The Summit League will be calling

[CFallsGriz]

So how is that working? We hear Dixie State and Central Washington will be members. Is that getting better? Will it help our coaches in their recruiting efforts?

I still ask, where is a realistic place for UM to move there athletic programs? UM has zero leverage in the BSC, and that is not going to change.

Pure fucking conjecture passed off as known fact, per usual. You don't know the future any more than that dumbass OP does.

 

[grizindabox]

So how is that working? We hear Dixie State and Central Washington will be members. Is that getting better? Will it help our coaches in their recruiting efforts?

I still ask, where is a realistic place for UM to move there athletic programs? UM has zero leverage in the BSC, and that is not going to change.

Pure f***[*] conjecture passed off as known fact, per usual. You don't know the future any more than that dumbass OP does.

Thanks for chiming in.

 

[kemajic]

How? Why? Just two new Division2 type schools for Montana to play. As a whole or split in half, the Big Sky is a bad conference.

A definite improvement is to achieve balanced schedules and playing each member every year. Their objective is to reduce travel cost and improve regional rivalries, not to pass Spanky muster on what constitutes a good conference. With the financial state of UM, what is your plan that achieves their objectives and passes Spanky muster?

Well, Kem, you seem to think this realignment will somehow improve a weak conference, even by adding additional weak sisters. Please explain why you take this position. Oh, by the way, I’m well aware of the financial plight of UM. Since you are a chemist, you likely don’t realize when you are in a weak position, it’s time to take an aggressive posture. Muster?

Larry, you are defensively misinterpreting my posting entirely. I have been a harsh critic of the BSC and its decisions. I particularly dislike its current state and hope for change. I'm posting what I have heard and what I believe to be the most likely moves from today's ugly situation, recognizing the powers at be have a different set of objectives than you or I. I would love to have Montana be in a position to move into the MWC with many of its old Skyline Conference members of 60 years ago, but be realistic in the probability of this happening in the foreseeable future. UM doesn't want it and the MWC doesn't want it.

I do believe, however, that the split would be an improvement over the status quo and I have given the reasons:
1. Reduced travel expense
2. Focus on regional rivalries (close enough for fans to travel and play them every year)
3. Balanced schedules (every member plays the same conf. schedule)
4. OOC scheduling with the partner FCS conf. (home and homes without cash outlays)
These are not trivial advantages and outweigh the expansion dilution you criticize. But also not trivial are the remaining hurdles, an autobid for the new conf. and convincing NMSU to join.

 

[Spanky2]

Kem, thank you for further explaining your point of view. I am aware of your historic views regarding the BSC and couldn’t understand what appeared to be a change of opinion. I did misunderstand you and apologize.
I realize that UM is currently in a weak financial position resulting from a severe loss of enrollment, however, I don’t believe the possible changes which you have outlined will benefit the university or help resolve the enrollment decline.
As you are well aware, the athletic program of any college is important to the success of any school and students are proud to attend a school that is affiliated with other good schools in an athletic conference. Further, student athletes, parents, coaches and advisors are interested in the caliber of competition that exists within a conference.
Maybe, UM doesn’t have a choice as a result of enrollment problems? Perhaps we are fortunate to be a member of the Big Sky Conference?

 

[MikeyGriz]

Has anybody picked up the phone lately to make sure we still have a dial tone? I was sure we'd have gotten that call by now!

 

[dbackjon]

So how is that working? We hear Dixie State and Central Washington will be members. Is that getting better? Will it help our coaches in their recruiting efforts?

Who are you hearing that from, outside of fantasy message board poster?

Dixie State will be in the WAC, CWU - well, they would love to be in the Big Sky, but I don't see any Big Sky teams clammering to add them. If they wanted to go the Dixie State route and do WAC/FCS indy, great, we could use more FCS teams out west.

 

[dbackjon]

What is required for a new conference to get autobids to FCS football playoffs and the NCAA tournament?

Different criteria:

FCS autobid - 6 members, 2 years together

NCAA Basketball tourney - 7 members, 8 years together.


The only approach FEASIBLE would be for Dixie St, CWU etc to be in a two conference Big Sky as affiliate, while being in the WAC for all other sports.

 

[AZGrizFan]

How? Why? Just two new Division2 type schools for Montana to play. As a whole or split in half, the Big Sky is a bad conference.

A definite improvement is to achieve balanced schedules and playing each member every year. Their objective is to reduce travel cost and improve regional rivalries, not to pass Spanky muster on what constitutes a good conference. With the financial state of UM, what is your plan that achieves their objectives and passes Spanky muster?

Well, Kem, you seem to think this realignment will somehow improve a weak conference, even by adding additional weak sisters. Please explain why you take this position. Oh, by the way, I’m well aware of the financial plight of UM. Since you are a chemist, you likely don’t realize when you are in a weak position, it’s time to take an aggressive posture. Muster?

