Now we enter phase 2

Who would the other 2 schools be??

Also, if Chicago St is leaving that would be 15 which would be odd in more ways than one

"Basketball power" and "star power" are words with meanings that should be respected and not bandied about for schools that last won a game in the NCAA tournament in 1993, a coach that has never won an NCAA game and had a big moment as a player before any current college basketball player was even born, and a guy whose last job as a head coach lead to a 1-17 conference record and being fired after one year in charge.

(01-06-2021 09:42 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Now we enter phase 2

Who would the other 2 schools be??

Also, if Chicago St is leaving that would be 15 which would be odd in more ways than one

According to Wikipedia, the WAC currently has 9 teams and is proposing to add 5 teams. That is 14 including Chicago State. How do you get 15 without Chicago State?

(01-06-2021 10:48 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(01-06-2021 09:42 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Now we enter phase 2

Who would the other 2 schools be??

Also, if Chicago St is leaving that would be 15 which would be odd in more ways than one

According to Wikipedia, the WAC currently has 9 teams and is proposing to add 5 teams. That is 14 including Chicago State. How do you get 15 without Chicago State?

Thamel’s tweet literally says the WAC is wanting to add 2 more teams.

(01-06-2021 10:55 AM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(01-06-2021 10:48 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(01-06-2021 09:42 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Now we enter phase 2

Who would the other 2 schools be??

Also, if Chicago St is leaving that would be 15 which would be odd in more ways than one

According to Wikipedia, the WAC currently has 9 teams and is proposing to add 5 teams. That is 14 including Chicago State. How do you get 15 without Chicago State?

Thamel’s tweet literally says the WAC is wanting to add 2 more teams.

I don’t see any info on Chicago St exiting the conference but the writing is somewhat on the walls.

If they choose to add 2, I wonder if they mean football-only (like Central Arkansas, UC Davis, Cal Poly, or San Diego) or if they mean full members. If full members, then I have no idea what current Division I schools would be interested that the Texas-4 would approve. I doubt they mean Division II call-ups but that is very possible.

From the Big Sky, who may be likely to follow Southern Utah? Idaho St, Northern Colorado, and Portland St haven’t been very competitive.

(01-06-2021 10:55 AM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(01-06-2021 10:48 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(01-06-2021 09:42 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Now we enter phase 2

Who would the other 2 schools be??

Also, if Chicago St is leaving that would be 15 which would be odd in more ways than one

According to Wikipedia, the WAC currently has 9 teams and is proposing to add 5 teams. That is 14 including Chicago State. How do you get 15 without Chicago State?

Thamel’s tweet literally says the WAC is wanting to add 2 more teams.

West Texas A&M has been mentioned. Also elevating UT-RGV to football is an option but it would take time before they are ready for D1. I think Thamel is talking about SFA or SUU and someone else, or maybe just those two.

(01-06-2021 11:01 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(01-06-2021 10:55 AM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(01-06-2021 10:48 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(01-06-2021 09:42 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Now we enter phase 2

Who would the other 2 schools be??

Also, if Chicago St is leaving that would be 15 which would be odd in more ways than one

According to Wikipedia, the WAC currently has 9 teams and is proposing to add 5 teams. That is 14 including Chicago State. How do you get 15 without Chicago State?

Thamel’s tweet literally says the WAC is wanting to add 2 more teams.

I don’t see any info on Chicago St exiting the conference but the writing is somewhat on the walls.

If they choose to add 2, I wonder if they mean football-only (like Central Arkansas, UC Davis, Cal Poly, or San Diego) or if they mean full members. If full members, then I have no idea what current Division I schools would be interested that the Texas-4 would approve. I doubt they mean Division II call-ups but that is very possible.

From the Big Sky, who may be likely to follow Southern Utah? Idaho St, Northern Colorado, and Portland St haven’t been very competitive.

Northern Colorado would make some sense as a FB-only member, with their non-FB sports going to the Summit. If the rest of the WAC would like to eventually get rid of geographic outliers like Seattle, then expanding into the Northwest is probably something they'd seek to avoid. That said, a league stretching from southern California to eastern Texas is not exactly compact.

(01-06-2021 10:48 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(01-06-2021 09:42 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Now we enter phase 2

Who would the other 2 schools be??

