(12-14-2020 11:00 AM)LUSportsFan Wrote:  

(12-13-2020 11:47 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  While the comparisons to other FBS programs puts things in perspective, it by no means indicates who "should and shouldn't" be FBS. If a university administration makes the decision to "go FBS" and incur the costs associated with that move (scholarships, staff, salaries, facilities, etc), then so be it. All that university would need is a way to becoming "FBS" (conference invite, lawsuit, etc).

The matter of that university choosing to prioritize the allocation of resources to athletics and away for other more pertinent programs is another discussion.

I don't think allocation of resources needs to be an "either/or" type situation. For example, the last big fund raising campaign was for both athletics and academics. $130 million was raised. A little over $20 million of that went to athletics. The remainder went to academics; most to increase the endowment. A little over $100 million was added to the endowment.

I also think the donors have their own priorties. My personal priority is heavily weighted to the academic side, but I have to confess that Lamar's bringing back football and the many improvements to the athletic facilities increased my interest in the university. I have degrees from both Texas A&M and Lamar. In fact, I'm a 3rd generation Aggie. Our daughter, nieces, and nephew continued the family tradition as 4th generation Aggies. Several in the family have degrees from Lamar as well as other universities.

While contributing to both universities for years, most of my donations went to A&M until around 2010. I still donate to both universities, but I have changed the weighting to favor Lamar. I didn't reduce the donation to A&M. I just increased giving to Lamar. I thought I'd let some other Aggies have the opportunity to pick up the slack. I don't think A&M misses my donation as much as Lamar needs my donation.

For privately raise funds, sure. But when it comes to doling out the public funds it is an either/or.

And very cool on your giving. I lean more towards athletics giving as CA already throws plenty of my income and property tax "giving" at the academic side of things.

(12-14-2020 07:24 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m confused as to what the WAC long term vs WAC short term plan is.

If the long term goal is better basketball and FBS I don’t see how SUU or Dixie St fit in that vision. Or for that matter NAU, UNC, or some of the other proposed 6th full FCS members tossed around. Those schools would probably have to be traded back to the Big Sky before the WAC could collectively jump up.

Nothing too confusing about it. Short term is clearly FCS when considering DSU and SUU. Neither of those programs will be FBS "ready" in the next decade. UNC is even behind those two. NAU could probably find a way to be FBS but recent statements from then completely squashed their interest in the WAC at this point in time.

(12-14-2020 08:18 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(12-14-2020 07:24 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m confused as to what the WAC long term vs WAC short term plan is.

If the long term goal is better basketball and FBS I don’t see how SUU or Dixie St fit in that vision. Or for that matter NAU, UNC, or some of the other proposed 6th full FCS members tossed around. Those schools would probably have to be traded back to the Big Sky before the WAC could collectively jump up.

Nothing too confusing about it. Short term is clearly FCS when considering DSU and SUU. Neither of those programs will be FBS "ready" in the next decade. UNC is even behind those two. NAU could probably find a way to be FBS but recent statements from then completely squashed their interest in the WAC at this point in time.

SUU and Dixie St help with the short term FCS goal but are incompatible with the long term FBS one. If you’re going to try pulling an FBS reboot you’re going to want the Montana’s, maybe Idaho, and the California trio to pair with the Texas schools.

(12-14-2020 08:39 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(12-14-2020 08:18 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(12-14-2020 07:24 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m confused as to what the WAC long term vs WAC short term plan is.

If the long term goal is better basketball and FBS I don’t see how SUU or Dixie St fit in that vision. Or for that matter NAU, UNC, or some of the other proposed 6th full FCS members tossed around. Those schools would probably have to be traded back to the Big Sky before the WAC could collectively jump up.

Nothing too confusing about it. Short term is clearly FCS when considering DSU and SUU. Neither of those programs will be FBS "ready" in the next decade. UNC is even behind those two. NAU could probably find a way to be FBS but recent statements from then completely squashed their interest in the WAC at this point in time.

SUU and Dixie St help with the short term FCS goal but are incompatible with the long term FBS one. If you’re going to try pulling an FBS reboot you’re going to want the Montana’s, maybe Idaho, and the California trio to pair with the Texas schools.

Agreed, which is why FBS aspirations for the WAC seem like a complete longshot at this point.

