Somewhat related, the Sam Houston president tweeting about the WAC Presidents meetings

Is it just me or is the WAC the only conference that is this transparent about when their administrators are meeting?

Starting to find philosophy here.

If you’re the WAC, do you avoid accepting the Texas schools? Hard to say no in this position, isn’t it?

If you’re Seattle University, regardless of what Texas schools may be whispering (or louder), you’re now in a spot. You’ll be paying rent on an arena for big games the community doesn’t regard as big, or you’ll be in a quite small gym. You’re really far from the rest of the conference. Not an enviable position, even if the WAC holds to the professional standard and doesn’t move a muscle to force you out.

Big Sky is moving from Pluto to ESPN+ next year. Will have a few games on ESPNU as well.

(06-08-2021 11:59 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 10:42 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 03:25 PM)coogkat14 Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 02:58 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 07:35 AM)coogkat14 Wrote:  Guys why are we pretending this is really about costs when no one from the conference has gone on the record and said as such? Unreconcilable differences. When people get a divorce no one goes on the record and says the real reason is “my partner smelled bad and honestly, I really just don’t like this person.”

I don’t believe for a second that the voting member institutions of the WAC (because let’s be honest if any of the WAC member institutions sans CSU, really viewed CSU as a valuable member and essential to the future of this conference they would still be here) viewed CSU as apart of the future of this conference.

Every organization has a vision of where they’re going and what that looks like. It was decided long ago, probably when in discussions with prospective members, that Seattle is an institutional fit for where we are going as a conference (which is why they are still a member) and CSU, unfortunately is not.

So can we stop pretending this is about cost and that CSU leaving this conference wasn’t a decision made by ALL member institutions. (that includes NMSU and Seattle by the way.) If the new member particularly the Texas four were so concerned about travel I am positive we would’ve stayed in the SLC where travel for all sports were no issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm giving the TX schools the benefit of the doubt of costs being the reason of not wanting to be associated with CSU as there are far more tasteless reasons. Then there are the classless narratives of booting Seattle fore geographic reasons. What's the excuse on not wanting to travel there?

The fact is CSU's membership kept the WAC alive, granted they did not live up to their end of the bargain and that university has bigger issues, but every WAC addition knew the existing WAC membership lineup before they joined. Don't want to fly to Chicago and Seattle, then don't join the WAC.

You’re still caught up on the let’s blame the new guys narratives that’s being pushed. The new members are not official WAC members until July 1st. I don’t believe that institutions who are NOT WAC members can have that much influence on shaping the vision of a conference or the priorities of members who has been associated with the conference for years. They were chosen because they were aligned with those same ideals.

Have you ever gone to work before your hire date. And if you did, would existing employees care about your opinion about who should and should not be associated with that organization? I doubt it, and even if they did, I wouldn’t mean that much. The hard pill that needs to be swallowed is existing WAC members as well as the new members did not think CSU was aligned with the direction the conference wanted to go.

If you think that’s messed up. Fine. I do too. Don’t blame us. Look at your own institutional presidents and ADs. It was their decision. Just like it was their decision to keep Seattle as a member.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There has literally been a half dozen online articles based on "geographic outliers" from the FOIA emails. Like it or not there is a narrative being pushed.

And your analogy is terrible. Try a different one.

So you take FOIA'd emails between AD's as gospel but laugh at the fact that the WAC announcement about the TX4 and Southern Utah came with an announcement of studies on FBS.

The emails are just some AD's discussing their opinions. Mario Moccia has openly stated several times he prefers 12 schools to 14, but that is just his opinion. It is a fact that FCS schools are doing studies on FBS. I understand your skepticism on any of these schools moving to FBS. But it's a fact they are studying it. It is not a fact that any school will jump to FBS or that the WAC will become an FBS conference.

Edit: I was on the official WAC website. They have a area devoted to the expansion. There is a FAQ section:

Does the WAC have plans to eventually become an FBS conference again?
There is no established timetable for such a move as a conference, but there is an agreement among the football-playing institutions to commit to an analysis of all the implications of such a move. It also will be important to monitor the national football landscape for any potential changes that could occur.

https://www.wacsports.com/expansion/index

Again, I'm not laughing at the studies. I'm laughing at the idea of the WAC going FBS in mass. We've been through this about 2 pages ago.

