(04-07-2017 11:01 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Bigger markets and travel all around the west would work for just about any D2 call ups - except UC San Diego. You think Denver's snobby? UC San Diego would probably throw up at the thought of Grand Canyon, UMKC, Chicago State and Utah Valley. Not quite their academic peers.

I guess we'll see how much they really want D1 athletics.

UMKC is pretty much on par with New Mexico St and really the WAC in academic rankings, but UMKC has been in trouble manipulating rankings before.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article811395.html

UC San Diego has two choices, stay in D-II for at least another decade, maybe longer, or work their way up through the WAC. Ego will get in the way for some. But faced with that reality the athletic department will jump at the WAC offer. There is no guarantee another referendum would pass. This was the 3rd or 4th try in a dozen or so years and the only one to pass. The next class coming in might easily revert back to the standard California "hell no" vote. And believe me the biggest constituency for moving up is the Athletic Department - it impacts their pay and status in the athletic world.

The difficulty will be convincing the students that it is not a bait and switch. While the wording of the referendum stated only "dependent upon a D-I conference invite", the campaign material added the phrase "such as the Big West" and sold the concept of the Big West. Reports dropped the words "such as."

The next 12-18 months will be a campaign to sell the WAC to UCSD students and faculty. Expect UMKC, CSUB, and NMSU to be pushed forward. Possibly D-II rival Cal Baptist.

(04-07-2017 07:51 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  UC San Diego has two choices, stay in D-II for at least another decade, maybe longer, or work their way up through the WAC. Ego will get in the way for some. But faced with that reality the athletic department will jump at the WAC offer. There is no guarantee another referendum would pass. This was the 3rd or 4th try in a dozen or so years and the only one to pass. The next class coming in might easily revert back to the standard California "hell no" vote. And believe me the biggest constituency for moving up is the Athletic Department - it impacts their pay and status in the athletic world.

The difficulty will be convincing the students that it is not a bait and switch. While the wording of the referendum stated only "dependent upon a D-I conference invite", the campaign material added the phrase "such as the Big West" and sold the concept of the Big West. Reports dropped the words "such as."

The next 12-18 months will be a campaign to sell the WAC to UCSD students and faculty. Expect UMKC, CSUB, and NMSU to be pushed forward. Possibly D-II rival Cal Baptist.

"....But faced with that reality the athletic department will jump at the WAC offer. There is no guarantee another referendum would pass."

That's my take. IIRC, their FIRST (recent) referendum failed. The last one passed. According to the SD Tribune it said "Overwhelming majority." Not sure what that was, but I had thought that it was only a pretty small fraction of students who voted and was appx a 60/40 vote for.

...Aztec Mesa discussion...

http://aztecmesa.proboards.com/thread/53...lTo=972060

(04-07-2017 01:20 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Or Sac State, or if the lack of a stadium after the Q forces SDSU to end football. SJSU might shelf football, but that is a decade off.

Even numbers are a fan obsession, not one of the Big West. I really don't understand that fear of 9 or 11. That mentality caused the Big 12 to pass on Louisville when they added West Virginia, and that is likely the difference between that conference being stable instead of waiting for Texas and Oklahoma to leave. Or it can lead to Karl Benson insisting upon the CCU Cheer team.

In more seriousness I don't think there is a 12th. Farrell has pressure simply to keep the UC and CSU numbers equal. And I don't think the league has changed their mind about CSUB. They are waiting on a SDSU/SJSU/Sac State to balance UCSD. The same UC Chancellors that reject GCU having contact with the P12 object to GCU in the BW.

We just hired Orr away from WCC's SMC. A point of emphasis in his presser by both President Nelsen and Orr was getting the event center built.

SDSU won't lose football...ever. They might play their games in Petco, or play in a tiny MLS specific stadium (both of which will gut revenues) but FB ain't going anywhere.

No comment on SJSU...lets wait for the next financial catastrophe and then see where all these CA FB programs stand.


Agree with Stu on UCSD. Their choices are no D1 or the WAC. I think they can kiss any BW dreams goodbye until they are an established D1 entity...and they will only get there via the WAC.

(04-07-2017 08:06 PM)RunnerBall Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 07:51 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  UC San Diego has two choices, stay in D-II for at least another decade, maybe longer, or work their way up through the WAC. Ego will get in the way for some. But faced with that reality the athletic department will jump at the WAC offer. There is no guarantee another referendum would pass. This was the 3rd or 4th try in a dozen or so years and the only one to pass. The next class coming in might easily revert back to the standard California "hell no" vote. And believe me the biggest constituency for moving up is the Athletic Department - it impacts their pay and status in the athletic world.

