(12-07-2015 05:28 PM)lew240z Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 09:54 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 03:09 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 11:46 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  Denver also has a problem in that BYU will always be a threat to leave since the Cougars play FBS football - unless if they join a conference for football only, the WCC can't really build around them. If BYU left entirely, then the WCC could actually expand to 12 with Seattle, Denver, and Grand Canyon, and have all of the non-FBS Division I private schools west of Texas.

If BYU left, only Denver would get in. GCU won't because of their for profit status and Seattle seems to be blocked by the Zags.

If the Zags go elsewhere, Seattle would get in the next day.

Plus, the WCC is religious (founded) schools. GCU doesn't fit.

DU doesn't fit in the WCC, either. DU is a secular school.

DU has a seminary. Arguably, it it a lot less secular the Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, which have seminaries too.

Grand Canyon U. is thinking of dropping the for profit title. When they do? They might get in WCC. Would help the California teams out. The problem would be if Grand Canyon U. decides to add football. Where would they put their football in? They were hoping the WAC was still around for football.

(12-07-2015 05:28 PM)lew240z Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 09:54 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 03:09 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 11:46 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  Denver also has a problem in that BYU will always be a threat to leave since the Cougars play FBS football - unless if they join a conference for football only, the WCC can't really build around them. If BYU left entirely, then the WCC could actually expand to 12 with Seattle, Denver, and Grand Canyon, and have all of the non-FBS Division I private schools west of Texas.

If BYU left, only Denver would get in. GCU won't because of their for profit status and Seattle seems to be blocked by the Zags.

If the Zags go elsewhere, Seattle would get in the next day.

Plus, the WCC is religious (founded) schools. GCU doesn't fit.

DU doesn't fit in the WCC, either. DU is a secular school.

You appear to be correct. Thank you for pointing out my mistake.

I must have been thinking of Seattle, which is Jesuit like many of the WCC schools.

That could be another reason why Denver has been rejected. But then Pacific is also nonsectarian.

(12-06-2015 11:41 PM)geef Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 08:56 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I am a MSCD... OK, MSUD now...alumni. It is written INTO THEIR CHARTER that Metro can NEVER sponsor varsity football. (Seriously. They were chartered in 1965 and the Colorado State legislature mandated that they never sponsor varsity FB because of the amount of money FB consumes.)

A Metro AND UC alum? I'm not sure that I'd ever heard that combination. I also didn't know about Metro never being able to sponsor football. If I remember correctly, DU gave up football sometime in the 1960s - there used to be a 30,000 seat stadium on campus. On the MSUD thing, I was working at DU when Metro tried to rename themselves Denver State, but DU blocked it. Complete garbage on DU's part, and it caused Metro to choose a name that doesn't quite work.

On the WCC, someone commented on why DU hasn't gotten in. I'm not close enough to the athletics department to know whether it's politics at play (like with Gonzaga and Seattle). I believe that it's merely a matter of geography not working.

Metro Alum...
UC Fan.

When Metro State was chartered in 1965, they were set up with the mission of being a "non-traditional" college. At that point, the major sport was football...college basketball was an afterthought. So the Colorado legislature set them up so that they could never sponsor football as a scholarship sport (they were silent on other sports programs) so as not to ever allow the athletic department to become big. (Metro also didn't have a campus at first, so their students ran from building to building downtown to get from class to class...hence the "roadrunner" nickname. Later when DURA (Denver Urban Renewal Authority) condemned the Auraria neighborhood for the new campus, Lawrence Street ran right through the middle and we still ran for our lives across Lawrence...)

In the 80's, when college BB got huge, there was discussion of (then) MSC...renamed MSCD (Metro State College of Denver) going D1. The Legislature got back involved citing the charter prohibiting football saying that going D1 in other sports (Basketball) would violate the spirit of the charter. Never mind that the charter was set up for Metro to handle UNDERGRADUATE studies...now it's a university. But that's a story for a different day. (Originally, the Auraria Campus was a joint venture of three schools: Community College of Denver (CCD) which was to handle Associate level degrees and remedial education, MSCD which handled undergraduate degrees, and University of Colorado at Denver (UCD) which was to handle graduate studies.)

