I saw this on the USU board, where they have a newspaper article saying that the WAC is looking for a 10th member. Thoughts????

<a href='http://mb4.scout.com/futahstatefrm3.showMessage?topicID=13875.topic' target='_blank'>http://mb4.scout.com/futahstatefrm3.showMe...cID=13875.topic</a>

i feel like it needs to be denver.

they are the 13th school in the sunbelt with the closest school being unt. they need a closer conference.

no belt team will join because of travel. any other school with football would have to be a d-1AA or a d-2 school. they would have to take years to move up to 1-A.

denver is a big market, with a much improved (20-11, 13-3 sunbelt) basketball team.

the main reason they will be added is to be a travel partner to utah st.:

san jose - hawaii
fresno - nevada
boise st. - idaho
utah st. - denver
latech - nmsu

of course adding texas-arlington and texas-san antonio to be the 11th and 12th teams would really help the eastern teams in travel: (and get the wac back in texas and in 2 huge markets)


east:
latech-uta
nmsu-utsa
denver-utah st.

west:
fresno-nevada
hawaii-san jose
boise st. - idaho

I do not want any non-football schools in the WAC....Period!!!
JMO!!!

Quote: of course adding texas-arlington and texas-san antonio to be the 11th and 12th teams would really help the eastern teams in travel: (and get the wac back in texas and in 2 huge markets)

Yeah, that will make really help the WAC's power ratings there. No Thanks.

No to Denver as well, while it does look like their basketball program is on the rise, it's not quite good enough to justify WAC membership yet. A team in Denver would increase travel costs for the far Western WAC schools. The only thing that would make us change our mind is if they had a football team.

The three I would consider would be:

Montana has a great football program and a good following.

Sac State - a good program and the only real school in a BIG city with good facilities. How are they not I-A yet?

Nort Texas - ties with most of the current WAC schools and a decent fb program.

Slapdad Wrote:The three I would consider would be:

Montana has a great football program and a good following.

Sac State - a good program and the only real school in a BIG city with good facilities. How are they not I-A yet?

Nort Texas - ties with most of the current WAC schools and a decent fb program.

Back when the BWC was experimenting with the FB coalition with the then southern independents + No. Illinois, USU's president explained to me that his overtures to the then SacState Prez had been rebuffed: "Sacramento just isn't a big time sports town," he reportedly said.

So they've stayed D-1AA, even though the Kings have shown some staying power.

I don't think SacState will ever make the jump.

I will say this…Darrell Moody (whose <a href='http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20051013/SPORTS/110130063' target='_blank'><span style='color:blue'>article</span></a> spurred this discussion) is one of my favorite reporters, and he often scoops the RGJ on Wolf Pack and WAC news.

The article stresses the travel problems created by a 9-team alignment. The WAC isn’t rich enough to ignore those problems, so I suspect a 10th member will be added eventually. Since 9 teams is ideal for football, and 10 is better for most other sports, I’d be in favor of adding someone that doesn’t play football IF (and that’s a huge IF) it was an alignment that probably wouldn’t change for a long time. But at this point the WAC isn’t stable enough to count on that, so I’d rather add someone that plays football.

If a non-football school WERE added, my first choice would definitely be Gonzaga…obviously for basketball reasons, but also because they play most WAC sports, including baseball, and they’d be an ideal travel partner for Idaho. I doubt they’re interested, but since when does reality have anything to do with these threads? My second choice would be Pacific.

The only way I’d be in favor of Denver would be as an affiliate member with no future guarantees. They currently have a good basketball team, but no fan base. Last year, they averaged about 1800 per game (about 1500, if you subtract Stanford). That’s comparable to San Jose St. and Idaho, but those teams are struggling through bad years and have the potential to draw better crowds if they start winning. If 1500 is all Denver can draw when they’re winning, I hate to think what they’ll draw during losing seasons. Plus, they play fewer WAC sports than Gonzaga or Pacific.

As far as football schools go, every D1AA candidate has serious facilities and attendance issues (with exception of Montana). I realize that several WAC schools can’t throw attendance stones right now, including Nevada, but it’s a problem we need to improve on, not contribute to. North Texas also has attendance issues…despite the reported numbers, I’m confident that there were more butts in the seats for Nevada/Idaho than there were for NT/Troy.

