No way the Big Sky takes UVU, the Utah schools would have a fit. If a decent FBS school not named UTEP joined the MW, they could possibly take NMSU if they can get a decent FB program.

I think the WAC is in death spiral. I think Sac stays in BSC because of football, still see them someday on a par with Fresno and other state schools. GCU has built a nice hoops program, curious where they land.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Could the Southern BSC schools cherry pick the WAC?
UNC
SUU
NAU
Sac St
GCU
NMSU
UVU
Cal Baptist
Without taking the whole WAC.





Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(11-27-2017 06:41 PM)Bogg Wrote:  It's a little outside the box, but if the A-Sun starts looking to replace USC Upstate and wants to avoid the perception of (or legitimate issues faced by) constant D-2 call-ups, I don't think UTRGV is that crazy of an option for them.

Well they were in the conf. when it was the TAAC. 78-80

So what are we looking at for the WAC. APU w/ fb only in the Sky. Fresno Pacific(that would be cool...for me).
Teamsvn, who would be the most likely to want to move to D-I in the PWC since it's filled w/ schools you know.

Not sure any RMAC schools or GNAC schools would move up. If they had football they'd need a Sky fb only. I think the Lone Star schools would go to the SLC or stay D-II.

The problem for many of the moveups is that the WAC is so unstable that any program considering moving up needs to consider what might happen if they move up and the WAC ends up in the same boat as now in 5 years.

Every program in the WAC is looking for the exits except Chicago State. If you are APU, do you spend the millions to move up, only to then be stuck in a 'Great West' situation.

(11-28-2017 10:35 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The problem for many of the moveups is that the WAC is so unstable that any program considering moving up needs to consider what might happen if they move up and the WAC ends up in the same boat as now in 5 years.

Every program in the WAC is looking for the exits except Chicago State. If you are APU, do you spend the millions to move up, only to then be stuck in a 'Great West' situation.

well it's obvious that the WAC has something up their sleeves, or CS Bakersfield would be going to the Big West sooner rather than later.

(11-28-2017 10:49 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 10:35 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The problem for many of the moveups is that the WAC is so unstable that any program considering moving up needs to consider what might happen if they move up and the WAC ends up in the same boat as now in 5 years.

Every program in the WAC is looking for the exits except Chicago State. If you are APU, do you spend the millions to move up, only to then be stuck in a 'Great West' situation.

well it's obvious that the WAC has something up their sleeves, or CS Bakersfield would be going to the Big West sooner rather than later.

Or, the WAC has nothing up its sleeves, so to speak, no viable plans whatsoever.

And maybe the WAC commissioner and/or WAC members begged the Big West to delay the CSUB/UCSD move for a couple of years, in order to give the remaining WAC members a bit of time to either (a) find new members to keep the WAC going, (b) beg the NCAA for a rule change that will allow the WAC to continue on with fewer than 7 D-I members, or ( c) find new conference homes for each remaining WAC member.

(11-28-2017 02:33 AM)MJG Wrote:  Could the Southern BSC schools cherry pick the WAC?

I don't think there's anyone the BSC wants that it couldn't easily already get from the WAC. NMSU is the chaser, but its demands are too steep for most.

Big West could have stood to pick up some of these schools, and still could, if it wasn't for the **** non-CA travel subsidy. Seattle and a NMSU return being the ones that stick out. Keep taking UC and CSU schools who won't add any value to anything due to that over-saturation...but, you can't tell them that!

(11-28-2017 11:19 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 10:49 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 10:35 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The problem for many of the moveups is that the WAC is so unstable that any program considering moving up needs to consider what might happen if they move up and the WAC ends up in the same boat as now in 5 years.

Every program in the WAC is looking for the exits except Chicago State. If you are APU, do you spend the millions to move up, only to then be stuck in a 'Great West' situation.

well it's obvious that the WAC has something up their sleeves, or CS Bakersfield would be going to the Big West sooner rather than later.

Or, the WAC has nothing up its sleeves, so to speak, no viable plans whatsoever.

