Big Sky commish: 'We're in a better place than the WAC is'

By Brian Murphy
bmurphy@idahostatesman.com

On the day that the rebuilding Western Athletic Conference added Seattle University as its ninth member beginning in 2012, Big Sky commissioner Doug Fullerton disputed the popular opinion that members of his league are not ready to move to the WAC.

Fullerton said the WAC has had contact with at least six Big Sky schools during its recent expansion effort — Montana, Montana State, Cal Poly, UC Davis, Sacramento State and Portland State. Idaho State is also a member of the Big Sky.

"It's not that we're not ready to move. We've got schools that are ready to move if they get a good proposal. They could move and make it very easily. Not being ready to move is not correct," Fullerton said.

"We're in a better place than the WAC is."

The WAC will have seven football-playing schools, starting in July 2012. The league is still seeking at least one additional football-playing member, commissioner Karl Benson said.

The Big Sky is a member of the Football Championship Subdivision (FCS), formerly known as Division I-AA. The WAC is one of 11 Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) conferences.

Boise State and Nevada were once members of the Big Sky before making the jump to the FBS. The schools have enjoyed football success at the FBS level, making them outliers among schools that have made the jump.

Fullerton said just five of the 19 schools to make the move from FCS to FBS since the 1970s have winning records.

Boise State and Nevada, current members of the WAC, are making the move to the Mountain West Conference.

Fullerton said some Big Sky schools could compete in the WAC immediately, but that doesn't make it a good move.

"It's not that they're not ready. That's not the truth. You don't have to get married the first time you get proposed to. You can wait for that offer that's right," Fullerton said.

Fullerton pointed out that the WAC will have just one bowl tie-in for the 2012 season, though the league could add games in a backup situation.

The Big Sky has undergone expansion of its own — adding Cal Poly, UC Davis, Southern Utah and North Dakota for play in 2012. The league will have 13 members at that time.

"We have 13 football-playing institutions that are very, very competitive with anybody left in the WAC," Fullerton said.

Fullerton said WAC members Idaho and Utah State would be ideal members of his league and said he is exploring creative ways to lure the two schools. Idaho was a member of the Big Sky from its 1963 inception until 1996.

"If down the road something happens that those guys understand and realize they can't catch the big guys and there's something else we can do that makes sense and bring some efficiencies back to the budgets of those schools ... Utah State and Idaho are the right kind of schools," Fullerton said.

Idaho and Utah State have not expressed an interest in moving to the Big Sky.

He added: "If there was a creative way that I could allow them to continue their FBS-ness and get this all put together, that's the direction I would take."

You can follow Murph's Turf on Twitter.

You can find links to stories, photos and video by being a fan of Brian Murphy on Facebook.

Wow

rarely is a commish so forthcoming about the landscape. Congrats commish and good luck to the big sky! Fond memories of the big sky are in Boise.

Big Sky is in a Better Place

Doug Fullerton is correct. The University of Idaho, Utah State University, and San Jose State University have all publicly stated they would like to join the Mountain West Conference and believe themselves to be good fits there. Even Louisiana Tech has made no secret that it would like to become a member of Conference USA. How inviting and enticing of a conference is the WAC when its own members have let it be known that they don't even want to be there? There is no stability, period.

At least with the Big Sky, there are a core number of schools who aren't going anywhere. Even with the addition of the University of North Dakota, the Big Sky still has a tighter geographic footprint than the WAC does. The vast majority of Big Sky schools are closer to Grand Forks, North Dakota, than they are to Ruston, Louisiana. Heck, Grand Forks is closer to most Big Sky schools AND Moscow and Logan than each of those schools is to San Marcos, TX (Texas State) and San Antonio, TX (UT-SA). I would imagine the travel costs for Seattle University and UI will spike with non-revenue sports traveling to Texas and Louisiana every year. The Big Sky has already stated it would like to create two divisions, thereby keeping traveling within the school's own geographic region.

