Big Sky or Summit

[82SiouxGuy]

It's tough to tell if star2 is really that glib when he goes into "ss.com's contracted conference expansion expert" mode.

Anyone who thinks that Montana is going to be looked-over because of this or that, it doesn't matter what petty reason you come up with. They're the only team in the Big Sky that is potentially FBS bound.

UC Davis (not in Big Sky obviously) is another one to watch.

A majority of the posters on egriz think it's a bad idea for Montana to move up because of the financial issues. But I guess you know more about the situation than the fans of the school. Oh wait, of course you do.

[MplsBison]

A majority of the posters on egriz think it's a bad idea for Montana to move up because of the financial issues. But I guess you know more about the situation than the fans of the school. Oh wait, of course you do.

Right, just like all the message boards and parroting media outlets were saying that Missouri was a lock for the Big Ten.

The businessmen behind the closed doors are the ones making the decisions, not message boards.

[82SiouxGuy]

Right, just like all the message boards and parroting media outlets were saying that Missouri was a lock for the Big Ten.

The businessmen behind the closed doors are the ones making the decisions, not message boards.

This isn't the same thing at all. In those cases they were listening to a prediction of what "would happen" and going along with it. These are people talking about what they believe "should happen" based on their knowledge of the situation. And in many cases it is against what they "would like to happen".

The President of the school has come out and said it shouldn't happen. The AD of the school has said that he doesn't think it will happen. The state has financial problems. The school would have major issues to address to make it work. The majority of the fans realize that it probably can't work because the school and the state can't afford to make the move even though they would like to do it. But you are sure that some money guys are going to force it to happen.

[MplsBison]

This isn't the same thing at all. In those cases they were listening to a prediction of what "would happen" and going along with it. These are people talking about what they believe "should happen" based on their knowledge of the situation. And in many cases it is against what they "would like to happen".

The President of the school has come out and said it shouldn't happen. The AD of the school has said that he doesn't think it will happen. The state has financial problems. The school would have major issues to address to make it work. The majority of the fans realize that it probably can't work because the school and the state can't afford to make the move even though they would like to do it. But you are sure that some money guys are going to force it to happen.

Like I said, petty message board excuses.

If you're the WAC taking a look at Big Sky and Great West football programs, Montana is the only program that is ready to go. There will be plenty of meetings between the WAC and the decision makers at Montana to find out what's really possible. And these are things that won't be seen on message boards and blogs.

[82SiouxGuy]

Like I said, petty message board excuses.

If you're the WAC taking a look at Big Sky and Great West football programs, Montana is the only program that is ready to go. There will be plenty of meetings between the WAC and the decision makers at Montana to find out what's really possible. And these are things that won't be seen on message boards and blogs.

What excuses are you talking about? The state and the school have strong financial concerns. Changing conferences and moving programs up are more than just about the sport itself. This will be a major business decision for the University and for the state of Montana. If if doesn't make financial sense, which many people feel it does not, then the school won't try to move to the WAC at this time. And it doesn't matter what the conference wants because they aren't paying the bills for the University, the school will decide for itself what is best.

You must get really bored if the most important thing you have to do is to try to pick a fight on an internet message board about something so minor. It's too bad that you don't have something more constructive to do with your time. I could try to help you find somewhere to volunteer if that would help fill your days.

[MplsBison]

What excuses are you talking about? The state and the school have strong financial concerns. Changing conferences and moving programs up are more than just about the sport itself. This will be a major business decision for the University and for the state of Montana. If if doesn't make financial sense, which many people feel it does not, then the school won't try to move to the WAC at this time. And it doesn't matter what the conference wants because they aren't paying the bills for the University, the school will decide for itself what is best.

You must get really bored if the most important thing you have to do is to try to pick a fight on an internet message board about something so minor. It's too bad that you don't have something more constructive to do with your time. I could try to help you find somewhere to volunteer if that would help fill your days.

I'm talking about all the excuses you keep parroting. Those are the kind of things that won't matter in the end.

The things that matter (like average attendance, program competitiveness, tradition) are the things that Montana has.

[82SiouxGuy]

I'm talking about all the excuses you keep parroting. Those are the kind of things that won't matter in the end.

The things that matter (like average attendance, program competitiveness, tradition) are the things that Montana has.

Actually what matters is how much is it going to cost, what sports do they have to add, how many scholarships do they have to add and how are they going to pay for everything. The things you mention don't matter nearly as much as the dollar. When are you going to learn that everything in college sports is related to money. The WAC may like the thought of adding Montana, but the school has the final say and they may not be able to afford it.

[homer]

I'm talking about all the excuses you keep parroting. Those are the kind of things that won't matter in the end.

The things that matter (like average attendance, program competitiveness, tradition) are the things that Montana has.

It won't do the WAC any good to invite Montana only to have them (Montana) start dropping programs in a few years because they can't afford them. Or it wouldn't do Montana any good to accept an invitation only to be the conference doormat because they can't afford to fully fund these programs (scholorships, coaches salaries, travel costs, having to recruit more out of state).

Those are the things that matter in the end. Also, what type of market would the WAC like to expand into? You seem to think you have all the answers even though you said a few months ago none of these changes where going to happen and if they did it wouldn't trickle down to conferences such as the Big Sky, MVC and possibly Summit League.

[The Sicatoka]

Right, just like all the message boards and parroting media outlets were saying that Missouri was a lock for the Big Ten.

That all came about because Missouri was actively courting (dare I say whoring itself out flagrantly to) the Big Ten. The media and message boards were merely abuzz with good ol' Mizzou's flirting.