Background info:

WAC membership (# participants) & non-participants
Football (9)
M Basketball (9)
W Basketball (9)
Volleyball (9)
W Cross Country (9)
M Golf (9)
W Tennis (9)
W Soccer (8): NMSU
M Tennis (8): LT
W Indoor Track & Field (8): SJSU
W Outdoor Track & Field (8): SJSU
Softball (7): BSU, UI
W Golf (7): LT, USU
Baseball (6): BSU, UI, USU
M Cross Country (6): FSU, UH, UN
W Swimming & Diving (5): BSU, FSU, LTU, USU
M Outdoor Track & Field (5): UH, UN, NMSU, SJSU
M Indoor Track & Field (4): FSU, UH, UN, NMSU, SJSU
Gymnastics (3): FSU, UH, UI, LTU, UN, NMSU

Gonzaga (13 WAC sports):
Mens: Basketball, Baseball, Cross Country, Golf, Tennis, Track - Soccer, Rowing
Womens: Basketball, Volleyball, Soccer, Golf, Tennis, Cross Country, Track - Rowing

Pacific (11 WAC sports):
Mens: Basketball, Baseball, Golf, Tennis – Swimming, Water Polo, Volleyball
Womens: Basketball, Volleyball, Soccer, Softball, Tennis, Cross Country, Swimming – Field Hockey, Water Polo

Denver (9 WAC sports):
Mens: Basketball, Golf, Tennis - Soccer, Hockey, Lacrosse, Swimming & Diving, Skiing
Womens: Basketball, Volleyball, Soccer, Golf, Tennis, Swimming & Diving– Lacrosse, Skiing

Basketball attendance: Gonzaga (6000), Pacific (4685), Denver (1866)

Yeah we should add Denver for number 10, Sisterhood for the Blind for number 11, and the Brotherhood of the Physically Handicapped for number 12. Sheesh

[I posted this on our board as well. I'm interested to hear what other WACsters have to say.]

There's a good chance that I'm just too dumb to see it. Many of you whose judgment I trust seem to have no doubt that it would be a mistake for the WAC to add a non-FB playing tenth member. Can someone explain why they are so sure?

Here's why I think it has merit:

Nine is a perfect number for a football conference, as we have now. You play once a week, and have four home and four road games every year. Everybody plays everybody else every season.

It's a crappy number for a basketball conference. You play more than once a week, but every night there's at least one conference team not playing. And either one team doesn't have a travel partner, or nobody does. It's hell on scheduling.

Ten is a perfect number for a basketball conference, as we had in the BWC. You set up your travel partners, play twice every weekend (except when you play your travel partner), and everybody plays every night. Any dummy could schedule the conference season. (These advantages carry over to the non-revenue sports as well.)

It's a crappy number for a football conference, because either you play 9 conference games (and the teams with 5 home games have an advantage over those that play 4), or you continue to play 8 and have to skip one team every year (with advantages to those who don't have to play the top teams and disadvantages to those who don't get to play the bottom ones.) The fact that the BCS conference teams don't play each other every year is a bug, not a feature.

What are the disadvantages that outweigh these advantages to a 10BB/9FB team conference? How would adding a 10th for basketball hurt us in football? Especially when there's really not a logical FB-playing 10th anywhere in the conference geographical footprint, except possibly UC-Davis (betting on the come) or North Texas (as long as LaTech is in the WAC, they make more sense than any other potential FB playing school.) And it could strengthen the conference in other areas where it's weak, like baseball (Pepperdine, UCSB, Fullerton), volleyball (UCSB), or W soccer (Pepperdine, Santa Clara).

I wouldn't mind seeing Pacific, UCSB, Gonzaga, Santa Clara or Pepperdine being considered as the 10th.

The WAC has been talking about adding a tenth member for a while now because they think it will make scheduling so much easier for football and basketball. There are some coaches and ADs that have been pushing for a 10th school.

WAC has asked Montana before and they have said no. I think someone brought up maybe getting Pacific into WAC would be an interesting move but they don't play football so that might count against them.

