Probably too early to assess long term winners and losers, but I think most mid-major conferences west of the Mississippi COULD be losers (including the WAC). In the meantime, the WAC looks like the winner and the SLC looks like the loser, but there are so many possible repercussions. E.g. I wouldn’t be surprised if ORU goes back to the SLC now that they could be top dog and milk the basketball bid. Would push the Summit to target UNC or the Montana schools, which could cause the Big Sky to push for expansion etc. etc. etc. And there’s been an excessive amount of chatter about the Texas 4 moving on. Impossible to predict. Real losers are fans of stability. Winners are realignmentologists (or are they losers?).

(01-15-2021 03:16 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  

(01-15-2021 02:56 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(01-14-2021 08:29 PM)spenser Wrote:  

(01-14-2021 06:58 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  

(01-14-2021 06:50 PM)gleadley Wrote:  You aren't lying. For what it's worth, I hear the Big Sky may be looking to replace a member they just lost. Haha

Wow, that visual really puts it into perspective.

A nice Colorado rug would really help tie the room together..

I was going to say Boise State's Olympic sports would be a good travel partner for Seattle.

Probably better to snag a 14th member that brings football, if possible.

With Chicago State leaving, I would like to see the WAC try to add either Weber State or West Texas A&M as the 14th member.

Being in the west with GCU and most of the old WAC makes NMSU a winner in this.

(01-15-2021 03:16 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  Probably too early to assess long term winners and losers, but I think most mid-major conferences west of the Mississippi COULD be losers (including the WAC). In the meantime, the WAC looks like the winner and the SLC looks like the loser, but there are so many possible repercussions. E.g. I wouldn’t be surprised if ORU goes back to the SLC now that they could be top dog and milk the basketball bid. Would push the Summit to target UNC or the Montana schools, which could cause the Big Sky to push for expansion etc. etc. etc. And there’s been an excessive amount of chatter about the Texas 4 moving on. Impossible to predict. Real losers are fans of stability. Winners are realignmentologists (or are they losers?).

Equally impossible to predict are the futures of all of the other conferences...wrong forum for excessive chatter about non WAC topics. Those issues are already being discussed Lounge area in the general, non WAC specific main forum, or in their respective conference areas.

(01-15-2021 03:16 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  Probably too early to assess long term winners and losers, but I think most mid-major conferences west of the Mississippi COULD be losers (including the WAC). In the meantime, the WAC looks like the winner and the SLC looks like the loser, but there are so many possible repercussions. E.g. I wouldn’t be surprised if ORU goes back to the SLC now that they could be top dog and milk the basketball bid. Would push the Summit to target UNC or the Montana schools, which could cause the Big Sky to push for expansion etc. etc. etc. And there’s been an excessive amount of chatter about the Texas 4 moving on. Impossible to predict. Real losers are fans of stability. Winners are realignmentologists (or are they losers?).

Or at least wait until we are officially in the conference before speculating on a departure date.

“ Realignmentologists” are gonna love the next year or two.

(01-15-2021 04:38 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(01-15-2021 03:16 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  Probably too early to assess long term winners and losers, but I think most mid-major conferences west of the Mississippi COULD be losers (including the WAC). In the meantime, the WAC looks like the winner and the SLC looks like the loser, but there are so many possible repercussions. E.g. I wouldn’t be surprised if ORU goes back to the SLC now that they could be top dog and milk the basketball bid. Would push the Summit to target UNC or the Montana schools, which could cause the Big Sky to push for expansion etc. etc. etc. And there’s been an excessive amount of chatter about the Texas 4 moving on. Impossible to predict. Real losers are fans of stability. Winners are realignmentologists (or are they losers?).

Equally impossible to predict are the futures of all of the other conferences...wrong forum for excessive chatter about non WAC topics. Those issues are already being discussed in the general, non WAC specific main forum.

I’m discouraging speculation about such topics, because it’s pointless, and I didn’t intend to hijack this thread for speculation. OP mentioned the WAC as the “winner” and the SLC as the “loser.” My point (perhaps poorly made) was that the initial fallout from the realignment hasn’t even settled, so it’s premature to say this. I’m happy that NMSU appears to have a more stable home, but I don’t think we’re out of the woods yet.

Michigan's Upper Peninsula needs to be added to the losers, looking at the map it appears they have been sold to Canada.

