(02-25-2014 01:09 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 11:06 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 10:44 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 12:58 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 10:15 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  UTRGV has no plans to start football, so they are not Southland bound anytime soon. I do agree that the WAC should be inviting anyone/everyone because each member has at least one possible option for a new home. That said, as long as everyone in the WAC is committed to make it work then it will remain a viable conference.

The BW won't touch Sac State as part of its "gentlemen's agreement" with the Big Sky, but there's no such arrangement between the Big Sky and WAC. I'd be surprised if that option has never been discussed.

Football is not a requirement, thus SLC gave UTPA a site visit as a finalist 2 years ago. ORU just got added(decided the Summit was better and went back) w/o football.

My understanding about ORU is that they added some semblance of a basketball program which was good enough for the Southland to not push the fb issue. While it may not be a written requirement that football is needed, it is the message the SLC is sending out. Someone correct me on this if I'm wrong, but didn't Incarnate Word and Houston Baptist agree to start football as a condition upon entering the SLC? I think the only school without it is Texas A&M-CC.

As far as the WAC goes, I'm surprised to not hear about them targeting Sacramento State's olympic sports. There is no mutual understanding between the WAC and BSC involving them as there is between the BSC and BW. Has the WAC considered Sac State whatsoever?

UIW already played football. Houston Baptist had to start a football program to join the Southland. Your are correct, the Southland is sending a subtle but not really message that football will be the focus of the conference. UNO is still transitioning as a D1 school and won't be officially D1 till 2016. Currently, UNO has a football team as a club sport.
This article strongly stats that football must be considered and is strongly encourage with the requirement that provide a 5-6 year plan to add football. http://www.nola.com/sports/index.ssf/201...ffi_1.html

UNO club football was dropped for lack of funds. W/ all the problems of money in La. I don't see them starting a program, it seems by going back to D-I they didn't have to start fb, that they were willing to do to join the GSC in D-II.

UNO has been on a strange journey.

Post-Katrina they had a waiver from NCAA Division I rules to play with 7 sports for a time and the Sun Belt adopted rules requiring schools to sponsor 15 league sports (primarily aimed at Denver). They couldn't fund 14 much less 15 and announced a move to Division III despite being advised that Division II would be a better fit, then reversed course joined the Gulf South and announced intent to go Division II. Then they got the school moved out of the LSU system to the UL system and with looser system rules on athletics made the decision to re-re-reclassify this time to Division I in the Southland but they are having to go through normal transition because of the move down. Had they been in the UL system all along they probably would have moved directly to the Southland.

(02-25-2014 01:32 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 01:09 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 11:06 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 10:44 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 12:58 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  Football is not a requirement, thus SLC gave UTPA a site visit as a finalist 2 years ago. ORU just got added(decided the Summit was better and went back) w/o football.

My understanding about ORU is that they added some semblance of a basketball program which was good enough for the Southland to not push the fb issue. While it may not be a written requirement that football is needed, it is the message the SLC is sending out. Someone correct me on this if I'm wrong, but didn't Incarnate Word and Houston Baptist agree to start football as a condition upon entering the SLC? I think the only school without it is Texas A&M-CC.

As far as the WAC goes, I'm surprised to not hear about them targeting Sacramento State's olympic sports. There is no mutual understanding between the WAC and BSC involving them as there is between the BSC and BW. Has the WAC considered Sac State whatsoever?

UIW already played football. Houston Baptist had to start a football program to join the Southland. Your are correct, the Southland is sending a subtle but not really message that football will be the focus of the conference. UNO is still transitioning as a D1 school and won't be officially D1 till 2016. Currently, UNO has a football team as a club sport.
This article strongly stats that football must be considered and is strongly encourage with the requirement that provide a 5-6 year plan to add football. http://www.nola.com/sports/index.ssf/201...ffi_1.html

UNO club football was dropped for lack of funds. W/ all the problems of money in La. I don't see them starting a program, it seems by going back to D-I they didn't have to start fb, that they were willing to do to join the GSC in D-II.

UNO has been on a strange journey.

Post-Katrina they had a waiver from NCAA Division I rules to play with 7 sports for a time and the Sun Belt adopted rules requiring schools to sponsor 15 league sports (primarily aimed at Denver). They couldn't fund 14 much less 15 and announced a move to Division III despite being advised that Division II would be a better fit, then reversed course joined the Gulf South and announced intent to go Division II. Then they got the school moved out of the LSU system to the UL system and with looser system rules on athletics made the decision to re-re-reclassify this time to Division I in the Southland but they are having to go through normal transition because of the move down. Had they been in the UL system all along they probably would have moved directly to the Southland.