North Texas also turned the WAC down.

I saw that same Nevada Appeal article on the official WAC home page yesterday but it’s not there today. Anyhow, what I am trying to point out is that there's a part missing from that Nevada Appeal article where Benson says he's gotten calls from Denver, and then he mentions other schools by name but just can not remember which ones they were at the moment. But one thing I do remember is that they all were basketball schools that don't play football. He then made the comment that he is only interested in schools that play football to add as a tenth member and then said there are some he knows of that are interested in moving up to D-1A in the near future. He made it clear he is not interested in schools that do not play football.

As far as I am concern, I don’t want schools that do not play football in the WAC.

what about texas state? they are growing...and i think would jump at an invite to a D-1 conference.

I'm in favor of keeping WAC schools closer to the West Coast.

I like Portland State. They're a major city...the largest in Oregon. Their airport is probably a hub for most inbound flights.

They already have a decent football team that can hang with D-1 schools.

...and they're on the West Coast.

but who would their travel partner be? That is the main thing I think the WAC should look into when inviting someone new to the WAC. The coaches and ADs are already complaining about this year's b-ball schedule. I think someone that would be in the rockies would be best.

Possibly Weber St or someone like that. Then for b-ball it could be Fresno/Nevada, Hawaii/San Jose, Weber St/Utah St., Boise St/Idaho and then LT/NMSU.

Maybe even North Texas but I know they said no once already but could always change their mind.

Also one thing I forgot, I heard today NCAA was going to crack down on schedule making in some conferences because of the way its set up right now. WAC might have to watch out for that also if NCAA goes through with it.

wolf pack 1 Wrote:Possibly Weber St or someone like that. Then for b-ball it could be Fresno/Nevada, Hawaii/San Jose, Weber St/Utah St., Boise St/Idaho and then LT/NMSU.

Forget Weber State, they have no desire to ever move up and they have a budget 1/2 the size of the smallest WAC budget.

The school that I think will eventually join the WAC is UC Davis. They are spending a lot of money on facility upgrades and obviously have D-1 intentions. I also think Sacramento State may be in the mix.

I've heard that Portland State doesn't even have enough sports for the Big Sky, they had to get a waiver because they don't have tennis teams. A lot of Big Sky teams have too small of stadiums, so I think the WAC needs to be careful. They should only look at schools with larger stadiums and the committment to improve facilities.

Travel with UC-Davis would be okay.

Hawaii/Fresno
San Jose/ UC Davis
Nevada/USU
Idaho/Boise
NMSU/La Tech

erdaaggie Wrote:

wolf pack 1 Wrote:Possibly Weber St or someone like that. Then for b-ball it could be Fresno/Nevada, Hawaii/San Jose, Weber St/Utah St., Boise St/Idaho and then LT/NMSU.

Forget Weber State, they have no desire to ever move up and they have a budget 1/2 the size of the smallest WAC budget.

The school that I think will eventually join the WAC is UC Davis. They are spending a lot of money on facility upgrades and obviously have D-1 intentions. I also think Sacramento State may be in the mix.

I've heard that Portland State doesn't even have enough sports for the Big Sky, they had to get a waiver because they don't have tennis teams. A lot of Big Sky teams have too small of stadiums, so I think the WAC needs to be careful. They should only look at schools with larger stadiums and the committment to improve facilities.

Travel with UC-Davis would be okay.

Hawaii/Fresno
San Jose/ UC Davis
Nevada/USU
Idaho/Boise
NMSU/La Tech

UC-Davis is moving up. They will become a member of the Big West in all sports starting in 07 and will be a member of Big Sky for football also that same year so they are already moving up and so is Northern Colorado to the Big Sky. So maybe with those two teams coming in, WAC could draw one out but the conference should also look at strengthening the conference also since it doesn't hold that high of a perception now.

Quote:If a non-football school WERE added, my first choice would definitely be Gonzaga…obviously for basketball reasons, but also because they play most WAC sports, including baseball, and they’d be an ideal travel partner for Idaho. I doubt they’re interested, but since when does reality have anything to do with these threads? wink.gif My second choice would be Pacific.

