And now I can confirm that my memory has failed me. It was due to our OOC scheduling.... Just disregard me today... sheesh

1 other possible reason for keeping Idaho and NMSU other than as a buffer vs. further realignment is to increase the league s shot at a 5th guaranteed bowl

(02-08-2016 10:07 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  1 other possible reason for keeping Idaho and NMSU other than as a buffer vs. further realignment is to increase the league s shot at a 5th guaranteed bowl

If Idaho and nmst can produce.... Yes... I think Idaho can bounce back...and didn't newmex give he a pretty good game?

Fullerton is retiring as commissioner of the Big Sky, I wonder how that affects the dream of the Big Sky being a FBS / FCS conference.

http://www.bigskyconf.com/news/2016/2/10/Fullerton.aspx

(02-11-2016 09:23 AM)rokamortis Wrote:  Fullerton is retiring as commissioner of the Big Sky, I wonder how that affects the dream of the Big Sky being a FBS / FCS conference.

http://www.bigskyconf.com/news/2016/2/10/Fullerton.aspx

I think it goes from a 1% chance of ever happening to a .9% chance of ever happening.

(02-08-2016 10:13 PM)THUNDERGround Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 10:07 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  1 other possible reason for keeping Idaho and NMSU other than as a buffer vs. further realignment is to increase the league s shot at a 5th guaranteed bowl

If Idaho and nmst can produce.... Yes... I think Idaho can bounce back...and didn't newmex give he a pretty good game?

It really doesn't matter if NMSU and Idaho can produce so long as 5 or 6 other conference teams produce. Someone has to be on the bottom of the standings each year after all and having 12 should mean we have a minimum of 5/6 teams bowl eligible in any given year.

(02-11-2016 11:55 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 10:13 PM)THUNDERGround Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 10:07 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  1 other possible reason for keeping Idaho and NMSU other than as a buffer vs. further realignment is to increase the league s shot at a 5th guaranteed bowl

If Idaho and nmst can produce.... Yes... I think Idaho can bounce back...and didn't newmex give he a pretty good game?

It really doesn't matter if NMSU and Idaho can produce so long as 5 or 6 other conference teams produce. Someone has to be on the bottom of the standings each year after all and having 12 should mean we have a minimum of 5/6 teams bowl eligible in any given year.

What they do OOC does matter.

(02-11-2016 11:36 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 09:23 AM)rokamortis Wrote:  Fullerton is retiring as commissioner of the Big Sky, I wonder how that affects the dream of the Big Sky being a FBS / FCS conference.

http://www.bigskyconf.com/news/2016/2/10/Fullerton.aspx

I think it goes from a 1% chance of ever happening to a .9% chance of ever happening.

I would give it a much wider margin than that. There is a chance we hire someone who is extremely pro FBS, there's also a chance that we hire an extremely anti FBS guy, so who knows. It would be an interesting referendum on the matter to see who likes what.

(02-11-2016 12:21 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 11:55 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 10:13 PM)THUNDERGround Wrote:  

(02-08-2016 10:07 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  1 other possible reason for keeping Idaho and NMSU other than as a buffer vs. further realignment is to increase the league s shot at a 5th guaranteed bowl

If Idaho and nmst can produce.... Yes... I think Idaho can bounce back...and didn't newmex give he a pretty good game?

It really doesn't matter if NMSU and Idaho can produce so long as 5 or 6 other conference teams produce. Someone has to be on the bottom of the standings each year after all and having 12 should mean we have a minimum of 5/6 teams bowl eligible in any given year.

What they do OOC does matter.

Yes and No. It matters as to where we land in the G5 lotto but not in the context of getting a 5th Bowl. To get a 5th Bowl we need at least five 6-6 teams every year and having two extra teams should do that for us.

We should know inside of a month what the presidents decide to do

(02-11-2016 12:32 PM)nsavandal09 Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 11:36 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 09:23 AM)rokamortis Wrote:  Fullerton is retiring as commissioner of the Big Sky, I wonder how that affects the dream of the Big Sky being a FBS / FCS conference.

http://www.bigskyconf.com/news/2016/2/10/Fullerton.aspx

I think it goes from a 1% chance of ever happening to a .9% chance of ever happening.

I would give it a much wider margin than that. There is a chance we hire someone who is extremely pro FBS, there's also a chance that we hire an extremely anti FBS guy, so who knows. It would be an interesting referendum on the matter to see who likes what.

I really doubt either of those things happen. Commissioners are mainly a reflection of their membership. The conference is made up of some schools that want to keep their FBS options open (the Montanas, UND, maybe a few others) and some schools that want to keep those bigger programs from being able to leave them behind (Southern Utah, N. Colorado, etc.) The new commissioner will have to please all of them, or almost all. So, the Big Sky will likely get a compromise candidate who will try to keep the status quo.

Anyway, the biggest problem is that the current rules make it really, really hard to start a new FBS conference. So I'm still a pessimist.

(02-11-2016 04:50 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 12:32 PM)nsavandal09 Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 11:36 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 09:23 AM)rokamortis Wrote:  Fullerton is retiring as commissioner of the Big Sky, I wonder how that affects the dream of the Big Sky being a FBS / FCS conference.

http://www.bigskyconf.com/news/2016/2/10/Fullerton.aspx

I think it goes from a 1% chance of ever happening to a .9% chance of ever happening.

I would give it a much wider margin than that. There is a chance we hire someone who is extremely pro FBS, there's also a chance that we hire an extremely anti FBS guy, so who knows. It would be an interesting referendum on the matter to see who likes what.

