(02-23-2014 06:20 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  UMKC joined the WAC because a) WAC name wise is better for the PR battle among the local fans b) They thought they could win more to help boost their chance for the MVC. If we decide to move on up to FBS, you would have to think UMKC would be the replacement or Wichita State will get even more on an island in the Valley.

I don't think anyone is fooled by the WAC name anymore, the Great West Conf. changed their name basically.

(02-22-2014 07:45 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  Even if it is desperate, who cares the WAC will be down to 8 next year, and w/ ORU moving back to the Summit and the Summit saying they can expand to 10-14(UMKC?, Chicago St.? both former members) depending on what the school offers the WAC needs to load up on anyone/everyone soon. Also SLC already had a site visit to UTRGV(UTPA) during their last expansion and that could be ORU's replacement. WAC needs to get on expansion, they'll have the minimum 7 counting members for an AQ and have 3 more years of GCU not counting.

UTRGV has no plans to start football, so they are not Southland bound anytime soon. I do agree that the WAC should be inviting anyone/everyone because each member has at least one possible option for a new home. That said, as long as everyone in the WAC is committed to make it work then it will remain a viable conference.

The BW won't touch Sac State as part of its "gentlemen's agreement" with the Big Sky, but there's no such arrangement between the Big Sky and WAC. I'd be surprised if that option has never been discussed.

(02-23-2014 10:15 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 07:45 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  Even if it is desperate, who cares the WAC will be down to 8 next year, and w/ ORU moving back to the Summit and the Summit saying they can expand to 10-14(UMKC?, Chicago St.? both former members) depending on what the school offers the WAC needs to load up on anyone/everyone soon. Also SLC already had a site visit to UTRGV(UTPA) during their last expansion and that could be ORU's replacement. WAC needs to get on expansion, they'll have the minimum 7 counting members for an AQ and have 3 more years of GCU not counting.

UTRGV has no plans to start football, so they are not Southland bound anytime soon. I do agree that the WAC should be inviting anyone/everyone because each member has at least one possible option for a new home. That said, as long as everyone in the WAC is committed to make it work then it will remain a viable conference.

The BW won't touch Sac State as part of its "gentlemen's agreement" with the Big Sky, but there's no such arrangement between the Big Sky and WAC. I'd be surprised if that option has never been discussed.

Football is not a requirement, thus SLC gave UTPA a site visit as a finalist 2 years ago. ORU just got added(decided the Summit was better and went back) w/o football.

Distance is not the major issue it use to be. When it comes to sports and distance Hawaii makes it work, Miami makes it work (in a big way), FAU makes it work, & FIU makes it work. The Big East believed it would work when they were willing to reach across the USA with their conference. I lived in Anchorage for two years & went to numerous games and I am convinced they are ready to do what ever is necessary to move to the next level.

(02-22-2014 10:12 AM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  Alaska is the only state with no DI schools, so why not?

Agreed. These schools are already traveling heavily to play their D2 schedules. Also, the extra scholarship expense of D1 vs. D2 is not significant. It's not really that much of a leap.

The WAC needs a solid group of schools committed to the conference for the long term. These two would help fill that order.

(02-24-2014 12:58 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 10:15 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 07:45 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  Even if it is desperate, who cares the WAC will be down to 8 next year, and w/ ORU moving back to the Summit and the Summit saying they can expand to 10-14(UMKC?, Chicago St.? both former members) depending on what the school offers the WAC needs to load up on anyone/everyone soon. Also SLC already had a site visit to UTRGV(UTPA) during their last expansion and that could be ORU's replacement. WAC needs to get on expansion, they'll have the minimum 7 counting members for an AQ and have 3 more years of GCU not counting.

UTRGV has no plans to start football, so they are not Southland bound anytime soon. I do agree that the WAC should be inviting anyone/everyone because each member has at least one possible option for a new home. That said, as long as everyone in the WAC is committed to make it work then it will remain a viable conference.

The BW won't touch Sac State as part of its "gentlemen's agreement" with the Big Sky, but there's no such arrangement between the Big Sky and WAC. I'd be surprised if that option has never been discussed.

Football is not a requirement, thus SLC gave UTPA a site visit as a finalist 2 years ago. ORU just got added(decided the Summit was better and went back) w/o football.

