WAC/Big Sky talks back on

[dgreco]

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/0...-decision.html

This is the first time I am seeing this. Can some explain how this would work, logistically, and if there has been any ideas of who ends up where. Also, would the WAC FB schools stay FB Independents or drop down to FCS?

[coover]

Evidently the WAC - Big Sky talks do not involve football.

[Squealofthepig]

Evidently the WAC - Big Sky talks do not involve football.

Yeah, the pertinent part from the article which makes this non-Football:

As for the Vandals’ other sports teams, Nellis said the WAC has restarted talks with the Big Sky about an alliance that would involve some teams moving from the Big Sky to the WAC for non-football sports.

[dgreco]

So does that mean WAC football goes away? Does it mean Idaho stays FBS independent or go back to FCS? I know no one has a definite answer, but what have the mumblings been?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I just don't see how Idaho (and NMSU) will get four home games apiece to stay in FBS in 2013. Currently the Vandals have 1 (NIU) and the Aggies have 0. They'll play each other, certainly.

They might remain in the WAC in all sports but football, and struggle as independents in FCS or FBS, or maybe the Big Sky as associate members.

[dgtw]

Idaho hosts NMSU this year, so it would be their turn to play them on the road in 2013.

If the two leagues got together, you could have this setup....

Big Sky
Seattle
Eastern Washington
Portland State
Idaho
Idaho State
Montana
Montana State
North Dakota

WAC
CSU Sacramento
Weber State
Southern Utah
Northern Colorado
Denver
New Mexico State
Northern Arizona

If Boise State wants back in instead of joining another league, I guess they'd fit in with the Big Sky, although that would leave the leagues unbalanced.

[Sec310]

The NCAA has/had an attendance and stadium requirement for 1A. Idaho never met the stadium requirement but some how kept 1A status. I don't recall the NCAA expelling a school from 1A for failing to meet attendance and/or stadium requirements. If the NCAA has a rule but doesn't enforce the rule, they need to change the rule or start enforcing the rule.

The WAC needs to make a decision about their future within the next two weeks. The most likely scenario is the WAC stops sponsoring football, then adding Bakersfield and Utah Valley as full members, then forming this alliance with the Big Sky with the two "conferences" looking like.

WAC
Idaho
New Mexico St.
Denver
Seattle
Bakersfield
Utah Valley

Northern Arizona
Portland St.
Sac. St.

Big Sky
Montana
Montana St.
Eastern Washington
Idaho St.
North Dakota
Northern Colorado
Southern Utah
Weber St.

[CopperCat]

I thought the big sky made it perfectly clear that they didn't want to move to the WAC when they added all the great west teams to strengthen the conference. But I guess if people still think it is a relevant topic then so be it.

[Sec310]

I thought the big sky made it perfectly clear that they didn't want to move to the WAC when they added all the great west teams to strengthen the conference. But I guess if people still think it is a relevant topic then so be it.

You do realize this has nothing to do with Big Sky schools moving up to WAC football. It's about keeping the WAC AQ for March Madness!!

[DSUrocks07]

You do realize this has nothing to do with Big Sky schools moving up to WAC football. It's about keeping the WAC AQ for March Madness!!

This is about the potential birth of a "Big Sky Football"entity (ala CAA Football). Which would also open the door for Idaho to enter as an affiliate member.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2