(08-14-2020 06:02 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 05:41 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 05:30 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 05:12 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 05:02 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  Look, I’m glad you guys are in the WAC and I agree the WAC could have upside, but to believe that the WAC was choice #1 is not logical.

The SLC said no and TSU wanted to be D1, so they took option B. That’s fine, nothing wrong with that. Why would a football school choose FCS independence over a regional conference?

Not true.

And THAT my friend is the $65,000 question. What if the WAC has plans to expand further into Texas? Where else would they get enough schools to build a football conference? I'll wait...

So Tarleton never asked the SLC for membership? Why would they put them in the study then?

Maybe the WAC is building a football conference, who is going to be in it? Dixie St, maybe UT-RGV, who else? Why would SFA, SHSU, ACU, and Lamar leave the SLC for a cobbled together conference with a school in Utah? Why wouldn’t they remain in a more compact league with historical rivals???

You don't ask, you get asked. No definitive answer why the two sides chose to go separate ways. Tarleton had a backup plan with more upside, the SLC has.......its Louisiana schools.

More D2 moveups from the LSC and some SLC defectors makes tbe most sense.

You keep saying SLC schools will defect and you keep dodging the question of why any SLC school would leave for a hodgepodge football WAC. Why would they leave? And why wouldn't you want to be in a conference with access to Louisiana talent?

(08-14-2020 06:18 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 06:02 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 05:41 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 05:30 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 05:12 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  Not true.

And THAT my friend is the $65,000 question. What if the WAC has plans to expand further into Texas? Where else would they get enough schools to build a football conference? I'll wait...

So Tarleton never asked the SLC for membership? Why would they put them in the study then?

Maybe the WAC is building a football conference, who is going to be in it? Dixie St, maybe UT-RGV, who else? Why would SFA, SHSU, ACU, and Lamar leave the SLC for a cobbled together conference with a school in Utah? Why wouldn’t they remain in a more compact league with historical rivals???

You don't ask, you get asked. No definitive answer why the two sides chose to go separate ways. Tarleton had a backup plan with more upside, the SLC has.......its Louisiana schools.

More D2 moveups from the LSC and some SLC defectors makes tbe most sense.

You keep saying SLC schools will defect and you keep dodging the question of why any SLC school would leave for a hodgepodge football WAC. Why would they leave? And why wouldn't you want to be in a conference with access to Louisiana talent?

No I don't, I say its a scenario that makes sense. Until we see the WAC add another school, all of it is hypothetical. The SLC Louisiana schools were in financial dire straights long before Covid, wouldn't be surprised if some shutdown football altogether like UNO. I'd take AZ and CA recruit access over LA any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

(08-14-2020 06:23 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 06:18 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 06:02 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 05:41 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 05:30 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  So Tarleton never asked the SLC for membership? Why would they put them in the study then?

Maybe the WAC is building a football conference, who is going to be in it? Dixie St, maybe UT-RGV, who else? Why would SFA, SHSU, ACU, and Lamar leave the SLC for a cobbled together conference with a school in Utah? Why wouldn’t they remain in a more compact league with historical rivals???

You don't ask, you get asked. No definitive answer why the two sides chose to go separate ways. Tarleton had a backup plan with more upside, the SLC has.......its Louisiana schools.

More D2 moveups from the LSC and some SLC defectors makes tbe most sense.

You keep saying SLC schools will defect and you keep dodging the question of why any SLC school would leave for a hodgepodge football WAC. Why would they leave? And why wouldn't you want to be in a conference with access to Louisiana talent?

No I don't, I say its a scenario that makes sense. Until we see the WAC add another school, all of it is hypothetical. The SLC Louisiana schools were in financial dire straights long before Covid, wouldn't be surprised if some shutdown football altogether like UNO. I'd take AZ and CA recruit access over LA any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Ok well why would it make sense for SLC schools to defect?

(08-14-2020 05:30 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 05:12 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 05:02 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 04:02 PM)TexanFan Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 03:44 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  Why did they study only the WAC and Southland then? Why wasn’t the Summit, OVC, or other conference studied?

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5807b451725e257578f60dbf/t/5abfb908f950b77ed242ae4f/1522514194782/Tarleton+State+Study+2018.pdf

You’re trying to tell me your school would rather play Chicago St, Seattle U, California Baptist, and Utah Valley over Stephen F Austin, Lamar, Sam Houston, and Abilene Christian?

Yes as the WAC has a tremendous upside while the Southland is all they will ever be. And who knows what the WAC is thinking, but maybe one, two or three teams you listed comes to the WAC.

Look, I’m glad you guys are in the WAC and I agree the WAC could have upside, but to believe that the WAC was choice #1 is not logical.

The SLC said no and TSU wanted to be D1, so they took option B. That’s fine, nothing wrong with that. Why would a football school choose FCS independence over a regional conference?

Not true.

And THAT my friend is the $65,000 question. What if the WAC has plans to expand further into Texas? Where else would they get enough schools to build a football conference? I'll wait...

