UCSD needs a DI invite, and it's not coming from the Big West.

Will UCSD show some humility and allow itself to be voted into the WAC?

It wouldn't like CST zones schools, it probably has a problem with the private schools, but with Cal Baptist and Bakersfield, it's just sort of a travel step up from its California DII conference.

I would be shocked if the faculty can get on board with the WAC. It would also show they really want D1 membership, academic affiliation be damned.

The poll question confuses me. A vote from the students? They don't need one. Or do you mean a vote from faculty to get buy off to go WAC instead?

(04-07-2017 11:21 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  I would be shocked if the faculty can get on board with the WAC. It would also show they really want D1 membership, academic affiliation be damned.

I agree. Doubt that UC ego will let them slum with the "deplorables" in the WAC.

(04-08-2017 11:31 AM)SDHornet Wrote:  The poll question confuses me. A vote from the students? They don't need one. Or do you mean a vote from faculty to get buy off to go WAC instead?

A vote by the WAC. All the other UCSD issues might need other internal votes. But will the UCSD President decide that the WAC is their only shot at DI and they will go for it?

(04-07-2017 11:00 PM)NoDak Wrote:  UCSD needs a DI invite, and it's not coming from the Big West.

Will UCSD show some humility and allow itself to be voted into the WAC?

It wouldn't like CST zones schools, it probably has a problem with the private schools, but with Cal Baptist and Bakersfield, it's just sort of a travel step up from its California DII conference.

If UCSD was to somehow change their minds about the WAC after all these years, this is something the WAC should fully address:

http://www.rcnky.com/articles/2016/03/04...zon-league

Northern Kentucky used the Atlantic Sun to move up to D1. The Atlantic Sun was down to seven schools and they needed an eighth school. The Atlantic Sun did get a settlement of $1.2 million from NKU. Currently the WAC has no exit fee for a school leaving the conference.

So if UCSD made a decision to join the WAC and had a majority of the school behind the decision, it should not be a place to stay until the Big West changes their mind. There should be an exit fee for UCSD in the range of $2 million if they did use the WAC for the D1 transition and then moved to the Big West.

Adding UCSD at the same time as CBU may not be a good idea. Neither can help in postseason and both are likely to not help in RPI. CBU at least is able and more committed to athletic spending increases than UCSD. But I do like UCSD...I just don't believe that they really want to go slumming in the WAC.

(04-08-2017 12:18 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 11:31 AM)SDHornet Wrote:  The poll question confuses me. A vote from the students? They don't need one. Or do you mean a vote from faculty to get buy off to go WAC instead?

A vote by the WAC. All the other UCSD issues might need other internal votes. But will the UCSD President decide that the WAC is their only shot at DI and they will go for it?

In that case, yes. WAC has nothing to lose by giving them an invite. Put the ball in UCSD's court and see if they want it.

Of the opinion that UCSD, even as a transition DI, raises the academic profile of the WAC so much that they'don't be crazy not to on invite them.

Cold even help get Sac St and others DII's.

They don't need another vote. The language of the measure did not require the Big West.

(04-08-2017 04:57 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  They don't need another vote. The language of the measure did not require the Big West.

I don't remember UCSD ever talking about a desire to join the WAC. Did not come up once. The vote was pushed as D1 and the Big West. It was never about D1 and the WAC. Since the students are paying for this move to D1, it might make sense to go back to the Student Leadership and see if D1 also meant the WAC...

(04-08-2017 05:46 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 04:57 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  They don't need another vote. The language of the measure did not require the Big West.

I don't remember UCSD ever talking about a desire to join the WAC. Did not come up once. The vote was pushed as D1 and the Big West. It was never about D1 and the WAC. Since the students are paying for this move to D1, it might make sense to go back to the Student Leadership and see if D1 also meant the WAC...

If Sac St can be convinced to join, there could be an West Coast division. Isn't that better than a DII UCSD?

(04-08-2017 05:46 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 04:57 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  They don't need another vote. The language of the measure did not require the Big West.