(06-08-2021 01:59 PM)Pounder Wrote:  Starting to find philosophy here.

If you’re the WAC, do you avoid accepting the Texas schools? Hard to say no in this position, isn’t it?

If you’re Seattle University, regardless of what Texas schools may be whispering (or louder), you’re now in a spot. You’ll be paying rent on an arena for big games the community doesn’t regard as big, or you’ll be in a quite small gym. You’re really far from the rest of the conference. Not an enviable position, even if the WAC holds to the professional standard and doesn’t move a muscle to force you out.

Why would Seattle be worried? Is there enough votes for the WAC to boot them? If not, meh.

(06-09-2021 06:25 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 11:59 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 10:42 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 03:25 PM)coogkat14 Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 02:58 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  I'm giving the TX schools the benefit of the doubt of costs being the reason of not wanting to be associated with CSU as there are far more tasteless reasons. Then there are the classless narratives of booting Seattle fore geographic reasons. What's the excuse on not wanting to travel there?

The fact is CSU's membership kept the WAC alive, granted they did not live up to their end of the bargain and that university has bigger issues, but every WAC addition knew the existing WAC membership lineup before they joined. Don't want to fly to Chicago and Seattle, then don't join the WAC.

You’re still caught up on the let’s blame the new guys narratives that’s being pushed. The new members are not official WAC members until July 1st. I don’t believe that institutions who are NOT WAC members can have that much influence on shaping the vision of a conference or the priorities of members who has been associated with the conference for years. They were chosen because they were aligned with those same ideals.

Have you ever gone to work before your hire date. And if you did, would existing employees care about your opinion about who should and should not be associated with that organization? I doubt it, and even if they did, I wouldn’t mean that much. The hard pill that needs to be swallowed is existing WAC members as well as the new members did not think CSU was aligned with the direction the conference wanted to go.

If you think that’s messed up. Fine. I do too. Don’t blame us. Look at your own institutional presidents and ADs. It was their decision. Just like it was their decision to keep Seattle as a member.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There has literally been a half dozen online articles based on "geographic outliers" from the FOIA emails. Like it or not there is a narrative being pushed.

And your analogy is terrible. Try a different one.

So you take FOIA'd emails between AD's as gospel but laugh at the fact that the WAC announcement about the TX4 and Southern Utah came with an announcement of studies on FBS.

The emails are just some AD's discussing their opinions. Mario Moccia has openly stated several times he prefers 12 schools to 14, but that is just his opinion. It is a fact that FCS schools are doing studies on FBS. I understand your skepticism on any of these schools moving to FBS. But it's a fact they are studying it. It is not a fact that any school will jump to FBS or that the WAC will become an FBS conference.

Edit: I was on the official WAC website. They have a area devoted to the expansion. There is a FAQ section:

Does the WAC have plans to eventually become an FBS conference again?
There is no established timetable for such a move as a conference, but there is an agreement among the football-playing institutions to commit to an analysis of all the implications of such a move. It also will be important to monitor the national football landscape for any potential changes that could occur.

https://www.wacsports.com/expansion/index

Again, I'm not laughing at the studies. I'm laughing at the idea of the WAC going FBS in mass. We've been through this about 2 pages ago.

SD, I’m going to agree with you. I don’t believe the WAC will go FBS in mass. I think the more like scenario is that the conference brand itself and reclassify as a FBS conference for football once a consensus is met and invite the the football playing members who are interested and the football playing members who can not meet the requirements will have to place football else where.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(06-09-2021 06:58 PM)coogkat14 Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 06:25 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 11:59 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 10:42 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 03:25 PM)coogkat14 Wrote:  You’re still caught up on the let’s blame the new guys narratives that’s being pushed. The new members are not official WAC members until July 1st. I don’t believe that institutions who are NOT WAC members can have that much influence on shaping the vision of a conference or the priorities of members who has been associated with the conference for years. They were chosen because they were aligned with those same ideals.

Have you ever gone to work before your hire date. And if you did, would existing employees care about your opinion about who should and should not be associated with that organization? I doubt it, and even if they did, I wouldn’t mean that much. The hard pill that needs to be swallowed is existing WAC members as well as the new members did not think CSU was aligned with the direction the conference wanted to go.