And maybe the WAC commissioner and/or WAC members begged the Big West to delay the CSUB/UCSD move for a couple of years, in order to give the remaining WAC members a bit of time to either (a) find new members to keep the WAC going, (b) beg the NCAA for a rule change that will allow the WAC to continue on with fewer than 7 D-I members, or ( c) find new conference homes for each remaining WAC member.

I think the Summit and WAC members need to get together. They are both continually on the verge of falling apart. WIU and Ft. Wayne ought to try to find a more Midwestern conference. The Dakota schools are kind of isolated no matter where they go (unless they recreate the Northern Sun). Combined, counting Cal Baptist, they have 16 in 2020 and probably 15 as Chicago St. can't last long.

The WAC and the Summit will not work together. This is a "find a life raft" moment for WAC members. Conferences will pick over the carcass and select the tastiest bits.

UTRGV has built up their athletic resources over the years and now has a $14M budget. Although donations are still low, and so is gate, both numbers are trending up, growing faster than budget, which is funded primarily by student fee, rather than institutional transfers. If the SLC was waiting for them to have their act together and be an above average member, they are already there.

The rumor is GCU turned down a tHL invite last year. Very likely they take that invite now, and NMSU might want to go with them. Frankly they would be better picks for the MVC which is seeking relevancy, as in resources both programs are high mid-majors (top 100) Basketball programs and their schools primary fan draws.

UMKC is under internal pressure to move to the Summit if it wants to stay D-I and not drop down to D-III (there is little support continuing scholarships if not in D-I). If the report was cover for a decision already made, then they are gone.

What is there for the Summit to want out of the rest of the WAC? UVU, SU, and CBU are too far away. Chicago State they don't want -- nor does anyone else. So why work with them? The only thing the Summit could or should do is reach out to GCU and NMSU to see if either is interested. There is a long shot chance they could land one of those instead of UMKC, giving Denver a Western travel partner, and shore up Baseball in case they lose Fort Wayne.

The WAC needs to stabilize and quickly. The only way they can do that is to add another member and quickly (cough, suza Pacific). If they don't you'll see 2-3 other programs find the exit before summer.

The problem with merge conference a with conference b and then split them up in order to make the pieces fit better in some global way....

It just doesn't work that way. If a couple of teams in either conference are unhappy, then they can torpedo the deal. That's why the constant CUSA vs Sun Belt discussions will go nowhere.

Now lets look at the Summit and the WAC

Summit League - holds all the cards in this scenario. Basically they'll need to be happy. UND, NDSU, USD, SDSU, Nebraska-Omaha, and Oral Roberts make up a central core, with a Western outlier at Denver, and two eastern outliers in IPFW and Western Illinois.

Two teams are in the footprint (UMKC and Chicago State). Chicago State is going nowhere.

Moving out from the core a bit, you could grab NMSU I suppose.

-----

But beyond that, it gets more complicated. UT-RGV is a long way from anyone else, GC is for profit, Seattle is a long way away, UVU is next door to another more prominent school, Cal Baptist isn't even D1 yet and is far away. I don't think that the Summit is really interested in any of them.

Now there is an argument that the Summit needs to get big in order to protect itself. The Horizon League has 10 members and appears to be geographically compact. Its doubtful that they'd be interested in moving to the 'far flung' conference model. I don't see the MVC trying to get into the Dakotas in a big way, and the Big Sky appears to be full as well.

(11-28-2017 11:45 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 11:19 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 10:49 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 10:35 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The problem for many of the moveups is that the WAC is so unstable that any program considering moving up needs to consider what might happen if they move up and the WAC ends up in the same boat as now in 5 years.

Every program in the WAC is looking for the exits except Chicago State. If you are APU, do you spend the millions to move up, only to then be stuck in a 'Great West' situation.

well it's obvious that the WAC has something up their sleeves, or CS Bakersfield would be going to the Big West sooner rather than later.

Or, the WAC has nothing up its sleeves, so to speak, no viable plans whatsoever.