Regarding the "academic peer" argument, the Carnegie Foundation classifies the University of Idaho and Utah State University as Research University - High (RU/H) institutions. Other schools classified as RU/H are Idaho State University, University of Montana, University of North Dakota, Portland State University, and Northern Arizona University. Ranked one tier above the Carnegie RU/H classification is the Research University - Very High (RU/VH) classification. Schools ranked as RU/VH include most PAC-12 schools, Ivy League institutions, as well as Montana State University and UC Davis. If you want to be in a conference with "academic peers," the Big Sky would have to get the nod (no current WAC schools are classified as RU/VH).

BOOM!! Goes the Dynamite!!

Wow.
Really can't add to that.
"...that those guys realize and understand..."
Freakin ouch.
"FBS-ness"

Man I know they don't want to jump down, but for long term stability (at least viewed currently) it could be in their best interest. But, EGO EGO EGO will not let either do it.

But, getting called out as a conference by a "lower one" BOOM!!!

Karma

Benson, Utah State and BYU tried to screw Boise St. and the MWC. Didn't quite work out the way they had planned, and karma is a )&(*&.

Agree 100%

All three tried, and failed. The only one really hurt out of it is Utah St. BYU will play Indy for a few years then get picked up by a reorganized Big 12 and Benson will continue to draw a large paycheck being the Commish of a bad conference...for a few more years.

This is good to hear and way to go!

----------

Just because it's a WORLD wide web doesn't mean anybody past Jordan Valley cares! Get drunk and give us that crappy singing voice we missed.

I can see your wind

and hope you can swim.

Lots of crap on this site for to practice some days.....

oh ambiguously ambiguous one.

----------

Just because it's a WORLD wide web doesn't mean anybody past Jordan Valley cares! Get drunk and give us that crappy singing voice we missed.

It's a stretch?

The Big Sky commish is a little too full of it. Yes, their conference is more stable than the WAC, but they are nuts if they think it is comparable. He is feeding a line of crap that there are Big Sky schools that are ready to go FBS but don't b/c the Big Sky is better than the WAC? Balogna!
If Montana and Montana St. want to go, they will go. They are scared, that is all. I think they are short-sighted, but that is my opinion. I think Montana could follow the same path as Boise St.
When they are ready to pull the trigger, they will go and there is nothing that Fullerton can do or say that will change their mind.

bobby bandwagon

you might want to re read the article again. Think about who will be in the WAC in 2013, then think about who will be in the Big sky conf in 2013. Add that to the fact that UM is one of the few school that make money, the Wacs unstable future and the next round of conference shakeups due in 2013 and you have the answer. To say they are scared shows you do not Know anything about how these things are put together. You have to think 10 years ahead at least. and in 10 years, UM will probably be FBS and the WAC wont exist. They are being smart, do you now that NMState had to have a bake sale for football equiptment (not kidding) and Fresno had their coach take a paycut to stay solvent, the fresno bee is constantly pumping our financial articles on Fresno state. Educate yourself man! UM and the other big sky schools just arent falling for the pyramid scheme the WAC is knocking on their door with.

Your are probably both correct

From my perspective the WAC is only as stable as the members are committed to the conference's mission. Since football is the primary determining factor that drives conference affiliation the conference's future is uncertain. In the meantime, not all Big Sky members (MSU) are happy with such a large conference because the new schedule format has broken apart important rivalries and increased travel costs for some. Finally, there might be some validity to the fear factor. This is only 3rd hand information but about 9 months ago I was told Montana's primary concern is they cannot recruit enough athletes to complete at the FBS level on a consistent basis.

