CSNbbs

Full Version: Idaho to join the WAC
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
<a href='http://www.wac.org/article.asp?articleid=57975' target='_blank'>http://www.wac.org/article.asp?articleid=57975</a>

This seems to have been missed. The shakeup continues. Anyone think that the Sun Belt is going to survive much longer in football? Anyone else think that MTSU and WKU are going to be ringing the MAC office soon?
The Flash Wrote:<a href='http://www.wac.org/article.asp?articleid=57975' target='_blank'>http://www.wac.org/article.asp?articleid=57975</a>

This seems to have been missed.&nbsp; The shakeup continues.&nbsp; Anyone think that the Sun Belt is going to survive much longer in football?&nbsp; Anyone else think that MTSU and WKU are going to be ringing the MAC office soon?
The SBC picks up 2 FL schools this year, and I think Troy State may join as well.

But, getting rid of Idaho is a benefit for the SBC...those travel costs are outrageous.

I think this is a very good move for everyone. The WAC gets some help, and it promtes local rivalries for Idaho et al., which is what really fuels interest for programs. Not unlike the MAC model, I might add.

But, let me add the WAC is probably in the most dire straits. Fresno St is coveted by the MWC, and SJSU is in real trouble. La Tech is still on the outskirts and could go to the SBC. Hawaii could be courted by someone as well. Plus, the biggest problem is having enough schools sponser the NCAA required sports (Someone can link to the details on this.)

I'll also say that it is as predicted that these experiments w/ cross-country membership are coming to an end. They make no sense at all; they never did. There is only one conference that is still toying w/ this recipe for disaster...CUSA. And yes, this is gloating in case there were any questions.
The Flash Wrote:Anyone think that the Sun Belt is going to survive much longer in football?&nbsp; Anyone else think that MTSU and WKU are going to be ringing the MAC office soon?
My position on this is that the Sun Belt will not survive on the basis that the conference extends from the Atlantic Coast to the Far West making it logistically not viable. I am hoping that Middle Tennessee and Western Kentucky will try to get in the MAC before the Sun Belt is dissolved all together. I believe that North Texas will be the next to leave and if that happens I am hoping that will be enough for the president and AD at MTSU and WKU to realize that they should get out of the Sun Belt and join the MAC at the first opportunity.
nashvillegoldenflash Wrote:
The Flash Wrote:Anyone think that the Sun Belt is going to survive much longer in football?  Anyone else think that MTSU and WKU are going to be ringing the MAC office soon?
My position on this is that the Sun Belt will not survive on the basis that the conference extends from the Atlantic Coast to the Far West making it logistically not viable.
I agree w/ this point, but I expect the SBC and WAC to 'trade' NMSU for LaTch pretty soon.

Plus, I think they'll throw in some cooperative scheduling for those teams that need it, and both will benefit.
DrTorch Wrote:I agree w/ this point, but I expect the SBC and WAC to 'trade' NMSU for LaTch pretty soon.
NMSU has already joined the WAC, along with Utah State. As of now the Sunbelt's football lineup will look like this in 2005:

North Texas
MTSU
Arkansas State
ULL
ULM
FAU
FIU
Troy State

I'm not sure about FAU or FIU being viable 1A teams. Then again, didn't FAU give UCF a game last year? 03-lol Overall, I don't know how this conference can survive in the long run.
trerocket Wrote:...As of now the Sunbelt's football lineup will look like this in 2005:

North Texas
MTSU
Arkansas State
ULL
ULM
FAU
FIU
Troy State

I'm not sure about FAU or FIU being viable 1A teams. Then again, didn't FAU give UCF a game last year? 03-lol Overall, I don't know how this conference can survive in the long run.
As I said if I was MTSU and WKU (looking to move up to 1-A f-ball), I would seriously begin courting the MAC. The MAC would look a whole lot better to me than this group of misfits.
The Flash Wrote:
trerocket Wrote:...As of now the Sunbelt's football lineup will look like this in 2005:

North Texas
MTSU
Arkansas State
ULL
ULM
FAU
FIU
Troy State

I'm not sure about FAU or FIU being viable 1A teams. Then again, didn't FAU give UCF a game last year? 03-lol Overall, I don't know how this conference can survive in the long run.
As I said if I was MTSU and WKU (looking to move up to 1-A f-ball), I would seriously begin courting the MAC. The MAC would look a whole lot better to me than this group of misfits.

