Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Thread Closed 
WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Lopes87 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,569
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 38
I Root For: GCU
Location:
Post: #2341
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
(03-28-2021 04:50 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  This is where I think the Texas and Utah schools will have a say. They didn't jump to the WAC to form a 7-team FCS conference. Either the WAC needs to work toward finding a 14th full member who plays football; UTRGV steps up to the plate and adds FCS football; or the WAC finds a football-only associate member and keep the conference at an odd 13 full members in the meantime until a non-football playing school (GCU, CBU, Seattle) leaves the conference.

I know Brad Cesmat had mentioned fairly recent that Santa Clara San Diego weren't a fan of GCU b/c of how low their tuition is and that BYU was rumored to be against GCU as well. I do know the Zags and SMC seem to have a good relationship with GCU.

As long as Gonzaga is in the WCC Seattle won't get a look. But Im sure all but BYU GU and SMC would love them.

CBU could work but does the WCC want another CA school with a "low" tuition 34k?

All this saying I don't see GCU SU or CBU leaving but it one does leave I think it will be SU.
03-28-2021 07:12 PM
Find all posts by this user
DoubleRSU Offline
All American

Posts: 3,780
Joined: Aug 2015
I Root For: Seattle U
Location:
Post: #2342
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
The WCC has no reason to add Seattle. Seattle is keeping Seattle out of the WCC, not Gonzaga or anyone else. They should have never left and would still be there to this day.
03-28-2021 09:46 PM
Find all posts by this user
NMSUPistolPete Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,334
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 135
I Root For: NMSU
Location: AZ
Post: #2343
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
(03-28-2021 09:46 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  The WCC has no reason to add Seattle. Seattle is keeping Seattle out of the WCC, not Gonzaga or anyone else. They should have never left and would still be there to this day.

Yup, unless Seattle becomes a real power in the WAC in various sports, there is no reason for the WCC to add another mouth to feed. Gonzaga and BYU are the flagships of the WCC. Those two need to see a real benefit to change the current conference dynamic. Seattle's best options are to entice either the Big Sky or Big West to let them into their conference.
03-28-2021 10:16 PM
Find all posts by this user
Lopes87 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,569
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 38
I Root For: GCU
Location:
Post: #2344
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
(03-28-2021 10:16 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  
(03-28-2021 09:46 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  The WCC has no reason to add Seattle. Seattle is keeping Seattle out of the WCC, not Gonzaga or anyone else. They should have never left and would still be there to this day.

Yup, unless Seattle becomes a real power in the WAC in various sports, there is no reason for the WCC to add another mouth to feed. Gonzaga and BYU are the flagships of the WCC. Those two need to see a real benefit to change the current conference dynamic. Seattle's best options are to entice either the Big Sky or Big West to let them into their conference.

I'll fix this for you Gonzaga is the flagship of the WCC BYU isn't anywhere close to that. I could see SU splitting sports among both BSC and BW.
03-28-2021 10:33 PM
Find all posts by this user
NMSUPistolPete Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,334
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 135
I Root For: NMSU
Location: AZ
Post: #2345
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
(03-28-2021 10:33 PM)Lopes87 Wrote:  
(03-28-2021 10:16 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  
(03-28-2021 09:46 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  The WCC has no reason to add Seattle. Seattle is keeping Seattle out of the WCC, not Gonzaga or anyone else. They should have never left and would still be there to this day.

Yup, unless Seattle becomes a real power in the WAC in various sports, there is no reason for the WCC to add another mouth to feed. Gonzaga and BYU are the flagships of the WCC. Those two need to see a real benefit to change the current conference dynamic. Seattle's best options are to entice either the Big Sky or Big West to let them into their conference.

I'll fix this for you Gonzaga is the flagship of the WCC BYU isn't anywhere close to that. I could see SU splitting sports among both BSC and BW.

