Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
UMKC going to Summit
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
PojoaquePosse Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 477
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 14
I Root For: NMSU
Location:
Post: #121
RE: UMKC going to Summit
(07-16-2019 12:45 PM)Hilldog Wrote:  Because Sac St. has done so well for the Big Sky? How many Big Sky Championships have they won in all sports?

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

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

This "new" poster sounds an awful lot like a realignment poster that mysteriously doesn't post on here anymore...
07-16-2019 03:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NoDak Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,609
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 94
I Root For: UND
Location:
Post: #122
RE: UMKC going to Summit
(07-16-2019 03:33 PM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  
(07-16-2019 12:45 PM)Hilldog Wrote:  Because Sac St. has done so well for the Big Sky? How many Big Sky Championships have they won in all sports?

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

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

This "new" poster sounds an awful lot like a realignment poster that mysteriously doesn't post on here anymore...

Paranoia reigns strong in this one.
07-16-2019 04:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,051
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 100
I Root For: Ohio St, MAC
Location:
Post: #123
RE: UMKC going to Summit
(07-15-2019 02:02 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  It is clear that the WAC can't form a "travel friendly" FCS conference without pulling schools away from the Big Sky; difficult to do. Their are not enough viable D2 move-ups west of the Rockies to form an FCS level football conference. And, the WAC can't just add anyone or it will continue to be in the same situation; a group of schools with contrasting future prospectus... and everyone looking for greener pastures.

I'm not sure the WAC can rectify Dixie State's FCS football situation; as it can't fix NMSU's FBS football situation either.

The WAC very much could make a travel friendly FCS League: Dixie St plus 5 Texas schools.

In Olympic sports you have a 6 team Texas Division and a 6 Team West Division (Chi St gets its walking papers).
07-16-2019 04:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jdgaucho Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,090
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 41
I Root For: UCSB
Location: Big West Land
Post: #124
RE: UMKC going to Summit
(07-16-2019 12:45 PM)Hilldog Wrote:  
(07-16-2019 02:07 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  
(07-15-2019 07:19 PM)Hilldog Wrote:  
(07-14-2019 01:08 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  
(07-12-2019 07:28 PM)Hilldog Wrote:  What about Sac St.? Do they really fit into the Big Sky? Their basketball gym is worse than some high schools. They haven't done much in the Big Sky.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remember, CSUB was snubbed in 2010 in favor of Hawaii, in 2011 for SDSU and 2012 for Boise. Bakersfield only received an invite in 2017 because UCSD was pushing for an invite of their own. The Cal States would not let UCSD in without the Roadrunners.
07-16-2019 05:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jdgaucho Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,090
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 41
I Root For: UCSB
Location: Big West Land
Post: #125
RE: UMKC going to Summit
(07-16-2019 02:45 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(07-16-2019 12:45 PM)Hilldog Wrote:  Because Sac St. has done so well for the Big Sky? How many Big Sky Championships have they won in all sports?

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

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

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

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

Which begs the question, why would the Big Sky agree to this?
07-16-2019 05:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Pounder Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 68
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #126
RE: UMKC going to Summit
(07-16-2019 05:28 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  
(07-16-2019 02:45 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(07-16-2019 12:45 PM)Hilldog Wrote:  Because Sac St. has done so well for the Big Sky? How many Big Sky Championships have they won in all sports?

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

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

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

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

Which begs the question, why would the Big Sky agree to this?

Does the Big Sky want "any California presence at all?"

If Sac State credibly presents a threat to leave, a little something is better than nothing at all.

If you compare to stuff I've written above, California is way bigger than Oregon, so it's possible the Big Sky would think twice about Sacramento State when they wouldn't necessarily give Portland State the time of day.

But... it is all relative. If Sac goes somewhere other than the Big West, and Davis and Poly are sticking around, possibly the Big Sky doesn't want to give Sac any special considerations. And now I'm throwing out more scenarios than a frat does beer cans and this discussion circles the drain.
07-16-2019 05:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SDHornet Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 458
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 7
I Root For: Sac State
Location:
Post: #127
RE: UMKC going to Summit
If a "better" all sports option becomes available for Sac State or any other BSC program then they are gone. The BSC has no leverage other than offering a conference home and the scheduling that comes with it. If we wanted out of the BSC, we would have been gone already but the bottom line is there just has not been a "better" option. I don't see one coming unless there is some major shakeup generated by the P4 realignment that lies around the corner.