Now contrast that with where the Montana president says he has no interest and egriz folks are saying that FBS shouldn't be considered.

I'd say those two situations are markedly different.

[GeauxSioux]

Let the speculation continue

A week from today, presidents from the schools in the Summit League will fly to Chicago for a meeting

[star2city]

WAC Presidents meeting today on expansion

If Montana's President was willing, Montana would probably be added now. But since Dennison is steadfast against FBS, it may be a number of years before Montana has another opportunity. If UC-Davis had an FBS-ready stadium and an athletic budget that wasn't threatened, UC-Davis would be picked. But since neither of those schools have FBS plans in place and a choice has to be made now, Sacramento State is likely to be picked. Portland St possibly too.

The WAC may delay any announcement until after they know La Tech is gone. If La Tech isn't gone by June 30th, the WAC may wait another year before adding a team, which might move Montana to the top.

[MplsBison]

Sac St has a nice track stadium. I've watched the NCAA championships and US olympic trials on TV when it was hosted there.

Not as nice for football.

If WAC takes Sac over Montana, they're desperate.

[GeauxSioux]

Sac St has a nice track stadium. I've watched the NCAA championships and US olympic trials on TV when it was hosted there.

Not as nice for football.

If WAC takes Sac over Montana, they're desperate.

Larger market and willing to make the jump, according to Wanless.

[MplsBison]

Larger market and willing to make the jump, according to Wanless.

I'm glad the Sac AD is doing his job. I would fire him if he advocated another school.

[GeauxSioux]

I'm glad the Sac AD is doing his job. I would fire him if he advocated another school.

Vhat!!

[star2city]

Portland State to WAC?

Portland State's AD Torre Chisholm, the Vikings’ director of athletics, said "he hasn’t thought about the possibility of making the jump. But the school clearly has plenty at stake in the WAC’s decision."

With Portland State's budget only $10 million, Portland State would need to up it's budget by probably $5-8 million to even be considered by the WAC. Sac State is at $15 mill and expects to add $3 mill if they go to the WAC.

So far, Terry Wanless appears to be the only western AD who has support of his President in the pursuit of WAC bid. Texas State wants in, but there will be ample opportunities later for them in the Sunbelt.

The Oregon article also states that the WAC will act sooner than later. Since conference membership notifications normally must occur prior to July 1st to prevent high exit fees, look for the WAC to act this week.

Idaho Statesman: WAC is considering non-football school

Financially, the WAC likely would be better off with eight teams. However, a ninth team would provide a desirable four-home, four-away football schedule and a 10th team would allow for easier basketball travel.

The three non-football schools that have likely expressed interest are Denver, Seattle, and Utah Valley. Adding Denver would add media exposure (Denver is on Fox Sports Rocky Mountain), provide NMSU with a travel partner when La Tech leaves, and add a solid athletic and academic school.

In all likelihood, the WAC will add Sacramento State and Denver this week. If that happens, Southern Utah likely gets an immediate invite from the Big Sky.

With the WAC having a goal of 12 schools sometime late in the decade, look for the WAC to add schools every two to three years.

[MplsBison]

La Tech isn't going to any other FBS conference any time soon...no one wants them.

Denver to WAC is possible, but I Sac St doesn't hold a candle to Montana as far as football membership.

[Goon]

I'm glad the Sac AD is doing his job. I would fire him if he advocated another school.

Wow that's a great idea there Skippy. Did you stay up all night thinking that one up?

[Risky]

Did anyone hear if anything was discussed at the Summit meeting today?

[dakotadan]

I haven't heard a peep from anyone. I haven't heard if there was even the slightest bit of discussion about our application or not.

[UND92,96]

Did anyone hear if anything was discussed at the Summit meeting today?

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/arti...group/homepage/

[homer]

This was also discussed and could be interesting.

[jimdahl]

This was also discussed and could be interesting.

I know I could dig this up myself, but someone might just know... how many Summit schools already sponsor football in a different conference?

I wonder what the Summit bylaws say about teams in the conference having to be affiliated with the conference in all sports it sponsors? If there were enough football-homeless Summit teams willing to start up football and/or move to the Summit, that could leave those who play football elsewhere with an interesting choice.

[Hambone]

I know I could dig this up myself, but someone might just know... how many Summit schools already sponsor football in a different conference?

I wonder what the Summit bylaws say about teams in the conference having to be affiliated with the conference in all sports it sponsors? If there were enough football-homeless Summit teams willing to start up football and/or move to the Summit, that could leave others with an interesting choice.

I believe SDSU, NDSU, Western Illinois and Southern Utah.

[star2city]

I believe SDSU, NDSU, Western Illinois and Southern Utah.

USD is also a conference member officially next summer.

Conference bylaws normally require schools to participate with all sports in which more than half the conference members offer the sport and / or if an autobid becomes available.

If UND would be added, that likely as stated before, by conference bylaws, forces the Summit to sponsor football.

All membership in the Summit would have to vote in to give football an exemption from conference requirements.

But since it is a conference bylaw, a 3/4 th's vote is normally required to pass.

NDSU, SDSU, and WIU would need to all five of the non-football members to vote to change conference bylaws: that's likely not to happen.

As stated a number of times, SUU probably has to leave for Summit football not to be required by conference bylaws.

However, if Summit football is inevitable, NDSU, SDSU, and WIU always have the option to leave the Summit. Maybe the Big Sky rethinks it's position: offering UND/NDSU or NDSU/SDSU. NDSU would probably strongly consider that option to avoid Summit Football.