(12-07-2015 10:20 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  You appear to be correct. Thank you for pointing out my mistake.

I must have been thinking of Seattle, which is Jesuit like many of the WCC schools.

That could be another reason why Denver has been rejected. But then Pacific is also nonsectarian.

Religion really isn't a criteria for conference realignment in this century. Public vs. private still matters, large vs. small usually still matters (BYU is an exception there), geography matters to one degree to another, and academic rankings sometimes matter... but I really don't see these decisions being based on sect. The WCC did add Pacific and BYU. The new Big East didn't have any issue with Butler. The MAAC added Quinnipiac and Monmouth.

(12-07-2015 05:48 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 05:28 PM)lew240z Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 09:54 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 03:09 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 11:46 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  Denver also has a problem in that BYU will always be a threat to leave since the Cougars play FBS football - unless if they join a conference for football only, the WCC can't really build around them. If BYU left entirely, then the WCC could actually expand to 12 with Seattle, Denver, and Grand Canyon, and have all of the non-FBS Division I private schools west of Texas.

If BYU left, only Denver would get in. GCU won't because of their for profit status and Seattle seems to be blocked by the Zags.

If the Zags go elsewhere, Seattle would get in the next day.

Plus, the WCC is religious (founded) schools. GCU doesn't fit.

DU doesn't fit in the WCC, either. DU is a secular school.

DU has a seminary. Arguably, it it a lot less secular the Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, which have seminaries too.

University of Denver was originally a Methodist school. The University is now secular.

The Illiff School of Theology is the Seminary...and it is SEPERATE from the University and on an adjoining campus.

(12-07-2015 11:03 PM)sportsrankings Wrote:  So the GM of the club team is the guy pushing the D1 move? https://www.linkedin.com/in/zeekhan008

And ASU club team coaches and club players parents were responsible for their varsity status.

UNLV has ready made ice arenas at their disposal, unlike ASU who has to build one. The financial hurdles are much less.

Plus, this could give UNLV a first row seat to a PAC12 hockey conference down the road.

(12-07-2015 10:28 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 11:41 PM)geef Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 08:56 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I am a MSCD... OK, MSUD now...alumni. It is written INTO THEIR CHARTER that Metro can NEVER sponsor varsity football. (Seriously. They were chartered in 1965 and the Colorado State legislature mandated that they never sponsor varsity FB because of the amount of money FB consumes.)

A Metro AND UC alum? I'm not sure that I'd ever heard that combination. I also didn't know about Metro never being able to sponsor football. If I remember correctly, DU gave up football sometime in the 1960s - there used to be a 30,000 seat stadium on campus. On the MSUD thing, I was working at DU when Metro tried to rename themselves Denver State, but DU blocked it. Complete garbage on DU's part, and it caused Metro to choose a name that doesn't quite work.

On the WCC, someone commented on why DU hasn't gotten in. I'm not close enough to the athletics department to know whether it's politics at play (like with Gonzaga and Seattle). I believe that it's merely a matter of geography not working.

Metro Alum...
UC Fan.

When Metro State was chartered in 1965, they were set up with the mission of being a "non-traditional" college. At that point, the major sport was football...college basketball was an afterthought. So the Colorado legislature set them up so that they could never sponsor football as a scholarship sport (they were silent on other sports programs) so as not to ever allow the athletic department to become big. (Metro also didn't have a campus at first, so their students ran from building to building downtown to get from class to class...hence the "roadrunner" nickname. Later when DURA (Denver Urban Renewal Authority) condemned the Auraria neighborhood for the new campus, Lawrence Street ran right through the middle and we still ran for our lives across Lawrence...)

In the 80's, when college BB got huge, there was discussion of (then) MSC...renamed MSCD (Metro State College of Denver) going D1. The Legislature got back involved citing the charter prohibiting football saying that going D1 in other sports (Basketball) would violate the spirit of the charter. Never mind that the charter was set up for Metro to handle UNDERGRADUATE studies...now it's a university. But that's a story for a different day. (Originally, the Auraria Campus was a joint venture of three schools: Community College of Denver (CCD) which was to handle Associate level degrees and remedial education, MSCD which handled undergraduate degrees, and University of Colorado at Denver (UCD) which was to handle graduate studies.)

