Regret (NOT SMACK!)

[NoDak 4 Ever]

OK,

I tried to search all over for some thread pertaining to this and I couldn't. I'm really trying to be careful in what I say here because I do not want this to be a smack thread. I hope this can be a insightful discussion about the realities of football and conference affiliation. Sooooo.

Given all that has happened in the last 10 years. Do you think the Big Sky regrets their expansion decisions? If they had accepted NDSU and SDSU, they would probably have also kept USD along with UND. NDSU has obviously proved it is a winner and it would have provided a much better travel setup with a North/South alignment.

I sincerely hope I created this post in the most level headed manner possible because this has the chance to become a huge pissing match.

[BisonFan02]

xpopcornx Good question, but this could get interesting fast. I think, as far as football, having seperate divisions wouldn't matter other than for travel (correct me if I'm wrong, but there wouldn't be a need or ability to have a conference championship game anyway). That being said, it would be an interesting conversation for the rest of male/female sports outside of ones not affiliated with the Big Sky (Baseball, Women's Swimming and Hockey for UND...etc).

[NoDak 4 Ever]

xpopcornx Good question, but this could get interesting fast. I think, as far as football, having seperate divisions wouldn't matter other than for travel (correct me if I'm wrong, but there wouldn't be a need or ability to have a conference championship game anyway). That being said, it would be an interesting conversation for the rest of male/female sports outside of ones not affiliated with the Big Sky (Baseball, Women's Swimming and Hockey for UND...etc).

Well the championship game get's hairy but what are you supposed to do with so many teams anyway? I know they are trying to protect from the Montana's defection but that seems all the more reason to have let the Dakota's in

[ursus arctos horribilis]

OK,

I tried to search all over for some thread pertaining to this and I couldn't. I'm really trying to be careful in what I say here because I do not want this to be a smack thread. I hope this can be a insightful discussion about the realities of football and conference affiliation. Sooooo.

Given all that has happened in the last 10 years. Do you think the Big Sky regrets their expansion decisions? If they had accepted NDSU and SDSU, they would probably have also kept USD along with UND. NDSU has obviously proved it is a winner and it would have provided a much better travel setup with a North/South alignment.

I sincerely hope I created this post in the most level headed manner possible because this has the chance to become a huge pissing match.

Nah you formed it well and it is a good question. I imagine the possibility is much greater now that there is regret than there would have been then. Looking at the events in the time capsules they occured in though I don't think it would have changed anything.

But as far as how it could be split now I think it would be more appealing in the overall except that I am only thinking of football and the problems across all sports might still cause some concerns.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

xpopcornx Good question, but this could get interesting fast. I think, as far as football, having seperate divisions wouldn't matter other than for travel (correct me if I'm wrong, but there wouldn't be a need or ability to have a conference championship game anyway). That being said, it would be an interesting conversation for the rest of male/female sports outside of ones not affiliated with the Big Sky (Baseball, Women's Swimming and Hockey for UND...etc).

You are correct in that there can be no conference championship game.

[BisonFan02]

Well the championship game get's hairy but what are you supposed to do with so many teams anyway? I know they are trying to protect from the Montana's defection but that seems all the more reason to have let the Dakota's in

I don't believe conference championship games are even allowed in the FCS without forfeiting your ability to play in the playoffs. Could someone confirm? Without the Montana's, it wouldn't even feel like "Big Sky" to me. Personally, I see nothing wrong with being in the Valley where we are now except for the fact that leaves us in the Summit for the rest of the sports. Don't get me wrong, there are benefits to playing in the Summit (making alot of post season play is nice), but I'm not a huge fan overall.

[BisonFan02]

Oops, Ursus already confirmed.

[NoDak 4 Ever]

You are correct in that there can be no conference championship game.

Yeah, I knew that, I was mostly just saying that the bulk of one's games can be above or below a certain point of latitude, keep the Cali's together and the Northerlies together in scheduling. Ultmately, I don't know how such a geographically dispersed conference can sustain the travel schedule.

[superman7515]

xpopcornx Good question, but this could get interesting fast. I think, as far as football, having seperate divisions wouldn't matter other than for travel (correct me if I'm wrong, but there wouldn't be a need or ability to have a conference championship game anyway). That being said, it would be an interesting conversation for the rest of male/female sports outside of ones not affiliated with the Big Sky (Baseball, Women's Swimming and Hockey for UND...etc).