WCC covets BYU in their conference; they are the Mormon school just like Notre Dame is the Catholic school. They have a large following. I'm sure the WCC commish would hate losing BYU to another conference and would do everything possible (short of making Gonzaga unhappy) to keep them in the fold. BYU is on the verge of being a perennial top 25 basketball program.
(This post was last modified: 03-28-2021 10:42 PM by NMSUPistolPete.)
03-28-2021 10:40 PM
Find all posts by this user
Lopes87 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,569
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 38
I Root For: GCU
Location:
Post: #2346
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
(03-28-2021 10:40 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  
(03-28-2021 10:33 PM)Lopes87 Wrote:  
(03-28-2021 10:16 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  
(03-28-2021 09:46 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  The WCC has no reason to add Seattle. Seattle is keeping Seattle out of the WCC, not Gonzaga or anyone else. They should have never left and would still be there to this day.

Yup, unless Seattle becomes a real power in the WAC in various sports, there is no reason for the WCC to add another mouth to feed. Gonzaga and BYU are the flagships of the WCC. Those two need to see a real benefit to change the current conference dynamic. Seattle's best options are to entice either the Big Sky or Big West to let them into their conference.

I'll fix this for you Gonzaga is the flagship of the WCC BYU isn't anywhere close to that. I could see SU splitting sports among both BSC and BW.

WCC covets BYU in their conference; they are the Mormon school just like Notre Dame is the Catholic school. They have a large following. I'm sure the WCC commish would hate losing BYU to another conference and would do everything possible (short of making Gonzaga unhappy) to keep them in the fold. BYU is on the verge of being a perennial top 25 basketball program.

Following doesn't equal level footing with the Zags as a flagship of the WCC especially when BYU hasn't won the WCC regular season or WCCT to this point.
03-28-2021 11:21 PM
Find all posts by this user
NMSUPistolPete Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,334
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 135
I Root For: NMSU
Location: AZ
Post: #2347
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
(03-28-2021 11:21 PM)Lopes87 Wrote:  
(03-28-2021 10:40 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  
(03-28-2021 10:33 PM)Lopes87 Wrote:  
(03-28-2021 10:16 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  
(03-28-2021 09:46 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  The WCC has no reason to add Seattle. Seattle is keeping Seattle out of the WCC, not Gonzaga or anyone else. They should have never left and would still be there to this day.

Yup, unless Seattle becomes a real power in the WAC in various sports, there is no reason for the WCC to add another mouth to feed. Gonzaga and BYU are the flagships of the WCC. Those two need to see a real benefit to change the current conference dynamic. Seattle's best options are to entice either the Big Sky or Big West to let them into their conference.

I'll fix this for you Gonzaga is the flagship of the WCC BYU isn't anywhere close to that. I could see SU splitting sports among both BSC and BW.

WCC covets BYU in their conference; they are the Mormon school just like Notre Dame is the Catholic school. They have a large following. I'm sure the WCC commish would hate losing BYU to another conference and would do everything possible (short of making Gonzaga unhappy) to keep them in the fold. BYU is on the verge of being a perennial top 25 basketball program.

Following doesn't equal level footing with the Zags as a flagship of the WCC especially when BYU hasn't won the WCC regular season or WCCT to this point.

Yes Gonzaga gets the ultimate say for the WCC. But if Gonzaga is #1, BYU is #2... then comes the rest of the conference. You are arguing essentially the difference between Texas and Oklahoma in the Big 12. Texas calls the shots in the Big 12 but the Big 12 commish would hate to lose Oklahoma to another conference if they're not kept happy as well.
(This post was last modified: 03-29-2021 01:31 AM by NMSUPistolPete.)
03-29-2021 12:16 AM
Find all posts by this user
PojoaquePosse Offline
Blowhard
*

Posts: 2,414
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 147
I Root For: NMSU
Location:
Post: #2348
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
(03-28-2021 10:40 AM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  
(03-27-2021 10:56 PM)Hilldog Wrote:  
(03-26-2021 11:27 PM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  
(03-26-2021 11:35 AM)Lopes87 Wrote:  Didn't NMSU AD say that there is a chance that WAC stays at 12 and that a current member not named Chicago St could dip?

