More West teams for the playoffs this year?

[JMU2K_DukeDawg]

Three weeks into the season and it is apparent to this East Coast guy that the West is making a case for more teams this year. I remember not so long ago what seemed like 1-3 worth teams from year to year. But this year I already have my eyes on 3 or 4 BSC teams, Cal Poly, the North Dakota schools (don't you just despite that I lump you lovebirds together?), and Sam Houston St. to start with.

Is this just perception, or reality that the West has overall improved in depth over the past year or two?

I expect that there will be more flights than usual come Thanksgiving weekend.

[Grizalltheway]

There are a lot of talented teams out here this season, that's for sure. The battle for the Big Sky title is going to be a bloodbath. xnodx

[Twentysix]

Honestly the BSC will probably start sending the numbers the CAA sends to the playoffs. Most years the GWC has a team or two that was playoff worthy, but with no autobid no one would make the playoffs. I expect around 4 teams from the BSC to make the playoffs and probably 3 or 4 teams from the MVFC, leaning more on 3. Maybe 2 from the southland? 9 teams from the west?

Multiple teams out of the same conference having the possibility of going undefeated, whoever didn't make that against the rules...should drink hemlock.

[Grizalltheway]

Honestly the BSC will probably start sending the numbers the CAA sends to the playoffs. Most years the GWC has a team or two that was playoff worthy, but with no autobid no one would make the playoffs. I expect around 4 teams from the BSC to make the playoffs and probably 3 or 4 teams from the MVFC, leaning more on 3. Maybe 2 from the southland? 9 teams from the west?

Multiple teams out of the same conference having the possibility of going undefeated, whoever didn't make that against the rules...should drink hemlock.

The conference has gotten too big to play every team in one season.

[WeAreNorthDakota]

Though 2 undefeated teams from the Big Sky is technically possible I think it would take 2 incredibly good teams at the same time as a coincidental scheduling alignment. Even if it does happen, I'm confident that the Big Sky will be deep enough that both undefeated teams will have gone through a sufficiently difficult schedule. Plus, with the uneven Big Sky schedule and the difficulty in getting quality FCS teams to travel out west I think BSC teams scheduling each other out of conference is going to be fairly common. The schedule will leave 5 teams in the west that won't be on a conference schedule so why not fill schedule holes with Big Sky teams rather than lower division teams?

[Twentysix]

The conference has gotten too big to play every team in one season.

Thats exactly what is cheating, and is the reason the CAA always gets so damn many teams into the playoffs.

You literally don't have to have your best teams fight to the death. The conference getting too big is by design.

[darell1976]

Three weeks into the season and it is apparent to this East Coast guy that the West is making a case for more teams this year. I remember not so long ago what seemed like 1-3 worth teams from year to year. But this year I already have my eyes on 3 or 4 BSC teams, Cal Poly, the North Dakota schools (don't you just despite that I lump you lovebirds together?), and Sam Houston St. to start with.

Is this just perception, or reality that the West has overall improved in depth over the past year or two?

I expect that there will be more flights than usual come Thanksgiving weekend.

Only problem (among others) with that is NDSU has 11 DI teams on their schedule UND had 10. So UND would need to go at least 7-3 maybe 8-2 starting with week 2. So far 1-1 that leaves 1 loss for a playoff berth and 2 losses we are on the floor praying. I think UND has a better chance at getting in via conference title than depending on the 7 win rule(since thats not a guarantee). That DII game really messed things up.

[AmsterBison]

Thats exactly what is cheating, and is the reason the CAA always gets so damn many teams into the playoffs.

Cheating? Unsatisfying maybe, but not even close to cheating.

The CAA did get a lot of teams into the playoffs, but their success in the playoffs had a lot to do with that.

[BisonBacker]

The conference has gotten too big to play every team in one season.

I think this will benefit you guys tremendously come playoff time. The way the MVFC is stacking up NDSU-YSU-UNI-Ind State and Ill. State are all looking to be playoff worthy and SDSU looks much improved to. Teams beating up each other with the only bottom level teams being USD, Mo. State, Western Ill and SIU. Thats 5 very good teams that could all make deep playoff runs. I see Montana State, Eastern Washington, Montana and Cal Poly being the top teams from the BSC. Its the middle of the pack teams that is larger in the BSC. The rest of the BSC will shake itself out in the coming weeks.
The MVFC with 10 teams and 5-6 of those being solid programs vs The Big Sky with 13 teams with 4-5 being solid programs gives the rest of the teams in the Conference an advantage IMO.