There may be some personal bias here, but I think Tarleton State is one of the next schools for Southland expansion.

1. Location - 1 hour west of Fort Worth, they get coverage in the FW Star Telegram. However more importantly, they are 1.5 hours from conference member Abilene Christian and 3 hours from Incarnate Word.

2. Athletic Success - Very good MBB program (20+ wins seasons and NCAA tourney appearances for 11 of the last 13 years. 2 Final Four appearances. Currently 23-1 ranked #3 nationally.), Good football (several divisional titles, conferences titles, and NCAA playoff appearances).

3. Budget / Facilities - Students approved a $20 per hours athletic fee to help improve the facilities. Facility plans are in the works with stadium renovations in the near future.

4. Plan to move up - Tarleton has considered moving up since the early 2000s. In 2006, they met with the Southland and were turned away because of facilities. Since then plans have been laid out to improve facilities.

4. LSC Instability - The Lone Star Conference has lost seven teams since 2011 and is having a hard time finding football schools to join. McMurry was on the horizon and just cancelled their move earlier this month. President hinted that D1 may be on the horizon.

None of these point to Tarleton joining the WAC, but they present themselves as another expansion option to keep UT-RGV from getting into the Southland

UAA
UAF
Seattle
Western Washington
Metro St
UVU
Grand Canyon
Cal St Bakersfield

I think that would be a fairly stable 8 team WAC if Chicago St and UMKC went back to the Summit, UTPA to the Southland, and New Mexico St to the Sunbelt.

Geography isn't terrible either. Each lower 48 school makes 1 trip to Alaska, and each Alaska School makes three trips to the lower 48. Travel partners:

UAA/UAF
Seattle/Western Washington
UVU/Metro St
Cal St/Bakersfield Grand Canyon

Could be (or is now, I guess) worse.

(02-24-2014 06:01 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  UAA
UAF
Seattle
Western Washington
Metro St
UVU
Grand Canyon
Cal St Bakersfield

I think that would be a fairly stable 8 team WAC if Chicago St and UMKC went back to the Summit, UTPA to the Southland, and New Mexico St to the Sunbelt.

Geography isn't terrible either

Nice... a Western Athletic Conference that's actually western. That lineup would position the WAC as a more desirable move-up conference for any CAA or PacWest schools that want to someday make the transition to D-1. Travel to the Central Time Zone is a daunting prospect for them.

Moreover with that lineup the WAC would be at diminished risk of being poached by another conference, as only the WCC and BWC are potential predators and neither appears anxious to expand.

I'd love to see a Hawaii / Alaska football rivalry.

(02-23-2014 06:20 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  UMKC joined the WAC because a) WAC name wise is better for the PR battle among the local fans b) They thought they could win more to help boost their chance for the MVC. If we decide to move on up to FBS, you would have to think UMKC would be the replacement or Wichita State will get even more on an island in the Valley.

Agree that UMKC thought through the WAC, they had a better chance at the MVC, but not for the reasons presented.

The MVC had approached the WAC about a merger, so then the MVC could convert to an FBS conference. Commissioner Hurd stated that a Midwest FCS conference had approached him about merging. Since MVC is really the only FCS conference in the Midwest, it had to be the MVC.

The WAC turned it down because the merged conference didn't include Idaho, which was vehemently opposed. So NMSU and Denver could never force the merger though bylaw requiring 70%. Seattle was added to give Idaho another ally.

The MVC wanted FBS for its football programs to grow and FBS might have kept Creighton and Wichita St happy. For a time, all the ADs of UNI, Ind St, and Ill St were on FBS kick. They wanted it to happen.


MVC - WAC merger

Ill St
Ind St
Mo St
UNI
SIll
Creighton
Wichita St (would probably like an option for FBS)
Bradley
Evansville
Drake

then add from the WAC
Denver
NMSU
UMKC

then add from the MVFC
NDSU
Youngstown St (both FBS capable)
maybe SDSU (were planning a 24k stadium, now reduced to 17k)

possibly add from the Southland
Sam Houston St
Lamar

Maybe it could poach from the Sun Belt schools like Texas St or W Kentucky (which used to be in the MVFC)

The news of a WAC-MVC possible merger sent shock waves through the Summit, where ORU and UMKC quickly lined up to leave. Losing NDSU and maybe SDSU could have killed that league. UMKC positioned itself to where it would be on the winning side in a merger that never happened. ORU reversed itself when the coast was clear.

