(01-28-2020 08:12 PM)dbackjon Wrote: (01-26-2020 11:51 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote: I expect this will end with BSU staying put. But if they can’t come to terms with the MWC and choose to move football to the AAC, I wouldn’t rule out BSU at least considering putting non-football sports in the WAC given the dearth of other options.
BSU would obviously prefer to join the WCC but almost certainly won’t be invited to that party. The Big West doesn’t want them unless they’re willing to cough up millions of bucks in entry fees and travel subsidies. The Summit is stable with its I-29 core, on track to expand eastward with St. Thomas and has no incentive to add a far western outpost as an 11th member.
That leaves only the Big Sky and the WAC. The Big Sky has 11 non-football members and probably would be willing to take BSU as a 12th. The conference is stable and the institutional and geographic fits are good. But the WAC would also become relatively stable if BSU were to replace Chicago State, and has advantages over the Big Sky in a few key respects: much higher conference NET ranking (16th versus 27th), easier travel since most members are in or near large cities with major airports, exposure to fertile SoCal and Texas recruiting grounds, sponsorship of baseball as a conference sport, and not having hated Idaho as a conference member.
I wouldn’t hold my breath for it to happen, but the point is I wouldn’t be stunned either. Stranger things have happened in conference realignment.
You used last year's conference NET rankings.
This year, currently The Big Sky is 17th, WAC at 25th. The highest BSC team is higher than the best WAC, and the BSC has 6 more rated ahead of the #2 WAC Team.
Your last point though would be critical (and add Idaho State).
From an academic standpoint, Boise is an R2 - Research school. Big Sky has 1 R1 (Montana State) and 5 R2's. WAC has 3 R2's, and one is leaving after this year (UMKC).
Big West has 6 R1's. Summit has 6 R2's
The past four seasons, the WAC has been rated higher than the Big Sky. This season for the WAC has been a disaster with injuries and other issues. Last season, the WAC had three schools in the top 100 of Net Ranking (NMSU at 40, UVU at 90 and GCU at 96). The Big Sky had no school last season and has no school this season in the top 100.
The WAC had the following records vs these conferences last season:
Big Sky 9-2
MWC 6-3
Summit 9-4
Big West 6-1
The attendance, budgets and markets are all bigger in the WAC than the Big Sky. There is more upside in the WAC.
One important point that HM brought up was baseball, Boise State is bringing back in three weeks. BSU opens up with a WAC heavy non-conference schedule, with four games each against Northern Colorado, Seattle and UVU, 12 of their first 18 games. They are making a big investment in baseball, with a $1 million dollar budget and a new $10 million dollar baseball stadium which will open up next season.
If they leave the MWC, the logical home for their baseball program is the WAC, since the Big Sky has no baseball, but the WAC will probably not take them just for baseball. The WAC will have 11 baseball schools next season, they don't need BSU for baseball. They need them for basketball. The WAC has no exit fee. BSU paid a 1.79 million dollar exit fee to the Big West in 2013, even though they never played a game in the Big West.
If BSU is concerned about being in a good academic conference, then they should stay in the MWC. Seattle is a highly rated academically and NMSU and UTRGV are R2 schools, but overall it is not a great academic conference. But since when did Boise State worry about academics?