CSNbbs

(04-27-2020 01:18 AM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]McNeese State was the last Southland school that made a bowl game. I think they played Big West teams. I think 81 was their last appearance. From 1978 to 1982, MVC, Southland and Southern had half the teams in 1A and the other half in 1AA.
For history of conferences, WAC, BIg West, MVC, Southland and Southern along with SWC are still referred in history as former FBS conference to this day.

All SLC members were Division I-A from the beginning of the division split until the force down. The Southland Conference forced Southwest Louisiana (now Louisiana) to leave the conference to continue to participate at the Division I-A level after that. I think that was a mistake on the conference's part for both parties. Not allowing Louisiana to remain an SLC member in non-football sports started the conference destabilization and forced Louisiana to compete as an independent for several years. (McNeese State qualified to stay at the D-IA level, but opted to drop down to DI-AA with the rest of the SLC.) The Southland Conference later did the same thing to Texas State and UTSA which again I think was a shortsighted move.

Following the force down, the MVC was a hybrid conference with both I-A and I-AA members. I don't know about the Southern conference.

While the conferences retained their D-IA history, unlike the WAC, I think former Division I-A members Southland Conference, Ivy League, Missouri Valley and Southern Conference would have the hardest time of meeting the requirements to return to the equivalent of D-IA (Football Bowl Subdivision) since they failed to meet the requirements for Division I-A at the conclusion of the initial 1978-1981 qualification period. All were forced down to Division I-AA at same time. The Missouri Valley was a special case since most schools were forced down at the same time the other conferences were forced down. Four schools, including New Mexico State, did meet the requirements and continued to compete at the Division I-A level and remained as Missouri Valley Conference members. The Missouri Valley did what I think the Southland should have done with its Division I-a qualifiers.

As the WAC moves forward with the possible sponsorship of football, one consideration should be whether or not to enforce or create a rule that requires all members to compete at the same level the conference sponsors. There are pros and cons on both sides. I lean toward a hybrid set up like the Missouri Valley had in the early years of the division split. Football is not the only sport. Basketball, baseball, and other sports are strong contributors to a conference. Using the SLC and Louisiana's history, the SLC lost a very strong basketball, baseball, and now softball member by forcing the Ragin' Cajuns out. The Ragin' Cajuns' departure also opened the door for other very strong members to depart. They might have left anyway, but I'm not in favor of kicking someone out just because they compete in one sport at a different level.

(04-27-2020 01:24 PM)LUSportsFan Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-27-2020 01:18 AM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]McNeese State was the last Southland school that made a bowl game. I think they played Big West teams. I think 81 was their last appearance. From 1978 to 1982, MVC, Southland and Southern had half the teams in 1A and the other half in 1AA.
For history of conferences, WAC, BIg West, MVC, Southland and Southern along with SWC are still referred in history as former FBS conference to this day.

All SLC members were Division I-A from the beginning of the division split until the force down. The Southland Conference forced Southwest Louisiana (now Louisiana) to leave the conference to continue to participate at the Division I-A level after that. I think that was a mistake on the conference's part for both parties. Not allowing Louisiana to remain an SLC member in non-football sports started the conference destabilization and forced Louisiana to compete as an independent for several years. (McNeese State qualified to stay at the D-IA level, but opted to drop down to DI-AA with the rest of the SLC.) The Southland Conference later did the same thing to Texas State and UTSA which again I think was a shortsighted move.

Following the force down, the MVC was a hybrid conference with both I-A and I-AA members. I don't know about the Southern conference.

While the conferences retained their D-IA history, unlike the WAC, I think former Division I-A members Southland Conference, Ivy League, Missouri Valley and Southern Conference would have the hardest time of meeting the requirements to return to the equivalent of D-IA (Football Bowl Subdivision) since they failed to meet the requirements for Division I-A at the conclusion of the initial 1978-1981 qualification period. All were forced down to Division I-AA at same time. The Missouri Valley was a special case since most schools were forced down at the same time the other conferences were forced down. Four schools, including New Mexico State, did meet the requirements and continued to compete at the Division I-A level and remained as Missouri Valley Conference members. The Missouri Valley did what I think the Southland should have done with its Division I-a qualifiers.