[BisonBacker]

Cheating? Unsatisfying maybe, but not even close to cheating.

The CAA did get a lot of teams into the playoffs, but their success in the playoffs had a lot to do with that.

I don't disagree with you about the history of the conference at all but I do see the landscape changing in favor of Western Teams in the future. Of course how the conferences stay together or not will also very possibly change that but I think both the MVFC and the Big Sky are going to make noise and get more teams in the playoffs. Of course the expanding playoff field starting next year won't hurt the chances either.

[melloware13]

Only problem (among others) with that is NDSU has 11 DI teams on their schedule UND had 10. So UND would need to go at least 7-3 maybe 8-2 starting with week 2. So far 1-1 that leaves 1 loss for a playoff berth and 2 losses we are on the floor praying. I think UND has a better chance at getting in via conference title than depending on the 7 win rule(since thats not a guarantee). That DII game really messed things up.

I'd still think that 7 DI wins should be enough, since that would get you guys to 8-3 in one of the big conferences. In '07, UD only went 8-4, with a DII win and hosted a first round game.

[BisonBacker]

I'd still think that 7 DI wins should be enough, since that would get you guys to 8-3 in one of the big conferences. In '07, UD only went 8-4, with a DII win and hosted a first round game.

SOS is going to hurt them though. No getting around playing a Non Counter.

[darell1976]

I'd still think that 7 DI wins should be enough, since that would get you guys to 8-3 in one of the big conferences. In '07, UD only went 8-4, with a DII win and hosted a first round game.

I know its early with conference games just starting this week but the BSC will have IMO 4 teams in...5 might be pushing it and IMO I would rank UND #5 (Cal Poly, MSU, EW, UM in the top 4)

[darell1976]

SOS is going to hurt them though. No getting around playing a Non Counter.

Like Montana in 2010?

[BisonBacker]

Like Montana in 2010?

You can argue all you want one way or the other I'm just saying that SOS IS going to be an issue. Black Hills State or whoever the no name was that you guys played is going to hurt you assuming you reach teh 7 DI win mark. With the way your defense has or hasn't played I wouldn't be so sure you get there.

[darell1976]

You can argue all you want one way or the other I'm just saying that SOS IS going to be an issue. Black Hills State or whoever the no name was that you guys played is going to hurt you assuming you reach teh 7 DI win mark. With the way your defense has or hasn't played I wouldn't be so sure you get there.

Thats what happened to Montana in 2010 they played DII(or NAIA) Montana Western they finished 7-4 didn't make it. If UND ends up with that record or even 8-3 it may be tough to get in. So I think UND needs to either have 2 losses (1 more than what we have now) or win the conference.

[BisonBacker]

Thats what happened to Montana in 2010 they played DII(or NAIA) Montana Western they finished 7-4 didn't make it. If UND ends up with that record or even 8-3 it may be tough to get in. So I think UND needs to either have 2 losses (1 more than what we have now) or win the conference.

I agree, I misunderstood what you were saying. I know why you guys had scheduled them and won't have that problem in the future now being in the BSC.

[darell1976]

I agree, I misunderstood what you were saying. I know why you guys had scheduled them and won't have that problem in the future now being in the BSC.

At least 2013 will be good for us...11 DI games, no FBS games and 7 home games. Montana is a NON-CONFERENCE game, and MSU at home may boost UND to the top of the conference..however no Hendrickson, no Hanson bring on the freshman at QB!

[Twentysix]

Cheating? Unsatisfying maybe, but not even close to cheating.

The CAA did get a lot of teams into the playoffs, but their success in the playoffs had a lot to do with that.

Cheating in regards to fairness not in regards to the rules. Context my man context.

Having inflated records due to the top teams dodging each other has alot to do with it too, one could aruge it is what has spawned the perception of playoff success.

If the MVFC/Gateway(Insert any conference) had sent 100 teams to the playoffs in the last 20 years (As opposed to 20 minimum) I gurantee a lot more wins. 5 a year vs 1 a year is going to produce a perceived upside.

Is the conference that won 18 playoff games in the last 20 years better or the conference that won 45 games better? (Using a one game scenario for simplicity).

The answer is obviously the conference that won 45 games. Now what If I told you the one conference was 18-2 and the other was 45-55. (Since the cheating/fairness implication went over your head I will clearly print, these are hypothetical numbers)

The more chances a league gets the perceived upside grows, especially when Team A plays team B and Team C doesn't play team B cause they are on the otherside of the bracket, even though its entirely possible Team A and B are better than team C, team C could still win the NC with a good rock paper scissor matchup knocking team B out before they are required to meet. More chances and a higher probability of atleast one entrant having an easier path. Perceived upside.

