(12-13-2020 04:08 AM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 04:56 PM)gleadley Wrote:  Why would we presume any of this?

MOD - Can we get a judge's ruling on this nonsensical, baseless realignment thread?

You are going to regret posting this by the end of next week.

Waiting over here for the "regret" to kick in like...

(12-30-2020 11:56 PM)gleadley Wrote:  

(12-13-2020 04:08 AM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 04:56 PM)gleadley Wrote:  Why would we presume any of this?

MOD - Can we get a judge's ruling on this nonsensical, baseless realignment thread?

You are going to regret posting this by the end of next week.

Waiting over here for the "regret" to kick in like...

Things aren’t finalized but the discussion is far from “nonsensical or “baseless” as evidenced by public announcements from several of the institutions under discussion.

(12-31-2020 08:59 AM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 11:56 PM)gleadley Wrote:  

(12-13-2020 04:08 AM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 04:56 PM)gleadley Wrote:  Why would we presume any of this?

MOD - Can we get a judge's ruling on this nonsensical, baseless realignment thread?

You are going to regret posting this by the end of next week.

Waiting over here for the "regret" to kick in like...

Things aren’t finalized but the discussion is far from “nonsensical or “baseless” as evidenced by public announcements from several of the institutions under discussion.

The thread was started by saying let’s presume ChiSt was leaving and the WAC was adding another unnamed school. I would say that is baseless and nonsensical.

Just another poster who wants to try and predict things or draw attention to himself.

(12-31-2020 11:36 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 08:59 AM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 11:56 PM)gleadley Wrote:  

(12-13-2020 04:08 AM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 04:56 PM)gleadley Wrote:  Why would we presume any of this?

MOD - Can we get a judge's ruling on this nonsensical, baseless realignment thread?

You are going to regret posting this by the end of next week.

Waiting over here for the "regret" to kick in like...

Things aren’t finalized but the discussion is far from “nonsensical or “baseless” as evidenced by public announcements from several of the institutions under discussion.

The thread was started by saying ChiSt was leaving and the WAC was adding another unnamed school. I would say that is baseless and nonsensical.

The OP does begin with speculation that Chi State might leave, you got that part right. He then identifies 5 schools that numerous sources have identified as targets for WAC expansion. Maybe you are thinking of another thread that mentions one nameless school?

It’s certainly not nonsensical to discuss those five schools. As for Chicago State? I’m new around here so I’m not really in the know but I do know enough to conclude Chi State is in serious trouble financially and their athletic budget lags well behind the rest of the conference. Given their money problems coupled with their geographic outlier status, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to wonder if they can continue as a member of the WAC. Or am I missing something?

I’ve read enough of WAC expansion threads to know there are those who seem to enjoy using their imagination to come up with all sorts of options. That doesn’t seem to be the case here though.

(12-31-2020 12:12 PM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 11:36 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 08:59 AM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 11:56 PM)gleadley Wrote:  

(12-13-2020 04:08 AM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  You are going to regret posting this by the end of next week.

Waiting over here for the "regret" to kick in like...

Things aren’t finalized but the discussion is far from “nonsensical or “baseless” as evidenced by public announcements from several of the institutions under discussion.

The thread was started by saying ChiSt was leaving and the WAC was adding another unnamed school. I would say that is baseless and nonsensical.

The OP does begin with speculation that Chi State might leave, you got that part right. He then identifies 5 schools that numerous sources have identified as targets for WAC expansion. Maybe you are thinking of another thread that mentions one nameless school?

It’s certainly not nonsensical to discuss those five schools. As for Chicago State? I’m new around here so I’m not really in the know but I do know enough to conclude Chi State is in serious trouble financially and their athletic budget lags well behind the rest of the conference. Given their money problems coupled with their geographic outlier status, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to wonder if they can continue as a member of the WAC. Or am I missing something?

I’ve read enough of WAC expansion threads to know there are those who seem to enjoy using their imagination to come up with all sorts of options. That doesn’t seem to be the case here though.

Dude, just stop. There is already a 72 page realignment thread (and growing). There was no need to start another one, especially with the opening sentence saying “let’s presume...” and then making stuff up. The only schools anyone should talk about are SUU and the Texas 4. Everything else is made up nonsense.

(12-31-2020 12:28 PM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:12 PM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 11:36 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 08:59 AM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 11:56 PM)gleadley Wrote:  Waiting over here for the "regret" to kick in like...