As the WAC moves forward with the possible sponsorship of football, one consideration should be whether or not to enforce or create a rule that requires all members to compete at the same level the conference sponsors. There are pros and cons on both sides. I lean toward a hybrid set up like the Missouri Valley had in the early years of the division split. Football is not the only sport. Basketball, baseball, and other sports are strong contributors to a conference. Using the SLC and Louisiana's history, the SLC lost a very strong basketball, baseball, and now softball member by forcing the Ragin' Cajuns out. The Ragin' Cajuns' departure also opened the door for other very strong members to depart. They might have left anyway, but I'm not in favor of kicking someone out just because they compete in one sport at a different level.

Although it could appear to make sense for the WAC, one substantial obstacle to a hybrid FBS/FCS conference is the minimum number of FBS games and FBS home games required to play at that level. Having half your conference foes playing at the FCS level is setting you up to not be in compliance with those requirements.

(04-27-2020 04:39 PM)NotANewbie Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-27-2020 01:24 PM)LUSportsFan Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-27-2020 01:18 AM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]McNeese State was the last Southland school that made a bowl game. I think they played Big West teams. I think 81 was their last appearance. From 1978 to 1982, MVC, Southland and Southern had half the teams in 1A and the other half in 1AA.
For history of conferences, WAC, BIg West, MVC, Southland and Southern along with SWC are still referred in history as former FBS conference to this day.

All SLC members were Division I-A from the beginning of the division split until the force down. The Southland Conference forced Southwest Louisiana (now Louisiana) to leave the conference to continue to participate at the Division I-A level after that. I think that was a mistake on the conference's part for both parties. Not allowing Louisiana to remain an SLC member in non-football sports started the conference destabilization and forced Louisiana to compete as an independent for several years. (McNeese State qualified to stay at the D-IA level, but opted to drop down to DI-AA with the rest of the SLC.) The Southland Conference later did the same thing to Texas State and UTSA which again I think was a shortsighted move.

Following the force down, the MVC was a hybrid conference with both I-A and I-AA members. I don't know about the Southern conference.

While the conferences retained their D-IA history, unlike the WAC, I think former Division I-A members Southland Conference, Ivy League, Missouri Valley and Southern Conference would have the hardest time of meeting the requirements to return to the equivalent of D-IA (Football Bowl Subdivision) since they failed to meet the requirements for Division I-A at the conclusion of the initial 1978-1981 qualification period. All were forced down to Division I-AA at same time. The Missouri Valley was a special case since most schools were forced down at the same time the other conferences were forced down. Four schools, including New Mexico State, did meet the requirements and continued to compete at the Division I-A level and remained as Missouri Valley Conference members. The Missouri Valley did what I think the Southland should have done with its Division I-a qualifiers.

As the WAC moves forward with the possible sponsorship of football, one consideration should be whether or not to enforce or create a rule that requires all members to compete at the same level the conference sponsors. There are pros and cons on both sides. I lean toward a hybrid set up like the Missouri Valley had in the early years of the division split. Football is not the only sport. Basketball, baseball, and other sports are strong contributors to a conference. Using the SLC and Louisiana's history, the SLC lost a very strong basketball, baseball, and now softball member by forcing the Ragin' Cajuns out. The Ragin' Cajuns' departure also opened the door for other very strong members to depart. They might have left anyway, but I'm not in favor of kicking someone out just because they compete in one sport at a different level.

Although it could appear to make sense for the WAC, one substantial obstacle to a hybrid FBS/FCS conference is the minimum number of FBS games and FBS home games required to play at that level. Having half your conference foes playing at the FCS level is setting you up to not be in compliance with those requirements.

If the WAC went to FCS football, NMSU would remain an independent in FBS. They could play one WAC FCS team every year and that's it.

(04-27-2020 05:30 PM)PojoaquePosse Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-27-2020 04:39 PM)NotANewbie Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-27-2020 01:24 PM)LUSportsFan Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-27-2020 01:18 AM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]McNeese State was the last Southland school that made a bowl game. I think they played Big West teams. I think 81 was their last appearance. From 1978 to 1982, MVC, Southland and Southern had half the teams in 1A and the other half in 1AA.
For history of conferences, WAC, BIg West, MVC, Southland and Southern along with SWC are still referred in history as former FBS conference to this day.

All SLC members were Division I-A from the beginning of the division split until the force down. The Southland Conference forced Southwest Louisiana (now Louisiana) to leave the conference to continue to participate at the Division I-A level after that. I think that was a mistake on the conference's part for both parties. Not allowing Louisiana to remain an SLC member in non-football sports started the conference destabilization and forced Louisiana to compete as an independent for several years. (McNeese State qualified to stay at the D-IA level, but opted to drop down to DI-AA with the rest of the SLC.) The Southland Conference later did the same thing to Texas State and UTSA which again I think was a shortsighted move.

