Two of their canadiates just joined the Big Sky today.
http://www.bigskyconf.com/news/2010/9/7/...00731.aspx

Guess UTSA and whoever else is their only option right now.

Big Sky is FCS level.

If, and it is a big, if the where wanting to move up to FBS level, then the Big Sky is not going to be thier final destination.

Dang. Sucks for them.

(09-07-2010 03:49 PM)bmwilder139 Wrote:  Dang. Sucks for them.

dont ever think those schools were seriously talking about moving up. Montana is the one they need to move up

(09-07-2010 03:46 PM)dchi72 Wrote:  Big Sky is FCS level.

If, and it is a big, if the where wanting to move up to FBS level, then the Big Sky is not going to be thier final destination.

Doubt seriously that they would have joined the Big Sky if they felt a move to the WAC was iminent within a couple of years. Beleive that the WAC can kiss these two "potentials" good-bye.:odie:

Simple analysis.

-I know that Karl Benson had previously indicated he wanted Poly and Davis.
-I cannot imagine that he communicated that interest inside the college athletics community without also informing those schools of said interest.
- As several had noted previously, it was unlikely that either institution could afford the needed capital expenditures nor the annual increase in budget to make the move and even if they could, given the current environment in California, that undertaking would be political suicide.

Conclusion. They weighed the possibility of joining the WAC and have declined the opportunity. If they were still actively working with the WAC on membership there would be no reason to pursue membership in a different FCS conference at this time.

What was interesting is that the Big Sky who used to always be against affiliate members in fb now has 2 both in CA. Why the 9/11 look with Sac St. now being able to say, let us be in the Big West for other sports like UCD & CP. I think Sac St. told the Sky they'll leave for the WAC when the invite comes. The Sky Commish was on youtube saying they wanted 12, then why not add S.Utah as a full member right now? He must know Sac St. is gone thus the need to refill CA recruiting with the other 2 schools. You could sub Montana or Portland St. for the waiting on 12. If SUU is invited next week then they must think Sac St. is staying or would be willing to take UND as #12 if they left.

I have heard, but not read anything specific, that Texas State ran the numbers on joining the WAC and decided in their case it wouldn't work. Any else heard this? If so, is there any links to a reasonable reputable story on the subject. "Reasonable reputable" is about as good as it get when talking expansion!

I think this pretty much sums it up.

(09-07-2010 03:29 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  Two of their canadiates just joined the Big Sky today.
http://www.bigskyconf.com/news/2010/9/7/...00731.aspx

Guess UTSA and whoever else is their only option right now.

---------------------------------------------------------

Sad to say but the Wac is toast. Two more years at most, none of these eastern teams (tex state, utsa, unt) are going to take the bait. Up until now the revenue sharing was sufficient to help with travel but the money makers are gone, tv contract will evaporate too.

(09-07-2010 05:30 PM)VideoGreenEagle Wrote:  I have heard, but not read anything specific, that Texas State ran the numbers on joining the WAC and decided in their case it wouldn't work. Any else heard this? If so, is there any links to a reasonable reputable story on the subject. "Reasonable reputable" is about as good as it get when talking expansion!

Man this rumor has legs - definitely not true.

(09-07-2010 06:31 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(09-07-2010 03:29 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  Two of their canadiates just joined the Big Sky today.
http://www.bigskyconf.com/news/2010/9/7/...00731.aspx

Guess UTSA and whoever else is their only option right now.

---------------------------------------------------------

Sad to say but the Wac is toast. Two more years at most, none of these eastern teams (tex state, utsa, unt) are going to take the bait. Up until now the revenue sharing was sufficient to help with travel but the money makers are gone, tv contract will evaporate too.

UNT won't, but we sure would. The Sunbelt isn't looking to expand at this time and if we're wanting to transition, this might be our only chance.

(09-07-2010 08:10 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  UNT won't, but we sure would. The Sunbelt isn't looking to expand at this time and if we're wanting to transition, this might be our only chance.

Just out of curiosity, would you prefer the Sunbelt or Wac lite?

(09-07-2010 08:23 PM)Hilltopper2K Wrote:  

(09-07-2010 08:10 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  UNT won't, but we sure would. The Sunbelt isn't looking to expand at this time and if we're wanting to transition, this might be our only chance.

Just out of curiosity, would you prefer the Sunbelt or Wac lite?

