(01-24-2017 10:26 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 09:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Perhaps instead of replacing UND as the 12th member the Big Sky should permit Sacramento St to court the Big West for full membership and draw the league back to 10 full members with a tighter footprint.

Someone on here suggested trying to boot Sacramento St to the WAC but somehow I don't think that the Hornets would go for it. The travel is about the same even though they'd be picking up two instate opponents in Cal St Bakersfield and Cal Baptist your talking trips to Utah, Seattle, Phoenix, Las Cruces, Brownsville, and Kansas City. Now if the WAC somehow got UCSD, which is doubtful, then maybe they make the move.

Bad idea for the Sky to give away Sac State. It would lose its only full California member.

The game out West it seems is for everyone to try to get in the right conference for their profile.

Sac State is a public school with football so Big Sky.
Cal Baptist is a private school so WAC.

What is NMSU doing in the WAC at this point?

(01-24-2017 10:45 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 10:26 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 09:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Perhaps instead of replacing UND as the 12th member the Big Sky should permit Sacramento St to court the Big West for full membership and draw the league back to 10 full members with a tighter footprint.

Someone on here suggested trying to boot Sacramento St to the WAC but somehow I don't think that the Hornets would go for it. The travel is about the same even though they'd be picking up two instate opponents in Cal St Bakersfield and Cal Baptist your talking trips to Utah, Seattle, Phoenix, Las Cruces, Brownsville, and Kansas City. Now if the WAC somehow got UCSD, which is doubtful, then maybe they make the move.

Bad idea for the Sky to give away Sac State. It would lose its only full California member.

The game out West it seems is for everyone to try to get in the right conference for their profile.

Sac State is a public school with football so Big Sky.
Cal Baptist is a private school so WAC.

What is NMSU doing in the WAC at this point?

Taking the auto-bid in basketball every year.

(01-24-2017 10:40 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 10:31 PM)Shox Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 09:23 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 08:36 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 08:22 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  MVFC schools have the most balls to try to go FBS as one by using WAC's FBS status. Several members were already FBS at one time from 1978-1981 with New Mexico State.

As much as I would enjoy an FBS MVFC I am highly skeptical that this is what they have in my mind. Many feel that it would be an incredible stretch to inteprete that the WAC has a mandate to sponsor FBS let alone a conference that sponsored FBS a few decades ago and technically have FB administered as a separate league.

NDSU, SDSU, Mizz St, and Y'town St probably have the means and support to play at that level. I don't know that UNI, USD, UND, Illinois St, WIU, SIU, and Indiana St do.

UND has a far bigger budget than any of them, including Wichita State, as part of our ticket sales doesn't even see the light of day, as 2/3 of ticket sales goes directly to a charitable trust that isn't part of UND athletics yet. With nearly 250 k ticket saless just for hockey, America's hockey leader for years running, that is much more revenue than most G5 schools see. Students even have to pay for their hockey tickets, as they aren't free for them. That arena hosts many other concerts, circuses, and other events such as a regional figure skating event this weekend that will attract five thousand or so. The money raised goes to the charitable foundation.

What the....You know we pay are basketball coach damn near 3 million right???

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

Wichita State - $26,682,738
Illinois State - $26,316,799
Missouri State - $25,180,896
North Dakota - $24,287,775

UND's budget is over $30 mill if the charitable trust that pays arena costs and salaries and gets 2/3 of ticket sales is included, which it will be eventually. Arena seats 12k at almost $40 a pop for 20 games, which almost always sell out.

UND mens hockey has a bigger budget than Wichita St MBB. Much of it doesn't show up on the books, but will later when UND takes ownership of that arena, which is now owned by the charitable trust.

(01-24-2017 10:52 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 10:45 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 10:26 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 09:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Perhaps instead of replacing UND as the 12th member the Big Sky should permit Sacramento St to court the Big West for full membership and draw the league back to 10 full members with a tighter footprint.

Someone on here suggested trying to boot Sacramento St to the WAC but somehow I don't think that the Hornets would go for it. The travel is about the same even though they'd be picking up two instate opponents in Cal St Bakersfield and Cal Baptist your talking trips to Utah, Seattle, Phoenix, Las Cruces, Brownsville, and Kansas City. Now if the WAC somehow got UCSD, which is doubtful, then maybe they make the move.

Bad idea for the Sky to give away Sac State. It would lose its only full California member.

