OK, snooped around a little more and trying out a poll here on our new boards. I tried to delete my old poll question thread, but I wasn't allowed.

This isn't what you WANT the WAC to do, but what you THINK the WAC WILL do regarding its relationship with CSU.


EDIT: OK, that was pretty simple. FYI to anyone wondering (like me), when creating a poll, you first have to post thread, and THEN the poll question options will appear.

I put down renew only for a year, but that's based only on what I know NOW...only CBU joining.
With sympathies to Josh, who has been a good supporter of his school. I wished CSU had more fans like you. Ive followed to a degree the news and opinions, viewpoints already discussed on here and other threads. The info that was found in the board minutes at CSU, though, really lead me to think they themselves see "the writing on the wall" so to speak. I really don't see how they can maintain DI status, and I think they're slowly coming to that realization.
I wished there was a way. I'd even say that, I think it would be better to move down to DII while they CAN still support that level. Honestly, I worry that the whole ship (athletics, or worse...) could sink with further DI involvement.

I vote for 5 year to help with the Cal Baptist transition. But I would do a 1 year renewal in case if Oral Roberts and Univ of New Orleans wanted to join in.

Sounds like the Illinois Governor is getting involved to revamp CSU. Seem the legislatures are going to get funding for this school. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/01/17/r...niversity/

Also just saw this...

Congrats on the 150th year of Chicago State University.

I know CSU was supposed to have men's soccer, but probably not an immediate issue for the WAC since UNLV, SJSU and Air Force play as affiliates.

(01-31-2017 02:51 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I vote for 5 year to help with the Cal Baptist transition. But I would do a 1 year renewal in case if Oral Roberts and Univ of New Orleans wanted to join in.

Sounds like the Illinois Governor is getting involved to revamp CSU. Seem the legislatures are going to get funding for this school. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/01/17/r...niversity/

Also just saw this...

Congrats on the 150th year of Chicago State University.

I know CSU was supposed to have men's soccer, but probably not an immediate issue for the WAC since UNLV, SJSU and Air Force play as affiliates.

Not exactly a stellar article, but ok (and yes, congrats on 150...and hopefully more years)
It's likely going to take some time for student population to rebound, to become confident that the school wont cut way back, or even close and leave them hanging. That article mentioned, what 86 incoming freshman?
As for soccer, I see it overall as a "credit risk" issue. I think the conference factors in... "You had five years to take care of a few things, and you havent yet. How do we know you will step up this time around?" I guess it all depends on whats in the pipeline behind the scenes with any other potential member that we can't see yet.

Tex is a believer in the truthfulness of CSU officials. Which is to say he's gullible. He also voted what he wants, not what he believes.

I don't think Chicago State will remain in D-I after their contract runs out with the WAC. I think they will fulfill it, but not invest anything to stay D-I. There are not 6 "yes" votes from the other 7 members for them to be offered a renewal, even a one year deal -- nobody likes revisiting a non compliant member annually, you cut them loose and move on. So its pretty much moot. What I think will happen is both sides will say mutual agreement, and that will be true. Chicago State will not request a new contract and none will be offered.

The lame duck nature of these things means if they get a contract renewal it will have to be this spring. Nobody waits until the final year of a contract to make a decision. The question is will they bother to announce a decision either way?

I voted for 1 year renew. They definitely do no deserve another 5 years. CST has known what they have needed to do since September/October of 2012 when it was announced that they would be joining.

(01-31-2017 05:21 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Tex is a believer in the truthfulness of CSU officials. Which is to say he's gullible. He also voted what he wants, not what he believes.

I don't think Chicago State will remain in D-I after their contract runs out with the WAC. I think they will fulfill it, but not invest anything to stay D-I. There are not 6 "yes" votes from the other 7 members for them to be offered a renewal, even a one year deal -- nobody likes revisiting a non compliant member annually, you cut them loose and move on. So its pretty much moot. What I think will happen is both sides will say mutual agreement, and that will be true. Chicago State will not request a new contract and none will be offered.

The lame duck nature of these things means if they get a contract renewal it will have to be this spring. Nobody waits until the final year of a contract to make a decision. The question is will they bother to announce a decision either way?

Yes, I believe CSU is going to be turned around with the new leadership they have and the legislature commitment to funding the school. If the funding is there then they'll keep that D1 prize that they have currently whether that is in the WAC or Independent.
The point that the school almost shut down has gotten this to be a political issue and one that politicians can't afford to be against.
Univ. of New Orleans was in the same situation and at first thought of moving down only to negate that decision to stay D1 as they wouldn't have the chance to move up to D1 again.
Whether I believe the CSU officials or not, it is because of the new leadership CSU has and have basically 'cleaned house'. When you get the support of the new Governor, then you know they'll get what they need.
If the WAC votes to not renew that is fine, but that doesn't mean the CSU leadership isn't turning around the school to a stronger future, even if that is without the WAC.