(01-15-2021 04:54 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  

(01-15-2021 04:38 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(01-15-2021 03:16 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  Probably too early to assess long term winners and losers, but I think most mid-major conferences west of the Mississippi COULD be losers (including the WAC). In the meantime, the WAC looks like the winner and the SLC looks like the loser, but there are so many possible repercussions. E.g. I wouldn’t be surprised if ORU goes back to the SLC now that they could be top dog and milk the basketball bid. Would push the Summit to target UNC or the Montana schools, which could cause the Big Sky to push for expansion etc. etc. etc. And there’s been an excessive amount of chatter about the Texas 4 moving on. Impossible to predict. Real losers are fans of stability. Winners are realignmentologists (or are they losers?).

Equally impossible to predict are the futures of all of the other conferences...wrong forum for excessive chatter about non WAC topics. Those issues are already being discussed in the general, non WAC specific main forum.

I’m discouraging speculation about such topics, because it’s pointless, and I didn’t intend to hijack this thread for speculation. OP mentioned the WAC as the “winner” and the SLC as the “loser.” My point (perhaps poorly made) was that the initial fallout from the realignment hasn’t even settled, so it’s premature to say this. I’m happy that NMSU appears to have a more stable home, but I don’t think we’re out of the woods yet.

Can you tell me how a conference who has been struggling for stability and had to add Chicago State 8 years ago, is not a winner for adding 5 current FCS teams to their new football league?

Can you also tell me how a conference who just lost 4 of their best football teams and is left with only 6 football schools is not a loser? Not to mention the 4 teams left to join 2 D2 move ups and not Utah and SMU. I would like to know your thoughts on those questions.

(01-16-2021 04:44 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(01-15-2021 04:54 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  

(01-15-2021 04:38 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(01-15-2021 03:16 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  Probably too early to assess long term winners and losers, but I think most mid-major conferences west of the Mississippi COULD be losers (including the WAC). In the meantime, the WAC looks like the winner and the SLC looks like the loser, but there are so many possible repercussions. E.g. I wouldn’t be surprised if ORU goes back to the SLC now that they could be top dog and milk the basketball bid. Would push the Summit to target UNC or the Montana schools, which could cause the Big Sky to push for expansion etc. etc. etc. And there’s been an excessive amount of chatter about the Texas 4 moving on. Impossible to predict. Real losers are fans of stability. Winners are realignmentologists (or are they losers?).

Equally impossible to predict are the futures of all of the other conferences...wrong forum for excessive chatter about non WAC topics. Those issues are already being discussed in the general, non WAC specific main forum.

I’m discouraging speculation about such topics, because it’s pointless, and I didn’t intend to hijack this thread for speculation. OP mentioned the WAC as the “winner” and the SLC as the “loser.” My point (perhaps poorly made) was that the initial fallout from the realignment hasn’t even settled, so it’s premature to say this. I’m happy that NMSU appears to have a more stable home, but I don’t think we’re out of the woods yet.

Can you tell me how a conference who has been struggling for stability and had to add Chicago State 8 years ago, is not a winner for adding 5 current FCS teams to their new football league?

Can you also tell me how a conference who just lost 4 of their best football teams and is left with only 6 football schools is not a loser? Not to mention the 4 teams left to join 2 D2 move ups and not Utah and SMU. I would like to know your thoughts on those questions.

The WAC is a major winner. Same as the Atlantic Sun if the OVC defects rumor comes to fruition. The Southland and OVC are looking more like the bottom of the barrel.

Southern Utah leaving the Big Sky is a benefit to the Big Sky and the WAC.

(01-16-2021 04:44 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  Can you tell me how a conference who has been struggling for stability and had to add Chicago State 8 years ago, is not a winner for adding 5 current FCS teams to their new football league?

Can you also tell me how a conference who just lost 4 of their best football teams and is left with only 6 football schools is not a loser? Not to mention the 4 teams left to join 2 D2 move ups and not Utah and SMU. I would like to know your thoughts on those questions.

I’ve already clarified this: because the game isn’t over yet. Yes, things look good for us now (and bad for the SLC) but we should be cautious. Adding context that I already know doesn’t change my opinion.

(01-16-2021 06:09 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  

(01-16-2021 04:44 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  Can you tell me how a conference who has been struggling for stability and had to add Chicago State 8 years ago, is not a winner for adding 5 current FCS teams to their new football league?

Can you also tell me how a conference who just lost 4 of their best football teams and is left with only 6 football schools is not a loser? Not to mention the 4 teams left to join 2 D2 move ups and not Utah and SMU. I would like to know your thoughts on those questions.

