CSNbbs

Full Version: UMKC going to Summit
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(06-26-2019 10:15 PM)SDHornet Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2019 05:39 PM)Pounder Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2019 01:28 PM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2019 01:05 PM)Lopes87 Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2019 12:26 PM)Pounder Wrote: [ -> ]If Portland State's football attendance does not improve this year (given they've finally dropped the pretense of playing in Providence Park and committed to Hillsboro well ahead of time)...

...AND if, therefore, Portland State drops football and compensates for that with the other sports...

...just saying.

Is that going to happen? There's the rub.

Portland St has to show that their football team can run a zero deficit to the athletic department in a 3 or 4 year period or football would be dropped. But that was the llast I heard of it and I haven't heard anything since.

Portland State dropping football would get them booted from the Big Sky.

That's my suspicion.

Do you want to prove it?

Feel free to link us to the BSC bylaw(s) that state dropping FB gets you booted from the BSC. All I'm seeing is that it gets you a stern talking to from the President Council. Oh the horror. Hell there aren't any bylaws stating how to boot associate members.

BSC is not booting PSU if they drop FB.

When you're in a primarily football conference, the members of said conference are generally going to want all the other members to try to stick to the norm. The only reason the Big Sky took on Idaho without football was the sort-of wink/nudge that football would eventually be part of the package. Plus Idaho is a legacy.

Portland State drops football, the focus becomes funding other sports, possibly giving Portland State a fundamental advantage in those sports. As football is raison d'etre for the Big Sky, bylaw or not, it becomes an issue for the other schools.

So maybe I'm not worried about if a bylaw exists so much as I'm worried about the other schools freezing me out in one way or another. It doesn't have to be an expulsion (an extremely rare thing, which is partly why the St. Thomas-getting-kicked-out-of-their-conference-for-being-too-good-thing made all the news recently). There's other ways to go about the dirty work.
(06-26-2019 10:15 PM)SDHornet Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2019 05:39 PM)Pounder Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2019 01:28 PM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2019 01:05 PM)Lopes87 Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-26-2019 12:26 PM)Pounder Wrote: [ -> ]If Portland State's football attendance does not improve this year (given they've finally dropped the pretense of playing in Providence Park and committed to Hillsboro well ahead of time)...

...AND if, therefore, Portland State drops football and compensates for that with the other sports...

...just saying.

Is that going to happen? There's the rub.

Portland St has to show that their football team can run a zero deficit to the athletic department in a 3 or 4 year period or football would be dropped. But that was the llast I heard of it and I haven't heard anything since.

Portland State dropping football would get them booted from the Big Sky.

That's my suspicion.

Do you want to prove it?

Feel free to link us to the BSC bylaw(s) that state dropping FB gets you booted from the BSC. All I'm seeing is that it gets you a stern talking to from the President Council. Oh the horror. Hell there aren't any bylaws stating how to boot associate members.

BSC is not booting PSU if they drop FB.

I don't really see Portland State dropping football. Their 2017-2018 budget was a total of $12.2 million. They spent $3.6 million on football and $1.3 million on basketball. That is not much being spent on athletics. Eastern Washington had a budget of $16.3 million for athletics, $5 million on football and $1.6 million on basketball. That is probably where Portland State needs to be.

If PSU were to drop football (hypothetically), you almost wonder why they would remain a D1 program. With no football, men's soccer and baseball, what would be the point? The Big Sky Conference is a football league that also plays basketball. The BSC does not have men's soccer or baseball. The whole point of being in the league is to play football.

If PSU were to drop football, saving $3.6 million, the better move might be to stay D1 and add men's soccer and baseball. Then join the WAC. Baseball and men's soccer will cost at least $1 million to add. When UNM dropped men's soccer, they said it would save $540,000 annually. When North Dakota dropped baseball, they saved $600,000 annually. The combination of the two sports would probably cost in the neighborhood of $1.2 million to $1.4 million. That would make more sense than dropping to D2.

PSU averaged 3,799 in football attendance in 2018. They look like a school that either needs to drop football or go all in and build a multi-purpose stadium on or near the campus. They need some Nike money.
(06-27-2019 04:23 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't really see Portland State dropping football. Their 2017-2018 budget was a total of $12.2 million. They spent $3.6 million on football and $1.3 million on basketball. That is not much being spent on athletics. Eastern Washington had a budget of $16.3 million for athletics, $5 million on football and $1.6 million on basketball. That is probably where Portland State needs to be.

If PSU were to drop football (hypothetically), you almost wonder why they would remain a D1 program. With no football, men's soccer and baseball, what would be the point? The Big Sky Conference is a football league that also plays basketball. The BSC does not have men's soccer or baseball. The whole point of being in the league is to play football.

If PSU were to drop football, saving $3.6 million, the better move might be to stay D1 and add men's soccer and baseball. Then join the WAC. Baseball and men's soccer will cost at least $1 million to add. When UNM dropped men's soccer, they said it would save $540,000 annually. When North Dakota dropped baseball, they saved $600,000 annually. The combination of the two sports would probably cost in the neighborhood of $1.2 million to $1.4 million. That would make more sense than dropping to D2.

PSU averaged 3,799 in football attendance in 2018. They look like a school that either needs to drop football or go all in and build a multi-purpose stadium on or near the campus. They need some Nike money.

The real chance to drop football was 5 years ago, and the momentum existed to do it then. It's not like I'm going to fully disagree with you here.

The main thing: Portland State spent/is spending $50 million on an arena and Phys Ed building (I'd say arena upgrade, but that flatters the old Stott Center). In theory, attendance has gone up and helps part of the equation. It's not had a sellout yet, and that's frustrating, but now they can draw a few more donor inducements.

Meanwhile, football is living completely on two body bag games a year, is now committed to playing on a "home field" 14 miles away in a suburban sort-of-high-school football stadium/sport complex with a couple more amenities (although many say Hillsboro is better than, say, Northern Colorado or Southern Utah), and most people in the area are really asking "what's the point of keeping football" about now. Even with a few wins at the end of last year, the program is very much out-of-sight and out-of-mind in Portland.