And maybe the WAC commissioner and/or WAC members begged the Big West to delay the CSUB/UCSD move for a couple of years, in order to give the remaining WAC members a bit of time to either (a) find new members to keep the WAC going, (b) beg the NCAA for a rule change that will allow the WAC to continue on with fewer than 7 D-I members, or ( c) find new conference homes for each remaining WAC member.

I think the Summit and WAC members need to get together. They are both continually on the verge of falling apart. WIU and Ft. Wayne ought to try to find a more Midwestern conference. The Dakota schools are kind of isolated no matter where they go (unless they recreate the Northern Sun). Combined, counting Cal Baptist, they have 16 in 2020 and probably 15 as Chicago St. can't last long.

A less far-flung option would be trying to pitch the Big Sky on an idea of helping the Big Sky to cut travel costs by bringing "southern" Big Sky schools into the WAC while letting them continue to play Big Sky football, and moving Seattle into the Big Sky also for travel reasons. Also, let Chicago State go, move UMKC to the Summit, and move UTRGV to the Southland.

Then the WAC and Big Sky would each have 8 full members. WAC would be Sac State, Cal Baptist, UVU, SUU, NAU, GCU, NMSU, and Northern Colorado. Big Sky would have Montana, Montana State, Idaho, Idaho State, Weber State, Portland State, Eastern Washington, and Seattle.

Of course, nothing that neatly settled ever happens.

(11-28-2017 01:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 11:45 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 11:19 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 10:49 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 10:35 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The problem for many of the moveups is that the WAC is so unstable that any program considering moving up needs to consider what might happen if they move up and the WAC ends up in the same boat as now in 5 years.

Every program in the WAC is looking for the exits except Chicago State. If you are APU, do you spend the millions to move up, only to then be stuck in a 'Great West' situation.

well it's obvious that the WAC has something up their sleeves, or CS Bakersfield would be going to the Big West sooner rather than later.

Or, the WAC has nothing up its sleeves, so to speak, no viable plans whatsoever.

And maybe the WAC commissioner and/or WAC members begged the Big West to delay the CSUB/UCSD move for a couple of years, in order to give the remaining WAC members a bit of time to either (a) find new members to keep the WAC going, (b) beg the NCAA for a rule change that will allow the WAC to continue on with fewer than 7 D-I members, or ( c) find new conference homes for each remaining WAC member.

I think the Summit and WAC members need to get together. They are both continually on the verge of falling apart. WIU and Ft. Wayne ought to try to find a more Midwestern conference. The Dakota schools are kind of isolated no matter where they go (unless they recreate the Northern Sun). Combined, counting Cal Baptist, they have 16 in 2020 and probably 15 as Chicago St. can't last long.

A less far-flung option would be trying to pitch the Big Sky on an idea of helping the Big Sky to cut travel costs by bringing "southern" Big Sky schools into the WAC while letting them continue to play Big Sky football, and moving Seattle into the Big Sky also for travel reasons. Also, let Chicago State go, move UMKC to the Summit, and move UTRGV to the Southland.

Then the WAC and Big Sky would each have 8 full members. WAC would be Sac State, Cal Baptist, UVU, SUU, NAU, GCU, NMSU, and Northern Colorado. Big Sky would have Montana, Montana State, Idaho, Idaho State, Weber State, Portland State, Eastern Washington, and Seattle.

Of course, nothing that neatly settled ever happens.

That would be a great setup Wedge. You have to wonder if somebody actually presented that setup to the schools if there would be some momentum to move in that direction. That certainly make for some easier travel for both conferences.

They could also split the football up into each conference since you only need 6 schools for FCS to be a conference. Big Sky would have 7 and the WAC with UCD/Cal Poly as affiliates at 6 schools. Heck...then maybe Azusa Pac would move up into the WAC as a 7th school for football. I wonder if they couldn't mind having two FCS conferences with each conference getting an auto bid and possibly a couple at larges for the playoffs.