I don't remember UCSD ever talking about a desire to join the WAC. Did not come up once. The vote was pushed as D1 and the Big West. It was never about D1 and the WAC. Since the students are paying for this move to D1, it might make sense to go back to the Student Leadership and see if D1 also meant the WAC...

Tex,

Separate issues. No vote is required to take a D1 invite. The language was general enough to apply to any conference. That matter is closed, done with, wont be revisited.

However, I do agree and have said so elsewhere that it would look like a bait and switch without some selling and reaching out to the general students to get their support. That does not require another vote, and I certainly would not risk it. However bringing on board the initiatives leaders to support the move would be prudent, since it would head off any opposition.

(04-08-2017 06:28 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 05:46 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 04:57 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  They don't need another vote. The language of the measure did not require the Big West.

I don't remember UCSD ever talking about a desire to join the WAC. Did not come up once. The vote was pushed as D1 and the Big West. It was never about D1 and the WAC. Since the students are paying for this move to D1, it might make sense to go back to the Student Leadership and see if D1 also meant the WAC...

If Sac St can be convinced to join, there could be an West Coast division. Isn't that better than a DII UCSD?

Is Sacramento State going to drop football? Because if Sacramento State ever entertained moving to the WAC they would need to find a new home for their FCS football program. I doubt the Big Sky would be willing to continue to house their football program if Sacramento State decides to yanks the rest of their sports programs their conference and puts them in the WAC. The easy approach for the WAC is to add schools that don't have the anchor of maintaining a football program. UCSD fits that mold. Denver fits that mold. But will academic snobbery keep them from ever considering the WAC as a conference home.

We would probably have to go Indy FCS if we really wanted to move...and that's not going to happen.

(04-09-2017 12:57 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  We would probably have to go Indy FCS if we really wanted to move...and that's not going to happen.

Is there some 'gentleman's agreement' that is extended to Poly and Davis, but not Sac St?

(04-09-2017 01:01 PM)RunnerBall Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 12:57 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  We would probably have to go Indy FCS if we really wanted to move...and that's not going to happen.

Is there some 'gentleman's agreement' that is extended to Poly and Davis, but not Sac St?

That's my understanding. Total BS for our admin to be ok with that when it went through...all a part of Foolertons WAC block plan.

If we were going to leave the BSC and have FB go Indy, it may as well be as FBS Indy.

(04-09-2017 11:33 AM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 06:28 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 05:46 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 04:57 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  They don't need another vote. The language of the measure did not require the Big West.

I don't remember UCSD ever talking about a desire to join the WAC. Did not come up once. The vote was pushed as D1 and the Big West. It was never about D1 and the WAC. Since the students are paying for this move to D1, it might make sense to go back to the Student Leadership and see if D1 also meant the WAC...

If Sac St can be convinced to join, there could be an West Coast division. Isn't that better than a DII UCSD?

Is Sacramento State going to drop football? Because if Sacramento State ever entertained moving to the WAC they would need to find a new home for their FCS football program. I doubt the Big Sky would be willing to continue to house their football program if Sacramento State decides to yanks the rest of their sports programs their conference and puts them in the WAC. The easy approach for the WAC is to add schools that don't have the anchor of maintaining a football program. UCSD fits that mold. Denver fits that mold. But will academic snobbery keep them from ever considering the WAC as a conference home.

First, the UCSD vote was sold as D1 leading to the Big West. This has been where UCSD has been since at least 2011:

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/spor...story.html

The WAC was not acceptable back then due to academic profile. Even after the recent rejection, the UCSD AD Earl Edwards was talking about changing the minds of the Big West before September of 2018. It is clear that UCSD has never wanted the WAC and even if they suddenly change their minds and decide on joining the WAC, they have to go back to the students. This from the UT Tribune three days ago:

A fact-finding report published before May’s student referendum said UCSD must receive a Big West invite by Sept. 15, 2018, or the student approval is null and void.

That would leave UCSD with a seemingly small window to persuade the Big West to take another look without having to reorganize campus support.

“I’d have to look at the situation and see where we are,” Edwards said of another voting process. “When it comes to the student vote, there are a lot of factors involved. There is timing in terms of economics, and what the students are thinking as a body.”

