So the way I see this:

Metro St 2020
Tarleton 2021
Dixie 2022

That could work. It would also give Tarleton and Dixie a little longer to figure out what to do with their football.

(11-05-2018 11:46 AM)RobtheAggie Wrote:  So the way I see this:

Metro St 2020
Tarleton 2021
Dixie 2022

That could work. It would also give Tarleton and Dixie a little longer to figure out what to do with their football.

Finally some sanity in this thread. Good stuff Rob.

(11-05-2018 11:21 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(11-04-2018 11:51 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Why aren’t the WAC posters, for consistency sake, getting all upset over the WAC becoming an FCS League? It would take at least seven years to even get an autobid and there isn’t any pot of money at the end of the line and you would not be protected from defections for at least five years ( an autobid would take two more). But this same group claimed I was insane for posting the Cal Poly, Sac St, UCDavis, UTRGV, NMSU and three other Souland schools wanted to be FBS in the WAC and qualify for at least a $10 million CFP pot annually after 2025 is now totally happy with seeking FCS status by 2027 with no money incentive.

In return for taking other conferences schools, the WAC will recruit FCS schools to replace them as a gentleman’s agreement. The WAC is the only conference that can extend FBS bids. UCDavis etc would be insane if they waived that bye-bye. Liberty moved up on its own, but it would take a veritable fortune to do it, and Liberty has that cash.

The Big Sky and Southland can’t recruit now without fans knowing something is up and rebelling as both leagues are bloated now. So the WAC will do their dirty work and no one would be wiser. Tarleton St leadership would be insane for a WAC FCS League just as Dixie St leadership would be for a WAC FCS League. And why is Metro St even in the running as it doesn’t help an FCS WAC? Metro St will provide a Olympic travel partner for No Colo in the new cheaper Big Sky.

Why wasn’t the WAC adding schools years ago if they wanted insurance against Chicago St, UMKC and NMSU leaving? The WAC was just plainly incompetent or these movement have been planned for years as UCDavis et al could not be FBS in time for the CFP payout in 2012. The Big West added UCSD and Bakersfield because they were informed by Davis and Poly of their impending departure. Again, a gentlemen’s agreement to not leave hurt feeling behind but preplanning instead. Something big is about to occur but the posters here are just clueless.

Remember the travel ban The California State governnent issued in 2017 towards other states they deem to have discriminatory laws towards LGBT? It says no state money to be used to travel to those states. What a coincidence, that within a mere six months of the travel ban being enacted Bakersfield finds the BW door open after 14 years of having it slammed in their face.

If the state government does not want Cal State Bakersfield to play conference games in Texas or other states on the banned list - SDSU was forced to use private funds to pay for their flight to Wichita for their NCAA Tourney game as well as their last bowl game - there's no way they will just issue a blank check to UC Davis and Cal Poly playing conference games in Texas.

Until athletics is exempted from this ban, Cal Poly and UC Davis won't be part of an FBS WAC that has any members in Texas.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-gov...08374.html


AB 1887 reads that, along with other state agencies, “the Board of Regents of the University of California … shall not … Approve a request for state-funded or state-sponsored travel to a state that, after June 26, 2015, has enacted a law that voids or repeals, or has the effect of voiding or repealing, existing state or local protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”

http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/09/new-c...in-states/

As long as the WAC has schools from states that CA demonizes, I don't see any CA public schools in the future for the WAC.

(11-05-2018 10:32 AM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  

(11-05-2018 07:40 AM)RobtheAggie Wrote:  The one question I have is with all of the talk, what is the timeline for all the DII move-ups to occur. Is one a season too much, is it every two seasons that one can move up? I can not remember. I know that the Southland had an issue when UIW and Abilene Christian both moved up at the same time.

With regards to basketball scheduling, a Division 1 school can only play four games against Division 2 opponents in a single season. And, a transitioning Division 2 school is only considered as a Division 1 school after its second year in the transition process and only if it meets all D1 scheduling requirements.

https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/bylawView?id=1

20.9.8 Basketball Scheduling.

20.9.8.1 Four-Game Limit. An institution may schedule and play not more than four basketball games, including any contest (e.g., scrimmage, exhibition), in an academic year against institutions that are not members of Division I. (Revised: 3/1/12)

20.9.8.2 One-Third of Contests in Home Arena. An active or reclassifying member must play at least one-third of its regular-season basketball contests in the arena regularly used for the institution's home games. (Revised: 1/11/94 effective 9/2/94, 3/10/04, 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)

20.9.8.2.1 Multiple Home Arenas. In meeting the home-arena requirement, an institution may use more than one arena, provided each arena is located within a 30-mile radius of the institution's main campus and each arena is used annually by the institution for at least two home basketball contests.