If you think that’s messed up. Fine. I do too. Don’t blame us. Look at your own institutional presidents and ADs. It was their decision. Just like it was their decision to keep Seattle as a member.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There has literally been a half dozen online articles based on "geographic outliers" from the FOIA emails. Like it or not there is a narrative being pushed.

And your analogy is terrible. Try a different one.

So you take FOIA'd emails between AD's as gospel but laugh at the fact that the WAC announcement about the TX4 and Southern Utah came with an announcement of studies on FBS.

The emails are just some AD's discussing their opinions. Mario Moccia has openly stated several times he prefers 12 schools to 14, but that is just his opinion. It is a fact that FCS schools are doing studies on FBS. I understand your skepticism on any of these schools moving to FBS. But it's a fact they are studying it. It is not a fact that any school will jump to FBS or that the WAC will become an FBS conference.

Edit: I was on the official WAC website. They have a area devoted to the expansion. There is a FAQ section:

Does the WAC have plans to eventually become an FBS conference again?
There is no established timetable for such a move as a conference, but there is an agreement among the football-playing institutions to commit to an analysis of all the implications of such a move. It also will be important to monitor the national football landscape for any potential changes that could occur.

https://www.wacsports.com/expansion/index

Again, I'm not laughing at the studies. I'm laughing at the idea of the WAC going FBS in mass. We've been through this about 2 pages ago.

SD, I’m going to agree with you. I don’t believe the WAC will go FBS in mass. I think the more like scenario is that the conference brand itself and reclassify as a FBS conference for football once a consensus is met and invite the the football playing members who are interested and the football playing members who can not meet the requirements will have to place football else where.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Isn't the WAC already an FBS conference? So really the problem on the FBS WAC vision getting rid of the "undesirables". Good luck trying to talk the BSC into taking on SUU and Utah Tech.

(06-09-2021 07:14 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 06:58 PM)coogkat14 Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 06:25 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 11:59 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  

(06-07-2021 10:42 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  There has literally been a half dozen online articles based on "geographic outliers" from the FOIA emails. Like it or not there is a narrative being pushed.

And your analogy is terrible. Try a different one.

So you take FOIA'd emails between AD's as gospel but laugh at the fact that the WAC announcement about the TX4 and Southern Utah came with an announcement of studies on FBS.

The emails are just some AD's discussing their opinions. Mario Moccia has openly stated several times he prefers 12 schools to 14, but that is just his opinion. It is a fact that FCS schools are doing studies on FBS. I understand your skepticism on any of these schools moving to FBS. But it's a fact they are studying it. It is not a fact that any school will jump to FBS or that the WAC will become an FBS conference.

Edit: I was on the official WAC website. They have a area devoted to the expansion. There is a FAQ section:

Does the WAC have plans to eventually become an FBS conference again?
There is no established timetable for such a move as a conference, but there is an agreement among the football-playing institutions to commit to an analysis of all the implications of such a move. It also will be important to monitor the national football landscape for any potential changes that could occur.

https://www.wacsports.com/expansion/index

Again, I'm not laughing at the studies. I'm laughing at the idea of the WAC going FBS in mass. We've been through this about 2 pages ago.

SD, I’m going to agree with you. I don’t believe the WAC will go FBS in mass. I think the more like scenario is that the conference brand itself and reclassify as a FBS conference for football once a consensus is met and invite the the football playing members who are interested and the football playing members who can not meet the requirements will have to place football else where.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Isn't the WAC already an FBS conference? So really the problem on the FBS WAC vision getting rid of the "undesirables". Good luck trying to talk the BSC into taking on SUU and Utah Tech.

From my understanding yes. The WAC is chartered as a FBS conference but will be competing as an FCS conference. However as the BCS no longer exists I don’t think much convincing will be necessary. But as I said, the conference will probably just need to reclassify and then reinvite/invite the members/prospectives that will be participating.