Also, if Chicago St is leaving that would be 15 which would be odd in more ways than one

According to Wikipedia, the WAC currently has 9 teams and is proposing to add 5 teams. That is 14 including Chicago State. How do you get 15 without Chicago State?

14 with Chicago St plus 2 more that the tweet mentioned would be 16.

Without Chicago St it would be 15

(01-06-2021 11:52 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-06-2021 10:48 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(01-06-2021 09:42 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Now we enter phase 2

Who would the other 2 schools be??

Also, if Chicago St is leaving that would be 15 which would be odd in more ways than one

According to Wikipedia, the WAC currently has 9 teams and is proposing to add 5 teams. That is 14 including Chicago State. How do you get 15 without Chicago State?

14 with Chicago St plus 2 more that the tweet mentioned would be 16.

Without Chicago St it would be 15

Maybe one's a FB affiliate (like Northern Colorado, as I suggested above), and the other's a full member (West Texas???). Without Chicago State, that would mean 14 BB and 9 FB members.

(01-06-2021 11:57 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-06-2021 11:52 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-06-2021 10:48 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(01-06-2021 09:42 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Now we enter phase 2

Who would the other 2 schools be??

Also, if Chicago St is leaving that would be 15 which would be odd in more ways than one

According to Wikipedia, the WAC currently has 9 teams and is proposing to add 5 teams. That is 14 including Chicago State. How do you get 15 without Chicago State?

14 with Chicago St plus 2 more that the tweet mentioned would be 16.

Without Chicago St it would be 15

Maybe one's a FB affiliate (like Northern Colorado, as I suggested above), and the other's a full member (West Texas?). That would mean 14 BB and 9 FB members.

That could work.

Northern Colorado would be a great travel partner for Denver in the Summit

(01-06-2021 11:47 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-06-2021 11:01 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(01-06-2021 10:55 AM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(01-06-2021 10:48 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(01-06-2021 09:42 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Now we enter phase 2

Who would the other 2 schools be??

Also, if Chicago St is leaving that would be 15 which would be odd in more ways than one

According to Wikipedia, the WAC currently has 9 teams and is proposing to add 5 teams. That is 14 including Chicago State. How do you get 15 without Chicago State?

Thamel’s tweet literally says the WAC is wanting to add 2 more teams.

I don’t see any info on Chicago St exiting the conference but the writing is somewhat on the walls.

If they choose to add 2, I wonder if they mean football-only (like Central Arkansas, UC Davis, Cal Poly, or San Diego) or if they mean full members. If full members, then I have no idea what current Division I schools would be interested that the Texas-4 would approve. I doubt they mean Division II call-ups but that is very possible.

From the Big Sky, who may be likely to follow Southern Utah? Idaho St, Northern Colorado, and Portland St haven’t been very competitive.

Northern Colorado would make some sense as a FB-only member, with their non-FB sports going to the Summit. If the rest of the WAC would like to eventually get rid of geographic outliers like Seattle, then expanding into the Northwest is probably something they'd seek to avoid. That said, a league stretching from southern California to eastern Texas is not exactly compact.

Northern Colorado is a good fit for the Summit and would probably make Denver, Omaha, Oral Roberts, and UMKC fairly happy. I'm not as concerned about such a wide geographic conference if they really do plan on playing almost exclusively in their division or pseudo-division.

The only way the WAC should even consider Augustana is with a minimum 10 year agreement and heavier exit fees than they would likely agree to. The WAC is beyond being the stepping stone conference for teams moving up who can't get into the conference they really want in.

(01-06-2021 11:01 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  [quote='Todor' pid='17205733' dateline='1609955073']
The only way the WAC should even consider Augustana is with a minimum 10 year agreement and heavier exit fees than they would likely agree to. The WAC is beyond being the stepping stone conference for teams moving up who can't get into the conference they really want in.

Does Augustana have a home to park the rest of their programs if they were to join the WAC as a football-only member? I certainly understand the issues with them joining as an all-sports member, notably the desire for the league to make themselves as geographic compact as possible.

So if the WAC can assemble this motley crue, form an FCS league, and then move up the FBS, we'll have to start talking about the G6, right?

(01-06-2021 12:46 PM)TexasTerror Wrote:  

(01-06-2021 11:01 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  [quote='Todor' pid='17205733' dateline='1609955073']
The only way the WAC should even consider Augustana is with a minimum 10 year agreement and heavier exit fees than they would likely agree to. The WAC is beyond being the stepping stone conference for teams moving up who can't get into the conference they really want in.