So Tarleton never asked the SLC for membership? Why would they put them in the study then?

Maybe the WAC is building a football conference, who is going to be in it? Dixie St, maybe UT-RGV, who else? Why would SFA, SHSU, ACU, and Lamar leave the SLC for a cobbled together conference with a school in Utah? Why wouldn’t they remain in a more compact league with historical rivals???

(08-14-2020 07:57 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 05:30 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 05:12 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 05:02 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 04:02 PM)TexanFan Wrote:  Yes as the WAC has a tremendous upside while the Southland is all they will ever be. And who knows what the WAC is thinking, but maybe one, two or three teams you listed comes to the WAC.

Look, I’m glad you guys are in the WAC and I agree the WAC could have upside, but to believe that the WAC was choice #1 is not logical.

The SLC said no and TSU wanted to be D1, so they took option B. That’s fine, nothing wrong with that. Why would a football school choose FCS independence over a regional conference?

Not true.

And THAT my friend is the $65,000 question. What if the WAC has plans to expand further into Texas? Where else would they get enough schools to build a football conference? I'll wait...

So Tarleton never asked the SLC for membership? Why would they put them in the study then?

Maybe the WAC is building a football conference, who is going to be in it? Dixie St, maybe UT-RGV, who else? Why would SFA, SHSU, ACU, and Lamar leave the SLC for a cobbled together conference with a school in Utah? Why wouldn’t they remain in a more compact league with historical rivals???

Sam and SFA are probably joined at the hip, for life. No other "historical rivals" exist in the SLC.

(08-14-2020 08:10 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 07:57 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 05:30 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 05:12 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 05:02 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  Look, I’m glad you guys are in the WAC and I agree the WAC could have upside, but to believe that the WAC was choice #1 is not logical.

The SLC said no and TSU wanted to be D1, so they took option B. That’s fine, nothing wrong with that. Why would a football school choose FCS independence over a regional conference?

Not true.

And THAT my friend is the $65,000 question. What if the WAC has plans to expand further into Texas? Where else would they get enough schools to build a football conference? I'll wait...

So Tarleton never asked the SLC for membership? Why would they put them in the study then?

Maybe the WAC is building a football conference, who is going to be in it? Dixie St, maybe UT-RGV, who else? Why would SFA, SHSU, ACU, and Lamar leave the SLC for a cobbled together conference with a school in Utah? Why wouldn’t they remain in a more compact league with historical rivals???

Sam and SFA are probably joined at the hip, for life. No other "historical rivals" exist in the SLC.

Okay man, you seem to have some sort of bias towards the SLC. By historical rivals, I meant teams they have been playing for awhile. Those teams you mentioned aren’t going to leave playing McNeese, Lamar, and SELA to play Dixie and your recently D2 school. You talk junk about the Louisiana schools, like anyone would rather be in a league with a brand new UTGRV football program.

(08-14-2020 06:18 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 06:02 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 05:41 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 05:30 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 05:12 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  Not true.

And THAT my friend is the $65,000 question. What if the WAC has plans to expand further into Texas? Where else would they get enough schools to build a football conference? I'll wait...

So Tarleton never asked the SLC for membership? Why would they put them in the study then?

Maybe the WAC is building a football conference, who is going to be in it? Dixie St, maybe UT-RGV, who else? Why would SFA, SHSU, ACU, and Lamar leave the SLC for a cobbled together conference with a school in Utah? Why wouldn’t they remain in a more compact league with historical rivals???

You don't ask, you get asked. No definitive answer why the two sides chose to go separate ways. Tarleton had a backup plan with more upside, the SLC has.......its Louisiana schools.

More D2 moveups from the LSC and some SLC defectors makes tbe most sense.

You keep saying SLC schools will defect and you keep dodging the question of why any SLC school would leave for a hodgepodge football WAC. Why would they leave? And why wouldn't you want to be in a conference with access to Louisiana talent?

No I don't, I say its a scenario that makes sense. Until we see the WAC add another school, all of it is hypothetical. The SLC Louisiana schools were in financial dire straights long before Covid, wouldn't be surprised if some shutdown football altogether like UNO. I'd take AZ and CA recruit access over LA any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

(08-14-2020 08:57 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  [quote='Hilldog' pid='16947726' dateline='1597455720']
I wonder what other Lone Star conf. schools with football, will make the move up. Just based on enrollment- Commerce, West Texas, Midwestern St. and Kingsville all have football and the largest enrollments. In the next five years, does anybody see any of those four schools moving to D1 and the WAC?

I personally think they're watching Tarleton's transition and WAC compatability very closely. The schools you mentioned are outgrowing the LSC and D2, just like Tarleton did. Plus they all have the financial stability and facilities to make the move. Angelo State as well.