The Sun Belt offered NMSU and Idaho spots, rather than risk a competing league in part of its territory. The Sun Belt didn't want any part of an FBS MVC (or FBS CAA or a WAC centered in the southeast).

(02-24-2014 06:42 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 06:20 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  UMKC joined the WAC because a) WAC name wise is better for the PR battle among the local fans b) They thought they could win more to help boost their chance for the MVC. If we decide to move on up to FBS, you would have to think UMKC would be the replacement or Wichita State will get even more on an island in the Valley.

Agree that UMKC thought through the WAC, they had a better chance at the MVC, but not for the reasons presented.

The MVC had approached the WAC about a merger, so then the MVC could convert to an FBS conference. Commissioner Hurd stated that a Midwest FCS conference had approached him about merging. Since MVC is really the only FCS conference in the Midwest, it had to be the MVC.

The WAC turned it down because the merged conference didn't include Idaho, which was vehemently opposed. So NMSU and Denver could never force the merger though bylaw requiring 70%. Seattle was added to give Idaho another ally.

The MVC wanted FBS for its football programs to grow and FBS might have kept Creighton and Wichita St happy. For a time, all the ADs of UNI, Ind St, and Ill St were on FBS kick. They wanted it to happen.


MVC - WAC merger

Ill St
Ind St
Mo St
UNI
SIll
Creighton
Wichita St (would probably like an option for FBS)
Bradley
Evansville
Drake

then add from the WAC
Denver
NMSU
UMKC

then add from the MVFC
NDSU
Youngstown St (both FBS capable)
maybe SDSU (were planning a 24k stadium, now reduced to 17k)

possibly add from the Southland
Sam Houston St
Lamar

Maybe it could poach from the Sun Belt schools like Texas St or W Kentucky (which used to be in the MVFC)

The news of a WAC-MVC possible merger sent shock waves through the Summit, where ORU and UMKC quickly lined up to leave. Losing NDSU and maybe SDSU could have killed that league. UMKC positioned itself to where it would be on the winning side in a merger that never happened. ORU reversed itself when the coast was clear.

The Sun Belt offered NMSU and Idaho spots, rather than risk a competing league in part of its territory. The Sun Belt didn't want any part of an FBS MVC (or FBS CAA or a WAC centered in the southeast).

Well I don't think the WAC/Valley thing would have worked because I don't think the schools could have met the transition year 2 scheduling requirements before the grace period would expire.

But still interesting because I have thought for some time that the smartest play the Valley could make to secure its future would be to try coax a mix of Sun Belt and MAC football schools into the league and expand to 18 or 19 or 20 in order to meet the requirements to be an FBS league (would have made more sense prior to taking Loyola and going back to 9). Then they could set some internal standards and anyone meeting them would be allowed to move to FBS.

I suspect AState, Louisiana, NMSU and USA would all have been eager to accept and Texas State might well have been as well. Now peeling off MAC schools.... I don't have any real feel for the culture of the MAC members.

(02-24-2014 05:47 PM)chrisattsu Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 12:58 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 10:15 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 07:45 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  Even if it is desperate, who cares the WAC will be down to 8 next year, and w/ ORU moving back to the Summit and the Summit saying they can expand to 10-14(UMKC?, Chicago St.? both former members) depending on what the school offers the WAC needs to load up on anyone/everyone soon. Also SLC already had a site visit to UTRGV(UTPA) during their last expansion and that could be ORU's replacement. WAC needs to get on expansion, they'll have the minimum 7 counting members for an AQ and have 3 more years of GCU not counting.

UTRGV has no plans to start football, so they are not Southland bound anytime soon. I do agree that the WAC should be inviting anyone/everyone because each member has at least one possible option for a new home. That said, as long as everyone in the WAC is committed to make it work then it will remain a viable conference.

The BW won't touch Sac State as part of its "gentlemen's agreement" with the Big Sky, but there's no such arrangement between the Big Sky and WAC. I'd be surprised if that option has never been discussed.