I am not sure if I would go so far as to refer to the above schools as misfits. However, back in April I expressed my thoughts to a Sun Belt poster who wanted to know why there were some people who would rather have the SBC dissolve rather than support it and help it become a viable conference. Following his quote are my thoughts on this subject.

Talons Wrote:It really seems as though some would have the SBC disappear rather than to support it and&nbsp; help it become a viable contender in college athletics. Why? just curious
The geographic distances of schools in the Sun Belt Conference are appalling. For this reason, the SBC is a logistical nightmare that cannot survive in the long run.

Even if the Sun Belt was able to sustain itself in the coming years, I would still like to see MTSU and WKU in the MAC because of its prestige.

There is a saying, “You’re known by the company you keep.
DrTorch Wrote:
The Flash Wrote:<a href='http://www.wac.org/article.asp?articleid=57975' target='_blank'>http://www.wac.org/article.asp?articleid=57975</a>

This seems to have been missed.  The shakeup continues.  Anyone think that the Sun Belt is going to survive much longer in football?  Anyone else think that MTSU and WKU are going to be ringing the MAC office soon?
The SBC picks up 2 FL schools this year, and I think Troy State may join as well.

But, getting rid of Idaho is a benefit for the SBC...those travel costs are outrageous.

I think this is a very good move for everyone. The WAC gets some help, and it promtes local rivalries for Idaho et al., which is what really fuels interest for programs. Not unlike the MAC model, I might add.

But, let me add the WAC is probably in the most dire straits. Fresno St is coveted by the MWC, and SJSU is in real trouble. La Tech is still on the outskirts and could go to the SBC. Hawaii could be courted by someone as well. Plus, the biggest problem is having enough schools sponser the NCAA required sports (Someone can link to the details on this.)

I'll also say that it is as predicted that these experiments w/ cross-country membership are coming to an end. They make no sense at all; they never did. There is only one conference that is still toying w/ this recipe for disaster...CUSA. And yes, this is gloating in case there were any questions.
that is why there are two divisions in cusa, for geographical purposes to help stabilize it. think a little here. in division format, they are not more spread out than the big east or others, with UTEP being the exception in the west division. or maybe you just want to dog cusa, who knows, guess the is your right to if you want to.
This whole thread seems to be 6 months to a year behind the times:

1) TroySt has been commited to joining the SunBelt since before FIU and FAU announced their plans to move to I-A and join the SunBelt.

2) SunBelt FB is no longer a far-flung conference - having already lost Idaho, UtahSt and NMSU (their western flank) - the entire span of the conference will run from just north of Dallas to the Atlantic side of Florida - which isn't that bad (no worse than DeKalb, IL to Buffalo, NY).

In non-FB sports - of the additional 5 schools (UNO, USA, WKU, Ark-LR and Denver), only Denver stands out as being beyond the basic compact footprint. Most believe Denver will leave once it finds other arrangements (probably a western division of a larger Mid-Cont - with Southern Utah, Oral Roberts, UM-KC, SD State and ND State) - to be replaced by making La-Mon an all-sports member. That change would complete the regionalization of the SunBelt - making it stable and viable - as long as the NCAA doesn't mandate a minimum attendence threshhold.

3) The WAC isn't going to trade La-Tech for NMSU - because they are both already in the next version of the WAC. At most, the situation for all concerned would improve if La-Tech dropped from the WAC for a more easternly conference - which either C-USA or the SunBelt fits geographically for them. The former doesn't want La-Tech, and La-Tech doesn't want to be part of the latter - so this may be as good as it gets for a while.

4) WAC required sports are covered with the 3 additions (UtahSt, NMSU and Idaho), but they're pretty close in men's sports. The rule is they have to have 3 men's and 3 women's "team sports" with at least 6 conference members playing for a conference title [the term "team sports" does not include track (indoor or outdoor), cross country, swimming or diving, tennis, wrestling etc, etc, etc]. They have 3 men's sports: Football (all 9), Basketball (all 9) and I forget the other one - but 6 or 7 WAC schools play it. In women's sports, they have 4 with enough member schools playing (Basketball, Softball, etc).

The future of the SunBelt:

If the attendence rules are not going to be enforced - then there is nothing that keeps the SunBelt from continuing indefinately. The line-up will be fairly regional when all the announced changes are done. [SunBelt (east to west - roughly): FIU, FAU, TroySt, MTSU, La-Laf, La-Mon, ArkSt, UNT].

