CSNbbs

The WAC still needs 2-3 more schools to remain viable. Who are they?

(10-09-2012 11:57 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: [ -> ]The WAC still needs 2-3 more schools to remain viable. Who are they?

Still UTPA, Chicago State out there

Grand Canyon as well

(10-09-2012 11:57 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: [ -> ]The WAC still needs 2-3 more schools to remain viable. Who are they?

They don't know. The WAC is just taking things one year at a time rather than planning for long-term viability.

If Idaho, NMSU, Denver, and Seattle all stick around for 2013-2014 (and that's a big if) then adding UVU and CSUB allows the WAC to keep its NCAA tournament autobids for that year. They have a two-year grace period starting in 2013-2014 and during the grace period their minimum is 6 D-I schools.

The WAC must have 7 full-time members starting in 2015-2016 or else the WAC loses its NCAA tournament autobids and basketball tournament credits. But the 7 schools in 2015-2016 could be a completely different set of schools than the ones they have now. The NCAA got rid of the "continuity" requirement that used to be in the rules (which required a conference to have the same six-or-more schools together for at least five years to keep the autobids and tournament money), so the WAC does not have to keep the current "holdovers" around, they just need any 7 D-I schools (starting in fall 2015) to keep the autobids and tournament money.

Another big problem the WAC has is that the rules also require that the conference sponsor at least 6 men's and 6 women's D-I sports, which means that at least 6 of the WAC schools have to have teams in each of those sports. The WAC can't satisfy that rule with their proposed 2013 group of schools, or even by adding any of the schools that are possible future additions, so if the WAC is to stay in business the NCAA will have to waive the minimum-sports requirements.

(10-09-2012 12:11 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 11:57 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: [ -> ]The WAC still needs 2-3 more schools to remain viable. Who are they?

They don't know. The WAC is just taking things one year at a time rather than planning for long-term viability.

If Idaho, NMSU, Denver, and Seattle all stick around for 2013-2014 (and that's a big if) then adding UVU and CSUB allows the WAC to keep its NCAA tournament autobids for that year. They have a two-year grace period starting in 2013-2014 and during the grace period their minimum is 6 D-I schools.

The WAC must have 7 full-time members starting in 2015-2016 or else the WAC loses its NCAA tournament autobids and basketball tournament credits. But the 7 schools in 2015-2016 could be a completely different set of schools than the ones they have now. The NCAA got rid of the "continuity" requirement that used to be in the rules (which required a conference to have the same six-or-more schools together for at least five years to keep the autobids and tournament money), so the WAC does not have to keep the current "holdovers" around, they just need any 7 D-I schools (starting in fall 2015) to keep the autobids and tournament money.

Another big problem the WAC has is that the rules also require that the conference sponsor at least 6 men's and 6 women's D-I sports, which means that at least 6 of the WAC schools have to have teams in each of those sports. The WAC can't satisfy that rule with their proposed 2013 group of schools, or even by adding any of the schools that are possible future additions, so if the WAC is to stay in business the NCAA will have to waive the minimum-sports requirements.

One thing I could see is the MWC for instance supporting that the minimum sports rule gets either scrapped or scaled back somewhat.

(10-09-2012 12:15 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 12:11 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 11:57 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: [ -> ]The WAC still needs 2-3 more schools to remain viable. Who are they?

They don't know. The WAC is just taking things one year at a time rather than planning for long-term viability.

If Idaho, NMSU, Denver, and Seattle all stick around for 2013-2014 (and that's a big if) then adding UVU and CSUB allows the WAC to keep its NCAA tournament autobids for that year. They have a two-year grace period starting in 2013-2014 and during the grace period their minimum is 6 D-I schools.

The WAC must have 7 full-time members starting in 2015-2016 or else the WAC loses its NCAA tournament autobids and basketball tournament credits. But the 7 schools in 2015-2016 could be a completely different set of schools than the ones they have now. The NCAA got rid of the "continuity" requirement that used to be in the rules (which required a conference to have the same six-or-more schools together for at least five years to keep the autobids and tournament money), so the WAC does not have to keep the current "holdovers" around, they just need any 7 D-I schools (starting in fall 2015) to keep the autobids and tournament money.

Another big problem the WAC has is that the rules also require that the conference sponsor at least 6 men's and 6 women's D-I sports, which means that at least 6 of the WAC schools have to have teams in each of those sports. The WAC can't satisfy that rule with their proposed 2013 group of schools, or even by adding any of the schools that are possible future additions, so if the WAC is to stay in business the NCAA will have to waive the minimum-sports requirements.