Additionally my question to other WAC members. And I’m being sincere. Wouldn’t the prospect of the WAC returning to FBS be something worth celebrating? Especially since NMSU would have a place to their football program?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(06-09-2021 07:23 PM)coogkat14 Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:14 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 06:58 PM)coogkat14 Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 06:25 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-08-2021 11:59 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  So you take FOIA'd emails between AD's as gospel but laugh at the fact that the WAC announcement about the TX4 and Southern Utah came with an announcement of studies on FBS.

The emails are just some AD's discussing their opinions. Mario Moccia has openly stated several times he prefers 12 schools to 14, but that is just his opinion. It is a fact that FCS schools are doing studies on FBS. I understand your skepticism on any of these schools moving to FBS. But it's a fact they are studying it. It is not a fact that any school will jump to FBS or that the WAC will become an FBS conference.

Edit: I was on the official WAC website. They have a area devoted to the expansion. There is a FAQ section:

Does the WAC have plans to eventually become an FBS conference again?
There is no established timetable for such a move as a conference, but there is an agreement among the football-playing institutions to commit to an analysis of all the implications of such a move. It also will be important to monitor the national football landscape for any potential changes that could occur.

https://www.wacsports.com/expansion/index

Again, I'm not laughing at the studies. I'm laughing at the idea of the WAC going FBS in mass. We've been through this about 2 pages ago.

SD, I’m going to agree with you. I don’t believe the WAC will go FBS in mass. I think the more like scenario is that the conference brand itself and reclassify as a FBS conference for football once a consensus is met and invite the the football playing members who are interested and the football playing members who can not meet the requirements will have to place football else where.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Isn't the WAC already an FBS conference? So really the problem on the FBS WAC vision getting rid of the "undesirables". Good luck trying to talk the BSC into taking on SUU and Utah Tech.

From my understanding yes. The WAC is chartered as a FBS conference but will be competing as an FCS conference. However as the BCS no longer exists I don’t think much convincing will be necessary. But as I said, the conference will probably just need to reclassify and then reinvite/invite the members/prospectives that will be participating.

Additionally my question to other WAC members. And I’m being sincere. Wouldn’t the prospect of the WAC returning to FBS be something worth celebrating? Especially since NMSU would have a place to their football program?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That doesn't make sense. Reclassifying doesn't just boot everyone from the current WAC and create a new conference from scratch with those deemed FBS worthy. Everyone already in the WAC is along for the ride, which is why the Utah Tech and SUU adds don't jive with the FBS idea.

And if a new conference is being created from scratch, then you have to start the clock to gain auto-bids for the Oly sports. And yes, I get the idea of high jacking the WAC is to avoid this continuity issue. Just not seeing how the WAC purges the "undesirables" in this scenario.

(06-09-2021 07:33 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:23 PM)coogkat14 Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:14 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 06:58 PM)coogkat14 Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 06:25 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  Again, I'm not laughing at the studies. I'm laughing at the idea of the WAC going FBS in mass. We've been through this about 2 pages ago.

SD, I’m going to agree with you. I don’t believe the WAC will go FBS in mass. I think the more like scenario is that the conference brand itself and reclassify as a FBS conference for football once a consensus is met and invite the the football playing members who are interested and the football playing members who can not meet the requirements will have to place football else where.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Isn't the WAC already an FBS conference? So really the problem on the FBS WAC vision getting rid of the "undesirables". Good luck trying to talk the BSC into taking on SUU and Utah Tech.

From my understanding yes. The WAC is chartered as a FBS conference but will be competing as an FCS conference. However as the BCS no longer exists I don’t think much convincing will be necessary. But as I said, the conference will probably just need to reclassify and then reinvite/invite the members/prospectives that will be participating.

Additionally my question to other WAC members. And I’m being sincere. Wouldn’t the prospect of the WAC returning to FBS be something worth celebrating? Especially since NMSU would have a place to their football program?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That doesn't make sense. Reclassifying doesn't just boot everyone from the current WAC and create a new conference from scratch with those deemed FBS worthy. Everyone already in the WAC is along for the ride, which is why the Utah Tech and SUU adds don't jive with the FBS idea.

And if a new conference is being created from scratch, then you have to start the clock to gain auto-bids for the Oly sports. And yes, I get the idea of high jacking the WAC is to avoid this continuity issue. Just not seeing how the WAC purges the "undesirables" in this scenario.