Sun Belt may not be an option. We're not looking to expand. WAC may be the only avenue to FBS that's available.

(09-07-2010 08:07 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  

(09-07-2010 05:30 PM)VideoGreenEagle Wrote:  I have heard, but not read anything specific, that Texas State ran the numbers on joining the WAC and decided in their case it wouldn't work. Any else heard this? If so, is there any links to a reasonable reputable story on the subject. "Reasonable reputable" is about as good as it get when talking expansion!

Man this rumor has legs - definitely not true.

How do you know FOR SURE that it isn't true ? The numbers will be a lot difference in the "new WAC".

(09-07-2010 08:35 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(09-07-2010 08:07 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  

(09-07-2010 05:30 PM)VideoGreenEagle Wrote:  I have heard, but not read anything specific, that Texas State ran the numbers on joining the WAC and decided in their case it wouldn't work. Any else heard this? If so, is there any links to a reasonable reputable story on the subject. "Reasonable reputable" is about as good as it get when talking expansion!

Man this rumor has legs - definitely not true.

How do you know FOR SURE that it isn't true ? The numbers will be a lot difference in the "new WAC".

I don't know for sure it isn't true, but there is no merit behind this claim. It was read off of a LaTech board for crying out loud. How could one not afford the WAC-lite with a $20 million dollar budget? And if the school is in a financial wad, why would they announce a $32 million dollar expansion to their football stadium? I am sorry, but the stars simply don't align to say we can't afford it.

(09-07-2010 08:23 PM)Hilltopper2K Wrote:  

(09-07-2010 08:10 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  UNT won't, but we sure would. The Sunbelt isn't looking to expand at this time and if we're wanting to transition, this might be our only chance.

Just out of curiosity, would you prefer the Sunbelt or Wac lite?

Overall, if we can get UTSA in on this action and be assured Hawaii and LaTech are staying, I would prefer the WAC. This way, our transition to FBS would be a little easier and we could run the table baseball wise.

A good question to ask is how would our fan base respond to the Belt. Some over at bobcatfans think there would only be short lasting excitement for FBS, until our base realizes the Belt is only the Southland on steroids. The WAC at least offers name recognition and something new to try (by no means am I trying to knock the Sun Belt).

EDIT: With that said, there are a handful of Belt schools I would love to see us play even if we do jump to the WAC (ULala, Ark St, Troy, MTSU)..

This means the Great West Football Conference is dead, as it is down to only three members (North Dakota, South Dakota, Southern Utah). I'd expect the two Dakota schools to ultimately play Missouri Valley Football Conference, and Southern Utah would probably be the 12th football school in the Big Sky.

(09-07-2010 11:18 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  This means the Great West Football Conference is dead, as it is down to only three members (North Dakota, South Dakota, Southern Utah). I'd expect the two Dakota schools to ultimately play Missouri Valley Football Conference, and Southern Utah would probably be the 12th football school in the Big Sky.

Another question is what happens to the Great West conference as a whole; it has gone from being football-only to now being without football with a number of spread out basketball schools.

I keep expecting the WAC to invite Utah Valley and Southern Utah (FB in Big Sky). That keeps them with a geographic core centered in Utah and if the MWC doesn't take Utah State, then the WAC eclipses the MWC in Utah easily.

A number of things here don't make sense.

Why 11?

Eleven is a weirdly awkward number unless:
- Adding another and a title game, but a title game seems to be an odd thing to do in FCS, there's no money in it. Or
- Insulation from a defection. But the real worry is preserving the auto bid in hoops, football onlys don't help that. Or
- The schools are sick of trying to find games and plan to go to a 9 or 10 game league schedule

Also interesting to note was the Big Sky commissioner made an off-hand comment about FBS schools coming to FCS. Maybe he's just thinking out-loud. Maybe he has an eye on someone. Look at a map and three WAC orphans fit nicely in the Big Sky map: SJSU, Idaho, and USU. Cannot in my wildest dreams imagine USU considering it, they would run up unrecoverable debt loads before going that way. Idaho isn't likely to make any such move willingly, they were ready to go Sun Belt all-sports to hang on and now they are actually playing decent ball. SJSU is just an oddity. If it were 5-7 years ago the leadership they had was certainly capable of pulling the plug and going FCS. No clue with what they have there now.

Probably just commissioner jabber but still an interesting comment in light of the oddity of having 11 for football.