I also wanted to comment on this

"From my perspective the WAC is only as stable as the members are committed to the conference's mission."

sportsisfun1960, this is odd that we can have an intelligent debate with no namecalling given the history on these boards, I'm proud of us!
but I think this idea I quoted is untrue. An institution can be as commited as they want to the "conference mission" (whatever that is, and arent they all the same?) but it comes down to money, and ability to field a successful program. I can want all I want to play in the NFL but the fact is that I just dont have the skills and resources to do so. We all love the "rudy" mentality but sometimes it ends up being more like the end of "lucas" for the sake of continuing the conversation in a civil manner I will pick on NMstate instead of my favorite target. they can commit to the mission all they want it just aint going to happen. At first there was some question if the WAC would be able to pull a rabbit out of the hat again, but it is becoming more and more evident that as schools shy away, and the addition of Bball schools the wac is going the way of the big west. I think it is time for NMstate and the other WAC schools to seriously consider other options. Perhaps la tech being in the deep south can justify a FBS football program (and I think they have one foot out the WAC door) It is truely sad and wrong the way money and the BCS has caused this. But it is also wrong to throw precious money after foolish pride.

I get what you're saying...

and I appreciate a civil conversation as well. I'm not necessarily defending my comment but I want to expand on my earlier thoughts that compelled me to make that statement. First, I wouldn't be surprised if all of the WAC schools, (with the exeception of the schools that haven't yet officially become members) have one foot in and one foot out the door. As for the WAC I don't have a clear idea of what the conferences mission is nor do I know if they have a shared vision. It just seemed to me that a few years ago the conference was unified with its vision to "Play Up" and I think it worked out really well for all the WAC members. I think everybody's level of play has vastly improved, particularly the past 5 years. However, with the upcoming departure of Boise St and the future departures of Fresno, Nevada and Hawaii I'm not so sure the conference has any defined identity. So, without the members being committed to a common cause it becomes a loose alliance.

Also, while I don't understand the details the money involved, (I gotta read that book VNDL has spoken about regarding the BCS) I do understand the challenges of having sustainable budgets to compete at the FBS level. (I live in the midst of PAC12 country and see the power of TV each season.) If I correctly recall, the PAC 12 schools will receive up to $20 million each year compared to the to the MWC $1.2 million per school. That's a massive difference and it concerns me a great deal...I don't necessarily like it but there's nothing I can do to change it and just like most people I will keep tuning into college football each day there's a game to be played. So, I guess I'm part of the problem.

As for the remaining WAC teams and what the alumni, fans, etc desire? All that I can tell you is that I sat through lots of 55-10 blowouts against teams like Mankato St because those were the only teams to come and visit Moscow. The crowds were extremely dismal and I can remember a game against some school like the Colorado College of Mines where only the band and teams showed up. Today, while the crowds aren't huge compared to the larger metro areas today, the crowds are much larger and there's lots more energy and enthusiasm when teams such as Western Michigan, Colo St, UNLV and SDSU show up.

As an alumni, it makes it much more enjoyable and worthwhile to spend my time and money visiting Moscow for a game. Anyway, I'm not sure if its pride or just what the market desires. If the UI alumni can't support FBS football then it might just as well they drop football and perhaps replace it with hockey, baseball, soccer and other sports. Gosh, I remember a game against Weber St when only the band was in the stands along with a few thousand spectators...so I guess it comes down to what people want to support.

As for the WAC...I would be happy if it simply becomes a conference that enabled schools the opportunity to compete at the FBS level. Perhaps it'll mean 2 to 3 money games per year but I really enjoy when Idaho plays in Seattle, Corvallis and Eugene. There's lots of alumni living over here and a lot of them do show up for the games when played here.

I think the conference

head honcho has been very honest an candid. I also think UM has no need of recruiting worries they would only have to recruit a tad better than now. If NMstate, UI and Latech think that they belong in the FBS recruiting world more than montana it is laughable. Wyoming is the model that UM is looking to follow not BSU. Everyone wants to hit the BSU homerun but Wyoming has made a solid move that UM could reasonably expect to duplicate. UM could win some non AQ conferences with the teams they field now. If you had UM's players in the WAC, BIG West, Sunbelt or MWC for the last 20 years they would have some championship trophies. Now there is no way to prove that but as a BSU fan I am glad they were in the Big sky the past 10 years.
I think your third hand info is shakey. It is about the MONEY for the scolarships not about who would fill the scholarships. As soon as one understands this they will understand what CFB is about and how scholarships, divisions, conferences, and winning works. This is exactly the reason UI needs to consider the big sky. with or without montana it makes financial sense and the stakes are such that we are gambling the WACs and UIs future on our childrens shoulders. I think in this situation UM is behaving in the most resposible way imaginable. And I think that 10 years in the future you will see the difference in that approach VS the WAC schools approach.

