(10-13-2020 01:23 AM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 12:42 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 07:22 PM)Hilldog Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 03:51 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 01:11 PM)Hilldog Wrote:  I listened to the entire podcast by the Weber St. and while he, either didn't listen to Matt Brown talking about USD or they recorded that part of podcast before the interviewed Brown, he wanted a 8 or 10 team Big Sky. It's very unlikely that USD will come up with about 750K in scholarship money for 40 scholarships in the next few years.

9 team Big Sky
Montana
MSU
Idaho
ISU
EWU
Portland St
Sac St.
NC
Weber

6 team WAC Football Conference

Dixie
Tarleton
SUU
Cal Poly-football only
Davis-football only
NAU

And an 11 school Olympic sports conference.
Seattle
CBU
GCU
UVU
NNMSU
UTRGV
CSU

The case for NAU to the WAC:

Within a 6-8 hour drive to CBU, GCU, UVU, SUU Dixie, NMSU, and in football- CP and Davis.

The big problem with a 9 school Big Sky for football is that it would also be a 9 school Big Sky for Olympic sports and that’s too few for the conference to be comfortable with.

If I were the WAC commissioner I’d be trying to sell a Seattle for SUU trade to both the Big Sky and the two schools.

Assuming that took place along with all the other moves in your scenario, both the WAC and Big Sky would end up with 10 schools for Olympic sports in much more compact travel-friendly footprints, the WAC would have the minimum 6 football members and the Big Sky would have the ideal 9 football members. Throw in a long-term scheduling agreement between the conferences to ensure SUU and NAU can still get some games against their former conference rivals and the Big Sky teams can get games in California and Texas for recruiting purposes and everyone is happy.

If NAU doesn’t want to make the jump an alternative would be to substitute Northern Colorado. That would still reduce the footprints of both conferences and would allow Northern Colorado to play baseball in a conference with schools in California, Arizona and Texas instead of North Dakota, South Dakota and Minnesota.

9 team Olympic sports conferences means only 9 teams to split the March Madness money. But, an even number of teams make for easier scheduling. I'm sure for hoops, there have been times when Big Sky schools made two trips to Montana and/or Idaho because of how the scheduling with 11 teams works out. Instead of playing both schools in one road trip. While, I don't believe in the past 25-30 years the Big Sky has had a full member who didn't sponsor football, conference rules change all the time.

Somethings that could throw a monkey wrench into those ideas.

Sac St. gets tired of the travel costs and makes a 12 school Big West. That UC/Cal St wouldn't be a big deal. If Davis-big rivalry with Sac St., Hawaii, and one other UC votes yes, they would have enough votes to get Sac St. in. Sac St. could remain in the Big Sky for football or join the WAC football. I'll bet if a reporter filed a FOI request to Sac St. there would be emails to the Big West about membership.

The Weber podcast painted a bleak financial picture for EWU. So, if EWU drops to D2 or like the podcast says- drops athletics, the Big Sky will need schools.

NMSU-while the Brown or the Weber podcast host feel as though NMSU will not be in the WAC in five years, I just don't see any other conference adding NMSU! The Mt. West would add UTEP before adding NMSU. The MVC, which they were once members, likely won't add them, even though their basketball teams would do well in the MVC.

The UCs bit their collective tongues on the Birds to get UCSD into the fold. They are not going to do that again just for Sac State. Only way they join is if football joins too. It's a nonstarter.

If the WAC could have moved on this FCS football conference idea a few years earlier, Sacramento State might have joined the Big West along with UC San Diego; and could have put its football program in the WAC instead of the Big West taking Cal State Bakersfield from the WAC. That might have also triggered Cal Poly and UC Davis to make the same move with their respective football programs.

And you'd have the same dilemma there as is being proposed now. It makes no sense for three California members to have their sports split up. If anything, Sac State joining makes a Big West FCS more plausible given that Tarleton and Dixie State currently are independents. All you need is one more member to get to 6.

(10-13-2020 10:02 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 01:23 AM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 12:42 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 07:22 PM)Hilldog Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 03:51 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  The big problem with a 9 school Big Sky for football is that it would also be a 9 school Big Sky for Olympic sports and that’s too few for the conference to be comfortable with.

If I were the WAC commissioner I’d be trying to sell a Seattle for SUU trade to both the Big Sky and the two schools.