I really doubt either of those things happen. Commissioners are mainly a reflection of their membership. The conference is made up of some schools that want to keep their FBS options open (the Montanas, UND, maybe a few others) and some schools that want to keep those bigger programs from being able to leave them behind (Southern Utah, N. Colorado, etc.) The new commissioner will have to please all of them, or almost all. So, the Big Sky will likely get a compromise candidate who will try to keep the status quo.

Anyway, the biggest problem is that the current rules make it really, really hard to start a new FBS conference. So I'm still a pessimist.

Ha ha! FBS Options? That went away with the WAC. There are no Big Sky schools wanting to go FBS otherwise the WAC would still be a FBS conference.

(02-11-2016 05:01 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 04:50 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 12:32 PM)nsavandal09 Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 11:36 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(02-11-2016 09:23 AM)rokamortis Wrote:  Fullerton is retiring as commissioner of the Big Sky, I wonder how that affects the dream of the Big Sky being a FBS / FCS conference.

http://www.bigskyconf.com/news/2016/2/10/Fullerton.aspx

I think it goes from a 1% chance of ever happening to a .9% chance of ever happening.

I would give it a much wider margin than that. There is a chance we hire someone who is extremely pro FBS, there's also a chance that we hire an extremely anti FBS guy, so who knows. It would be an interesting referendum on the matter to see who likes what.

I really doubt either of those things happen. Commissioners are mainly a reflection of their membership. The conference is made up of some schools that want to keep their FBS options open (the Montanas, UND, maybe a few others) and some schools that want to keep those bigger programs from being able to leave them behind (Southern Utah, N. Colorado, etc.) The new commissioner will have to please all of them, or almost all. So, the Big Sky will likely get a compromise candidate who will try to keep the status quo.

Anyway, the biggest problem is that the current rules make it really, really hard to start a new FBS conference. So I'm still a pessimist.

Ha ha! FBS Options? That went away with the WAC. There are no Big Sky schools wanting to go FBS otherwise the WAC would still be a FBS conference.

I actually agree with you, but I was being charitable. There are schools in the Big Sky who, under the absolute perfect circumstances, would kinda sorta maybe like to think about going FBS sometime. But since they've already let countless opportunities slip by, I'm not holding my breath.

(02-11-2016 04:34 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  We should know inside of a month what the presidents decide to do

Apparently Idaho and NMSU are making their presentations to the conference on Monday.

Here is an interview with NMSU AD Moccia, Talks about the vote at about the 20:15 mark

Link

So I was speaking to our AD at the LOI signing day event in Boise and he questioned why the SBC needs to make a decision now (this March)?

We have 2 more years on the original 4 year affiliation agreement. I always thought it was in order to give a team some time to adjust if a change is to occur, but it made me scratch my head when he said it.

Would one year be enough time? I know he (and many UI alumni and fans) are feeling pretty optimistic about going to a bowl game this season with all the players returning and the players coming in, and he wants to have next season to boast about before a decision is made by the SBC members. If UI is not extended and the next step would be FBS independence while things are sorted out then we don't need the two years to plan/adjust?
It just struck me when he said it.

I think the agreement provides 2 year notice of either being extended for 2 more years or given notice of 2 years before leaving the Sun Belt

(02-12-2016 04:45 PM)VandyBen Wrote:  So I was speaking to our AD at the LOI signing day event in Boise and he questioned why the SBC needs to make a decision now (this March)?

We have 2 more years on the original 4 year affiliation agreement. I always thought it was in order to give a team some time to adjust if a change is to occur, but it made me scratch my head when he said it.

Would one year be enough time? I know he (and many UI alumni and fans) are feeling pretty optimistic about going to a bowl game this season with all the players returning and the players coming in, and he wants to have next season to boast about before a decision is made by the SBC members. If UI is not extended and the next step would be FBS independence while things are sorted out then we don't need the two years to plan/adjust?
It just struck me when he said it.

According to this article, http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/...o_new.html , it mentions it being a 4-year deal with an option to renew after the second season. So they have to make a decision now, it is part of the contract and I'm sure it is for scheduling reasons like GaSoEagle said.

(02-12-2016 04:45 PM)VandyBen Wrote:  So I was speaking to our AD at the LOI signing day event in Boise and he questioned why the SBC needs to make a decision now (this March)?

We have 2 more years on the original 4 year affiliation agreement. I always thought it was in order to give a team some time to adjust if a change is to occur, but it made me scratch my head when he said it.

Would one year be enough time? I know he (and many UI alumni and fans) are feeling pretty optimistic about going to a bowl game this season with all the players returning and the players coming in, and he wants to have next season to boast about before a decision is made by the SBC members. If UI is not extended and the next step would be FBS independence while things are sorted out then we don't need the two years to plan/adjust?
It just struck me when he said it.

2 year notice is better than one year notice. UI and NMSU both scrambled to put together an indy schedule in a year. It would be great to have another for football to develop. Spear knew from the start 3 years ago what this deal with the SBC entailed.

You don't see many opinions from UTA and UALR fans about this situation.

To me it would be in their interest to extend us.

We are either holding a spot for them if they start football or forming the other half of the 12/12 model.

Adding two new all sports members is risky for the non football members .
Some Arkansas ST fans would happily kick out the football only schools but hate the idea of losing UALR.

Some would like an all sports conference making football a requirement.

I like Idaho's situation more than most BSC/SBC and hope it last a while.

We are recruiting 33% Northwest 33% Southeast 33% California/JC.
Given a little time our weakness can become a strength meaning a dome expansion . Twenty seven million to get to twenty four thousand is the plan.
I know criticism will come from talking about plans but thirty million has been spent in the last few years. We have great support facilities meaning Practice,IPF,Meeting rooms including 120 person full team room and hydrotherapy pools training center all the bells and whistles.