If we were ever going to go BW it would have been with he UCSD add. The addition of Bako with UCSD showed everyone that the BW will stay at an even CSU/UC balance. Unless we have a "better" home option for FB then we will never jump for an Oly sports home. FB drives the bus and the BW is anti-FB.

Regarding our event center woes, the student fee referendum that passed in spring '04 included a new events center and wellness/rec center. The caveat was the President had to raise some private funds to go towards the events center (I forget how much/% was asked to be fundraised). The story goes that at the time we were building the FB Fieldhouse the economy crashed and the private funds raised for the events center were used to complete the Fieldhouse, so only the wellness/rec center was built. Another half-assed attempt at another referendum happened in winter '14 that would have bumped the fees by $219/semester.

The current President has publicly stated that another referendum will go to the students when half of the cost is fundraised via private funds (~$50M), so essentially the students will finance the other half of the venue (and cover finance and O&M costs). As of this past April we are about half way to the $50M. The bigger hurdle will be whether or not President Nelsen forcibly enacts the student fee when the referendum fails, I just don't see students in this day and age voting in favor of a large fee increase.
07-16-2019 09:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HawaiiMongoose Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,633
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 138
I Root For: Hawaii
Location: Honolulu
Post: #128
RE: UMKC going to Summit
(07-16-2019 09:44 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  If a "better" all sports option becomes available for Sac State or any other BSC program then they are gone. The BSC has no leverage other than offering a conference home and the scheduling that comes with it. If we wanted out of the BSC, we would have been gone already but the bottom line is there just has not been a "better" option. I don't see one coming unless there is some major shakeup generated by the P4 realignment that lies around the corner.

If we were ever going to go BW it would have been with he UCSD add. The addition of Bako with UCSD showed everyone that the BW will stay at an even CSU/UC balance. Unless we have a "better" home option for FB then we will never jump for an Oly sports home. FB drives the bus and the BW is anti-FB.

That all makes sense to me. Just wondering though, should we interpret your reference to an "all sports option" to mean that you agree the BSC isn't inclined to give Sac State the same football-only deal that it gave USD and Cal Poly?
07-16-2019 10:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SDHornet Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 458
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 7
I Root For: Sac State
Location:
Post: #129
RE: UMKC going to Summit
(07-16-2019 10:20 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  
(07-16-2019 09:44 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  If a "better" all sports option becomes available for Sac State or any other BSC program then they are gone. The BSC has no leverage other than offering a conference home and the scheduling that comes with it. If we wanted out of the BSC, we would have been gone already but the bottom line is there just has not been a "better" option. I don't see one coming unless there is some major shakeup generated by the P4 realignment that lies around the corner.

If we were ever going to go BW it would have been with he UCSD add. The addition of Bako with UCSD showed everyone that the BW will stay at an even CSU/UC balance. Unless we have a "better" home option for FB then we will never jump for an Oly sports home. FB drives the bus and the BW is anti-FB.

That all makes sense to me. Just wondering though, should we interpret your reference to an "all sports option" to mean that you agree the BSC isn't inclined to give Sac State the same football-only deal that it gave USD and Cal Poly?

I agree, although I have no idea if our leadership ever pursued such a situation/request. I'd love to see us in a different Oly sports conference that saves on travel, but I don't see our admin putting our FB home in jeopardy. Maybe upcoming realignment changes things. The FB-only moves by the BSC were to block WAC expansion, nothing more.
07-16-2019 10:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hilldog Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 47
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #130
RE: UMKC going to Summit
(07-16-2019 02:45 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(07-16-2019 12:45 PM)Hilldog Wrote:  Because Sac St. has done so well for the Big Sky? How many Big Sky Championships have they won in all sports?

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

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

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

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

Why would Sac St. even think of joining the WAC for other sports, if their goal is to safe costs on travel? They would go from a very stable Big Sky to a very unstable WAC. The only benefit of joining the WAC would be most WAC schools are easier to get to, since they are in/near major cities.
07-20-2019 03:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jdgaucho Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,090
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 41
I Root For: UCSB
Location: Big West Land
Post: #131
RE: UMKC going to Summit
(07-16-2019 10:29 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  
(07-16-2019 10:20 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  
(07-16-2019 09:44 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  If a "better" all sports option becomes available for Sac State or any other BSC program then they are gone. The BSC has no leverage other than offering a conference home and the scheduling that comes with it. If we wanted out of the BSC, we would have been gone already but the bottom line is there just has not been a "better" option. I don't see one coming unless there is some major shakeup generated by the P4 realignment that lies around the corner.