Things aren’t finalized but the discussion is far from “nonsensical or “baseless” as evidenced by public announcements from several of the institutions under discussion.

The thread was started by saying ChiSt was leaving and the WAC was adding another unnamed school. I would say that is baseless and nonsensical.

The OP does begin with speculation that Chi State might leave, you got that part right. He then identifies 5 schools that numerous sources have identified as targets for WAC expansion. Maybe you are thinking of another thread that mentions one nameless school?

It’s certainly not nonsensical to discuss those five schools. As for Chicago State? I’m new around here so I’m not really in the know but I do know enough to conclude Chi State is in serious trouble financially and their athletic budget lags well behind the rest of the conference. Given their money problems coupled with their geographic outlier status, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to wonder if they can continue as a member of the WAC. Or am I missing something?

I’ve read enough of WAC expansion threads to know there are those who seem to enjoy using their imagination to come up with all sorts of options. That doesn’t seem to be the case here though.

Dude, just stop. There is already a 72 page realignment thread (and growing). There was no need to start another one, especially with the opening sentence saying “let’s presume...” and then making stuff up. The only schools anyone should talk about are SUU and the Texas 4. Everything else is made up nonsense.

Personally, I liked the discussion about what scheduling might look like. It’s been a question asked by the potential new schools and the discussion was enlightening, I thought.


I can take or leave discussion about Chicago State, although some of us are still interested in knowing about the stability of the WAC. It seems several members would bail if they could- NMSU, Seattle, Cal Baptist.

The solution seems simple enough. Reading this or any other thread is voluntary. If it’s nonsense to you, don’t read it.

(12-31-2020 01:52 PM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:28 PM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:12 PM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 11:36 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 08:59 AM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  Things aren’t finalized but the discussion is far from “nonsensical or “baseless” as evidenced by public announcements from several of the institutions under discussion.

The thread was started by saying ChiSt was leaving and the WAC was adding another unnamed school. I would say that is baseless and nonsensical.

The OP does begin with speculation that Chi State might leave, you got that part right. He then identifies 5 schools that numerous sources have identified as targets for WAC expansion. Maybe you are thinking of another thread that mentions one nameless school?

It’s certainly not nonsensical to discuss those five schools. As for Chicago State? I’m new around here so I’m not really in the know but I do know enough to conclude Chi State is in serious trouble financially and their athletic budget lags well behind the rest of the conference. Given their money problems coupled with their geographic outlier status, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to wonder if they can continue as a member of the WAC. Or am I missing something?

I’ve read enough of WAC expansion threads to know there are those who seem to enjoy using their imagination to come up with all sorts of options. That doesn’t seem to be the case here though.

Dude, just stop. There is already a 72 page realignment thread (and growing). There was no need to start another one, especially with the opening sentence saying “let’s presume...” and then making stuff up. The only schools anyone should talk about are SUU and the Texas 4. Everything else is made up nonsense.

Personally, I liked the discussion about what scheduling might look like. It’s been a question asked by the potential new schools and the discussion was enlightening, I thought.


I can take or leave discussion about Chicago State, although some of us are still interested in knowing about the stability of the WAC. It seems several members would bail if they could- NMSU, Seattle, Cal Baptist.

The solution seems simple enough. Reading this or any other thread is voluntary. If it’s nonsense to you, don’t read it.

I’m backing up gleadley, one of the most respected posters on the WAC board. He correctly stated this post was nonsense and you are telling him he’s gonna look foolish for saying that.

To my knowledge NMSU is the only currently WAC school that has openly looked for another conference and we have a very good reason: all sports in an FBS conference. Would Seattle or GCU leave for the WCC if given the chance? Of course. Just like NMSU would leave to the SEC if they came calling. Both scenarios have the same odds of happening.

(12-31-2020 02:57 PM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 01:52 PM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:28 PM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:12 PM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 11:36 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  The thread was started by saying ChiSt was leaving and the WAC was adding another unnamed school. I would say that is baseless and nonsensical.

The OP does begin with speculation that Chi State might leave, you got that part right. He then identifies 5 schools that numerous sources have identified as targets for WAC expansion. Maybe you are thinking of another thread that mentions one nameless school?

It’s certainly not nonsensical to discuss those five schools. As for Chicago State? I’m new around here so I’m not really in the know but I do know enough to conclude Chi State is in serious trouble financially and their athletic budget lags well behind the rest of the conference. Given their money problems coupled with their geographic outlier status, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to wonder if they can continue as a member of the WAC. Or am I missing something?