20.9.8.3 One-Third of Women's Contests Away From Home or at a Neutral Site. An active member or a reclassifying member must play at least one-third of its regular-season women's basketball contests away from home or at a neutral site. A reclassifying member is required to apply scheduling criteria beginning with year two of the reclassifying process. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)

20.9.8.4 Counting Contests.

20.9.8.4.1 Membership Classification of Opponents. In determining whether an institution meets the scheduling criteria, each opponent shall be counted as it was classified on August 1 of the academic year involved.

20.9.8.4.1.1 Reclassifying Opponents. A reclassifying institution shall be counted as a Division I opponent in the year the reclassifying institution must comply with Division I scheduling requirements (year two of the reclassifying process). (Adopted: 4/15/97, Revised: 4/24/03 effective 8/1/03)

20.9.8.4.1.2 Waiver. The Strategic Vision and Planning Committee, by a two-thirds majority of its members present and voting, may grant a waiver of the provisions of Bylaw 20.9.8.4.1 in cases of reclassification of an opponent when there is an enforceable game contract, executed in writing, or in the case of similar contractual problems. (Revised: 11/1/07 effective 8/1/08, 8/7/14, 10/4/17)

The issue with the Southland conference was more of an individual program's (Stephen F. Austin and Oral Roberts) scheduling too many non-DI schools during Abilene Christian and Incarnate Word's first year of transition. Stephen F. Austin and Oral Roberts scheduled 3 non D I schools in addition to ACU and UIW. All conference members had Abilene Christian and Incarnate Word on their respective schedules. Only Stephen F. Austin and Oral Roberts had an issue. The other schools scheduled within the NCAA guidelines.

There would have been no problems if the two schools had scheduled like the remainder of the conference that year.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basket...feit-game/

The main thing is understanding how transitioning members affect an individual program's schedule. All but two members handled that first year without an issue.

I would have to think if the schools being mentioned (MSUD, Tarleton, DixeSt) you have to seriously have to consider the WAC telling Chicago St and possibly UMKC thanks for your time with us but we are going to hangout with the new kids who have better and shinier toys.

(11-05-2018 03:03 PM)Lopes87 Wrote:  I would have to think if the schools being mentioned (MSUD, Tarleton, DixeSt) you have to seriously have to consider the WAC telling Chicago St and possibly UMKC thanks for your time with us but we are going to hangout with the new kids who have better and shinier toys.

And are a lot closer to get together to play with.

(11-05-2018 03:28 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(11-05-2018 03:03 PM)Lopes87 Wrote:  I would have to think if the schools being mentioned (MSUD, Tarleton, DixeSt) you have to seriously have to consider the WAC telling Chicago St and possibly UMKC thanks for your time with us but we are going to hangout with the new kids who have better and shinier toys.

And are a lot closer to get together to play with.

I worry about Chicago State because of its financial situation. They have not been competitive since joining the WAC. They finished tied for 5th in the WAC in 2014. Since then, they have finished last four seasons.

As for UM Kansas City, I was surprised when they jumped to the WAC from the Summit. I guess at the time it looked like the Summit was on a downhill spiral. Now that the Summit has stabilized with the addition of Denver and the return of Oral Roberts, there have been rumblings that UMKC wants to return to the Summit. I would rather the WAC not commit to adding schools east of the Great Plains (east of the Rockies and North of Texas) unless UM Kansas City remains committed to staying in the WAC. The WAC really needs to contract in size (area) to strengthen as a conference.

(11-05-2018 03:03 PM)Lopes87 Wrote:  I would have to think if the schools being mentioned (MSUD, Tarleton, DixeSt) you have to seriously have to consider the WAC telling Chicago St and possibly UMKC thanks for your time with us but we are going to hangout with the new kids who have better and shinier toys.

Chicago State joining the WAC was a marriage of convenience. That is not a marriage that is ending anytime soon, unless some current D1 schools decide to join the WAC. UMKC chose to be in the WAC and that cost the WAC $700,000, with the WAC paying their exit fee from the Summit and waiving their entry fee. They will leave when the MVC invites them and that is not happening anytime soon.

Metro State sounds like a good replacement for CSUB, if they can justify it financially. That would keep the WAC at nine. Cal State LA would be an interesting addition if the WAC were to go to 10. CSULA is a few miles from downtown LA and they have a Metrolink train station stop on campus. Mike Garrett is the AD and he might be the right guy to take them to D1.

(11-05-2018 03:03 PM)Lopes87 Wrote:  I would have to think if the schools being mentioned (MSUD, Tarleton, DixeSt) you have to seriously have to consider the WAC telling Chicago St and possibly UMKC thanks for your time with us but we are going to hangout with the new kids who have better and shinier toys.

