• 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!

The Summit League will be calling

Spanky2 said:
Having Central Washington and Dixie State in the conference world is somehow an improvement or positive?

We’re trading CWU for SUU, UNC & Sac State. That’s a great trade. We’re instantly a more competitive conference. :lol:
 
Spanky likes to complain about an issue that doesn't really have a great solution. And no, the MWC is not a solution.
 
I think we spent millions to improve/expand our athletic facilities so we could be more acceptable to Central Washington and Dixie State. 🤓
 
grizindabox said:
Spanky likes to complain about an issue that doesn't really have a great solution. And no, the MWC is not a solution.

Ok, all knowing one, please explain why the Mountain West isn’t our best option.
 
Spanky2 said:
grizindabox said:
Spanky likes to complain about an issue that doesn't really have a great solution. And no, the MWC is not a solution.

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.
 
grizindabox said:
Spanky2 said:
grizindabox said:
Spanky likes to complain about an issue that doesn't really have a great solution. And no, the MWC is not a solution.

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
 
grizindabox said:
Spanky2 said:
grizindabox said:
Spanky likes to complain about an issue that doesn't really have a great solution. And no, the MWC is not a solution.

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.
Box, the truth is you don’t know if either statement is correct.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
grizindabox said:
Spanky2 said:
grizindabox said:
Spanky likes to complain about an issue that doesn't really have a great solution. And no, the MWC is not a solution.

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.
 
Spanky2 said:
HelenaHandBasket said:
grizindabox said:
Spanky2 said:
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.

The MWC could have invited Montana last expansion. They choose San Jose State.
 
Spanky2 said:
grizindabox said:
Spanky2 said:
grizindabox said:
Spanky likes to complain about an issue that doesn't really have a great solution. And no, the MWC is not a solution.

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.
Box, the truth is you don’t know if either statement is correct.

I am curious why you think the MWC would have any interest in Montana?
 
I don’t, but we don’t know until we market ourselves to them, do we. Montana used to be in the same conference with many of their conference members, so we aren’t strangers to them.
 
Cute? Box, I’ve been a businessman for over 30 years in the US and Canada. I really don’t need to be schooled by you who always seems interested in impressing people on this board. The truth is I’m not impressed with the Big Sky Conference. It served the purpose in the beginning, but we should have pulled out 10 years ago. If you support remaining in the conference, so be it.
 
Spanky2 said:
I don’t, but we don’t know until we market ourselves to them, do we. Montana used to be in the same conference with many of their conference members, so we aren’t strangers to them.

Keep living your dream.
 
Spanky2 said:
Cute? Box, I’ve been a businessman for over 30 years in the US and Canada. I really don’t need to be schooled by you who always seems interested in impressing people on this board. The truth is I’m not impressed with the Big Sky Conference. It served the purpose in the beginning, but we should have pulled out 10 years ago. If you support remaining in the conference, so be it.

I am all in for going elsewhere, but the reality is, there is no where to go. The MWC is nothing more than a pipe dream. Montana has to put its planning into pushing the BSC to get better.
 
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?
 
Spanky2 said:
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.
 
Spanky2 said:
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?

Again, if we have to take on CWU to get ride of UNC, SUU and Suck State, I’ll take that trade in a heartbeat.
 
grizindabox said:
What is required for a new conference to get autobids to FCS football playoffs and the NCAA tournament?

I thought there was a waiting period but could be wrong on that.

Looked around a bit, it appears for the big multi-sport conferences you would have to have 7 members playing together for 8 years. For single-sport conferences, which seems to apply more to us, you would need to have a minimum of 6 teams playing together for 2 years to be eligible.

BUT according to the articles I read, the chances of getting an autobid would be slim, the NCAA is not really required to give new conferences bids even if they qualify unless they vote to do so, which is unlikely. Reason being it stops a bunch of big leagues, like the BSC, from splitting into a couple leagues which would generate another auto-bid, in reality if we left and formed a new basketball conference the remaining BSC would likely keep the autobid even if the new conference was better, or they could possibly take it away completely from both conferences. A new FCS football league would have a better shot of getting an autobid, and almost certainly would get teams into the now diluted playoff format even if not given one, but for basketball it could be an NCAA tourney killer.
 
grizindabox said:
What is required for a new conference to get autobids to FCS football playoffs and the NCAA tournament?

The requirement is seven years with seven schools. No prez would forgo the dance and money for that long. FCS playoff autobid is only two years, but no money involved.

But on the other hand, northern Big Sigh schools could effectively take over the Summit with no wait. The Montana's, Idaho, EWU, Weber, and UND have been playing together for years, so a new Summit League FCS autobid would be granted thru the NCAAs grandfather clause, even with NDSU, USD and SDSU,
 
Back
Top