Right now:
1 - they aren't competitive in FB on the whole. Even their best team - UNT, gets almost all of it's wins over SunBelt members and I-AA teams.
2 - their bowl game has lack-luster fan support -- but the bowl exists only because the SunBelt needed a place for it's champion to play - so the game got certified.
3 - their FB attendence numbers in general are similar to the bottom 4-5 teams from the MAC

But none of that will keep them from surviving if the attendence rules are not strictly enforced.

The WAC:
The WAC is also better off geographically (except La-Tech, who stands to spend every dime they earn on travel). A conference with Hawaii can't be terribly travel friendly - but they've done about as well as could be expected in that department.

The "threat" of MWC expansion is probably the most overblown expansion rumor (well - except the one about the Big11 raiding the BigEast for a team - that one always makes me laugh). Since the MWC could have taken any WAC team this last time around and took none of them (they took only TCU from C-USA), there's no reason to believe they'll pick off any WAC schools. At 9 teams (4 home and 4 away FB games for every school, every year), they really don't stand to gain anything through further expansion.

WAC (east to west - roughly):
La-Tech, NMSU, UtahSt, BoiseSt, Idaho, Nevada, FresnoSt, SJSU, Hawaii

For all the teams (except La-Tech) the line-up is a vast improvement. Basketball is better with the additon of UtahSt and NMSU more than covering the loss of Tulsa. They also managed to improve their football offering since they lost 4 distant stiffs and replaced them with 3 "more regional" stiffs - albeit, UtahSt and NMSU showed signs of being better programs before they were under the SunBelt alignment.
The Belt emerges from realignment better off.

In men's and women's basketball and volleyball travel becomes much easier. Most road swings go from being a flight to site 1 on Thursday, flight to site 2 on Saturday, flight home, to flight to one site, van or bus to the other site, fly home.

Florida International and Florida Atlantic are 40 miles apart.
Western Kentucky and Middle Tennessee are 90 miles apart.
Arkansas State and Arkansas Little Rock are 130 miles apart.
UL Lafayette and New Orleans are 135 miles apart.
Troy and South Alabama are 170 miles apart.
North Texas to UL Monroe is the big one at 320 miles
nert Wrote:This whole thread seems to be 6 months to a year behind the times:

1) TroySt has been commited to joining the SunBelt since before FIU and FAU announced their plans to move to I-A and join the SunBelt.

2) SunBelt FB is no longer a far-flung conference - having already lost Idaho, UtahSt and NMSU (their western flank) - the entire span of the conference will run from just north of Dallas to the Atlantic side of Florida - which isn't that bad (no worse than DeKalb, IL to Buffalo, NY).

In non-FB sports - of the additional 5 schools (UNO, USA, WKU, Ark-LR and Denver), only Denver stands out as being beyond the basic compact footprint. Most believe Denver will leave once it finds other arrangements (probably a western division of a larger Mid-Cont - with Southern Utah, Oral Roberts, UM-KC, SD State and ND State) - to be replaced by making La-Mon an all-sports member. That change would complete the regionalization of the SunBelt - making it stable and viable - as long as the NCAA doesn't mandate a minimum attendence threshhold.

3) The WAC isn't going to trade La-Tech for NMSU - because they are both already in the next version of the WAC. At most, the situation for all concerned would improve if La-Tech dropped from the WAC for a more easternly conference - which either C-USA or the SunBelt fits geographically for them. The former doesn't want La-Tech, and La-Tech doesn't want to be part of the latter - so this may be as good as it gets for a while.

4) WAC required sports are covered with the 3 additions (UtahSt, NMSU and Idaho), but they're pretty close in men's sports. The rule is they have to have 3 men's and 3 women's "team sports" with at least 6 conference members playing for a conference title [the term "team sports" does not include track (indoor or outdoor), cross country, swimming or diving, tennis, wrestling etc, etc, etc]. They have 3 men's sports: Football (all 9), Basketball (all 9) and I forget the other one - but 6 or 7 WAC schools play it. In women's sports, they have 4 with enough member schools playing (Basketball, Softball, etc).

The future of the SunBelt:

If the attendence rules are not going to be enforced - then there is nothing that keeps the SunBelt from continuing indefinately. The line-up will be fairly regional when all the announced changes are done. [SunBelt (east to west - roughly): FIU, FAU, TroySt, MTSU, La-Laf, La-Mon, ArkSt, UNT].