I don't think there is any chance that we boot anyone out of the conference. If we gain 3 schools and dump 2 others, we are still in a precarious position should Seattle bolt for the WCC, GCU to the Big 12 and NMSU to the SEC. All member schools will never stop looking for greener pastures.

Bakersfield hasn’t forfeited games in Texas yet and theiy are still in the WAC even for next year. The CA rules aren’t insurmountable, especially if you have money in an endowment, and Bake has a mere pittance compared to Cal Poly, UC Davis and even Sac St. It’s hardly a program changing crisis that it’s made out to be here, only an inconvenience.

Th MWC could invite Gonzaga AND BYU. The WCC could then turn around and add Seattle and GCU. Adding DII schools would not save the autobid because the WAC acted to late.

If Cal Poly, UCDavis and Sac St are waiting in the wings to be added, everything is fine and dandy. This board doesn’t seem to want that for some reason as it has a deathwish.

(11-05-2018 07:49 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Bakersfield hasn’t forfeited games in Texas yet and theiy are still in the WAC even for next year. The CA rules aren’t insurmountable, especially if you have money in an endowment, and Bake has a mere pittance compared to Cal Poly, UC Davis and even Sac St. It’s hardly a program changing crisis that it’s made out to be here, only an inconvenience.

UC Davis and Cal Poly don't strike me as having a maverick spirit. Especially Davis with its proximity to Sacramento. Going against the state's wishes, with this very liberal government, is asking for trouble.

(11-05-2018 09:20 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(11-05-2018 07:49 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Bakersfield hasn’t forfeited games in Texas yet and theiy are still in the WAC even for next year. The CA rules aren’t insurmountable, especially if you have money in an endowment, and Bake has a mere pittance compared to Cal Poly, UC Davis and even Sac St. It’s hardly a program changing crisis that it’s made out to be here, only an inconvenience.

UC Davis and Cal Poly don't strike me as having a maverick spirit. Especially Davis with its proximity to Sacramento. Going against the state's wishes, with this very liberal government, is asking for trouble.

Having FCS is a very act of defiance. All the other good little UC and CSU schools in the Big West are afraid of defying the legislature.

Maintaining an FCS program in that corrupt state is a very maverick act when everyone else has dropped it.

(11-05-2018 02:33 PM)LUSportsFan Wrote:  The issue with the Southland conference was more of an individual program's (Stephen F. Austin and Oral Roberts) scheduling too many non-DI schools during Abilene Christian and Incarnate Word's first year of transition. Stephen F. Austin and Oral Roberts scheduled 3 non D I schools in addition to ACU and UIW. All conference members had Abilene Christian and Incarnate Word on their respective schedules. Only Stephen F. Austin and Oral Roberts had an issue. The other schools scheduled within the NCAA guidelines.

There would have been no problems if the two schools had scheduled like the remainder of the conference that year.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basket...feit-game/

The main thing is understanding how transitioning members affect an individual program's schedule. All but two members handled that first year without an issue.

So if I understand correctly, in theory it would be fine for two to come aboard in the same year. Say

2020 - Metro St and non-football DII (no speculation on whom)
2021 - Tarleton St and Dixie St

I think that NMSU in men's basketball is obligated (?) to play one of the New Mexico DII/NAIA schools. If not obligated, they have played Northern New Mexico a lot in the past bunch of years.

I guess what I am saying is that it looks possible that by 2022, the WAC could have a few new DII callups into the league. The question would then be, would Chicago St and UMKC want to leave an increasing western centered conference?

This is pure speculation, but UMKC would seem to have an easier time finding a home than Chicago St. I think that Chicago St could go the independent route for a while if they chose, not the best idea, but I am optimistic that the school might finally get turned around. In Maslov (sp) theory of learning, it is hard to focus on math, when you do not know where your next meal is coming from. This is the way I view Chicago St. Athletics has suffered as the school has suffered. Give the school a chance to be run correctly, and athletics will correct themselves as well.

(11-06-2018 04:56 AM)RobtheAggie Wrote:  

(11-05-2018 02:33 PM)LUSportsFan Wrote:  The issue with the Southland conference was more of an individual program's (Stephen F. Austin and Oral Roberts) scheduling too many non-DI schools during Abilene Christian and Incarnate Word's first year of transition. Stephen F. Austin and Oral Roberts scheduled 3 non D I schools in addition to ACU and UIW. All conference members had Abilene Christian and Incarnate Word on their respective schedules. Only Stephen F. Austin and Oral Roberts had an issue. The other schools scheduled within the NCAA guidelines.

There would have been no problems if the two schools had scheduled like the remainder of the conference that year.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basket...feit-game/

The main thing is understanding how transitioning members affect an individual program's schedule. All but two members handled that first year without an issue.