That's a crazy ride, and I give UNO props for keeping it together. I hope they can stay D1 but will it be in the Southland without football??

(02-25-2014 01:26 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 01:09 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 11:06 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  UIW already played football. Houston Baptist had to start a football program to join the Southland. Your are correct, the Southland is sending a subtle but not really message that football will be the focus of the conference. UNO is still transitioning as a D1 school and won't be officially D1 till 2016. Currently, UNO has a football team as a club sport.
This article strongly stats that football must be considered and is strongly encourage with the requirement that provide a 5-6 year plan to add football. http://www.nola.com/sports/index.ssf/201...ffi_1.html

UNO club football was dropped for lack of funds. W/ all the problems of money in La. I don't see them starting a program, it seems by going back to D-I they didn't have to start fb, that they were willing to do to join the GSC in D-II.

I stand corrected about UIW. Guess they played D2 ball before moving up. So if UNO club football was dropped, does that affect their Southland future? Maybe the WAC gives them a look??

No it doesn't, there is no football rule, it's not like the FBS where there's only 1 of 10 conf. where not all members play football. There's not even a need for 12 fb if they don't want. Tarleton St. is a far better option than UTRGV unless there's something about that merger that made them awesome. 14/11 works(what they had) for them, 14/12 works for them too. They can't have a conf. title game anyway.

(02-25-2014 01:59 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 01:26 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 01:09 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 11:06 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  UIW already played football. Houston Baptist had to start a football program to join the Southland. Your are correct, the Southland is sending a subtle but not really message that football will be the focus of the conference. UNO is still transitioning as a D1 school and won't be officially D1 till 2016. Currently, UNO has a football team as a club sport.
This article strongly stats that football must be considered and is strongly encourage with the requirement that provide a 5-6 year plan to add football. http://www.nola.com/sports/index.ssf/201...ffi_1.html

UNO club football was dropped for lack of funds. W/ all the problems of money in La. I don't see them starting a program, it seems by going back to D-I they didn't have to start fb, that they were willing to do to join the GSC in D-II.

I stand corrected about UIW. Guess they played D2 ball before moving up. So if UNO club football was dropped, does that affect their Southland future? Maybe the WAC gives them a look??

No it doesn't, there is no football rule, it's not like the FBS where there's only 1 of 10 conf. where not all members play football. There's not even a need for 12 fb if they don't want. Tarleton St. is a far better option than UTRGV unless there's something about that merger that made them awesome. 14/11 works(what they had) for them, 14/12 works for them too. They can't have a conf. title game anyway.

You say there is not football rule and technically you are right, but when are required to give to the Southland Conference your 5 to 6 years plan to add football, that basically stating you'll need to add football by that time.

(02-24-2014 09:58 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 06:42 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 06:20 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  UMKC joined the WAC because a) WAC name wise is better for the PR battle among the local fans b) They thought they could win more to help boost their chance for the MVC. If we decide to move on up to FBS, you would have to think UMKC would be the replacement or Wichita State will get even more on an island in the Valley.

Agree that UMKC thought through the WAC, they had a better chance at the MVC, but not for the reasons presented.

The MVC had approached the WAC about a merger, so then the MVC could convert to an FBS conference. Commissioner Hurd stated that a Midwest FCS conference had approached him about merging. Since MVC is really the only FCS conference in the Midwest, it had to be the MVC.

The WAC turned it down because the merged conference didn't include Idaho, which was vehemently opposed. So NMSU and Denver could never force the merger though bylaw requiring 70%. Seattle was added to give Idaho another ally.

The MVC wanted FBS for its football programs to grow and FBS might have kept Creighton and Wichita St happy. For a time, all the ADs of UNI, Ind St, and Ill St were on FBS kick. They wanted it to happen.


MVC - WAC merger

Ill St
Ind St
Mo St
UNI
SIll
Creighton
Wichita St (would probably like an option for FBS)
Bradley
Evansville
Drake

then add from the WAC
Denver
NMSU
UMKC

then add from the MVFC
NDSU
Youngstown St (both FBS capable)
maybe SDSU (were planning a 24k stadium, now reduced to 17k)

possibly add from the Southland
Sam Houston St
Lamar

Maybe it could poach from the Sun Belt schools like Texas St or W Kentucky (which used to be in the MVFC)

The news of a WAC-MVC possible merger sent shock waves through the Summit, where ORU and UMKC quickly lined up to leave. Losing NDSU and maybe SDSU could have killed that league. UMKC positioned itself to where it would be on the winning side in a merger that never happened. ORU reversed itself when the coast was clear.

The Sun Belt offered NMSU and Idaho spots, rather than risk a competing league in part of its territory. The Sun Belt didn't want any part of an FBS MVC (or FBS CAA or a WAC centered in the southeast).