I agree

3rd hand information can be shakey...especially since it came from a local attorney who got his undergrad degree at Montana and claimed his father is a UM athletics insider. So, who really knows? I just know he shared this information with me weeks before Montana turned down the WAC's offer to join. However, the Montana St unhappiness with the recent Big Sky moves came from the Bozeman newspaper that I'm pretty sure quoted the MSU's president.

As I mentioned earlier, I personally understand the difference between being motivated to attend a game against teams like Colorado St versus Mankato St. I also think today's teams are more robust and much deeper than the teams fielded in the 1980's and 1990's. Plus the level of competition is much more entertaining to watch. For example, a few years ago we made the 7-hour trip to Moscow to watch Colt Brennan play in his last season at Hawaii. The only time I recall attending a game to watch and opposing teams quarterback was when I attended a game in Pocatello to watch Idaho State play Portland State when June Jones was playing at PSU.

As for behaving in a responsible manner...is it responsible for MWC teams to compete with PAC 12 teams who'll be earning up to $20 million each compared to the MWC teams annual $1.2 million? I personally don't think it's any less responsible than being in a conference that receives $750K per year in TV money. In my view the TV revenue difference between the PAC 12 and MWC is probably more than 1,500%. That's huge. I'm not sure what the WAC teams earn but if they only earn $750K in TV revenue per team then the difference is more than 2,500%. So, I'm not sure how you judge what's responsible.

WAC TV Revenue

Last year, the WAC members only made approximately $400,000 per team in TV revenue. There has already been talk of that number being cut by half or more. I think Big Sky teams made about $60,000 to $75,000 in TV revenue (the conference shares TV deals, such as Montana's, but also games shown on Altitude and ESPN's airing of the conference tournament championship). Most of this info is from a Hawaii newspaper:

http://www.staradvertiser.com/sports/sportsnews/20110303_nevada_tv_holding_up_schedule.html

The Big Sky is a way better conference...

...than the MWC, especially with Boise in it. Boise could be the flagship school and introduce the blue turf to a whole new generation of inbreds!!!

As it is though, the MWC with Boise is a weakazz, wannabee conference whose best team is bolting after the season.

Oh well, there's always Vegas in December...and all those Hee haw reruns!!

Rack me again!! Will it ever end...answer is...when pigs...er...donkeys fly...or play for the NC!!

In other words, no, your racking of my truths will never end!!

Fo, go to bed.

or work your shift at albies.

Those cellphone pix of your hip pads were just WRONG.

----------

Just because it's a WORLD wide web doesn't mean anybody past Jordan Valley cares! Get drunk and give us that crappy singing voice we missed.

BDuck....on Boise State...

a person has to admit, their 2011 schedule is their best ever and is a good one....their 2011 schedule matches many of the cfb best....

if BSU goes 12-0 plus a bowl win, would you agree they deserve a shot at the NC selection?

My prediction is that Boise State will go 9-3....albeit, they will beat Georgia...

The problem with the BCS is that it is a fraternity that will not allow the dormitory (Boise State) into their party....a dormie winning is anathema!

If BSU goes the way (13-0), do they deserve a shot?

ugly...are you on something...smoking cowpie again???

Georgia, Toledo and Tulsa and the rest are teams from the mwc, all but one from non aq conferences????

That's the weakazz of weakazz schedules. One BCS team?? Really!!!

Try again...weak is weak. Play 2-3 BCS teams at least and show you mean business, instead of 1 team a season and then it's Nancy Kerrigan the rest of the way...WHY!!! WHY?? WHY??? dont we get included...