The funky part: if PSU were to add baseball, they'd play in the same complex in Hillsboro. That's where the Hillsboro Hops ("single A short season, so the Hops don't start until mid-June) play, that's the only reason some of the amenities are a bit better than a high school stadium, and it's still 14 miles away. Soccer could happen in town... and maybe on the community field on campus, unless they accidentally caught fire and merited a few games in Providence Park.
I was curious how much UMKC would have to pay the WAC to leave? Is there a penalty for leaving? From what I can tell it will cost UMKC $250k to enter the Summit.
After doing a little research, I have been told that it will cost UMKC zero to leave the WAC. Supposedly the deal agreed to only imposed a penalty if UMKC left within 5 years of joining the WAC.
(07-10-2019 09:38 AM)rooinblue Wrote: [ -> ]After doing a little research, I have been told that it will cost UMKC zero to leave the WAC. Supposedly the deal agreed to only imposed a penalty if UMKC left within 5 years of joining the WAC.

There isn't a penalty for any WAC team to leave as I understand.
(06-27-2019 06:02 PM)Pounder Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-27-2019 04:23 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't really see Portland State dropping football. Their 2017-2018 budget was a total of $12.2 million. They spent $3.6 million on football and $1.3 million on basketball. That is not much being spent on athletics. Eastern Washington had a budget of $16.3 million for athletics, $5 million on football and $1.6 million on basketball. That is probably where Portland State needs to be.

If PSU were to drop football (hypothetically), you almost wonder why they would remain a D1 program. With no football, men's soccer and baseball, what would be the point? The Big Sky Conference is a football league that also plays basketball. The BSC does not have men's soccer or baseball. The whole point of being in the league is to play football.

If PSU were to drop football, saving $3.6 million, the better move might be to stay D1 and add men's soccer and baseball. Then join the WAC. Baseball and men's soccer will cost at least $1 million to add. When UNM dropped men's soccer, they said it would save $540,000 annually. When North Dakota dropped baseball, they saved $600,000 annually. The combination of the two sports would probably cost in the neighborhood of $1.2 million to $1.4 million. That would make more sense than dropping to D2.

PSU averaged 3,799 in football attendance in 2018. They look like a school that either needs to drop football or go all in and build a multi-purpose stadium on or near the campus. They need some Nike money.

The real chance to drop football was 5 years ago, and the momentum existed to do it then. It's not like I'm going to fully disagree with you here.

The main thing: Portland State spent/is spending $50 million on an arena and Phys Ed building (I'd say arena upgrade, but that flatters the old Stott Center). In theory, attendance has gone up and helps part of the equation. It's not had a sellout yet, and that's frustrating, but now they can draw a few more donor inducements.

Meanwhile, football is living completely on two body bag games a year, is now committed to playing on a "home field" 14 miles away in a suburban sort-of-high-school football stadium/sport complex with a couple more amenities (although many say Hillsboro is better than, say, Northern Colorado or Southern Utah), and most people in the area are really asking "what's the point of keeping football" about now. Even with a few wins at the end of last year, the program is very much out-of-sight and out-of-mind in Portland.

The funky part: if PSU were to add baseball, they'd play in the same complex in Hillsboro. That's where the Hillsboro Hops ("single A short season, so the Hops don't start until mid-June) play, that's the only reason some of the amenities are a bit better than a high school stadium, and it's still 14 miles away. Soccer could happen in town... and maybe on the community field on campus, unless they accidentally caught fire and merited a few games in Providence Park.

What about Sac St.? Do they really fit into the Big Sky? Their basketball gym is worse than some high schools. They haven't done much in the Big Sky.

The Big Sky has 11 full time members, with 2 Big West schools football only members.

What if Sac St. decides traveling to Big Sky locations aren't worth it for their other sports. Why not play in the same conference as rival UCDavis? Their travel budget would be maybe a third of what it is in the Big Sky.

If Sac St leaves, that makes 10 full time Big Sky schools. With 3 Big West schools as football only members.

The Big West would have an even 12 teams.

Would the Big Sky add two more teams or stay at 10?


What if the Big Sky follows the "American Model," when they added non football Witchita St., to even out the conference for other sports.

Say they add Dixie and pick one school-Seattle, GCU, or CBU. I don't see the Big Sky adding a third team in Utah by adding both Dixie and Utah Valley. That would make 12 full time members and 14 team football conference.
If Dixie State moved to D1 before 2010. Would the Big Sky picked them over Southern Utah? BSC would like to boot Southern Utah to the curbs. DSU seem to be building better facilities which seems to be better than Southern Utah's. Even Utah Valley got the cash to upgrade their facilities that seems better than S. Utah.
https://suutbirds.com/facilities/?id=2

The facilities at SUU are good.
(07-12-2019 07:28 PM)Hilldog Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-27-2019 06:02 PM)Pounder Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-27-2019 04:23 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't really see Portland State dropping football. Their 2017-2018 budget was a total of $12.2 million. They spent $3.6 million on football and $1.3 million on basketball. That is not much being spent on athletics. Eastern Washington had a budget of $16.3 million for athletics, $5 million on football and $1.6 million on basketball. That is probably where Portland State needs to be.

If PSU were to drop football (hypothetically), you almost wonder why they would remain a D1 program. With no football, men's soccer and baseball, what would be the point? The Big Sky Conference is a football league that also plays basketball. The BSC does not have men's soccer or baseball. The whole point of being in the league is to play football.

If PSU were to drop football, saving $3.6 million, the better move might be to stay D1 and add men's soccer and baseball. Then join the WAC. Baseball and men's soccer will cost at least $1 million to add. When UNM dropped men's soccer, they said it would save $540,000 annually. When North Dakota dropped baseball, they saved $600,000 annually. The combination of the two sports would probably cost in the neighborhood of $1.2 million to $1.4 million. That would make more sense than dropping to D2.

PSU averaged 3,799 in football attendance in 2018. They look like a school that either needs to drop football or go all in and build a multi-purpose stadium on or near the campus. They need some Nike money.

The real chance to drop football was 5 years ago, and the momentum existed to do it then. It's not like I'm going to fully disagree with you here.