Football is not a requirement, thus SLC gave UTPA a site visit as a finalist 2 years ago. ORU just got added(decided the Summit was better and went back) w/o football.

There may be some personal bias here, but I think Tarleton State is one of the next schools for Southland expansion.

1. Location - 1 hour west of Fort Worth, they get coverage in the FW Star Telegram. However more importantly, they are 1.5 hours from conference member Abilene Christian and 3 hours from Incarnate Word.

2. Athletic Success - Very good MBB program (20+ wins seasons and NCAA tourney appearances for 11 of the last 13 years. 2 Final Four appearances. Currently 23-1 ranked #3 nationally.), Good football (several divisional titles, conferences titles, and NCAA playoff appearances).

3. Budget / Facilities - Students approved a $20 per hours athletic fee to help improve the facilities. Facility plans are in the works with stadium renovations in the near future.

4. Plan to move up - Tarleton has considered moving up since the early 2000s. In 2006, they met with the Southland and were turned away because of facilities. Since then plans have been laid out to improve facilities.

4. LSC Instability - The Lone Star Conference has lost seven teams since 2011 and is having a hard time finding football schools to join. McMurry was on the horizon and just cancelled their move earlier this month. President hinted that D1 may be on the horizon.

None of these point to Tarleton joining the WAC, but they present themselves as another expansion option to keep UT-RGV from getting into the Southland

Are they ready? Sure Tarleton or C.Oklahoma are better options but they have to want to move up now or real soon. If Not seems like they're ready to settle for UTRGV. If ORU would have dropped out as a finalist like Angelo St. UTRGV would have been #14.

(02-24-2014 08:22 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 05:47 PM)chrisattsu Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 12:58 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 10:15 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 07:45 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  Even if it is desperate, who cares the WAC will be down to 8 next year, and w/ ORU moving back to the Summit and the Summit saying they can expand to 10-14(UMKC?, Chicago St.? both former members) depending on what the school offers the WAC needs to load up on anyone/everyone soon. Also SLC already had a site visit to UTRGV(UTPA) during their last expansion and that could be ORU's replacement. WAC needs to get on expansion, they'll have the minimum 7 counting members for an AQ and have 3 more years of GCU not counting.

UTRGV has no plans to start football, so they are not Southland bound anytime soon. I do agree that the WAC should be inviting anyone/everyone because each member has at least one possible option for a new home. That said, as long as everyone in the WAC is committed to make it work then it will remain a viable conference.

The BW won't touch Sac State as part of its "gentlemen's agreement" with the Big Sky, but there's no such arrangement between the Big Sky and WAC. I'd be surprised if that option has never been discussed.

Football is not a requirement, thus SLC gave UTPA a site visit as a finalist 2 years ago. ORU just got added(decided the Summit was better and went back) w/o football.

There may be some personal bias here, but I think Tarleton State is one of the next schools for Southland expansion.

1. Location - 1 hour west of Fort Worth, they get coverage in the FW Star Telegram. However more importantly, they are 1.5 hours from conference member Abilene Christian and 3 hours from Incarnate Word.

2. Athletic Success - Very good MBB program (20+ wins seasons and NCAA tourney appearances for 11 of the last 13 years. 2 Final Four appearances. Currently 23-1 ranked #3 nationally.), Good football (several divisional titles, conferences titles, and NCAA playoff appearances).

3. Budget / Facilities - Students approved a $20 per hours athletic fee to help improve the facilities. Facility plans are in the works with stadium renovations in the near future.

4. Plan to move up - Tarleton has considered moving up since the early 2000s. In 2006, they met with the Southland and were turned away because of facilities. Since then plans have been laid out to improve facilities.

4. LSC Instability - The Lone Star Conference has lost seven teams since 2011 and is having a hard time finding football schools to join. McMurry was on the horizon and just cancelled their move earlier this month. President hinted that D1 may be on the horizon.

None of these point to Tarleton joining the WAC, but they present themselves as another expansion option to keep UT-RGV from getting into the Southland

Are they ready? Sure Tarleton or C.Oklahoma are better options but they have to want to move up now or real soon. If Not seems like they're ready to settle for UTRGV. If ORU would have dropped out as a finalist like Angelo St. UTRGV would have been #14.