Following the force down, the MVC was a hybrid conference with both I-A and I-AA members. I don't know about the Southern conference.

While the conferences retained their D-IA history, unlike the WAC, I think former Division I-A members Southland Conference, Ivy League, Missouri Valley and Southern Conference would have the hardest time of meeting the requirements to return to the equivalent of D-IA (Football Bowl Subdivision) since they failed to meet the requirements for Division I-A at the conclusion of the initial 1978-1981 qualification period. All were forced down to Division I-AA at same time. The Missouri Valley was a special case since most schools were forced down at the same time the other conferences were forced down. Four schools, including New Mexico State, did meet the requirements and continued to compete at the Division I-A level and remained as Missouri Valley Conference members. The Missouri Valley did what I think the Southland should have done with its Division I-a qualifiers.

As the WAC moves forward with the possible sponsorship of football, one consideration should be whether or not to enforce or create a rule that requires all members to compete at the same level the conference sponsors. There are pros and cons on both sides. I lean toward a hybrid set up like the Missouri Valley had in the early years of the division split. Football is not the only sport. Basketball, baseball, and other sports are strong contributors to a conference. Using the SLC and Louisiana's history, the SLC lost a very strong basketball, baseball, and now softball member by forcing the Ragin' Cajuns out. The Ragin' Cajuns' departure also opened the door for other very strong members to depart. They might have left anyway, but I'm not in favor of kicking someone out just because they compete in one sport at a different level.

Although it could appear to make sense for the WAC, one substantial obstacle to a hybrid FBS/FCS conference is the minimum number of FBS games and FBS home games required to play at that level. Having half your conference foes playing at the FCS level is setting you up to not be in compliance with those requirements.

If the WAC went to FCS football, NMSU would remain an independent in FBS. They could play one WAC FCS team every year and that's it.

For those wondering about this comment, NMSU did a study and they found out they'd lose $1 million+ per season going to FCS especially due to buy games.
I do like the idea of the WAC going to FCS with each team rotating playing NMSU every year. Gives every team an idea of what they need to do to go FBS and a (decent) chance to upset an FBS team. If this does happen it gives people in Cruces a change to know their opponents to hopefully show up to a football game and to give other WAC teams a "known" FBS team to play at home right away.
We aint good at football, I am looking forward to a football conference home and to seasons that are more that 3-9.

(04-24-2020 01:59 PM)LUSportsFan Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-23-2020 11:26 AM)dancingNMSUaggie Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-22-2020 10:13 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-22-2020 06:06 PM)wisdomgymrat Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-22-2020 05:38 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote: [ -> ]Please post a recent article stating that Lamar “wants FBS”. While you’re at it, please post articles for Sam Houston, Stephen F Austin, and Incarnate Word “wanting FBS” as well. UIW had less than 3,000 fans at their last home game and plays in a 6,000 seat stadium, but yeah they want FBS football. Okay Dave

I totally agree with you. Incarnate Word will never... I repeat NEVER get an FBS invite. UTSA took that money market.

COVID-19 halted all talks for now. I really don't see the current football playing schools, nor the possible SLC defectors going FBS as well. If the WAC gets football again, It will be FCS only. Maybe...years and years down the road... get to FBS.

So back to the initial conundrum: is the WAC willing to forfeit its FBS ticket just to spearhead a new FCS league. Or, would it be more logical to court a select group of D2 move-ups and SLC defectors that are capable of meeting FBS standards to revive a WAC FBS league. The latter gives NMSU Football a home, and those select TX SLC teams a legit reason to bolt for the WAC. For the likes of SFA, Sam and Lamar to move up from FCS to a FBS conference makes a ton more sense than a lateral FCS to FCS move, especially for a conference as grographically-friendly as the SLC. The 15k capacity requirement narrows down all potential candidates significantly. Yes, we know the near term plan for Tarleton is to play as an FCS independent and get Memorial Stadium up to snuff. During that time I believe the WAC commish will bring more LSC schools into the fold as WAC/FCS independents and bring the SLC defectors over to a newly formed FBS WAC when the dust has settled. There is a reason Chancellor Sharp was so bullish on Tarleton joining the WAC way back when everybody else (Lonn included) wanted the SLC. That reason/vision may very well be "parking" all the larger and capable A&M LSC schools into an eventual FBS WAC 2.0

(04-23-2020 10:26 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]WAC football isn’t going to be coming back at the FBS level. The claim to a grandfather clause that would allow them to come up is a flimsy one. WAC football at the FCS level makes a lot more sense and is more feasible. they have 2 members now and finding 5 more, internally or externally, is doable but still no small task

So here is one thing I don't know. I do know that the WAC has the FBS card. However, if the WAC chooses to start an FCS football league does that forfeit the right to start an FBS league in the future? Solid factual answers please, not Mr Flimsy facts.

