So I noticed that Wichita St is not taking football (that they are thinking of starting up) into the AAC. It got me thinking about something?
UT-RGV, is thinking of starting football. They could go FBS. That would be two WAC members with football (the other being NMSU of course).
Utah Valley at one point in time was looking at football, but I think that is when they thought it was going to be the only way to get into an auto-bid league. Now that they are in one, they don't have an pressure to start a FB team. However I'm certain the WAC would support them in starting one.
Grand Canyon or Seattle has no desire for FB. CalSt-Bakersfield has no money for a team. Chicago St talked briefly about one, but I don't know if this was more than just talk. Has UMKC ever talked about football?
Grab two football playing schools that want to move up to FBS. The Dakotas are out (they have a dream conference now). The Montanas don't have the balls to move up. The Idaho fans want to stay FBS but the president has no vision (but I'd take a full members Idaho back in a heartbeat if they asked). No one else from the Big Sky is jumping without the Montanas.
Lamar was very interested several years ago. Are they still wanting to move? I think that Sam Houston St was also rumored (or was it someone else?) If they join, they would have to be full members. This helps support the Olympic side of the fence.
Now that you have at least four full time members, get some FB only invites. Wichita St for one. Missouri St wants to move up but loves their Olympic league so give them a FB only invite. Would Northern Iowa take a FB only? Would Liberty or UMass look at a FB only despite the distance?
An eight team FB league is at least workable.
Lamar
NMSU
SHSU
UT-RGV
Wichita St (FB only)
Missouri St (FB only)
UMass or Northern Iowa (FB Only)
Liberty (FB only)
You have room for a returning Idaho or another WAC FB startup (UVU?) or even if some expansion scenarios play out, a left over Louisiana-Monroe.
Thoughts? Suggestions? Information?
Chicago state talked about starting non-scholarship football and some other programs. When they need to get their house in order and do what was asked of them by the WAC when they joined.
I do not see football coming back to the WAC. If it were I can see the WAC being cut out of CFP money. G5 would not want to share with another conference (reduced amount for everyone) and P5 would not want to send more money to the G5 to cover the costs. Liberty has higher aspirations when it comes to a conference and the WAC isn't even a stepping stone in their plan. Also there is the distance, same with UMass.
Idaho is FCS bound and will likely never return. The politics in Idaho dictate this. They will only come back if they are sold and become a for-profit U.
I just love how WAC football keeps coming up. It would still come up if the conference folded.
Wasn't it Dancin who said he had some reliable source for football coming back? I wonder what he has on this topic. (On the "Wichita St to American" thread)
Currently mobile....but not necessarily upwardly.
No football. WAC is done with that. You have the current members correct. The WAC is shifting toward a model of faith schools (Seattle, GCU, CBU, and perhaps in a few years APU) and local regional public schools (UVU, CSUB, UT-RGV) who do not play football. It's sort of a half ASUN half Big South type schools. NMSU is sticking it out until a FBS conference comes along for them, and everyone expects they will probably be in the WAC for 3-4 more years anyway. UMKC moved into the WAC because they believed that they didn't fit the rural Summit schools, and they thought their less than well funded and poor fan supported program would do better in the WAC; it's the same result. The lack of investment makes UMKC unattractive. The result is, they are probably stuck for the next five years also. We actually think they are the greatest flight risk (potentially). But the WAC has a cushion, so they can lose a school and be OK.
This allows the WAC to look for schools that fit their new model rather than grab anyone. The addition of GCU looked crazy and desperate. But it opened the way for schools like CBU and I expect APU to join. Christian shools are the only segment of private liberal arts schools that are growing - IMO because they are bargains in terms of price compared to the prestige liberal arts schools, and because parents feel more comfortable sending their kids to one dominated by Christians as opposed to one where feminist and leftist types dominate (same reason religious schools dominate the private school business for K-12). There are a couple schools with profiles that could generate D-I programs in California and the Pacific Northwest, as well as a few in Texas and Colorado (Colorado Christian). D-II move ups, will likely be most these. There are also some public regional schools in D-II that also fit the profile of schools like UT-RGV (Colorado-Colorado Springs, had metrics that looked best when I examined schools), but these are further off in the future than some of the Christian schools.
An exception to the model described is UCSD. They are waiting for a Big West invite. If they don't get it, then I expect they will give very serious consideration to the WAC, especially with the SoCal schools they are looking to add, who are UCSD's big opponents in D-II right now. They have competed against CBU (and APU) and have a relationship with CSUB, whom they were comfortable having as a partner and co-member in the Big West. They can just as easily be a co-member of the WAC with them. So if the Big West doesn't invite them, UCSD would probably come into the WAC and be a member for a decade.