NoDak, do you have independent sources of information for any of this, or is it your own speculation based on Hurd's comment? Not flaming you and not saying you're wrong, but if all this was going on I'm surprised rumors and leaks didn't surface before now.

Hurd's own comments are what I used. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence in print.

When the UNI AD, Ill St AD, and Ind St AD all started preaching the benefits of FBS in their local papers, I knew something was stirring. Initially, I thought the MAC was reversing directions on their East Coast strategy, but what would have changed that? The WAC was in dire straights, and with the Big Sky being a solid block against moving, it would be natural to look to the Midwest. NDSU's AD had to at least know about it because when asked about FBS he gave some song and dance that if wind changes you've got to be prepared to give it a go.

Hurd was quite open about Big Sky negotiations - they happened twice and centered around the Big Sky wanting Denver and later Seattle to start football.

In the entire MVC, there isn't an actual investigative journalist that is passionate about MVFC football. There are passionate reporters there (especially about basketball) (Fargo has an NDSU reporter that could as well dress in pom pomns), but not investigative journalists. That's why nothing is in print: reporters in small towns are beholding to the AD's. Piss them off writing about things that didn't happen, and your access gets cut off.

(02-25-2014 09:44 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 01:59 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 01:26 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 01:09 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 11:06 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  UIW already played football. Houston Baptist had to start a football program to join the Southland. Your are correct, the Southland is sending a subtle but not really message that football will be the focus of the conference. UNO is still transitioning as a D1 school and won't be officially D1 till 2016. Currently, UNO has a football team as a club sport.
This article strongly stats that football must be considered and is strongly encourage with the requirement that provide a 5-6 year plan to add football. http://www.nola.com/sports/index.ssf/201...ffi_1.html

UNO club football was dropped for lack of funds. W/ all the problems of money in La. I don't see them starting a program, it seems by going back to D-I they didn't have to start fb, that they were willing to do to join the GSC in D-II.

I stand corrected about UIW. Guess they played D2 ball before moving up. So if UNO club football was dropped, does that affect their Southland future? Maybe the WAC gives them a look??

No it doesn't, there is no football rule, it's not like the FBS where there's only 1 of 10 conf. where not all members play football. There's not even a need for 12 fb if they don't want. Tarleton St. is a far better option than UTRGV unless there's something about that merger that made them awesome. 14/11 works(what they had) for them, 14/12 works for them too. They can't have a conf. title game anyway.

You say there is not football rule and technically you are right, but when are required to give to the Southland Conference your 5 to 6 years plan to add football, that basically stating you'll need to add football by that time.

Did ORU give a 5 or 6 years play fb? No. You guys want to make something out of nothing. Just like all the UALR needs to find a home and UTA need s to start football. No they don't, they were already accepted w/o it, just like ORU, TAMU-CC, UNO to SLC. Also UTPA would have not been a finalist and got a site visit if fb was a must. If it was important they'd make them start it before joining or have a UMass type contract where they have the option to drop them if they don't do what they want.

(02-25-2014 12:16 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 09:58 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 06:42 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 06:20 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  UMKC joined the WAC because a) WAC name wise is better for the PR battle among the local fans b) They thought they could win more to help boost their chance for the MVC. If we decide to move on up to FBS, you would have to think UMKC would be the replacement or Wichita State will get even more on an island in the Valley.

Agree that UMKC thought through the WAC, they had a better chance at the MVC, but not for the reasons presented.

The MVC had approached the WAC about a merger, so then the MVC could convert to an FBS conference. Commissioner Hurd stated that a Midwest FCS conference had approached him about merging. Since MVC is really the only FCS conference in the Midwest, it had to be the MVC.

The WAC turned it down because the merged conference didn't include Idaho, which was vehemently opposed. So NMSU and Denver could never force the merger though bylaw requiring 70%. Seattle was added to give Idaho another ally.

The MVC wanted FBS for its football programs to grow and FBS might have kept Creighton and Wichita St happy. For a time, all the ADs of UNI, Ind St, and Ill St were on FBS kick. They wanted it to happen.


MVC - WAC merger

Ill St
Ind St
Mo St
UNI
SIll
Creighton
Wichita St (would probably like an option for FBS)
Bradley
Evansville
Drake

then add from the WAC
Denver
NMSU
UMKC

then add from the MVFC
NDSU
Youngstown St (both FBS capable)
maybe SDSU (were planning a 24k stadium, now reduced to 17k)

possibly add from the Southland
Sam Houston St
Lamar

Maybe it could poach from the Sun Belt schools like Texas St or W Kentucky (which used to be in the MVFC)

The news of a WAC-MVC possible merger sent shock waves through the Summit, where ORU and UMKC quickly lined up to leave. Losing NDSU and maybe SDSU could have killed that league. UMKC positioned itself to where it would be on the winning side in a merger that never happened. ORU reversed itself when the coast was clear.