If we were ever going to go BW it would have been with he UCSD add. The addition of Bako with UCSD showed everyone that the BW will stay at an even CSU/UC balance. Unless we have a "better" home option for FB then we will never jump for an Oly sports home. FB drives the bus and the BW is anti-FB.

That all makes sense to me. Just wondering though, should we interpret your reference to an "all sports option" to mean that you agree the BSC isn't inclined to give Sac State the same football-only deal that it gave USD and Cal Poly?

I agree, although I have no idea if our leadership ever pursued such a situation/request. I'd love to see us in a different Oly sports conference that saves on travel, but I don't see our admin putting our FB home in jeopardy. Maybe upcoming realignment changes things. The FB-only moves by the BSC were to block WAC expansion, nothing more.

There might be a better option, and on paper it won't take much to do. The BW has enough pieces around to work with, that it can revive football cheaply without having any current member start it up. You only need six teams for an FCS auto bid. The three California schools - Sac State puts all other sports in the WAC - Portland State joins as a full member, Dixie State as fb-only and one more fb-only affiliate like say, Eastern Washington or Weber State (all other sports to the WAC) would get it done.

I think Portland State would make that move to cut down on their travel expenses if the BW guaranteed them a football home. Dixie State would sign up right away as they will need a conference affiliation and their other sports are accounted for in the WAC. The only questions are, would Sac State be okay with all other sports in the WAC besides FB and beach volleyball. And who that last affiliate is.

There you go. Mostly nice and neat for ya.
(This post was last modified: 07-24-2019 04:00 PM by jdgaucho.)
07-24-2019 03:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TardisCaptain Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 193
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 10
I Root For: Starfleet Acdmy
Location:
Post: #132
RE: UMKC going to Summit
(07-24-2019 03:50 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  
(07-16-2019 10:29 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  
(07-16-2019 10:20 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  
(07-16-2019 09:44 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  If a "better" all sports option becomes available for Sac State or any other BSC program then they are gone. The BSC has no leverage other than offering a conference home and the scheduling that comes with it. If we wanted out of the BSC, we would have been gone already but the bottom line is there just has not been a "better" option. I don't see one coming unless there is some major shakeup generated by the P4 realignment that lies around the corner.

If we were ever going to go BW it would have been with he UCSD add. The addition of Bako with UCSD showed everyone that the BW will stay at an even CSU/UC balance. Unless we have a "better" home option for FB then we will never jump for an Oly sports home. FB drives the bus and the BW is anti-FB.

That all makes sense to me. Just wondering though, should we interpret your reference to an "all sports option" to mean that you agree the BSC isn't inclined to give Sac State the same football-only deal that it gave USD and Cal Poly?

I agree, although I have no idea if our leadership ever pursued such a situation/request. I'd love to see us in a different Oly sports conference that saves on travel, but I don't see our admin putting our FB home in jeopardy. Maybe upcoming realignment changes things. The FB-only moves by the BSC were to block WAC expansion, nothing more.

There might be a better option, and on paper it won't take much to do. The BW has enough pieces around to work with, that it can revive football cheaply without having any current member start it up. You only need six teams for an FCS auto bid. The three California schools - Sac State puts all other sports in the WAC - Portland State joins as a full member, Dixie State as fb-only and one more fb-only affiliate like say, Eastern Washington or Weber State (all other sports to the WAC) would get it done.

I think Portland State would make that move to cut down on their travel expenses if the BW guaranteed them a football home. Dixie State would sign up right away as they will need a conference affiliation and their other sports are accounted for in the WAC. The only questions are, would Sac State be okay with all other sports in the WAC besides FB and beach volleyball. And who that last affiliate is.

There you go. Mostly nice and neat for ya.

I don't think that Weber St or Eastern Washington would make the jump.

EWU is close to Idaho and gets a lot of visiting fans from the Montana schools.

