(11-07-2017 02:45 AM)Clarity Wrote:  It's certainly not a good thing to have 7 teams in the WAC which is what happens if UMKC and Chicago State leave. D2 move ups take a lot of time. If this conference is left at 7 it's over.

That's an understandable concern. However:

- Under NCAA rules 7 members is a sufficient number to retain the NCAA basketball tournament auto-bid
- The WAC members who would remain after UMKC and CSU depart appear to lack any viable alternatives to staying; the only currently apparent threat is the Horizon offering invitations to NMSU and/or GCU but that looks like a long shot to me
- If anyone else did leave, under NCAA rules the WAC would automatically be granted a two-year grace period to get the membership back up to 7 and could petition for an extended grace period if necessary
- D-2 schools in transition to D-1 that join the WAC would count toward the minimum 7 during their transition periods

So if UMKC and CSU left the WAC wouldn't be over. It would fight on as it always has. I've been following the conference's ups and downs since 1990 and its biggest problem over those years has been geographic dispersion. The WAC became unstable when it stopped being truly western and to secure stability -- especially as a non-football conference -- I think it needs to become truly western again.

(11-07-2017 07:27 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 02:45 AM)Clarity Wrote:  It's certainly not a good thing to have 7 teams in the WAC which is what happens if UMKC and Chicago State leave. D2 move ups take a lot of time. If this conference is left at 7 it's over.

That's an understandable concern. However:

- Under NCAA rules 7 members is a sufficient number to retain the NCAA basketball tournament auto-bid
- The WAC members who would remain after UMKC and CSU depart appear to lack any viable alternatives to staying; the only currently apparent threat is the Horizon offering invitations to NMSU and/or GCU but that looks like a long shot to me
- If anyone else did leave, under NCAA rules the WAC would automatically be granted a two-year grace period to get the membership back up to 7 and could petition for an extended grace period if necessary
- D-2 schools in transition to D-1 that join the WAC would count toward the minimum 7 during their transition periods

So if UMKC and CSU left the WAC wouldn't be over. It would fight on as it always has. I've been following the conference's ups and downs since 1990 and its biggest problem over those years has been geographic dispersion. The WAC became unstable when it stopped being truly western and to secure stability -- especially as a non-football conference -- I think it needs to become truly western again.

I agree. I do think it was pretty touch and go five years or so ago. If timing of events or personalities had been different the WAC could easily be extinct. But now, I just can't see. Seattle, CSUB, UVU, GCU, CBU, and UTRG aren going anywhere. That's a solid enough core that they would be able to scrape something together if they had to.

I'm not sure why the Summit would want umkc back, but I could certainly see the Roos leaving for another opportunity if it presents itself. NMSU has to figure out football. Chicago State seems dire, but it's hard to tell what happens to them

Professor Robert Bionaz responded to my request and provided this: "3106, down 472 from fall 2016."

This is in line with prior drops, and I think correctly has Grad students added to the Undergrads, rather than lumped in. The "fewer than 2400 undergrads" is probably correct, with under 800 grad students rounding out. So the decline goes on, at a significant pace of 15% year over year, but not the almost 30% we saw the prior to years. Worrisome are the rumors of another round of staff layoffs coming at Christmas. This send the message that the school will not be able to meet class requirements of students. This will no doubt cause another small exodus. For WAC watchers, it is worth nothing the school had nearly 7,500 students when it announced it was joining the WAC, and now has 3,100. So athletic funding from student tuition (how they do it at CSU) has dropped to 40% of it's 2011-12 levels.

Revised Table Below:

• Fall 2011: decrease of 480 students from Fall 2010 (6.5 percent) 7,449
• Fall 2012: decrease of 775 students from Fall 2011 (11.3 percent) 6,969
• Fall 2013: decrease of 406 students from Fall 2012 (6.4 percent) 6,194
• Fall 2014: decrease of 493 students from Fall 2013 (8.6 percent) 5,701
• Fall 2015: decrease of 1,083 students from Fall 2014 (23.5 percent) 4,618
transfers out 1,109 ("Equivalencies")
transfers in 11
• Fall 2016: decrease of 1,040 students from Fall 2015 (29.0 percent) 3,578
new enrolled Freshmen 86 (includes part time students)
Fun fact: 26 of the Freshmen are on CSU athletic teams (from published rosters) or 30%
• Fall 2017: decrease of 472 students from Fall 2016 (15.2 percent) 3,106
new enrolled Freshmen 145 (includes part time students)
Fun fact: 44 of the Freshmen are on CSU athletic teams (from published rosters) or 30%

I think it was expected to have an overall decrease of students this fall. The hope is it'll be more stable in the Spring enrollment, and hopefully see the benefits of their marketing (and the fact they're not being confused as closing) come fall 2018.