The Sun Belt offered NMSU and Idaho spots, rather than risk a competing league in part of its territory. The Sun Belt didn't want any part of an FBS MVC (or FBS CAA or a WAC centered in the southeast).

NoDak, do you have independent sources of information for any of this, or is it your own speculation based on Hurd's comment? Not flaming you and not saying you're wrong, but if all this was going on I'm surprised rumors and leaks didn't surface before now.

Hurd's own comments are what I used. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence in print.

When the UNI AD, Ill St AD, and Ind St AD all started preaching the benefits of FBS in their local papers, I knew something was stirring. Initially, I thought the MAC was reversing directions on their East Coast strategy, but what would have changed that? The WAC was in dire straights, and with the Big Sky being a solid block against moving, it would be natural to look to the Midwest. NDSU's AD had to at least know about it because when asked about FBS he gave some song and dance that if wind changes you've got to be prepared to give it a go.

Hurd was quite open about Big Sky negotiations - they happened twice and centered around the Big Sky wanting Denver and later Seattle to start football.

In the entire MVC, there isn't an actual investigative journalist that is passionate about MVFC football. There are passionate reporters there (especially about basketball) (Fargo has an NDSU reporter that could as well dress in pom pomns), but not investigative journalists. That's why nothing is in print: reporters in small towns are beholding to the AD's. Piss them off writing about things that didn't happen, and your access gets cut off.

The timing is important here. Did this proposed Valley-WAC merger surface before Texas State, Louisiana Tech, Utah State, SJSU, etc. chose to leave the WAC, or after?

I kinda wish it happened. The Big West might have added Seattle.

(02-25-2014 01:24 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 09:44 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 01:59 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 01:26 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 01:09 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  UNO club football was dropped for lack of funds. W/ all the problems of money in La. I don't see them starting a program, it seems by going back to D-I they didn't have to start fb, that they were willing to do to join the GSC in D-II.

I stand corrected about UIW. Guess they played D2 ball before moving up. So if UNO club football was dropped, does that affect their Southland future? Maybe the WAC gives them a look??

No it doesn't, there is no football rule, it's not like the FBS where there's only 1 of 10 conf. where not all members play football. There's not even a need for 12 fb if they don't want. Tarleton St. is a far better option than UTRGV unless there's something about that merger that made them awesome. 14/11 works(what they had) for them, 14/12 works for them too. They can't have a conf. title game anyway.

You say there is not football rule and technically you are right, but when are required to give to the Southland Conference your 5 to 6 years plan to add football, that basically stating you'll need to add football by that time.

Did ORU give a 5 or 6 years play fb? No. You guys want to make something out of nothing. Just like all the UALR needs to find a home and UTA need s to start football. No they don't, they were already accepted w/o it, just like ORU, TAMU-CC, UNO to SLC. Also UTPA would have not been a finalist and got a site visit if fb was a must. If it was important they'd make them start it before joining or have a UMass type contract where they have the option to drop them if they don't do what they want.

I think it's more of an unwritten encouragement and understanding than anything else, but you are right. If UALR and UTA needed football to stay in the Sun Belt they would have added it by now. Same with the Southland examples. Will be interesting to see what happens with TAMU-CC because they are a possible WAC target.

(02-25-2014 02:01 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 12:16 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 09:58 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 06:42 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 06:20 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  UMKC joined the WAC because a) WAC name wise is better for the PR battle among the local fans b) They thought they could win more to help boost their chance for the MVC. If we decide to move on up to FBS, you would have to think UMKC would be the replacement or Wichita State will get even more on an island in the Valley.

Agree that UMKC thought through the WAC, they had a better chance at the MVC, but not for the reasons presented.

The MVC had approached the WAC about a merger, so then the MVC could convert to an FBS conference. Commissioner Hurd stated that a Midwest FCS conference had approached him about merging. Since MVC is really the only FCS conference in the Midwest, it had to be the MVC.

The WAC turned it down because the merged conference didn't include Idaho, which was vehemently opposed. So NMSU and Denver could never force the merger though bylaw requiring 70%. Seattle was added to give Idaho another ally.

The MVC wanted FBS for its football programs to grow and FBS might have kept Creighton and Wichita St happy. For a time, all the ADs of UNI, Ind St, and Ill St were on FBS kick. They wanted it to happen.