So if I understand correctly, in theory it would be fine for two to come aboard in the same year. Say

2020 - Metro St and non-football DII (no speculation on whom)
2021 - Tarleton St and Dixie St

I think that NMSU in men's basketball is obligated (?) to play one of the New Mexico DII/NAIA schools. If not obligated, they have played Northern New Mexico a lot in the past bunch of years.

I guess what I am saying is that it looks possible that by 2022, the WAC could have a few new DII callups into the league. The question would then be, would Chicago St and UMKC want to leave an increasing western centered conference?

This is pure speculation, but UMKC would seem to have an easier time finding a home than Chicago St. I think that Chicago St could go the independent route for a while if they chose, not the best idea, but I am optimistic that the school might finally get turned around. In Maslov (sp) theory of learning, it is hard to focus on math, when you do not know where your next meal is coming from. This is the way I view Chicago St. Athletics has suffered as the school has suffered. Give the school a chance to be run correctly, and athletics will correct themselves as well.

I thought the same thing about NMSU. I read somewhere that we were required by the state to play one of the New Mexico DII/NAIA schools every year. But if I understand correctly, a DII moveup only counts as a DII in their first year in DI. So if you stagger the moveups to one every year, I think we would be OK.

I will state this again. The WAC is not looking to add teams and then dump others. They are looking to add to shore up membership and to hedge against teams possible leaving.

I was just reviewing an NCAA Reclassifying Questions document that indicates there may be circumstances under which a reclassifying school counts as a DII opponent in Year One. Specifically:

"For Ratings Percentage Index (RPI) purposes, a reclassifying institution could be counted in the Division I RPI in the applicable sport during its first year of reclassification if it can meet the Division I scheduling requirements in that sport. The institution must notify the applicable Division I sports committee that it will be satisfying those requirements prior to the season by sending in a copy of its final schedule by September 15 of the year in which it wishes to be included in the Division I RPI."

This is obviously dated (RPI reference), and it is not clear if inclusion in the RPI allows for them to be counted as a D1 opponent. If so, there is the obvious challenge of meeting the Division I scheduling requirements. It sure would help the inviting conference members if transitioning schools could work that out, though.

A few years ago, Angelo State, Texas A&M-Kingsville and Texas A&M-Commerce all thinking about going to D1. Those schools did had some activity of doing some work on their facilities.

If we look at possible candidates? We have to look at schools who are starting or who finished upgrading their facilities.

CSU-Dominguez Hills plus their close to 30,000 seat pro-soccer stadium on campus. Their campus from pictures looked much nicer than CSU-L.A.
Central Washington
Colorado Mesa
West Texas A&M
Central Oklahoma (hearing that they want to go D1 now) Note:just chatter right now.
Dallas baptist
Midwestern State
Angelo State
UTPB
Commerce
Kingsville

Those are the schools that I saw articles of upgrading or building new facilities. In the same line as Tarleton State and Dixie State. Even Montana State-Billings looking to do some work on their facilities.

(11-06-2018 12:20 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  A few years ago, Angelo State, Texas A&M-Kingsville and Texas A&M-Commerce all thinking about going to D1. Those schools did had some activity of doing some work on their facilities.

If we look at possible candidates? We have to look at schools who are starting or who finished upgrading their facilities.

CSU-Dominguez Hills plus their close to 30,000 seat pro-soccer stadium on campus. Their campus from pictures looked much nicer than CSU-L.A.
Central Washington
Colorado Mesa
West Texas A&M
Central Oklahoma (hearing that they want to go D1 now) Note:just chatter right now.
Dallas baptist
Midwestern State
Angelo State
UTPB
Commerce
Kingsville

Those are the schools that I saw articles of upgrading or building new facilities. In the same line as Tarleton State and Dixie State. Even Montana State-Billings looking to do some work on their facilities.

This thread contains legitimate credible sources for Dixie State and Metro State. Show legitimate credible sources that these school are in fact investigating a D1 move. Facility improvements is not proof that a school is trying to go D1. Otherwise this is a fantasy list.

Lets Break this down.

Credible sources:
Dixie State
Tarleton State
Metro State

Credible sources posted on this forum some place else schools looking to go D1.
Angelo State
Texas A&M-Kingsville
Texas A&M-Commerce

Presume talking to the WAC to save their football.
Central Washington
Western Oregon
Azusa Pacific
Simon Fraser

There are 6 credible sources for 6 schools in the footprint that are or have studied to go D1.

(11-07-2018 01:40 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Lets Break this down.

Credible sources:
Dixie State
Tarleton State
Metro State

Credible sources posted on this forum some place else schools looking to go D1.
Angelo State
Texas A&M-Kingsville
Texas A&M-Commerce

Presume talking to the WAC to save their football.
Central Washington
Western Oregon
Azusa Pacific
Simon Fraser

There are 6 credible sources for 6 schools in the footprint that are or have studied to go D1.

Well that's good. Now provide the links to those sources.