If UCSD moves up to D1, the student fee will increase on an annual basis by $480 per student. They have to make sure that they have the student support for a move to a conference that they feel academically superior to. I just don't see the WAC and UCSD.

Second point, Sac State would have to get permission from the Big Sky to move their Olympic sports to the WAC. I think it can happen because with North Dakota leaving, the conference is at 11 basketball schools. Sac State leaving would get them down to even 10. The Big Sky could play a round-robin 18 game schedule without Sac State.

But SDHornet is correct, it is pointless to move to any conference if they don't improve the facilities. I can also see Denver as a possibility to move to the WAC and as a good fit.

(04-09-2017 01:01 PM)RunnerBall Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 12:57 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  We would probably have to go Indy FCS if we really wanted to move...and that's not going to happen.

Is there some 'gentleman's agreement' that is extended to Poly and Davis, but not Sac St?

It extended to Sac State as well. The Big Sky accepted Davis and Cal Poly as FB-only members, and in return the BW didn't make a push for Sac State. It was an unwritten gentleman's agreement and it looks like it still applies today.

(04-09-2017 01:13 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(04-09-2017 11:33 AM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 06:28 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 05:46 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 04:57 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  They don't need another vote. The language of the measure did not require the Big West.

I don't remember UCSD ever talking about a desire to join the WAC. Did not come up once. The vote was pushed as D1 and the Big West. It was never about D1 and the WAC. Since the students are paying for this move to D1, it might make sense to go back to the Student Leadership and see if D1 also meant the WAC...

If Sac St can be convinced to join, there could be an West Coast division. Isn't that better than a DII UCSD?

Is Sacramento State going to drop football? Because if Sacramento State ever entertained moving to the WAC they would need to find a new home for their FCS football program. I doubt the Big Sky would be willing to continue to house their football program if Sacramento State decides to yanks the rest of their sports programs their conference and puts them in the WAC. The easy approach for the WAC is to add schools that don't have the anchor of maintaining a football program. UCSD fits that mold. Denver fits that mold. But will academic snobbery keep them from ever considering the WAC as a conference home.

First, the UCSD vote was sold as D1 leading to the Big West. This has been where UCSD has been since at least 2011:

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/spor...story.html

The WAC was not acceptable back then due to academic profile. Even after the recent rejection, the UCSD AD Earl Edwards was talking about changing the minds of the Big West before September of 2018. It is clear that UCSD has never wanted the WAC and even if they suddenly change their minds and decide on joining the WAC, they have to go back to the students. This from the UT Tribune three days ago:

A fact-finding report published before May’s student referendum said UCSD must receive a Big West invite by Sept. 15, 2018, or the student approval is null and void.

That would leave UCSD with a seemingly small window to persuade the Big West to take another look without having to reorganize campus support.

“I’d have to look at the situation and see where we are,” Edwards said of another voting process. “When it comes to the student vote, there are a lot of factors involved. There is timing in terms of economics, and what the students are thinking as a body.”

If UCSD moves up to D1, the student fee will increase on an annual basis by $480 per student. They have to make sure that they have the student support for a move to a conference that they feel academically superior to. I just don't see the WAC and UCSD.

Second point, Sac State would have to get permission from the Big Sky to move their Olympic sports to the WAC. I think it can happen because with North Dakota leaving, the conference is at 11 basketball schools. Sac State leaving would get them down to even 10. The Big Sky could play a round-robin 18 game schedule without Sac State.

But SDHornet is correct, it is pointless to move to any conference if they don't improve the facilities. I can also see Denver as a possibility to move to the WAC and as a good fit.

The Big Sky would be foolish to let its only California member go.

Curious, could it be that the language was thus, as UCSD hadn't even considered a rejection by the BW? I would find that hard to believe, but I'd also think there would have been some feelers/networking put out before going through all the prep/groundwork/student vote, and that they'd have been tipped off of less than full support. Surely they weren't just led along by some who were clueless about BW presidents feelings.

Currently mobile....but not necessarily upwardly.