Yes, in his weekly Ask the AD this week, he intimated the WAC staying at 12 teams and having a team (not Chicago State) leaving for another conference. Too many mouths to feed.

Is there a link to his Ask the AD?

Here is the link: https://www.krwg.org/post/voice-public-mario-moccia

Relevant quote is at 43:40. I disagree with PP’s characterization. It sounds like going to 14, staying at 13, and reducing to 12 are all on the table.

I don't know where you found that interview, but that is not the interview I was talking about. I will listen to it later today. I was referring to his Ask the AD weekly segment. Check out the 10:50 mark to hear him talk about adding/subtracting WAC members. You can all decide for yourself what this all means. I had only ever heard about adding a 14th member and MM brought up the notion of going to 12 members for the first time to my recollection. I stated in another post that I didn't feel the WAC needed to go to 14 and I stand by that. 9 FB schools is fine (this is my FBS pipedream with NMSU and UTRGV in the fold). If we go to 14 schools, I hope/pray/wish we can get a current FBS school. That would answer the question, once and for all, if the WAC had plans to go to FBS.

https://art19.com/shows/nm-state-athleti...9da5ca1c8f
(This post was last modified: 03-29-2021 09:29 AM by PojoaquePosse.)
03-29-2021 09:26 AM
Find all posts by this user
OhioBoilermaker Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,003
Joined: Jan 2021
Reputation: 98
I Root For: Purdue, NMSU
Location:
Post: #2349
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
(03-29-2021 09:26 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  
(03-28-2021 10:40 AM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  
(03-27-2021 10:56 PM)Hilldog Wrote:  
(03-26-2021 11:27 PM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  
(03-26-2021 11:35 AM)Lopes87 Wrote:  Didn't NMSU AD say that there is a chance that WAC stays at 12 and that a current member not named Chicago St could dip?

Yes, in his weekly Ask the AD this week, he intimated the WAC staying at 12 teams and having a team (not Chicago State) leaving for another conference. Too many mouths to feed.

Is there a link to his Ask the AD?

Here is the link: https://www.krwg.org/post/voice-public-mario-moccia

Relevant quote is at 43:40. I disagree with PP’s characterization. It sounds like going to 14, staying at 13, and reducing to 12 are all on the table.

I don't know where you found that interview, but that is not the interview I was talking about. I will listen to it later today. I was referring to his Ask the AD weekly segment. Check out the 10:50 mark to hear him talk about adding/subtracting WAC members. You can all decide for yourself what this all means. I had only ever heard about adding a 14th member and MM brought up the notion of going to 12 members for the first time to my recollection. I stated in another post that I didn't feel the WAC needed to go to 14 and I stand by that. 9 FB schools is fine (this is my FBS pipedream with NMSU and UTRGV in the fold). If we go to 14 schools, I hope/pray/wish we can get a current FBS school. That would answer the question, once and for all, if the WAC had plans to go to FBS.

https://art19.com/shows/nm-state-athleti...9da5ca1c8f

Interesting segment. Sounds like there's some real support for going to 12.
(This post was last modified: 03-29-2021 10:47 AM by OhioBoilermaker.)
03-29-2021 10:15 AM
Find all posts by this user
Fighting Muskie Offline
Senior Chief Realignmentologist
*

Posts: 11,790
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 789
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Biden Cesspool
Post: #2350
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
Who is going to depart to move the conference down to 12?

No one is going to the WCC. Do they think the Big Sky is going reverse their stance on Seattle?

other than NMSU leaving for a G5 league, I think things look pretty static.
03-29-2021 12:37 PM
Find all posts by this user
TexasTerror Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,476
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 89
I Root For: SHSU
Location:
Post: #2351
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
Questions. And perhaps in this order...