Yes. I heard chatter from people last fall that D1 was in the works. The chatter got stronger after we played Abilene Christian at FC Dallas Stadium in front of Southland Commish.

I think the real eye opener everyone was when Abilene Christian and Incarnate Word moved up. In Dec 2012, Tarleton's president issued a statement that said three paths ahead of us Go D1, Move to another D2 conference, or locate more D2 schools to join the LSC.

http://www.texannews.net/tarleton-possib...ivision-i/

Campus master plan calls for expanding our brand and exploring FCS.
We added Mens and Womens Indoor track to get us to 14 sports.

(02-24-2014 06:42 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 06:20 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  UMKC joined the WAC because a) WAC name wise is better for the PR battle among the local fans b) They thought they could win more to help boost their chance for the MVC. If we decide to move on up to FBS, you would have to think UMKC would be the replacement or Wichita State will get even more on an island in the Valley.

Agree that UMKC thought through the WAC, they had a better chance at the MVC, but not for the reasons presented.

The MVC had approached the WAC about a merger, so then the MVC could convert to an FBS conference. Commissioner Hurd stated that a Midwest FCS conference had approached him about merging. Since MVC is really the only FCS conference in the Midwest, it had to be the MVC.

The WAC turned it down because the merged conference didn't include Idaho, which was vehemently opposed. So NMSU and Denver could never force the merger though bylaw requiring 70%. Seattle was added to give Idaho another ally.

The MVC wanted FBS for its football programs to grow and FBS might have kept Creighton and Wichita St happy. For a time, all the ADs of UNI, Ind St, and Ill St were on FBS kick. They wanted it to happen.


MVC - WAC merger

Ill St
Ind St
Mo St
UNI
SIll
Creighton
Wichita St (would probably like an option for FBS)
Bradley
Evansville
Drake

then add from the WAC
Denver
NMSU
UMKC

then add from the MVFC
NDSU
Youngstown St (both FBS capable)
maybe SDSU (were planning a 24k stadium, now reduced to 17k)

possibly add from the Southland
Sam Houston St
Lamar

Maybe it could poach from the Sun Belt schools like Texas St or W Kentucky (which used to be in the MVFC)

The news of a WAC-MVC possible merger sent shock waves through the Summit, where ORU and UMKC quickly lined up to leave. Losing NDSU and maybe SDSU could have killed that league. UMKC positioned itself to where it would be on the winning side in a merger that never happened. ORU reversed itself when the coast was clear.

The Sun Belt offered NMSU and Idaho spots, rather than risk a competing league in part of its territory. The Sun Belt didn't want any part of an FBS MVC (or FBS CAA or a WAC centered in the southeast).

NoDak, do you have independent sources of information for any of this, or is it your own speculation based on Hurd's comment? Not flaming you and not saying you're wrong, but if all this was going on I'm surprised rumors and leaks didn't surface before now.

(02-24-2014 12:58 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 10:15 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 07:45 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  Even if it is desperate, who cares the WAC will be down to 8 next year, and w/ ORU moving back to the Summit and the Summit saying they can expand to 10-14(UMKC?, Chicago St.? both former members) depending on what the school offers the WAC needs to load up on anyone/everyone soon. Also SLC already had a site visit to UTRGV(UTPA) during their last expansion and that could be ORU's replacement. WAC needs to get on expansion, they'll have the minimum 7 counting members for an AQ and have 3 more years of GCU not counting.

UTRGV has no plans to start football, so they are not Southland bound anytime soon. I do agree that the WAC should be inviting anyone/everyone because each member has at least one possible option for a new home. That said, as long as everyone in the WAC is committed to make it work then it will remain a viable conference.

The BW won't touch Sac State as part of its "gentlemen's agreement" with the Big Sky, but there's no such arrangement between the Big Sky and WAC. I'd be surprised if that option has never been discussed.

Football is not a requirement, thus SLC gave UTPA a site visit as a finalist 2 years ago. ORU just got added(decided the Summit was better and went back) w/o football.