(11-28-2017 02:08 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 01:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 11:45 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 11:19 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 10:49 AM)stever20 Wrote:  well it's obvious that the WAC has something up their sleeves, or CS Bakersfield would be going to the Big West sooner rather than later.

Or, the WAC has nothing up its sleeves, so to speak, no viable plans whatsoever.

And maybe the WAC commissioner and/or WAC members begged the Big West to delay the CSUB/UCSD move for a couple of years, in order to give the remaining WAC members a bit of time to either (a) find new members to keep the WAC going, (b) beg the NCAA for a rule change that will allow the WAC to continue on with fewer than 7 D-I members, or ( c) find new conference homes for each remaining WAC member.

I think the Summit and WAC members need to get together. They are both continually on the verge of falling apart. WIU and Ft. Wayne ought to try to find a more Midwestern conference. The Dakota schools are kind of isolated no matter where they go (unless they recreate the Northern Sun). Combined, counting Cal Baptist, they have 16 in 2020 and probably 15 as Chicago St. can't last long.

A less far-flung option would be trying to pitch the Big Sky on an idea of helping the Big Sky to cut travel costs by bringing "southern" Big Sky schools into the WAC while letting them continue to play Big Sky football, and moving Seattle into the Big Sky also for travel reasons. Also, let Chicago State go, move UMKC to the Summit, and move UTRGV to the Southland.

Then the WAC and Big Sky would each have 8 full members. WAC would be Sac State, Cal Baptist, UVU, SUU, NAU, GCU, NMSU, and Northern Colorado. Big Sky would have Montana, Montana State, Idaho, Idaho State, Weber State, Portland State, Eastern Washington, and Seattle.

Of course, nothing that neatly settled ever happens.

That would be a great setup Wedge. You have to wonder if somebody actually presented that setup to the schools if there would be some momentum to move in that direction. That certainly make for some easier travel for both conferences.

But does NAU want to play in the same conference with GC or do they want to maintain separation, How about Weber State/Southern Utah and UVU? It might be the case that the biggest opponents of this Southern strategy might be the schools we might *think* we are helping.

And I'd imagine that Weber and Northern Colorado might have a strong preference to stay with the schools they personally feel more aligned with/have more history with/bigger rivalries.

Do the Mormon heavy schools in Idaho and Montana want to lose the Utah schools? Do the Northern schools recruit in the south?

Part of the reason why conferences overlap is precisely because some of the schools want it that way.

----

BTW, I suppose that the Big Sky, which has had a non-football school in the past, just might be interested in NMSU, or possibly Seattle (although they're private). I don't think they bid to anyone right now.

The problem with a split, which the northern schools actually want (and yes Seattle makes sense for Basketball on many levels), is that the southern schools are inherently unstable. Sac State would almost certainly bolt quickly for the Big West. ( for Olympics), and likely the Northern Arizona would attempt to rejoin the core. New Mexico State and Grand Canyon would have no interest in such a weak group and would still be headed for the exit probably to a central time zone conference. UMKC would still want to move to the Summit to reduce travel costs. And being cut off from the core of the Big Sky, Northern Colorado would likely move with UMKC to the Summit.

What you'd have left when the dust cleared is Southern Utah, Utah Valley, and Rio Grande Valley (eyes fixed on the SLC) left behind, and the three California football programs orphaned.

So in effect the Big Sky trades NoCo, SUU, and Sac State for Seattle University. While that may be fine for the core Big Sky schools, I can't see anyone among the southern Big Sky schools agreeing to that. It would have to happen via a break away.

(11-28-2017 02:24 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 02:08 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 01:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 11:45 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 11:19 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Or, the WAC has nothing up its sleeves, so to speak, no viable plans whatsoever.

And maybe the WAC commissioner and/or WAC members begged the Big West to delay the CSUB/UCSD move for a couple of years, in order to give the remaining WAC members a bit of time to either (a) find new members to keep the WAC going, (b) beg the NCAA for a rule change that will allow the WAC to continue on with fewer than 7 D-I members, or ( c) find new conference homes for each remaining WAC member.

