• 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!

Next Three years Schedule

UMAlum said:
FFS, if not Idaho it should have been EWU.
Click to expand...

Yep. Given the article Kem just posted on the previous page with the BSC saying that each team got to pick two rivals, and at least one pick was honored, it makes me wonder who EWU and Idaho picked as “rivals”. Also, I seriously doubt UM picked PSU, so that must mean PSU picked UM? Wtf is that about? I agree with Kem that the MT schools need to throw their weight around a bit more on this stuff.
 
CDAGRIZ said:
UMAlum said:
FFS, if not Idaho it should have been EWU.
Click to expand...

Yep. Given the article Kem just posted on the previous page with the BSC saying that each team got to pick two rivals, and at least one pick was honored, it makes me wonder who EWU and Idaho picked as “rivals”. Also, I seriously doubt UM picked PSU, so that must mean PSU picked UM? Wtf is that about? I agree with Kem that the MT schools need to throw their weight around a bit more on this stuff.
Click to expand...

What weight?
 
kemajic said:
Griz til I die said:
To be fair to the big sky, they did take feedback from the schools this year on how they’d like to structure the schedule so it’s hard to put the blame on them for this one.
Click to expand...
I've confirmed that indeed the BSC changed our "rivals" over the winter to PSU and MSU. I doubt this was what UM recommended. Never mind that PSU has never been a rival (13-31 vs. UM) and that we've played Idaho 84 times for the Little Brown Stein. Or that Portland is 1000 miles from most of Montana with PSU playing at a high school in Hillsboro. If they can do no better than this, the whole rivalry idea should be dropped. No wonder it has not been announced. If Montana has no more influence on the BSC than this, we do indeed need to be looking for a new home.
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous. Anyone know which other team was PSU’s recognized “rival” besides EWU?
 
Ursa Major said:
kemajic said:
I've confirmed that indeed the BSC changed our "rivals" over the winter to PSU and MSU. I doubt this was what UM recommended. Never mind that PSU has never been a rival (13-31 vs. UM) and that we've played Idaho 84 times for the Little Brown Stein. Or that Portland is 1000 miles from most of Montana with PSU playing at a high school in Hillsboro. If they can do no better than this, the whole rivalry idea should be dropped. No wonder it has not been announced. If Montana has no more influence on the BSC than this, we do indeed need to be looking for a new home.
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous. Anyone know which other team was PSU’s recognized “rival” besides EWU?
Click to expand...
Don't know, but suspect it was Idaho. They used to consider geography. Previously we had 3 rivals, not 2 like now.
 
Da Boyz Mom said:
More proof that the current BSC sucks and that 3 schools need to be kicked to the curb.
Click to expand...
Football-only schools would be a good, easy start. Then "encourage" UNC to follow SUU to the WAC. Pretty much reverse the Fullerton Folley.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
CDAGRIZ said:
Yep. Given the article Kem just posted on the previous page with the BSC saying that each team got to pick two rivals, and at least one pick was honored, it makes me wonder who EWU and Idaho picked as “rivals”. Also, I seriously doubt UM picked PSU, so that must mean PSU picked UM? Wtf is that about? I agree with Kem that the MT schools need to throw their weight around a bit more on this stuff.
Click to expand...

What weight?
Click to expand...

Idk, just threaten to leave. Doesn’t have to be real, doesn’t have to be much to fool the dorks running the show. I think it’s fairly obvious that the MT schools are the ones the BSC would least like to lose, but maybe you’re right, and they can’t leverage a power position into anything. Just can’t be done.
 
CDAGRIZ said:
HelenaHandBasket said:
What weight?
Click to expand...

Idk, just threaten to leave. Doesn’t have to be real, doesn’t have to be much to fool the dorks running the show. I think it’s fairly obvious that the MT schools are the ones the BSC would least like to lose, but maybe you’re right, and they can’t leverage a power position into anything. Just can’t be done.
Click to expand...