My understanding about ORU is that they added some semblance of a basketball program which was good enough for the Southland to not push the fb issue. While it may not be a written requirement that football is needed, it is the message the SLC is sending out. Someone correct me on this if I'm wrong, but didn't Incarnate Word and Houston Baptist agree to start football as a condition upon entering the SLC? I think the only school without it is Texas A&M-CC.

As far as the WAC goes, I'm surprised to not hear about them targeting Sacramento State's olympic sports. There is no mutual understanding between the WAC and BSC involving them as there is between the BSC and BW. Has the WAC considered Sac State whatsoever?

(02-24-2014 06:42 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 06:20 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  UMKC joined the WAC because a) WAC name wise is better for the PR battle among the local fans b) They thought they could win more to help boost their chance for the MVC. If we decide to move on up to FBS, you would have to think UMKC would be the replacement or Wichita State will get even more on an island in the Valley.

Agree that UMKC thought through the WAC, they had a better chance at the MVC, but not for the reasons presented.

The MVC had approached the WAC about a merger, so then the MVC could convert to an FBS conference. Commissioner Hurd stated that a Midwest FCS conference had approached him about merging. Since MVC is really the only FCS conference in the Midwest, it had to be the MVC.

The WAC turned it down because the merged conference didn't include Idaho, which was vehemently opposed. So NMSU and Denver could never force the merger though bylaw requiring 70%. Seattle was added to give Idaho another ally.

The MVC wanted FBS for its football programs to grow and FBS might have kept Creighton and Wichita St happy. For a time, all the ADs of UNI, Ind St, and Ill St were on FBS kick. They wanted it to happen.


MVC - WAC merger

Ill St
Ind St
Mo St
UNI
SIll
Creighton
Wichita St (would probably like an option for FBS)
Bradley
Evansville
Drake

then add from the WAC
Denver
NMSU
UMKC

then add from the MVFC
NDSU
Youngstown St (both FBS capable)
maybe SDSU (were planning a 24k stadium, now reduced to 17k)

possibly add from the Southland
Sam Houston St
Lamar

Maybe it could poach from the Sun Belt schools like Texas St or W Kentucky (which used to be in the MVFC)

The news of a WAC-MVC possible merger sent shock waves through the Summit, where ORU and UMKC quickly lined up to leave. Losing NDSU and maybe SDSU could have killed that league. UMKC positioned itself to where it would be on the winning side in a merger that never happened. ORU reversed itself when the coast was clear.

The Sun Belt offered NMSU and Idaho spots, rather than risk a competing league in part of its territory. The Sun Belt didn't want any part of an FBS MVC (or FBS CAA or a WAC centered in the southeast).

Interesting. Hadnt heard that angle regarding UMKC's decision, but it makes perfect sense, and jives with their AD's comments about it being just the beginning and a lot of moves would follow.

Looks like it didn't work out for them, but it could have been their ticket into the MVC. Explains the two ORU moves as well.

(02-24-2014 10:44 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 12:58 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 10:15 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 07:45 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  Even if it is desperate, who cares the WAC will be down to 8 next year, and w/ ORU moving back to the Summit and the Summit saying they can expand to 10-14(UMKC?, Chicago St.? both former members) depending on what the school offers the WAC needs to load up on anyone/everyone soon. Also SLC already had a site visit to UTRGV(UTPA) during their last expansion and that could be ORU's replacement. WAC needs to get on expansion, they'll have the minimum 7 counting members for an AQ and have 3 more years of GCU not counting.

UTRGV has no plans to start football, so they are not Southland bound anytime soon. I do agree that the WAC should be inviting anyone/everyone because each member has at least one possible option for a new home. That said, as long as everyone in the WAC is committed to make it work then it will remain a viable conference.

The BW won't touch Sac State as part of its "gentlemen's agreement" with the Big Sky, but there's no such arrangement between the Big Sky and WAC. I'd be surprised if that option has never been discussed.

Football is not a requirement, thus SLC gave UTPA a site visit as a finalist 2 years ago. ORU just got added(decided the Summit was better and went back) w/o football.

My understanding about ORU is that they added some semblance of a basketball program which was good enough for the Southland to not push the fb issue. While it may not be a written requirement that football is needed, it is the message the SLC is sending out. Someone correct me on this if I'm wrong, but didn't Incarnate Word and Houston Baptist agree to start football as a condition upon entering the SLC? I think the only school without it is Texas A&M-CC.