But hey, credit to the WAC for putting the bed the "WAC is going to die" narratives of just a few years ago. I hope they pull this off.

(12-14-2020 08:42 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(12-14-2020 08:39 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(12-14-2020 08:18 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(12-14-2020 07:24 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m confused as to what the WAC long term vs WAC short term plan is.

If the long term goal is better basketball and FBS I don’t see how SUU or Dixie St fit in that vision. Or for that matter NAU, UNC, or some of the other proposed 6th full FCS members tossed around. Those schools would probably have to be traded back to the Big Sky before the WAC could collectively jump up.

Nothing too confusing about it. Short term is clearly FCS when considering DSU and SUU. Neither of those programs will be FBS "ready" in the next decade. UNC is even behind those two. NAU could probably find a way to be FBS but recent statements from then completely squashed their interest in the WAC at this point in time.

SUU and Dixie St help with the short term FCS goal but are incompatible with the long term FBS one. If you’re going to try pulling an FBS reboot you’re going to want the Montana’s, maybe Idaho, and the California trio to pair with the Texas schools.

Agreed, which is why FBS aspirations for the WAC seem like a complete longshot at this point.

But hey, credit to the WAC for putting the bed the "WAC is going to die" narratives of just a few years ago. I hope they pull this off.

Likewise. The WAC should have football, period.

(12-14-2020 08:42 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(12-14-2020 08:39 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(12-14-2020 08:18 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(12-14-2020 07:24 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m confused as to what the WAC long term vs WAC short term plan is.

If the long term goal is better basketball and FBS I don’t see how SUU or Dixie St fit in that vision. Or for that matter NAU, UNC, or some of the other proposed 6th full FCS members tossed around. Those schools would probably have to be traded back to the Big Sky before the WAC could collectively jump up.

Nothing too confusing about it. Short term is clearly FCS when considering DSU and SUU. Neither of those programs will be FBS "ready" in the next decade. UNC is even behind those two. NAU could probably find a way to be FBS but recent statements from then completely squashed their interest in the WAC at this point in time.

SUU and Dixie St help with the short term FCS goal but are incompatible with the long term FBS one. If you’re going to try pulling an FBS reboot you’re going to want the Montana’s, maybe Idaho, and the California trio to pair with the Texas schools.

Agreed, which is why FBS aspirations for the WAC seem like a complete longshot at this point.

But hey, credit to the WAC for putting the bed the "WAC is going to die" narratives of just a few years ago. I hope they pull this off.

Just my 2 cents

The short term goal is to
1. Stabilize the WAC by adding more members

2. Build a core footprint in the southwest that doesn't scare schools from moving to the league

3. Poach schools from other leagues to show they are still viable

4. Add good basketball programs to make a name, strengthen RPI, get better tournament results

5. Have FCS league to give members time to ramp up for FBS

Long Term-
1. Give NMST an FBS Conference

2. Give the TX4 schools a path to FBS (neither the SBC OR cusa were going to call)

3. Good basketball turns it into multibid league

4. Winning product plus marketz helps puts eyeballs and more tv dollars on contract

(12-14-2020 07:24 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m confused as to what the WAC long term vs WAC short term plan is.

If the long term goal is better basketball and FBS I don’t see how SUU or Dixie St fit in that vision. Or for that matter NAU, UNC, or some of the other proposed 6th full FCS members tossed around. Those schools would probably have to be traded back to the Big Sky before the WAC could collectively jump up.

I think they want to be the opposite of what they are, a far flung starter D1 conference and become more of regular mid major conference.

The moves they've been making lately seem their is interest in creating a border conference full of SW mid majors and sensing the Southland configuration isn't working for some of the bigger schools which occupy it.

It won't be perfect but taking a group of Texas schools to provide an anchor much like the Summit grabbed the Dakotas to give it a nice nucleus.

Regarding my previous post about giving The Texas schools a path to FBS,

LUFan will tell you that Lamar wanted to go to the WAC when TXST joined. The WAC didn't take them.

Then when the 2013 defections happened Lamars name was thrown around but not enough schools (Montana, Montana State, UCDavis, SFA, Sam Houston, etc) were not ready to move up.

