The Bobcat Nation

I caught wind of this on the Idaho State board. Sounds like the Idaho Vandal AD dropped a hint at half time that they might be looking at dropping down to the Big Sky in football? If so that would make 14 teams maybe 2 divisions? I don't have audio...

http://www.scout.com/college/idaho/foru ... -interview

Is the delusional arrogance displayed in that thread universal at Idaho-or is it just a few message board knuckle heads?
Would the Big Sky really realign itself just so Idaho can feel a little bit better about themselves in coming back to the Big Sky Conference?
They're getting crushed every weak by directional schools in the Sun Belt-but their academics are too good for the Big Sky?
There's some real nutters over there.

When you really look at Idaho in the Sun Belt it's almost crazy...in a bad way.
Sun Belt=
Louisiana Lafayette
South Alabama
Arkansas State
Louisiana Monroe
Georgia Southern
Texas State
Appalachian State
Troy
Georgia
Idaho

The closest conference game for the Vandals is Texas State, just 2,239.4 road miles. Airplanes make it shorter, but how can Vandal fans enjoy or create any ties or rivalry with the good folks three time zones away who eat squirrel for breakfast? I swear, if it were the Bobcats in that conference and Troy was coming to Bozeman, as loyal and true as Bobcat Nation is I doubt if we'd get 10,000 people in the stands, especially if it were big game hunting season. I would only care if Idaho rejoined the BSC because it would give me another Bobcat game closer to home, but we do not need them; ironically, as badly as they need us. To my dear old Vandal friends, WAKE UP! Anything has to be better than what you have now.

This is another thread started after the game on the same subject:

http://www.scout.com/college/idaho/foru ... e-comments

I agree, Idaho doesn't have any pull. If they come in and insist on "who" they are going to be grouped with, then Fullerton and the Sky need to tell them, "Thanks, but no thanks."

I can't imagine the other half of the conference would want to be in a division which is openly deemed academically inferior to the other. Makes no sense. You'd create a very unstable conference doing so. Just my two cents.

BelgradeBobcat wrote:Is the delusional arrogance displayed in that thread universal at Idaho

Yes

I've followed that board for years. Most threads primarily involve these 5 things:

1 - How much they hate and look down their nose at FCS
2 - How much they hate and look down their nose at any Idaho fans or talking heads who dare suggest dropping down
3 - How much they hate and look down their nose at Boise State
4 - How much they hate and look down their nose at Montana
5 - Getting angry at their AD and/or coach because they're terrible

BelgradeBobcat wrote:Is the delusional arrogance displayed in that thread universal at Idaho-or is it just a few message board knuckle heads?
Would the Big Sky really realign itself just so Idaho can feel a little bit better about themselves in coming back to the Big Sky Conference?
They're getting crushed every weak by directional schools in the Sun Belt-but their academics are too good for the Big Sky?
There's some real nutters over there.

I'm pretty sure the academics in the BSC are far better than those of the Sun Belt ... especially in our football configuration. Nutters indeed.

SkyRider wrote:This is another thread started after the game on the same subject:

http://www.scout.com/college/idaho/foru ... e-comments

I agree, Idaho doesn't have any pull. If they come in and insist on "who" they are going to be grouped with, then Fullerton and the Sky need to tell them, "Thanks, but no thanks."

I can't imagine the other half of the conference would want to be in a division which is openly deemed academically inferior to the other. Makes no sense. You'd create a very unstable conference doing so. Just my two cents.

That Idaho alumn who said he's bailing on Idaho if they go backwards because he's never gone backward in his life?...he should be advised that his glorious university has already gone backwards before. Idaho was a Division I, University Program school when they signed to become an original BSC member. They had a situation initially because their extended schedule prevented them from playing a full BSC schedule right away. For instance in 1963, the first BSC season Idaho had a full division I schedule plus their traditional game with Idaho State. So they only played one BSC game that year. Same in 1964 when they had NO BSC games. Their schedule was almost exclusively Pac 8 (10/12) schools. In 1965 they played four BSC games and closed the season by crushing the Bobcats 54-0. In 1966 they had four BSC games and came to Bozeman with their '65 team pretty much in-tact. I remember their coach bragging how they had just had a war with Washington in Seattle and after the Cats would be facing teams like Oregon and Washington State. That happened to be the year sophomore Dennis Erickson with his great recruiting class showed up and Donnie Hass started running wild. The Cats beat them 24-10...worse than Oregon State or Washington State and almost as bad as Oregon. My impression of them is they always felt superior to the BSC both in the classroom and on the field. Idaho is nothing special. They should take a page from the griz book. They went backwards and moved up.

As I've said before.
They will be relegated from the sun belt and will find out if the BSC will take them back.

What the heck do we do with 14 schools for football? Should we split into two divisions or two new conferences? Or does the fuster cluck just get bigger?

Silenoz wrote:

BelgradeBobcat wrote:Is the delusional arrogance displayed in that thread universal at Idaho

Yes

I've followed that board for years. Most threads primarily involve these 5 things:

1 - How much they hate and look down their nose at FCS
2 - How much they hate and look down their nose at any Idaho fans or talking heads who dare suggest dropping down
3 - How much they hate and look down their nose at Boise State
4 - How much they hate and look down their nose at Montana
5 - Getting angry at their AD and/or coach because they're terrible

I've spent some time on their board over the last few years too, and you pretty much nailed it. Their fans are even more arrogant and delusional than UM's fans.