One thing I could see is the MWC for instance supporting that the minimum sports rule gets either scrapped or scaled back somewhat.

The Big 5 want that rule to keep there from being too many autobids in the NCAA tourney. Its not going to be changed. But they could give the WAC a multi-year waiver. The rule change last year seemed to be primarily to benefit the WAC or conferences in similar situations that are out of their control.

This opens up a nice landing spot for Air Force. (Bad pun.)

(10-09-2012 12:23 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 12:15 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 12:11 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 11:57 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: [ -> ]The WAC still needs 2-3 more schools to remain viable. Who are they?

They don't know. The WAC is just taking things one year at a time rather than planning for long-term viability.

If Idaho, NMSU, Denver, and Seattle all stick around for 2013-2014 (and that's a big if) then adding UVU and CSUB allows the WAC to keep its NCAA tournament autobids for that year. They have a two-year grace period starting in 2013-2014 and during the grace period their minimum is 6 D-I schools.

The WAC must have 7 full-time members starting in 2015-2016 or else the WAC loses its NCAA tournament autobids and basketball tournament credits. But the 7 schools in 2015-2016 could be a completely different set of schools than the ones they have now. The NCAA got rid of the "continuity" requirement that used to be in the rules (which required a conference to have the same six-or-more schools together for at least five years to keep the autobids and tournament money), so the WAC does not have to keep the current "holdovers" around, they just need any 7 D-I schools (starting in fall 2015) to keep the autobids and tournament money.

Another big problem the WAC has is that the rules also require that the conference sponsor at least 6 men's and 6 women's D-I sports, which means that at least 6 of the WAC schools have to have teams in each of those sports. The WAC can't satisfy that rule with their proposed 2013 group of schools, or even by adding any of the schools that are possible future additions, so if the WAC is to stay in business the NCAA will have to waive the minimum-sports requirements.

One thing I could see is the MWC for instance supporting that the minimum sports rule gets either scrapped or scaled back somewhat.

The Big 5 want that rule to keep there from being too many autobids in the NCAA tourney. Its not going to be changed. But they could give the WAC a multi-year waiver. The rule change last year seemed to be primarily to benefit the WAC or conferences in similar situations that are out of their control.

Agreed. The minimum-sports rule exists to keep the number of D-I conferences from growing. (IIRC, the MWC is the only new D-I conference formed since that rule was put in place.)

The NCAA could easily give the WAC a waiver that is written so that it would apply only to existing D-I conferences, something like, "If any D-I conference that has complied with the minimum-sports requirements for at least 10 consecutive years ever falls below the required number of minimum sports, that conference will have a grace period of up to 10 years to get back in compliance with this rule, provided that the conference has at least six D-I members at all times during the grace period."

(10-09-2012 12:23 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 12:15 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 12:11 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 11:57 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: [ -> ]The WAC still needs 2-3 more schools to remain viable. Who are they?

They don't know. The WAC is just taking things one year at a time rather than planning for long-term viability.

If Idaho, NMSU, Denver, and Seattle all stick around for 2013-2014 (and that's a big if) then adding UVU and CSUB allows the WAC to keep its NCAA tournament autobids for that year. They have a two-year grace period starting in 2013-2014 and during the grace period their minimum is 6 D-I schools.

The WAC must have 7 full-time members starting in 2015-2016 or else the WAC loses its NCAA tournament autobids and basketball tournament credits. But the 7 schools in 2015-2016 could be a completely different set of schools than the ones they have now. The NCAA got rid of the "continuity" requirement that used to be in the rules (which required a conference to have the same six-or-more schools together for at least five years to keep the autobids and tournament money), so the WAC does not have to keep the current "holdovers" around, they just need any 7 D-I schools (starting in fall 2015) to keep the autobids and tournament money.

Another big problem the WAC has is that the rules also require that the conference sponsor at least 6 men's and 6 women's D-I sports, which means that at least 6 of the WAC schools have to have teams in each of those sports. The WAC can't satisfy that rule with their proposed 2013 group of schools, or even by adding any of the schools that are possible future additions, so if the WAC is to stay in business the NCAA will have to waive the minimum-sports requirements.

One thing I could see is the MWC for instance supporting that the minimum sports rule gets either scrapped or scaled back somewhat.

The Big 5 want that rule to keep there from being too many autobids in the NCAA tourney. Its not going to be changed. But they could give the WAC a multi-year waiver. The rule change last year seemed to be primarily to benefit the WAC or conferences in similar situations that are out of their control.

When it comes to basketball there's a Big 6, the Big East is without a doubt part of that group.