I think the Summit and WAC members need to get together. They are both continually on the verge of falling apart. WIU and Ft. Wayne ought to try to find a more Midwestern conference. The Dakota schools are kind of isolated no matter where they go (unless they recreate the Northern Sun). Combined, counting Cal Baptist, they have 16 in 2020 and probably 15 as Chicago St. can't last long.

A less far-flung option would be trying to pitch the Big Sky on an idea of helping the Big Sky to cut travel costs by bringing "southern" Big Sky schools into the WAC while letting them continue to play Big Sky football, and moving Seattle into the Big Sky also for travel reasons. Also, let Chicago State go, move UMKC to the Summit, and move UTRGV to the Southland.

Then the WAC and Big Sky would each have 8 full members. WAC would be Sac State, Cal Baptist, UVU, SUU, NAU, GCU, NMSU, and Northern Colorado. Big Sky would have Montana, Montana State, Idaho, Idaho State, Weber State, Portland State, Eastern Washington, and Seattle.

Of course, nothing that neatly settled ever happens.

That would be a great setup Wedge. You have to wonder if somebody actually presented that setup to the schools if there would be some momentum to move in that direction. That certainly make for some easier travel for both conferences.

But does NAU want to play in the same conference with GC or do they want to maintain separation, How about Weber State/Southern Utah and UVU? It might be the case that the biggest opponents of this Southern strategy might be the schools we might *think* we are helping.

And I'd imagine that Weber and Northern Colorado might have a strong preference to stay with the schools they personally feel more aligned with/have more history with/bigger rivalries.

Do the Mormon heavy schools in Idaho and Montana want to lose the Utah schools? Do the Northern schools recruit in the south?

Part of the reason why conferences overlap is precisely because some of the schools want it that way.

----

BTW, I suppose that the Big Sky, which has had a non-football school in the past, just might be interested in NMSU, or possibly Seattle (although they're private). I don't think they bid to anyone right now.

I think NAU would like to have an easy travel partner with GCU. The have played against each other more often recently.
As for Weber St...they would already be in the conference they are historically aligned to. WSU would be with ISU, MSU, UM...
UNC, not sure if it would matter. They are the youngest member and they would have some decent travel nearby with NMSU, UVU and GCU. The way travel costs are eating budgets, it may be no other option for them looking at it that way.

(11-28-2017 01:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 11:45 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 11:19 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 10:49 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 10:35 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The problem for many of the moveups is that the WAC is so unstable that any program considering moving up needs to consider what might happen if they move up and the WAC ends up in the same boat as now in 5 years.

Every program in the WAC is looking for the exits except Chicago State. If you are APU, do you spend the millions to move up, only to then be stuck in a 'Great West' situation.

well it's obvious that the WAC has something up their sleeves, or CS Bakersfield would be going to the Big West sooner rather than later.

Or, the WAC has nothing up its sleeves, so to speak, no viable plans whatsoever.

And maybe the WAC commissioner and/or WAC members begged the Big West to delay the CSUB/UCSD move for a couple of years, in order to give the remaining WAC members a bit of time to either (a) find new members to keep the WAC going, (b) beg the NCAA for a rule change that will allow the WAC to continue on with fewer than 7 D-I members, or ( c) find new conference homes for each remaining WAC member.

I think the Summit and WAC members need to get together. They are both continually on the verge of falling apart. WIU and Ft. Wayne ought to try to find a more Midwestern conference. The Dakota schools are kind of isolated no matter where they go (unless they recreate the Northern Sun). Combined, counting Cal Baptist, they have 16 in 2020 and probably 15 as Chicago St. can't last long.

A less far-flung option would be trying to pitch the Big Sky on an idea of helping the Big Sky to cut travel costs by bringing "southern" Big Sky schools into the WAC while letting them continue to play Big Sky football, and moving Seattle into the Big Sky also for travel reasons. Also, let Chicago State go, move UMKC to the Summit, and move UTRGV to the Southland.