(08-14-2020 08:30 PM)Hilldog Wrote:  Whenever conference shuffle comes up, I look at outline schools in each conferences. Big Sky- Sac. St is the only CA school in the Big Sky. Sac St. could easily go to the Big West-which would make them a 12 team conference- for all sports and be football only in the Big Sky- just like Cal Poly and Davis. For Sac St. going to the Big West, means much less travel expenses. If Sac St. leaves the Big Sky, that gets the Big Sky to 10 schools for all sports and still at 13 for football. Maybe the Big Sky wants Sac St. to have a team in CA, for recruiting reasons.

Another thought- maybe the Big Sky follows the American Conf. and adds a non football school to have an even number of teams for other sports. Yes, that plan blew up when UConn went back to the Big East. Maybe the Big Sky with Sac St. adds a non football school like Seattle or UVU for 12 teams for all other sports. They don't need to add more teams in football.

(08-15-2020 02:03 AM)Vaqueronation Wrote:  For Utrgv if we had a choice of the Wac or the Southland then I'd rather be in the Wac as well. The Southland is purgatory.

(08-15-2020 12:07 AM)Trod0 Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 08:30 PM)Hilldog Wrote:  Whenever conference shuffle comes up, I look at outline schools in each conferences. Big Sky- Sac. St is the only CA school in the Big Sky. Sac St. could easily go to the Big West-which would make them a 12 team conference- for all sports and be football only in the Big Sky- just like Cal Poly and Davis. For Sac St. going to the Big West, means much less travel expenses. If Sac St. leaves the Big Sky, that gets the Big Sky to 10 schools for all sports and still at 13 for football. Maybe the Big Sky wants Sac St. to have a team in CA, for recruiting reasons.

Another thought- maybe the Big Sky follows the American Conf. and adds a non football school to have an even number of teams for other sports. Yes, that plan blew up when UConn went back to the Big East. Maybe the Big Sky with Sac St. adds a non football school like Seattle or UVU for 12 teams for all other sports. They don't need to add more teams in football.

Do you actually think SU or UVU would jump ship to a lesser conference? The only reason I could see them leaving is that they think they have a chance of winning the conference in some sports.

(08-14-2020 10:18 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I have to wonder if it’s inevitable that that Dixie St moves to the Big Sky to balance them out at 14 football schools and 12 for basketball.

With it being rough getting non-conference games out West they could play a 10 game conference schedule in football and a full double round robin in basketball for 22 games.

I think the Big Sky doesn’t want the stigma of taking a D2 call up so they are making them do their transition in the WAC.

(08-15-2020 02:57 PM)Hilldog Wrote:  The Big Sky RPI is 18 and the WAC is 27 for men's basketball. All the other sports don't matter because they don't make money.

(08-15-2020 02:57 PM)Hilldog Wrote:  

(08-15-2020 12:07 AM)Trod0 Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 08:30 PM)Hilldog Wrote:  Whenever conference shuffle comes up, I look at outline schools in each conferences. Big Sky- Sac. St is the only CA school in the Big Sky. Sac St. could easily go to the Big West-which would make them a 12 team conference- for all sports and be football only in the Big Sky- just like Cal Poly and Davis. For Sac St. going to the Big West, means much less travel expenses. If Sac St. leaves the Big Sky, that gets the Big Sky to 10 schools for all sports and still at 13 for football. Maybe the Big Sky wants Sac St. to have a team in CA, for recruiting reasons.

Another thought- maybe the Big Sky follows the American Conf. and adds a non football school to have an even number of teams for other sports. Yes, that plan blew up when UConn went back to the Big East. Maybe the Big Sky with Sac St. adds a non football school like Seattle or UVU for 12 teams for all other sports. They don't need to add more teams in football.

Do you actually think SU or UVU would jump ship to a lesser conference? The only reason I could see them leaving is that they think they have a chance of winning the conference in some sports.

The Big Sky RPI is 18 and the WAC is 27 for men's basketball. All the other sports don't matter because they don't make money.

(08-15-2020 03:01 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(08-14-2020 10:18 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I have to wonder if it’s inevitable that that Dixie St moves to the Big Sky to balance them out at 14 football schools and 12 for basketball.

With it being rough getting non-conference games out West they could play a 10 game conference schedule in football and a full double round robin in basketball for 22 games.

I think the Big Sky doesn’t want the stigma of taking a D2 call up so they are making them do their transition in the WAC.

Big Sky coaches already complain about the size of the conference. With 13 teams, the BSC is the largest FCS conference in college football. It makes more sense to add another Western FCS conference. That could be done with Dixie State, Tarleton State, UC-Davis, Cal Poly and San Diego.

The BSC gets one auto-bid and plays an uneven schedule. In a 13 team league playing eight conference games, it is possible to win the conference without playing the top teams in the conference. At least 11 teams would help lessen that possibility somewhat. A 10 team league might even be better.

A WAC football conference, even if is a “football only conference” like the MVFC, would get an additional auto-bid for western schools. Adding more teams to BSC football would be a bad idea that would not be supported by the BSC schools.