(10-09-2012 12:42 PM)brista21 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 12:23 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 12:15 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 12:11 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 11:57 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: [ -> ]The WAC still needs 2-3 more schools to remain viable. Who are they?

They don't know. The WAC is just taking things one year at a time rather than planning for long-term viability.

If Idaho, NMSU, Denver, and Seattle all stick around for 2013-2014 (and that's a big if) then adding UVU and CSUB allows the WAC to keep its NCAA tournament autobids for that year. They have a two-year grace period starting in 2013-2014 and during the grace period their minimum is 6 D-I schools.

The WAC must have 7 full-time members starting in 2015-2016 or else the WAC loses its NCAA tournament autobids and basketball tournament credits. But the 7 schools in 2015-2016 could be a completely different set of schools than the ones they have now. The NCAA got rid of the "continuity" requirement that used to be in the rules (which required a conference to have the same six-or-more schools together for at least five years to keep the autobids and tournament money), so the WAC does not have to keep the current "holdovers" around, they just need any 7 D-I schools (starting in fall 2015) to keep the autobids and tournament money.

Another big problem the WAC has is that the rules also require that the conference sponsor at least 6 men's and 6 women's D-I sports, which means that at least 6 of the WAC schools have to have teams in each of those sports. The WAC can't satisfy that rule with their proposed 2013 group of schools, or even by adding any of the schools that are possible future additions, so if the WAC is to stay in business the NCAA will have to waive the minimum-sports requirements.

One thing I could see is the MWC for instance supporting that the minimum sports rule gets either scrapped or scaled back somewhat.

The Big 5 want that rule to keep there from being too many autobids in the NCAA tourney. Its not going to be changed. But they could give the WAC a multi-year waiver. The rule change last year seemed to be primarily to benefit the WAC or conferences in similar situations that are out of their control.

When it comes to basketball there's a Big 6, the Big East is without a doubt part of that group.

For basketball it should be "Big 7". The new A-10 lineup will get so many at-large bids to the NCAA tournament that it will be in the group with the ACC/BE/B1G/Pac/B12/SEC and well ahead of any other conference.

(10-09-2012 12:42 PM)brista21 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 12:23 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 12:15 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 12:11 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 11:57 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: [ -> ]The WAC still needs 2-3 more schools to remain viable. Who are they?

They don't know. The WAC is just taking things one year at a time rather than planning for long-term viability.

If Idaho, NMSU, Denver, and Seattle all stick around for 2013-2014 (and that's a big if) then adding UVU and CSUB allows the WAC to keep its NCAA tournament autobids for that year. They have a two-year grace period starting in 2013-2014 and during the grace period their minimum is 6 D-I schools.

The WAC must have 7 full-time members starting in 2015-2016 or else the WAC loses its NCAA tournament autobids and basketball tournament credits. But the 7 schools in 2015-2016 could be a completely different set of schools than the ones they have now. The NCAA got rid of the "continuity" requirement that used to be in the rules (which required a conference to have the same six-or-more schools together for at least five years to keep the autobids and tournament money), so the WAC does not have to keep the current "holdovers" around, they just need any 7 D-I schools (starting in fall 2015) to keep the autobids and tournament money.

Another big problem the WAC has is that the rules also require that the conference sponsor at least 6 men's and 6 women's D-I sports, which means that at least 6 of the WAC schools have to have teams in each of those sports. The WAC can't satisfy that rule with their proposed 2013 group of schools, or even by adding any of the schools that are possible future additions, so if the WAC is to stay in business the NCAA will have to waive the minimum-sports requirements.

One thing I could see is the MWC for instance supporting that the minimum sports rule gets either scrapped or scaled back somewhat.

The Big 5 want that rule to keep there from being too many autobids in the NCAA tourney. Its not going to be changed. But they could give the WAC a multi-year waiver. The rule change last year seemed to be primarily to benefit the WAC or conferences in similar situations that are out of their control.

When it comes to basketball there's a Big 6, the Big East is without a doubt part of that group.

And even in football there is currently a Big 6. The Big East is currently ranked ahead of the Big 10 and ACC in football and has more ranked teams (3, 4 if you include Boise), than both the ACC and Big 10.

I posted this on the WAC board. My idea for WAC survival:

Just came across a thought for WAC survival. What do you think about this plan. Let's assume that Bakersfield and UVU join the WAC and that the rest of the WAC stays.