Seems pretty obvious that CU and CSU don't want a public DI university athletic department right in Denver (as opposed to driving out to Boulder or Ft Collins).

I'm sure they would also try to fight DU tooth and nail, if they wanted to start a DI football team.

Perhaps a backroom deal was made between DU and CU that the Buffs would never start a varsity hockey team and DU would never pursue football.

(12-07-2015 10:36 PM)CenterSquarEd Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 10:20 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  You appear to be correct. Thank you for pointing out my mistake.

I must have been thinking of Seattle, which is Jesuit like many of the WCC schools.

That could be another reason why Denver has been rejected. But then Pacific is also nonsectarian.

Religion really isn't a criteria for conference realignment in this century. Public vs. private still matters, large vs. small usually still matters (BYU is an exception there), geography matters to one degree to another, and academic rankings sometimes matter... but I really don't see these decisions being based on sect. The WCC did add Pacific and BYU. The new Big East didn't have any issue with Butler. The MAAC added Quinnipiac and Monmouth.

Religion (and the direct consequence of limited academic freedom) would seem to be the primary factory that has kept BYU out of the PAC.


But for the case of the WCC, I would agree that is probably not the reason Denver has been rejected. It's probably a combination of geography and middling men's basketball history.

(12-07-2015 10:28 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 11:41 PM)geef Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 08:56 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I am a MSCD... OK, MSUD now...alumni. It is written INTO THEIR CHARTER that Metro can NEVER sponsor varsity football. (Seriously. They were chartered in 1965 and the Colorado State legislature mandated that they never sponsor varsity FB because of the amount of money FB consumes.)

A Metro AND UC alum? I'm not sure that I'd ever heard that combination. I also didn't know about Metro never being able to sponsor football. If I remember correctly, DU gave up football sometime in the 1960s - there used to be a 30,000 seat stadium on campus. On the MSUD thing, I was working at DU when Metro tried to rename themselves Denver State, but DU blocked it. Complete garbage on DU's part, and it caused Metro to choose a name that doesn't quite work.

On the WCC, someone commented on why DU hasn't gotten in. I'm not close enough to the athletics department to know whether it's politics at play (like with Gonzaga and Seattle). I believe that it's merely a matter of geography not working.

Metro Alum...
UC Fan.

When Metro State was chartered in 1965, they were set up with the mission of being a "non-traditional" college. At that point, the major sport was football...college basketball was an afterthought. So the Colorado legislature set them up so that they could never sponsor football as a scholarship sport (they were silent on other sports programs) so as not to ever allow the athletic department to become big. (Metro also didn't have a campus at first, so their students ran from building to building downtown to get from class to class...hence the "roadrunner" nickname. Later when DURA (Denver Urban Renewal Authority) condemned the Auraria neighborhood for the new campus, Lawrence Street ran right through the middle and we still ran for our lives across Lawrence...)

In the 80's, when college BB got huge, there was discussion of (then) MSC...renamed MSCD (Metro State College of Denver) going D1. The Legislature got back involved citing the charter prohibiting football saying that going D1 in other sports (Basketball) would violate the spirit of the charter. Never mind that the charter was set up for Metro to handle UNDERGRADUATE studies...now it's a university. But that's a story for a different day. (Originally, the Auraria Campus was a joint venture of three schools: Community College of Denver (CCD) which was to handle Associate level degrees and remedial education, MSCD which handled undergraduate degrees, and University of Colorado at Denver (UCD) which was to handle graduate studies.)

Fascinating history, Jerry - much of that was new to me. I lived in North Denver (32nd and Lowell area) for nearly 15 years, and spent a fair amount of time on that campus. They've done some serious infrastructure upgrades in recent years, and it's great that students now have on-campus housing options.

(12-08-2015 10:10 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 10:28 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 11:41 PM)geef Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 08:56 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I am a MSCD... OK, MSUD now...alumni. It is written INTO THEIR CHARTER that Metro can NEVER sponsor varsity football. (Seriously. They were chartered in 1965 and the Colorado State legislature mandated that they never sponsor varsity FB because of the amount of money FB consumes.)