All this points to a WAC that has options going forward, even if they are D-II move ups, who will be longer term members. This means the WAC doesn't have to do crazy @$$ $h!t just to have enough members. They don't have to pursue football. And the current membership, excepting NMSU, do not have football or want it.
All the other stuff about the P5 not giving extra money, and the G5 not willing to distribute any G5 allocated money to a new conference are true. The WAC would be cut off from Playoff distributions, and schools would get the same payments as Independents like UMass and NMSU barely $100K more than staying in FCS). Every school knows that it's unlikely there would ever be money. So in effect WAC football at FBS level is dead.
Liberty would have jumped in a heartbeat a couple three years ago when their lust to be FBS football exceeded their desirability. Now that they are Indy, a short term membership with multiple escape clauses would be the best case scenario for LU to agree, and only if they have challenges in filling their schedule.
(04-05-2017 02:45 PM)TardisCaptain Wrote: [ -> ]So I noticed that Wichita St is not taking football (that they are thinking of starting up) into the AAC. It got me thinking about something?
UT-RGV, is thinking of starting football. They could go FBS. That would be two WAC members with football (the other being NMSU of course).
Utah Valley at one point in time was looking at football, but I think that is when they thought it was going to be the only way to get into an auto-bid league. Now that they are in one, they don't have an pressure to start a FB team. However I'm certain the WAC would support them in starting one.
Grand Canyon or Seattle has no desire for FB. CalSt-Bakersfield has no money for a team. Chicago St talked briefly about one, but I don't know if this was more than just talk. Has UMKC ever talked about football?
Grab two football playing schools that want to move up to FBS. The Dakotas are out (they have a dream conference now). The Montanas don't have the balls to move up. The Idaho fans want to stay FBS but the president has no vision (but I'd take a full members Idaho back in a heartbeat if they asked). No one else from the Big Sky is jumping without the Montanas.
Lamar was very interested several years ago. Are they still wanting to move? I think that Sam Houston St was also rumored (or was it someone else?) If they join, they would have to be full members. This helps support the Olympic side of the fence.
Now that you have at least four full time members, get some FB only invites. Wichita St for one. Missouri St wants to move up but loves their Olympic league so give them a FB only invite. Would Northern Iowa take a FB only? Would Liberty or UMass look at a FB only despite the distance?
An eight team FB league is at least workable.
Lamar
NMSU
SHSU
UT-RGV
Wichita St (FB only)
Missouri St (FB only)
UMass or Northern Iowa (FB Only)
Liberty (FB only)
You have room for a returning Idaho or another WAC FB startup (UVU?) or even if some expansion scenarios play out, a left over Louisiana-Monroe.
Thoughts? Suggestions? Information?
UMKC cannot have football because of the university of missouri.
You mention UTRGV football....it's looking less likely in the short term. Texas is having a budget shortage, nothing as bad as Illinois but still a several percent cut across the board for most state universities. As part of that there's an elimination or very severe cutback of "special line items". UTRGV's new med school, which already opened and has to be continued, is funded off a special line item, so the end result is that UTRGV may be struggling just to keep the med school operating over this 2 year legislative cycle.
We weren't going to start in 2 years anyway, but now we might not even be starting-to-start, i.e. might be no money for planning, preparation, consultants, etc.
(04-06-2017 01:42 PM)RoosHouse Wrote: [ -> ]UMKC cannot have football because of the university of missouri.
Is it like the Arkansas telling Ark-Little Rock no on football or something else?
(04-07-2017 02:29 PM)edinburger Wrote: [ -> ]You mention UTRGV football....it's looking less likely in the short term. Texas is having a budget shortage, nothing as bad as Illinois but still a several percent cut across the board for most state universities. As part of that there's an elimination or very severe cutback of "special line items". UTRGV's new med school, which already opened and has to be continued, is funded off a special line item, so the end result is that UTRGV may be struggling just to keep the med school operating over this 2 year legislative cycle.
We weren't going to start in 2 years anyway, but now we might not even be starting-to-start, i.e. might be no money for planning, preparation, consultants, etc.
Budget crunches are disappointing, but understandable. The Cali schools had to go through that a few years ago. I would assume that this could affect Lamar and any other Texas based FBS wannabe.
Please keep us informed if things change.
(04-07-2017 03:45 PM)TardisCaptain Wrote: [ -> ] (04-06-2017 01:42 PM)RoosHouse Wrote: [ -> ]UMKC cannot have football because of the university of missouri.
Is it like the Arkansas telling Ark-Little Rock no on football or something else?
Exactly. Instead as a compromise UMKC got Men's Soccer.