I guess we'll see. They're trying to shift the focus of being known as a school for the working adult/family to recruiting four year students. As you mentioned, their freshman class the last couple years is cringe worthy.

Chicago State got their much needed money from the state, but too late to do any marketing to prospective students. As far as the interim titles go, everyone is on an interim basis at Chicago State. Rachel Lindsey, the interim President, is there until at least April of 2018. Like interim AD Tracy Dildy, probably as long as she wants the job.

Surprisingly, Chicago State didn't take a budget hit from the state in the 2018 budget and received all of their 2017 state funding as well. Because the funding is still there, they have no reason to drop from D1. Dildy has been recruiting as if nothing is going to change.

The Chicago State leadership team has bigger issues to deal with than athletics. It will take years to clean up the mess and get enrollment and finances where it needs to be. It looks like the new leadership team with four new board members appointed by the Governor might be able to do it.

The WAC and Chicago State need each other. It is a marriage of convenience. Chicago State keeps the WAC at eight if UMKC were to leave next season. I agree with HM that the ultimate goal for the WAC is to become more of a western conference, but this is about survival. Chicago State would never have been invited in the first place if the WAC had not been desperate for members. I think they have a home in the WAC for as long as the WAC needs them.

How long have y'all been trying to kill Chicago State off? This thread goes back almost 10 months, but the conversation started long before that on the old WAC board. I'll believe it when they are officially and fully dead.

The problem is the reforms stalled out and appear dead. Worse it looks like Watson's cronies may be back in power by this time next year. They were the ones killing the place.

As things now stand you can't get classes to complete (the primary reason behind the 58% retention and 11% 6-year graduation rates) and they may lose accreditation. They are far from out of the woods.

post comment: advertising is freeway sign posters (silly) and some outreach to high schools beyond Chicago (actually smart). But all these things are trivial. The real advertising is the success rate of students (African Americans have the same desires as everyone else, they want to succeed in school not attend just for South Chicago pride). And that is horribly poor at CSU with nothing much being done to correct that. Budget impasse was only one of the two criteria that the HLC gave CSU notice. And the third and fourth which they gave a pass on was because Calhoun was the leader, they say so in citing 5(a) and 5 ©, and saying they have confidence in 5(b) and 5(d)), but he is not there now.

The key ones to watch are Business, which is getting it's accreditation reviewed this year, as are Music related degrees.
BTW, look at how small the number of accredited program they have now:
https://www.csu.edu/accreditation/AccreditedColleges/

(11-07-2017 10:17 PM)gleadley Wrote:  How long have y'all been trying to kill Chicago State off? This thread goes back almost 10 months, but the conversation started long before that on the old WAC board. I'll believe it when they are officially and fully dead.

It's to keep those who care about CSUs situation updated. Personally I dont have time or enough knowledge to research this stuff but being able to follow this way is very helpful. That's me at least

(11-07-2017 11:12 PM)SeattleVandals Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 10:17 PM)gleadley Wrote:  How long have y'all been trying to kill Chicago State off? This thread goes back almost 10 months, but the conversation started long before that on the old WAC board. I'll believe it when they are officially and fully dead.

It's to keep those who care about CSUs situation updated. Personally I dont have time or enough knowledge to research this stuff but being able to follow this way is very helpful. That's me at least

I agree with Seattle Vandals. It is good to get updates. Thanks to all those who shared.

Stu, the reform movement hasn't started yet. They just got their funding. The school President and Chief Administrative Officer are not Watson cronies. Let's give it a few years before we decide if they failed or succeeded.

(11-07-2017 01:35 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(11-06-2017 04:37 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Runnerball,

Between the Chicago decline and UMKC looking to drop divisions or switch conferences, it's looking like the "eastern wing" of the WAC wont be here very long.

BTW, I did look up the incoming players on Chicago State teams:
44 Freshmen, 26 JC transfers.

Observation (an aside): Unlike the student body most of the athletes are white. The Tennis teams are all foreigners except 1 American on both Men's and Women's (neither from Illinois). Sports team players again make up a large percentage of incoming Freshmen. Maybe that Pioneer League concept isn't so hair brained (uh, no, it's hair brained).

