• 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

CDAGRIZ said:
HelenaHandBasket said:
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.

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.

I agree that losing the MT schools is different than losing NCU and ISU, but not near enough to the bottom line for any of the other BSC that it is any leverage. I disagree that the other BSC schools feel they need the Montana schools. I am not sure why you think the landscape has changed for the Montana schools in the big picture either. Actually, the changing landscape at UM may be a bigger issue than any change in college football.
 
CDAGRIZ said:
Idk, threaten to break revenue sharing deals

This made me laugh. What type of revenue sharing do you believe exists in the BSC and even more so, that the Montana schools can use as leverage?
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
CDAGRIZ said:
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.

I agree that losing the MT schools is different than losing NCU and ISU, but not near enough to the bottom line for any of the other BSC that it is any leverage. I disagree that the other BSC schools feel they need the Montana schools. I am not sure why you think the landscape has changed for the Montana schools in the big picture either. Actually, the changing landscape at UM may be a bigger issue than any change in college football.

Sure, I get that. I understand your point of view. I was referring to the basic eradication of the Big 12 and the potential trickle down that it may have with teams shifting around and what kind of things it might bring. I’ve read a lot of crazy theories (not here), and maybe they’re just that. I’m not saying the other BSC schools think they need the MT schools; I’m saying that the BSC administration itself knows it does. I refuse to believe that when Haslam picks up the phone and calls HQ he’s not listened to more than when whatever AD/Philosophy adjunct is calling from NCU that day.
 
grizindabox said:
CDAGRIZ said:
Idk, threaten to break revenue sharing deals

This made me laugh. What type of revenue sharing do you believe exists in the BSC and even more so, that the Montana schools can use as leverage?

I don’t know, man! I’m just a complete idiot posting on a fan site. I’m not here to try to outsmart anyone. Just seems like the BSC needs the MT schools and would take a hit without us.
 
CDAGRIZ said:
HelenaHandBasket said:
I agree that losing the MT schools is different than losing NCU and ISU, but not near enough to the bottom line for any of the other BSC that it is any leverage. I disagree that the other BSC schools feel they need the Montana schools. I am not sure why you think the landscape has changed for the Montana schools in the big picture either. Actually, the changing landscape at UM may be a bigger issue than any change in college football.

Sure, I get that. I understand your point of view. I was referring to the basic eradication of the Big 12 and the potential trickle down that it may have with teams shifting around and what kind of things it might bring. I’ve read a lot of crazy theories (not here), and maybe they’re just that. I’m not saying the other BSC schools think they need the MT schools; I’m saying that the BSC administration itself knows it does. I refuse to believe that when Haslam picks up the phone and calls HQ he’s not listened to more than when whatever AD/Philosophy adjunct is calling from NCU that day.

But the member schools make the decisions, not the BSC administration. They manage what the majority of the schools dictate.
 
CDAGRIZ said:
grizindabox said:
This made me laugh. What type of revenue sharing do you believe exists in the BSC and even more so, that the Montana schools can use as leverage?

I don’t know, man! I’m just a complete idiot posting on a fan site. I’m not here to try to outsmart anyone. Just seems like the BSC needs the MT schools and would take a hit without us.

"seems" is not the reality.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
CDAGRIZ said:
Sure, I get that. I understand your point of view. I was referring to the basic eradication of the Big 12 and the potential trickle down that it may have with teams shifting around and what kind of things it might bring. I’ve read a lot of crazy theories (not here), and maybe they’re just that. I’m not saying the other BSC schools think they need the MT schools; I’m saying that the BSC administration itself knows it does. I refuse to believe that when Haslam picks up the phone and calls HQ he’s not listened to more than when whatever AD/Philosophy adjunct is calling from NCU that day.

But the member schools make the decisions, not the BSC administration. They manage what the majority of the schools dictate.

Great point.
 
grizindabox said:
CDAGRIZ said:
I don’t know, man! I’m just a complete idiot posting on a fan site. I’m not here to try to outsmart anyone. Just seems like the BSC needs the MT schools and would take a hit without us.

"seems" is not the reality.

K.
 
I’ve been convinced. We have no pull. First best (in conference) program in the history of CFB to have absolutely no leverage with its own conference because it doesn’t need us at all. Bummer.
 
I happen to believe if Montana and Montana State left the BSC that it would implode like a black hole.
 
3 pages?? When a simple “#bsc” would have sufficed?


Or, if you must be more verbose: Get us the fuck out of this bullshit conference.
 
Of course the two Montana schools have leverage with the Big Sky Conference! However, who cares if the two schools are successful in negotiations with the Mountain West Conference.
 
Would the two Montana schools be accepted by the Mountain West schools in a vote? I’m not certain when you consider location, enrollment, facilities, academic rating.
 
CDAGRIZ said:
UMAlum said:
FFS, if not Idaho it should have been EWU.

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.

What, you think Montana is Texas and Montana State is Oklahoma?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
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!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Yeah, the MWC is beating down the doors for a FCS Move up
 
CDAGRIZ said:
HelenaHandBasket said:
Leave and go where? The other BSC members know that they have no where to go.

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.

And then the new conference will have no NCAA autobids to anything for 8 years. Enjoy the CIT for the Conference Champ and no NCAA money
 
dbackjon said:
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!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Yeah, the MWC is beating down the doors for a FCS Move up

If the MWC gets raided, I guarantee you they will approach UM and MSU (as well as NDSU and SDSU) about becoming full members. This is not conjecture; this is fact.
 
dbackjon 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.

And then the new conference will have no NCAA autobids to anything for 8 years. Enjoy the CIT for the Conference Champ and no NCAA money
You are a positive gentleman! So we sit back and do nothing and be happy in the mediocrity of the Big Sky Conference? Wouldn’t you like to see more talented players and teams in our stadium?
 
dbackjon 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.

What, you think Montana is Texas and Montana State is Oklahoma?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yep, that’s exactly what I said. Word for word.
Whoops, Edit: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Edit 2: :lol:
 
EverettGriz said:
dbackjon said:
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Yeah, the MWC is beating down the doors for a FCS Move up

If the MWC gets raided, I guarantee you they will approach UM and MSU (as well as NDSU and SDSU) about becoming full members. This is not conjecture; this is fact.

UTEP/Rice/Tulsa/SMU would be first targets. If they only lose one, they may not replace anyone.
 
Back
Top