The game out West it seems is for everyone to try to get in the right conference for their profile.

Sac State is a public school with football so Big Sky.
Cal Baptist is a private school so WAC.

What is NMSU doing in the WAC at this point?

Taking the auto-bid in basketball every year.

Bingo.

Could something be in the works between a few conferences in collusion?

Summit-Gets UND to agree to join the conference.
Big Sky-In discussions with NMSU

All this happens some time in the past but then a week ago we hear about Cal Baptist moving to the WAC. It sounds proactive but it may be reactive for NMSU is about to leave for the Big Sky.

(01-24-2017 08:36 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 08:22 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  MVFC schools have the most balls to try to go FBS as one by using WAC's FBS status. Several members were already FBS at one time from 1978-1981 with New Mexico State.

As much as I would enjoy an FBS MVFC I am highly skeptical that this is what they have in my mind. Many feel that it would be an incredible stretch to inteprete that the WAC has a mandate to sponsor FBS let alone a conference that sponsored FBS a few decades ago and technically have FB administered as a separate league.

NDSU, SDSU, Mizz St, and Y'town St probably have the means and support to play at that level. I don't know that UNI, USD, UND, Illinois St, WIU, SIU, and Indiana St do.

Northern Iowa tweeted at the time of the talks with Hurd from the WAC back in 2012 or 2013 that an FCS conference wanted to do a full football only merger at the time and a week later, Northern Iowa's AD announced on tweeter that they want to go FBS and a few days later, Missouri State was doing an upgrade on their football stadium getting new scoreboards and all that. Northern Iowa, Illinois State and Indiana State also hinted in the past that they want to go FBS at one point. The WAC seems the only place for any of them could go now.

Here is the question. What if Cal. State-Bakersfield announced that they would add football in a few years? Would they be a target for MWC down the road? They are in a heavy populated area and could be attractive enough. There is already a city stadium that seats more than 20,000 that is shared for the Community College, a semi-pro soccer team, high school games and community and high school football state championships. They could move their soccer games to the city stadium as well since their field only accommodates only 2,500 fans. All they need to do is just raise money for scholarships and equipment while others have to raise money for building a stadium as well. Both Cal. State and Bakersfield Community College could schedule football games around each other.

(01-25-2017 12:47 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Here is the question. What if Cal. State-Bakersfield announced that they would add football in a few years? Would they be a target for MWC down the road? They are in a heavy populated area and could be attractive enough. There is already a city stadium that seats more than 20,000 that is shared for the Community College, a semi-pro soccer team, high school games and community and high school football state championships. They could move their soccer games to the city stadium as well since their field only accommodates only 2,500 fans. All they need to do is just raise money for scholarships and equipment while others have to raise money for building a stadium as well. Both Cal. State and Bakersfield Community College could schedule football games around each other.

We are not worthy of #DeityDavid

Wedge, could you put the Cal Baptist thread back on the realignment page. It's realignment. Why put it somewhere, where we won't read it?

(01-25-2017 01:36 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  Wedge, could you put the Cal Baptist thread back on the realignment page. It's realignment. Why put it somewhere, where we won't read it?

There are still a lot of WAC expansion threads here as well.

(01-24-2017 08:36 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  As much as I would enjoy an FBS MVFC I am highly skeptical that this is what they have in my mind. Many feel that it would be an incredible stretch to inteprete that the WAC has a mandate to sponsor FBS let alone a conference that sponsored FBS a few decades ago and technically have FB administered as a separate league.

The former may seem incredible, but it was a rule written to allow the WAC to promote schools to FBS even if it had technically lost its status of qualifying as an FBS conference, and since it has not been amended (at least, not yet), it is quite possible that it gets interpreted to mean what it seems like it means. There is a lot of people who have invested lots of political capital in various NCAA rules, and so there is a lot of institutional support for interpreting NCAA rules to mean what they say in a legalistic sense.

But it is riding on a strict interpretation of the rules, and there are not just one, but two ways that the MVFC seems like it cannot possibly qualify as a "former FBS conference":
* first, that the MVFC is not the MVC, and it was started playing I-AA football under Gateway conference auspices in 1985, with the MVFC just being a name change; and,
* second, the rule says former FBS, not former I-A ... which may seem like a technicality, but the whole "WAC loophole" story is a technicality, an option that was created for a temporary emergency situation which was never closed off, after it turned out the WAC could not work out how to use the option to recover their FBS status.

That's the main reason I think UMKC moved to the WAC. There was a lot of scuttle about the football MVC moving to the WAC and becoming 1A (fbs) and UMKC wanted to be in the MAC wsiting for the merger so they could finally be in the conference they wanted.

(01-25-2017 07:56 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 08:36 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  As much as I would enjoy an FBS MVFC I am highly skeptical that this is what they have in my mind. Many feel that it would be an incredible stretch to inteprete that the WAC has a mandate to sponsor FBS let alone a conference that sponsored FBS a few decades ago and technically have FB administered as a separate league.

The former may seem incredible, but it was a rule written to allow the WAC to promote schools to FBS even if it had technically lost its status of qualifying as an FBS conference, and since it has not been amended (at least, not yet), it is quite possible that it gets interpreted to mean what it seems like it means. There is a lot of people who have invested lots of political capital in various NCAA rules, and so there is a lot of institutional support for interpreting NCAA rules to mean what they say in a legalistic sense.

But it is riding on a strict interpretation of the rules, and there are not just one, but two ways that the MVFC seems like it cannot possibly qualify as a "former FBS conference":
* first, that the MVFC is not the MVC, and it was started playing I-AA football under Gateway conference auspices in 1985, with the MVFC just being a name change; and,
* second, the rule says former FBS, not former I-A ... which may seem like a technicality, but the whole "WAC loophole" story is a technicality, an option that was created for a temporary emergency situation which was never closed off, after it turned out the WAC could not work out how to use the option to recover their FBS status.

The NCAA passed a rule changing all references to I-A to FBS and all references to I-AA to FCS so the technicality of never being an FBS league doesn't apply.

If we are going to assume that the NCAA rule regarding formerly FBS leagues doesn't mean just during the grace period (a position the NCAA seems to take) then the MVFC is outta luck because it is a new conference. The Valley went out of business in football but the Valley proper didn't so under the mythic beast WAC rule interpretation the Southland, Southern, Valley, Big West, and Ivy are all FBS invite pez dispensers.

(01-25-2017 12:23 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 10:52 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 10:45 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 10:26 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 09:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Perhaps instead of replacing UND as the 12th member the Big Sky should permit Sacramento St to court the Big West for full membership and draw the league back to 10 full members with a tighter footprint.

Someone on here suggested trying to boot Sacramento St to the WAC but somehow I don't think that the Hornets would go for it. The travel is about the same even though they'd be picking up two instate opponents in Cal St Bakersfield and Cal Baptist your talking trips to Utah, Seattle, Phoenix, Las Cruces, Brownsville, and Kansas City. Now if the WAC somehow got UCSD, which is doubtful, then maybe they make the move.

Bad idea for the Sky to give away Sac State. It would lose its only full California member.

The game out West it seems is for everyone to try to get in the right conference for their profile.

Sac State is a public school with football so Big Sky.
Cal Baptist is a private school so WAC.

What is NMSU doing in the WAC at this point?

Taking the auto-bid in basketball every year.

Bingo.

Until they lose that auto-bid.

(01-24-2017 11:00 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 10:40 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 10:31 PM)Shox Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 09:23 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 08:36 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  As much as I would enjoy an FBS MVFC I am highly skeptical that this is what they have in my mind. Many feel that it would be an incredible stretch to inteprete that the WAC has a mandate to sponsor FBS let alone a conference that sponsored FBS a few decades ago and technically have FB administered as a separate league.

NDSU, SDSU, Mizz St, and Y'town St probably have the means and support to play at that level. I don't know that UNI, USD, UND, Illinois St, WIU, SIU, and Indiana St do.

UND has a far bigger budget than any of them, including Wichita State, as part of our ticket sales doesn't even see the light of day, as 2/3 of ticket sales goes directly to a charitable trust that isn't part of UND athletics yet. With nearly 250 k ticket saless just for hockey, America's hockey leader for years running, that is much more revenue than most G5 schools see. Students even have to pay for their hockey tickets, as they aren't free for them. That arena hosts many other concerts, circuses, and other events such as a regional figure skating event this weekend that will attract five thousand or so. The money raised goes to the charitable foundation.

What the....You know we pay are basketball coach damn near 3 million right???

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

Wichita State - $26,682,738
Illinois State - $26,316,799
Missouri State - $25,180,896
North Dakota - $24,287,775

UND's budget is over $30 mill if the charitable trust that pays arena costs and salaries and gets 2/3 of ticket sales is included, which it will be eventually. Arena seats 12k at almost $40 a pop for 20 games, which almost always sell out.

UND mens hockey has a bigger budget than Wichita St MBB. Much of it doesn't show up on the books, but will later when UND takes ownership of that arena, which is now owned by the charitable trust.

And yet UND are still hurting for money, as is the state of ND who have again told UND to cut their budget. WSU's budget does not include either FB or a money hungry sport like hockey. Your continued skewing of facts isn't going to change the fact that UND are not going FBS and are not going to a new WAC. Of course, neither are the Montana schools or anyone else you have mentioned in your years long crusade to make up facts.

(01-25-2017 07:56 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(01-24-2017 08:36 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  As much as I would enjoy an FBS MVFC I am highly skeptical that this is what they have in my mind. Many feel that it would be an incredible stretch to inteprete that the WAC has a mandate to sponsor FBS let alone a conference that sponsored FBS a few decades ago and technically have FB administered as a separate league.

The former may seem incredible, but it was a rule written to allow the WAC to promote schools to FBS even if it had technically lost its status of qualifying as an FBS conference, and since it has not been amended (at least, not yet), it is quite possible that it gets interpreted to mean what it seems like it means. There is a lot of people who have invested lots of political capital in various NCAA rules, and so there is a lot of institutional support for interpreting NCAA rules to mean what they say in a legalistic sense.

But it is riding on a strict interpretation of the rules, and there are not just one, but two ways that the MVFC seems like it cannot possibly qualify as a "former FBS conference":
* first, that the MVFC is not the MVC, and it was started playing I-AA football under Gateway conference auspices in 1985, with the MVFC just being a name change; and,
* second, the rule says former FBS, not former I-A ... which may seem like a technicality, but the whole "WAC loophole" story is a technicality, an option that was created for a temporary emergency situation which was never closed off, after it turned out the WAC could not work out how to use the option to recover their FBS status.

There was a 2 year window. There is no WAC loophole anymore. It was discussed pretty thoroughly on various WAC and MWC boards at the time. It ties in to the 2 year grace period if you fall below 6 continuing members.

(01-25-2017 11:40 AM)bullet Wrote:  There was a 2 year window. There is no WAC loophole anymore. It was discussed pretty thoroughly on various WAC and MWC boards at the time. It ties in to the 2 year grace period if you fall below 6 continuing members.

Can you produce the rule that negates the rule on conferences that formerly qualified as FBS issuing invites? Nobody has in the 9 months I've been asking for it. At this point I don't believe it exists.

But it probably doesn't matter, since this appears to be a rule that could be changed unilaterally by the existing FBS conferences if anyone tried to exploit it.

(01-25-2017 08:06 AM)72Tiger Wrote:  That's the main reason I think UMKC moved to the WAC. There was a lot of scuttle about the football MVC moving to the WAC and becoming 1A (fbs) and UMKC wanted to be in the MAC wsiting for the merger so they could finally be in the conference they wanted.

The MVC is not the MVFC and there was never any indication that any current member of the MVFC were going to be moving to the WAC to play FBS FB.

UMKC moved for a few reasons all of which have been discussed to death.

(01-25-2017 12:32 PM)jacksfan29 Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 08:06 AM)72Tiger Wrote:  That's the main reason I think UMKC moved to the WAC. There was a lot of scuttle about the football MVC moving to the WAC and becoming 1A (fbs) and UMKC wanted to be in the MAC wsiting for the merger so they could finally be in the conference they wanted.

The MVC is not the MVFC and there was never any indication that any current member of the MVFC were going to be moving to the WAC to play FBS FB.

UMKC moved for a few reasons all of which have been discussed to death.

Actually. There was a report back in 2012 or 2013 that the WAC was talking to MVC for a merger of an FBS football only to give a lifeline to Idaho and New Mexico State and rumors that Denver and Seattle could be adding football.

(01-25-2017 03:45 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-25-2017 01:36 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  Wedge, could you put the Cal Baptist thread back on the realignment page. It's realignment. Why put it somewhere, where we won't read it?

There are still a lot of WAC expansion threads here as well.

Yeah but not the one w/ the actual link and news to Cal Baptist joining.