It's why a bigger conference is a better conference, ignoring instability factors.

Imagine an MVFC where UNI NDSU ISU-r and YSU dont play each other this year. All 4 teams would have the possibility of 8-0 in conference. They all would easily have playoff bids most of them seeded even. It's about as fair as proclaiming Idaho and Texas play football on the same level.


Cheating:
Act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, esp. in a game or examination

[F'N Hawks]

Cheating in regards to fairness not in regards to the rules. Context my man context.


Using that, UND should be get to argue it isn't fair because they don't get to play UC-Davis or Idaho State this year- the two worst ranked teams in the conference. So UND has the hardest schedule in the Big Sky (having played PSU non-conference. On the flip side, Poly has the easiest schedule.

[Twentysix]

Using that, UND should be get to argue it isn't fair because they don't get to play UC-Davis or Idaho State this year- the two worst ranked teams in the conference. So UND has the hardest schedule in the Big Sky (having played PSU non-conference. On the flip side, Poly has the easiest schedule.

It is not in the interest of UND this particular year, but it is still in the interest of the Big Sky as a whole.

I must return to Crito.

[WeAreNorthDakota]

Imagine an MVFC where UNI NDSU ISU-r and YSU dont play each other this year. All 4 teams would have the possibility of 8-0 in conference. They all would easily have playoff bids most of them seeded even. It's about as fair as proclaiming Idaho and Texas play football on the same level.

I think at most you're going to see 2 good teams avoiding each other and possibly going undefeated in the conference. Does anyone have a list of the designated teams that each Big Sky team will play every year? I know UND gets Montana State and Northern Colorado every year but I'm not sure about the rest of the conference. This year there is a slight unbalance with Cal Poly missing both Montana schools but they still have to play Eastern Washington, UND, Northern Arizona, and Sac State. Montana still gets EWU, MSU, UND, and UNA. Montana State still gets EWU, UND, Sac State, and Montana. I think the odds that there are 2 teams in the Big Sky that are clear favorites and head and shoulders better than everybody in the same year that those two teams don't have to play each other in the conference are very very low.

[LakesBison]

big fluffy. so the East is still better. nuff said.

[frozennorth]

I think at most you're going to see 2 good teams avoiding each other and possibly going undefeated in the conference. Does anyone have a list of the designated teams that each Big Sky team will play every year? I know UND gets Montana State and Northern Colorado every year but I'm not sure about the rest of the conference. This year there is a slight unbalance with Cal Poly missing both Montana schools but they still have to play Eastern Washington, UND, Northern Arizona, and Sac State. Montana still gets EWU, MSU, UND, and UNA. Montana State still gets EWU, UND, Sac State, and Montana. I think the odds that there are 2 teams in the Big Sky that are clear favorites and head and shoulders better than everybody in the same year that those two teams don't have to play each other in the conference are very very low.

cal poly it appears will always have pretty good odds of missing the rest of the power teams, unless uc davis decides to stop being awful.

[Vitojr130]

Thats what happened to Montana in 2010 they played DII(or NAIA) Montana Western they finished 7-4 didn't make it. If UND ends up with that record or even 8-3 it may be tough to get in. So I think UND needs to either have 2 losses (1 more than what we have now) or win the conference.

Well just look at Illinois State last year... they finished 7-4 without any D2 teams on their schedule and they still didn't make it to the dance. So, I agree that UND will have to limit their losses to 8-3 or better to even have a shot this year.

[Grizalltheway]

big fluffy. so the East is still better. nuff said.

And you're still a moron.

[WeAreNorthDakota]

cal poly it appears will always have pretty good odds of missing the rest of the power teams, unless uc davis decides to stop being awful.

Poly gets Davis every year and who? Sac St? Portland?

[UNDColorado]

Sac St

[MplsBison]

Three weeks into the season and it is apparent to this East Coast guy that the West is making a case for more teams this year. I remember not so long ago what seemed like 1-3 worth teams from year to year. But this year I already have my eyes on 3 or 4 BSC teams, Cal Poly, the North Dakota schools (don't you just despite that I lump you lovebirds together?), and Sam Houston St. to start with.

Is this just perception, or reality that the West has overall improved in depth over the past year or two?

I expect that there will be more flights than usual come Thanksgiving weekend.