Does Augustana have a home to park the rest of their programs if they were to join the WAC as a football-only member? I certainly understand the issues with them joining as an all-sports member, notably the desire for the league to make themselves as geographic compact as possible.

LOL What did I say?

(01-06-2021 12:46 PM)TexasTerror Wrote:  

(01-06-2021 11:01 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  [quote='Todor' pid='17205733' dateline='1609955073']
The only way the WAC should even consider Augustana is with a minimum 10 year agreement and heavier exit fees than they would likely agree to. The WAC is beyond being the stepping stone conference for teams moving up who can't get into the conference they really want in.

Does Augustana have a home to park the rest of their programs if they were to join the WAC as a football-only member? I certainly understand the issues with them joining as an all-sports member, notably the desire for the league to make themselves as geographic compact as possible.

Technically they do with the Summit. But the Summit League doesn't need them thanks to the St. Thomas addition

(01-06-2021 12:44 PM)Todor Wrote:  The only way the WAC should even consider Augustana is with a minimum 10 year agreement and heavier exit fees than they would likely agree to. The WAC is beyond being the stepping stone conference for teams moving up who can't get into the conference they really want in.

I don’t see the Texas teams being too thrilled with bringing in Augustana for all sports. Football only, sure.

(01-06-2021 01:06 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(01-06-2021 12:46 PM)TexasTerror Wrote:  

(01-06-2021 11:01 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  [quote='Todor' pid='17205733' dateline='1609955073']
The only way the WAC should even consider Augustana is with a minimum 10 year agreement and heavier exit fees than they would likely agree to. The WAC is beyond being the stepping stone conference for teams moving up who can't get into the conference they really want in.

Does Augustana have a home to park the rest of their programs if they were to join the WAC as a football-only member? I certainly understand the issues with them joining as an all-sports member, notably the desire for the league to make themselves as geographic compact as possible.

Technically they do with the Summit. But the Summit League doesn't need them thanks to the St. Thomas addition

I thought there was more to it, that the Summit didn't want Augustana because the conference, or at least some of its members, wanted to distance themselves from Sanford.

(01-06-2021 01:21 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-06-2021 01:06 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(01-06-2021 12:46 PM)TexasTerror Wrote:  

(01-06-2021 11:01 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  [quote='Todor' pid='17205733' dateline='1609955073']
The only way the WAC should even consider Augustana is with a minimum 10 year agreement and heavier exit fees than they would likely agree to. The WAC is beyond being the stepping stone conference for teams moving up who can't get into the conference they really want in.

Does Augustana have a home to park the rest of their programs if they were to join the WAC as a football-only member? I certainly understand the issues with them joining as an all-sports member, notably the desire for the league to make themselves as geographic compact as possible.

Technically they do with the Summit. But the Summit League doesn't need them thanks to the St. Thomas addition

I thought there was more to it, that the Summit didn't want Augustana because the conference, or at least some of its members, wanted to distance themselves from Sanford.

There could be. But with St. Thomas earning the waiver to skip D2 altogether, it makes whatever concerns members have with Augustana a moot point. Sports mix or otherwise

(01-06-2021 01:44 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(01-06-2021 01:21 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-06-2021 01:06 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(01-06-2021 12:46 PM)TexasTerror Wrote:  

(01-06-2021 11:01 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  [quote='Todor' pid='17205733' dateline='1609955073']
The only way the WAC should even consider Augustana is with a minimum 10 year agreement and heavier exit fees than they would likely agree to. The WAC is beyond being the stepping stone conference for teams moving up who can't get into the conference they really want in.

Does Augustana have a home to park the rest of their programs if they were to join the WAC as a football-only member? I certainly understand the issues with them joining as an all-sports member, notably the desire for the league to make themselves as geographic compact as possible.

Technically they do with the Summit. But the Summit League doesn't need them thanks to the St. Thomas addition

I thought there was more to it, that the Summit didn't want Augustana because the conference, or at least some of its members, wanted to distance themselves from Sanford.

There could be. But with St. Thomas earning the waiver to skip D2 altogether, it makes whatever concerns members have with Augustana a moot point. Sports mix or otherwise

Not really moot, considering that the Summit's membership isn't fixed. They could need replacements at any time in the near future. This is not to say that they made a bad decision in declining Augustana, however.