The Mt schools have considerable power if they decide to use it.
 
Both schools have excellent presidents. If UM was in a better position of strength, I would like to see them form an alliance and petition the Mountain West for membership and leave the Big Sky ASAP!
 
CDAGRIZ said:
UMAlum said:
FFS, if not Idaho it should have been EWU.
Click to expand...

Yep. Given the article Kem just posted on the previous page with the BSC saying that each team got to pick two rivals, and at least one pick was honored, it makes me wonder who EWU and Idaho picked as “rivals”. Also, I seriously doubt UM picked PSU, so that must mean PSU picked UM? Wtf is that about? I agree with Kem that the MT schools need to throw their weight around a bit more on this stuff.
Click to expand...

Two words: Dots Pretzels. :lol:
 
Spanky2 said:
CDAGRIZ said:
Idk, just threaten to leave. Doesn’t have to be real, doesn’t have to be much to fool the dorks running the show. I think it’s fairly obvious that the MT schools are the ones the BSC would least like to lose, but maybe you’re right, and they can’t leverage a power position into anything. Just can’t be done.
Click to expand...

The Mt schools have considerable power if they decide to use it.
Click to expand...

Like what?
 
CDAGRIZ said:
HelenaHandBasket said:
What weight?
Click to expand...

Idk, just threaten to leave. Doesn’t have to be real, doesn’t have to be much to fool the dorks running the show. I think it’s fairly obvious that the MT schools are the ones the BSC would least like to lose, but maybe you’re right, and they can’t leverage a power position into anything. Just can’t be done.
Click to expand...

Leave and go where? The other BSC members know that they have no where to go.
 
Spanky2 said:
Both schools have excellent presidents. If UM was in a better position of strength, I would like to see them form an alliance and petition the Mountain West for membership and leave the Big Sky ASAP!
Click to expand...

So the MWC is looking to add members?
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
CDAGRIZ said:
Idk, just threaten to leave. Doesn’t have to be real, doesn’t have to be much to fool the dorks running the show. I think it’s fairly obvious that the MT schools are the ones the BSC would least like to lose, but maybe you’re right, and they can’t leverage a power position into anything. Just can’t be done.
Click to expand...

Leave and go where? The other BSC members know that they have no where to go.
Click to expand...

That’s the genius of the ruse. Just say “we’re leaving you idiots” and see what they do. Say we’re starting our own conference with a coalition of the willing. Seriously, though, if you think the MT schools don’t have more leverage than the others in the BSC, then I don’t think you’re correct. All due respect.
 
CDAGRIZ said:
HelenaHandBasket said:
Leave and go where? The other BSC members know that they have no where to go.
Click to expand...

That’s the genius of the ruse. Just say “we’re leaving you idiots” and see what they do. Say we’re starting our own conference with a coalition of the willing. Seriously, though, if you think the MT schools don’t have more leverage than the others in the BSC, then I don’t think you’re correct. All due respect.
Click to expand...

Everyone continues to say this, but no one provides any ways that the Montana schools have leverage. In the BSC, it is the majority of have-nots that actually are the haves when it comes to leverage. The only way Montana has leverage is if they can get enough other schools to form a majority...
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
CDAGRIZ said:
That’s the genius of the ruse. Just say “we’re leaving you idiots” and see what they do. Say we’re starting our own conference with a coalition of the willing. Seriously, though, if you think the MT schools don’t have more leverage than the others in the BSC, then I don’t think you’re correct. All due respect.
Click to expand...

Everyone continues to say this, but no one provides any ways that the Montana schools have leverage. In the BSC, it is the majority of have-nots that actually are the haves when it comes to leverage. The only way Montana has leverage is if they can get enough other schools to form a majority...
Click to expand...

They can get the conference to bend the knee if they threaten to join another conference. Geography is nothing anymore. Frickin San Diego plays in the Pioneer. You don’t think they’d want the revenue? Get them on the horn. Get in talks with the Missouri Valley Football Playing Conference of Football Teams. The talks don’t have to be serious. Jesus, try something to get what you want instead of taking BS from the BSC.