Does the WAC need a 14th member? If yes, proceed...

How important is it for the WAC to bring in a current Division I team? If very important, go to next question. If not, go down to the Division II question.

If bringing in a Division I is so important - is Weber State, Northern Colorado and Northern Arizona off the table? Or do we need to look back into the Southland (shudder!) for a school that may want to make the jump whether that be McNeese State (was mentioned somewhere) or someone else? If Houston Baptist gets brought up, that's crow for all of us!

If we are OK bringing up another transition school, who are the realistic options? Is it someone besides Texas A&M-Commerce, West Texas A&M and Angelo State? Are there Division II teams outside of Texas that play football and make sense?
03-29-2021 02:12 PM
Find all posts by this user
PojoaquePosse Offline
Blowhard
*

Posts: 2,414
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 147
I Root For: NMSU
Location:
Post: #2352
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
(03-29-2021 02:12 PM)TexasTerror Wrote:  Questions. And perhaps in this order...

Does the WAC need a 14th member? If yes, proceed...

How important is it for the WAC to bring in a current Division I team? If very important, go to next question. If not, go down to the Division II question.

If bringing in a Division I is so important - is Weber State, Northern Colorado and Northern Arizona off the table? Or do we need to look back into the Southland (shudder!) for a school that may want to make the jump whether that be McNeese State (was mentioned somewhere) or someone else? If Houston Baptist gets brought up, that's crow for all of us!

If we are OK bringing up another transition school, who are the realistic options? Is it someone besides Texas A&M-Commerce, West Texas A&M and Angelo State? Are there Division II teams outside of Texas that play football and make sense?

I don't think you need a 14th. You already have 7 FCS schools. If UTRGV adds FCS, you have 8. If UTRGV goes FBS and all the schools are going FBS, you have 9.

If the WAC is going FBS and if the WAC is insistent on 14 schools, then I would say go after an existing FBS. If you could pull 5 schools out of stable conferences, convince them to join the island of misfit toys, convince them that FBS was the future, then surely getting one FBS team to commit would be simple in comparison, no?
03-29-2021 04:50 PM
Find all posts by this user
Todor Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,643
Joined: Jan 2019
Reputation: 914
I Root For: New Mexico State
Location:
Post: #2353
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
(03-29-2021 04:50 PM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  
(03-29-2021 02:12 PM)TexasTerror Wrote:  Questions. And perhaps in this order...

Does the WAC need a 14th member? If yes, proceed...

How important is it for the WAC to bring in a current Division I team? If very important, go to next question. If not, go down to the Division II question.

If bringing in a Division I is so important - is Weber State, Northern Colorado and Northern Arizona off the table? Or do we need to look back into the Southland (shudder!) for a school that may want to make the jump whether that be McNeese State (was mentioned somewhere) or someone else? If Houston Baptist gets brought up, that's crow for all of us!

If we are OK bringing up another transition school, who are the realistic options? Is it someone besides Texas A&M-Commerce, West Texas A&M and Angelo State? Are there Division II teams outside of Texas that play football and make sense?

I don't think you need a 14th. You already have 7 FCS schools. If UTRGV adds FCS, you have 8. If UTRGV goes FBS and all the schools are going FBS, you have 9.

If the WAC is going FBS and if the WAC is insistent on 14 schools, then I would say go after an existing FBS. If you could pull 5 schools out of stable conferences, convince them to join the island of misfit toys, convince them that FBS was the future, then surely getting one FBS team to commit would be simple in comparison, no?

Counting Southern Utah, I see one school that left a stable conference, and Southern Utah is an unlikely FBS candidate within a decade or two. Unless its a D2 school looking for FCS, I don't see any potential WAC members.