...answer is...because you dont do the work!!!

Rack me!!!!

BDuck....no cowpie smokin...just

saying it is BSU best schedule ever....also, Georgia not of MWC and is a BCS....

The only way Boise State will be able to play 3 BCS teams each season is if they either go independent, or belong to a bcs division....

Look at the Virginia Tech joke....BSU and Clemson wins....yet VT in Orange Bowl....

If BSU wins 2 BCS teams in 2011 and goes 13-0; do you think they should have a shot at the NC?

PS....I am not a BSU fan....I like Bronco football and own two stocks....I am still a Vandal....Moscow is always in my heart....

BDuck good to see you!!!

Tell me where you live and I'd be glad to kick you in the rack. One more time with feeling. Name ONE team that plays 2-3 BCS teams a year that is a non-AQ school. I've asked you to do this at least a dozen times. You have never come back with an answer. Still waiting for it...

In the mean time... What kind of Duck crashes on the Blue Bronco Turf?
Why that would be the Oregon Ducks.

Peace Out.

doggystyle and pony show...since you asked...

...I guess I can do the work for you. Typical mule fan though...wants to spout off, then just plain afraid and embarrASSed to do the work. I thought you may want to research it for yourself...but don't worry...I will for you...

Are you ready...Ask your inbred buddies tpunk, sanford and son, broncos81 and the rest of the hillbilly bunch...ive posted this several times...once more just for you...

Since the BCS era began (1998), just a sampling of schools, there are many others that have played the games, these are the 5 major (according to the media, there really are no major non aq's) non aq's.

Fresno has played two bcs teams a season 13 times, or every season in the bcs era, and 3 in a season 9 times

TCU has played 2 bcs teams a season 8 times, 3 in a season twice

BYU has played 2 bcs teams in a season 13 times, or every season in the bcs era, 7 seasons playing 3, 1 season playing 4 and 1 season playing 5

Utah has played 2 bcs teams in a season 9 times, 5 seasons playing 3

Boise has played 2 bcs teams in a season 4 times, never 3 in a season. every other season is 1.

There you have it. Whats the excuse?? All you guys ever say is that no these teams have not played this many games against bcs teams. Well, im sure you dont believe me so look it up for yourself. What is Boise's excuse?? Why are they the only ones who flat out do not play BCS teams?? And how can Boise claim unfairness when thjey clearly do not play the games, do the work and prove it on the field.

Easy to say no one will play us...easy to say the BCS is unfair, but clearly all the other teams have no problem getting games...they played the games and guess what...TCU and Utah...BCS members, BYU, indy...Fresno, still an non aq, but mostly because of the acedemics, and the lack of success on the football field.

I'm waiting...I better not hold my breath...I know its gonna be the same old, same old...

So bcluck

being so informed as you are, why does Oregon refuse to play BSU again?

Simple question............................

tpunk...puppet master says...

...I cannot answer that. I dont think they refuse to play Boise. You know as well as I do that schedules are made seasons in advance, especially non conf games. I would hope it has nothing to do with the 2 losses, but I do not know. I as a fan would love another home and home with Boise. I dont know any Oregon fans who wouldnt love a chance at redemption. Most of the players from those 2 games are gone now, so if the powers that be wont let it happen, who knows why.

Why doesnt Boise just man up and play 2-3 games against BCS teams one season, win them, then finish undefeated and maybe Oregon could get Boise in a bowl game.

Well bcluck

You have no idea why Oregon refuses (according to your former AD) to play BSU but then argue that we should have no problem getting games?

PS, schedules don't always get done seasons in advance. Take your ducks, just this January they signed Arkansas State to a game (and paid them $950K) for 2012. The ducks still have a opening in 2012 and 2013, two openings in 2014 and 2015, and 3 openings in 2016 and 2017.

tpunk...

...I would schedule Boise if I could, however there are 60+ BCS teams out there.