The WAC needs to add just 2-3 football schools. I am assuming Lamar is one of them. Maybe UVU adds football. (Can Bakersfield add football?). Or maybe you do one football only from the east. Either way, get 2-3 more football schools for a total of 4-5 football and 8-9 all sports schools. This is doable. Now, for your conference schedule, you have your 4-5 teams all play home/homes for your conference schedule, giving them a total of 6-8 conference games. This would be great for Idaho and NMSU to keep them afloat in FBS. It would also buy time to show the WAC is viable until other schools such as NDSU, Montana, and Montana St are ready to move up. So for example, Idaho's schedule would be:

Idaho:

At NMSU
NMSU
At Lamar
Lamar
At Team 3
Team 3
At Team 4
Team 4

And there you have it, 8 conf. games. The WAC could do this for 2-3 years until more teams are ready.

I thought Idaho's 2014 schedule was going to look like this

@Alabama 900k payment
@Auburn 800k payment
@Florida 800k payment
@Florida State 600k payment
@UCF 100k payment
bye
NMSU
@Boise
Wyoming
Idaho State (homecoming)
@Washington State
@Oregon 500k payment
Colorado State

(10-09-2012 12:58 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 12:42 PM)brista21 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 12:23 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 12:15 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 12:11 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]They don't know. The WAC is just taking things one year at a time rather than planning for long-term viability.

If Idaho, NMSU, Denver, and Seattle all stick around for 2013-2014 (and that's a big if) then adding UVU and CSUB allows the WAC to keep its NCAA tournament autobids for that year. They have a two-year grace period starting in 2013-2014 and during the grace period their minimum is 6 D-I schools.

The WAC must have 7 full-time members starting in 2015-2016 or else the WAC loses its NCAA tournament autobids and basketball tournament credits. But the 7 schools in 2015-2016 could be a completely different set of schools than the ones they have now. The NCAA got rid of the "continuity" requirement that used to be in the rules (which required a conference to have the same six-or-more schools together for at least five years to keep the autobids and tournament money), so the WAC does not have to keep the current "holdovers" around, they just need any 7 D-I schools (starting in fall 2015) to keep the autobids and tournament money.

Another big problem the WAC has is that the rules also require that the conference sponsor at least 6 men's and 6 women's D-I sports, which means that at least 6 of the WAC schools have to have teams in each of those sports. The WAC can't satisfy that rule with their proposed 2013 group of schools, or even by adding any of the schools that are possible future additions, so if the WAC is to stay in business the NCAA will have to waive the minimum-sports requirements.

One thing I could see is the MWC for instance supporting that the minimum sports rule gets either scrapped or scaled back somewhat.

The Big 5 want that rule to keep there from being too many autobids in the NCAA tourney. Its not going to be changed. But they could give the WAC a multi-year waiver. The rule change last year seemed to be primarily to benefit the WAC or conferences in similar situations that are out of their control.

When it comes to basketball there's a Big 6, the Big East is without a doubt part of that group.

And even in football there is currently a Big 6. The Big East is currently ranked ahead of the Big 10 and ACC in football and has more ranked teams (3, 4 if you include Boise), than both the ACC and Big 10.

This.

(10-09-2012 01:51 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 12:58 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 12:42 PM)brista21 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 12:23 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 12:15 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]One thing I could see is the MWC for instance supporting that the minimum sports rule gets either scrapped or scaled back somewhat.

The Big 5 want that rule to keep there from being too many autobids in the NCAA tourney. Its not going to be changed. But they could give the WAC a multi-year waiver. The rule change last year seemed to be primarily to benefit the WAC or conferences in similar situations that are out of their control.

When it comes to basketball there's a Big 6, the Big East is without a doubt part of that group.

And even in football there is currently a Big 6. The Big East is currently ranked ahead of the Big 10 and ACC in football and has more ranked teams (3, 4 if you include Boise), than both the ACC and Big 10.

This.

why would you include Boise? they're not in the BE yet

Trojan Campaign, according to NCAA rules, FBS schools must have 5 home games every year. Idaho needs to play New Mexico State twice (once home and once away), host one FCS team, and sign six other home and home deals, allowing three FBS opponents to visit Moscow every year, and saving room for just three bodybag games on the schedule.

INDEPENDENT SAMPLE SCHEDULE FOR IDAHO
- Idaho State (FCS)
- @ Big Name Bodybag (let's say Auburn)
- @ Big Name Bodybag (let's say Florida)
- @ Big Name Bodybag (let's say Oregon)
- New Mexico State
- @ Army (H\H)
- Buffalo (H\H)
- @ Charlotte (H\H)
- Old Dominion (H\H)
- @ Utah State (H\H)
- Wyoming (H\H)
- @ New Mexico State

New Mexico State and Idaho have to find six FBS schools to sign home and home series with. Many of those programs need non-conference opponents that they have a chance of beating. This will be easier for New Mexico State since they play New Mexico and UTEP every year but Idaho has to find such deals. Matching up open dates is the main key.