The other way to look at it is the ending of the budget impasse has seen incoming non-athlete freshmen jump from 48 to 101, basically doubling. The problem is they need at least 300 just to sustain 2,000 students with a 70% retention rate (assuming an equal number of JC transfers, and a immediate significant jump in retention of ten points). The actuarial result is another decline of 400-500 students seems likely even from this point to next year if new enrollments double again. The death spiral has not level out yet.

A blessing in disguise IMHO. To become a genuinely stable conference the WAC will need to attract a couple more D-2 move-ups in the western U.S. Losing the eastern wing will make the conference more palatable to schools that fit that profile.

I agree. WAC will surely sweat being short on membership, but if the end result is a more compact footprint with new members coming on board that aren't a flight risk then it's a net positive for the WAC.

(11-07-2017 07:27 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 02:45 AM)Clarity Wrote:  It's certainly not a good thing to have 7 teams in the WAC which is what happens if UMKC and Chicago State leave. D2 move ups take a lot of time. If this conference is left at 7 it's over.

That's an understandable concern. However:

- Under NCAA rules 7 members is a sufficient number to retain the NCAA basketball tournament auto-bid
- The WAC members who would remain after UMKC and CSU depart appear to lack any viable alternatives to staying; the only currently apparent threat is the Horizon offering invitations to NMSU and/or GCU but that looks like a long shot to me
- If anyone else did leave, under NCAA rules the WAC would automatically be granted a two-year grace period to get the membership back up to 7 and could petition for an extended grace period if necessary
- D-2 schools in transition to D-1 that join the WAC would count toward the minimum 7 during their transition periods

So if UMKC and CSU left the WAC wouldn't be over. It would fight on as it always has. I've been following the conference's ups and downs since 1990 and its biggest problem over those years has been geographic dispersion. The WAC became unstable when it stopped being truly western and to secure stability -- especially as a non-football conference -- I think it needs to become truly western again.

Thanks, very helpful. I'm inclined to think the NCAA will do what it can to keep the WAC alive...at least until it is determined that there are zero options to get its membership to a minimum.

(11-20-2017 03:25 AM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 07:27 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 02:45 AM)Clarity Wrote:  It's certainly not a good thing to have 7 teams in the WAC which is what happens if UMKC and Chicago State leave. D2 move ups take a lot of time. If this conference is left at 7 it's over.

That's an understandable concern. However:

- Under NCAA rules 7 members is a sufficient number to retain the NCAA basketball tournament auto-bid
- The WAC members who would remain after UMKC and CSU depart appear to lack any viable alternatives to staying; the only currently apparent threat is the Horizon offering invitations to NMSU and/or GCU but that looks like a long shot to me
- If anyone else did leave, under NCAA rules the WAC would automatically be granted a two-year grace period to get the membership back up to 7 and could petition for an extended grace period if necessary
- D-2 schools in transition to D-1 that join the WAC would count toward the minimum 7 during their transition periods

So if UMKC and CSU left the WAC wouldn't be over. It would fight on as it always has. I've been following the conference's ups and downs since 1990 and its biggest problem over those years has been geographic dispersion. The WAC became unstable when it stopped being truly western and to secure stability -- especially as a non-football conference -- I think it needs to become truly western again.

Thanks, very helpful. I'm inclined to think the NCAA will do what it can to keep the WAC alive...at least until it is determined that there are zero options to get its membership to a minimum.

if ucsd doesn't get into the big west is a bust then the wac would take ucsd in a heartbeat...ucsd can go d1 with the wac...

the wac can invite additional schools from the CA Collegiate Athletic Assoc. like San Franscisco St. and/or Cal Poly-Pomona and/or Cal State-Los Angeles to come to the wac with ucsd...the wac would be formed into a more western based conference...

if not from CCCA...then maybe some more schools from the PacWest Conference...

(11-20-2017 10:43 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 03:25 AM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 07:27 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 02:45 AM)Clarity Wrote:  It's certainly not a good thing to have 7 teams in the WAC which is what happens if UMKC and Chicago State leave. D2 move ups take a lot of time. If this conference is left at 7 it's over.