Well jeez, if you consider the Southland, OVC and MVFC to be "West", then yeah I guess.

[Catbooster]

Thats exactly what is cheating, and is the reason the CAA always gets so damn many teams into the playoffs.

You literally don't have to have your best teams fight to the death. The conference getting too big is by design.

The problem with your complaint is that you assume they would all play each other if they weren't all in one huge conference. If split into two conferences, the odds are that the top teams wouldn't play each other either, so no big difference. Think of it as two smaller conferences getting 1-3 playoff berths each if it makes you feel better.

[dbackjon]

Well jeez, if you consider the Southland, OVC and MVFC to be "West", then yeah I guess.

Southland has traditionally be considered a "West" team for the FCS playoffs until the expansion- Big Sky/Southland Conference first round games are the rule
For Big Sky teams, opening games:

2001:
Montana - NW State
NAU - Sam Houston

2002:
Montana - NW State
Montana St - McNeese

2003:
NAU - McNeese
Montana State - (Northern Iowa)

2004:
EWU - (Southern Illinois)
Montana - NW State

2005:
EWU - (Northern Iowa)
Montana - [Cal Poly]

2006:
Montana - McNeese
Montana St - Furman

2007:
Montana - Wofford
EWU - McNeese

2008:
Montana - Texas State
Weber - [Cal Poly]

2009:
Montana - (SDSU)
EWU - SFA
Weber - W&M

[MplsBison]

Yeah, I know.

I'm just saying, Big Sky should be considered the only FCS conference in the actual west. But to 26's point, the more teams in the conference the less likely the best teams are to play each other. So yeah, the Big Sky should be getting more teams in the playoffs.

[Twentysix]

The problem with your complaint is that you assume they would all play each other if they weren't all in one huge conference. If split into two conferences, the odds are that the top teams wouldn't play each other either, so no big difference. Think of it as two smaller conferences getting 1-3 playoff berths each if it makes you feel better.

The MVFC OVC should just combine, that way we can have 7 teams in the playoffs and you can consider us two smaller conferences. :)

[Catbooster]

I'll agree that I don't like the fact that we don't get to play everybody, and that it can be an advantage for some teams on some years, but I just don't think it's as big of a deal as some are making it out to be (i.e. hyperbole like "cheating"). The Big Sky has put 2 or sometimes 3 teams in the playoffs fairly often in recent years, the Great West put in 1 or had a bubble team or two fairly often, so say 2-4 berths for the teams now in the Big Sky. I haven't heard too many people saying they think the Big Sky will put more than 4 teams in the playoffs this year (many think 1 or more teams are over-rated), so I don't see it as a big change.

The flip side is that some teams won't get to play all the easy teams each year. It will be interesting to see if it appears to have any real effect. I'd rather that there was a few more schools on this end of the country so that we could have 2 viable, auto-bid conferences, but....

[Twentysix]

I'll agree that I don't like the fact that we don't get to play everybody, and that it can be an advantage for some teams on some years, but I just don't think it's as big of a deal as some are making it out to be (i.e. hyperbole like "cheating"). The Big Sky has put 2 or sometimes 3 teams in the playoffs fairly often in recent years, the Great West put in 1 or had a bubble team or two fairly often, so say 2-4 berths for the teams now in the Big Sky. I haven't heard too many people saying they think the Big Sky will put more than 4 teams in the playoffs this year (many think 1 or more teams are over-rated), so I don't see it as a big change.

The flip side is that some teams won't get to play all the easy teams each year. It will be interesting to see if it appears to have any real effect. I'd rather that there was a few more schools on this end of the country so that we could have 2 viable, auto-bid conferences, but....

I think the major difference you are going to see is that the Big Sky was a one but usally two bid league. And with the addition of only 4 teams you are going to see a double up in the amount of playoff bids the BSC receives. At this moment it looks like Montana, Montana St, Cal Poly and EWU have a decent shot at a playoff bid, maybe another team will surprise. The CAA has been doing it for awhile now and the BSC caught on. It is pretty simple.

[Catbooster]

Cheating in regards to fairness not in regards to the rules. Context my man context.

Having inflated records due to the top teams dodging each other has alot to do with it too, one could aruge it is what has spawned the perception of playoff success.

If the MVFC/Gateway(Insert any conference) had sent 100 teams to the playoffs in the last 20 years (As opposed to 20 minimum) I gurantee a lot more wins. 5 a year vs 1 a year is going to produce a perceived upside.