Assuming that took place along with all the other moves in your scenario, both the WAC and Big Sky would end up with 10 schools for Olympic sports in much more compact travel-friendly footprints, the WAC would have the minimum 6 football members and the Big Sky would have the ideal 9 football members. Throw in a long-term scheduling agreement between the conferences to ensure SUU and NAU can still get some games against their former conference rivals and the Big Sky teams can get games in California and Texas for recruiting purposes and everyone is happy.

If NAU doesn’t want to make the jump an alternative would be to substitute Northern Colorado. That would still reduce the footprints of both conferences and would allow Northern Colorado to play baseball in a conference with schools in California, Arizona and Texas instead of North Dakota, South Dakota and Minnesota.

9 team Olympic sports conferences means only 9 teams to split the March Madness money. But, an even number of teams make for easier scheduling. I'm sure for hoops, there have been times when Big Sky schools made two trips to Montana and/or Idaho because of how the scheduling with 11 teams works out. Instead of playing both schools in one road trip. While, I don't believe in the past 25-30 years the Big Sky has had a full member who didn't sponsor football, conference rules change all the time.

Somethings that could throw a monkey wrench into those ideas.

Sac St. gets tired of the travel costs and makes a 12 school Big West. That UC/Cal St wouldn't be a big deal. If Davis-big rivalry with Sac St., Hawaii, and one other UC votes yes, they would have enough votes to get Sac St. in. Sac St. could remain in the Big Sky for football or join the WAC football. I'll bet if a reporter filed a FOI request to Sac St. there would be emails to the Big West about membership.

The Weber podcast painted a bleak financial picture for EWU. So, if EWU drops to D2 or like the podcast says- drops athletics, the Big Sky will need schools.

NMSU-while the Brown or the Weber podcast host feel as though NMSU will not be in the WAC in five years, I just don't see any other conference adding NMSU! The Mt. West would add UTEP before adding NMSU. The MVC, which they were once members, likely won't add them, even though their basketball teams would do well in the MVC.

The UCs bit their collective tongues on the Birds to get UCSD into the fold. They are not going to do that again just for Sac State. Only way they join is if football joins too. It's a nonstarter.

If the WAC could have moved on this FCS football conference idea a few years earlier, Sacramento State might have joined the Big West along with UC San Diego; and could have put its football program in the WAC instead of the Big West taking Cal State Bakersfield from the WAC. That might have also triggered Cal Poly and UC Davis to make the same move with their respective football programs.

And you'd have the same dilemma there as is being proposed now. It makes no sense for three California members to have their sports split up. If anything, Sac State joining makes a Big West FCS more plausible given that Tarleton and Dixie State currently are independents. All you need is one more member to get to 6.

Ok so what other Big West schools want to bring football back? The only ones I can think of are UCSB, Fullerton and LBSU (can play at Home Depot Center or whatever they are calling it now).

(10-13-2020 10:57 AM)SactoHornetAlum Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 10:02 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 01:23 AM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 12:42 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 07:22 PM)Hilldog Wrote:  9 team Olympic sports conferences means only 9 teams to split the March Madness money. But, an even number of teams make for easier scheduling. I'm sure for hoops, there have been times when Big Sky schools made two trips to Montana and/or Idaho because of how the scheduling with 11 teams works out. Instead of playing both schools in one road trip. While, I don't believe in the past 25-30 years the Big Sky has had a full member who didn't sponsor football, conference rules change all the time.

Somethings that could throw a monkey wrench into those ideas.

Sac St. gets tired of the travel costs and makes a 12 school Big West. That UC/Cal St wouldn't be a big deal. If Davis-big rivalry with Sac St., Hawaii, and one other UC votes yes, they would have enough votes to get Sac St. in. Sac St. could remain in the Big Sky for football or join the WAC football. I'll bet if a reporter filed a FOI request to Sac St. there would be emails to the Big West about membership.

The Weber podcast painted a bleak financial picture for EWU. So, if EWU drops to D2 or like the podcast says- drops athletics, the Big Sky will need schools.

NMSU-while the Brown or the Weber podcast host feel as though NMSU will not be in the WAC in five years, I just don't see any other conference adding NMSU! The Mt. West would add UTEP before adding NMSU. The MVC, which they were once members, likely won't add them, even though their basketball teams would do well in the MVC.

The UCs bit their collective tongues on the Birds to get UCSD into the fold. They are not going to do that again just for Sac State. Only way they join is if football joins too. It's a nonstarter.

If the WAC could have moved on this FCS football conference idea a few years earlier, Sacramento State might have joined the Big West along with UC San Diego; and could have put its football program in the WAC instead of the Big West taking Cal State Bakersfield from the WAC. That might have also triggered Cal Poly and UC Davis to make the same move with their respective football programs.