I’ve read enough of WAC expansion threads to know there are those who seem to enjoy using their imagination to come up with all sorts of options. That doesn’t seem to be the case here though.

Dude, just stop. There is already a 72 page realignment thread (and growing). There was no need to start another one, especially with the opening sentence saying “let’s presume...” and then making stuff up. The only schools anyone should talk about are SUU and the Texas 4. Everything else is made up nonsense.

Personally, I liked the discussion about what scheduling might look like. It’s been a question asked by the potential new schools and the discussion was enlightening, I thought.


I can take or leave discussion about Chicago State, although some of us are still interested in knowing about the stability of the WAC. It seems several members would bail if they could- NMSU, Seattle, Cal Baptist.

The solution seems simple enough. Reading this or any other thread is voluntary. If it’s nonsense to you, don’t read it.

I’m backing up gleadly, one of the most respected posters on the WAC board. He correctly stated this post was nonsense and you are telling him he’s gonna look foolish for saying that.

To my knowledge NMSU is the only currently WAC school that has openly looked for another conference and we have a very good reason: all sports in an FBS conference. Would Seattle or GCU leave for the WCC if given the chance? Of course. Just like NMSU would leave to the SEC if they came calling. Both scenarios have the same odds of happening.

Read the OP’s post again. Chicago State leaving is one minor point. The bigger issue was how scheduling might work to minimize travel. And respected or not, gleadly falsely stated the op mentioned one nameless school possibly joining and called it “nonsensical and baseless.” And I called BS.

(12-31-2020 03:37 PM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 02:57 PM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 01:52 PM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:28 PM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:12 PM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  The OP does begin with speculation that Chi State might leave, you got that part right. He then identifies 5 schools that numerous sources have identified as targets for WAC expansion. Maybe you are thinking of another thread that mentions one nameless school?

It’s certainly not nonsensical to discuss those five schools. As for Chicago State? I’m new around here so I’m not really in the know but I do know enough to conclude Chi State is in serious trouble financially and their athletic budget lags well behind the rest of the conference. Given their money problems coupled with their geographic outlier status, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to wonder if they can continue as a member of the WAC. Or am I missing something?

I’ve read enough of WAC expansion threads to know there are those who seem to enjoy using their imagination to come up with all sorts of options. That doesn’t seem to be the case here though.

Dude, just stop. There is already a 72 page realignment thread (and growing). There was no need to start another one, especially with the opening sentence saying “let’s presume...” and then making stuff up. The only schools anyone should talk about are SUU and the Texas 4. Everything else is made up nonsense.

Personally, I liked the discussion about what scheduling might look like. It’s been a question asked by the potential new schools and the discussion was enlightening, I thought.


I can take or leave discussion about Chicago State, although some of us are still interested in knowing about the stability of the WAC. It seems several members would bail if they could- NMSU, Seattle, Cal Baptist.

The solution seems simple enough. Reading this or any other thread is voluntary. If it’s nonsense to you, don’t read it.

I’m backing up gleadly, one of the most respected posters on the WAC board. He correctly stated this post was nonsense and you are telling him he’s gonna look foolish for saying that.

To my knowledge NMSU is the only currently WAC school that has openly looked for another conference and we have a very good reason: all sports in an FBS conference. Would Seattle or GCU leave for the WCC if given the chance? Of course. Just like NMSU would leave to the SEC if they came calling. Both scenarios have the same odds of happening.

Read the OP’s post again. Chicago State leaving is one minor point. The bigger issue was how scheduling might work to minimize travel. And respected or not, gleadly falsely stated the op mentioned one nameless school possibly joining and called it “nonsensical and baseless.” And I called BS.

He’s right. But I’ll let you get the last word...

(12-31-2020 03:53 PM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 03:37 PM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 02:57 PM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 01:52 PM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:28 PM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  Dude, just stop. There is already a 72 page realignment thread (and growing). There was no need to start another one, especially with the opening sentence saying “let’s presume...” and then making stuff up. The only schools anyone should talk about are SUU and the Texas 4. Everything else is made up nonsense.

Personally, I liked the discussion about what scheduling might look like. It’s been a question asked by the potential new schools and the discussion was enlightening, I thought.


I can take or leave discussion about Chicago State, although some of us are still interested in knowing about the stability of the WAC. It seems several members would bail if they could- NMSU, Seattle, Cal Baptist.

The solution seems simple enough. Reading this or any other thread is voluntary. If it’s nonsense to you, don’t read it.

