Now that Idaho dropping down is official, we have a 14 team Big Sky Confetence. There has been some discussion that this could provide an opportunity for two 7-team divisions which would lead to two automatic playoffs qualifiers. The big sky feels like it doesn't get a very fair shake only sending one automatic qualifier to the playoffs in such a large conference. What do you folks think about this?
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
A Split Big Sky Conference?
- Thread starter HookedonGriz
- Start date
Ringneck
Well-known member
I think it could work, depending on how the conference was split. If they tried to split it north & south, which seems to make more sense than east/west, I think that would give us two unbalanced divisions, at least based on past performance:
North: Montana, MSU, EWU, PSU, Idaho, ISU, UND
South: Sac State, Cal Poly, UC Davis, NAU, UNC, SUU, Weber
Maybe it would be better to go with a strategic but non-geographical split like the Big 10's Legends/Leaders? I don't know. The conference's square mileage is enormous - basically the whole Mountain and Pacific time zones!
North: Montana, MSU, EWU, PSU, Idaho, ISU, UND
South: Sac State, Cal Poly, UC Davis, NAU, UNC, SUU, Weber
Maybe it would be better to go with a strategic but non-geographical split like the Big 10's Legends/Leaders? I don't know. The conference's square mileage is enormous - basically the whole Mountain and Pacific time zones!
A 2 division BSC will not have 2 AQ's for the playoffs.....
IdaGriz01
Well-known member
Your North-South split is pretty much what I came up with too. The only down-side, if you can call it that, is that you'd split Weber and ISU, even though they are quite close together. But there's no way to avoid at least some of that. And there's just no reasonable way to do an East-West split.Ringneck said:
As for competitive balance, that's likely to change over time anyway. It can't be any worse than the scheduling nightmares we get right now. This kind of split gives you some continuity in home-and-home matchups within the division ... assuming they went with six in-division games every year with two out-of-division. (And why not have three out-of-division -- that might get us away from this stupidity of playing conference teams in "designated" OOC games
.) Probably have to tweak the tie-breakers to figure out who gets the auto-bid ... but I can see multiple co-champions in a lot of years.I don't know.....I read an article the other day (I'll try to find it) before Idaho made it official and Fullerton was quoted in there many times. I was pretty certain he said the possibility of two 7-team divisions and 2 auto qualifiers would have lots of potential.
marceagfan5
Well-known member
If there isn't a split, my guess is EWU and UM won't be considered rivals and have a guaranteed game every year as both teams would probably gain Idaho and lose each other...
If that's the case, I'd imagine we might do what EWU and MSU do and just agree to play each other every year regardless.marceagfan5 said:
grizcountry420
Well-known member
marceagfan5 said:
That would be awful. Id rather play EWU every year rather than MSU..
grizcountry420 said:
Sam A. Blitz
Well-known member
I don't like the thought of splitting into two conferences. I think it is important to have schools in larger markets such as California for recruiting purposes. I don't think it benefits Montana to have a new northern conference and to distance affiliation from Davis, Poly, and Sac St. I'd rather see us pull a Sun Belt, bring in better schools (UI and NMSU) and kick out weaker schools (UNC and SUU).
BozAngelesGriz
Well-known member
pretty sure the Colonial does something where they play all of their 'divisional' games and then play one or two 'non-divisional' games. this would maybe help sort out having constant 3 or 4 way BSC ties, as well as maintaining play with traditional foes.
IdaGriz01
Well-known member
Have not really followed how the CAA does its scheduling ... but I think you're right.BozAngelesGriz said:
As I said in another post, I like the idea of a 6-game divisional schedule -- home-and-home and predictable from year to year, with "traditional" or even new rivalries. Then three games with the other division, meaning you play almost half of the other division every year. That still leaves 3 real OOC games for those who need body-bag games or who want to feast on a cupcake or two. With the small number of FCS teams out here in the west, that looks pretty workable.
On the other hand, as several on here have said, we need the weak sisters in the conference to toughen up. Otherwise you can win a conference game and lose strength of schedule "points" ... like happens now in basketball.
BozAngelesGriz
Well-known member
IdaGriz01 said:
not sure if it stayed that way once they lost Umass and Old Dominion though.
Sam A. Blitz
Well-known member
kemajic said:
I would. If SUU football was a stock, i'd be selling right now. In my opinion their football success has peaked and isn't sustainable. Losing Ed Lamb hurts them an awful lot and they lose an awful lot of talent. Really isn't about any of that though. The primary thing for me is their longer term contribution to the conference and I just don't see it. It is in the lower end of the conference in academic standing, attendance, and facilities. Utah is a relatively small state and SUU would be 5th at best in the state's hierarchy of college athletic programs. Utah Valley might even have a stronger athletic program with more potential and resources. Cedar City is going to be a tough place to recruit to and the university does not have the resources or alumni base to elevate the program.