And you'd have the same dilemma there as is being proposed now. It makes no sense for three California members to have their sports split up. If anything, Sac State joining makes a Big West FCS more plausible given that Tarleton and Dixie State currently are independents. All you need is one more member to get to 6.

Ok so what other Big West schools want to bring football back? The only ones I can think of are UCSB, Fullerton and LBSU (can play at Home Depot Center or whatever they are calling it now).

No Big West school is talking about bringing back football! Almost all CA Big West schools had athletic department layoffs and/or furloughs. No way will they come up with $4M, $2M for football and $2M for women's sports, to add football.

It's more likely Sac St gets into the BW for all sports and football only in the Big Sky or WAC, than a BW school bringing back football.

(10-13-2020 10:57 AM)SactoHornetAlum Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 10:02 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 01:23 AM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 12:42 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(10-11-2020 07:22 PM)Hilldog Wrote:  9 team Olympic sports conferences means only 9 teams to split the March Madness money. But, an even number of teams make for easier scheduling. I'm sure for hoops, there have been times when Big Sky schools made two trips to Montana and/or Idaho because of how the scheduling with 11 teams works out. Instead of playing both schools in one road trip. While, I don't believe in the past 25-30 years the Big Sky has had a full member who didn't sponsor football, conference rules change all the time.

Somethings that could throw a monkey wrench into those ideas.

Sac St. gets tired of the travel costs and makes a 12 school Big West. That UC/Cal St wouldn't be a big deal. If Davis-big rivalry with Sac St., Hawaii, and one other UC votes yes, they would have enough votes to get Sac St. in. Sac St. could remain in the Big Sky for football or join the WAC football. I'll bet if a reporter filed a FOI request to Sac St. there would be emails to the Big West about membership.

The Weber podcast painted a bleak financial picture for EWU. So, if EWU drops to D2 or like the podcast says- drops athletics, the Big Sky will need schools.

NMSU-while the Brown or the Weber podcast host feel as though NMSU will not be in the WAC in five years, I just don't see any other conference adding NMSU! The Mt. West would add UTEP before adding NMSU. The MVC, which they were once members, likely won't add them, even though their basketball teams would do well in the MVC.

The UCs bit their collective tongues on the Birds to get UCSD into the fold. They are not going to do that again just for Sac State. Only way they join is if football joins too. It's a nonstarter.

If the WAC could have moved on this FCS football conference idea a few years earlier, Sacramento State might have joined the Big West along with UC San Diego; and could have put its football program in the WAC instead of the Big West taking Cal State Bakersfield from the WAC. That might have also triggered Cal Poly and UC Davis to make the same move with their respective football programs.

And you'd have the same dilemma there as is being proposed now. It makes no sense for three California members to have their sports split up. If anything, Sac State joining makes a Big West FCS more plausible given that Tarleton and Dixie State currently are independents. All you need is one more member to get to 6.

Ok so what other Big West schools want to bring football back? The only ones I can think of are UCSB, Fullerton and LBSU (can play at Home Depot Center or whatever they are calling it now).

None. But it seems you are missing my point so I'll put it another way. Davis, Cal Poly and Sac State all in one league together makes Big West football easier to start up than WAC football. Because both hypothetical leagues are drawing from the same pool. You still need some combo of at least six

Sac State
Cal Poly
UC Davis
Tarleton State - currently no home
Dixie State -currently no home
NAU
Portland State
SUU
UNC

Tarleton State, UNC and Dixie State can just as easily be football-onlies in a Big West FCS as the California schools can be affiliates in a WAC.

Long Beach AD a few years back was talking about adding football, and look at getting them to join the MWC down the line. Long Beach State might join a WAC football conference to build their program for them to join the FBS down the road. That could leave an opening for Sacramento State, CSU-L.A. or East Bay State to join the Big West. The only D2 California school that was serious on looking at adding football was around 2012 by East Bay State which they had drawings online for a possible football stadium. Schools are looking for ways to improve their image to upgrading their sports by moving. Moving football from the Big Sky or Southland is more a downgrade going to the WAC. Long Beach State and any schools adding football or D2 move ups could upgrade the image of their other sports in the WAC.

The biggest get would be Colorado Mesa which is in their footprint with 14 men sports and 14 women sports, but it would be 12 each since Triatholon and Cheerleading is not a sanctioned sports. Colorado Mesa have emerging sports which sounds more like semi-varsity which includes men's hockey, men's rugby, men's volleyball, m/w water polo, women's volleyball, m/w soccer, fencing, table tennis and m/w swim and dive. They could add women's hockey. Colorado Mesa have baseball which they might be able to draw Northern Colorado to join. As what Matt said in the podcast, it is sounding like the WAC is talking to several RMAC Colorado schools about joining.