Obviously, if we're going to be looking for a 10th member, we should look at Montana or Portland State, or a potentially solid football playing school. Montana has everything in place already, schools like UC-Davis and probably Portland State would need to build a stadium.

If we are going for a basketball-only school, we should go after Pacific and Gonzaga. Gonzaga may be a pipe dream, but I don't see why Pacific would jump at the chance. Their men's basketball team must be tired of winning the Big West and then having to sweat an at-large selection when they don't make the NCAA tournament. Plus, their solid in other non-revenue sports as well. Normally the WAC is stronger than the WCC in Men's Basketball, so it's something that Gonzaga might consider....

WAC_FAN Wrote:

Quote:If a non-football school WERE added, my first choice would definitely be Gonzaga…obviously for basketball reasons, but also because they play most WAC sports, including baseball, and they’d be an ideal travel partner for Idaho. I doubt they’re interested, but since when does reality have anything to do with these threads? wink.gif My second choice would be Pacific.

Obviously, if we're going to be looking for a 10th member, we should look at Montana or Portland State, or a potentially solid football playing school. Montana has everything in place already, schools like UC-Davis and probably Portland State would need to build a stadium.

If we are going for a basketball-only school, we should go after Pacific and Gonzaga. Gonzaga may be a pipe dream, but I don't see why Pacific would jump at the chance. Their men's basketball team must be tired of winning the Big West and then having to sweat an at-large selection when they don't make the NCAA tournament. Plus, their solid in other non-revenue sports as well. Normally the WAC is stronger than the WCC in Men's Basketball, so it's something that Gonzaga might consider....

WCC is one of the most stable conferences in the nation. I don't think any member of the conference is looking to move elsewhere right now. I say go after maybe someone like Pacific but if they want schools with football also I think the choices are narrowed unless they convince Pacific to start football again

crow4435 Wrote:what about texas state? they are growing...and i think would jump at an invite to a D-1 conference.

I'd hate to see another eastern team added unless they were a real solid addition, and I think even North Texas is marginal in that regard. But I admit that I'm pretty ignorant about Texas State, so I did a little checking, and they're fairly impressive when comparing D1AA teams. Of the teams listed below, they have some of the nicer facilities and better football attendance (~11K) than everyone but Montana. They're enjoying a good football season (something like 5-1 and ranked 9th in D1AA). San Marcos (near San Antonio) isn't very close to either Ruston or Las Cruces, so they'd be a less than ideal travel partner for LaTech (or NMSU, if LaTech did leave the WAC).

Jim Wacker Field at Bobcat Stadium (15218)


Strahan Coliseum (7200)


Here are the WAC sports that some D1AA schools participate in (non-WAC sports in parentheses).

Texas State
Mens: Football, Basketball, Baseball, Golf, Cross Country, Track & Field
Womens: Basketball, Volleyball, Softball, Soccer, Golf, Tennis, Cross Country, Track & Field

UC Davis
Mens: Football, Basketball, Baseball, Golf, Tennis, Cross Country, Track & Field (Soccer, S/D, Water Polo, Wrestling)
Womens: Basketball, Volleyball, Softball, Soccer, Tennis, Cross Country, Track & Field, Swimming/Diving, Gymnastics (Lacrosse, Water Polo, Crew)

Portland State
Mens: Football, Basketball, Cross Country, Track & Field (Wrestling)
Womens: Basketball, Volleyball, Softball, Soccer, Golf, Cross Country, Track & Field (Cheer/Dance)

Sacramento State
Mens: Football, Basketball, Baseball, Golf, Tennis, Cross Country, Track & Field (Soccer)
Womens: Basketball, Volleyball, Softball, Soccer, Golf, Tennis, Cross Country, Track & Field, Gymnastics (Rowing)

Montana (and Montana State)
Mens: Football, Basketball, Tennis, Cross Country, Track & Field
Womens: Basketball, Volleyball, Soccer, Golf, Tennis, Cross Country, Track & Field

Northern Arizona
Mens: Football, Basketball, Tennis, Cross Country, Track & Field
Womens: Basketball, Volleyball, Soccer, Golf, Tennis, Cross Country, Track & Field, Swiming/Diving (Cheer/Dance)