MVC - WAC merger

Ill St
Ind St
Mo St
UNI
SIll
Creighton
Wichita St (would probably like an option for FBS)
Bradley
Evansville
Drake

then add from the WAC
Denver
NMSU
UMKC

then add from the MVFC
NDSU
Youngstown St (both FBS capable)
maybe SDSU (were planning a 24k stadium, now reduced to 17k)

possibly add from the Southland
Sam Houston St
Lamar

Maybe it could poach from the Sun Belt schools like Texas St or W Kentucky (which used to be in the MVFC)

The news of a WAC-MVC possible merger sent shock waves through the Summit, where ORU and UMKC quickly lined up to leave. Losing NDSU and maybe SDSU could have killed that league. UMKC positioned itself to where it would be on the winning side in a merger that never happened. ORU reversed itself when the coast was clear.

The Sun Belt offered NMSU and Idaho spots, rather than risk a competing league in part of its territory. The Sun Belt didn't want any part of an FBS MVC (or FBS CAA or a WAC centered in the southeast).

NoDak, do you have independent sources of information for any of this, or is it your own speculation based on Hurd's comment? Not flaming you and not saying you're wrong, but if all this was going on I'm surprised rumors and leaks didn't surface before now.

Hurd's own comments are what I used. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence in print.

When the UNI AD, Ill St AD, and Ind St AD all started preaching the benefits of FBS in their local papers, I knew something was stirring. Initially, I thought the MAC was reversing directions on their East Coast strategy, but what would have changed that? The WAC was in dire straights, and with the Big Sky being a solid block against moving, it would be natural to look to the Midwest. NDSU's AD had to at least know about it because when asked about FBS he gave some song and dance that if wind changes you've got to be prepared to give it a go.

Hurd was quite open about Big Sky negotiations - they happened twice and centered around the Big Sky wanting Denver and later Seattle to start football.

In the entire MVC, there isn't an actual investigative journalist that is passionate about MVFC football. There are passionate reporters there (especially about basketball) (Fargo has an NDSU reporter that could as well dress in pom pomns), but not investigative journalists. That's why nothing is in print: reporters in small towns are beholding to the AD's. Piss them off writing about things that didn't happen, and your access gets cut off.

The timing is important here. Did this proposed Valley-WAC merger surface before Texas State, Louisiana Tech, Utah State, SJSU, etc. chose to leave the WAC, or after?

I kinda wish it happened. The Big West might have added Seattle.

Here's a story from Sept, 2012. According to the story, UNI wouldn't have left the MVC, so that should tell you something. Had a hard time believing the MAC or Sun Belt were offering UNI an affiliate position. I haven't reconstructed a timeline, but most the WAC schools had a lead on a home by that time. NMSU, Denver, and Idaho did not. Idaho was told they wouldn't be part of a midwest FCS ( MVC ) merger plan, so the WAC scuttled any talks.


http://thegazette.com/2012/09/10/uni-foo...mp-to-fbs/

(02-25-2014 02:04 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 01:24 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 09:44 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 01:59 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 01:26 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  I stand corrected about UIW. Guess they played D2 ball before moving up. So if UNO club football was dropped, does that affect their Southland future? Maybe the WAC gives them a look??

No it doesn't, there is no football rule, it's not like the FBS where there's only 1 of 10 conf. where not all members play football. There's not even a need for 12 fb if they don't want. Tarleton St. is a far better option than UTRGV unless there's something about that merger that made them awesome. 14/11 works(what they had) for them, 14/12 works for them too. They can't have a conf. title game anyway.

You say there is not football rule and technically you are right, but when are required to give to the Southland Conference your 5 to 6 years plan to add football, that basically stating you'll need to add football by that time.

Did ORU give a 5 or 6 years play fb? No. You guys want to make something out of nothing. Just like all the UALR needs to find a home and UTA need s to start football. No they don't, they were already accepted w/o it, just like ORU, TAMU-CC, UNO to SLC. Also UTPA would have not been a finalist and got a site visit if fb was a must. If it was important they'd make them start it before joining or have a UMass type contract where they have the option to drop them if they don't do what they want.

I think it's more of an unwritten encouragement and understanding than anything else, but you are right. If UALR and UTA needed football to stay in the Sun Belt they would have added it by now. Same with the Southland examples. Will be interesting to see what happens with TAMU-CC because they are a possible WAC target.

Don't read that WAC board, they're delusional. They think they'll get SIUE, TAMUCC, UNO. Logic say why the f*ck would SIUE, TAMUCC, UNO leave a stable low travel conf. for a spread out barely afloat conf. that is 1 lost member away from their AQ being at risk. Just b/c UMKC was stupid doesn't mean the rest of the schools are. Reading the WAC board you saw, it seems that UMKC may go back. They need to work on bringing up any D-II school in the west right now, not crazy ideas like the CAA/WAC merger, Big Sky/WAC merger and all those other silly things.