Larry, you are defensively misinterpreting my posting entirely. I have been a harsh critic of the BSC and its decisions. I particularly dislike its current state and hope for change. I'm posting what I have heard and what I believe to be the most likely moves from today's ugly situation, recognizing the powers at be have a different set of objectives than you or I. I would love to have Montana be in a position to move into the MWC with many of its old Skyline Conference members of 60 years ago, but be realistic in the probability of this happening in the foreseeable future. UM doesn't want it and the MWC doesn't want it.

I do believe, however, that the split would be an improvement over the status quo and I have given the reasons:
1. Reduced travel expense
2. Focus on regional rivalries (close enough for fans to travel and play them every year)
3. Balanced schedules (every member plays the same conf. schedule)
4. OOC scheduling with the partner FCS conf. (home and homes without cash outlays)
These are not trivial advantages and outweigh the expansion dilution you criticize. But also not trivial are the remaining hurdles, an autobid for the new conf. and convincing NMSU to join.

Agreed 100%. And you forgot the strengthening of the conference in general by jettisoning dead weight like UNC, SUU, CP and Sac State.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

A definite improvement is to achieve balanced schedules and playing each member every year. Their objective is to reduce travel cost and improve regional rivalries, not to pass Spanky muster on what constitutes a good conference. With the financial state of UM, what is your plan that achieves their objectives and passes Spanky muster?

Well, Kem, you seem to think this realignment will somehow improve a weak conference, even by adding additional weak sisters. Please explain why you take this position. Oh, by the way, I’m well aware of the financial plight of UM. Since you are a chemist, you likely don’t realize when you are in a weak position, it’s time to take an aggressive posture. Muster?

Larry, you are defensively misinterpreting my posting entirely. I have been a harsh critic of the BSC and its decisions. I particularly dislike its current state and hope for change. I'm posting what I have heard and what I believe to be the most likely moves from today's ugly situation, recognizing the powers at be have a different set of objectives than you or I. I would love to have Montana be in a position to move into the MWC with many of its old Skyline Conference members of 60 years ago, but be realistic in the probability of this happening in the foreseeable future. UM doesn't want it and the MWC doesn't want it.

I do believe, however, that the split would be an improvement over the status quo and I have given the reasons:
1. Reduced travel expense
2. Focus on regional rivalries (close enough for fans to travel and play them every year)
3. Balanced schedules (every member plays the same conf. schedule)
4. OOC scheduling with the partner FCS conf. (home and homes without cash outlays)
These are not trivial advantages and outweigh the expansion dilution you criticize. But also not trivial are the remaining hurdles, an autobid for the new conf. and convincing NMSU to join.

Agreed 100%. And you forgot the strengthening of the conference in general by jettisoning dead weight like UNC, SUU, CP and Sac State.

I'm on board with all of this, not in the least part due to the bold above. Kem, we need you down to playing weight, we need you wiry, and we need you on defense.

 

[ordigger]

A definite improvement is to achieve balanced schedules and playing each member every year. Their objective is to reduce travel cost and improve regional rivalries, not to pass Spanky muster on what constitutes a good conference. With the financial state of UM, what is your plan that achieves their objectives and passes Spanky muster?

Well, Kem, you seem to think this realignment will somehow improve a weak conference, even by adding additional weak sisters. Please explain why you take this position. Oh, by the way, I’m well aware of the financial plight of UM. Since you are a chemist, you likely don’t realize when you are in a weak position, it’s time to take an aggressive posture. Muster?

Larry, you are defensively misinterpreting my posting entirely. I have been a harsh critic of the BSC and its decisions. I particularly dislike its current state and hope for change. I'm posting what I have heard and what I believe to be the most likely moves from today's ugly situation, recognizing the powers at be have a different set of objectives than you or I. I would love to have Montana be in a position to move into the MWC with many of its old Skyline Conference members of 60 years ago, but be realistic in the probability of this happening in the foreseeable future. UM doesn't want it and the MWC doesn't want it.

I do believe, however, that the split would be an improvement over the status quo and I have given the reasons:
1. Reduced travel expense
2. Focus on regional rivalries (close enough for fans to travel and play them every year)
3. Balanced schedules (every member plays the same conf. schedule)
4. OOC scheduling with the partner FCS conf. (home and homes without cash outlays)
These are not trivial advantages and outweigh the expansion dilution you criticize. But also not trivial are the remaining hurdles, an autobid for the new conf. and convincing NMSU to join.

Agreed 100%. And you forgot the strengthening of the conference in general by jettisoning dead weight like UNC, SUU, CP and Sac State.