LongTimeCatFan wrote:What the heck do we do with 14 schools for football? Should we split into two divisions or two new conferences? Or does the fuster cluck just get bigger?

This is as ludicrous as the old WAC before the bunch in the Mountain West split away. They're in all liklihood better off in the Sun Belt and I don't understand why Spears left the Big West in all the nonrevenue sports. He seems to be the weak link in their athletic department but since I really don't have any interests in that school don't really care one way or the other what Dougie decides to do.

Cat Grad wrote:

LongTimeCatFan wrote:What the heck do we do with 14 schools for football? Should we split into two divisions or two new conferences? Or does the fuster cluck just get bigger?

This is as ludicrous as the old WAC before the bunch in the Mountain West split away. They're in all liklihood better off in the Sun Belt and I don't understand why Spears left the Big West in all the nonrevenue sports. He seems to be the weak link in their athletic department but since I really don't have any interests in that school don't really care one way or the other what Dougie decides to do.

My vote is divisions with play off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Although it would even out the numbers, why even let a prima donna, drama queen in. When we added ND, Poly etc. they were thrilled to join. Nobody supports this team now, so that one guy taking his ball and going home won't matter.

Fact is, WE don't need them. They might need us though and I'm not interested in any relationship that is one sided.

Unless they beat the crap out of all their attitude may change quickly. If not who cares. An extra team and playoff would really bring some sense of rationalism (think that's right word) to the conference.

Although as long as DF is running the place that may be an unattainable goal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

77matcat wrote:Unless they beat the crap out of all their attitude may change quickly. If not who cares. An extra team and playoff would really bring some sense of rationalism (think that's right word) to the conference.

Although as long as DF is running the place that may be an unattainable goal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You get playoffs, then you have to expand them, pretty soon we have to play in a bowl game.

77matcat wrote:

Cat Grad wrote:

LongTimeCatFan wrote:What the heck do we do with 14 schools for football? Should we split into two divisions or two new conferences? Or does the fuster cluck just get bigger?

This is as ludicrous as the old WAC before the bunch in the Mountain West split away. They're in all liklihood better off in the Sun Belt and I don't understand why Spears left the Big West in all the nonrevenue sports. He seems to be the weak link in their athletic department but since I really don't have any interests in that school don't really care one way or the other what Dougie decides to do.

My vote is divisions with play off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No-can-do. In order for any FCS conference to participate in the playoffs, all teams in the conference must complete their regular season games by the weekend prior to Thanksgiving, including any potential conference championship game. This is why SWAC teams don't participate in the playoffs, as they play a conference championship game, usually in early December. If the BSC wanted to have a championship game, they would have to reduce the amount of regular season games from 11 to 10, which would hinder the chances of potential at large bid teams of attaining the 7 D1 wins mark to qualify for the FCS playoffs.

Play as many other div teams as you need to satisfy your concern. You know. Kinda like we played EWU this year. The league can schedule to ensure it works.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

grizzh8r wrote:

77matcat wrote:

Cat Grad wrote:

LongTimeCatFan wrote:What the heck do we do with 14 schools for football? Should we split into two divisions or two new conferences? Or does the fuster cluck just get bigger?

This is as ludicrous as the old WAC before the bunch in the Mountain West split away. They're in all liklihood better off in the Sun Belt and I don't understand why Spears left the Big West in all the nonrevenue sports. He seems to be the weak link in their athletic department but since I really don't have any interests in that school don't really care one way or the other what Dougie decides to do.

My vote is divisions with play off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No-can-do. In order for any FCS conference to participate in the playoffs, all teams in the conference must complete their regular season games by the weekend prior to Thanksgiving, including any potential conference championship game. This is why SWAC teams don't participate in the playoffs, as they play a conference championship game, usually in early December. If the BSC wanted to have a championship game, they would have to reduce the amount of regular season games from 11 to 10, which would hinder the chances of potential at large bid teams of attaining the 7 D1 wins mark to qualify for the FCS playoffs.

The only other option would be to eliminate the bye week, but I doubt that would ever get much traction among the league's coaches. I also can't see them ever going to 10 regular season games. It doesn't make sense to eliminate an 11th game for 12 teams, just so 2 teams can play in a conference title game. I guess I've never understood why the NCAA lets the calendar dictate whether or not teams can play a 12th game in any particular year. Why not set up the schedule so that there's room for a 12th game every season? Then the various conferences can decide if they want to set aside that additional week for a conference title game, or just allow all their members to play a 12th game with no title game.

Edit: I'd also like to see the BSC go to a 9-game conference schedule. Many of the teams schedule other BSC teams as non-league games, and if you're going to play a 9th BSC team anyway, why not just add an extra conference game for all teams, and have it actually count in the standings? When you can't play a full round robin, it can create some real inequities in strength of schedule from one team to another, and that can have significant implications with regard to making the playoffs and/or winning the conference title. The more conference games you play, the more those potential inequities are lessened.

Along those same lines, I'd also designate just one "traditional" rival that teams play every season, rather than two, because that also creates strength of schedule inequities. Not that I'd ever feel any sympathy for UM, especially this week, but their traditional rivals are MSU and EWU, traditionally among the top 3-4 teams in the conference. On the other hand, Cal Poly's traditional rivals are UC-D and Sac State, both of whom generally finish in the bottom half of the conference. If Idaho ever did come back to the BSC, it would make it easier to do this, since there would then be an even number of teams. You could still do it with 13 teams though. You could have just one team play their 2nd traditional rival each year, on a rotating basis.

See above


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk