Big Sky to play 9 conference games starting 2020

[NDSUKurt]

http://idahostatejournal.com/members/isu-athletics-big-sky-to-add-th-conference-game-starting/article_870ccb95-b2d7-521a-a9cb-1de68c762df1.html

I am surprised by this as many of the teams in the Southland Conference are complaining about how hard it is to get good games now that they have a 9 conference schedule.

This will most likely reduce the number of those great home and home match-ups that we have seen between Missouri Valley teams and Big Sky teams recently.

It will also drive up the price of guarantee games for FCS teams trying to host other FCS teams. Teams like Montana and Montana State will always have 6 home games, so they are going to schedule less home and home games and this will have to schedule more guarantee games.

It will also be interesting to see what Big Sky teams do in seasons when they can play 12 games - do they schedule another FBS game, try to do a home and home with FCS, or buy a cheap Division II, Division III, or NAIA game? Those seasons are (after this takes effect): 2024, 2025, 2030, 2031, 2036, 2041, 2042, 2047, 2052, 2053, 2058, 2059, 2064, 2069.

This also may cause teams in the Missouri Valley to look to the east and/or south to schedule home and home games in the future.

[Professor Chaos]

Just putting lipstick on a pig IMO. 14 teams is too many for a league without a championship game. They should just split into two divisions/leagues and apply for autobids for both. Then have a 6 game conference schedule, 2 or 3 games with members of the other division/league as part of a "scheduling alliance", and then 2 or 3 other OOC games of their choice.

EDIT: One way that I could see this making more sense is if they split into two 7 team divisions and have 8 conference games (6 intra-division and 2 inter-division) only on the conference schedule. Then for the 9th conference game the week before Thanksgiving they play #1 vs #1, #2 vs #2, etc, in each division. Of course then you'd have a mess to determine who the home team is in those 9th conference game matchups.... perhaps one year the "east division" teams all have home games in that last game and the next year the "west division" teams all have home games. You'd also potentially have teams playing each other twice within the conference season (and even a 3rd time in the playoffs).

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I don't think is a good idea at all. I wonder what made the presidents think this was the best idea to go with?

[Bisonator]

Aren't most of them playing 9 games against conference opponents anyway? I thought that was the norm for the BSC having OOC games against conference foes.

[ST_Lawson]

Just putting lipstick on a pig IMO. 14 teams is too many for a league without a championship game. They should just split into two divisions/leagues and apply for autobids for both. Then have a 6 game conference schedule, 2 or 3 games with members of the other division/league as part of a "scheduling alliance", and then 2 or 3 other OOC games of their choice.

EDIT: One way that I could see this making more sense is if they split into two 7 team divisions and have 8 conference games (6 intra-division and 2 inter-division) only on the conference schedule. Then for the 9th conference game the week before Thanksgiving they play #1 vs #1, #2 vs #2, etc, in each division. Of course then you'd have a mess to determine who the home team is in those 9th conference game matchups.... perhaps one year the "east division" teams all have home games in that last game and the next year the "west division" teams all have home games. You'd also potentially have teams playing each other twice within the conference season (and even a 3rd time in the playoffs).

I seem to remember suggesting that setup a while back when it started to look like Idaho would be coming back to the Big Sky. If I remember correctly from that discussion, it sounds like it would be "legal" according to the NCAA's rules for the FCS. There is the issue of potential rematches in that "conference championship weekend", especially if it's in the same location. If you had, for example, earlier in the season seen Cal Poly go into Northern Colorado and thump them pretty badly, but then it worked out that they were the #3 teams in their divisions and it was scheduled to be at the "east" teams, it'd be another Cal Poly at UNC matchup, and I'm not sure you'd get a huge turnout for that. That may be a somewhat rare situation though depending on the numbers.

[POD Knows]

This will weaken the BSC teams SOS xcoffeex

[Grizzlies82]

Just putting lipstick on a pig IMO. 14 teams is too many for a league without a championship game. They should just split into two divisions/leagues and apply for autobids for both. Then have a 6 game conference schedule, 2 or 3 games with members of the other division/league as part of a "scheduling alliance", and then 2 or 3 other OOC games of their choice.

EDIT: One way that I could see this making more sense is if they split into two 7 team divisions and have 8 conference games (6 intra-division and 2 inter-division) only on the conference schedule. Then for the 9th conference game the week before Thanksgiving they play #1 vs #1, #2 vs #2, etc, in each division. Of course then you'd have a mess to determine who the home team is in those 9th conference game matchups.... perhaps one year the "east division" teams all have home games in that last game and the next year the "west division" teams all have home games. You'd also potentially have teams playing each other twice within the conference season (and even a 3rd time in the playoffs).

Chaos, to paraphrase the guy who said "The rent is too damn high!", the fact is with 14 teams the Big Sky conference is too damn big!

The only real solution is to cut it in half for football creating two separate conferences not divisions. The fight will be over how the carving is done... East vs. West, or North vs. South.

If two conferences were created... It eliminates the current fiasco of having a "Champion" who never played the 2nd or 3rd place teams. It also precludes the need of creating a conference Championship game (which is prohibited), or late season scheduling of a non-official de facto Championship as you describe above. Two conferences would provide some natural foes each year to help fill a non-conference schedule. Besides fighting over which schools went to which conference the only other problem would be the ego of the Big Sky administration not wanting to carve up their malformed 14 armed baby.

[kdinva]

The only real solution is to cut it in half for football creating two separate conferences not divisions.......

Big Sky (7 eastern most schools on the map) & Big West FB Conf......would that work?

[Daytripper]

Big Sky (7 eastern most schools on the map) & Big West FB Conf......would that work?

Each new conference would probably have to add at least two new schools to make it feasible.

[PantherRob82]

This seems like bigger news that their app. :D

[JALMOND]

Big Sky (7 eastern most schools on the map) & Big West FB Conf......would that work?

East: UND, UNC, MSU, ISU, WSU, SUU, NAU?

You would eliminate the UM/MSU matchup however.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

East: UND, UNC, MSU, ISU, WSU, SUU, NAU?

You would eliminate the UM/MSU matchup however.

And you know that would never happen.

[kalm]

North-South would make the most sense geographically:

PSU, EWU, UI, ISU, UM, MSU, UND

[PantherRob82]

And you know that would never happen.

Couldn't they be opposite divisions but be a protected game?

[JALMOND]

North-South would make the most sense geographically:

PSU, EWU, UI, ISU, UM, MSU, UND

Then you end the ISU/WSU rivalry of 50+ years.

Any division would have to make sure that the Core 4 (UM, MSU, ISU and WSU) stay intact. Rivalries there go back a long way.

[JALMOND]

Then you end the ISU/WSU rivalry of 50+ years.

Any division would have to make sure that the Core 4 (UM, MSU, ISU and WSU) stay intact. Rivalries there go back a long way.

Best division of 7 probably would be MSU, UM, ISU, WSU, EWU, UI and PSU in one and the rest in the other.

[kalm]

Best division of 7 probably would be MSU, UM, ISU, WSU, EWU, UI and PSU in one and the rest in the other.

That makes sense too.

[Grizalltheway]

Then you end the ISU/WSU rivalry of 50+ years.

Wait, you're more concerned about ending that one than UM/MSU? xlolx

[Grizzlies82]

Then you end the ISU/WSU rivalry of 50+ years.

Any division would have to make sure that the Core 4 (UM, MSU, ISU and WSU) stay intact. Rivalries there go back a long way.

Then you are also forgetting No. Arizona has also been a very long term member of the Big Sky (since 1960's or 1970's).

This is what I meant about the "fighting" over which school goes where. If you don't concern yourself with the long term tradition aspect (such as No. Arizona's inclusion with the Montana schools, or your example of the long time Idaho St & Weber rivalry) then this is far simpler. Dividing into two separate football conferences can be done. Though however you slice it, it will never have universal approval. Yet, with 14 teams it does need to be done.

[JALMOND]

Then you are also forgetting No. Arizona has also been a very long term member of the Big Sky (since 1960's or 1970's).

This is what I meant about the "fighting" over which school goes where. If you don't concern yourself with the long term tradition aspect (such as No. Arizona's inclusion with the Montana schools, or your example of the long time Idaho St & Weber rivalry) then this is far simpler. Dividing into two separate football conferences can be done. Though however you slice it, it will never have universal approval. Yet, with 14 teams it does need to be done.

NAU joined the conference in 1972, and at the time, they were considered "outside" the normal boundaries of the conference, similar to UND nowadays. NAU never did get a true conference geographic rival until SUU came in.

[Grizzlies82]

North-South would make the most sense geographically:

PSU, EWU, UI, ISU, UM, MSU, UND

Your North/South option (PSU, EWU, Idaho, ID St, Montana, MT St, & UND) is sound. Though it ends the very long term connections with Weber St & No. Arizona.

An East/West option (UND, N. CO, MT, MT St, ID, ID St, Weber) then (PSU, EWU, Cal Davis, Cal Poly, Sac St, So Utah, No Arizona) still eliminates NAU from the other long time core Big Sky schools. Geographically NAU is the outlier from them, just as No Dakota is the outlier from all the Big Sky schools today.

From Montana's perspective it's essential only two schools are conference foes. The MT St rivalry began in the 1800's, and even though the Vandals left the Big Sky 20 yrs ago, the Idaho rivalry is UM's second longest running. Because of their recent competitive rivalry and close proximity (230 miles) everyone would also like to retain a conference tie to E. WA. Though that isn't as important as either Idaho, or MSU. Games with EWU could also be done as a guaranteed annual non-conference match up. As I mentioned above, no matter how it is done, carving up the baby is going to leave somebody unhappy.

[Nickels]

Haha. Welcome to the scheduling **** show. Glad to have yall on board.

[JALMOND]

As brought up on the PSU fans board a few weeks ago, with a 9 game schedule, 7 schools would play 5 conference home games and the other 7 would play only 4 home conference games per year. In the issue of fairness, it would be logical to assume each group of 7 would switch year after year having five home games per year. But the issue becomes when schools like Montana get five home conference games every year while schools like Portland State for example would get only 4 home conference games every year. It makes sense in the terms of fairness to switch off, but financially it does not. How soon would it be when the conference decides to go with the money instead of fairness (like they did with the ROOT deal)?

[dudeitsaid]

North-South would make the most sense geographically:

PSU, EWU, UI, ISU, UM, MSU, UND

That would concentrate almost all of the conference strength into one group. In the south, NAU and Cal Poly are frequently solid, and SUU is a rising star, but UCD, Sac St, Weber, and UNC are as freqently in the bottom as EWU, UM, and MSU are on top. But, I like competitive games, and would love to be playing the teams in the North every year.

[dudeitsaid]

Best division of 7 probably would be MSU, UM, ISU, WSU, EWU, UI and PSU in one and the rest in the other.

PSU could easily go with the south and UND in the north in this set up, especially being by a major airport, and the travel to most of the southern teams would be an easy flight for PSU.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

This seems like bigger news that their app. :D

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PantherRob82 again.

[Bisonwinagn]

As brought up on the PSU fans board a few weeks ago, with a 9 game schedule, 7 schools would play 5 conference home games and the other 7 would play only 4 home conference games per year. In the issue of fairness, it would be logical to assume each group of 7 would switch year after year having five home games per year. But the issue becomes when schools like Montana get five home conference games every year while schools like Portland State for example would get only 4 home conference games every year. It makes sense in the terms of fairness to switch off, but financially it does not. How soon would it be when the conference decides to go with the money instead of fairness (like they did with the ROOT deal)?

No need to worry about that. The presidents and AD's would never approve it.

[kalm]

PSU could easily go with the south and UND in the north in this set up, especially being by a major airport, and the travel to most of the southern teams would be an easy flight for PSU.

Yeah...but there goes our Dam rivalry. :D

[JALMOND]

PSU could easily go with the south and UND in the north in this set up, especially being by a major airport, and the travel to most of the southern teams would be an easy flight for PSU.

PSU can't afford to fly to all conference games, especially if one of our money games is taken away. The closest school in the south, Sacramento, is 550 miles away, same distance as Missoula. UND, on the other hand, has the resources to fly there, so stick them in the south.