Just becausr Griz fans think those schools are dead weight doesnt mean all schools do. I disagree that those schools are all dead weight. Cant keep CalDavis without keeping Sac State and CP, which actually is a very good academic school also.

SUU has had good success in football and basketball recently. They are also a good travel partner for NAU. And gives them a bit of a rival.

 

[tourist]

Just becausr Griz fans think those schools are dead weight doesnt mean all schools do. I disagree that those schools are all dead weight. Cant keep CalDavis without keeping Sac State and CP, which actually is a very good academic school also.

SUU has had good success in football and basketball recently. They are also a good travel partner for NAU. And gives them a bit of a rival.

A few points of emphasis from your post, and some comments:
"...Can't keep Cal Davis without keeping Sac State and CP..." Oh, well, a trifecta!
"...a very good academic school also." No argument there. But, the BSC is about athletics, not academics.
I've got a t-shirt:
'The University of Montana
28 Rhodes Scholars
8 Pulitzer Prizes
39 Fulbright Scholars
We also play a little football.'
"...good success....recently..." Flash in the pan. Any sustained success?
"...a...good travel partner..." So is my Chocolate Lab.
"...a bit of a rival." A 'bit'? Its either rival or not. Seems UM is EVERYONES rival, THE GAME, at least until six years of administrative incompetence intervened.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Well, Kem, you seem to think this realignment will somehow improve a weak conference, even by adding additional weak sisters. Please explain why you take this position. Oh, by the way, I’m well aware of the financial plight of UM. Since you are a chemist, you likely don’t realize when you are in a weak position, it’s time to take an aggressive posture. Muster?

Larry, you are defensively misinterpreting my posting entirely. I have been a harsh critic of the BSC and its decisions. I particularly dislike its current state and hope for change. I'm posting what I have heard and what I believe to be the most likely moves from today's ugly situation, recognizing the powers at be have a different set of objectives than you or I. I would love to have Montana be in a position to move into the MWC with many of its old Skyline Conference members of 60 years ago, but be realistic in the probability of this happening in the foreseeable future. UM doesn't want it and the MWC doesn't want it.

I do believe, however, that the split would be an improvement over the status quo and I have given the reasons:
1. Reduced travel expense
2. Focus on regional rivalries (close enough for fans to travel and play them every year)
3. Balanced schedules (every member plays the same conf. schedule)
4. OOC scheduling with the partner FCS conf. (home and homes without cash outlays)
These are not trivial advantages and outweigh the expansion dilution you criticize. But also not trivial are the remaining hurdles, an autobid for the new conf. and convincing NMSU to join.

Agreed 100%. And you forgot the strengthening of the conference in general by jettisoning dead weight like UNC, SUU, CP and Sac State.

Just becausr Griz fans think those schools are dead weight doesnt mean all schools do. I disagree that those schools are all dead weight. Cant keep CalDavis without keeping Sac State and CP, which actually is a very good academic school also.

SUU has had good success in football and basketball recently. They are also a good travel partner for NAU. And gives them a bit of a rival.

None of those are good enough reasons to keep the conference at 27 teams.

 

[grizpsych]

I've been patiently waiting by the phone for almost one month now. Are you sure they won't send an email instead?

 

[dbackjon]

I've been patiently waiting by the phone for almost one month now. Are you sure they won't send an email instead?

Telegraph. Are you up on your Morse Code?

 

[grizpsych]

I've been patiently waiting by the phone for almost one month now. Are you sure they won't send an email instead?

Telegraph. Are you up on your Morse Code?

.. / .- -- / ..- .--. / --- -. / -- -.-- / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . .-.-.- / - .... .- -. -.- / -.-- --- ..- .-.-.-

 

[cclarkblues]

I'm afraid they will try to call at the same time the NBA does...

 

[jodcon]

I've been patiently waiting by the phone for almost one month now. Are you sure they won't send an email instead?

Patience, they're out of minutes because they all share one plan. Resets the 6th so don't leave that phone tomorrow.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Ok, all knowing one, please explain why the Mountain West isn’t our best option.

Probably because the MWC has no desire to expand and zero desire to invite Montana. Odds are they will downsize conference membership.

The Summit League thing probably has a better chance of happening than Montana getting into the MWC. LOL

Well, another expert that really doesn’t know surfaces from his long winter slumber.

Spanky, are you really this dense? I am not sure whether to feel bad or sorry for your utter nonsense.

 

[kemajic]

Much ado about nothing. There is nowhere for Montana to go that makes sense. Stuck where we are and it's our own doing that we are likely to be immobile if/when the next opportunity comes.

 

[UTGrizFan]

Agreed 100%. And you forgot the strengthening of the conference in general by jettisoning dead weight like UNC, SUU, CP and Sac State.

Why would we kick out SUU who has won or competed for several Big Sky FB Championships? They helped our strength of schedule overall.