bother so no need to embarrass ourselves to try that route.
This has actually been a pretty embarrassing time for Boise State fans. And our Olympic sports are really not that bad which makes it even worse.

(06-27-2012 12:23 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Everything reported to date suggests the Big Sky is only interested in Idaho, which would round out its membership at 14 for football and 12 for Olympic sports. There was an article recently that quoted Fullerton as saying he is willing to "talk" to both BSU and NMSU, but then going on to say that any expansion beyond adding Idaho could potentially destabilize the conference.

I took Fullerton's comments to mean he does not want more than 14 olympic members, and that 12 olympic members would be preferable. Right now the count is 11 olympic members, with Cal Poly and UCDavis as affiliates for football.

IMHO the Big Sky would have definite interest in NMSU, but the Aggies still may have other options and certainly doesn't want to drop to FCS until the FBS situation is absolutely hopeless. The Big Sky wants membership continuity, which neither Boise St or NMSU would be able to commit to.

Before UND and SUU were added, Fullerton openly talked about Denver as being a possibility even without football. The problem with Denver now is that even its olympic sports don't match up well with the Big Sky's. Denver would probably have to add track and field, as that is a core sport. The addition of Idaho would likely be supported by all Big Sky schools - even if Idaho doesn't include football. The addition of Seattle and Denver would be strongly supported by Montana, MSU, UND, Portland St, E Wash, and probably N Colo, IMHO.

Given a choice of adding:

Idaho, Seattle, Denver
vs
Idaho, NMSU, Boise St

the Idaho, Seattle, Denver choice is more compelling because it has very limited flight risk and results in higher stability.

Even if the WAC can rebuild FBS football, Seattle and Denver make sense for the Big Sky because Eastern Washington and Northern Colorado would be unlikely to upgrade to FBS for a long time.

I think you have to look at the long history of the Big Sky comments through their commissioner. They have a history of being rather antagonistic about FBS schools not in the Big Five and the idea that they should be in a subgroup above them. The Big Sky was lobbying for the tougher FBS requirements and loosening schedule requirements for bowls.

The Big Sky wants Idaho because they believe that Idaho's spot in FBS is unsustainable and membership in other sports will grease the skids for them to return in football. They hold no such belief regarding Boise and won't go to the trouble of Boise being a member for sports other than football because there is no realistic chance of getting Boise to return in football.