I’m backing up gleadly, one of the most respected posters on the WAC board. He correctly stated this post was nonsense and you are telling him he’s gonna look foolish for saying that.

To my knowledge NMSU is the only currently WAC school that has openly looked for another conference and we have a very good reason: all sports in an FBS conference. Would Seattle or GCU leave for the WCC if given the chance? Of course. Just like NMSU would leave to the SEC if they came calling. Both scenarios have the same odds of happening.

Read the OP’s post again. Chicago State leaving is one minor point. The bigger issue was how scheduling might work to minimize travel. And respected or not, gleadly falsely stated the op mentioned one nameless school possibly joining and called it “nonsensical and baseless.” And I called BS.

He’s right. But I’ll let you get the last word...

As long as you ignore half his post, he’s right. Talk about Chicago State is speculation.

When y’all are out congratulating each other on your rightness, ask your bud if he’s gonna answer the question about SFA’s announcement and whether that makes talk less baseless speculation?

(12-09-2020 06:15 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  Chicago State is in the WAC until they are not. Imagining a new WAC without current members is pointless. "If" the Texas Four and Southern Utah decide to join the WAC, they will need to take the conference as is; and that includes Chicago State. Yes, the WAC could be a more condensed conference without Chicago State but the same could be said if the WAC didn't have Seattle U. either. However, for the foreseeable future both schools are... will be... and have been full WAC members.

Chicago State will be booted. They have never left their probationary membership status. UTRGV (nee UTPA) did leave their probationary status to permanent member, noted with a press release from the WAC. Chicago State has never been in compliance with their WAC contract, from minimum staffing to facilities standards to budget targets. They are only tolerated for head count, something which will no longer be necessary with the Texas schools. There also are reports that one of the conditions for the Texas schools to join is the exit of Chicago State.

Dollars to doughnuts Chicago State is not a members July 1st, 2022

(01-01-2021 02:18 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 06:15 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  Chicago State is in the WAC until they are not. Imagining a new WAC without current members is pointless. "If" the Texas Four and Southern Utah decide to join the WAC, they will need to take the conference as is; and that includes Chicago State. Yes, the WAC could be a more condensed conference without Chicago State but the same could be said if the WAC didn't have Seattle U. either. However, for the foreseeable future both schools are... will be... and have been full WAC members.

Chicago State will be booted. They have never left their probationary membership status. UTRGV (nee UTPA) did leave their probationary status to permanent member, noted with a press release from the WAC. Chicago State has never been in compliance with their WAC contract, from minimum staffing to facilities standards to budget targets. They are only tolerated for head count, something which will no longer be necessary with the Texas schools. There also are reports that one of the conditions for the Texas schools to join is the exit of Chicago State.

Dollars to doughnuts Chicago State is not a members July 1st, 2022

Link?

(01-01-2021 02:18 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 06:15 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  Chicago State is in the WAC until they are not. Imagining a new WAC without current members is pointless. "If" the Texas Four and Southern Utah decide to join the WAC, they will need to take the conference as is; and that includes Chicago State. Yes, the WAC could be a more condensed conference without Chicago State but the same could be said if the WAC didn't have Seattle U. either. However, for the foreseeable future both schools are... will be... and have been full WAC members.

Chicago State will be booted. They have never left their probationary membership status. UTRGV (nee UTPA) did leave their probationary status to permanent member, noted with a press release from the WAC. Chicago State has never been in compliance with their WAC contract, from minimum staffing to facilities standards to budget targets. They are only tolerated for head count, something which will no longer be necessary with the Texas schools. There also are reports that one of the conditions for the Texas schools to join is the exit of Chicago State.

Dollars to doughnuts Chicago State is not a members July 1st, 2022

Wow. There is a lot of “info” in your post. Please provide your sources.

Btw, if I had a nickle for every time someone asked for SJSU to be booted from the MWC, I would be a very rich man. Sounds familiar...

Should get some clarification from Matt Brown on future membership sometime today. @MattBrownEP.

PojoaquePosse, et al,

The critical piece I spent a few hours trying to dig up last night. It's an article from 2016 about UTRGV (nee UTPA) after 3 years in the WAC on probation status being changed to permanent member. Unfortunately the WAC does not archive news items further than about a year or so. (If you can show me how to dig for older WAC new articles I'll do it). UTRGV athletics also purged the article, which they had at their website (Their archived news is streamlined). Unfortunately my link to the news article was lost when the old board vanished, and we moved to this one. I found a few references to the story in an old thread about Chicago State's declining enrollment (which seems to have stabilized around 1200, 20% above the "red line" -- better leadership). The only link left is to a NYT article about Chicago State and some comments by Hurd and WAC officials about Chicago State in 2016/2017.