I'm sure Boise could get 2-3 games a season like Fresno, Utah, TCU and BYU have done consistently over the last 13 seasons.

Excuses are all I ever hear. You cant get a game with Oregon, oh well...how about Iowa State, Kansas State, Miss St, Indiana, baylor, Texas Tech...the list goes on and on and on of 2nd and 3rd tier BCS teams that would bolster Boise's non conf showing...but instead its just more of the same...one game, 12 little sisters and then... Nancy Kerrigan...Why!!! Why!! Why!!!!

One would think that eventually Toledo and Tulsa just wouldn't make sense to Boise, that is if Boise REALLY wants to be taken seriously. Sounds and looks like little man syndrome...to little to compete, so do the minimum and cry unfairness!!!!!

So you cant get another game with Oregon...so what!! Do the work...obviously Boise does not want to do the work, pay their dues, do the travel. I'm sure if Boise did 2-3 a season like the others we wouldn't have 13-0 Boise every other year, we would have 9-4 Boise...just another Fresno State!!

Rack me again...so much truth in my words!!!!

dognphonyshow...where oh where are you

...you asked me to do the work for you, and even though I had posted the same info several times before, I did again, just for your ignorant, lazy azz.

But, where oh where is your response?? I have been waiting. Will you be the first Bronco fan to offer something in response other than the same old "nobody will play us"??

Waiting....

No you are still missing it

it isnt about 20 mill vs 1.2 mil vs 750 thou. It is about losing money. The teams in the MWC are either football money makers or have the potential to be. NMstate, and Idaho or any wac sky school for that matter is losing money hand over fist. Look, I get teh idea that you want to see other teams play UI. but here is the thing, Big sky football was way more exiting than WAC football has been. Heck, I played a league below and it was better, more competative and more exiting to watch. BSU, has been the flagbearer for innovative play calling but honestly, Big sky football was just as exiting.
The following numbers are purely speculation and not an accurate reflection.
Say you need 10 mil in football revenue to at least justify having an athletics program at an FBS level. And say the average MWC school will bring in 12 mil. But the average WAC school will bring in 2 million. It doesnt matter that the average pac whatever school makes 50 million, at 12 million you are solvent. The other issue is the money that a league makes from BCS bowls and appearances. The wac will now be without that. The MWC will dominate any shot at a BCS bowl until they change the system which they will if the make the MWC an "honorary" BCS conference if just ot shut the critics of the system up. Where are the WAC schools going to get the money that they used to that even then caused some schools to almost go broke. No BSU fresno and nevada, no espn huge contracts, no BCS bowls, and a lesser share of the BCS money that goes to non AQ schools than the MWC.
I think the story that is really getting lost here is just how dire the situation is for schools like idaho, NMstate and to some extent even some MWC schools.
I know you like the idea of watching the ole team play at the "highest" level but the price is going to be to high. The whole thing may be moot anyway but I would respect UI more if it saw the writing on the wall and acted appropriately. there are many that disagree and think that it is my blind hatred, and honestly it does bring me a little joy, BUT it doesnt change the fact that all the WAC schools should look at this from a logic standpoint. SU did right by joining, they are just starting up Bball again and the WAC will probably have a Bball look to it just like the big west does now.

dont be mad at the bronco fans who will undoubtably call joy at the situation. But be mad at the tragedy of the BCS system! It is unfair, unamerican and unsportsmanlike. It is unfair and the unfairness that you hear BSU fans complain about is nothing compared to the unfairness to teams like NMstate and UI.
Be sure that if the MWC gets a dog crumbs invite to the BCS system that any courtcase or hearings in congress will never ever happen again. And the BCS knows this. And that is why my freind they will be granted BCS status, BSU fans will cheer but a little of our soul will be chipped away.

potato head...you go on and on and continue to show that...

...you know nothing!! You are as ignorant as the rest of mule nation!!

The MWC will never be invited to join the BCS as a conference. There is not one school in that conference with the acedemic credentials to qualify...thats it...game over...case closed.

