If BYU and Utah left I would hope that the WAC and MWC would combine to get the best teams that are left. If I were chosing I'd go with:

Pacific:

Hawaii
FSU
BSU
UNR
SDSU
UNLV

Mountain:

CSU
Wyoming
USU
AFA
UNM
TCU


That would be a pretty strong conference. USU is probably not the strongest cantidate available, but I like them and geography wise they are close to all the schools. Tulsa and UTEP should be considered with USU, but the biggest question mark would be if TCU would stay in the conference if Utah and BYU left. My guess is they wouldn't. That would likely mean that Tulsa and UTEP wouldn't be interested which would mean that Boise State would slide over to the Mountain Division and be replaced with SJSU.

MU42, you are forgetting about the admittedly slight possibility that the Big East could simply go to 18 schools, adding one for football and one for basketball. The Big East does not need to split and does not need to go to 10 in football if it really does not want to do so. Only one football member is needed to fix the scheduling problem and 18 is doable in basketball if people look past the short-term financial aspects of the issue.

BIG EAST WITH TWO MORE MEMBERS (18)
Providence / Connecticut
Syracuse / Rutgers
St. John's / Seton Hall
Villanova / Georgetown
Pittsburgh / West Virginia
Cincinnati / Louisville
Notre Dame / St. Louis
Marquette / DePaul
South Florida / Central Florida

I know a lot of CUSA East fans disagree but I actually think the league's set-up would be improved if they replaced a departing member with someone in CUSA West and reunited Tulane with traditional rivals Southern Mississippi and Memphis. Getting a school closer to UTEP would also go a long way toward helping them gain the aura of a school that is an important member of the conference rather than one of a distant outlier.

CONFERENCE USA IF UCF LEAVES (12)
Marshall / East Carolina
Memphis / UAB
Southern Mississippi / Tulane
Tulsa / SMU
Houston / Rice
UTSA / UTEP

I am not sure if the MWC would take Boise for 10 or add them, Nevada, and Fresno State for 12, or just continue to sit at 9 members. The Pac-10, however, has very little interest in going to 12 and if they did it might make more sense to take Utah and Nevada than to take two teams that are basically in the same city in a small state. Expansion should expand, not duplicate, a league's markets. The WAC needs multiple plans.

WAC IF LOUISIANA TECH LEAVES (10)
Hawaii / San Jose State
Sacramento State / UC Davis
Fresno State / Nevada
Idaho / Boise State
Utah State / New Mexico State

WAC IF LOUISIANA TECH AND BOISE STATE LEAVE (10)
Hawaii / San Jose State
Sacramento State / UC Davis
Cal Poly SLO / Fresno State
Nevada / Idaho
Utah State / New Mexico State

WAC IF LOUISIANA TECH, BOISE STATE, NEVADA, AND FRESNO STATE LEAVE (9)
Hawaii
Sacramento State / UC Davis
Cal Poly SLO / San Jose State
Portland State / Idaho
Utah State / New Mexico State

The WAC could probably limp by with a waiver from the NCAA if it lost Louisiana Tech and three West Coast teams but it would be ugly for a while as the former FCS teams take their lumps during transition. In addition, there may not be a viable 10th program, so the WAC would be stuck at 9 anyway. It might even get stuck at 8 if Portland State is not in a real position to upgrade. The MWC only taking 1 team would be much better.

(04-19-2009 05:05 PM)Krocker Krapp Wrote:  MU42, you are forgetting about the admittedly slight possibility that the Big East could simply go to 18 schools, adding one for football and one for basketball. The Big East does not need to split and does not need to go to 10 in football if it really does not want to do so. Only one football member is needed to fix the scheduling problem and 18 is doable in basketball if people look past the short-term financial aspects of the issue.

BIG EAST WITH TWO MORE MEMBERS (18)
Providence / Connecticut
Syracuse / Rutgers
St. John's / Seton Hall
Villanova / Georgetown
Pittsburgh / West Virginia
Cincinnati / Louisville
Notre Dame / St. Louis
Marquette / DePaul
South Florida / Central Florida

I know a lot of CUSA East fans disagree but I actually think the league's set-up would be improved if they replaced a departing member with someone in CUSA West and reunited Tulane with traditional rivals Southern Mississippi and Memphis. Getting a school closer to UTEP would also go a long way toward helping them gain the aura of a school that is an important member of the conference rather than one of a distant outlier.