It looks like the FBS "golden ticket" is available whether the WAC sponsors FCS first or directly to FBS according to this.

Quote:...On page 62, the report has a section labeled "Conference Notes", which includes this NCAA bylaw.

NCAA Bylaw 20.4.2.1.1

Eligibility for Reclassification - Before a Football Championship Subdivision institution may apply for reclassification to the Football Bowl Subdivision, the institution must receive a bona fide invitation for membership from a Football Bowl Subdivision conference or a conference that previously met the definition of a Football Bowl Subdivision conference.

The WAC compliance officer confirmed that if they got eight football-playing schools, even if they're all FCS, they could join FBS as the revived WAC. The WAC certainly fits the description at the end of a league that "previously met the definition of a Football Bowl Subdivision conference"...

(emphasis added)

The quote above was in this SB Nation (Underdog Dynasty article). SB Nation article dated May 5, 2016 (The article has a link to the University of Idaho Collegiate Consulting report, but that link is now broken.) If someone wants to spend the time, a link is probably still someplace on the internet since the report was released to the public in 2016. I recall a lot of discussion at the time; especially concerning the Western Athletic Conference's ability to restart its sponsorship of FBS football. Even so, the quote is based on results of a report based on discussions with WAC officials. It is definitely not a primary source (probably not even secondary or tertiary). It does provide an avenue for additional research, though.

-----------------------------------------

As an FYI in reference to the posts immediately above this one about WAC schools I am a fan of, I don't "have a dog directly in the hunt" as far as the WAC goes, but I have been a fan of the conference since the 1960's. One of the best football games I ever saw was a game in the '90's between two former WAC members, Colorado State and Wyoming in the snow. WAC football in an earlier time was wild and WACky. The games were just plain fun to watch whether a fan or not. I had additional interests in recent years when former conference mates moved to the WAC. First former Southland Conference members Louisiana Tech and then Texas State, UTSA, and Texas-Arlington joined the WAC.

Then, UTRGV, with roots from UT-Pan American, a former American South Conference and Sun Belt Conference mate joined the WAC. One of Lamar's women's head basketball coaches, Larry Tidwell, went from Lamar to UTPA/UTRGV, also. Although I don't know if I'd consider UTRGV a rival because we don't get to play enough games in all sports against each other in recent years, there have been several competitive basketball games in years past. I think one game in 1981 during the Pat Foster years may still have the Fieldhouse attendance record of 5,649. Based on UTRGV's media guide, the UTPA Broncs / UTRGV Vaqueros vs LU Cardinals men's basketball teams have played each other 75 times with the Cardinals leading the series 42-33. The last time was in 2018.

Although it has been quite a while, the Cardinals and the New Mexico State Aggies had a pretty good history in football from the mid 1960's through the mid 1970's. The two competed in 10 football games during that period with 4 games in Beaumont and 6 in Las Cruces. The Aggies won 6 of the games with the Cardinals taking 4. Although not a sell out, the Aggies drew pretty well in Beaumont back then with an attendance of 13,747 in 1969. Lamar's stadium capacity back then was 17,500.

Whether I directly support a WAC member school or not, I support the conference.

Nice work!
Ok, so let"s start with what we know for sure: Tarleton and Dixie have been sold a bag of goods that the WAC is "deligently working" to re-establish a football conference. No mention if it was served up as FCS or FBS, or a combination of both, but we do know for sure that football is on the menu. If the WAC can establish an FCS league and move that league to FBS at anytime, I have to believe that is a very intriguing proposition for other schools considering coming on board. It would mean the WAC has more potential and a higher ceiling than any other FCS conference. If I'm an SFA, Sam, or Lamar, and I have even an inkling of moving up to FBS, I'm giving the WAC a hard look.
And let's say they take the bait and bolt for the WAC, joining Tarleton, Dixie and NMSU. If the number to hit is eight, do the other two schools come out of Texas, or do they snatch up a UNCO and UNA from the Big Sky? It seems silly to me that the WAC is based out of Denver and not a single Colorado school in it. I bet the commish feels the same way.