The difficulty will be convincing the students that it is not a bait and switch. While the wording of the referendum stated only "dependent upon a D-I conference invite", the campaign material added the phrase "such as the Big West" and sold the concept of the Big West. Reports dropped the words "such as."

The next 12-18 months will be a campaign to sell the WAC to UCSD students and faculty. Expect UMKC, CSUB, and NMSU to be pushed forward. Possibly D-II rival Cal Baptist.

"....But faced with that reality the athletic department will jump at the WAC offer. There is no guarantee another referendum would pass."

That's my take. IIRC, their FIRST (recent) referendum failed. The last one passed. According to the SD Tribune it said "Overwhelming majority." Not sure what that was, but I had thought that it was only a pretty small fraction of students who voted and was appx a 60/40 vote for.

About 1/3 of all undergrads voted. 6,137 for and 2,567 against.

(04-07-2017 09:45 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 08:06 PM)RunnerBall Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 07:51 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  UC San Diego has two choices, stay in D-II for at least another decade, maybe longer, or work their way up through the WAC. Ego will get in the way for some. But faced with that reality the athletic department will jump at the WAC offer. There is no guarantee another referendum would pass. This was the 3rd or 4th try in a dozen or so years and the only one to pass. The next class coming in might easily revert back to the standard California "hell no" vote. And believe me the biggest constituency for moving up is the Athletic Department - it impacts their pay and status in the athletic world.

The difficulty will be convincing the students that it is not a bait and switch. While the wording of the referendum stated only "dependent upon a D-I conference invite", the campaign material added the phrase "such as the Big West" and sold the concept of the Big West. Reports dropped the words "such as."

The next 12-18 months will be a campaign to sell the WAC to UCSD students and faculty. Expect UMKC, CSUB, and NMSU to be pushed forward. Possibly D-II rival Cal Baptist.

"....But faced with that reality the athletic department will jump at the WAC offer. There is no guarantee another referendum would pass."

That's my take. IIRC, their FIRST (recent) referendum failed. The last one passed. According to the SD Tribune it said "Overwhelming majority." Not sure what that was, but I had thought that it was only a pretty small fraction of students who voted and was appx a 60/40 vote for.

About 1/3 of all undergrads voted. 6,137 for and 2,567 against.

Thx....I stand corrected. Larger than I had thought.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/spor...story.html

That is not a permanent majority. There was a dedicated campaign to get D-I. In a few years that core will have graduated and the campaign needs to find a new dedicated core.

There is no guarantee another measure in two years will pass. Different class, different students. Turnover is nearly 100%, not 50% you see at Cal States (ouch that hurt, as a CSU grad).

I'm just not seeing what exactly UCSD offers the WAC. Basically if invited they will come in with a D2 roster, and drag down the WAC's RPI while in transition. Not everybody can compete right out of D2 like GCU. As soon as they get acclimated to Division 1, and the kinks are worked out, they will jump to the Big West.

So in essence, the WAC is acting as kind of a triple AAA affiliate for a conference which is only marginally stronger than them (if at all).

(04-07-2017 11:01 PM)Columbia Blue Wrote:  I'm just not seeing what exactly UCSD offers the WAC. Basically if invited they will come in with a D2 roster, and drag down the WAC's RPI while in transition. Not everybody can compete right out of D2 like GCU. As soon as they get acclimated to Division 1, and the kinks are worked out, they will jump to the Big West.

So in essence, the WAC is acting as kind of a triple AAA affiliate for a conference which is only marginally stronger than them (if at all).

The Big West and WCC effectively use the WAC now as a feeder conference anyway. What's the Difference? Invite a school that won't get an invite anywhere, one that's non-aspirational. Thats hardly a solution.

The WAC can say with UCSD that it has an AAU school. That's a big deal to Presidents,

(04-07-2017 11:01 PM)Columbia Blue Wrote:  I'm just not seeing what exactly UCSD offers the WAC. Basically if invited they will come in with a D2 roster, and drag down the WAC's RPI while in transition. Not everybody can compete right out of D2 like GCU. As soon as they get acclimated to Division 1, and the kinks are worked out, they will jump to the Big West.

So in essence, the WAC is acting as kind of a triple AAA affiliate for a conference which is only marginally stronger than them (if at all).

UCSD is not joining the WAC. They have this laser focus on the Big West. They were not interested in the WAC seven years ago when they were rejected by the Big West. UCSD said at the time that they were not interested in any other D1 conference. They have not changed. They are still focused on the Big West.

