Idaho in the Big Sky For Football?

[Cataholic]

You don't need a title game to determine the champion. We already play a schedule where not all conference members get to play each other. We didn't play UCD or Weber this year. Adding another team just isn't that big a deal. At the FCS level with two divisions I don't believe there is a requirement for a title game. That is BCS for bowl game bids. Besides, what would a title game accomplish? In all likelyhood, both teams would already be headed to the FCS playoffs.

[Cataholic]

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

I think "upgraded from the Sun Belt" is a better statement than "relegated from the Sun Belt". In two or three years the Sun Bt might not even exist. From a financial perspective, I would think FCS is better option just from a travel perspective.

Bring on Idaho! Just think of all the crap we could sling at Petrino! It would be like having another Hauck around.

[77matcat]

You don't need a title game to determine the champion. We already play a schedule where not all conference members get to play each other. We didn't play UCD or Weber this year. Adding another team just isn't that big a deal. At the FCS level with two divisions I don't believe there is a requirement for a title game. That is BCS for bowl game bids. Besides, what would a title game accomplish? In all likelyhood, both teams would already be headed to the FCS playoffs.

I'm guessing you don't favor the FBS playoffs and the idea of expanding them.

A computer can just pick the winner


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[John K]

You don't need a title game to determine the champion. We already play a schedule where not all conference members get to play each other. We didn't play UCD or Weber this year. Adding another team just isn't that big a deal. At the FCS level with two divisions I don't believe there is a requirement for a title game. That is BCS for bowl game bids. Besides, what would a title game accomplish? In all likelyhood, both teams would already be headed to the FCS playoffs.

Yeah, there's really no reason that the BSC would have to have 2 divisions and/or a conference title game, even if they added UI as a 14th team. Although I suppose 2 divisions would make it better for scheduling/travel. You could then do away with the "traditional" rivals concept, and have everyone play the other teams in their division every year, plus 2 or 3 inter-division games on a rotating basis.

[John K]

You don't need a title game to determine the champion. We already play a schedule where not all conference members get to play each other. We didn't play UCD or Weber this year. Adding another team just isn't that big a deal. At the FCS level with two divisions I don't believe there is a requirement for a title game. That is BCS for bowl game bids. Besides, what would a title game accomplish? In all likelyhood, both teams would already be headed to the FCS playoffs.

We also didn't play EWU (as a conference game) or UNCU.

[91catAlum]

You don't need a title game to determine the champion. We already play a schedule where not all conference members get to play each other. We didn't play UCD or Weber this year. Adding another team just isn't that big a deal. At the FCS level with two divisions I don't believe there is a requirement for a title game. That is BCS for bowl game bids. Besides, what would a title game accomplish? In all likelyhood, both teams would already be headed to the FCS playoffs.

The purpose would be to determine who gets the Big Sky Champion banner.

[John K]

You don't need a title game to determine the champion. We already play a schedule where not all conference members get to play each other. We didn't play UCD or Weber this year. Adding another team just isn't that big a deal. At the FCS level with two divisions I don't believe there is a requirement for a title game. That is BCS for bowl game bids. Besides, what would a title game accomplish? In all likelyhood, both teams would already be headed to the FCS playoffs.

I'm guessing you don't favor the FBS playoffs and the idea of expanding them.

A computer can just pick the winner


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The CAA had 2 divisions for a number of years, but didn't play a conference title game. If both division winners had the same record, and if they hadn't played each other head to head, then I presume there was some sort of tie-breaking protocol in place to determine the champion, similar to what is used by the BSC. It seems sort of pointless to have 2 divisions, if you're not going to play a title game, although it would have some benefits with regard to scheduling/travel.

As for the FBS playoffs, I really hope they expand to 8 teams, sooner rather than later (I think it's inevitable that it will happen eventually). That way, you could give auto bids to all of the Power 5 conference champions, plus 3 at-large berths. If they did that, I'd like to see one of the at-large slots set aside for the highest ranked non-Power 5 team.