The Patriot League is a FCS conference. Army and Navy are full members but both play FBS football. If the WAC is able to have football again, you can copy the Patriot's model. At least until some time in the future that all of WAC football is able to move to FBS.

I think the WAC is working to establish FCS football in the conference in the future. I think the hope is they will select programs that can eventually move up to FBS level at some point. This doesn't help NMSU for the immediate future but it would stabilize the WAC conference as a whole.

(04-27-2020 11:00 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote: [ -> ]I think the WAC is working to establish FCS football in the conference in the future. I think the hope is they will select programs that can eventually move up to FBS level at some point. This doesn't help NMSU for the immediate future but it would stabilize the WAC conference as a whole.

I agree with this. I think the WAC is looking to start up FCS football. But if FBS was the goal, if you could get Dixie and Tarleton to FBS, plus NMSU, don't forget about UMASS, UCONN and Liberty. That's 6 schools right there. NMSU, UMASS and Liberty are already flying all over the country to play each other. Travel would not matter too much as they are already traveling quite a bit as independents.

My wish...I don't think it will happen..but I wish if NMSU is going to have to stay in the WAC that FBS football would come back. I wish Dixie State and Tarleton State move up to be with NMSU FBS football and some other schools move up. NMSU might actually be competitive with move up schools in football. Pretty sure our AD, president and others have no plans or desire to move football to FCS. Realistically we will be FBS independent forever in football and in the WAC in everything else for at least the next 10 years.

(04-28-2020 09:02 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-27-2020 11:00 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote: [ -> ]I think the WAC is working to establish FCS football in the conference in the future. I think the hope is they will select programs that can eventually move up to FBS level at some point. This doesn't help NMSU for the immediate future but it would stabilize the WAC conference as a whole.

I agree with this. I think the WAC is looking to start up FCS football. But if FBS was the goal, if you could get Dixie and Tarleton to FBS, plus NMSU, don't forget about UMASS, UCONN and Liberty. That's 6 schools right there. NMSU, UMASS and Liberty are already flying all over the country to play each other. Travel would not matter too much as they are already traveling quite a bit as independents.

Love this scenario. It makes to much sense so I'm sure it won't happen.

So I looked up which schools could even realistically entertain the idea of going FCS, and eventually FBS. To even be considered by the WAC, it takes 2 things: 1. Money, and 2. >/= 15k capacity stadium. Putting this together, it all became very clear to me.... as someone stated before, the key to a WAC football conference lies in The Great State of Texas. Further still, plundering the good ol' Lone Star Conference may be all ithe WAC needs to do to get it done.
All the Texas LSC football-playing schools could make the move, not only in Football, but become full-member conference mates. MSU-Texas is the only one that's iffy on the list, as they don't enjoy the financial backing of the A&M/UT cash cow. Angelo State would need to either upgrade LeGrand, or utilize the 17k San Angelo Stadium. Angelo also has access to the Texas Tech line of credit. Western & Eastern NM (and likeky MSU-Texas) would end up in the RMAC.


FULL-MEMBER WAC FCS LEAGUE

Existing;
TARLETON - WAC FCS
DIXIE - WAC FCS
NMSU - WAC FBS IND/FCS?

WAC Full-Member FCS Adds with Realistic FBS Potential:

Lone Star:
-WTAMU (20k Stadium - Kimbrough)
-A&M KINGSVILLE (15k stadium)
-A&M COMMERCE (12k stadium)
-MSU-TEXAS (15k Stadium)
-UTPB (19k stadium)
-ANGELO (6k stadium, access to 17k stadium)

SLC options:
-ACU (12k stadium)
-SFA (15k stadium)
-SHSU (14k stadium)
-LAMAR (16k stadium)

(04-28-2020 12:54 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote: [ -> ]So I looked up which schools could even realistically entertain the idea of going FCS, and eventually FBS. To even be considered by the WAC, it takes 2 things: 1. Money, and 2. >/= 15k capacity stadium. Putting this together, it all became very clear to me.... as someone stated before, the key to a WAC football conference lies in The Great State of Texas. Further still, plundering the good ol' Lone Star Conference may be all ithe WAC needs to do to get it done.
All the Texas LSC football-playing schools could make the move, not only in Football, but become full-member conference mates. MSU-Texas is the only one that's iffy on the list, as they don't enjoy the financial backing of the A&M/UT cash cow. Angelo State would need to either upgrade LeGrand, or utilize the 17k San Angelo Stadium. Angelo also has access to the Texas Tech line of credit. Western & Eastern NM (and likeky MSU-Texas) would end up in the RMAC.