Is the conference that won 18 playoff games in the last 20 years better or the conference that won 45 games better? (Using a one game scenario for simplicity).

The answer is obviously the conference that won 45 games. Now what If I told you the one conference was 18-2 and the other was 45-55. (Since the cheating/fairness implication went over your head I will clearly print, these are hypothetical numbers)

The more chances a league gets the perceived upside grows, especially when Team A plays team B and Team C doesn't play team B cause they are on the otherside of the bracket, even though its entirely possible Team A and B are better than team C, team C could still win the NC with a good rock paper scissor matchup knocking team B out before they are required to meet. More chances and a higher probability of atleast one entrant having an easier path. Perceived upside.

It's why a bigger conference is a better conference, ignoring instability factors.

Imagine an MVFC where UNI NDSU ISU-r and YSU dont play each other this year. All 4 teams would have the possibility of 8-0 in conference. They all would easily have playoff bids most of them seeded even. It's about as fair as proclaiming Idaho and Texas play football on the same level.

And Furthermore .... ;) your example is pretty extreme. Take the Big Sky teams that are ranked or ORV; MSU, EWU, UM, Cal-Poly, Sac State, UND, NAU.
MSU plays UM, UND every year and EWU, Sac State this year (don't play Cal-Poly or NAU).
Eagles plays UM, UND, MSU, Sac State, Cal-Poly (don't play NAU).
Griz play EWU, MSU every year and NAU, UND (don't play Cal-Poly, Sac State)
Mustangs play UND, Sac State, EWU and NAU (don't play MSU, UM - and both of them are over-ranked anyway :) )
Hornets play UND, EWU, Cal-Poly, MSU (don't play UM, NAU)
UND plays Sac State, Cal-Poly, EWU, NAU, UM, MSU
NAU plays UM, UND, Cal-Poly (don't play MSU, EWU, Sac State)

So it seems to me that there's a fair amount of info to know who's best, but yes, the top couple teams might not play each other and that will possibly help to get an extra team into the playoffs.

[Twentysix]

And Furthermore .... ;) your example is pretty extreme. Take the Big Sky teams that are ranked or ORV; MSU, EWU, UM, Cal-Poly, Sac State, UND, NAU.
MSU plays UM, UND every year and EWU, Sac State this year (don't play Cal-Poly or NAU).
Eagles plays UM, UND, MSU, Sac State, Cal-Poly (don't play NAU).
Griz play EWU, MSU every year and NAU, UND (don't play Cal-Poly, Sac State)
Mustangs play UND, Sac State, EWU and NAU (don't play MSU, UM - and both of them are over-ranked anyway :) )
Hornets play UND, EWU, Cal-Poly, MSU (don't play UM, NAU)
UND plays Sac State, Cal-Poly, EWU, NAU, UM, MSU
NAU plays UM, UND, Cal-Poly (don't play MSU, EWU, Sac State)

So it seems to me that there's a fair amount of info to know who's best, but yes, the top couple teams might not play each other and that will possibly help to get an extra team into the playoffs.


The point of what you bolded just goes to show a bigger conference is adventageous in regards to the playoffs. I never limited the theoretical conference to the number of teams the BSC currently has.

Additionally, the BSC and the GWC seperately will yeild less playoff bids, than a conference made up by combining the two.

[Vitojr130]

The MVFC OVC should just combine, that way we can have 7 teams in the playoffs and you can consider us two smaller conferences. :)

Yikes. I think I just cried a bit at seeing this.

[WeAreNorthDakota]

I would have to look at the entire Big Sky schedule closer but I would be willing to bet that it is statistically impossible for more than 2 teams to go undefeated in conference play. So worst case scenario from your point of view is that Cal Poly goes undefeated, Montana goes undefeated, and Montana State goes 7-1 in Big Sky play.

Poly has wins over EWU, Sac St, UND, Northern Arizona, and Wyoming. That's an undefeated FCS team with a win over an FBS opponent. Seeded team.

At the same time, Montana is 10-1 with the only loss being to App St and wins over MSU, EWU, NAU, UND. Playoff team no question.

Montana State goes 10-1 (9-1 againt D1) also with its only loss to Montana and wins over UND, EWU, Sac St, and Stephen F Austin. Playoff team no question.

If that's the case you're left with EWU, UND, and NAU with 3 conference losses and an OOC loss assuming all 3 win the remainder of their Big Sky games. EWU is on the bubble and UND and NAU are both likely out because they beat a non-D1. Sac State has 4 conference losses and an OOC loss and is out of the playoffs.