[John K]

The Frontier Conference doesn't technically have two divisions, but the teams are aligned geographically for scheduling purposes. Carroll, Northern, Rocky, and Tech are an informal North/East divsion, while College of Idaho, Eastern Oregon, Southern Oregon, and Western make up an informal South/West division. Each team plays the other teams in their own group 2 times, and the teams in the other group just once. If Idaho comes back, the BSC could do something similar to that, i.e. play each team in your own geographic group every year, plus 2 or 3 teams from the other group, on a rotating basis. I love the idea of 2 divisions and a conference title game, but I'm just not sure that it's feasible, given the current FCS scheduling constraints. And again, if you'rd not going to have a title game, what really is the point of having 2 divisions?

[BozoneCat]

Screw Idaho. If they want to come back to the Big Sky, they had better come crawling back with their tails between their legs, and take all the conditions we want to put on them. We don't need them, they need us. I like the profile they bring (primary state institution, solid academics, geographically close), but it's not like they'll really elevate us in any way. And I can't stand their attitude, for one of the absolute worst athletic departments in the entire country, they sure have an awful lot of entitlement. They made their own bed, let them sleep in it.

[Cataholic]

You don't need a title game to determine the champion. We already play a schedule where not all conference members get to play each other. We didn't play UCD or Weber this year. Adding another team just isn't that big a deal. At the FCS level with two divisions I don't believe there is a requirement for a title game. That is BCS for bowl game bids. Besides, what would a title game accomplish? In all likelyhood, both teams would already be headed to the FCS playoffs.

I'm guessing you don't favor the FBS playoffs and the idea of expanding them.

A computer can just pick the winner


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hell no. The playoffs are the best thing in the world. They should expand BCS playoffs to 16 teams and eliminate conference championships. The BCS has so many problems and a larger playoff would be a marketing bonanaza! Right now, you have schools and conferences in the BCS division that have zero chance at winning the national championship. The Sun Belt is a great example. Idaho could go 12-0 and never sniff the 4 team playoff. It is like the are not even a part of the BCS.

[Cataholic]

You don't need a title game to determine the champion. We already play a schedule where not all conference members get to play each other. We didn't play UCD or Weber this year. Adding another team just isn't that big a deal. At the FCS level with two divisions I don't believe there is a requirement for a title game. That is BCS for bowl game bids. Besides, what would a title game accomplish? In all likelyhood, both teams would already be headed to the FCS playoffs.

The purpose would be to determine who gets the Big Sky Champion banner.

We determine the title today without a conference championship game yet we dont play all the teams in the conference. Two divisions just shouldn't be that big a deal. The posts by John K really stated it well.

[Cataholic]

Screw Idaho. If they want to come back to the Big Sky, they had better come crawling back with their tails between their legs, and take all the conditions we want to put on them. We don't need them, they need us. I like the profile they bring (primary state institution, solid academics, geographically close), but it's not like they'll really elevate us in any way. And I can't stand their attitude, for one of the absolute worst athletic departments in the entire country, they sure have an awful lot of entitlement. They made their own bed, let them sleep in it.

No question Idaho is arrogant, but would it raise the level of the Big Sky. They have already proven they can compete at the FCS. Attendance is better than the other Big Sky teams. We also create another geographic rivalry. All pretty good reasons to me.

[John K]

Screw Idaho. If they want to come back to the Big Sky, they had better come crawling back with their tails between their legs, and take all the conditions we want to put on them. We don't need them, they need us. I like the profile they bring (primary state institution, solid academics, geographically close), but it's not like they'll really elevate us in any way. And I can't stand their attitude, for one of the absolute worst athletic departments in the entire country, they sure have an awful lot of entitlement. They made their own bed, let them sleep in it.

No question Idaho is arrogant, but would it raise the level of the Big Sky. They have already proven they can compete at the FCS. Attendance is better than the other Big Sky teams. We also create another geographic rivalry. All pretty good reasons to me.

I agree. I'd welcome them back. Their fan base is arrogant and delusional, but we've been dealing with UM's arrogant and delusional fans since 1986 (you know...that's the year that Denny Washington and Don Read invented college football), so we can deal with UI's fans too.

[BozoneCat]

Screw Idaho. If they want to come back to the Big Sky, they had better come crawling back with their tails between their legs, and take all the conditions we want to put on them. We don't need them, they need us. I like the profile they bring (primary state institution, solid academics, geographically close), but it's not like they'll really elevate us in any way. And I can't stand their attitude, for one of the absolute worst athletic departments in the entire country, they sure have an awful lot of entitlement. They made their own bed, let them sleep in it.