I’ve already clarified this: because the game isn’t over yet. Yes, things look good for us now (and bad for the SLC) but we should be cautious. Adding context that I already know doesn’t change my opinion.

Is the game over yet for AAC/CUSA/SBC expansion from 8 years ago? When do you declare the game over for expansion?

(01-16-2021 08:47 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  Is the game over yet for AAC/CUSA/SBC expansion from 8 years ago? When do you declare the game over for expansion?

The game will be over when 1. The consequent realignment is settled to the extent that it will not realistically affect the WAC and 2. There is sufficient institutional inertia/satisfaction among the new schools to prevent a defection without a meaningful change in circumstances.

The first criterion is fairly self explanatory. It’s not hard to conceive of a scenario where we see a mid-major round of musical chairs and as a consequence, some WAC schools leave for the Big Sky/Summit/SLC and vice-versa. So, this criterion is not met yet. An example where the second criterion was not met was Oral Roberts, who decided that the SLC wasn’t all it was cracked up to be and went back to the Summit after 2 years.

I don’t remember enough about the AAC/CUSA/SBC situation to be sure, but my guess is yes, the game ended a while ago. My impression is that most members were satisfied and waiting for a space in a better conference to open up. However, UConn had an institutional change in priorities, and decided it preferred its old big east rivals to the AAC tv contract/prestige/emphasizing football. This, of course, kicked off a new game.

(01-14-2021 04:20 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  Please, no debating on which school is #14.

Winner - UTRGV: probably hands down the biggest winner. From being “kicked out” of the Sun Belt and passed over by multiple SLC expansions, UTRGV now gets to be in a conference with 4 top FCS schools within the state. Went from NMSU being their travel partner to having multiple schools a few hours away.

Winner - Utah Valley: a school no conference wanted, now has 2 in state conference members, when a few years ago, they had none. Same with Dixie State.

Loser - Chicago State: whether they were “voluntold” or left on their own accord remains to be seen, but leaving without having a landing spot, is not ideal.

Winner - Tarleton: see UTRGV, but happened to join at the right time and won’t have to deal with all the travel stuff they had when they originally joined.

Winner - WAC Hoops: worst team is leaving and better (read into that as you will) teams are joining the league. Will the WAC be a 2 bid league soon? I don’t think so, but this has the potential to be in the mix to be a lot better pretty soon.

Loser- SLC: Not too sure who they will get to join them, but I can only imagine that the WAC will get the most desirable of their Texas candidates. I can’t imagine a D2 school in Texas joining the SLC over the WAC. Not really sure what other teams would join them.

Winner - Jeff Hurd: this guy has been constantly criticized by posters over the last decade and he was able to pull this off. Some people had unrealistic expectations that he was going to be able to pull teams from the Big Sky, Big West, etc when the WAC was falling apart. Even though it didn’t really work out, getting UMKC was a big deal, but this was completely unexpected.

I’m not too sure about calling NMSU, Seattle, Grand Canyon, and Cal Baptist winners, but they’re definitely not losers.

A lot of people are looking at maps and thinking a NAU for Seattle trade makes sense. Since your a fan of both how do you like that idea ? I don't know if its possible but looking at a map I thought the same thing.

(01-16-2021 08:47 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(01-16-2021 06:09 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  

(01-16-2021 04:44 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  Can you tell me how a conference who has been struggling for stability and had to add Chicago State 8 years ago, is not a winner for adding 5 current FCS teams to their new football league?

Can you also tell me how a conference who just lost 4 of their best football teams and is left with only 6 football schools is not a loser? Not to mention the 4 teams left to join 2 D2 move ups and not Utah and SMU. I would like to know your thoughts on those questions.

I’ve already clarified this: because the game isn’t over yet. Yes, things look good for us now (and bad for the SLC) but we should be cautious. Adding context that I already know doesn’t change my opinion.

Is the game over yet for AAC/CUSA/SBC expansion from 8 years ago? When do you declare the game over for expansion?

Do you mean expansion, ending up as a larger conference with more members, or more in the general realignment sense?

(01-16-2021 11:34 PM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  

(01-14-2021 04:20 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  Please, no debating on which school is #14.

Winner - UTRGV: probably hands down the biggest winner. From being “kicked out” of the Sun Belt and passed over by multiple SLC expansions, UTRGV now gets to be in a conference with 4 top FCS schools within the state. Went from NMSU being their travel partner to having multiple schools a few hours away.

Winner - Utah Valley: a school no conference wanted, now has 2 in state conference members, when a few years ago, they had none. Same with Dixie State.