I think you miss understood. My theory. If the “FBS WAC” Is to come to fruition and their are schools who do the feasibility study and decide “nah, FBS football isn’t for us” they won’t necessarily be forced out. They will choose place their football somewhere else or leave entirely. No ones booting anyone. I just don’t see the conference deciding to go FBS as a whole and deciding not to because *insert school name here* decides the move is to expensive. Just a thought for if this ever happens.

Honestly the biggest benefactor in this scenario is NMSU. Wouldn’t surprise me if it was their universities Admin who has planned this move, found like minded institutions who would be interested and is spear heading this initiative. It’s smart. Can’t find a conference willing to add us? F it. I’ll “build” my own FBS conference in a way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(06-09-2021 07:41 PM)coogkat14 Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:33 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:23 PM)coogkat14 Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:14 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 06:58 PM)coogkat14 Wrote:  SD, I’m going to agree with you. I don’t believe the WAC will go FBS in mass. I think the more like scenario is that the conference brand itself and reclassify as a FBS conference for football once a consensus is met and invite the the football playing members who are interested and the football playing members who can not meet the requirements will have to place football else where.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Isn't the WAC already an FBS conference? So really the problem on the FBS WAC vision getting rid of the "undesirables". Good luck trying to talk the BSC into taking on SUU and Utah Tech.

From my understanding yes. The WAC is chartered as a FBS conference but will be competing as an FCS conference. However as the BCS no longer exists I don’t think much convincing will be necessary. But as I said, the conference will probably just need to reclassify and then reinvite/invite the members/prospectives that will be participating.

Additionally my question to other WAC members. And I’m being sincere. Wouldn’t the prospect of the WAC returning to FBS be something worth celebrating? Especially since NMSU would have a place to their football program?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That doesn't make sense. Reclassifying doesn't just boot everyone from the current WAC and create a new conference from scratch with those deemed FBS worthy. Everyone already in the WAC is along for the ride, which is why the Utah Tech and SUU adds don't jive with the FBS idea.

And if a new conference is being created from scratch, then you have to start the clock to gain auto-bids for the Oly sports. And yes, I get the idea of high jacking the WAC is to avoid this continuity issue. Just not seeing how the WAC purges the "undesirables" in this scenario.

I think you miss understood. My theory. If the “FBS WAC” Is to come to fruition and their are schools who do the feasibility study and decide “nah, FBS football isn’t for us” they won’t necessarily be forced out. They will choose place their football somewhere else or leave entirely. No ones booting anyone. I just don’t see the conference deciding to go FBS as a whole and deciding not to because *insert school name here* decides the move is to expensive. Just a thought for if this ever happens.

Honestly the biggest benefactor in this scenario is NMSU. Wouldn’t surprise me if it was their universities Admin who has planned this move, found like minded institutions who would be interested and is spear heading this initiative. It’s smart. Can’t find a conference willing to add us? F it. I’ll “build” my own FBS conference in a way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That theory makes more sense, but doesn't explain the SUU add. And not buying NMSU being behind this as nothing about their recent history indicates that level of initiative. I always read it as a power move by the TX SLC defectors to make some noise.

(06-09-2021 07:33 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:23 PM)coogkat14 Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:14 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 06:58 PM)coogkat14 Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 06:25 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  Again, I'm not laughing at the studies. I'm laughing at the idea of the WAC going FBS in mass. We've been through this about 2 pages ago.

SD, I’m going to agree with you. I don’t believe the WAC will go FBS in mass. I think the more like scenario is that the conference brand itself and reclassify as a FBS conference for football once a consensus is met and invite the the football playing members who are interested and the football playing members who can not meet the requirements will have to place football else where.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Isn't the WAC already an FBS conference? So really the problem on the FBS WAC vision getting rid of the "undesirables". Good luck trying to talk the BSC into taking on SUU and Utah Tech.

From my understanding yes. The WAC is chartered as a FBS conference but will be competing as an FCS conference. However as the BCS no longer exists I don’t think much convincing will be necessary. But as I said, the conference will probably just need to reclassify and then reinvite/invite the members/prospectives that will be participating.