Maybe Chicago State can add, say, non scholarship Pioneer League style FCS football and stick around to help some of the new schools fill in some scheduling gaps in their new frankenleague lol.COGS
(This post was last modified: 03-29-2021 05:32 PM by Todor.)
03-29-2021 05:02 PM
Find all posts by this user
SDHornet Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 984
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 28
I Root For: Sac State
Location:
Post: #2354
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
BSC finally got down to 10, we don't want to go back to 11. Stop with the Seattle to the BSC non-sense.

WAC is in no rush to add a 14th (and FB playing) member. Hold out for the best possible candidate.
03-29-2021 10:40 PM
Find all posts by this user
OhioBoilermaker Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,003
Joined: Jan 2021
Reputation: 98
I Root For: Purdue, NMSU
Location:
Post: #2355
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
At this point, the most interesting question to me is “Would the WAC eject a member in good standing to get down to 12? Even if said school has no landing spot?” Part of me thinks that they would. Chicago State wasn’t exactly in *bad* standing. Admittedly they are contract members, but I’m not sure that this makes much of a difference to ADs and Presidents.
03-30-2021 01:24 PM
Find all posts by this user
IWokeUpLikeThis Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,726
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 1434
I Root For: NIU, Chicago St
Location:
Post: #2356
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
(03-30-2021 01:24 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  At this point, the most interesting question to me is “Would the WAC eject a member in good standing to get down to 12? Even if said school has no landing spot?” Part of me thinks that they would. Chicago State wasn’t exactly in *bad* standing. Admittedly they are contract members, but I’m not sure that this makes much of a difference to ADs and Presidents.

Being a contract member as opposed to a full equity member makes all the difference in the world.
03-30-2021 01:38 PM
Find all posts by this user
PojoaquePosse Offline
Blowhard
*

Posts: 2,414
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 147
I Root For: NMSU
Location:
Post: #2357
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
(03-30-2021 01:38 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  
(03-30-2021 01:24 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  At this point, the most interesting question to me is “Would the WAC eject a member in good standing to get down to 12? Even if said school has no landing spot?” Part of me thinks that they would. Chicago State wasn’t exactly in *bad* standing. Admittedly they are contract members, but I’m not sure that this makes much of a difference to ADs and Presidents.

Being a contract member as opposed to a full equity member makes all the difference in the world.

Exactly. I don't think the WAC would boot a member. And I'm not even sure they could if they wanted to. The optics would be terrible, especially when they were struggling to stay afloat just a couple of years ago. Even the Chicago State press release was written in such a way for everyone to save face and be looked upon in a positive light.
03-30-2021 02:06 PM
Find all posts by this user
OhioBoilermaker Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,003
Joined: Jan 2021
Reputation: 98
I Root For: Purdue, NMSU
Location:
Post: #2358
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
I don't think it was ever actually public that Chicago State was a contract member, was it? Didn't we get that from FOIA? Seems like there wouldn't be much of a difference in optics.
03-30-2021 02:35 PM
Find all posts by this user
NotANewbie Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 565
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 42
I Root For: Tennesse, NMSU
Location:
Post: #2359
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
(03-30-2021 02:35 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  I don't think it was ever actually public that Chicago State was a contract member, was it? Didn't we get that from FOIA? Seems like there wouldn't be much of a difference in optics.

Over the years there have been rumblings that Chicago State had not lived up to the conditions that were set for them to become full members - things like sports sponsorship, program support, etc. Therefore it was not surprising that they were at risk of not being renewed and chose to leave the conference. I would think that failing to meet conditions of membership put them in a position that do not apply to current members.
03-30-2021 06:27 PM
Find all posts by this user
Pounder Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 230
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation: 8
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #2360
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
Eh, even if what is bubbling up to the surface prompts the Big Sky to add a school, I wonder if SU would be that school.

However, the moans of existential dread are starting to surface from Eastern Washington boosters. Chances are they’ll either drop a division (or two) or drop football. I suppose the WAC could even be involved, but I doubt it.
04-03-2021 03:31 PM
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




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


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.