You could have a conference championship game in the FCS and it would not count against the 11 games per season rule or exclude the conference from the playoffs. The pain is trying to fit it in between the end of the season and the start of playoffs. You'd basically have to get the league to agree to either 1) forgo one regular season game, 2) give up bye-weeks, or 3) play the conference championship game during the middle of the week.

[BisonFan02]

You could have a conference championship game in the FCS and it would not count against the 11 games per season rule or exclude the conference from the playoffs. The pain is trying to fit it in between the end of the season and the start of playoffs. You'd basically have to get the league to agree to either 1) forgo one regular season game, hurts then to make playoffs, kinda like playing a D2 team :D 2) give up bye-weeks, nursing injuries/licking wounds...needed for playoff runs or 3) play the conference championship game during the middle of the week. See previous

True, but see above in bold. For some reason I thought it wasn't allowed either, but even if so, the negatives as far as making a playoff run outweigh the game in my opinion.

[superman7515]

I wasn't saying it was a good idea, I was saying there is nothing in the rules preventing it. Common misconception.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Yeah, I knew that, I was mostly just saying that the bulk of one's games can be above or below a certain point of latitude, keep the Cali's together and the Northerlies together in scheduling. Ultmately, I don't know how such a geographically dispersed conference can sustain the travel schedule.

Here's where the biggest possible regret lies with the BSC if this had unfolded differently back then forjust the BSC and all the FBS stuff fell the way it has.

It would seem the possibility of the BSC and WAC merging to give an automatic insurance IF BSC teams wanted to move up at some point. I don't know all the rules but I think a group of current BSC members could decide to move as one and restart WAC but would not have to if things don't become better for FBS mid level sports as far as Football goes.

Could be wrong but I think it would mean that the "phantom dorr" that MPLS keeps talking about closing would never really be closed for BSC members.

If I've got that right and the BSC and the WAC do come to an agreement then you watch how valuable a BSC membership will appear to be if that happens. The rregret would quickly shift to those not in that have aspirations.

[Professor Chaos]

The BSC was stable when it turned down the XDSUs and it is just as stable now, which is a feat considering the constant realignment occurring over the last few years. So I don't think they regret it too much. If we were in the midst of this same realignment pattern back in the early 2000s like we are now I think the BSC's decision would've been different than it was but I don't necessarily think that means they regret it.

They don't seem too concerned about the fact that UND is a geographic outlier so the lack of a travel partner doesn't appear to be much of a factor. If they do regret not accepting the XDSU's the connotation is that they also regret inviting UND. I don't think either is the case.

[cbarrier90]

Putting NDSU and Montana in the same conference made too much sense, so they went with UND.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Putting NDSU and Montana in the same conference made too much sense, so they went with UND.

It did not make sense at the time. It is still highly suspect that putting UND in is advisable by the majority of the conference based on the outlier concern that has been mentioned.

[frozennorth]

I think the bsc is too large as it is. 3 more schools wouldn't help.

[NoDak 4 Ever]

I think the bsc is too large as it is. 3 more schools wouldn't help.

absolutely. They were afraid of the WAC defections and as a kneejerk reaction, decided to absorb the entire Great Rest giving them too many teams.

[Tod]

The regret may be that if all four Dakota schools were in the Big Sky, the travel difficulties would be substantially lessened. And we would have 16 teams. OOC games could be scheduled against the Summit/MVFC, OVC, etc.

As far as I'm concerned, that would be pretty cool.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

absolutely. They were afraid of the WAC defections and as a kneejerk reaction, decided to absorb the entire Great Rest giving them too many teams.

Well that I'm not so sure about. The GWFC members have always had an eye on the BSC and for good reason. We play them all the time and due to proximity and stability it's a good fit for most of them.

The BSC commissioner may have wanted to insure against WAC defections but I'm pretty sure he had a good beed on the fact that there weren't any BSC members wanting to jump to the WAC. The WAC approached 6 teams that are current BSC members and was turned down by all so at that point I don't think that WAC defections was the main concern.

Is it perfect? No but it's not really all that big of a burden either so time will tell if it was good or bad but I really doubt it's gonna come out as some big blunder.

The move was much better for the Cal schools and will probably not be a huge burden from the MT/EWU/MSU/& ISU side of it.

[darell1976]

It brings up the question...how big is too big? If Idaho rejoins the BSC and or NMSU with them you have as many as 15 in football. I wonder if the MVFC saw this when they wanted just South Dakota and not both USD and UND. I wished the Dakota 4 was in the same conference whether it was BSC or MVFC, but UND is in a great place for all their sports and had to choose what conference fitted their program (Indy football, and Summit League for everything else or BSC for all their sports).