CONFERENCE USA IF UCF LEAVES (12)
Marshall / East Carolina
Memphis / UAB
Southern Mississippi / Tulane
Tulsa / SMU
Houston / Rice
UTSA / UTEP

I am not sure if the MWC would take Boise for 10 or add them, Nevada, and Fresno State for 12, or just continue to sit at 9 members. The Pac-10, however, has very little interest in going to 12 and if they did it might make more sense to take Utah and Nevada than to take two teams that are basically in the same city in a small state. Expansion should expand, not duplicate, a league's markets. The WAC needs multiple plans.

WAC IF LOUISIANA TECH LEAVES (10)
Hawaii / San Jose State
Sacramento State / UC Davis
Fresno State / Nevada
Idaho / Boise State
Utah State / New Mexico State

WAC IF LOUISIANA TECH AND BOISE STATE LEAVE (10)
Hawaii / San Jose State
Sacramento State / UC Davis
Cal Poly SLO / Fresno State
Nevada / Idaho
Utah State / New Mexico State

WAC IF LOUISIANA TECH, BOISE STATE, NEVADA, AND FRESNO STATE LEAVE (9)
Hawaii
Sacramento State / UC Davis
Cal Poly SLO / San Jose State
Portland State / Idaho
Utah State / New Mexico State

The WAC could probably limp by with a waiver from the NCAA if it lost Louisiana Tech and three West Coast teams but it would be ugly for a while as the former FCS teams take their lumps during transition. In addition, there may not be a viable 10th program, so the WAC would be stuck at 9 anyway. It might even get stuck at 8 if Portland State is not in a real position to upgrade. The MWC only taking 1 team would be much better.

I can't see the WAC surviving the loss of 3 or 4 members. Also,
I think that if 3 schools left for the MWC, the WAC might have grounds for a lawsuit against the MWC for causing the demise of the conference. Might not help the WAC stay in business, but it sure could make it messy for the MWC if the remnants of the WAC were awarded damages.

Krocker: Actually, Tulane and Rice have a long history. So yes, maybe Southern Miss and Memphis have been more recent in C-USA and Metro, but the Rice rivalry is pretty historic, plus the school profiles are more alike.

I think if UCF departed, C-USA would want to remain in Florida. I don't think the Texas schools would want another Texas school, except bringing in an equal or greater TCU, messing up their recruiting pyramid. Charlotte would be a better choice than LaTech if they could get a stadium together. Nevertheless, I believe the order to be: 1) Florida replacement 2) Charlotte (if suitable stadium could be ready) 3) Louisiana Tech (they may get Tulan'e support after helping the school out after Katrina)

If the WAC could get Montana they'd be fine. I don't think a slew of California schools will help, look at what happened to the Big West. UTSA is a greater possibility to the WAC than to C-USA.

If the Mountain West was going to expand, I don't think they'd go to twelve. I just don't see them expanding, they remind me of the Big 10 in that regard.

Of course, Esayem, Tulane could always work out a deal with CUSA where they always play Rice, SMU, and Tulsa in their crossover games while Southern Mississippi always plays Houston, UTSA, and UTEP in their crossover games if it came to that. This is not really a big problem to solve.

CUSA might want to stay in Florida but they would have to assess which school has the most potential out of FAU or FIU and pray that they are right. They would also be deep in Miami territory and neither school has proven to have a very good all-around athletic program whatsoever.

There is no Texas school they could get that is equal to TCU so that is a useless point. If they did decide to bridge the gap to UTEP, their choices are UTSA and Texas State, so their other wishes are pointless. Charlotte is further away from FBS play than UTSA or South Alabama now.

Montana has no interest in going to the WAC right now. There is no way they would have any interest in going to an unstable WAC that just lost several members. How do people not understand that? The California schools would at least be helpful in stabilizing the WAC geographically.

You may not realize this but the three California schools I listed are the only FBS scholarship level programs left in the state. Even the coach of Fresno State thinks they will be in the WAC someday according to one of the articles listed above. It is in all of their best longterm interests.

We are in agreement about the MWC taking one school and stopping at 10. That is why I think my middle WAC scenario is the most likely to happen. Boise State and Louisiana Tech leave and get replaced by the three California schools which at least gives the WAC a consistent core.