The main thing: Portland State spent/is spending $50 million on an arena and Phys Ed building (I'd say arena upgrade, but that flatters the old Stott Center). In theory, attendance has gone up and helps part of the equation. It's not had a sellout yet, and that's frustrating, but now they can draw a few more donor inducements.

Meanwhile, football is living completely on two body bag games a year, is now committed to playing on a "home field" 14 miles away in a suburban sort-of-high-school football stadium/sport complex with a couple more amenities (although many say Hillsboro is better than, say, Northern Colorado or Southern Utah), and most people in the area are really asking "what's the point of keeping football" about now. Even with a few wins at the end of last year, the program is very much out-of-sight and out-of-mind in Portland.

The funky part: if PSU were to add baseball, they'd play in the same complex in Hillsboro. That's where the Hillsboro Hops ("single A short season, so the Hops don't start until mid-June) play, that's the only reason some of the amenities are a bit better than a high school stadium, and it's still 14 miles away. Soccer could happen in town... and maybe on the community field on campus, unless they accidentally caught fire and merited a few games in Providence Park.

What about Sac St.? Do they really fit into the Big Sky? Their basketball gym is worse than some high schools. They haven't done much in the Big Sky.

The Big Sky has 11 full time members, with 2 Big West schools football only members.

What if Sac St. decides traveling to Big Sky locations aren't worth it for their other sports. Why not play in the same conference as rival UCDavis? Their travel budget would be maybe a third of what it is in the Big Sky.

If Sac St leaves, that makes 10 full time Big Sky schools. With 3 Big West schools as football only members.

It’s doubtful the Big Sky would allow Sac State to play football in the conference if it moved its other sports to the Big West. Otherwise that move would have happened already. Certainly the Big West would have added Sac State instead of CSUB if that had been an option.

UCD and Cal Poly were only able to swing football-only membership in the Big Sky because of special circumstances. Historically the Big Sky wasn’t willing to take them or anyone else as football-only members. That changed in 2011 when the WAC, in a desperate effort to preserve its FBS conference status, went hunting for western FCS schools to move up to FBS. The Big Sky realized it had a chance to permanently remove that threat by aggressively expanding. Consequently it added North Dakota and SUU as full members and UCD and Cal Poly as football-only members in 2012.

As we all know the strategy worked. WAC football was killed, there is no longer a move-up option for western FCS schools, and now the Big Sky is one of the most stable athletic conferences in the country. For that very reason Sac State has no leverage. As long as the Big Sky continues to value having an all-sports member in the recruit-rich California market, it can and will continue to use the threat of kicking Sac State football out of the conference to prevent Sac State from moving non-football sports to the Big West. And it can also use the threat of kicking UCD and Cal Poly football out of the conference to prevent them from supporting a Big West offer to add Sac State non-football sports.

At this point there is only one scenario that could take the Big Sky out of the driver’s seat, and that would be the establishment of a second western FCS conference that would give Sac State, UCD, Cal Poly and other western FCS schools an alternative home for their football programs.
(07-14-2019 01:08 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-12-2019 07:28 PM)Hilldog Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-27-2019 06:02 PM)Pounder Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-27-2019 04:23 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't really see Portland State dropping football. Their 2017-2018 budget was a total of $12.2 million. They spent $3.6 million on football and $1.3 million on basketball. That is not much being spent on athletics. Eastern Washington had a budget of $16.3 million for athletics, $5 million on football and $1.6 million on basketball. That is probably where Portland State needs to be.

If PSU were to drop football (hypothetically), you almost wonder why they would remain a D1 program. With no football, men's soccer and baseball, what would be the point? The Big Sky Conference is a football league that also plays basketball. The BSC does not have men's soccer or baseball. The whole point of being in the league is to play football.

If PSU were to drop football, saving $3.6 million, the better move might be to stay D1 and add men's soccer and baseball. Then join the WAC. Baseball and men's soccer will cost at least $1 million to add. When UNM dropped men's soccer, they said it would save $540,000 annually. When North Dakota dropped baseball, they saved $600,000 annually. The combination of the two sports would probably cost in the neighborhood of $1.2 million to $1.4 million. That would make more sense than dropping to D2.

PSU averaged 3,799 in football attendance in 2018. They look like a school that either needs to drop football or go all in and build a multi-purpose stadium on or near the campus. They need some Nike money.

The real chance to drop football was 5 years ago, and the momentum existed to do it then. It's not like I'm going to fully disagree with you here.

The main thing: Portland State spent/is spending $50 million on an arena and Phys Ed building (I'd say arena upgrade, but that flatters the old Stott Center). In theory, attendance has gone up and helps part of the equation. It's not had a sellout yet, and that's frustrating, but now they can draw a few more donor inducements.

Meanwhile, football is living completely on two body bag games a year, is now committed to playing on a "home field" 14 miles away in a suburban sort-of-high-school football stadium/sport complex with a couple more amenities (although many say Hillsboro is better than, say, Northern Colorado or Southern Utah), and most people in the area are really asking "what's the point of keeping football" about now. Even with a few wins at the end of last year, the program is very much out-of-sight and out-of-mind in Portland.

The funky part: if PSU were to add baseball, they'd play in the same complex in Hillsboro. That's where the Hillsboro Hops ("single A short season, so the Hops don't start until mid-June) play, that's the only reason some of the amenities are a bit better than a high school stadium, and it's still 14 miles away. Soccer could happen in town... and maybe on the community field on campus, unless they accidentally caught fire and merited a few games in Providence Park.

What about Sac St.? Do they really fit into the Big Sky? Their basketball gym is worse than some high schools. They haven't done much in the Big Sky.

The Big Sky has 11 full time members, with 2 Big West schools football only members.

What if Sac St. decides traveling to Big Sky locations aren't worth it for their other sports. Why not play in the same conference as rival UCDavis? Their travel budget would be maybe a third of what it is in the Big Sky.

If Sac St leaves, that makes 10 full time Big Sky schools. With 3 Big West schools as football only members.

It’s doubtful the Big Sky would allow Sac State to play football in the conference if it moved its other sports to the Big West. Otherwise that move would have happened already. Certainly the Big West would have added Sac State instead of CSUB if that had been an option.