When the PAC added Colorado and Utah, UCLA’s and USC’s ADs made sure that they were guaranteed a certain revenue stream. UCLA and USC were never going anywhere. There were no other conferences that wanted to take them in, but they were able to use their leverage to get what they wanted because they made the most revenue for the conference. I get that it was to sway votes to add the inland teams, but it’s still leverage. It’s literally Negotiations 101.

I am growing to dislike the mentality that “we can’t go anywhere, so let’s just follow the BSC’s orders.” Fuck them. They are nothing without us and they know it. Use it somehow.
 
CDAGRIZ said:
HelenaHandBasket said:
Everyone continues to say this, but no one provides any ways that the Montana schools have leverage. In the BSC, it is the majority of have-nots that actually are the haves when it comes to leverage. The only way Montana has leverage is if they can get enough other schools to form a majority...
Click to expand...

They can get the conference to bend the knee if they threaten to join another conference. Geography is nothing anymore. Frickin San Diego plays in the Pioneer. You don’t think they’d want the revenue? Get them on the horn. Get in talks with the Missouri Valley Football Playing Conference of Football Teams. The talks don’t have to be serious. Jesus, try something to get what you want instead of taking BS from the BSC.

When the PAC added Colorado and Utah, UCLA’s and USC’s ADs made sure that they were guaranteed a certain revenue stream. UCLA and USC were never going anywhere. There were no other conferences that wanted to take them in, but they were able to use their leverage to get what they wanted because they made the most revenue for the conference. I get that it was to sway votes to add the inland teams, but it’s still leverage. It’s literally Negotiations 101.

I am growing to dislike the mentality that “we can’t go anywhere, so let’s just follow the BSC’s orders.” [#]f### them. They are nothing without us and they know it. Use it somehow.
Click to expand...

First, they have no other conference to join, so it is a hollow threat. Second, the financial threat at this level is a big nothing burger, it is nothing like the money associated with the Big 5 FBS conferences. The 2 Montana schools have no leverage without getting a majority of the conference schools on board.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
CDAGRIZ said:
They can get the conference to bend the knee if they threaten to join another conference. Geography is nothing anymore. Frickin San Diego plays in the Pioneer. You don’t think they’d want the revenue? Get them on the horn. Get in talks with the Missouri Valley Football Playing Conference of Football Teams. The talks don’t have to be serious. Jesus, try something to get what you want instead of taking BS from the BSC.

When the PAC added Colorado and Utah, UCLA’s and USC’s ADs made sure that they were guaranteed a certain revenue stream. UCLA and USC were never going anywhere. There were no other conferences that wanted to take them in, but they were able to use their leverage to get what they wanted because they made the most revenue for the conference. I get that it was to sway votes to add the inland teams, but it’s still leverage. It’s literally Negotiations 101.

I am growing to dislike the mentality that “we can’t go anywhere, so let’s just follow the BSC’s orders.” [#]f### them. They are nothing without us and they know it. Use it somehow.
Click to expand...

First, they have no other conference to join, so it is a hollow threat. Second, the financial threat at this level is a big nothing burger, it is nothing like the money associated with the Big 5 FBS conferences. The 2 Montana schools have no leverage without getting a majority of the conference schools on board.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you’re probably right. What I’m saying is that the BSC losing the MT schools would be a way bigger hit than the BSC losing NCU and ISU (for example). I think we’d all agree on that. So, people paid to do the jobs should do the jobs and figure out a way to use that to our advantage. There has to be a way with this changing landscape, unless we’re back to the “it just can’t be done” mentality that we’ve witnessed for the last 20+ years. Idk, threaten to break revenue sharing deals, threaten to opt out of playing in Greeley for no good reason, threaten to play only a best of 11 between UM and MSU. They need us, they know it, find a way to use it. That’s all I’m getting at.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top