(02-25-2014 12:16 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 09:58 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 06:42 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 06:20 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  UMKC joined the WAC because a) WAC name wise is better for the PR battle among the local fans b) They thought they could win more to help boost their chance for the MVC. If we decide to move on up to FBS, you would have to think UMKC would be the replacement or Wichita State will get even more on an island in the Valley.

Agree that UMKC thought through the WAC, they had a better chance at the MVC, but not for the reasons presented.

The MVC had approached the WAC about a merger, so then the MVC could convert to an FBS conference. Commissioner Hurd stated that a Midwest FCS conference had approached him about merging. Since MVC is really the only FCS conference in the Midwest, it had to be the MVC.

The WAC turned it down because the merged conference didn't include Idaho, which was vehemently opposed. So NMSU and Denver could never force the merger though bylaw requiring 70%. Seattle was added to give Idaho another ally.

The MVC wanted FBS for its football programs to grow and FBS might have kept Creighton and Wichita St happy. For a time, all the ADs of UNI, Ind St, and Ill St were on FBS kick. They wanted it to happen.


MVC - WAC merger

Ill St
Ind St
Mo St
UNI
SIll
Creighton
Wichita St (would probably like an option for FBS)
Bradley
Evansville
Drake

then add from the WAC
Denver
NMSU
UMKC

then add from the MVFC
NDSU
Youngstown St (both FBS capable)
maybe SDSU (were planning a 24k stadium, now reduced to 17k)

possibly add from the Southland
Sam Houston St
Lamar

Maybe it could poach from the Sun Belt schools like Texas St or W Kentucky (which used to be in the MVFC)

The news of a WAC-MVC possible merger sent shock waves through the Summit, where ORU and UMKC quickly lined up to leave. Losing NDSU and maybe SDSU could have killed that league. UMKC positioned itself to where it would be on the winning side in a merger that never happened. ORU reversed itself when the coast was clear.

The Sun Belt offered NMSU and Idaho spots, rather than risk a competing league in part of its territory. The Sun Belt didn't want any part of an FBS MVC (or FBS CAA or a WAC centered in the southeast).

NoDak, do you have independent sources of information for any of this, or is it your own speculation based on Hurd's comment? Not flaming you and not saying you're wrong, but if all this was going on I'm surprised rumors and leaks didn't surface before now.

Hurd's own comments are what I used. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence in print.

When the UNI AD, Ill St AD, and Ind St AD all started preaching the benefits of FBS in their local papers, I knew something was stirring. Initially, I thought the MAC was reversing directions on their East Coast strategy, but what would have changed that? The WAC was in dire straights, and with the Big Sky being a solid block against moving, it would be natural to look to the Midwest. NDSU's AD had to at least know about it because when asked about FBS he gave some song and dance that if wind changes you've got to be prepared to give it a go.

Hurd was quite open about Big Sky negotiations - they happened twice and centered around the Big Sky wanting Denver and later Seattle to start football.

In the entire MVC, there isn't an actual investigative journalist that is passionate about MVFC football. There are passionate reporters there (especially about basketball) (Fargo has an NDSU reporter that could as well dress in pom pomns), but not investigative journalists. That's why nothing is in print: reporters in small towns are beholding to the AD's. Piss them off writing about things that didn't happen, and your access gets cut off.

Well Illinois St. has been wanting to move up for at least 10 years. They've openly talked about it. They just haven't been ready to do it. Lots of rumors the MAC was trying to get them to come up ever since they hit 13 members.

(02-25-2014 02:18 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  Don't read that WAC board, they're delusional. They think they'll get SIUE, TAMUCC, UNO. Logic say why the f*ck would SIUE, TAMUCC, UNO leave a stable low travel conf. for a spread out barely afloat conf. that is 1 lost member away from their AQ being at risk. Just b/c UMKC was stupid doesn't mean the rest of the schools are. Reading the WAC board you saw, it seems that UMKC may go back. They need to work on bringing up any D-II school in the west right now, not crazy ideas like the CAA/WAC merger, Big Sky/WAC merger and all those other silly things.

Don't even get me started on the WAC board. Some people over there think that SIU-E joining the WAC would make them a national brand that is relevant in Phoenix and Seattle.

Agree with Fresno...the WAC needs to be going hard after western D2 schools while they still can.

(02-25-2014 02:40 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 12:16 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 09:58 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 06:42 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 06:20 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  UMKC joined the WAC because a) WAC name wise is better for the PR battle among the local fans b) They thought they could win more to help boost their chance for the MVC. If we decide to move on up to FBS, you would have to think UMKC would be the replacement or Wichita State will get even more on an island in the Valley.