UCD and Cal Poly were only able to swing football-only membership in the Big Sky because of special circumstances. Historically the Big Sky wasn’t willing to take them or anyone else as football-only members. That changed in 2011 when the WAC, in a desperate effort to preserve its FBS conference status, went hunting for western FCS schools to move up to FBS. The Big Sky realized it had a chance to permanently remove that threat by aggressively expanding. Consequently it added North Dakota and SUU as full members and UCD and Cal Poly as football-only members in 2012.

As we all know the strategy worked. WAC football was killed, there is no longer a move-up option for western FCS schools, and now the Big Sky is one of the most stable athletic conferences in the country. For that very reason Sac State has no leverage. As long as the Big Sky continues to value having an all-sports member in the recruit-rich California market, it can and will continue to use the threat of kicking Sac State football out of the conference to prevent Sac State from moving non-football sports to the Big West. And it can also use the threat of kicking UCD and Cal Poly football out of the conference to prevent them from supporting a Big West offer to add Sac State non-football sports.

At this point there is only one scenario that could take the Big Sky out of the driver’s seat, and that would be the establishment of a second western FCS conference that would give Sac State, UCD, Cal Poly and other western FCS schools an alternative home for their football programs.

The WAC has the heart, but also more obstacles - it needs to add at least three more full members with football for it to be viable. The Big West has the easier path, but no heart - there's just no stomach for it.

Regardless, IMO the key for any second western FCS league is Portland State. Portland State can be UCD's travel partner, or Seattle. The three California schools, Portland State, Dixie State and say, Northern Arizona would be a compact and viable FCS conference. But Portland State would be a full member either way.
(07-15-2019 12:26 AM)jdgaucho Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-14-2019 01:08 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-12-2019 07:28 PM)Hilldog Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-27-2019 06:02 PM)Pounder Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-27-2019 04:23 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't really see Portland State dropping football. Their 2017-2018 budget was a total of $12.2 million. They spent $3.6 million on football and $1.3 million on basketball. That is not much being spent on athletics. Eastern Washington had a budget of $16.3 million for athletics, $5 million on football and $1.6 million on basketball. That is probably where Portland State needs to be.

If PSU were to drop football (hypothetically), you almost wonder why they would remain a D1 program. With no football, men's soccer and baseball, what would be the point? The Big Sky Conference is a football league that also plays basketball. The BSC does not have men's soccer or baseball. The whole point of being in the league is to play football.

If PSU were to drop football, saving $3.6 million, the better move might be to stay D1 and add men's soccer and baseball. Then join the WAC. Baseball and men's soccer will cost at least $1 million to add. When UNM dropped men's soccer, they said it would save $540,000 annually. When North Dakota dropped baseball, they saved $600,000 annually. The combination of the two sports would probably cost in the neighborhood of $1.2 million to $1.4 million. That would make more sense than dropping to D2.

PSU averaged 3,799 in football attendance in 2018. They look like a school that either needs to drop football or go all in and build a multi-purpose stadium on or near the campus. They need some Nike money.

The real chance to drop football was 5 years ago, and the momentum existed to do it then. It's not like I'm going to fully disagree with you here.

The main thing: Portland State spent/is spending $50 million on an arena and Phys Ed building (I'd say arena upgrade, but that flatters the old Stott Center). In theory, attendance has gone up and helps part of the equation. It's not had a sellout yet, and that's frustrating, but now they can draw a few more donor inducements.

Meanwhile, football is living completely on two body bag games a year, is now committed to playing on a "home field" 14 miles away in a suburban sort-of-high-school football stadium/sport complex with a couple more amenities (although many say Hillsboro is better than, say, Northern Colorado or Southern Utah), and most people in the area are really asking "what's the point of keeping football" about now. Even with a few wins at the end of last year, the program is very much out-of-sight and out-of-mind in Portland.

The funky part: if PSU were to add baseball, they'd play in the same complex in Hillsboro. That's where the Hillsboro Hops ("single A short season, so the Hops don't start until mid-June) play, that's the only reason some of the amenities are a bit better than a high school stadium, and it's still 14 miles away. Soccer could happen in town... and maybe on the community field on campus, unless they accidentally caught fire and merited a few games in Providence Park.

What about Sac St.? Do they really fit into the Big Sky? Their basketball gym is worse than some high schools. They haven't done much in the Big Sky.

The Big Sky has 11 full time members, with 2 Big West schools football only members.

What if Sac St. decides traveling to Big Sky locations aren't worth it for their other sports. Why not play in the same conference as rival UCDavis? Their travel budget would be maybe a third of what it is in the Big Sky.

If Sac St leaves, that makes 10 full time Big Sky schools. With 3 Big West schools as football only members.

It’s doubtful the Big Sky would allow Sac State to play football in the conference if it moved its other sports to the Big West. Otherwise that move would have happened already. Certainly the Big West would have added Sac State instead of CSUB if that had been an option.

UCD and Cal Poly were only able to swing football-only membership in the Big Sky because of special circumstances. Historically the Big Sky wasn’t willing to take them or anyone else as football-only members. That changed in 2011 when the WAC, in a desperate effort to preserve its FBS conference status, went hunting for western FCS schools to move up to FBS. The Big Sky realized it had a chance to permanently remove that threat by aggressively expanding. Consequently it added North Dakota and SUU as full members and UCD and Cal Poly as football-only members in 2012.

As we all know the strategy worked. WAC football was killed, there is no longer a move-up option for western FCS schools, and now the Big Sky is one of the most stable athletic conferences in the country. For that very reason Sac State has no leverage. As long as the Big Sky continues to value having an all-sports member in the recruit-rich California market, it can and will continue to use the threat of kicking Sac State football out of the conference to prevent Sac State from moving non-football sports to the Big West. And it can also use the threat of kicking UCD and Cal Poly football out of the conference to prevent them from supporting a Big West offer to add Sac State non-football sports.

At this point there is only one scenario that could take the Big Sky out of the driver’s seat, and that would be the establishment of a second western FCS conference that would give Sac State, UCD, Cal Poly and other western FCS schools an alternative home for their football programs.