Additionally my question to other WAC members. And I’m being sincere. Wouldn’t the prospect of the WAC returning to FBS be something worth celebrating? Especially since NMSU would have a place to their football program?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That doesn't make sense. Reclassifying doesn't just boot everyone from the current WAC and create a new conference from scratch with those deemed FBS worthy. Everyone already in the WAC is along for the ride, which is why the Utah Tech and SUU adds don't jive with the FBS idea.

And if a new conference is being created from scratch, then you have to start the clock to gain auto-bids for the Oly sports. And yes, I get the idea of high jacking the WAC is to avoid this continuity issue. Just not seeing how the WAC purges the "undesirables" in this scenario.

None of it makes sense. Joining the WAC, no sense. FBS, less sense. Its all a total joke.

(06-09-2021 07:48 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:41 PM)coogkat14 Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:33 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:23 PM)coogkat14 Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:14 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  Isn't the WAC already an FBS conference? So really the problem on the FBS WAC vision getting rid of the "undesirables". Good luck trying to talk the BSC into taking on SUU and Utah Tech.

From my understanding yes. The WAC is chartered as a FBS conference but will be competing as an FCS conference. However as the BCS no longer exists I don’t think much convincing will be necessary. But as I said, the conference will probably just need to reclassify and then reinvite/invite the members/prospectives that will be participating.

Additionally my question to other WAC members. And I’m being sincere. Wouldn’t the prospect of the WAC returning to FBS be something worth celebrating? Especially since NMSU would have a place to their football program?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That doesn't make sense. Reclassifying doesn't just boot everyone from the current WAC and create a new conference from scratch with those deemed FBS worthy. Everyone already in the WAC is along for the ride, which is why the Utah Tech and SUU adds don't jive with the FBS idea.

And if a new conference is being created from scratch, then you have to start the clock to gain auto-bids for the Oly sports. And yes, I get the idea of high jacking the WAC is to avoid this continuity issue. Just not seeing how the WAC purges the "undesirables" in this scenario.

I think you miss understood. My theory. If the “FBS WAC” Is to come to fruition and their are schools who do the feasibility study and decide “nah, FBS football isn’t for us” they won’t necessarily be forced out. They will choose place their football somewhere else or leave entirely. No ones booting anyone. I just don’t see the conference deciding to go FBS as a whole and deciding not to because *insert school name here* decides the move is to expensive. Just a thought for if this ever happens.

Honestly the biggest benefactor in this scenario is NMSU. Wouldn’t surprise me if it was their universities Admin who has planned this move, found like minded institutions who would be interested and is spear heading this initiative. It’s smart. Can’t find a conference willing to add us? F it. I’ll “build” my own FBS conference in a way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That theory makes more sense, but doesn't explain the SUU add. And not buying NMSU being behind this as nothing about their recent history indicates that level of initiative. I always read it as a power move by the TX SLC defectors to make some noise.

I hear you but with the Texas schools sans SFA being more partial to football why would they choose the WAC if this was a power move which I interpret as you alluding to it being an attempt by the Texas schools to “high jack” the WAC. I hear you man but I got to disagree. I don’t believe the Texas schools, Sam in particular only had the WAC as an option. And Sam and SFA were already heavily catered to in the SLC which is why a lot of the LA schools were a little ticked at us leaving. This screams of a long term play by established WAC members who had been working on the Texas 4 for quite some time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(06-09-2021 07:54 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:33 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:23 PM)coogkat14 Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:14 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 06:58 PM)coogkat14 Wrote:  SD, I’m going to agree with you. I don’t believe the WAC will go FBS in mass. I think the more like scenario is that the conference brand itself and reclassify as a FBS conference for football once a consensus is met and invite the the football playing members who are interested and the football playing members who can not meet the requirements will have to place football else where.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Isn't the WAC already an FBS conference? So really the problem on the FBS WAC vision getting rid of the "undesirables". Good luck trying to talk the BSC into taking on SUU and Utah Tech.

From my understanding yes. The WAC is chartered as a FBS conference but will be competing as an FCS conference. However as the BCS no longer exists I don’t think much convincing will be necessary. But as I said, the conference will probably just need to reclassify and then reinvite/invite the members/prospectives that will be participating.