A Metro AND UC alum? I'm not sure that I'd ever heard that combination. I also didn't know about Metro never being able to sponsor football. If I remember correctly, DU gave up football sometime in the 1960s - there used to be a 30,000 seat stadium on campus. On the MSUD thing, I was working at DU when Metro tried to rename themselves Denver State, but DU blocked it. Complete garbage on DU's part, and it caused Metro to choose a name that doesn't quite work.

On the WCC, someone commented on why DU hasn't gotten in. I'm not close enough to the athletics department to know whether it's politics at play (like with Gonzaga and Seattle). I believe that it's merely a matter of geography not working.

Metro Alum...
UC Fan.

When Metro State was chartered in 1965, they were set up with the mission of being a "non-traditional" college. At that point, the major sport was football...college basketball was an afterthought. So the Colorado legislature set them up so that they could never sponsor football as a scholarship sport (they were silent on other sports programs) so as not to ever allow the athletic department to become big. (Metro also didn't have a campus at first, so their students ran from building to building downtown to get from class to class...hence the "roadrunner" nickname. Later when DURA (Denver Urban Renewal Authority) condemned the Auraria neighborhood for the new campus, Lawrence Street ran right through the middle and we still ran for our lives across Lawrence...)

In the 80's, when college BB got huge, there was discussion of (then) MSC...renamed MSCD (Metro State College of Denver) going D1. The Legislature got back involved citing the charter prohibiting football saying that going D1 in other sports (Basketball) would violate the spirit of the charter. Never mind that the charter was set up for Metro to handle UNDERGRADUATE studies...now it's a university. But that's a story for a different day. (Originally, the Auraria Campus was a joint venture of three schools: Community College of Denver (CCD) which was to handle Associate level degrees and remedial education, MSCD which handled undergraduate degrees, and University of Colorado at Denver (UCD) which was to handle graduate studies.)

Seems pretty obvious that CU and CSU don't want a public DI university athletic department right in Denver (as opposed to driving out to Boulder or Ft Collins).

I'm sure they would also try to fight DU tooth and nail, if they wanted to start a DI football team.

Perhaps a backroom deal was made between DU and CU that the Buffs would never start a varsity hockey team and DU would never pursue football.

Part of why UC-D exists is because when Metro was started, UC wanted control over the new college. But part of having a "non-traditional" college was so that students who could not traditionally meet UC acceptance requirements-- second career, under-achievers, etc...-- had a place to go. It was not intended to challenge nor supplant CU, but rather compliment it.

I was accepted into DU as well, but I never could afford it...even back in 1987. But I COULD afford Metro State. When I started, a FULL semester was a grand total of $600 plus books. (And it was a flat tuition... Anything over 12 credit hours/semester had no additional cost, so you had an incentive to take 14-16 credit hours whenever possible...)

(12-08-2015 12:44 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 10:10 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 10:28 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 11:41 PM)geef Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 08:56 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I am a MSCD... OK, MSUD now...alumni. It is written INTO THEIR CHARTER that Metro can NEVER sponsor varsity football. (Seriously. They were chartered in 1965 and the Colorado State legislature mandated that they never sponsor varsity FB because of the amount of money FB consumes.)

A Metro AND UC alum? I'm not sure that I'd ever heard that combination. I also didn't know about Metro never being able to sponsor football. If I remember correctly, DU gave up football sometime in the 1960s - there used to be a 30,000 seat stadium on campus. On the MSUD thing, I was working at DU when Metro tried to rename themselves Denver State, but DU blocked it. Complete garbage on DU's part, and it caused Metro to choose a name that doesn't quite work.

On the WCC, someone commented on why DU hasn't gotten in. I'm not close enough to the athletics department to know whether it's politics at play (like with Gonzaga and Seattle). I believe that it's merely a matter of geography not working.

Metro Alum...
UC Fan.