The link I wanted to find is to a local paper about UTRGV athletics admission to the WAC was initially a 4 year contract and required that they upgrade the budget, staffing, facilities and supported programs to meet WAC standards. The article was an announcement that they had met those, with budget increases (upped something like 50-60% in a few years), clear spending and staffing plans worked out between the school and the WAC, and about the hiring of various people including some compliance officers. Also about the work of the AD in the WAC administration and representing the WAC on NCAA rules committees. Before that none of us were aware that UTPA and Chicago State were admitted under probationary contracts of four year duration because they did not meet WAC requirements. (D-II move ups don't need this as they meet standards by completing the required NCAA 4 year transition process.)

-- If anyone can help my find the article in the Edinburg or Brownsville paper from 2016 (I think we can narrow to Oct to Dec), I'd appreciate it. Or also a link to the old WAC board, if it's still up on some way back machine or something.

Chicago State athletic budget, staffing and facilities were worse than UTPA/UTRGV from the start and it has actually declined during their period in the WAC. Unlike UTRGV, there was never a notice of transition from contractual status to permanent member. There was even speculation that when their contract ran out in June 2018 they would not be renewed. There was a brief look by CSU board at moving in 2018 (board minutes), so something was up.

We can only guess what is going on. Nobody at the WAC ever would deny or confirm Chicago State's status, only that the WAC was monitoring the situation and providing guidance. (This is quite fair, as no program needs to be publicly announced they are in a probationary membership status with their conference.) The WAC has also during this era been struggling to keep their numbers above the 7 secure schools, with a member leaving seemingly with each addition. Chicago State has been necessary to stay safe. But with the Texas schools and Southern Utah there wont be that need anymore. I would assume the contract has either been renewed on a rolling two year of four year basis. Either way June 30th, 2022 would be the expiration date. (This date aligns with the planned entry of the Texas schools and SUU, although the SLC is trying force it a year earlier to this July 1st.)

The reference to the Texas schools coming in with Chicago State out aligns with a Tarleton State alum connected to the athletic department tweeting "one out six in." There is no talk anywhere of the Texas schools agreeing to divisional play with Chicago State in their division. The Texas schools have the leverage, and with them the WAC will no longer need the numbers for survival. Chicago State's presence goes from necessary to in the way of stability. Their failure to meet WAC minimums and contractual status makes them easy to part with.

Can you point us to the tweet from the Tarleton alum? I would like to know who put it out there and no I’m not doubting you. I would just like to know.

(01-04-2021 02:01 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  PojoaquePosse, et al,

The critical piece I spent a few hours trying to dig up last night. It's an article from 2016 about UTRGV (nee UTPA) after 3 years in the WAC on probation status being changed to permanent member. Unfortunately the WAC does not archive news items further than about a year or so. (If you can show me how to dig for older WAC new articles I'll do it). UTRGV athletics also purged the article, which they had at their website (Their archived news is streamlined). Unfortunately my link to the news article was lost when the old board vanished, and we moved to this one. I found a few references to the story in an old thread about Chicago State's declining enrollment (which seems to have stabilized around 1200, 20% above the "red line" -- better leadership). The only link left is to a NYT article about Chicago State and some comments by Hurd and WAC officials about Chicago State in 2016/2017.

The link I wanted to find is to a local paper about UTRGV athletics admission to the WAC was initially a 4 year contract and required that they upgrade the budget, staffing, facilities and supported programs to meet WAC standards. The article was an announcement that they had met those, with budget increases (upped something like 50-60% in a few years), clear spending and staffing plans worked out between the school and the WAC, and about the hiring of various people including some compliance officers. Also about the work of the AD in the WAC administration and representing the WAC on NCAA rules committees. Before that none of us were aware that UTPA and Chicago State were admitted under probationary contracts of four year duration because they did not meet WAC requirements. (D-II move ups don't need this as they meet standards by completing the required NCAA 4 year transition process.)

-- If anyone can help my find the article in the Edinburg or Brownsville paper from 2016 (I think we can narrow to Oct to Dec), I'd appreciate it. Or also a link to the old WAC board, if it's still up on some way back machine or something.