Additionally my question to other WAC members. And I’m being sincere. Wouldn’t the prospect of the WAC returning to FBS be something worth celebrating? Especially since NMSU would have a place to their football program?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That doesn't make sense. Reclassifying doesn't just boot everyone from the current WAC and create a new conference from scratch with those deemed FBS worthy. Everyone already in the WAC is along for the ride, which is why the Utah Tech and SUU adds don't jive with the FBS idea.

And if a new conference is being created from scratch, then you have to start the clock to gain auto-bids for the Oly sports. And yes, I get the idea of high jacking the WAC is to avoid this continuity issue. Just not seeing how the WAC purges the "undesirables" in this scenario.

None of it makes sense. Joining the WAC, no sense. FBS, less sense. Its all a total joke.

Send an email to NMSUs president. Because you’re right and it doesn’t make sense to many SHSU fans either. I think your institution is the mastermind behind this. Can’t get into a FBS conference? Make your own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(06-09-2021 07:57 PM)coogkat14 Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:54 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:33 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:23 PM)coogkat14 Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:14 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  Isn't the WAC already an FBS conference? So really the problem on the FBS WAC vision getting rid of the "undesirables". Good luck trying to talk the BSC into taking on SUU and Utah Tech.

From my understanding yes. The WAC is chartered as a FBS conference but will be competing as an FCS conference. However as the BCS no longer exists I don’t think much convincing will be necessary. But as I said, the conference will probably just need to reclassify and then reinvite/invite the members/prospectives that will be participating.

Additionally my question to other WAC members. And I’m being sincere. Wouldn’t the prospect of the WAC returning to FBS be something worth celebrating? Especially since NMSU would have a place to their football program?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That doesn't make sense. Reclassifying doesn't just boot everyone from the current WAC and create a new conference from scratch with those deemed FBS worthy. Everyone already in the WAC is along for the ride, which is why the Utah Tech and SUU adds don't jive with the FBS idea.

And if a new conference is being created from scratch, then you have to start the clock to gain auto-bids for the Oly sports. And yes, I get the idea of high jacking the WAC is to avoid this continuity issue. Just not seeing how the WAC purges the "undesirables" in this scenario.

None of it makes sense. Joining the WAC, no sense. FBS, less sense. Its all a total joke.

Send an email to NMSUs president. Because you’re right and it doesn’t make sense to many SHSU fans either. I think your institution is the mastermind behind this. Can’t get into a FBS conference? Make your own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In a few years, none of this will matter, because a certain 4-5 members will be long gone. And they won't be FBS

(06-09-2021 08:12 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:57 PM)coogkat14 Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:54 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:33 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:23 PM)coogkat14 Wrote:  From my understanding yes. The WAC is chartered as a FBS conference but will be competing as an FCS conference. However as the BCS no longer exists I don’t think much convincing will be necessary. But as I said, the conference will probably just need to reclassify and then reinvite/invite the members/prospectives that will be participating.

Additionally my question to other WAC members. And I’m being sincere. Wouldn’t the prospect of the WAC returning to FBS be something worth celebrating? Especially since NMSU would have a place to their football program?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That doesn't make sense. Reclassifying doesn't just boot everyone from the current WAC and create a new conference from scratch with those deemed FBS worthy. Everyone already in the WAC is along for the ride, which is why the Utah Tech and SUU adds don't jive with the FBS idea.

And if a new conference is being created from scratch, then you have to start the clock to gain auto-bids for the Oly sports. And yes, I get the idea of high jacking the WAC is to avoid this continuity issue. Just not seeing how the WAC purges the "undesirables" in this scenario.

None of it makes sense. Joining the WAC, no sense. FBS, less sense. Its all a total joke.

Send an email to NMSUs president. Because you’re right and it doesn’t make sense to many SHSU fans either. I think your institution is the mastermind behind this. Can’t get into a FBS conference? Make your own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In a few years, none of this will matter, because a certain 4-5 members will be long gone. And they won't be FBS

Lol maybe you’re right but we’ll see. Someone bookmark Todors post. Long as my team keeps winning Nattys and bringing in Ws on the field and the court I could careless whether it’s FBS, FCS or whatever. I’d rather a 100 NCAA Division 1 football National Championships than 100 trips to the Walmart Dollar Store Bowl of Beaux Bridge Louisiana.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(06-09-2021 07:56 PM)coogkat14 Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:48 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:41 PM)coogkat14 Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:33 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 07:23 PM)coogkat14 Wrote:  From my understanding yes. The WAC is chartered as a FBS conference but will be competing as an FCS conference. However as the BCS no longer exists I don’t think much convincing will be necessary. But as I said, the conference will probably just need to reclassify and then reinvite/invite the members/prospectives that will be participating.