FULL-MEMBER WAC FCS LEAGUE

Existing;
TARLETON - WAC FCS
DIXIE - WAC FCS
NMSU - WAC FBS IND/FCS?

WAC Full-Member FCS Adds with Realistic FBS Potential:

Lone Star:
-WTAMU (20k Stadium - Kimbrough)
-A&M KINGSVILLE (15k stadium)
-A&M COMMERCE (12k stadium)
-MSU-TEXAS (15k Stadium)
-UTPB (19k stadium)
-ANGELO (6k stadium, access to 17k stadium)

SLC options:
-ACU (12k stadium)
-SFA (15k stadium)
-SHSU (14k stadium)
-LAMAR (16k stadium)

Side note: Other than Kingsville, the LSC schools also have solid basketball programs. WTAMU has been dominant at the D2 level over the past few years.

(04-28-2020 01:05 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-28-2020 12:54 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote: [ -> ]So I looked up which schools could even realistically entertain the idea of going FCS, and eventually FBS. To even be considered by the WAC, it takes 2 things: 1. Money, and 2. >/= 15k capacity stadium. Putting this together, it all became very clear to me.... as someone stated before, the key to a WAC football conference lies in The Great State of Texas. Further still, plundering the good ol' Lone Star Conference may be all ithe WAC needs to do to get it done.
All the Texas LSC football-playing schools could make the move, not only in Football, but become full-member conference mates. MSU-Texas is the only one that's iffy on the list, as they don't enjoy the financial backing of the A&M/UT cash cow. Angelo State would need to either upgrade LeGrand, or utilize the 17k San Angelo Stadium. Angelo also has access to the Texas Tech line of credit. Western & Eastern NM (and likeky MSU-Texas) would end up in the RMAC.


FULL-MEMBER WAC FCS LEAGUE

Existing;
TARLETON - WAC FCS
DIXIE - WAC FCS
NMSU - WAC FBS IND/FCS?

WAC Full-Member FCS Adds with Realistic FBS Potential:

Lone Star:
-WTAMU (20k Stadium - Kimbrough)
-A&M KINGSVILLE (15k stadium)
-A&M COMMERCE (12k stadium)
-MSU-TEXAS (15k Stadium)
-UTPB (19k stadium)
-ANGELO (6k stadium, access to 17k stadium)

SLC options:
-ACU (12k stadium)
-SFA (15k stadium)
-SHSU (14k stadium)
-LAMAR (16k stadium)

Side note: Other than Kingsville, the LSC schools also have solid basketball programs. WTAMU has been dominant at the D2 level over the past few years.

NMSU and West Texas A&M (formerly West Texas State) have a sports history from their days in the Missouri Valley Conference. Because of their location (Canyon, TX) and proximity to NMSU, I would like them to move back into Division 1 and join the WAC.

(04-28-2020 01:25 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-28-2020 01:05 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-28-2020 12:54 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote: [ -> ]So I looked up which schools could even realistically entertain the idea of going FCS, and eventually FBS. To even be considered by the WAC, it takes 2 things: 1. Money, and 2. >/= 15k capacity stadium. Putting this together, it all became very clear to me.... as someone stated before, the key to a WAC football conference lies in The Great State of Texas. Further still, plundering the good ol' Lone Star Conference may be all ithe WAC needs to do to get it done.
All the Texas LSC football-playing schools could make the move, not only in Football, but become full-member conference mates. MSU-Texas is the only one that's iffy on the list, as they don't enjoy the financial backing of the A&M/UT cash cow. Angelo State would need to either upgrade LeGrand, or utilize the 17k San Angelo Stadium. Angelo also has access to the Texas Tech line of credit. Western & Eastern NM (and likeky MSU-Texas) would end up in the RMAC.


FULL-MEMBER WAC FCS LEAGUE

Existing;
TARLETON - WAC FCS
DIXIE - WAC FCS
NMSU - WAC FBS IND/FCS?