This hypothetical has 3 playoff locks and one bubble team. It's also a scheduling coincidence that the best team in the conference (Poly in this hypothetical) misses the 2nd and 3rd best teams (Montana and MSU). This also assumes there are no upsets on the throughout the conference season which is unheard of.

I think we may see years where 5 Big Sky teams reach 7 D-1 wins but I don't think more than 4 would ever make it and I think 3 is much more likely unless there are some outstanding OOC resumes. Of course, playoff expansion leaves this whole conversation irrelevent and nobody really knows what will happen to teams that have been on the bubble in the past.

[Catbooster]

I think the major difference you are going to see is that the Big Sky was a one but usally two bid league. And with the addition of only 4 teams you are going to see a double up in the amount of playoff bids the BSC receives. At this moment it looks like Montana, Montana St, Cal Poly and EWU have a decent shot at a playoff bid, maybe another team will surprise. The CAA has been doing it for awhile now and the BSC caught on. It is pretty simple.

I went back and checked - since 2000 (too lazy to go back beyond that) the Big Sky has always had at least 2 berths, 2 years with 3 (you could add 2 more years with Cal-poly making the playoffs). I would guess that we'll be a 3 sometimes 4 bid league now. Maybe with an unusual 5 bid year possible as the playoffs expand again. I think the real benefit will be to the bubble teams if they get a favorable schedule.

Anyway, I'll drop it now since I agree with your basic idea, just think it's a smaller effect than you and that it won't have any effect some years.

[bojeta]

cal poly it appears will always have pretty good odds of missing the rest of the power teams, unless uc davis decides to stop being awful.

I don't believe it's a random selection every year. Cal Poly will probably have both Montana schools and/or EWU and a Montana school in conference play next year. Actual schedule is probably already available.

[bojeta]

At least 2013 will be good for us...11 DI games, no FBS games and 7 home games. Montana is a NON-CONFERENCE game, and MSU at home may boost UND to the top of the conference..however no Hendrickson, no Hanson bring on the freshman at QB!

I believe it will be even better odds of 7 wins in 2013. Don't we go to a 12 game season in 2013? Unless of course they just raise it to an 8 DI win minimum :/

[MplsBison]

Yikes. I think I just cried a bit at seeing this.

We will take EIU though! Got a spot for them in the Summit too.

[JMU2K_DukeDawg]

OVC not much West. But parts of MVFC and Southland yes. Texas is West (Except in the NFL East - Dallas). The Dakotas are West. Ohio is East. Not sure about Indiana and Illinois - truly is the Midwest!

Generally, the Mississippi river is the standard East/West dividing line. I know that makes no sense to those on the West Coast, and it shouldn't. But there are SO MANY schools in the East, it just seems a bit more the norm. Historically, we have not seen high numbers of teams from those parts. In all fairness, it's probably the plethora of weak DI schools that are able to be scheduled for DI wins. In JMU's case this year, Alcorn St. and St. Francis, for example. More D2 schools on the BSCs teams' schedules year in year out for travel cost reasons most likely. Natural disadvantage until recently more schools moved up to DI.

[MplsBison]

OVC not much West. But parts of MVFC and Southland yes. Texas is West (Except in the NFL East - Dallas). The Dakotas are West. Ohio is East. Not sure about Indiana and Illinois - truly is the Midwest!

Generally, the Mississippi river is the standard East/West dividing line. I know that makes no sense to those on the West Coast, and it shouldn't. But there are SO MANY schools in the East, it just seems a bit more the norm. Historically, we have not seen high numbers of teams from those parts. In all fairness, it's probably the plethora of weak DI schools that are able to be scheduled for DI wins. In JMU's case this year, Alcorn St. and St. Francis, for example. More D2 schools on the BSCs teams' schedules year in year out for travel cost reasons most likely. Natural disadvantage until recently more schools moved up to DI.

Well I consider the midwest to extend from Ohio to the Dakotas. PA would be in the east. MT would be in the mountain or the northwest, don't really care much west of Dakotas.

[Go Apps]

I say yes there will be

[Go Apps]

Boy this really could be the year to have 24 teams what fun!

[CrazyCat]

I don't believe it's a random selection every year. Cal Poly will probably have both Montana schools and/or EWU and a Montana school in conference play next year. Actual schedule is probably already available.

2013 UM & EWU
2014 UM & MSU
2015 MSU & EWU

http://bigskyconf.com/news/2011/4/28/FB_0428110957.aspx