Enough already with the far-fetched California angles.

I've said it several times in the past and I still stand by it: "The LSC and the SLC are bloated, as is the Big Sky. Somewhere within those 3 conferences lies the answer to WAC's football conundrum."

To build an FCS conference without NMSU, it will be done with the BSC.downsizing, plus LSC moveups and SLC defectors from Texas.

For me, the real question has always been what to do about NMSU. If the WAC wants to go FBS and keep NMSU, it only slighlty changes things. The schools needed to make that happen will still come from tbe BSC and Texas. We know Tarleton is game for the move to FBS, but we haven't heard about anybody else. Who else is interested, or even capable within the next 4-5 years?

If FCS-only is the goal:

Tarleton
ACU
WTAMU
UIW

SUU
Dixie
NAU
NoCo

If FBS-only is the goal:

Tarleton
ACU
WTAMU
UIW

NMSU
SUU
Dixie St.
Weber St.

If starting FCS with transition to FBS is the goal, opportunities are endless. But the one constant is THEY ALL COME FROM THE BSC and TEXAS!

(10-13-2020 12:34 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  Enough already with the far-fetched California angles.

I've said it several times in the past and I still stand by it: "The LSC and the SLC are bloated, as is the Big Sky. Somewhere within those 3 conferences lies the answer to WAC's football conundrum."

To build an FCS conference without NMSU, it will be done with the BSC.downsizing, plus LSC moveups and SLC defectors from Texas.

For me, the real question has always been what to do about NMSU. If the WAC wants to go FBS and keep NMSU, it only slighlty changes things. The schools needed to make that happen will still come from tbe BSC and Texas. We know Tarleton is game for the move to FBS, but we haven't heard about anybody else. Who else is interested, or even capable within the next 4-5 years?

If FCS-only is the goal:

Tarleton
ACU
WTAMU
UIW

SUU
Dixie
NAU
NoCo

If FBS-only is the goal:

Tarleton
ACU
WTAMU
UIW

NMSU
SUU
Dixie St.
Weber St.

If starting FCS with transition to FBS is the goal, opportunities are endless. But the one constant is THEY ALL COME FROM THE BSC and TEXAS!

At the risk of sounding like a twitter SJW, "this."

(10-12-2020 04:00 PM)Hilldog Wrote:  Cost containment is the key according to Brown. So, why would any Southland school want to come to the WAC? ACU is the western most SLC school. They can drive to all their games. They would have to fly to CBU, Chicago and Seattle. They could drive to UTRGV, TSU, NMSU, maybe GCU. NMSU prevents them from going to the NCAA tourney.

ACU is 500 miles from Las Cruces. The Southland has five Louisiana schools and one school in Arkansas. The drive to New Orleans is almost 700 miles from Abilene. For the private schools, it is not about cost containment. It is about putting yourself in a position for better national recognition. UIW has a vision statement they put out in their 2019-2020 handbook.

UIW Athletics Vision Statement: The vision of UIW athletics is to become a premiere Division 1 Catholic institution, recognized nationally. The Southland was a vehicle to get to D1 for both ACU and UIW. The WAC would be a step up from there. Playing Central Arkansas, Northwestern Louisiana, Southeastern Louisiana, is not getting them to the next level. Schools like Seattle, Grand Canyon, and California Baptist are private schools in large TV markets. Seattle academically is the kind of school you want to be hanging out with and GCU and CBU will spare no expense to achieve success. NMSU is athletically and academically a good school to be a partner with.

(10-13-2020 11:39 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 10:57 AM)SactoHornetAlum Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 10:02 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 01:23 AM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 12:42 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  The UCs bit their collective tongues on the Birds to get UCSD into the fold. They are not going to do that again just for Sac State. Only way they join is if football joins too. It's a nonstarter.

If the WAC could have moved on this FCS football conference idea a few years earlier, Sacramento State might have joined the Big West along with UC San Diego; and could have put its football program in the WAC instead of the Big West taking Cal State Bakersfield from the WAC. That might have also triggered Cal Poly and UC Davis to make the same move with their respective football programs.

And you'd have the same dilemma there as is being proposed now. It makes no sense for three California members to have their sports split up. If anything, Sac State joining makes a Big West FCS more plausible given that Tarleton and Dixie State currently are independents. All you need is one more member to get to 6.