(04-20-2009 04:10 PM)Krocker Krapp Wrote:  CUSA might want to stay in Florida but they would have to assess which school has the most potential out of FAU or FIU and pray that they are right. They would also be deep in Miami territory and neither school has proven to have a very good all-around athletic program whatsoever.

FIU easily has the longer term potential. Location is better, student body is twice the size, academically the school is superior, and they actually have a stadium for their football team.

(04-20-2009 04:10 PM)Krocker Krapp Wrote:  Of course, Esayem, Tulane could always work out a deal with CUSA where they always play Rice, SMU, and Tulsa in their crossover games while Southern Mississippi always plays Houston, UTSA, and UTEP in their crossover games if it came to that. This is not really a big problem to solve.

CUSA might want to stay in Florida but they would have to assess which school has the most potential out of FAU or FIU and pray that they are right. They would also be deep in Miami territory and neither school has proven to have a very good all-around athletic program whatsoever.

There is no Texas school they could get that is equal to TCU so that is a useless point. If they did decide to bridge the gap to UTEP, their choices are UTSA and Texas State, so their other wishes are pointless. Charlotte is further away from FBS play than UTSA or South Alabama now.

Montana has no interest in going to the WAC right now. There is no way they would have any interest in going to an unstable WAC that just lost several members. How do people not understand that? The California schools would at least be helpful in stabilizing the WAC geographically.

You may not realize this but the three California schools I listed are the only FBS scholarship level programs left in the state. Even the coach of Fresno State thinks they will be in the WAC someday according to one of the articles listed above. It is in all of their best longterm interests.

We are in agreement about the MWC taking one school and stopping at 10. That is why I think my middle WAC scenario is the most likely to happen. Boise State and Louisiana Tech leave and get replaced by the three California schools which at least gives the WAC a consistent core.

I gotta add this thought. If MWC gets an autobid like they are pushing for I beleive that Colorado will try and switch. Walking in they would be one of the top 2 or 3 teams in that conference and an would likely walk away with the BCS berth or a top bowl game.

Krocker, I am not saying those schools won't be in the WAC, I just don't see them helping the competition level. It would be like adding three more San Jose State's. Okay, I know Cal Poly almost beat Wisconsin, so maybe they could be competitive. Yes, you're right, the league would become more stable. But would it be more appealing as the California MAC?

What's Montana waiting for, an MWC invite? Their academics fit in with the MWC, plus they have a traditional rivalry with Wyoming. I like Tulsa though. New territory, plus they could end the season against TCU.

(04-20-2009 11:30 PM)esayem Wrote:  Krocker, I am not saying those schools won't be in the WAC, I just don't see them helping the competition level. It would be like adding three more San Jose State's. Okay, I know Cal Poly almost beat Wisconsin, so maybe they could be competitive. Yes, you're right, the league would become more stable. But would it be more appealing as the California MAC?

What's Montana waiting for, an MWC invite? Their academics fit in with the MWC, plus they have a traditional rivalry with Wyoming. I like Tulsa though. New territory, plus they could end the season against TCU.

Montana really doesn't have much of a history with Wyoming (only 13 games, most in the 50s and 60s). Their big rivalry games have always been Montana State (Brawl of the Wild) and Idaho (Battle for the Little Brown Stein). Interestingly though most of the Montana-Wyoming games were played at a neutral site in Billings, MT.

I do not think Montana is going to move to the WAC. Perhaps if the MWC came calling, they would look at moving up, but they are happy where they are; competing for national titles in 1-AA appeals to some schools versus low tier bowl games in the WAC. Plus the political climate in Montana is such that Montana could not move up without Montana State also moving up.

I still think the WAC should look at some non-football members to expand their markets and ensure the conference's autobid to the various NCAA tourneys. If they can pick off some Big West schools, then they should. If not, they should look at schools that are floating around like Denver and Seattle U., as well as one of the fast growing schools in the west - Utah Valley. Utah Valley's not much right now, but with 25,000 students, a newfound university status, prospects of continuing growth, and an apparent commitment to athletics, they appear to have a lot of potential and would be a travel partner for Utah State.

Yeah, I know about the series. I posted it in a thread before. It's also lopsided and was probably discontinued because of that. It was played yearly though.

Another thing, why does everyone say that Montana can't move up without Montana State? I have never seen anything official that says that. Montana State doesn't even have a chance to move up, so why would that even be a factor?