The WAC has the heart, but also more obstacles - it needs to add at least three more full members with football for it to be viable. The Big West has the easier path, but no heart - there's just no stomach for it.

Regardless, IMO the key for any second western FCS league is Portland State. Portland State can be UCD's travel partner, or Seattle. The three California schools, Portland State, Dixie State and say, Northern Arizona would be a compact and viable FCS conference. But Portland State would be a full member either way.

Would this allow the GNAC left overs to move up?

Seattle U./Central Washington/Simon Fraser football only as a grandfather in since the people up in BC actually have the same culture of people in Washington State.
Portland State/Western Oregon
UC-Davis/Cal Poly/Azusa Pacific/Cal Baptist
Dixie State/Colorado Mesa
Grand Canyon/Northern Arizona
New Mexico State/UTRGV/West Texas AM

10 football + 1 football only
14 all sports and 1 affiliate.
Now, with UMKC leaving, Chicago State needs to go find a home or go D2.
It is clear that the WAC can't form a "travel friendly" FCS conference without pulling schools away from the Big Sky; difficult to do. Their are not enough viable D2 move-ups west of the Rockies to form an FCS level football conference. And, the WAC can't just add anyone or it will continue to be in the same situation; a group of schools with contrasting future prospectus... and everyone looking for greener pastures.

I'm not sure the WAC can rectify Dixie State's FCS football situation; as it can't fix NMSU's FBS football situation either.
I've seen comments elsewhere that there's an agreement that forbids Sac State from going to the Big West... and that might be part of how Davis got to the Big West. That old UC v Cal State issue is a factor IIRC. However, Sac State was deliberately keeping football front and center as they made their decisions to end up where they are now. I also suspect that they feel they can never be seen trying to make decisions based on what Davis does.

There are times when I think the appropriate way to extricate anyone from the Big Sky involves a package of Portland State and Sacramento State. The problem you first have to overcome in doing that, however, is to find a school that will travel 5,000 to Portland every other year. Portland State lives off two body bag games... but the Montanas are why they stay in the BSC.

Sac has also started some sort of fund raising effort for a new arena, it needed to get to a certain level to trigger going for state funds... and they've met that target. Now we're supposed to see if the school can follow through. Eh, I don't know. I can see that end up going nowhere in the same way that the rec center (which was supposed to include a new arena) students at Sac voted for ended up not having the arena.
(07-14-2019 01:08 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-12-2019 07:28 PM)Hilldog Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-27-2019 06:02 PM)Pounder Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-27-2019 04:23 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't really see Portland State dropping football. Their 2017-2018 budget was a total of $12.2 million. They spent $3.6 million on football and $1.3 million on basketball. That is not much being spent on athletics. Eastern Washington had a budget of $16.3 million for athletics, $5 million on football and $1.6 million on basketball. That is probably where Portland State needs to be.

If PSU were to drop football (hypothetically), you almost wonder why they would remain a D1 program. With no football, men's soccer and baseball, what would be the point? The Big Sky Conference is a football league that also plays basketball. The BSC does not have men's soccer or baseball. The whole point of being in the league is to play football.

If PSU were to drop football, saving $3.6 million, the better move might be to stay D1 and add men's soccer and baseball. Then join the WAC. Baseball and men's soccer will cost at least $1 million to add. When UNM dropped men's soccer, they said it would save $540,000 annually. When North Dakota dropped baseball, they saved $600,000 annually. The combination of the two sports would probably cost in the neighborhood of $1.2 million to $1.4 million. That would make more sense than dropping to D2.

PSU averaged 3,799 in football attendance in 2018. They look like a school that either needs to drop football or go all in and build a multi-purpose stadium on or near the campus. They need some Nike money.

The real chance to drop football was 5 years ago, and the momentum existed to do it then. It's not like I'm going to fully disagree with you here.

The main thing: Portland State spent/is spending $50 million on an arena and Phys Ed building (I'd say arena upgrade, but that flatters the old Stott Center). In theory, attendance has gone up and helps part of the equation. It's not had a sellout yet, and that's frustrating, but now they can draw a few more donor inducements.

Meanwhile, football is living completely on two body bag games a year, is now committed to playing on a "home field" 14 miles away in a suburban sort-of-high-school football stadium/sport complex with a couple more amenities (although many say Hillsboro is better than, say, Northern Colorado or Southern Utah), and most people in the area are really asking "what's the point of keeping football" about now. Even with a few wins at the end of last year, the program is very much out-of-sight and out-of-mind in Portland.

The funky part: if PSU were to add baseball, they'd play in the same complex in Hillsboro. That's where the Hillsboro Hops ("single A short season, so the Hops don't start until mid-June) play, that's the only reason some of the amenities are a bit better than a high school stadium, and it's still 14 miles away. Soccer could happen in town... and maybe on the community field on campus, unless they accidentally caught fire and merited a few games in Providence Park.

What about Sac St.? Do they really fit into the Big Sky? Their basketball gym is worse than some high schools. They haven't done much in the Big Sky.

The Big Sky has 11 full time members, with 2 Big West schools football only members.

What if Sac St. decides traveling to Big Sky locations aren't worth it for their other sports. Why not play in the same conference as rival UCDavis? Their travel budget would be maybe a third of what it is in the Big Sky.

If Sac St leaves, that makes 10 full time Big Sky schools. With 3 Big West schools as football only members.

It’s doubtful the Big Sky would allow Sac State to play football in the conference if it moved its other sports to the Big West. Otherwise that move would have happened already. Certainly the Big West would have added Sac State instead of CSUB if that had been an option.

UCD and Cal Poly were only able to swing football-only membership in the Big Sky because of special circumstances. Historically the Big Sky wasn’t willing to take them or anyone else as football-only members. That changed in 2011 when the WAC, in a desperate effort to preserve its FBS conference status, went hunting for western FCS schools to move up to FBS. The Big Sky realized it had a chance to permanently remove that threat by aggressively expanding. Consequently it added North Dakota and SUU as full members and UCD and Cal Poly as football-only members in 2012.