Ok so what other Big West schools want to bring football back? The only ones I can think of are UCSB, Fullerton and LBSU (can play at Home Depot Center or whatever they are calling it now).

None. But it seems you are missing my point so I'll put it another way. Davis, Cal Poly and Sac State all in one league together makes Big West football easier to start up than WAC football. Because both hypothetical leagues are drawing from the same pool. You still need some combo of at least six

Sac State
Cal Poly
UC Davis
Tarleton State - currently no home
Dixie State -currently no home
NAU
Portland State
SUU
UNC

Tarleton State, UNC and Dixie State can just as easily be football-onlies in a Big West FCS as the California schools can be affiliates in a WAC.

The difference is the Big Sky would refuse to house existing members who would pull their football out of the conference. Portland State, Northern Arizona, Southern Utah, Northern Colorado would all need to find new homes for their Olympic sports. In your scenario, they would either remain as full members in the Big Sky or place their other sports in the WAC; just so they could play football in the Big West. Otherwise, I doubt the Big West wants to take on new full members from Colorado, Utah, Arizona and Texas (Tarleton State) and grow beyond 12 schools. In your scenario, the WAC still gets new membership; just not in football. The difference between your scenario and what is presently occurring is the WAC is offering "full" membership to start up a new FCS conference; not just football associate membership. At best, the Big West would only offer full membership to Sacramento State and the rest have to scramble for new homes for their other sports. It is easier for all involved in starting a new FCS football conference to work "around" the Big Sky. Your football scenario goes head-to-head with the Big Sky's full membership. Right now, the WAC would only pull away one full member and possibly two associate football members. The Big Sky would still be left with 10 members. The WAC is looking for the rest of its football memberships in Texas. Does the Big West want to delve into Texas just for FCS football? Without a home for its Olympic sports, Tarleton State can't be a associate football member in a newly formed Big West football conference.

(10-12-2020 05:52 PM)Pounder Wrote:  OK... facts.

No California public schools are getting in bed with Texas schools. That's pretty much law (or at least executive order).

Portland State... not on the radar IN PORTLAND, even after losing out on $950,000 they would have made with games at Oregon State and Arizona this fall. Frankly, issues with Portland State in "these uncertain times" should be addressed by local media and usually are... but nothing at all. Plus I'm certain a Texas issue is brought up here as well.

(On a side note: I've seen Montana fans compare Hillsboro Stadium favorably with Eccles Coliseum and Nottingham Field. Of course, that and four bucks won't even buy you a good coffee in Portland.)

West Coast college sports: it was revealed last week that the reason the Pac-12 ended up going its own way with the conference TV network wasn't simply that they wanted to, but that no network really wanted to partner with them in the venture. I think there's a basic rule in conjunction with this: only one Pac-12 school is more than 120 minutes of drive time away from a major market with professional sports. So when media speculate on having a WAC footprint that involves Texas and the Four Corner states, I don't think it's an accident. Adjust accordingly.

The California law banning the use of public money to travel to Texas is not going to last much longer. California is being sued by Texas and I think Texas will force them to repeal that law. There has been an effort by some California legislators to get rid of the law (it is not an executive order), but that has not happened yet. But they will eventually because it is a stupid law and an overreaction to things that California did not like that other states were doing. There was a lot of unhappiness at California public universities with the law.

I am not sure what the Pac-12 network has to do with the WAC, but the networks wanted no part of Commissioner Larry Scott's idea of a Pac-12 network. ESPN and Fox had just rewarded the Pac-12 with the largest TV contract in college sports history at the time (2011), a 12 year, $3 billion TV deal. The Pac-12 runs their own network because Larry Scott is an idiot. Again, I don't know what this has to do with the WAC.

(10-13-2020 12:40 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(10-12-2020 04:00 PM)Hilldog Wrote:  Cost containment is the key according to Brown. So, why would any Southland school want to come to the WAC? ACU is the western most SLC school. They can drive to all their games. They would have to fly to CBU, Chicago and Seattle. They could drive to UTRGV, TSU, NMSU, maybe GCU. NMSU prevents them from going to the NCAA tourney.

ACU is 500 miles from Las Cruces. The Southland has five Louisiana schools and one school in Arkansas. The drive to New Orleans is almost 700 miles from Abilene. For the private schools, it is not about cost containment. It is about putting yourself in a position for better national recognition. UIW has a vision statement they put out in their 2019-2020 handbook.