Until Chi State can show stability and leadership, they should be given a year to year deal. The WAC needs to assess what they bring to the table and will bring in the future. If Chicago state adds football and becomes a better fit for another conference, let them walk. If Chicago's distance becomes a hinderance to adding future members, the WAC should be in a position where they can walk. Up to this point their market hasn't helped the WAC garner a better media deal, and its rpi/performance hasn't put the WAC on the map. This assessment of the school isn't flattering, and it's not meant as a dig at the school, but the relationship has served as a survival tactic to this point. I also believe if the school continues to find itself in dire financial straits, their athletic program will not have the recourses to become competitive or grow, and the academic side must take presidence. as much as I and others on this board love college athletics, it is a school first and foremost.

We forget the WAC, in survival mode, took on two schools not sufficiently resourced and facing institutional challenges in UTPA and Chicago State.

Four years later and UTPA is now UTRGV with more than triple the athletic budget, having merged to almost double its resources, and has improved its academic standing. It has met all the conditions of membership, added non coaching staff to 20 (league average is 22), upgraded facilities, added sports, and they made it's last payment to the WAC last year. They passed their probation period in flying colors, and are now a pretty solid member. Good leadership, planning and focus. Hurd has nothing but praise for them, and you don't hear a peep of complaint around the league about them. There is no drama. They even participated in expansion meetings with CBU, which tells you they are permanent now, fully accepted, respected.

Chicago State is sadly not the same story. Enrollment has dropped to under 40% of the 7,000 they had when they signed the WAC contract. They have fewer than 3,000 students now (President Lucy ordered the release of weekly enrollment at staff meetings ended, "bad press"). At this point the drain is over $1000 per student for athletics. A realistic stabilizing number with full reforms is likely the low 2,000 range as they slowly rebuild the trust and expand slowly back. A modest $4m budget, which would allow travel and modest expenses - nothing extra- and modest facilities work to meet WAC safety requirements, would put the bill at over $2000 per student for athletics. Any sane person would look at that and say, there is zero chance this school will have the resources to fulfill any contract at the D-I level, and it's an abuse of the students to even try to do so.

The graduation rate is just 11%, which translates to more than $2.5 million spent per year per graduate. It would be 75% cheaper to identify the best 1000 students and send them to Harvard and pay for them, room & board too. I guess Tex's argument is dropping sports would only add 1 or 2 more graduate. Or they can actually pay their legal expenses.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local...story.html

When you look over the WAC it is very hard to find six votes to retain. Chicago State was not asked to participate in the expansion search. That alone tells you their fate, as the other seven schools were. I seriously doubt there is even one vote to retain Chicago State. But I think it's moot; the new Board and the President they choose to replace Mr. Lucy will not request a renewal, and the school will voluntarily leave, just as they did the Mid-Contenent (the Summit) in 2006 to avoid being dismissed.

One thing to keep in mind is that NMSU is a flight risk and CSU may still be necessary.

Not an expert at all on this stuff, but I thought safely meeting the minimum number of teams absolutely overrides all other considerations. Demanding more from CSU would make them even more likely to fold up, right?

5 years.

(02-01-2017 11:13 AM)edinburger Wrote:  Not an expert at all on this stuff, but I thought safely meeting the minimum number of teams absolutely overrides all other considerations. Demanding more from CSU would make them even more likely to fold up, right?

5 years.

Yes it would. They had three years before all the problems from the State. Yet they did nothing. Some of there facilities are safety issues.

(02-01-2017 08:29 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  One thing to keep in mind is that NMSU is a flight risk and CSU may still be necessary.

Ditto UMKC. But there is nothing in the works and probably nothing in the next five years. NMSU's Carruthers says he thinks the WAC is stable now. So there is no rush to go anywhere until they have a FB home. There is nothing going on that makes it look like that situation will change in the next 3-5 years. Also 7 is your bare bones minimum, and the NCAA gives you two years to get a 7th if you fall to 6.

There is absolutely no compelling reason for any Chancellor or President to vote to extend Chicago State. And again how much insurance is it to have a school very likely to drop D-I in the next year 15 months?

(02-01-2017 08:29 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  One thing to keep in mind is that NMSU is a flight risk and CSU may still be necessary.

I don't think NMSU is that much of a flight risk, short term. We really have no place to go. Maybe in 3 years or so depending on how Indy football is working out, but not right now.

I see UMKC as a bigger risk right now.