You see, my fine hooved friend...it about more than football, or to you, fooseball!! Universities are about more than athletics. That is why TCU and Utah were granted memberships...because their acedemics have the acredidation required, the reputations and research status desired by the institutions themselves, the presidents and the professors.

Its more than football...but as usual, you inbreds just cant get past the unfairness. Its not unfair...do the work...play the games...build your acedemic reputation, deserve it on both ends before you just cry unfairness and think that it will be given to you.

Never gonna happen potato head!!!

FO, do you have something to add?

or is that all you got?

You'd lose the racing stripe with more soap.

----------

Just because it's a WORLD wide web doesn't mean anybody past Jordan Valley cares! Get drunk and give us that crappy singing voice we missed.

You cant stack the cakes that high.

-------

What cakes? Why would they be stacked?

----------

Just because it's a WORLD wide web doesn't mean anybody past Jordan Valley cares! Get drunk and give us that crappy singing voice we missed.

um bcluck

Please show me where, anywhere, that the BCS has set academic standards for a conference to qualify as a BCS conference.

PS, don't look too hard, there are none

tpunk...your moron is showing...

...the BCS doesn't have that qualification. In the end, it's up to the conferences and the presidents. They vote on letting Utah into the Pac 12 or TCU in to the Big East. The BCS has nothing to do with it.

Rack me again!!!!!!!!!!

bcluck, read your own post

and I will quote you...

"The MWC will never be invited to join the BCS as a conference. There is not one school in that conference with the acedemic credentials to qualify...thats it...game over...case closed."

Again, dare I say "moron", there is NO academic qualification for a conference to become a "BCS" conference.

Stick to your obsessive (borderline phobic) rants about BSU and stay away from real football subjects.......

tpunk...your moron is showing again!!!

No there is not an acedemic qualification for schools to become part of the BCS, but there is for a schools to join the Pac 12, Big East, Big 12, Big 10, ACC and SEC.
That is why Boise will never become part of those conferences, because Boise's acedemics are so far below what is the standard the the major conferences.

And "those conferences" ARE the BCS moron...so, because of the above factoids, Boise will never be a "BCS" school...like everything else, you mules cant see the forest for the trees...leave it to the master to spell it out for you...again!!!

Poor bcluck

Confused over his own post........

Again

Very interesting...

I don't understand the economics of college football. I think your correct about basketball. I did read in the San Antonio paper that Benson said the league is looking at a model whereas basketball could be profitable.

I'm not a BSU hater and I don't understand the UI haters but its nothing that I can control so I'm not into those emotions. Though the arrogance of some BSU fans offends me at times I understand their pride in what's been accomplished at BSU.

I also don't like the unfairness of the current system...especially when most of our nations infrastructure is collapsing...at least the football stadiums will be left standing..

sif1960....

The UI hatred has come from years of jelousy....Idaho is a very good school with extremely successful graduates, and people become jelous....Boiseans of the BSU sector have always had animosity towards Idaho....That is why they want to eliminate them from football, politics, and business....

Now that BSU football is famous, they view this as their chance and opportunity....Idaho no longer dominates.....

That is the main reason I cannot become a full fledged BSU fan....

Boise State fans, many of them, are extremely arrogant....including the very few here in pocy....

Just when you want to root for Boise, you then meet a fan and change....

The stadium expansion won't happen.....troubled times....

9-3 will end it all.....

Ugly, why is VNDL doing a better job of

your promise than you are?
60 and I were having a discussion. then you start up with the 9=3 but beat georgia thing....
Bye bye loser.

P2....

....

Don't say loser until time comes....if Ugly is wrong, then ok....Ugly pays....

What will p2 think if BSU wins Georgia and then goes 9-3?....or what if BSU goes 9-3 from losing to Georgia, and thereafter?....

Your ego is ahead of your you know what....

ugly not as dumb as you think....

