Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)

Ranking the Conferences

Avatar

Posted: 11/08/2012 6:58 PM

Ranking the Conferences 


http://espn.go.com/mens-colleg...lege-basketball

ESPN's annual preseason rankings of all 32 conferences are out:

#8 MWC
#13 WAC
#26 Big Sky
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/08/2012 8:41 PM

Re: Ranking the Conferences 


Wonderful. I'm sure glad that we're moving BACKwards into that "storied" conference.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/09/2012 12:14 PM

Re: Ranking the Conferences 



VandalMar wrote: Wonderful. I'm sure glad that we're moving BACKwards into that "storied" conference.
To be fair - it will be almost exactly 2 years from right now when Idaho actually plays a game as a member of the Big Sky.  By that time, after all the defections from the WAC (if it even still exists at that time) - I won't be surprised if the BSC is rated higher than the WAC.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/09/2012 2:46 PM

Re: Ranking the Conferences 



GoVandals1893 wrote:
VandalMar wrote: Wonderful. I'm sure glad that we're moving BACKwards into that "storied" conference.
To be fair - it will be almost exactly 2 years from right now when Idaho actually plays a game as a member of the Big Sky.  By that time, after all the defections from the WAC (if it even still exists at that time) - I won't be surprised if the BSC is rated higher than the WAC.
I agree, once USU leaves and UVU and CSUB are added there won't be much difference between the WAC and Big Sky other than NMSU.  And who knows how long the remaining WAC schools will even stick it out.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/09/2012 6:43 PM

Re: Ranking the Conferences 


I was mainly slamming the spin out of our president's office that moving to the Big Sky is some kind of a good thing or a step up. It's not. In fact, I'm pretty sure that it was a stronger basketball league when we were in it before.

I'd rather hear talk out of the president that the move to the Big Sky is a sensible cost-saving move as we work to right our football ship and find a home in an FBS conference. Instead, it was baloney about the Big Sky and a very tepid endorsement of FBS.....when we need a real leader to sell Idaho FBS football.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/09/2012 9:32 PM

RE: Ranking the Conferences 


What's the difference between a 1 bid big sky and 1 bid WAC?
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/10/2012 1:00 PM

RE: Ranking the Conferences 



alle9219 wrote: What's the difference between a 1 bid big sky and 1 bid WAC?
A 16 seed and a play in game?  noidea
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/11/2012 9:11 PM

RE: Ranking the Conferences 



alle9219 wrote: What's the difference between a 1 bid big sky and 1 bid WAC?
Idaho has a better shot at being the 1 bid from the BSC than from the WAC.

I honestly believe that.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/11/2012 9:49 PM

RE: Ranking the Conferences 


The WAC is a very fluid situation but at this point in time I'd question that simply because there are a greater number of schools vying for that one spot in the Big Sky. Also, some of the teams that are moving into the WAC aren't all that great.

If at all possible, I would have rather seen Idaho stick with the WAC and attempt to rebuild it as an FBS football conference with New Mexico State. I say this because it appears to be one of our better options to have a future home in an FBS all-sports league.

Of course, exactly how the WAC is going to survive and all remains to be seen. I'm sure that the Big Sky provides us with a more solid home for our Olympics sports at this time and we can save money by playing in that league. But, it's all about football when it comes right down to it and I worry about our FBS future with one foot in the Big Sky already.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 11/13/2012 8:02 PM

RE: Ranking the Conferences 




---------------------------------------------
--- VandalMar wrote:

The WAC is a very fluid situation but at this point in time I'd question that simply because there are a greater number of schools vying for that one spot in the Big Sky. Also, some of the teams that are moving into the WAC aren't all that great.

If at all possible, I would have rather seen Idaho stick with the WAC and attempt to rebuild it as an FBS football conference with New Mexico State. I say this because it appears to be one of our better options to have a future home in an FBS all-sports league.

Of course, exactly how the WAC is going to survive and all remains to be seen. I'm sure that the Big Sky provides us with a more solid home for our Olympics sports at this time and we can save money by playing in that league. But, it's all about football when it comes right down to it and I worry about our FBS future with one foot in the Big Sky already.

---------------------------------------------

The extra team argument is BS. If we truly are competing for a league title why are we worried that there are 8 more sub 200 rpi teams in the big sky? Are they really the ones we need to worry about? No. Both leagues from our level up are virtually identical, with the big sky having a nice geographic fit, regional rivals and an actual future. The WAC offers none of that. The big sky was a good choice and saves our Olympic sports, can you imagine what we would face if the WAC folded and someone else took our big sky spot? Then the whole AD is screwed.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/16/2012 5:30 PM

RE: Ranking the Conferences 


What is he best guess on how many bids the new MWC and the Big West will get?
Reply | Quote

Posted: 11/16/2012 7:30 PM

RE: Ranking the Conferences 


With USU, New Mex, UNLV and CSU they will get 2 at a minimum and maybe 3 or 4. They got at least 4 last year. Maybe more.

Big West will get 1 maybe 2 some years.

---------------------------------------------
--- calvandal wrote:

What is he best guess on how many bids the new MWC and the Big West will get?

---------------------------------------------
Reply | Quote