(10-10-2012 12:44 PM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 01:51 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 12:58 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 12:42 PM)brista21 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 12:23 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]The Big 5 want that rule to keep there from being too many autobids in the NCAA tourney. Its not going to be changed. But they could give the WAC a multi-year waiver. The rule change last year seemed to be primarily to benefit the WAC or conferences in similar situations that are out of their control.

When it comes to basketball there's a Big 6, the Big East is without a doubt part of that group.

And even in football there is currently a Big 6. The Big East is currently ranked ahead of the Big 10 and ACC in football and has more ranked teams (3, 4 if you include Boise), than both the ACC and Big 10.

This.

why would you include Boise? they're not in the BE yet

Bacause any scenario that lets you include Boise also allows excluding Pitt and Syracuse and that just feels so damn good.

(10-09-2012 12:45 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 12:42 PM)brista21 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 12:23 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 12:15 PM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 12:11 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]They don't know. The WAC is just taking things one year at a time rather than planning for long-term viability.

If Idaho, NMSU, Denver, and Seattle all stick around for 2013-2014 (and that's a big if) then adding UVU and CSUB allows the WAC to keep its NCAA tournament autobids for that year. They have a two-year grace period starting in 2013-2014 and during the grace period their minimum is 6 D-I schools.

The WAC must have 7 full-time members starting in 2015-2016 or else the WAC loses its NCAA tournament autobids and basketball tournament credits. But the 7 schools in 2015-2016 could be a completely different set of schools than the ones they have now. The NCAA got rid of the "continuity" requirement that used to be in the rules (which required a conference to have the same six-or-more schools together for at least five years to keep the autobids and tournament money), so the WAC does not have to keep the current "holdovers" around, they just need any 7 D-I schools (starting in fall 2015) to keep the autobids and tournament money.

Another big problem the WAC has is that the rules also require that the conference sponsor at least 6 men's and 6 women's D-I sports, which means that at least 6 of the WAC schools have to have teams in each of those sports. The WAC can't satisfy that rule with their proposed 2013 group of schools, or even by adding any of the schools that are possible future additions, so if the WAC is to stay in business the NCAA will have to waive the minimum-sports requirements.

One thing I could see is the MWC for instance supporting that the minimum sports rule gets either scrapped or scaled back somewhat.

The Big 5 want that rule to keep there from being too many autobids in the NCAA tourney. Its not going to be changed. But they could give the WAC a multi-year waiver. The rule change last year seemed to be primarily to benefit the WAC or conferences in similar situations that are out of their control.

When it comes to basketball there's a Big 6, the Big East is without a doubt part of that group.

For basketball it should be "Big 7". The new A-10 lineup will get so many at-large bids to the NCAA tournament that it will be in the group with the ACC/BE/B1G/Pac/B12/SEC and well ahead of any other conference.

The A10 still averages 2,000 less per game than the MVC

(10-09-2012 12:27 PM)War Torn Ruston Wrote: [ -> ]This opens up a nice landing spot for Air Force. (Bad pun.)

I suppose the WAC could be a nice landing spot for Air Force but I'm not entirely convinced they're willing to leave the MWC for 5 million per year in football cash.

If the MWC is serious about keeping Air Force they could counter with expanding to 12 and a championship game, adding Texas State in all sports and New Mexico State football only.

Mountain: Wyoming, Colorado St, Air Force, New Mexico, Texas St, New Mexico St*
Pacific: Utah State, Nevada, UNLV, San Jose St, Fresno St, Hawaii*

Texas State would probably be willing to head to the MWC for better TV opportunities. The MWC could very well get back onto ESPN and with its unique timezones the MWC doesn't face that much programming competition.

The MWC could maybe pick up 2 million per football member because after the Big East its the last national product remaining.

(10-09-2012 12:02 PM)dbackjon Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-09-2012 11:57 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote: [ -> ]The WAC still needs 2-3 more schools to remain viable. Who are they?

Still UTPA, Chicago State out there

Grand Canyon as well

Per the following quote by Hurd, I agree with you.

Quote:'I want to emphasize this is the first step of what I would anticipate to be a multi-step process,'' interim commissioner Jeff Hurd said Tuesday. ''The WAC certainly has more work to do but we're pleased today that we're able to take this step and I think it sends a message that the WAC is here to stay, that we will be here not only in `13-14 but beyond as we in essence reinvent ourselves.''

Hurd said he will continue looking for other new members as the league makes the transition from an FBS conference to a non-football playing Division I conference in 2013-14.