Chicago State athletic budget, staffing and facilities were worse than UTPA/UTRGV from the start and it has actually declined during their period in the WAC. Unlike UTRGV, there was never a notice of transition from contractual status to permanent member. There was even speculation that when their contract ran out in June 2018 they would not be renewed. There was a brief look by CSU board at moving in 2018 (board minutes), so something was up.

We can only guess what is going on. Nobody at the WAC ever would deny or confirm Chicago State's status, only that the WAC was monitoring the situation and providing guidance. (This is quite fair, as no program needs to be publicly announced they are in a probationary membership status with their conference.) The WAC has also during this era been struggling to keep their numbers above the 7 secure schools, with a member leaving seemingly with each addition. Chicago State has been necessary to stay safe. But with the Texas schools and Southern Utah there wont be that need anymore. I would assume the contract has either been renewed on a rolling two year of four year basis. Either way June 30th, 2022 would be the expiration date. (This date aligns with the planned entry of the Texas schools and SUU, although the SLC is trying force it a year earlier to this July 1st.)

The reference to the Texas schools coming in with Chicago State out aligns with a Tarleton State alum connected to the athletic department tweeting "one out six in." There is no talk anywhere of the Texas schools agreeing to divisional play with Chicago State in their division. The Texas schools have the leverage, and with them the WAC will no longer need the numbers for survival. Chicago State's presence goes from necessary to in the way of stability. Their failure to meet WAC minimums and contractual status makes them easy to part with.

Nice post regarding Chicago State. I do not question the articles you are referencing. I believe they are out there somewhere. I will take your word on those. As for everything else, I think you make very logical points and assumptions about Chicago State. But they are still just that: assumptions. I am not convinced they are leaving. Until I hear from credible sources, I am going to assume Chicago State is sticking around. I have not heard one person outside of hacks like us on this site, state that they have sources that say Chicago State is out.

(12-09-2020 06:34 PM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 06:15 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  Chicago State is in the WAC until they are not. Imagining a new WAC without current members is pointless. "If" the Texas Four and Southern Utah decide to join the WAC, they will need to take the conference as is; and that includes Chicago State. Yes, the WAC could be a more condensed conference without Chicago State but the same could be said if the WAC didn't have Seattle U. either. However, for the foreseeable future both schools are... will... and have been full WAC members.

Thank you Pistol!

(01-04-2021 11:12 AM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  Should get some clarification from Matt Brown on future membership sometime today. @MattBrownEP.

Where’s that clarification? Do you have some special insight into the mind of Matt Brown the rest of us aren’t privy to? Why keep making these statements if you don’t actually know?

(01-05-2021 05:14 AM)Todor Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 06:34 PM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  

(12-09-2020 06:15 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  Chicago State is in the WAC until they are not. Imagining a new WAC without current members is pointless. "If" the Texas Four and Southern Utah decide to join the WAC, they will need to take the conference as is; and that includes Chicago State. Yes, the WAC could be a more condensed conference without Chicago State but the same could be said if the WAC didn't have Seattle U. either. However, for the foreseeable future both schools are... will... and have been full WAC members.

Thank you Pistol!

(01-04-2021 11:12 AM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  Should get some clarification from Matt Brown on future membership sometime today. @MattBrownEP.

Where’s that clarification? Do you have some special insight into the mind of Matt Brown the rest of us aren’t privy to? Why keep making these statements if you don’t actually know?

No, I don’t read minds. I have exchanged messages with Brown about the WAC’s future. I’ve shared information with him from my sources at ACU and another SLC school and he shared what he’s hearing from some of his sources.

Yesterday I asked if I could share some of the information he’s hearing. He asked me to hold off, that he was going to do a Tweet later in the day. I told him I’d spread the word about his upcoming tweet.

His Tweet clarified that prospects for adding another FCS member other than the 5 we’ve been discussing isn’t likely at this point. Any additional football schools are likely to come from the ranks of D2 or from a WAC basketball school adding football. He didn’t include some of the specifics he mentioned off line, presumably because he’s awaiting further corroboration.

The only specific information from Twitter yesterday came from the Sam Houston fan forum admin who mentioned his sources say an announcement about the Texas schools will come the week following the CFB championship game. I hadn’t heard this previously and haven’t heard anything about a specific date. He also threw out the name Augustana as a possible fb only school. Augustana has been mentioned previously as a school that’s expressed interest in joining the WAC so that’s not new although I thought a decision had been made not to go that route.