Additionally my question to other WAC members. And I’m being sincere. Wouldn’t the prospect of the WAC returning to FBS be something worth celebrating? Especially since NMSU would have a place to their football program?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That doesn't make sense. Reclassifying doesn't just boot everyone from the current WAC and create a new conference from scratch with those deemed FBS worthy. Everyone already in the WAC is along for the ride, which is why the Utah Tech and SUU adds don't jive with the FBS idea.

And if a new conference is being created from scratch, then you have to start the clock to gain auto-bids for the Oly sports. And yes, I get the idea of high jacking the WAC is to avoid this continuity issue. Just not seeing how the WAC purges the "undesirables" in this scenario.

I think you miss understood. My theory. If the “FBS WAC” Is to come to fruition and their are schools who do the feasibility study and decide “nah, FBS football isn’t for us” they won’t necessarily be forced out. They will choose place their football somewhere else or leave entirely. No ones booting anyone. I just don’t see the conference deciding to go FBS as a whole and deciding not to because *insert school name here* decides the move is to expensive. Just a thought for if this ever happens.

Honestly the biggest benefactor in this scenario is NMSU. Wouldn’t surprise me if it was their universities Admin who has planned this move, found like minded institutions who would be interested and is spear heading this initiative. It’s smart. Can’t find a conference willing to add us? F it. I’ll “build” my own FBS conference in a way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That theory makes more sense, but doesn't explain the SUU add. And not buying NMSU being behind this as nothing about their recent history indicates that level of initiative. I always read it as a power move by the TX SLC defectors to make some noise.

I hear you but with the Texas schools sans SFA being more partial to football why would they choose the WAC if this was a power move which I interpret as you alluding to it being an attempt by the Texas schools to “high jack” the WAC. I hear you man but I got to disagree. I don’t believe the Texas schools, Sam in particular only had the WAC as an option. And Sam and SFA were already heavily catered to in the SLC which is why a lot of the LA schools were a little ticked at us leaving. This screams of a long term play by established WAC members who had been working on the Texas 4 for quite some time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You didn't get the memo? It is the football-hater GCU Prez that deserves all the credit.. https://news.gcu.edu/2021/03/how-gcu-hel...-its-pack/

Fact is, Tarleton and SFA Prez's, both newly elected, had a private meeting with the SLC Commish when we travelled to Nac to deliver our final FCS butt whoopin' as a D2 program. One week after that meeting, with an imminent invite to join the SLC, Tarleton announces its joining the WAC, paving the way for the Texas4. Fact is the Texas4 didn't hold sway in the SLC like they should've, but that changes now in the WAC. You see, leveraging the WAC's years of desperation with its FBS "golden ticket" presents the stronger/healthier Texas FCS schools the opportunity of building a Texas-centric FBS conference within a Texas-friendly footprint (mini Big 12), which is really what this is all about. Indeed nmsu will benefit from the Texas schools' drive and ambition, but to dare mention they cooked it all up behind the scenes is laughable! They're merely a warm FBS body coming along for the ride.

(06-09-2021 07:56 PM)coogkat14 Wrote:  I hear you but with the Texas schools sans SFA being more partial to football why would they choose the WAC if this was a power move which I interpret as you alluding to it being an attempt by the Texas schools to “high jack” the WAC. I hear you man but I got to disagree. I don’t believe the Texas schools, Sam in particular only had the WAC as an option. And Sam and SFA were already heavily catered to in the SLC which is why a lot of the LA schools were a little ticked at us leaving. This screams of a long term play by established WAC members who had been working on the Texas 4 for quite some time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's too far fetched for me to buy into. WAC as a preemptive move by the more suited SLC defectors to FBS, sure. As a preemptive move as a whole conference to FBS? Not buying it.