As we all know the strategy worked. WAC football was killed, there is no longer a move-up option for western FCS schools, and now the Big Sky is one of the most stable athletic conferences in the country. For that very reason Sac State has no leverage. As long as the Big Sky continues to value having an all-sports member in the recruit-rich California market, it can and will continue to use the threat of kicking Sac State football out of the conference to prevent Sac State from moving non-football sports to the Big West. And it can also use the threat of kicking UCD and Cal Poly football out of the conference to prevent them from supporting a Big West offer to add Sac State non-football sports.

At this point there is only one scenario that could take the Big Sky out of the driver’s seat, and that would be the establishment of a second western FCS conference that would give Sac State, UCD, Cal Poly and other western FCS schools an alternative home for their football programs.

Sac. St and Bakersfield into the Big West, isn't a case of picking one or the other. The Big West, if Sac St came in, would become a 12 team conference.

While there are many cases of conferences with uneven number of schools, I think ideally most conferences would like an even number of schools.

I think you're overstating the WAC/Big Sky. None of the Big West schools ever talk about moving up to FBS football, at least seriously. The WAC, even on their football death bed, may have called Davis and Cal Poly, but they told them they had no desire to move up.

But, the offering of football only Big Sky, does prove they are open to it, and could offer that to Sac St. in the future.
(07-15-2019 02:34 AM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-15-2019 12:26 AM)jdgaucho Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-14-2019 01:08 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-12-2019 07:28 PM)Hilldog Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-27-2019 06:02 PM)Pounder Wrote: [ -> ]The real chance to drop football was 5 years ago, and the momentum existed to do it then. It's not like I'm going to fully disagree with you here.

The main thing: Portland State spent/is spending $50 million on an arena and Phys Ed building (I'd say arena upgrade, but that flatters the old Stott Center). In theory, attendance has gone up and helps part of the equation. It's not had a sellout yet, and that's frustrating, but now they can draw a few more donor inducements.

Meanwhile, football is living completely on two body bag games a year, is now committed to playing on a "home field" 14 miles away in a suburban sort-of-high-school football stadium/sport complex with a couple more amenities (although many say Hillsboro is better than, say, Northern Colorado or Southern Utah), and most people in the area are really asking "what's the point of keeping football" about now. Even with a few wins at the end of last year, the program is very much out-of-sight and out-of-mind in Portland.

The funky part: if PSU were to add baseball, they'd play in the same complex in Hillsboro. That's where the Hillsboro Hops ("single A short season, so the Hops don't start until mid-June) play, that's the only reason some of the amenities are a bit better than a high school stadium, and it's still 14 miles away. Soccer could happen in town... and maybe on the community field on campus, unless they accidentally caught fire and merited a few games in Providence Park.

What about Sac St.? Do they really fit into the Big Sky? Their basketball gym is worse than some high schools. They haven't done much in the Big Sky.

The Big Sky has 11 full time members, with 2 Big West schools football only members.

What if Sac St. decides traveling to Big Sky locations aren't worth it for their other sports. Why not play in the same conference as rival UCDavis? Their travel budget would be maybe a third of what it is in the Big Sky.

If Sac St leaves, that makes 10 full time Big Sky schools. With 3 Big West schools as football only members.

It’s doubtful the Big Sky would allow Sac State to play football in the conference if it moved its other sports to the Big West. Otherwise that move would have happened already. Certainly the Big West would have added Sac State instead of CSUB if that had been an option.

UCD and Cal Poly were only able to swing football-only membership in the Big Sky because of special circumstances. Historically the Big Sky wasn’t willing to take them or anyone else as football-only members. That changed in 2011 when the WAC, in a desperate effort to preserve its FBS conference status, went hunting for western FCS schools to move up to FBS. The Big Sky realized it had a chance to permanently remove that threat by aggressively expanding. Consequently it added North Dakota and SUU as full members and UCD and Cal Poly as football-only members in 2012.

As we all know the strategy worked. WAC football was killed, there is no longer a move-up option for western FCS schools, and now the Big Sky is one of the most stable athletic conferences in the country. For that very reason Sac State has no leverage. As long as the Big Sky continues to value having an all-sports member in the recruit-rich California market, it can and will continue to use the threat of kicking Sac State football out of the conference to prevent Sac State from moving non-football sports to the Big West. And it can also use the threat of kicking UCD and Cal Poly football out of the conference to prevent them from supporting a Big West offer to add Sac State non-football sports.

At this point there is only one scenario that could take the Big Sky out of the driver’s seat, and that would be the establishment of a second western FCS conference that would give Sac State, UCD, Cal Poly and other western FCS schools an alternative home for their football programs.

The WAC has the heart, but also more obstacles - it needs to add at least three more full members with football for it to be viable. The Big West has the easier path, but no heart - there's just no stomach for it.

Regardless, IMO the key for any second western FCS league is Portland State. Portland State can be UCD's travel partner, or Seattle. The three California schools, Portland State, Dixie State and say, Northern Arizona would be a compact and viable FCS conference. But Portland State would be a full member either way.

Would this allow the GNAC left overs to move up?

Seattle U./Central Washington/Simon Fraser football only as a grandfather in since the people up in BC actually have the same culture of people in Washington State.
Portland State/Western Oregon
UC-Davis/Cal Poly/Azusa Pacific/Cal Baptist
Dixie State/Colorado Mesa
Grand Canyon/Northern Arizona
New Mexico State/UTRGV/West Texas AM

10 football + 1 football only
14 all sports and 1 affiliate.
Now, with UMKC leaving, Chicago State needs to go find a home or go D2.

BC and Washington St are part of what's called Cascadia but there really isn't much in common unless you consider them hoping down to fill their cars with gas, back logging doctors up in Whatcom County. But Football isn't something BC loves like the States and SFU isn't FCS quality.
(07-15-2019 06:30 PM)Pounder Wrote: [ -> ]I've seen comments elsewhere that there's an agreement that forbids Sac State from going to the Big West... and that might be part of how Davis got to the Big West. That old UC v Cal State issue is a factor IIRC. However, Sac State was deliberately keeping football front and center as they made their decisions to end up where they are now. I also suspect that they feel they can never be seen trying to make decisions based on what Davis does.