Weber State is in the same city as the Big Sky Conference offices. I could see WSU moving to an FBS conference (if they really wanted to make such a move) but not to another FCS conference.

Doesn't Azusa Pacific have football? Move them to the Big West FCS conference as a FB only member and have them park the Oly sports in the WAC. Win win.
07-24-2019 05:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jdgaucho Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,090
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 41
I Root For: UCSB
Location: Big West Land
Post: #133
RE: UMKC going to Summit
(07-24-2019 05:24 PM)TardisCaptain Wrote:  
(07-24-2019 03:50 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  
(07-16-2019 10:29 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  
(07-16-2019 10:20 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  
(07-16-2019 09:44 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  If a "better" all sports option becomes available for Sac State or any other BSC program then they are gone. The BSC has no leverage other than offering a conference home and the scheduling that comes with it. If we wanted out of the BSC, we would have been gone already but the bottom line is there just has not been a "better" option. I don't see one coming unless there is some major shakeup generated by the P4 realignment that lies around the corner.

If we were ever going to go BW it would have been with he UCSD add. The addition of Bako with UCSD showed everyone that the BW will stay at an even CSU/UC balance. Unless we have a "better" home option for FB then we will never jump for an Oly sports home. FB drives the bus and the BW is anti-FB.

That all makes sense to me. Just wondering though, should we interpret your reference to an "all sports option" to mean that you agree the BSC isn't inclined to give Sac State the same football-only deal that it gave USD and Cal Poly?

I agree, although I have no idea if our leadership ever pursued such a situation/request. I'd love to see us in a different Oly sports conference that saves on travel, but I don't see our admin putting our FB home in jeopardy. Maybe upcoming realignment changes things. The FB-only moves by the BSC were to block WAC expansion, nothing more.

There might be a better option, and on paper it won't take much to do. The BW has enough pieces around to work with, that it can revive football cheaply without having any current member start it up. You only need six teams for an FCS auto bid. The three California schools - Sac State puts all other sports in the WAC - Portland State joins as a full member, Dixie State as fb-only and one more fb-only affiliate like say, Eastern Washington or Weber State (all other sports to the WAC) would get it done.

I think Portland State would make that move to cut down on their travel expenses if the BW guaranteed them a football home. Dixie State would sign up right away as they will need a conference affiliation and their other sports are accounted for in the WAC. The only questions are, would Sac State be okay with all other sports in the WAC besides FB and beach volleyball. And who that last affiliate is.

There you go. Mostly nice and neat for ya.

I don't think that Weber St or Eastern Washington would make the jump.

EWU is close to Idaho and gets a lot of visiting fans from the Montana schools.

Weber State is in the same city as the Big Sky Conference offices. I could see WSU moving to an FBS conference (if they really wanted to make such a move) but not to another FCS conference.

Doesn't Azusa Pacific have football? Move them to the Big West FCS conference as a FB only member and have them park the Oly sports in the WAC. Win win.

I just threw EWU and Weber State up as examples. Finding that last affiliate is the big issue.

Azusa Pacific does have football, but has not shown an interest in Division 1 yet. If they did move up they would be a shoe in for your win win.
07-24-2019 09:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CoastalVANDAL Online
2nd String
*

Posts: 348
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 8
I Root For: Idaho
Location:
Post: #134
RE: UMKC going to Summit
The Schools that make sense for the WAC are NAU, SUU and maybe UNC from the Big Sky.
NAU would have reasonable travel to SUU, DSU, UVU, UNC, GCU and CBU.
They have been in the Big Sky forever but travel for them is tough in the BSC.

Flagstaff to Portland 1234 miles 20 hours
Flagstaff to Spokane 1234 miles 19 hours
Flagstaff to Missoula 16
Flagstaff to Pocatello 11hrs 676

Flagstaff to Las Cruces 454 7 hrs NMSU
Flagstaff to Riverside 430 miles Cal Baptist
Flagstaff to St George 267 miles 4 and half hours DSU
Flagstaff to SUU Cedar City 289 5 hrs

NAU probably would not switch but they could finally be in a geographically friendly conference if them and SUU jumped to the WAC.
Seattle couyld then Join the BSC for better travel
(This post was last modified: 08-28-2019 04:43 PM by CoastalVANDAL.)
08-28-2019 04:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.