On VNDL? Who knows....

ugly has posted very little since my promise not to post on BSU football and statistics until gerogia season.....

when does georgia season begin?

I didnt know I was in middle of intelli conversation between you and sif1960, so sorry about that....

BSU 9-3.....

carry on with sif1960....

listen 60s

I am a docu.mented hater of the UI. My reasons are long and distinguished (like my johnson)
But you have been all over BSU in the past. cmon man lets own up to our weakness!
It really is unfair and if you like the model of sports as competition and a mirror of life or anything sports can be compared to you have to HATE the BCS. Now I know that as a BSU fan, if we go to a BCS conference, I will take the Gee position even though I know it to be an evil system. But the system is crap. And honestly I think it cannot survive in its current form. But we will see.

Outsider view of Boise State and U Of I relationship

I want to address the idea that BSU fans are all trying to make up for the years that UofI was the bigger, badder school. Please know that I am a newer Bronco Fan. I've only followed BSU the last 12 years or so. Sue me, I grew up in Southern Cal and cut my teeth on the USC vs UCLA thing. These are just my observations.

1) I have never heard a chant like, "Who do we hate... Boise State," at a nationally carried game before. Nor have I ever walked onto a universities grounds and see posters for Hate week. Rivals are one thing, out and out hate is very much another. That has nothing to do with sportsmanship and really should not be encouraged. You can have spirit weeks without fueling emotions like that. Way to help our college people prepair for the future.

2) "I just think that everyone from Kustra to Coach Pete are getting way to confident and I rejoice when ever the Broncos have a loss." Friend of mine over a couple beers. Okay, so BSU is moving up to play some other teams. Which is what so many people are wanting us to do. They are going to be playing those other team in order to become better themselves. Playing a far weaker team isn't really in the Bronco's best intress at this time. In order for a game to be a rival game there has to be a chance that either team can win. What I don't get is that UofI always goes back to, "You get a better education at UofI." So why care about Football? Yes, the Bronco's Football team is really good. But come on, rejoicing when they loss is really bad form. There is an old saying that goes, "Rejoice in your fows victories. When you defeat them you will appear all the stronger." BSU is really just dancing with the girl that brought us to the dance. You would think that other schools could learn from that.

I'm going to break it down:

To BSU: Great job at building a very solid sports program. It seems like you are upward bound in sports. It looks like you are building some solid educational options as well. That is great to see. As you travel through the growing pains of expanding into a stronger school don't forget where you came from. Never forget the hunger you have to become elite like so many other schools have. Stay humble enough to help other schools that are where you have been.

To UofI: Rejoice in the success of your little brother college to the south. Don't be upset that they are who they are. Center on being the best educational option in Idaho if that is who you are. If you truely want to be sports centered, start by not being a hater. You did yourself no favor with the, "Who do we hate." chant. Sorry to break it to you but your not BSU's rival anymore. I'm sorry but it's true.

Ok everybody

dog and pony is not me under another login. just want to get that out there. LOL
Good job d and p.

back to that imaginary jesus again. turn my head and hack..

You made the tapioca, don't ease it down with soda pop/

----------

Just because it's a WORLD wide web doesn't mean anybody past Jordan Valley cares! Get drunk and give us that crappy singing voice we missed.

Hate to say this DognPhony....but Idaho Grads

could care less about Boise State....all you have is football, and that will be short lived....so enjoy...

What we had and still have is a career and an excellent education....football was a very, very distant and passive past-time....sure we loved smokin you dudes 14 years straight, but it wasn't our life....

The hate BSU stuff at Idaho is over-rated and limited mostly to some fraternities for creating a party atmosphere against a rivalry....its a frat thing, ya know....

You must remember that over 30% of students came from the treasure and magic valley areas....so why would I, a treasure valley dude, hate BSU just cause I am now in Moscow (1982-1986)?....

The reason why BSU has a very paltry fan base is because bronco fanatics that are arrogant chase them off....

Go Georgia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the caring level is not nil?

********
You'd be bananas to feast in my mangroves.