When Metro State was chartered in 1965, they were set up with the mission of being a "non-traditional" college. At that point, the major sport was football...college basketball was an afterthought. So the Colorado legislature set them up so that they could never sponsor football as a scholarship sport (they were silent on other sports programs) so as not to ever allow the athletic department to become big. (Metro also didn't have a campus at first, so their students ran from building to building downtown to get from class to class...hence the "roadrunner" nickname. Later when DURA (Denver Urban Renewal Authority) condemned the Auraria neighborhood for the new campus, Lawrence Street ran right through the middle and we still ran for our lives across Lawrence...)

In the 80's, when college BB got huge, there was discussion of (then) MSC...renamed MSCD (Metro State College of Denver) going D1. The Legislature got back involved citing the charter prohibiting football saying that going D1 in other sports (Basketball) would violate the spirit of the charter. Never mind that the charter was set up for Metro to handle UNDERGRADUATE studies...now it's a university. But that's a story for a different day. (Originally, the Auraria Campus was a joint venture of three schools: Community College of Denver (CCD) which was to handle Associate level degrees and remedial education, MSCD which handled undergraduate degrees, and University of Colorado at Denver (UCD) which was to handle graduate studies.)

Seems pretty obvious that CU and CSU don't want a public DI university athletic department right in Denver (as opposed to driving out to Boulder or Ft Collins).

I'm sure they would also try to fight DU tooth and nail, if they wanted to start a DI football team.

Perhaps a backroom deal was made between DU and CU that the Buffs would never start a varsity hockey team and DU would never pursue football.

Part of why UC-D exists is because when Metro was started, UC wanted control over the new college. But part of having a "non-traditional" college was so that students who could not traditionally meet UC acceptance requirements-- second career, under-achievers, etc...-- had a place to go. It was not intended to challenge nor supplant CU, but rather compliment it.

I was accepted into DU as well, but I never could afford it...even back in 1987. But I COULD afford Metro State. When I started, a FULL semester was a grand total of $600 plus books. (And it was a flat tuition... Anything over 12 credit hours/semester had no additional cost, so you had an incentive to take 14-16 credit hours whenever possible...)

Certainly. That makes perfect sense. It's no different than MNSCU vs the U of MN, here.

Although I will point out that several of the MNSCU schools, along with UMD, have DI hockey.

So I wonder if CU would not fight MS on getting DI hockey.


As far as CU-D ... that contains the medical research center of CU, correct? No different than several state flagships with med schools. The clinic and clinical research is in the urban center. In the B1G alone, Nebraska, Indiana, Penn St, Rutgers and Maryland follow this model.

EDIT: I see that CU-D and the med center are two distinct locations, though merged into one "institution".

(12-07-2015 10:39 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 05:48 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 05:28 PM)lew240z Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 09:54 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 03:09 PM)NoDak Wrote:  If BYU left, only Denver would get in. GCU won't because of their for profit status and Seattle seems to be blocked by the Zags.

If the Zags go elsewhere, Seattle would get in the next day.

Plus, the WCC is religious (founded) schools. GCU doesn't fit.

DU doesn't fit in the WCC, either. DU is a secular school.

DU has a seminary. Arguably, it it a lot less secular the Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, which have seminaries too.

University of Denver was originally a Methodist school. The University is now secular.

The Illiff School of Theology is the Seminary...and it is SEPERATE from the University and on an adjoining campus.

My late uncle was a Methodist Preacher, and taught classes at several Methodist colleges and universities. The biggest one was West Virginia Wesleyan.

I do not know why Denver dropped football, but the other Methodist schools still have the sport including SMU.

(12-08-2015 10:12 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Religion (and the direct consequence of limited academic freedom) would seem to be the primary factory that has kept BYU out of the PAC.

But for the case of the WCC, I would agree that is probably not the reason Denver has been rejected. It's probably a combination of geography and middling men's basketball history.

That's a fair point. Baylor may even have a better argument for being left out of the Pac-16. And Liberty doesn't get much love.

I guess I was saying that the Catholic schools don't seem to be so worried about secular or other sectarian peers, as long as other things about their institutions are similar and/or desirable enough.

(12-08-2015 09:18 PM)sportsrankings Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 01:38 AM)NoDak Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 11:03 PM)sportsrankings Wrote:  So the GM of the club team is the guy pushing the D1 move? https://www.linkedin.com/in/zeekhan008

And ASU club team coaches and club players parents were responsible for their varsity status.