Then the WAC and Big Sky would each have 8 full members. WAC would be Sac State, Cal Baptist, UVU, SUU, NAU, GCU, NMSU, and Northern Colorado. Big Sky would have Montana, Montana State, Idaho, Idaho State, Weber State, Portland State, Eastern Washington, and Seattle.

Of course, nothing that neatly settled ever happens.

The problem is that the Big Sky do not want Seattle. They would rather call up Central Washington before they ever invite Seattle because Central have a football program and Seattle does not. Here is why nobody wants the WAC schools.

Seattle, private, and are blocked by other teams in other conferences from joining.
Grand Canyon U. is the place for WAC for them until they get rid of the for-profit status.
New Mexico State in a lack of a populated area and not growing.
Chicago State because of dropping enrollment numbers, and financial issues.
UMKC do not want to crawl back begging to the Summit.
UTRGV been kicked out of the Southland Conference.
California Baptist, same as above. Does not really fit the profile of the WCC. They are stuck in the WAC.

WAC should look at re-sponsoring football again at the FBS. New Mexico State should invite UMass. and Liberty as football only. Those three could start a new conference.

New Mexico State
UMass. football only
Liberty football only
Lamar all sports
Sam Houston State all sports
SFA all sports
West Texas A&M all sports
Jacksonville State football only
Eastern Kentucky football only
James Madison football only
Delaware football only
Youngstown State football only

Replacement teams if any of the schools been taken.
Missouri State all sports
Northern Iowa all sports
UTRGV if and when they add football.
Azusa Pacific if they could raise money to build a new FBS size stadium.
Stony Brook football only
Kennesaw State football only
North Alabama football only.
North Dakota all sports
North Dakota State all sports
South Dakota all sports
South Dakota State all sports.

Several D2 schools could easily be an FBS school in short amount of time than several D1.
West Texas A&M
Midwestern State
UTPB
Commerce
Kingsville
Tarleton State
North Alabama


Any idea if Cal. Poly Pomona would move up from d2? I read somewhere that the propose new pro-football stadium would be built 15 minutes from their campus? They could get a Temple and USF style deal to play there if they restart their football program to be FBS. They might be a school to look at as well if there are some overtures to bring them up.

(11-28-2017 01:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 11:45 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 11:19 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 10:49 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 10:35 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The problem for many of the moveups is that the WAC is so unstable that any program considering moving up needs to consider what might happen if they move up and the WAC ends up in the same boat as now in 5 years.

Every program in the WAC is looking for the exits except Chicago State. If you are APU, do you spend the millions to move up, only to then be stuck in a 'Great West' situation.

well it's obvious that the WAC has something up their sleeves, or CS Bakersfield would be going to the Big West sooner rather than later.

Or, the WAC has nothing up its sleeves, so to speak, no viable plans whatsoever.

And maybe the WAC commissioner and/or WAC members begged the Big West to delay the CSUB/UCSD move for a couple of years, in order to give the remaining WAC members a bit of time to either (a) find new members to keep the WAC going, (b) beg the NCAA for a rule change that will allow the WAC to continue on with fewer than 7 D-I members, or ( c) find new conference homes for each remaining WAC member.

I think the Summit and WAC members need to get together. They are both continually on the verge of falling apart. WIU and Ft. Wayne ought to try to find a more Midwestern conference. The Dakota schools are kind of isolated no matter where they go (unless they recreate the Northern Sun). Combined, counting Cal Baptist, they have 16 in 2020 and probably 15 as Chicago St. can't last long.

A less far-flung option would be trying to pitch the Big Sky on an idea of helping the Big Sky to cut travel costs by bringing "southern" Big Sky schools into the WAC while letting them continue to play Big Sky football, and moving Seattle into the Big Sky also for travel reasons. Also, let Chicago State go, move UMKC to the Summit, and move UTRGV to the Southland.