Agree that UMKC thought through the WAC, they had a better chance at the MVC, but not for the reasons presented.

The MVC had approached the WAC about a merger, so then the MVC could convert to an FBS conference. Commissioner Hurd stated that a Midwest FCS conference had approached him about merging. Since MVC is really the only FCS conference in the Midwest, it had to be the MVC.

The WAC turned it down because the merged conference didn't include Idaho, which was vehemently opposed. So NMSU and Denver could never force the merger though bylaw requiring 70%. Seattle was added to give Idaho another ally.

The MVC wanted FBS for its football programs to grow and FBS might have kept Creighton and Wichita St happy. For a time, all the ADs of UNI, Ind St, and Ill St were on FBS kick. They wanted it to happen.


MVC - WAC merger

Ill St
Ind St
Mo St
UNI
SIll
Creighton
Wichita St (would probably like an option for FBS)
Bradley
Evansville
Drake

then add from the WAC
Denver
NMSU
UMKC

then add from the MVFC
NDSU
Youngstown St (both FBS capable)
maybe SDSU (were planning a 24k stadium, now reduced to 17k)

possibly add from the Southland
Sam Houston St
Lamar

Maybe it could poach from the Sun Belt schools like Texas St or W Kentucky (which used to be in the MVFC)

The news of a WAC-MVC possible merger sent shock waves through the Summit, where ORU and UMKC quickly lined up to leave. Losing NDSU and maybe SDSU could have killed that league. UMKC positioned itself to where it would be on the winning side in a merger that never happened. ORU reversed itself when the coast was clear.

The Sun Belt offered NMSU and Idaho spots, rather than risk a competing league in part of its territory. The Sun Belt didn't want any part of an FBS MVC (or FBS CAA or a WAC centered in the southeast).

NoDak, do you have independent sources of information for any of this, or is it your own speculation based on Hurd's comment? Not flaming you and not saying you're wrong, but if all this was going on I'm surprised rumors and leaks didn't surface before now.

Hurd's own comments are what I used. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence in print.

When the UNI AD, Ill St AD, and Ind St AD all started preaching the benefits of FBS in their local papers, I knew something was stirring. Initially, I thought the MAC was reversing directions on their East Coast strategy, but what would have changed that? The WAC was in dire straights, and with the Big Sky being a solid block against moving, it would be natural to look to the Midwest. NDSU's AD had to at least know about it because when asked about FBS he gave some song and dance that if wind changes you've got to be prepared to give it a go.

Hurd was quite open about Big Sky negotiations - they happened twice and centered around the Big Sky wanting Denver and later Seattle to start football.

In the entire MVC, there isn't an actual investigative journalist that is passionate about MVFC football. There are passionate reporters there (especially about basketball) (Fargo has an NDSU reporter that could as well dress in pom pomns), but not investigative journalists. That's why nothing is in print: reporters in small towns are beholding to the AD's. Piss them off writing about things that didn't happen, and your access gets cut off.

Well Illinois St. has been wanting to move up for at least 10 years. They've openly talked about it. They just haven't been ready to do it. Lots of rumors the MAC was trying to get them to come up ever since they hit 13 members.

Ill St makes sense on some level to the MAC, even as an affiliate. UNI and Ind St do not unless the MAC is anticipating most of the membership leaving.

(02-25-2014 02:45 PM)FargoBison Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 02:18 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  Don't read that WAC board, they're delusional. They think they'll get SIUE, TAMUCC, UNO. Logic say why the f*ck would SIUE, TAMUCC, UNO leave a stable low travel conf. for a spread out barely afloat conf. that is 1 lost member away from their AQ being at risk. Just b/c UMKC was stupid doesn't mean the rest of the schools are. Reading the WAC board you saw, it seems that UMKC may go back. They need to work on bringing up any D-II school in the west right now, not crazy ideas like the CAA/WAC merger, Big Sky/WAC merger and all those other silly things.

Don't even get me started on the WAC board. Some people over there think that SIU-E joining the WAC would make them a national brand that is relevant in Phoenix and Seattle.

Agree with Fresno...the WAC needs to be going hard after western D2 schools while they still can.

Will be tough for the WAC. The only western D2 schools they can reasonably get are Western Washington, Metro State, Alaska Anchorage and UC San Diego. UCSD is only hoping for the BW.

I am intrigued by this new WAC. With most of its members located in major markets, the conference may be something good IF everyone is committed to holding it together. A part of me wants it to stay intact. Another part of me is also salivating over the western pieces that would only benefit my bus league Big West (Seattle, GCU). I don't know. Ultimately, I think the WAC survives but will remain shaky.