UIW Athletics Vision Statement: The vision of UIW athletics is to become a premiere Division 1 Catholic institution, recognized nationally. The Southland was a vehicle to get to D1 for both ACU and UIW. The WAC would be a step up from there. Playing Central Arkansas, Northwestern Louisiana, Southeastern Louisiana, is not getting them to the next level. Schools like Seattle, Grand Canyon, and California Baptist are private schools in large TV markets. Seattle academically is the kind of school you want to be hanging out with and GCU and CBU will spare no expense to achieve success. NMSU is athletically and academically a good school to be a partner with.

I am not sure if there is a league anywhere that is less visible nationwide than the Southland. Virtually all the members are in one state and even in that state no one pays attention. They are less followed than the Big 12, SEC, Amerimmensely bference USA, Sun Belt and probably the SWAC with only a couple Texas members. Not sure if they are even followed more than the Lone Star.

The WAC would benefit them immensely with greater exposure. And they would help the WAC as well. When I drag some of my buddies thru recent WAC activity and I mention Tarleton and Dixie State, all I get is a blank stare. Abilene at least rang a bell for them.

(10-13-2020 01:03 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 11:39 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 10:57 AM)SactoHornetAlum Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 10:02 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 01:23 AM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  If the WAC could have moved on this FCS football conference idea a few years earlier, Sacramento State might have joined the Big West along with UC San Diego; and could have put its football program in the WAC instead of the Big West taking Cal State Bakersfield from the WAC. That might have also triggered Cal Poly and UC Davis to make the same move with their respective football programs.

And you'd have the same dilemma there as is being proposed now. It makes no sense for three California members to have their sports split up. If anything, Sac State joining makes a Big West FCS more plausible given that Tarleton and Dixie State currently are independents. All you need is one more member to get to 6.

Ok so what other Big West schools want to bring football back? The only ones I can think of are UCSB, Fullerton and LBSU (can play at Home Depot Center or whatever they are calling it now).

None. But it seems you are missing my point so I'll put it another way. Davis, Cal Poly and Sac State all in one league together makes Big West football easier to start up than WAC football. Because both hypothetical leagues are drawing from the same pool. You still need some combo of at least six

Sac State
Cal Poly
UC Davis
Tarleton State - currently no home
Dixie State -currently no home
NAU
Portland State
SUU
UNC

Tarleton State, UNC and Dixie State can just as easily be football-onlies in a Big West FCS as the California schools can be affiliates in a WAC.

The difference is the Big Sky would refuse to house existing members who would pull their football out of the conference. Portland State, Northern Arizona, Southern Utah, Northern Colorado would all need to find new homes for their Olympic sports. In your scenario, they would either remain as full members in the Big Sky or place their other sports in the WAC; just so they could play football in the Big West. Otherwise, I doubt the Big West wants to take on new full members from Colorado, Utah, Arizona and Texas (Tarleton State) and grow beyond 12 schools. In your scenario, the WAC still gets new membership; just not in football. The difference between your scenario and what is presently occurring is the WAC is offering "full" membership to start up a new FCS conference; not just football associate membership. At best, the Big West would only offer full membership to Sacramento State and the rest have to scramble for new homes for their other sports. It is easier for all involved in starting a new FCS football conference to work "around" the Big Sky. Your football scenario goes head-to-head with the Big Sky's full membership. Right now, the WAC would only pull away one full member and possibly two associate football members. The Big Sky would still be left with 10 members. The WAC is looking for the rest of its football memberships in Texas. Does the Big West want to delve into Texas just for FCS football? Without a home for its Olympic sports, Tarleton State can't be a associate football member in a newly formed Big West football conference.

Until more Texas members are added...

I'll assume Southern Utah is the full Big Sky member the WAC is targeting. SUU, Tarleton, Dixie State are hypothetically now three full WAC members. You're still only halfway there; it needs three more, be they full members or fb-only affiliates, to get to the minimum number of 6. You add UNC and two of California trio, that's at least two full members - possibly three - and one or two affiliates poached from the Big Sky. Adding just the California schools still means two full, two affiliates poached.


That's comparable to my scenario. The Big West would pull away at least one full member (Sac State) and two associate football members (UC Davis, Cal Poly). Tarleton State and Dixie State already have a home for their Olympic sports, the WAC. That's five fb members. One more and you got your six. Portland State goes full member. Or NAU or UNC go fb-only and join the WAC for other sports.

So let me get this straight. All of a sudden the BW is starting up football again...just because SUU might be coming to the WAC. The UC/CalSt thing really doesn't matter at all even though the BW begrudgingly took Bako to keep the parity.