UNLV has ready made ice arenas at their disposal, unlike ASU who has to build one. The financial hurdles are much less.

Plus, this could give UNLV a first row seat to a PAC12 hockey conference down the road.

One parent at ASU wanted hockey, not parents.

One wealthy parent would be identified, but the other wanted to remain anonymous.

(12-08-2015 09:52 PM)CenterSquarEd Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 10:12 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Religion (and the direct consequence of limited academic freedom) would seem to be the primary factory that has kept BYU out of the PAC.

But for the case of the WCC, I would agree that is probably not the reason Denver has been rejected. It's probably a combination of geography and middling men's basketball history.

That's a fair point. Baylor may even have a better argument for being left out of the Pac-16. And Liberty doesn't get much love.

I guess I was saying that the Catholic schools don't seem to be so worried about secular or other sectarian peers, as long as other things about their institutions are similar and/or desirable enough.

Like I said, the WCC would be fine with Grand Canyon U. since they bring the Phoenix TV market. The main hangup is that the for profit of the school. Grand Canyon needs to lose that.

(12-09-2015 03:29 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 09:52 PM)CenterSquarEd Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 10:12 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Religion (and the direct consequence of limited academic freedom) would seem to be the primary factory that has kept BYU out of the PAC.

But for the case of the WCC, I would agree that is probably not the reason Denver has been rejected. It's probably a combination of geography and middling men's basketball history.

That's a fair point. Baylor may even have a better argument for being left out of the Pac-16. And Liberty doesn't get much love.

I guess I was saying that the Catholic schools don't seem to be so worried about secular or other sectarian peers, as long as other things about their institutions are similar and/or desirable enough.

Like I said, the WCC would be fine with Grand Canyon U. since they bring the Phoenix TV market. The main hangup is that the for profit of the school. Grand Canyon needs to lose that.

The WCC would, in no way, be fine with Grand Canyon. Not one bit.

(12-09-2015 03:29 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 09:52 PM)CenterSquarEd Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 10:12 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Religion (and the direct consequence of limited academic freedom) would seem to be the primary factory that has kept BYU out of the PAC.

But for the case of the WCC, I would agree that is probably not the reason Denver has been rejected. It's probably a combination of geography and middling men's basketball history.

That's a fair point. Baylor may even have a better argument for being left out of the Pac-16. And Liberty doesn't get much love.

I guess I was saying that the Catholic schools don't seem to be so worried about secular or other sectarian peers, as long as other things about their institutions are similar and/or desirable enough.

Like I said, the WCC would be fine with Grand Canyon U. since they bring the Phoenix TV market. The main hangup is that the for profit of the school. Grand Canyon needs to lose that.

No, GCU doesn't bring the Phoenix TV market.

C'mon, we all know the Phoenix market is delivered by the University of Phoenix.

(12-09-2015 12:14 PM)geef Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 03:29 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 09:52 PM)CenterSquarEd Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 10:12 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Religion (and the direct consequence of limited academic freedom) would seem to be the primary factory that has kept BYU out of the PAC.

But for the case of the WCC, I would agree that is probably not the reason Denver has been rejected. It's probably a combination of geography and middling men's basketball history.

That's a fair point. Baylor may even have a better argument for being left out of the Pac-16. And Liberty doesn't get much love.

I guess I was saying that the Catholic schools don't seem to be so worried about secular or other sectarian peers, as long as other things about their institutions are similar and/or desirable enough.

Like I said, the WCC would be fine with Grand Canyon U. since they bring the Phoenix TV market. The main hangup is that the for profit of the school. Grand Canyon needs to lose that.

The WCC would, in no way, be fine with Grand Canyon. Not one bit.

Grand Canyon U. came close in winning the men's championship in basketball, but lost in the semi's I think. They are on the rise in basketball right now. Some WCC coaches in California thinks otherwise. There are some good players coming out of Arizona, and by adding Grand Canyon U. would give them the pipeline to recruit from the state, plus the tv market on top of that. Would people come out to see Grand Canyon U. play Gonzaga or with Denver?