(02-25-2014 02:59 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 02:45 PM)FargoBison Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 02:18 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  Don't read that WAC board, they're delusional. They think they'll get SIUE, TAMUCC, UNO. Logic say why the f*ck would SIUE, TAMUCC, UNO leave a stable low travel conf. for a spread out barely afloat conf. that is 1 lost member away from their AQ being at risk. Just b/c UMKC was stupid doesn't mean the rest of the schools are. Reading the WAC board you saw, it seems that UMKC may go back. They need to work on bringing up any D-II school in the west right now, not crazy ideas like the CAA/WAC merger, Big Sky/WAC merger and all those other silly things.

Don't even get me started on the WAC board. Some people over there think that SIU-E joining the WAC would make them a national brand that is relevant in Phoenix and Seattle.

Agree with Fresno...the WAC needs to be going hard after western D2 schools while they still can.

Will be tough for the WAC. The only western D2 schools they can reasonably get are Western Washington, Metro State, Alaska Anchorage and UC San Diego. UCSD is only hoping for the BW.

I am intrigued by this new WAC. With most of its members located in major markets, the conference may be something good IF everyone is committed to holding it together. A part of me wants it to stay intact. Another part of me is also salivating over the western pieces that would only benefit my bus league Big West (Seattle, GCU). I don't know. Ultimately, I think the WAC survives but will remain shaky.

Western Washington is definitely a school I would be working on. Would be a nice travel partner for Seattle. Maybe Metro State as well, you could pair them with UVU. If they could get more western schools I think they could maybe then move into Alaska but I don't think they can make that move until they are on solid ground as a conference.

(02-25-2014 03:11 PM)FargoBison Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 02:59 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 02:45 PM)FargoBison Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 02:18 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  Don't read that WAC board, they're delusional. They think they'll get SIUE, TAMUCC, UNO. Logic say why the f*ck would SIUE, TAMUCC, UNO leave a stable low travel conf. for a spread out barely afloat conf. that is 1 lost member away from their AQ being at risk. Just b/c UMKC was stupid doesn't mean the rest of the schools are. Reading the WAC board you saw, it seems that UMKC may go back. They need to work on bringing up any D-II school in the west right now, not crazy ideas like the CAA/WAC merger, Big Sky/WAC merger and all those other silly things.

Don't even get me started on the WAC board. Some people over there think that SIU-E joining the WAC would make them a national brand that is relevant in Phoenix and Seattle.

Agree with Fresno...the WAC needs to be going hard after western D2 schools while they still can.

Will be tough for the WAC. The only western D2 schools they can reasonably get are Western Washington, Metro State, Alaska Anchorage and UC San Diego. UCSD is only hoping for the BW.

I am intrigued by this new WAC. With most of its members located in major markets, the conference may be something good IF everyone is committed to holding it together. A part of me wants it to stay intact. Another part of me is also salivating over the western pieces that would only benefit my bus league Big West (Seattle, GCU). I don't know. Ultimately, I think the WAC survives but will remain shaky.

Western Washington is definitely a school I would be working on. Would be a nice travel partner for Seattle. Maybe Metro State as well, you could pair them with UVU. If they could get more western schools I think they could maybe then move into Alaska but I don't think they can make that move until they are on solid ground as a conference.

I agree. UAA would work but the WAC needs to shore up the western quarter of the US. Metro State works well, especially if the conference brass wants to give Denver a middle finger.

(02-25-2014 02:18 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  Reading the WAC board you saw, it seems that UMKC may go back. They need to work on bringing up any D-II school in the west right now, not crazy ideas like the CAA/WAC merger, Big Sky/WAC merger and all those other silly things.

On the other hand, some people in this thread are suggesting that the WAC could convince four D-II schools to move to D-I and join the WAC... getting that many D-II schools in the west to move up in a short time frame is about as likely as merging with the Big Sky.

(02-25-2014 05:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 02:18 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  Reading the WAC board you saw, it seems that UMKC may go back. They need to work on bringing up any D-II school in the west right now, not crazy ideas like the CAA/WAC merger, Big Sky/WAC merger and all those other silly things.

On the other hand, some people in this thread are suggesting that the WAC could convince four D-II schools to move to D-I and join the WAC... getting that many D-II schools in the west to move up in a short time frame is about as likely as merging with the Big Sky.

Yeah, right now to me the most likely is UAA in a year followed by UAF a year or 2 after since I read UAF is not as far along as UAA. There's been no move up news about WWU, they just used it as an excuse to drop fb 5 or so years ago. Metro St., no move up news just hope they want to since they're the top D-II school. UCSD would only join the BW and would have to vote again, and convince the students to say yes. A-Sun has schools in their area that have talked about moving up, they should get on it too, they're down to 8 next year.