Loser - Chicago State: whether they were “voluntold” or left on their own accord remains to be seen, but leaving without having a landing spot, is not ideal.

Winner - Tarleton: see UTRGV, but happened to join at the right time and won’t have to deal with all the travel stuff they had when they originally joined.

Winner - WAC Hoops: worst team is leaving and better (read into that as you will) teams are joining the league. Will the WAC be a 2 bid league soon? I don’t think so, but this has the potential to be in the mix to be a lot better pretty soon.

Loser- SLC: Not too sure who they will get to join them, but I can only imagine that the WAC will get the most desirable of their Texas candidates. I can’t imagine a D2 school in Texas joining the SLC over the WAC. Not really sure what other teams would join them.

Winner - Jeff Hurd: this guy has been constantly criticized by posters over the last decade and he was able to pull this off. Some people had unrealistic expectations that he was going to be able to pull teams from the Big Sky, Big West, etc when the WAC was falling apart. Even though it didn’t really work out, getting UMKC was a big deal, but this was completely unexpected.

I’m not too sure about calling NMSU, Seattle, Grand Canyon, and Cal Baptist winners, but they’re definitely not losers.

A lot of people are looking at maps and thinking a NAU for Seattle trade makes sense. Since your a fan of both how do you like that idea ? I don't know if its possible but looking at a map I thought the same thing.

Sure, but conference alignment doesn’t make sense. That’s why West Virginia is in the Big 12, Maryland is in the Big 10, and other examples.

It’s entirely dependent on whether NAU feels like a move to the WAC is more beneficial than playing Montana and Weber. Makes sense geography wise, but not super simple. SU in the Big Sky would only be for geography only and they would still need to house some sports elsewhere, probably the WAC. SU would be the only private in the Big Sky and the Big Sky kind of has a “rural” feel to it. At least in the WAC, SU has fellow privates CBU and GCU.

Geography wise, they “should” swap, but it’s not as cut and dry as some people think.

(01-16-2021 11:53 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(01-16-2021 11:34 PM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  

(01-14-2021 04:20 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  Please, no debating on which school is #14.

Winner - UTRGV: probably hands down the biggest winner. From being “kicked out” of the Sun Belt and passed over by multiple SLC expansions, UTRGV now gets to be in a conference with 4 top FCS schools within the state. Went from NMSU being their travel partner to having multiple schools a few hours away.

Winner - Utah Valley: a school no conference wanted, now has 2 in state conference members, when a few years ago, they had none. Same with Dixie State.

Loser - Chicago State: whether they were “voluntold” or left on their own accord remains to be seen, but leaving without having a landing spot, is not ideal.

Winner - Tarleton: see UTRGV, but happened to join at the right time and won’t have to deal with all the travel stuff they had when they originally joined.

Winner - WAC Hoops: worst team is leaving and better (read into that as you will) teams are joining the league. Will the WAC be a 2 bid league soon? I don’t think so, but this has the potential to be in the mix to be a lot better pretty soon.

Loser- SLC: Not too sure who they will get to join them, but I can only imagine that the WAC will get the most desirable of their Texas candidates. I can’t imagine a D2 school in Texas joining the SLC over the WAC. Not really sure what other teams would join them.

Winner - Jeff Hurd: this guy has been constantly criticized by posters over the last decade and he was able to pull this off. Some people had unrealistic expectations that he was going to be able to pull teams from the Big Sky, Big West, etc when the WAC was falling apart. Even though it didn’t really work out, getting UMKC was a big deal, but this was completely unexpected.

I’m not too sure about calling NMSU, Seattle, Grand Canyon, and Cal Baptist winners, but they’re definitely not losers.

A lot of people are looking at maps and thinking a NAU for Seattle trade makes sense. Since your a fan of both how do you like that idea ? I don't know if its possible but looking at a map I thought the same thing.

Sure, but conference alignment doesn’t make sense. That’s why West Virginia is in the Big 12, Maryland is in the Big 10, and other examples.

It’s entirely dependent on whether NAU feels like a move to the WAC is more beneficial than playing Montana and Weber. Makes sense geography wise, but not super simple. SU in the Big Sky would only be for geography only and they would still need to house some sports elsewhere, probably the WAC. SU would be the only private in the Big Sky and the Big Sky kind of has a “rural” feel to it. At least in the WAC, SU has fellow privates CBU and GCU.

Geography wise, they “should” swap, but it’s not as cut and dry as some people think.

What do you (realistically) want to happen? Assuming SU to WCC isn’t an option.