It would take many years for UCSD to really be of any help to a conference. They are a terrific academic add and in a market that the WAC would love to be in, but adding a second D2 move up with CBU is not a good idea. Better to focus on D1 schools that might be willing to leave their conferences.

(04-07-2017 11:25 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 11:01 PM)Columbia Blue Wrote:  I'm just not seeing what exactly UCSD offers the WAC. Basically if invited they will come in with a D2 roster, and drag down the WAC's RPI while in transition. Not everybody can compete right out of D2 like GCU. As soon as they get acclimated to Division 1, and the kinks are worked out, they will jump to the Big West.

So in essence, the WAC is acting as kind of a triple AAA affiliate for a conference which is only marginally stronger than them (if at all).

UCSD is not joining the WAC. They have this laser focus on the Big West. They were not interested in the WAC seven years ago when they were rejected by the Big West. UCSD said at the time that they were not interested in any other D1 conference. They have not changed. They are still focused on the Big West.

It would take many years for UCSD to really be of any help to a conference. They are a terrific academic add and in a market that the WAC would love to be in, but adding a second D2 move up with CBU is not a good idea. Better to focus on D1 schools that might be willing to leave their conferences.

And which DI schools are those? There are plenty of DI's, but name one that would go to the WAC.

(04-07-2017 11:25 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(04-07-2017 11:01 PM)Columbia Blue Wrote:  I'm just not seeing what exactly UCSD offers the WAC. Basically if invited they will come in with a D2 roster, and drag down the WAC's RPI while in transition. Not everybody can compete right out of D2 like GCU. As soon as they get acclimated to Division 1, and the kinks are worked out, they will jump to the Big West.

So in essence, the WAC is acting as kind of a triple AAA affiliate for a conference which is only marginally stronger than them (if at all).

UCSD is not joining the WAC. They have this laser focus on the Big West. They were not interested in the WAC seven years ago when they were rejected by the Big West. UCSD said at the time that they were not interested in any other D1 conference. They have not changed. They are still focused on the Big West.

It would take many years for UCSD to really be of any help to a conference. They are a terrific academic add and in a market that the WAC would love to be in, but adding a second D2 move up with CBU is not a good idea. Better to focus on D1 schools that might be willing to leave their conferences.

Seven years ago UCSD didn't have the support of their student body to move to up to Division 1. Although, this potential move was (is) all predicated on UCSD joining the Big West, as it appears now, the decision and timeline to go D1 is not in the UCSD administration's control; as long as they make the Big West their only acceptable option. Obviously, given the recent Big West vote, the two don't coincide right now. So, UCSD needs to simply decide if it's more important to be in the Big West or be a Division 1 program? If it's to be in the Big West, then they need to accept this could be an indefinite proposition. However, if it is more important to upgrade to Division 1, then the administration needs to find a way to sell other D1 conference options to their student body and boosters. I think the WAC is willing to listen if the latter is more important.

If the student approved referendum language isn't specific to Big West then the UCSD admin doesn't need to sell anything to anybody. They just need to have the balls to make the move and swallow their pride in being with unlike institutions in the WAC.

The other question is will the WAC be ok with UCSD using it as a launching pad into the BW, because the WAC has to assume they are gone as soon as the transition period into D1 is over.

(04-07-2017 11:01 PM)Columbia Blue Wrote:  I'm just not seeing what exactly UCSD offers the WAC. Basically if invited they will come in with a D2 roster, and drag down the WAC's RPI while in transition. Not everybody can compete right out of D2 like GCU. As soon as they get acclimated to Division 1, and the kinks are worked out, they will jump to the Big West.

So in essence, the WAC is acting as kind of a triple AAA affiliate for a conference which is only marginally stronger than them (if at all).

They offer a full weekend spent in SoCal (assuming they would be paired with CBU) which would be helpful in recruiting for the various sports. That's a minimum of 3 days of being a few hours drive from tens of thousands of recruits for the coaching staffs.

RPI is meaningless as we are seeing the P6 gobble up all the at-large bids so it's best we work with the assumption that current one-bid conferences will be one-bid conferences for the foreseeable future. At a minimum this buys the WAC more life until any other D2 move ups (APU) or shakeup from D1 conference realignment happen.

WAC can also up exit fees after their add and at a minimum collect a nice payday on UCSD's way out the door to the BW. UCSD can't be viewed as a long term add, but there are positives to be gained from even a short term (say a decade) stay.

(04-08-2017 11:10 AM)SDHornet Wrote:  If the student approved referendum language isn't specific to Big West then the UCSD admin doesn't need to sell anything to anybody. They just need to have the balls to make the move and swallow their pride in being with unlike institutions in the WAC.