Then the WAC and Big Sky would each have 8 full members. WAC would be Sac State, Cal Baptist, UVU, SUU, NAU, GCU, NMSU, and Northern Colorado. Big Sky would have Montana, Montana State, Idaho, Idaho State, Weber State, Portland State, Eastern Washington, and Seattle.

Of course, nothing that neatly settled ever happens.

I have to think this would have been somewhat more likely (though obviously still not very likely) if Sacramento State went to the Big West with UCSD instead of CSU Bakersfield. Bakersfield wouldn't have to be convinced to join the WAC, as they are already a member.

(11-28-2017 02:36 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The problem with a split, which the northern schools actually want (and yes Seattle makes sense for Basketball on many levels), is that the southern schools are inherently unstable. Sac State would almost certainly bolt quickly for the Big West. ( for Olympics), and likely the Northern Arizona would attempt to rejoin the core. New Mexico State and Grand Canyon would have no interest in such a weak group and would still be headed for the exit probably to a central time zone conference. UMKC would still want to move to the Summit to reduce travel costs. And being cut off from the core of the Big Sky, Northern Colorado would likely move with UMKC to the Summit.

What you'd have left when the dust cleared is Southern Utah, Utah Valley, and Rio Grande Valley (eyes fixed on the SLC) left behind, and the three California football programs orphaned.

So in effect the Big Sky trades NoCo, SUU, and Sac State for Seattle University. While that may be fine for the core Big Sky schools, I can't see anyone among the southern Big Sky schools agreeing to that. It would have to happen via a break away.

Uhhh..if Sac St was interested in the Big West they would have been invited instead of CSUB. NAU isn't tied to EWU and the Montana's as much as you think. Which is probably why SUU was invited.

(11-28-2017 01:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 11:45 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 11:19 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 10:49 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 10:35 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The problem for many of the moveups is that the WAC is so unstable that any program considering moving up needs to consider what might happen if they move up and the WAC ends up in the same boat as now in 5 years.

Every program in the WAC is looking for the exits except Chicago State. If you are APU, do you spend the millions to move up, only to then be stuck in a 'Great West' situation.

well it's obvious that the WAC has something up their sleeves, or CS Bakersfield would be going to the Big West sooner rather than later.

Or, the WAC has nothing up its sleeves, so to speak, no viable plans whatsoever.

And maybe the WAC commissioner and/or WAC members begged the Big West to delay the CSUB/UCSD move for a couple of years, in order to give the remaining WAC members a bit of time to either (a) find new members to keep the WAC going, (b) beg the NCAA for a rule change that will allow the WAC to continue on with fewer than 7 D-I members, or ( c) find new conference homes for each remaining WAC member.

I think the Summit and WAC members need to get together. They are both continually on the verge of falling apart. WIU and Ft. Wayne ought to try to find a more Midwestern conference. The Dakota schools are kind of isolated no matter where they go (unless they recreate the Northern Sun). Combined, counting Cal Baptist, they have 16 in 2020 and probably 15 as Chicago St. can't last long.

A less far-flung option would be trying to pitch the Big Sky on an idea of helping the Big Sky to cut travel costs by bringing "southern" Big Sky schools into the WAC while letting them continue to play Big Sky football, and moving Seattle into the Big Sky also for travel reasons. Also, let Chicago State go, move UMKC to the Summit, and move UTRGV to the Southland.

Then the WAC and Big Sky would each have 8 full members. WAC would be Sac State, Cal Baptist, UVU, SUU, NAU, GCU, NMSU, and Northern Colorado. Big Sky would have Montana, Montana State, Idaho, Idaho State, Weber State, Portland State, Eastern Washington, and Seattle.

Of course, nothing that neatly settled ever happens.

Because there is nothing neat about it. You are trying to shove dissimilar schools with no history together merely because of Geography.

Seattle has nothing in common with the northern schools, other than sharing a state (albeit opposite end) with one school.

And for the "southern" schools, its a mish-mash almost as bad as the current WAC, and extremely unstable.


Might as well go the full banana and put West Texas A&M and Humboldt State in the mix, as well as Simon Fraser and CETYS