(01-17-2021 12:46 AM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  

(01-16-2021 11:53 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(01-16-2021 11:34 PM)CoastalVANDAL Wrote:  

(01-14-2021 04:20 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  Please, no debating on which school is #14.

Winner - UTRGV: probably hands down the biggest winner. From being “kicked out” of the Sun Belt and passed over by multiple SLC expansions, UTRGV now gets to be in a conference with 4 top FCS schools within the state. Went from NMSU being their travel partner to having multiple schools a few hours away.

Winner - Utah Valley: a school no conference wanted, now has 2 in state conference members, when a few years ago, they had none. Same with Dixie State.

Loser - Chicago State: whether they were “voluntold” or left on their own accord remains to be seen, but leaving without having a landing spot, is not ideal.

Winner - Tarleton: see UTRGV, but happened to join at the right time and won’t have to deal with all the travel stuff they had when they originally joined.

Winner - WAC Hoops: worst team is leaving and better (read into that as you will) teams are joining the league. Will the WAC be a 2 bid league soon? I don’t think so, but this has the potential to be in the mix to be a lot better pretty soon.

Loser- SLC: Not too sure who they will get to join them, but I can only imagine that the WAC will get the most desirable of their Texas candidates. I can’t imagine a D2 school in Texas joining the SLC over the WAC. Not really sure what other teams would join them.

Winner - Jeff Hurd: this guy has been constantly criticized by posters over the last decade and he was able to pull this off. Some people had unrealistic expectations that he was going to be able to pull teams from the Big Sky, Big West, etc when the WAC was falling apart. Even though it didn’t really work out, getting UMKC was a big deal, but this was completely unexpected.

I’m not too sure about calling NMSU, Seattle, Grand Canyon, and Cal Baptist winners, but they’re definitely not losers.

A lot of people are looking at maps and thinking a NAU for Seattle trade makes sense. Since your a fan of both how do you like that idea ? I don't know if its possible but looking at a map I thought the same thing.

Sure, but conference alignment doesn’t make sense. That’s why West Virginia is in the Big 12, Maryland is in the Big 10, and other examples.

It’s entirely dependent on whether NAU feels like a move to the WAC is more beneficial than playing Montana and Weber. Makes sense geography wise, but not super simple. SU in the Big Sky would only be for geography only and they would still need to house some sports elsewhere, probably the WAC. SU would be the only private in the Big Sky and the Big Sky kind of has a “rural” feel to it. At least in the WAC, SU has fellow privates CBU and GCU.

Geography wise, they “should” swap, but it’s not as cut and dry as some people think.

What do you (realistically) want to happen? Assuming SU to WCC isn’t an option.

Aside from the WCC, the WAC is the best fit for Seattle University; unless they want to play against California State Universities in the Big West? The WAC already houses a number of private Christian Universities; along with Seattle U.... Grand Canyon, California Baptist, and Abilene Christian. And a numbers of likeminded non-football schools in large metro areas; again along with Seattle U.... Grand Canyon, California Baptist, and Utah Valley. I have no desire for Seattle University to leave the WAC. I just want them to house their men's basketball program in a bigger facility. The Redhawk Center is too small for Division 1.

For the record, I don’t mind Seattle in the WAC. The W in WAC stands for Western. Seattle is as far west as you can be. And while they are an outlier on a map, as has been discussed ad naseum, travel to Seattle is not bad. They have a decent BB program, they will hopefully play in the new Seattle arena and they have history (the second team with a final four; I wonder who the other is?).

(01-17-2021 10:02 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  For the record, I don’t mind Seattle in the WAC. The W in WAC stands for Western. Seattle is as far west as you can be. And while they are an outlier on a map, as has been discussed ad naseum, travel to Seattle is not bad. They have a decent BB program, they will hopefully play in the new Seattle arena and they have history (the second team with a final four; I wonder who the other is?).

Who, who, who? Tell us! Stop holding back

Basketball is coming along nicely. I want to see that new arena! Seattle also has strong soccer and have won games in the national tournament. Its nice to have some representation in a variety of sports.

SeattleU says they are going to play at Climate Pledge Arena but the Oak View Group that over sees the CPA has only mentioned NHL/WNBA/ NCAA Men's/Women's tournaments concerts and Sonics once the NBA allows expansion or relocation. I think SeattleU can use it for here and there but before the remodel they weren't paying much for rent, that was a huge factor of playing at Key Arena. There has been some talk about building their own arena that holds 4k among other things.