The other question is will the WAC be ok with UCSD using it as a launching pad into the BW, because the WAC has to assume they are gone as soon as the transition period into D1 is over.

What is it, 6 years from today or so for that process to be competed? A lot can happen in that time in terms of conference dynamics / "dominoes falling." ...I//////////__

Currently mobile....but not necessarily upwardly.

(04-08-2017 11:42 AM)RunnerBall Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 11:10 AM)SDHornet Wrote:  If the student approved referendum language isn't specific to Big West then the UCSD admin doesn't need to sell anything to anybody. They just need to have the balls to make the move and swallow their pride in being with unlike institutions in the WAC.

The other question is will the WAC be ok with UCSD using it as a launching pad into the BW, because the WAC has to assume they are gone as soon as the transition period into D1 is over.

What is it, 6 years from today or so for that process to be competed? A lot can happen in that time in terms of conference dynamics / "dominoes falling." ...I//////////__

Currently mobile....but not necessarily upwardly.

In six years, the WAC might become more desirable than the Big West. The one big positive of the Big West over the WAC is reduced travel for non-revenue sports (bus league). However, for the one revenue sport (men's basketball), the WAC has shown more potential (bigger arenas, growing fan support, larger media and recruiting footprint).

(04-08-2017 12:24 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 11:42 AM)RunnerBall Wrote:  

(04-08-2017 11:10 AM)SDHornet Wrote:  If the student approved referendum language isn't specific to Big West then the UCSD admin doesn't need to sell anything to anybody. They just need to have the balls to make the move and swallow their pride in being with unlike institutions in the WAC.

The other question is will the WAC be ok with UCSD using it as a launching pad into the BW, because the WAC has to assume they are gone as soon as the transition period into D1 is over.

What is it, 6 years from today or so for that process to be competed? A lot can happen in that time in terms of conference dynamics / "dominoes falling." ...I//////////__

Currently mobile....but not necessarily upwardly.

In six years, the WAC might become more desirable than the Big West. The one big positive of the Big West over the WAC is reduced travel for non-revenue sports (bus league). However, for the one revenue sport (men's basketball), the WAC has shown more potential (bigger arenas, growing fans support, larger media and recruiting footprint).

LOL...can't wait to see Gaucho's response to this.

Seriously though, that's along the lines of my point. Other times its speculated that UCSD, IF they join, could spend a decade in the WAC. I agree, the WAC isnt the dud it was even just a few years ago. I really wonder will there BE a WAC or a BW in a decade, or rather, what form of 'them' will exist? Maybe a shifting, a merger or sorts between the western schools, etc into one conference? Two conferences made up of those who care to travel and those who dont? Not saying it will happen, but wouldn't be surprised at all by...mostly anything. I find all this conference changes (or even just the theories out West) maddening and fascinating at the same time.
UCSD will no doubt factor that in as well to their decision of what now to pursue.

My response is - the potential media coverage IS greater. Chicago, Kansas City, Seattle, Phoenix, Rio Grande Valley. The larger fan bases and venues. All fine and dandy.

Won't mean much without finding a way to actually broadcast conference games and starting to win games in the NCAAs. Fox Sports, Amazon, ESPN, whomever... get the product out there.

I believe the BW has earned seven credits in the last four years to the WAC's four, courtesy of the two play-in wins and Hawaii reaching the round of 32.

Also, in UC Santa Barbara's worst season ever we were able to split with CSUB. For what it's worth, we also blew a 20 point lead at home vs Seattle.

The pieces are in place, the potential is there - if everyone stays.

(04-08-2017 11:10 AM)SDHornet Wrote:  If the student approved referendum language isn't specific to Big West then the UCSD admin doesn't need to sell anything to anybody. They just need to have the balls to make the move and swallow their pride in being with unlike institutions in the WAC.

The other question is will the WAC be ok with UCSD using it as a launching pad into the BW, because the WAC has to assume they are gone as soon as the transition period into D1 is over.

Technically they don't need to sell, the language said "dependent upon an invitation from a D1 conference such as the Big West." And yes the WAC already made a courtesy call long before this Big West decision.

But I think they owe it to the student body to sell the concept of the WAC, because the campaign literature was so laser focused on the Big West. It could look like a bait and switch. You want to keep the student body on your side. So you need to sell things like our schedules will include many Big West schools - which would be true.

There is no doubt the entire athletic department and even the athletes would be fine with the WAC, because of the increased prestige (and pay for the coaches and staff) in being D1. But the general student body which voted for the referendum needs to at least be ambivalent and not openly opposed to the WAC. That is the sell job they need to make.