WAC Full-Member FCS Adds with Realistic FBS Potential:

Lone Star:
-WTAMU (20k Stadium - Kimbrough)
-A&M KINGSVILLE (15k stadium)
-A&M COMMERCE (12k stadium)
-MSU-TEXAS (15k Stadium)
-UTPB (19k stadium)
-ANGELO (6k stadium, access to 17k stadium)

SLC options:
-ACU (12k stadium)
-SFA (15k stadium)
-SHSU (14k stadium)
-LAMAR (16k stadium)

Side note: Other than Kingsville, the LSC schools also have solid basketball programs. WTAMU has been dominant at the D2 level over the past few years.

NMSU and West Texas A&M (formerly West Texas State) have a sports history from their days in the Missouri Valley Conference. Because of their location (Canyon, TX) and proximity to NMSU, I would like them to move back into Division 1 and join the WAC.

Of all the LSC, soliciting WTAMU is the clear no-brainer. They've built a very respectable university out in Canyon. Their athletic department, from top to bottom, is top-notch, really as good as it gets at the D2 level. And as you stated, they've already been D1 and would know what to expect. When I was at Tech, we made fun of fheir students coming down to "the city" in Lubbock on the weekends. I'd love for them to join the WAC and make me eat crow.

Two questions we have to ask ourselves are:

Would all 6 of those Lone Star Conference schools be willing to come up to FCS?

Would the non-fb WAC schools permit such a drastic membership change and overall change in direction for the conference?

(04-28-2020 01:25 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-28-2020 01:05 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-28-2020 12:54 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote: [ -> ]So I looked up which schools could even realistically entertain the idea of going FCS, and eventually FBS. To even be considered by the WAC, it takes 2 things: 1. Money, and 2. >/= 15k capacity stadium. Putting this together, it all became very clear to me.... as someone stated before, the key to a WAC football conference lies in The Great State of Texas. Further still, plundering the good ol' Lone Star Conference may be all ithe WAC needs to do to get it done.
All the Texas LSC football-playing schools could make the move, not only in Football, but become full-member conference mates. MSU-Texas is the only one that's iffy on the list, as they don't enjoy the financial backing of the A&M/UT cash cow. Angelo State would need to either upgrade LeGrand, or utilize the 17k San Angelo Stadium. Angelo also has access to the Texas Tech line of credit. Western & Eastern NM (and likeky MSU-Texas) would end up in the RMAC.


FULL-MEMBER WAC FCS LEAGUE

Existing;
TARLETON - WAC FCS
DIXIE - WAC FCS
NMSU - WAC FBS IND/FCS?

WAC Full-Member FCS Adds with Realistic FBS Potential:

Lone Star:
-WTAMU (20k Stadium - Kimbrough)
-A&M KINGSVILLE (15k stadium)
-A&M COMMERCE (12k stadium)
-MSU-TEXAS (15k Stadium)
-UTPB (19k stadium)
-ANGELO (6k stadium, access to 17k stadium)

SLC options:
-ACU (12k stadium)
-SFA (15k stadium)
-SHSU (14k stadium)
-LAMAR (16k stadium)

Side note: Other than Kingsville, the LSC schools also have solid basketball programs. WTAMU has been dominant at the D2 level over the past few years.

NMSU and West Texas A&M (formerly West Texas State) have a sports history from their days in the Missouri Valley Conference. Because of their location (Canyon, TX) and proximity to NMSU, I would like them to move back into Division 1 and join the WAC.

West Texas seems like one of the best prepared D-2 programs to move up to D-1. Certainly in a better position than a few other recent move-ups in my mind. It's too bad they dropped out of 1-A back in the 80s.

(04-28-2020 01:25 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-28-2020 01:05 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-28-2020 12:54 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote: [ -> ]So I looked up which schools could even realistically entertain the idea of going FCS, and eventually FBS. To even be considered by the WAC, it takes 2 things: 1. Money, and 2. >/= 15k capacity stadium. Putting this together, it all became very clear to me.... as someone stated before, the key to a WAC football conference lies in The Great State of Texas. Further still, plundering the good ol' Lone Star Conference may be all ithe WAC needs to do to get it done.
All the Texas LSC football-playing schools could make the move, not only in Football, but become full-member conference mates. MSU-Texas is the only one that's iffy on the list, as they don't enjoy the financial backing of the A&M/UT cash cow. Angelo State would need to either upgrade LeGrand, or utilize the 17k San Angelo Stadium. Angelo also has access to the Texas Tech line of credit. Western & Eastern NM (and likeky MSU-Texas) would end up in the RMAC.


FULL-MEMBER WAC FCS LEAGUE

Existing;
TARLETON - WAC FCS
DIXIE - WAC FCS
NMSU - WAC FBS IND/FCS?