The WAC "plan":
- only picking FB schools from Texas and BSC but are looking at other schools as well
- only offering full membership but also offering associate memberships
- only looking at FCS but are also looking at FBS
- drop ChiSt

David Street named every school in the country so he will be correct on something. He even threw in Colorado Mesa for good measure, even though they explicitly and publicly turned down the WAC invite just a mere 2 years ago.

These threads are ridiculous and as they go on, people start believing them and talking about theories as though they are fact. And who is Matt Brown anyways? What makes him an authoritative source and/or correct? If nothing comes to pass he will just be a David Street wannabe.

(10-13-2020 02:19 PM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  So let me get this straight. All of a sudden the BW is starting up football again...just because SUU might be coming to the WAC. The UC/CalSt thing really doesn't matter at all even though the BW begrudgingly took Bako to keep the parity.

The WAC "plan":
- only picking FB schools from Texas and BSC but are looking at other schools as well
- only offering full membership but also offering associate memberships
- only looking at FCS but are also looking at FBS

David Street named every school in the country so he will be correct on something. He even threw in Colorado Mesa for good measure, even though they explicitly and publicly turned down the WAC invite just a mere 2 years ago.

These threads are ridiculous and as they go on, people start believing them and talking about theories as though they are fact. And who is Matt Brown anyways? What makes him an authoritative source and/or correct? If nothing comes to pass he will just be a David Street wannabe.

Maybe Matt Brown is pen name of the Tarleton president. He made the announcement as if it were imminent and its approaching 2 weeks. Either he is just another Texas wind bag or he is so far off on his timing that its becoming questionable whether it is indeed a done deal or not.

(10-13-2020 02:39 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 02:19 PM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  So let me get this straight. All of a sudden the BW is starting up football again...just because SUU might be coming to the WAC. The UC/CalSt thing really doesn't matter at all even though the BW begrudgingly took Bako to keep the parity.

The WAC "plan":
- only picking FB schools from Texas and BSC but are looking at other schools as well
- only offering full membership but also offering associate memberships
- only looking at FCS but are also looking at FBS

David Street named every school in the country so he will be correct on something. He even threw in Colorado Mesa for good measure, even though they explicitly and publicly turned down the WAC invite just a mere 2 years ago.

These threads are ridiculous and as they go on, people start believing them and talking about theories as though they are fact. And who is Matt Brown anyways? What makes him an authoritative source and/or correct? If nothing comes to pass he will just be a David Street wannabe.

Maybe Matt Brown is pen name of the Tarleton president. He made the announcement as if it were imminent and its approaching 2 weeks. Either he is just another Texas wind bag or he is so far off on his timing that its becoming questionable whether it is indeed a done deal or not.

I mean the NMSU AD has acknowledged that there is a new neighbor joining the block. I know personally ppl at SU and GCU are excited about the addition and what it means. Timing is what it is, but as long as it goes the direction those in the know want it to I don't really care how ppl perceive things. Just announce it.

(10-13-2020 02:59 PM)Lopes87 Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 02:39 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 02:19 PM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  So let me get this straight. All of a sudden the BW is starting up football again...just because SUU might be coming to the WAC. The UC/CalSt thing really doesn't matter at all even though the BW begrudgingly took Bako to keep the parity.

The WAC "plan":
- only picking FB schools from Texas and BSC but are looking at other schools as well
- only offering full membership but also offering associate memberships
- only looking at FCS but are also looking at FBS

David Street named every school in the country so he will be correct on something. He even threw in Colorado Mesa for good measure, even though they explicitly and publicly turned down the WAC invite just a mere 2 years ago.

These threads are ridiculous and as they go on, people start believing them and talking about theories as though they are fact. And who is Matt Brown anyways? What makes him an authoritative source and/or correct? If nothing comes to pass he will just be a David Street wannabe.

Maybe Matt Brown is pen name of the Tarleton president. He made the announcement as if it were imminent and its approaching 2 weeks. Either he is just another Texas wind bag or he is so far off on his timing that its becoming questionable whether it is indeed a done deal or not.

I mean the NMSU AD has acknowledged that there is a new neighbor joining the block. I know personally ppl at SU and GCU are excited about the addition and what it means. Timing is what it is, but as long as it goes the direction those in the know want it to I don't really care how ppl perceive things. Just announce it.

I'm the one that posted the NMSU AD interview. SUU coming to the WAC has some legs. Nothing, I repeat, nothing else regarding WAC additions and/or realignment has any truth behind it. This thread has gone off the rails (as the always do) and David Street is the epicenter of it. People bash him and in the same breath post their own cockamamie theories.