No question Idaho is arrogant, but would it raise the level of the Big Sky. They have already proven they can compete at the FCS. Attendance is better than the other Big Sky teams. We also create another geographic rivalry. All pretty good reasons to me.

I agree. I'd welcome them back. Their fan base is arrogant and delusional, but we've been dealing with UM's arrogant and delusional fans since 1986 (you know...that's the year that Denny Washington and Don Read invented college football), so we can deal with UI's fans too.

I'd begrudgingly welcome them back too, don't get me wrong. I just don't think we need to go out of our way to make any special concessions for them.

[Grizlaw]

I'd begrudgingly welcome them back too, don't get me wrong. I just don't think we need to go out of our way to make any special concessions for them.

I'd welcome them back - not "begrudgingly"; I'd actually be excited to have them come back. I enjoyed that rivalry, and I think it could be a good one again. A lot of the fans on their board seem to be saying that they'll stop supporting the team if they drop to FCS. I hope that's not true; they were a great I-AA program, and I think they could be a good rival again.

I do agree that the BSC shouldn't be making any concessions for them, though. I'd be fine with re-aligning the conference if it serves some purpose that benefits the conference as a whole, but I wouldn't want to see it done just to make Idaho happy.

[John K]

I'd begrudgingly welcome them back too, don't get me wrong. I just don't think we need to go out of our way to make any special concessions for them.

I'd welcome them back - not "begrudgingly"; I'd actually be excited to have them come back. I enjoyed that rivalry, and I think it could be a good one again. A lot of the fans on their board seem to be saying that they'll stop supporting the team if they drop to FCS. I hope that's not true; they were a great I-AA program, and I think they could be a good rival again.

I do agree that the BSC shouldn't be making any concessions for them, though. I'd be fine with re-aligning the conference if it serves some purpose that benefits the conference as a whole, but I wouldn't want to see it done just to make Idaho happy.

I'll cut them a little slack on this, and I'm sure some of it is just simply political posturing. It's going to be very difficult for them to sell this to their alumni, boosters, and fans, judging by the almost universal opposition that you see on their board. I don't think the BSC should just completely bend over for them, and let them totally dictate the terms of their "surrender" (many UI fans would probably view it as exactly that), but I believe it would definitely raise the BSC's profile to some degree, so I'd be willing to swallow my pride (just as they're doing), within reason, and negotiate with them in good faith, in an attempt to make this happen. At the same time, you can't set up divisions that would appear to be blatantly "tiered". That's not going to be palatable to the teams that would be relegated to the "B" division. At one time, I thought that UI would probably drop football completely, rather than drop down to the BSC/FCS, but based upon Spear's recent comments, it sounds like they're now seriously considering it. It's going to take some skilled negotiating on both sides, but I think that ultimately it would be a "win-win" for UI, and the BSC.

[91catAlum]

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

I think "upgraded from the Sun Belt" is a better statement than "relegated from the Sun Belt". In two or three years the Sun Bt might not even exist. From a financial perspective, I would think FCS is better option just from a travel perspective.

Bring on Idaho! Just think of all the crap we could sling at Petrino! It would be like having another Hauck around.

It would be interesting to see if Petrino stayed. He's making around $420K now, would that compensation stay the same if they dropped down? He'd be the highest paid FCS coach in the nation by far I believe.

[John K]

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

I think "upgraded from the Sun Belt" is a better statement than "relegated from the Sun Belt". In two or three years the Sun Bt might not even exist. From a financial perspective, I would think FCS is better option just from a travel perspective.

Bring on Idaho! Just think of all the crap we could sling at Petrino! It would be like having another Hauck around.

It would be interesting to see if Petrino stayed. He's making around $420K now, would that compensation stay the same if they dropped down? He'd be the highest paid FCS coach in the nation by far I believe.

That's just one of the many reasons why a move down is a bit more complicated than it appears to be on the surface. I can't imagine that he'd accept a cut in pay. I would think that they'd bite the bullet, and keep him on at that salary, if they really believe in him. But if they aren't fairly successful in the BSC, fairly quickly, then they'd cut him loose and hire a new coach at a significantly smaller salary.

[AlphaGriz1]

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.

Come on man.............

[Hawks86]

If anybody is ever down about athletics. Just visit their board and it will cheer you right up.