WAC Full-Member FCS Adds with Realistic FBS Potential:

Lone Star:
-WTAMU (20k Stadium - Kimbrough)
-A&M KINGSVILLE (15k stadium)
-A&M COMMERCE (12k stadium)
-MSU-TEXAS (15k Stadium)
-UTPB (19k stadium)
-ANGELO (6k stadium, access to 17k stadium)

SLC options:
-ACU (12k stadium)
-SFA (15k stadium)
-SHSU (14k stadium)
-LAMAR (16k stadium)

Side note: Other than Kingsville, the LSC schools also have solid basketball programs. WTAMU has been dominant at the D2 level over the past few years.

NMSU and West Texas A&M (formerly West Texas State) have a sports history from their days in the Missouri Valley Conference. Because of their location (Canyon, TX) and proximity to NMSU, I would like them to move back into Division 1 and join the WAC.

Another option might be McNeese, especially if there were several Texas schools to accompany them in a jump, located 30 miles from the Texas-Louisiana state line with a 17,610 seat football stadium and good football and baseball programs. They are located 3.5 miles from the Lake Charles Regional airport with flights to the Dallas and Houston airports.

For basketball, they have a new 4,200 seat arena they opened for the 2018-19 season.

H&HP Complex


For the SLC stadiums, Lamar, Sam Houston State, Stephen F. Austin, and McNeese all have berm type areas which are not included in the official stadium capacity. McNeese has a record attendance of 27,500. Stephen F. Austin's record is 23,000+ while Lamar's is 18,500. SHSU's is 16,000+. The 12,000 official capacity for Abilene Christian includes berm seating.

(04-28-2020 01:52 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]Two questions we have to ask ourselves are:

Would all 6 of those Lone Star Conference schools be willing to come up to FCS?

Would the non-fb WAC schools permit such a drastic membership change and overall change in direction for the conference?

I can’t answer your first question, but I think I can answer the second one. The WAC is desperate to keep afloat. They would take any schools if it ensures the viability of the conference. I would have to believe that if the WAC started football, some schools would be football only members and others would join for all sports which in turn strengthens the conference.

(04-28-2020 09:29 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-28-2020 02:39 PM)PojoaquePosse Wrote: [ -> ][quote='Fighting Muskie' pid='16797402' dateline='1588099959']
Two questions we have to ask ourselves are:

Would all 6 of those Lone Star Conference schools be willing to come up to FCS?

Would the non-fb WAC schools permit such a drastic membership change and overall change in direction for the conference?

I can’t answer your first question, but I think I can answer the second one. The WAC is desperate to keep afloat. They would take any schools if it ensures the viability of the conference. I would have to believe that if the WAC started football, some schools would be football only members and others would join for all sports which in turn strengthens the conference.

Re: question 1, the answer is probably not. At least not ALL of them. When Tarleton decided to buy in to D1, they rolled out a "Next Level Ready" marketing campaign, and held a vote to basically double the athletic fee, which is paid by the students. Without that additional fee cash flow, jumping up to D1 probably wouldn't/couldn't happen. I imagine other schools would need to do the same. Obviously, the vote for a fee increase passed in a landslide at Tarleton, but I can only guess if it would at other schools.Tarleton really did its homework and determined they actually ARE Next Level Ready...been studying the feasability of going D1 for the past decade-plus. The only other LSC schools I know of that have publically looked into going D1 are Angelo, A&M Commerce and WTAMU, but others may be privately investigating. It should be noted that the WAC really didn't show up on Tarleton's D1 radar until late in the game. Most everybody thought Tarleton would end up in the SLC. If the WAC feels Tarleton is a good fit, and vice-versa, it's probable the commish is targeting other LSC schools that fit the mold. And there are at least 3 that do, potentially 5.

This thread.... blerg.

I feel for you guys.

On one hand, when a few states are ready to play this fall and many aren’t, good luck with that.

Chances of the continued existence of FBS and FCS and D-2 and all that? Who knows? Chances of a shakeout of school athletic programs at FCS? Who knows, but don’t be surprised. Chances of the WAC surviving this? Shrug.

It’s going to be a mess. Part of the reason for the mess is the virus unearths things that are already happening anyway. Online instruction especially (though I’m not convinced that’s the best course of action). A wipeout of “small” businesses that often underwrite our schools. Heck, WFH changes things like “why would I pay stinkloads of money on car insurance at this point?” Many other things.