Right now:
1 - they aren't competitive in FB on the whole. Even their best team - UNT, gets almost all of it's wins over SunBelt members and I-AA teams.
2 - their bowl game has lack-luster fan support -- but the bowl exists only because the SunBelt needed a place for it's champion to play - so the game got certified.
3 - their FB attendence numbers in general are similar to the bottom 4-5 teams from the MAC

But none of that will keep them from surviving if the attendence rules are not strictly enforced.

The WAC:
The WAC is also better off geographically (except La-Tech, who stands to spend every dime they earn on travel). A conference with Hawaii can't be terribly travel friendly - but they've done about as well as could be expected in that department.

The "threat" of MWC expansion is probably the most overblown expansion rumor (well - except the one about the Big11 raiding the BigEast for a team - that one always makes me laugh). Since the MWC could have taken any WAC team this last time around and took none of them (they took only TCU from C-USA), there's no reason to believe they'll pick off any WAC schools. At 9 teams (4 home and 4 away FB games for every school, every year), they really don't stand to gain anything through further expansion.

WAC (east to west - roughly):
La-Tech, NMSU, UtahSt, BoiseSt, Idaho, Nevada, FresnoSt, SJSU, Hawaii

For all the teams (except La-Tech) the line-up is a vast improvement. Basketball is better with the additon of UtahSt and NMSU more than covering the loss of Tulsa. They also managed to improve their football offering since they lost 4 distant stiffs and replaced them with 3 "more regional" stiffs - albeit, UtahSt and NMSU showed signs of being better programs before they were under the SunBelt alignment.
Great points nert. Sorry I posted so many misnomers. I still get lost as to who is going where.

But, I do see the WAC as better off w/ Idaho: now they play Boise St, UNR and Utah St. That's a nice group.

And thanks for the point about the SBC no longer in the far west. The moving about had me uncertain. But, going from FL to TX isn't cross-continent and there are some good match ups.

Once again, the SBC and WAC have sewn things up and now have a MAC model. Watch them improve their own lots.

I'd like to see some cooperation among these conferences and the MAC for scheduling.
I recognize the point where these conferences need to put their champs against BCS teams in bowls...but 2nd and 3rd teams could play and put out good games.
Plus, I think the playoff is still the best approach...
trerocket Wrote:As of now the Sunbelt's football lineup will look like this in 2005:

North Texas
MTSU
Arkansas State
ULL
ULM
FAU
FIU
Troy State
Losers one and all!

I never want to see any of them in the MAC.
ArkStfan had some interesting observations on the Sunbelt forum about how the attendance rules might play out.........perhaps you'd care to re-state them here for MAC fans. I found the comments about the possibility about different rules for existing IA's vs. IAA wannabe's to be very interesting, as well as the different viewpoints of the non-BCS conferences.
Here is how the non-BCS Division 1-A football conferences (50 schools) will look on July 1, 2005 (as of now):


Conference USA (12)
East
Central Florida*
East Carolina
Marshall*
Memphis
Southern Mississippi
UAB

West
Houston
Rice*
SMU*
Tulane
Tulsa*
UTEP*


Mid-American Conference (12)
East
Akron
Buffalo
Kent State
Miami (OH)
Ohio

West
Ball State
Bowling Green
Central Michigan
Eastern Michigan
Northern Illinois
Toledo
Western Michigan


Mountain West Conference (9)
Air Force
Brigham Young
Colorado State
New Mexico
San Diego State
TCU*
UNLV
Utah
Wyoming


Sun Belt Conference (8)
Arkansas State
Florida Atlantic*
Florida International*
Louisiana-Lafayette
Louisiana-Monroe
Middle Tennessee State
North Texas
Troy State*


Western Athletic Conference (9)
Boise State
Fresno State
Hawaii
Idaho*
Louisiana Tech
Nevada
New Mexico State*
San Jose State
Utah State*


1-A Independents (4)
Army*
Navy
Notre Dame
Temple*


*new member
The MAC will rebalance to 6 in each division in 2005. Someone is coming to the East. Most likely BG.
Ask and sometimes you receive Ex.

I've actually picked up some added info though nothing earth shaking.

The presidents make up the Board of Directors and they are much more "collegial" than the AD's and conference commissioners. What they are seeking is a compromise. They want to accomplish the following though I don't know what their priority is on each goal.
1) Not force any school out of I-A.
2) Stop or seriously slow the growth of I-A.
3) Help I-AA to be viable.

The MAC had filed a proposal with the Management Council that gave schools more of a grace period to make attendance and withdrew it.

That doesn't mean it is dead. The Board is working outside the Management Council on this.