That's an understandable concern. However:

- Under NCAA rules 7 members is a sufficient number to retain the NCAA basketball tournament auto-bid
- The WAC members who would remain after UMKC and CSU depart appear to lack any viable alternatives to staying; the only currently apparent threat is the Horizon offering invitations to NMSU and/or GCU but that looks like a long shot to me
- If anyone else did leave, under NCAA rules the WAC would automatically be granted a two-year grace period to get the membership back up to 7 and could petition for an extended grace period if necessary
- D-2 schools in transition to D-1 that join the WAC would count toward the minimum 7 during their transition periods

So if UMKC and CSU left the WAC wouldn't be over. It would fight on as it always has. I've been following the conference's ups and downs since 1990 and its biggest problem over those years has been geographic dispersion. The WAC became unstable when it stopped being truly western and to secure stability -- especially as a non-football conference -- I think it needs to become truly western again.

Thanks, very helpful. I'm inclined to think the NCAA will do what it can to keep the WAC alive...at least until it is determined that there are zero options to get its membership to a minimum.

if ucsd doesn't get into the big west is a bust then the wac would take ucsd in a heartbeat...ucsd can go d1 with the wac...

the wac can invite additional schools from the CA Collegiate Athletic Assoc. like San Franscisco St. and/or Cal Poly-Pomona and/or Cal State-Los Angeles to come to the wac with ucsd...the wac would be formed into a more western based conference...

if not from CCCA...then maybe some more schools from the PacWest Conference...

See post in other thread. UCSD D1 student referendum was BW or bust. WAC is not an option.

(11-21-2017 02:38 AM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 10:43 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 03:25 AM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 07:27 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 02:45 AM)Clarity Wrote:  It's certainly not a good thing to have 7 teams in the WAC which is what happens if UMKC and Chicago State leave. D2 move ups take a lot of time. If this conference is left at 7 it's over.

That's an understandable concern. However:

- Under NCAA rules 7 members is a sufficient number to retain the NCAA basketball tournament auto-bid
- The WAC members who would remain after UMKC and CSU depart appear to lack any viable alternatives to staying; the only currently apparent threat is the Horizon offering invitations to NMSU and/or GCU but that looks like a long shot to me
- If anyone else did leave, under NCAA rules the WAC would automatically be granted a two-year grace period to get the membership back up to 7 and could petition for an extended grace period if necessary
- D-2 schools in transition to D-1 that join the WAC would count toward the minimum 7 during their transition periods

So if UMKC and CSU left the WAC wouldn't be over. It would fight on as it always has. I've been following the conference's ups and downs since 1990 and its biggest problem over those years has been geographic dispersion. The WAC became unstable when it stopped being truly western and to secure stability -- especially as a non-football conference -- I think it needs to become truly western again.

Thanks, very helpful. I'm inclined to think the NCAA will do what it can to keep the WAC alive...at least until it is determined that there are zero options to get its membership to a minimum.

if ucsd doesn't get into the big west is a bust then the wac would take ucsd in a heartbeat...ucsd can go d1 with the wac...

the wac can invite additional schools from the CA Collegiate Athletic Assoc. like San Franscisco St. and/or Cal Poly-Pomona and/or Cal State-Los Angeles to come to the wac with ucsd...the wac would be formed into a more western based conference...

if not from CCCA...then maybe some more schools from the PacWest Conference...

See post in other thread. UCSD D1 student referendum was BW or bust. WAC is not an option.

UCSD can come back with another D1 student referendum which includes the WAC in the equation...UCSD gets a WAC invite ...UCSD can go d1 with the wac...

granted that the numbers work out for UCSD...it'll probably be more expensive than the BWC d1 referendum...the students support the WAC d1 referendum...and the faculty support the WAC d1 referendum...

if UMKC & chicago state leave the WAC would help UCSDs situation also...

Well the pipes burst again, and 157 students who had been living in the dorms over Thanksgiving are being put up in local hotels. Worries again about the Boilers.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local...story.html

This is the quintessential Chicago State experience

(11-28-2017 08:37 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Well the pipes burst again, and 157 students who had been living in the dorms over Thanksgiving are being put up in local hotels. Worries again about the Boilers.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local...story.html

This is the quintessential Chicago State experience

Unfortunately, problems like these happen with an older infrastructure. As it’s said in the link, “The university has requested money from the state to replace all of the equipment and has never been approved, Horton said.”

As a result, only temporary fixes have been done over the years which obviously doesn’t truly address the issue.

latest enrollment news from the CSU faculty voice

Quote:The most current enrollment figure for spring stands at just over 2500, with the drop session for non-validation still to come. It looks increasingly like our enrollment will be somewhere between 2500 and 2700, which is another drop of over 20 percent from the previous spring.

These are up from 2,111 reported a few days ago. I suspect 2,500 is likely to be the final number not 2,700 (drops will come, inevitably, more than offset late adds). And it could be worse, as the school is likely to cut some lower attended courses as a result, so more drops will likely follow.