There are times when I think the appropriate way to extricate anyone from the Big Sky involves a package of Portland State and Sacramento State. The problem you first have to overcome in doing that, however, is to find a school that will travel 5,000 to Portland every other year. Portland State lives off two body bag games... but the Montanas are why they stay in the BSC.

Sac has also started some sort of fund raising effort for a new arena, it needed to get to a certain level to trigger going for state funds... and they've met that target. Now we're supposed to see if the school can follow through. Eh, I don't know. I can see that end up going nowhere in the same way that the rec center (which was supposed to include a new arena) students at Sac voted for ended up not having the arena.

UC Davis got into the Big West because Idaho and Utah State were leaving. It's that simple.

In September 2010, Cal Poly and UC Davis joined the Big Sky in football only. This quote from then-commissioner Doug Fullerton is telling.

https://gogriz.com/news/2010/9/7/Cal_Pol...h=football

"We worked in cooperation with Big West Conference Commissioner Dennis Farrell," Fullerton added. "The Big West fully supports this effort, as it gives its two football-playing members a home."

There's nothing out there which mentions any informal agreement that is keeping Sac State out of the BW, but I do think a gentlemen's agreement was reached.
(07-15-2019 07:19 PM)Hilldog Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-14-2019 01:08 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-12-2019 07:28 PM)Hilldog Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-27-2019 06:02 PM)Pounder Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-27-2019 04:23 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't really see Portland State dropping football. Their 2017-2018 budget was a total of $12.2 million. They spent $3.6 million on football and $1.3 million on basketball. That is not much being spent on athletics. Eastern Washington had a budget of $16.3 million for athletics, $5 million on football and $1.6 million on basketball. That is probably where Portland State needs to be.

If PSU were to drop football (hypothetically), you almost wonder why they would remain a D1 program. With no football, men's soccer and baseball, what would be the point? The Big Sky Conference is a football league that also plays basketball. The BSC does not have men's soccer or baseball. The whole point of being in the league is to play football.

If PSU were to drop football, saving $3.6 million, the better move might be to stay D1 and add men's soccer and baseball. Then join the WAC. Baseball and men's soccer will cost at least $1 million to add. When UNM dropped men's soccer, they said it would save $540,000 annually. When North Dakota dropped baseball, they saved $600,000 annually. The combination of the two sports would probably cost in the neighborhood of $1.2 million to $1.4 million. That would make more sense than dropping to D2.

PSU averaged 3,799 in football attendance in 2018. They look like a school that either needs to drop football or go all in and build a multi-purpose stadium on or near the campus. They need some Nike money.

The real chance to drop football was 5 years ago, and the momentum existed to do it then. It's not like I'm going to fully disagree with you here.

The main thing: Portland State spent/is spending $50 million on an arena and Phys Ed building (I'd say arena upgrade, but that flatters the old Stott Center). In theory, attendance has gone up and helps part of the equation. It's not had a sellout yet, and that's frustrating, but now they can draw a few more donor inducements.

Meanwhile, football is living completely on two body bag games a year, is now committed to playing on a "home field" 14 miles away in a suburban sort-of-high-school football stadium/sport complex with a couple more amenities (although many say Hillsboro is better than, say, Northern Colorado or Southern Utah), and most people in the area are really asking "what's the point of keeping football" about now. Even with a few wins at the end of last year, the program is very much out-of-sight and out-of-mind in Portland.

The funky part: if PSU were to add baseball, they'd play in the same complex in Hillsboro. That's where the Hillsboro Hops ("single A short season, so the Hops don't start until mid-June) play, that's the only reason some of the amenities are a bit better than a high school stadium, and it's still 14 miles away. Soccer could happen in town... and maybe on the community field on campus, unless they accidentally caught fire and merited a few games in Providence Park.

What about Sac St.? Do they really fit into the Big Sky? Their basketball gym is worse than some high schools. They haven't done much in the Big Sky.

The Big Sky has 11 full time members, with 2 Big West schools football only members.

What if Sac St. decides traveling to Big Sky locations aren't worth it for their other sports. Why not play in the same conference as rival UCDavis? Their travel budget would be maybe a third of what it is in the Big Sky.

If Sac St leaves, that makes 10 full time Big Sky schools. With 3 Big West schools as football only members.

It’s doubtful the Big Sky would allow Sac State to play football in the conference if it moved its other sports to the Big West. Otherwise that move would have happened already. Certainly the Big West would have added Sac State instead of CSUB if that had been an option.

UCD and Cal Poly were only able to swing football-only membership in the Big Sky because of special circumstances. Historically the Big Sky wasn’t willing to take them or anyone else as football-only members. That changed in 2011 when the WAC, in a desperate effort to preserve its FBS conference status, went hunting for western FCS schools to move up to FBS. The Big Sky realized it had a chance to permanently remove that threat by aggressively expanding. Consequently it added North Dakota and SUU as full members and UCD and Cal Poly as football-only members in 2012.

As we all know the strategy worked. WAC football was killed, there is no longer a move-up option for western FCS schools, and now the Big Sky is one of the most stable athletic conferences in the country. For that very reason Sac State has no leverage. As long as the Big Sky continues to value having an all-sports member in the recruit-rich California market, it can and will continue to use the threat of kicking Sac State football out of the conference to prevent Sac State from moving non-football sports to the Big West. And it can also use the threat of kicking UCD and Cal Poly football out of the conference to prevent them from supporting a Big West offer to add Sac State non-football sports.

At this point there is only one scenario that could take the Big Sky out of the driver’s seat, and that would be the establishment of a second western FCS conference that would give Sac State, UCD, Cal Poly and other western FCS schools an alternative home for their football programs.

Sac. St and Bakersfield into the Big West, isn't a case of picking one or the other. The Big West, if Sac St came in, would become a 12 team conference.

While there are many cases of conferences with uneven number of schools, I think ideally most conferences would like an even number of schools.

I think you're overstating the WAC/Big Sky. None of the Big West schools ever talk about moving up to FBS football, at least seriously. The WAC, even on their football death bed, may have called Davis and Cal Poly, but they told them they had no desire to move up.

But, the offering of football only Big Sky, does prove they are open to it, and could offer that to Sac St. in the future.