As far as the WAC goes, I'm surprised to not hear about them targeting Sacramento State's olympic sports. There is no mutual understanding between the WAC and BSC involving them as there is between the BSC and BW. Has the WAC considered Sac State whatsoever?

UIW already played football. Houston Baptist had to start a football program to join the Southland. Your are correct, the Southland is sending a subtle but not really message that football will be the focus of the conference. UNO is still transitioning as a D1 school and won't be officially D1 till 2016. Currently, UNO has a football team as a club sport.
This article strongly stats that football must be considered and is strongly encourage with the requirement that provide a 5-6 year plan to add football. http://www.nola.com/sports/index.ssf/201...ffi_1.html

I think the only school that would be a lock for the Southland without football would be Arkansas-Little Rock because they help travel to Central Arkansas.

(02-24-2014 11:06 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 10:44 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 12:58 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 10:15 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 07:45 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  Even if it is desperate, who cares the WAC will be down to 8 next year, and w/ ORU moving back to the Summit and the Summit saying they can expand to 10-14(UMKC?, Chicago St.? both former members) depending on what the school offers the WAC needs to load up on anyone/everyone soon. Also SLC already had a site visit to UTRGV(UTPA) during their last expansion and that could be ORU's replacement. WAC needs to get on expansion, they'll have the minimum 7 counting members for an AQ and have 3 more years of GCU not counting.

UTRGV has no plans to start football, so they are not Southland bound anytime soon. I do agree that the WAC should be inviting anyone/everyone because each member has at least one possible option for a new home. That said, as long as everyone in the WAC is committed to make it work then it will remain a viable conference.

The BW won't touch Sac State as part of its "gentlemen's agreement" with the Big Sky, but there's no such arrangement between the Big Sky and WAC. I'd be surprised if that option has never been discussed.

Football is not a requirement, thus SLC gave UTPA a site visit as a finalist 2 years ago. ORU just got added(decided the Summit was better and went back) w/o football.

My understanding about ORU is that they added some semblance of a basketball program which was good enough for the Southland to not push the fb issue. While it may not be a written requirement that football is needed, it is the message the SLC is sending out. Someone correct me on this if I'm wrong, but didn't Incarnate Word and Houston Baptist agree to start football as a condition upon entering the SLC? I think the only school without it is Texas A&M-CC.

As far as the WAC goes, I'm surprised to not hear about them targeting Sacramento State's olympic sports. There is no mutual understanding between the WAC and BSC involving them as there is between the BSC and BW. Has the WAC considered Sac State whatsoever?

UIW already played football. Houston Baptist had to start a football program to join the Southland. Your are correct, the Southland is sending a subtle but not really message that football will be the focus of the conference. UNO is still transitioning as a D1 school and won't be officially D1 till 2016. Currently, UNO has a football team as a club sport.
This article strongly stats that football must be considered and is strongly encourage with the requirement that provide a 5-6 year plan to add football. http://www.nola.com/sports/index.ssf/201...ffi_1.html

UNO club football was dropped for lack of funds. W/ all the problems of money in La. I don't see them starting a program, it seems by going back to D-I they didn't have to start fb, that they were willing to do to join the GSC in D-II.

(02-25-2014 01:09 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(02-24-2014 11:06 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  UIW already played football. Houston Baptist had to start a football program to join the Southland. Your are correct, the Southland is sending a subtle but not really message that football will be the focus of the conference. UNO is still transitioning as a D1 school and won't be officially D1 till 2016. Currently, UNO has a football team as a club sport.
This article strongly stats that football must be considered and is strongly encourage with the requirement that provide a 5-6 year plan to add football. http://www.nola.com/sports/index.ssf/201...ffi_1.html

UNO club football was dropped for lack of funds. W/ all the problems of money in La. I don't see them starting a program, it seems by going back to D-I they didn't have to start fb, that they were willing to do to join the GSC in D-II.

I stand corrected about UIW. Guess they played D2 ball before moving up. So if UNO club football was dropped, does that affect their Southland future? Maybe the WAC gives them a look??