How many teams in the Big Sky?

mslacat · Post by **mslacat** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:01 pm

This question comes to mind with the Idaho/Big Sky/ Dakotas thread. Is 8 really the right number of teams for the Big Sky? I really like 8 it just seems right. Any less though I completely does not work for me, but I could live with 10. I am not a big fan of the new Mega-conference trend in the major conferences, I think it takes away from the rivalries. If the Sky was to add 2 more teams and keep the existing teams it would be just fine with me numberwise. What I really do not like though is an odd number Big Sky Conference.

Has Fulerton ever said what he fells about a larger number of teams in the Big Sky?

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:07 pm

You need to preview your posts. That was brutal.

89rabbit · Post by **89rabbit** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:08 pm

Here is a story written by Kent Schmidt, it is a little old (January of this year) but I think it answears the question.

http://i-aa.org/article.asp?articleid=52740

. . .Big Sky Commissioner Doug Fullerton stated, "We are looking to expand our conference. We feel eight teams are just too close to the minimum for the automatic bid in basketball."

Seven teams are the minimum a conference can have for the automatic bid to the Field of 65 NCAA basketball tournament. Six is the minimum number for automatic bids in football for the I-AA playoff selection. . . .

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 7:38 am

I don't like the split conferences. The ideal number is 8 to 10. It's probably a good idea to go to 10, so that when schools leave, the minimum is not a concern. We've seen many schools come and go: Gonzaga, BSU, UI, Nevada, CSUNorthridge. If it were only a football issue it would be easy. I like a Northwest/West Coast vs. Midwest orientation. The problem with California schools is that they all play sports we don't (I wish we did), such as Baseball, Men's Volleyball, Soccer, etc., so the Big Sky is kind of awkward for them.

It's too bad SUU seems to be a bad fit, because they are so ideal, geographically. I think Western Washington would be a great fit if they would move up. The new schools in 1AA football (1AA only exists for football) are a big plus for the Big Sky, regardless of whether they're in our conference, because it will be easier and cheaper to play all 1AA schedules. Cal Poly, UNC, SDSU, NDSU, SUU and UCD should really be filling out everybody's non-conference schedules with natural rivals and more reasonable travel costs. I hope we stop playing any lower division schools; it's a no-win situation, makes little money, and bores fans.

If things change so that we could play WAC teams as well, that would be great. A lot of us still remember the rivalries with Fresno State, Boise State, Idaho, and Nevada. In the 70s and 80s, Boise State was probably our top rival. I'm not at all concerned about the changes to come.

catatac · Post by **catatac** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 9:03 am

Montana State
Montana
Eastern Washington
Idaho State
Portland State
Northern Arizona
Weber State
North Dakota State
South Dakota State
Northern Colorado

Any Objections?

catatac · Post by **catatac** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 9:05 am

velochat wrote:I don't like the split conferences. The ideal number is 8 to 10. It's probably a good idea to go to 10, so that when schools leave, the minimum is not a concern. We've seen many schools come and go: Gonzaga, BSU, UI, Nevada, CSUNorthridge. If it were only a football issue it would be easy. I like a Northwest/West Coast vs. Midwest orientation. The problem with California schools is that they all play sports we don't (I wish we did), such as Baseball, Men's Volleyball, Soccer, etc., so the Big Sky is kind of awkward for them.

It's too bad SUU seems to be a bad fit, because they are so ideal, geographically. I think Western Washington would be a great fit if they would move up. The new schools in 1AA football (1AA only exists for football) are a big plus for the Big Sky, regardless of whether they're in our conference, because it will be easier and cheaper to play all 1AA schedules. Cal Poly, UNC, SDSU, NDSU, SUU and UCD should really be filling out everybody's non-conference schedules with natural rivals and more reasonable travel costs. I hope we stop playing any lower division schools; it's a no-win situation, makes little money, and bores fans.

If things change so that we could play WAC teams as well, that would be great. A lot of us still remember the rivalries with Fresno State, Boise State, Idaho, and Nevada. In the 70s and 80s, Boise State was probably our top rival. I'm not at all concerned about the changes to come.

I wouldn't be super fired up about playing Fresno State or Boise this year. Nevada or Idaho wouldn't be too bad. I'm a bit nervous about Colorado State...

MSU01 · Post by **MSU01** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 10:31 am

I like the 8 or 9 team configuration. Anything more than that and you have to do football/basketball scheduling where each team doesn't play one or two of the other teams at all (or only once for bb) in a given year.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 6:39 pm

I didn't mean I'd want to play BSU or CSUFresno now, but if we ended up in the same classification sometime in the future.

I also would prefer no more than 9 teams. That way it's easy to play everybody and have some fun non-conference scheduling.