A western conference isn't going to offer its lone full member from California football-only status. If Sac State leaves they are all the way out.
(07-16-2019 02:07 AM)jdgaucho Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-15-2019 07:19 PM)Hilldog Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-14-2019 01:08 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-12-2019 07:28 PM)Hilldog Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-27-2019 06:02 PM)Pounder Wrote: [ -> ]The real chance to drop football was 5 years ago, and the momentum existed to do it then. It's not like I'm going to fully disagree with you here.

The main thing: Portland State spent/is spending $50 million on an arena and Phys Ed building (I'd say arena upgrade, but that flatters the old Stott Center). In theory, attendance has gone up and helps part of the equation. It's not had a sellout yet, and that's frustrating, but now they can draw a few more donor inducements.

Meanwhile, football is living completely on two body bag games a year, is now committed to playing on a "home field" 14 miles away in a suburban sort-of-high-school football stadium/sport complex with a couple more amenities (although many say Hillsboro is better than, say, Northern Colorado or Southern Utah), and most people in the area are really asking "what's the point of keeping football" about now. Even with a few wins at the end of last year, the program is very much out-of-sight and out-of-mind in Portland.

The funky part: if PSU were to add baseball, they'd play in the same complex in Hillsboro. That's where the Hillsboro Hops ("single A short season, so the Hops don't start until mid-June) play, that's the only reason some of the amenities are a bit better than a high school stadium, and it's still 14 miles away. Soccer could happen in town... and maybe on the community field on campus, unless they accidentally caught fire and merited a few games in Providence Park.

What about Sac St.? Do they really fit into the Big Sky? Their basketball gym is worse than some high schools. They haven't done much in the Big Sky.

The Big Sky has 11 full time members, with 2 Big West schools football only members.

What if Sac St. decides traveling to Big Sky locations aren't worth it for their other sports. Why not play in the same conference as rival UCDavis? Their travel budget would be maybe a third of what it is in the Big Sky.

If Sac St leaves, that makes 10 full time Big Sky schools. With 3 Big West schools as football only members.

It’s doubtful the Big Sky would allow Sac State to play football in the conference if it moved its other sports to the Big West. Otherwise that move would have happened already. Certainly the Big West would have added Sac State instead of CSUB if that had been an option.

UCD and Cal Poly were only able to swing football-only membership in the Big Sky because of special circumstances. Historically the Big Sky wasn’t willing to take them or anyone else as football-only members. That changed in 2011 when the WAC, in a desperate effort to preserve its FBS conference status, went hunting for western FCS schools to move up to FBS. The Big Sky realized it had a chance to permanently remove that threat by aggressively expanding. Consequently it added North Dakota and SUU as full members and UCD and Cal Poly as football-only members in 2012.

As we all know the strategy worked. WAC football was killed, there is no longer a move-up option for western FCS schools, and now the Big Sky is one of the most stable athletic conferences in the country. For that very reason Sac State has no leverage. As long as the Big Sky continues to value having an all-sports member in the recruit-rich California market, it can and will continue to use the threat of kicking Sac State football out of the conference to prevent Sac State from moving non-football sports to the Big West. And it can also use the threat of kicking UCD and Cal Poly football out of the conference to prevent them from supporting a Big West offer to add Sac State non-football sports.

At this point there is only one scenario that could take the Big Sky out of the driver’s seat, and that would be the establishment of a second western FCS conference that would give Sac State, UCD, Cal Poly and other western FCS schools an alternative home for their football programs.

Sac. St and Bakersfield into the Big West, isn't a case of picking one or the other. The Big West, if Sac St came in, would become a 12 team conference.

While there are many cases of conferences with uneven number of schools, I think ideally most conferences would like an even number of schools.

I think you're overstating the WAC/Big Sky. None of the Big West schools ever talk about moving up to FBS football, at least seriously. The WAC, even on their football death bed, may have called Davis and Cal Poly, but they told them they had no desire to move up.

But, the offering of football only Big Sky, does prove they are open to it, and could offer that to Sac St. in the future.

A western conference isn't going to offer its lone full member from California football-only status. If Sac State leaves they are all the way out.

Because Sac St. has done so well for the Big Sky? How many Big Sky Championships have they won in all sports?

I get everybody is just giving opinions here. But, ideas or theories we post may not be the way conferences are thinking! Everybody on this board said D2 schools with football aren't being looked at as candidates for WAC expansion. Then Dixie St. a D2 program with football is invited! The WAC is in survival mode. They won't discount any school looking to move up or move from a D1 conference-I agree that there are very few if any schools looking to move to the WAC from other D1 conferences.

I remember the talk that the Big West doesn't want Bakersfield, yet Bakersfield got an invitation. While I'm not saying Sac St will go to the Big West next year, or in five years. At some point a CA school will have to look at finances and decide that playing in a conference where almost all conference members are in CA, is a better option than being the only CA school in a conference!
(07-16-2019 12:45 PM)Hilldog Wrote: [ -> ]Because Sac St. has done so well for the Big Sky? How many Big Sky Championships have they won in all sports?

I get everybody is just giving opinions here. But, ideas or theories we post may not be the way conferences are thinking! Everybody on this board said D2 schools with football aren't being looked at as candidates for WAC expansion. Then Dixie St. a D2 program with football is invited! The WAC is in survival mode. They won't discount any school looking to move up or move from a D1 conference-I agree that there are very few if any schools looking to move to the WAC from other D1 conferences.

I remember the talk that the Big West doesn't want Bakersfield, yet Bakersfield got an invitation. While I'm not saying Sac St will go to the Big West next year, or in five years. At some point a CA school will have to look at finances and decide that playing in a conference where almost all conference members are in CA, is a better option than being the only CA school in a conference!

I think CSUB was added to keep a balance between UC schools and Cal State schools in the Big West. Adding Sac State would throw things out of balance in the Big West, so that probably will not happen.

Sac State would need to get the permission of the Big Sky to move Olympic sports to another conference while keeping football in the Big Sky. If they got it, I think the WAC would be the right choice for them, once they built a new arena. As long as the WAC can keep their current membership, the WAC would be a better basketball conference than the Big West and a nice fit for a Sac State basketball program with a new arena.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Reference URL's