The raw numbers again:
• Fall 2011: decrease of 480 students from Fall 2010 (6.5 percent) 7,449
• Fall 2012: decrease of 775 students from Fall 2011 (11.3 percent) 6,969
• Fall 2013: decrease of 406 students from Fall 2012 (6.4 percent) 6,194
• Fall 2014: decrease of 493 students from Fall 2013 (8.6 percent) 5,701
• Fall 2015: decrease of 1,083 students from Fall 2014 (23.5 percent) 4,618
transfers out 1,109 ("Equivalencies")
transfers in 11
• Fall 2016: decrease of 1,040 students from Fall 2015 (29.0 percent) 3,578
new enrolled Freshmen 86 (includes part time students)
• Fall 2017: decrease of 472 students from Fall 2016 (15.2 percent) 3,106
new enrolled Freshmen 145 (includes part time students)

Note, Spring Enrollment 2017 was just above 3,100. This decline to between 2,500 and 2,700 will be similar to Fall 2018 enrollment. Point being Chicago State has yet to hit a floor. Fall 2010 CSU had 7,929 students.

I had hoped Chicago State had finally hit a turning point. But it appear Robert Bionaz is correct about reforms stalling out and dead. The State budget was not the biggest reason for the decline, it's mismanagement and academic failure. Those take reform, and there isn't any happening.

http://csufacultyvoice.blogspot.com/2018...rvive.html

That’s some great data, Stu, and it shows a troubling trend. I teach some courses part time at the local community college, and at today’s faculty meeting, we were told our spring enrollment was 20% lower than in Spring 2017. We discussed some of the reasons. Primarily, this seems to be a trend in programs dominated by non-traditional students. As the economy has strengthened and we’ve moved out of the recession period from 2008-2012, enrollment has steadily declined. In other words, when people find jobs, they’re less likely to continue taking courses designed to train them or certify them for new positions.

I imagine Chicago State is mostly a commuter school, and I believe that the average student would fall into the non traditional category. This is relevant in that they likely have a similar issue, on top of the fiscal problems and instability. I hope the best for them, but like your data showed, the trend isn’t looking good.

Raider_Lope,

I think that is the whole point. Bionaz has buried in his blog some great numbers about the changing type of students enrolling. The change coincided, perhaps not coincidental, with the Watson regime. Traditional students became many fewer and graduation rate basically fell in half from 19% (not great) to 11% in the last released information. Also a large number of the students are not undergraduate, but graduate. The decline of the traditional undergraduate has been even steeper than the numbers above suggest. That peak number was over 90% undergrads, today they are more like 80%. I suspect the pharmacy school is the most stable and thus the number of grad students has held more firm, and then advanced degrees around urban planning, which means prep work to get government jobs in Chicago.

USDOE numbers put the undergrads at just around 2200 for Fall 2017. The decline is very likely almost wholly among undergrads. And as you noted, many are no longer traditional. We have noted in prior posts that 40% of the incoming Freshmen are on athletic scholarship. There really are no regular Freshmen like you'd expect at say a Cal State. They get 50 or 60, when a typical State school would get 800 or more. CSUB the smallest WAC public school admitted 1,518 Freshmen in 2015 (last year with numbers). Compare that 145 and 86 from CSU. More important are retention rate, which are around 60% for CSU compared to 87% at UTRGV . That means these larger number of Freshmen stay.

UTRGV is a great example of a school undergoing successful transition and reform. In Fall 2015 just 24% of students took 15 units, in Fall 2016 that number was 32%, as the school improved standards, moving away from a pure commuter.

And this brings us back to athletics. Chicago State's Athletic budget was $5.5M in 2016-17 (down from $7M in 2015-16 according to USAToday -- note, the school and WAC say $3M, a discrepancy which may be accounted for by removing the $2.1M in student aid), which came to about $1700 per regular student in fees and direct university subsidies. In 2017-18, unless the budget was slashed 20% a similar budget would mean $2100 per undergraduate; and projecting the enrollment trend into next year around $2600 per student. As you noted these are often not traditional students, taking well less than the full 15 unit load (which fees are based on). Revenue for Chicago State is almost entirely enrollment driven, as there is barely any cash left in the endowment, and donations are pretty much zero (matching the gate for athletics).

Something is going to have to give, and very soon, they are burning through a lot of cash. Definitely in Athletics, which is effectively 100% sustained by institutional support.