Sun Belt had advocating eliminating the attendance component and leave 16 sports and scholarship requirements alone. At least part of the WAC supported this.

CUSA (really Scott Cowen) is looking at ideas to redefine I-A to be all schools that are football members of one of the 11 conferences that have I-A seats on the Board of Directors -or- schools meeting some other criteria. Tulane wants the 16 sport / 200 scholarship requirement out (at least for them).

The Sun Belt idea is the most logical so forget about it. If this idea flew WKU would become I-A as soon as they joined the Sun Belt for football.

The NCAA staff really would prefer to not have to deal with actual attendance because it is an enforcement nightmare. It also means looking closely at a lot more schools. In the past if they looked over the MAC with 14 members and saw pretty clearly that 8 were going to meet the criteria there was no need to examine the other six because of the conference exemption.

I think it is helpful to remember that from 1982 to 2003 there were two sets of rules for I-A. There was the criteria to become I-A and the criteria to remain I-A. Once you were in it was fairly easy to stay, especially if you were in a conference.

To meet their goals the presidents may take a page from the past and do something similar again.

When 2006 rolls around there will be at most four independents. Notre Dame, who can meet just about anything they throw at them. Army and Navy who can meet the 15,000 requirement with ease. Temple and who knows what will happen when their schedules change or if they will even be indy.

It would be very easy to define I-A as schools that are football members of one of the 11 conferences represented as I-A on the Board of Directors -OR- schools meeting X criteria (which will be tough enough to stop people from moving up without a league home). Remaining I-A could be meeting soft criteria and joining meeting hard criteria. There are various ways to structure it.
Thanks mucho, ArkSt!
The Flash Wrote:<a href='http://www.wac.org/article.asp?articleid=57975' target='_blank'>http://www.wac.org/article.asp?articleid=57975</a>

This seems to have been missed.&nbsp; The shakeup continues.&nbsp; Anyone think that the Sun Belt is going to survive much longer in football?&nbsp; Anyone else think that MTSU and WKU are going to be ringing the MAC office soon?
I think the Sun Belt is in good shape now that the western schools are leaving. It has a compact footprint and can begin developing some local conference rivalries.

The Atlantic Sun may be another matter. It has lost UCF (to CUSA), Troy State and Florida Atlantic (to SBC) and now Georgia State is bolting for the Colonial. The A-Sun appears to be where the ACC expansion fallout finally ends. Whether the conference can survive the losses remains to be seen.

Guest

nert Wrote:Right now:
2 - their bowl game has lack-luster fan support -- but the bowl exists only because the SunBelt needed a place for it's champion to play - so the game got certified.&nbsp;
Wait a second there.

First off, that bowl game had over 25,000 or close to it in attendance this past year. One thing I do know is that the New Orleans Bowl drew as much as the Hawaii Bowl and more than the Humanitarian Bowl and Silcon Valley Classic.

Also, Miami is looking to host a second bowl game and the Sun Belt may get a tie-in there at Pro Players Stadium with the help of the presence of Florida International. I gather this from hints being made by Sun Belt Commissioner Wright Waters that the Sun Belt is very close to sealing a deal for a second bowl game somewhere.

The Sun Belt is very regional and is moving forward and when the NCAA is unable to enforce the attendance requirements that will only help our cause, and even if the NCAA does say we have to average so many fans over five home games, if needs be, we'd all pull stuntd like Louisiana-Monroe with similar 10-year contracts to play schools like Arkansas in cities closer to the opponent like Little Rock in which that game would count as a home game for the Sun Belt team.

To say that the Sun Belt is finished or cannot remain viable is absurd. Once Denver is gone, the Sun Belt will be the second or third most regional conference of all the non-Power Six conference behind only the MAC and possibly the Mountain West. CUSA and the WAC will still be off far worse geographically than the Sun Belt. CUSA expanding from West Virginia to the western corner of Texas while the WAC expands from Louisiana to Hawaii.
BlueRaiderPride Wrote:
nert Wrote:Right now:
2 - their bowl game has lack-luster fan support -- but the bowl exists only because the SunBelt needed a place for it's champion to play - so the game got certified. 
Wait a second there.

First off, that bowl game had over 25,000 or close to it in attendance this past year. One thing I do know is that the New Orleans Bowl drew as much as the Hawaii Bowl and more than the Humanitarian Bowl and Silcon Valley Classic.
He makes a good point.

Let's face it: We were in that same place. Quite a few of those California and Las Vegas bowls didn't hit the 25,000 mark.
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's