Again, any conference doesn’t vote in schools for “maybes” or “just in case”. Whatever school the Tarleton President is referring to is joining the WAC, whether it’s soon or later. He wouldn’t have mentioned it if it weren’t happening.

A few years ago, the CSUB AD at that time, wrote that a new member was joining to and said it wasn’t a D2. This was on a CSUB message board. UMKC joined shortly after. Someone is joining, how soon is yet to be determined.

(10-13-2020 02:39 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 02:19 PM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  So let me get this straight. All of a sudden the BW is starting up football again...just because SUU might be coming to the WAC. The UC/CalSt thing really doesn't matter at all even though the BW begrudgingly took Bako to keep the parity.

The WAC "plan":
- only picking FB schools from Texas and BSC but are looking at other schools as well
- only offering full membership but also offering associate memberships
- only looking at FCS but are also looking at FBS

David Street named every school in the country so he will be correct on something. He even threw in Colorado Mesa for good measure, even though they explicitly and publicly turned down the WAC invite just a mere 2 years ago.

These threads are ridiculous and as they go on, people start believing them and talking about theories as though they are fact. And who is Matt Brown anyways? What makes him an authoritative source and/or correct? If nothing comes to pass he will just be a David Street wannabe.

Maybe Matt Brown is pen name of the Tarleton president. He made the announcement as if it were imminent and its approaching 2 weeks. Either he is just another Texas wind bag or he is so far off on his timing that its becoming questionable whether it is indeed a done deal or not.

All I was pointing out is "if" the WAC had moved forward on a FCS Conference a few years earlier, then the Big West could have substituted Cal State Bakersfield for Sacramento State when adding UC San Diego... because Sacramento State would have had the option to house its football program in the WAC without repercussion from the Big Sky. Then jdgaucho threw in his scenario on a contrived Big West football conference. Fact, the WAC added two football-playing schools who's programs need FCS homes. Fact, there is a rumor that the WAC has made contact with Southern Utah to join the conference; which plays FCS football. Fact, there is a rumor that the WAC has contacted Southland conference schools. Currently., there is nothing about the Big West starting up a football conference; so no point in debating. "If" the WAC does successfully start a FCS football conference, it is not unrealistic to think that the WAC will contact the football playing schools in California; to see if any are interested in being associate or full members.

(10-13-2020 04:10 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 02:39 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 02:19 PM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  So let me get this straight. All of a sudden the BW is starting up football again...just because SUU might be coming to the WAC. The UC/CalSt thing really doesn't matter at all even though the BW begrudgingly took Bako to keep the parity.

The WAC "plan":
- only picking FB schools from Texas and BSC but are looking at other schools as well
- only offering full membership but also offering associate memberships
- only looking at FCS but are also looking at FBS

David Street named every school in the country so he will be correct on something. He even threw in Colorado Mesa for good measure, even though they explicitly and publicly turned down the WAC invite just a mere 2 years ago.

These threads are ridiculous and as they go on, people start believing them and talking about theories as though they are fact. And who is Matt Brown anyways? What makes him an authoritative source and/or correct? If nothing comes to pass he will just be a David Street wannabe.

Maybe Matt Brown is pen name of the Tarleton president. He made the announcement as if it were imminent and its approaching 2 weeks. Either he is just another Texas wind bag or he is so far off on his timing that its becoming questionable whether it is indeed a done deal or not.

All I was pointing out is "if" the WAC had moved forward on a FCS Conference a few years earlier, then the Big West could have substituted Cal State Bakersfield for Sacramento State when adding UC San Diego... because Sacramento State would have had the option to house its football program in the WAC without repercussion from the Big Sky. Then jdgaucho threw in his scenario on a contrived Big West football conference. Fact, the WAC added two football-playing schools who's programs need FCS homes. Fact, there is a rumor that the WAC has made contact with Southern Utah to join the conference; which plays FCS football. Fact, there is a rumor that the WAC has contacted Southland conference schools. Currently., there is nothing about the Big West starting up a football conference; so no point in debating. "If" the WAC does successfully start a FCS football conference, it is not unrealistic to think that the WAC will contact the football playing schools in California; to see if any are interested in being associate or full members.

And that, my friends, is where we go astray.

Every.
Single.
Time.

It may be factual that there are rumors, but if the rumors aren't fact then what are we doing here and why isn't it happening on the realignment board instead?

Until the WAC formally invites Southern Utah or somebody else with football, there is no WAC football happening. Two members isn't going to get it done.