Reading the Sun Belt board, posters have made comments of not taking Southland schools since many came there and tried to create separation. Texas State (two years removed from the Southland was technically a WAC school). Anyway SBC sees itself as better than CuSA and would be reluctant to take an FCS start up right now. The eastern schools also want more eastern members.

Cusa is bloated with Texas teams. Creating a logjam unless any of those teams league. If they lost TX school, TXST is already FBS and would accept the invite to get off their island. CUSA sees itself as better than SBC and wouldn't risk the prestige hit of sponsoring and FCS move up.

AAC and MWC is a non starter.


The Southland is what it is. A hyper regional conference with its core along the Sabine River. Its an alright FCS conference and a poor basketball conference. Its been that way for years and will likely continue to be that way.

At least with the WAC, there will be a core of schools who are okay with spending money, expanding their brand throughout the West, and dangles the possibility of FBS if they want it.

(12-14-2020 09:19 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(12-14-2020 07:24 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m confused as to what the WAC long term vs WAC short term plan is.

If the long term goal is better basketball and FBS I don’t see how SUU or Dixie St fit in that vision. Or for that matter NAU, UNC, or some of the other proposed 6th full FCS members tossed around. Those schools would probably have to be traded back to the Big Sky before the WAC could collectively jump up.

I think they want to be the opposite of what they are, a far flung starter D1 conference and become more of regular mid major conference.

The moves they've been making lately seem their is interest in creating a border conference full of SW mid majors and sensing the Southland configuration isn't working for some of the bigger schools which occupy it.

It won't be perfect but taking a group of Texas schools to provide an anchor much like the Summit grabbed the Dakotas to give it a nice nucleus.

*If* the internet speculation turns into reality, they'll have a more stable conference (stability in numbers) with FCS football. Kind of a southwestern-centered version of the Big Sky. I think that's as far as they can realistically hope to go with it.

(12-14-2020 08:39 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(12-14-2020 08:18 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(12-14-2020 07:24 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m confused as to what the WAC long term vs WAC short term plan is.

If the long term goal is better basketball and FBS I don’t see how SUU or Dixie St fit in that vision. Or for that matter NAU, UNC, or some of the other proposed 6th full FCS members tossed around. Those schools would probably have to be traded back to the Big Sky before the WAC could collectively jump up.

Nothing too confusing about it. Short term is clearly FCS when considering DSU and SUU. Neither of those programs will be FBS "ready" in the next decade. UNC is even behind those two. NAU could probably find a way to be FBS but recent statements from then completely squashed their interest in the WAC at this point in time.

SUU and Dixie St help with the short term FCS goal but are incompatible with the long term FBS one. If you’re going to try pulling an FBS reboot you’re going to want the Montana’s, maybe Idaho, and the California trio to pair with the Texas schools.

I could see a south western conference working without having to go to o the montana schools and idaho. Maybe a eastern part with the Texas schools and the western portion with North Arizona, Dixie State, Southern Utah and maybe 3 football only members in California? Maybe Cal Poly, UC Davis and would San Diego be interested in FBS football or scholarship football in general?

(12-14-2020 10:44 PM)46566 Wrote:  

(12-14-2020 08:39 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(12-14-2020 08:18 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(12-14-2020 07:24 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m confused as to what the WAC long term vs WAC short term plan is.

If the long term goal is better basketball and FBS I don’t see how SUU or Dixie St fit in that vision. Or for that matter NAU, UNC, or some of the other proposed 6th full FCS members tossed around. Those schools would probably have to be traded back to the Big Sky before the WAC could collectively jump up.

Nothing too confusing about it. Short term is clearly FCS when considering DSU and SUU. Neither of those programs will be FBS "ready" in the next decade. UNC is even behind those two. NAU could probably find a way to be FBS but recent statements from then completely squashed their interest in the WAC at this point in time.

SUU and Dixie St help with the short term FCS goal but are incompatible with the long term FBS one. If you’re going to try pulling an FBS reboot you’re going to want the Montana’s, maybe Idaho, and the California trio to pair with the Texas schools.

I could see a south western conference working without having to go to o the montana schools and idaho. Maybe a eastern part with the Texas schools and the western portion with North Arizona, Dixie State, Southern Utah and maybe 3 football only members in California? Maybe Cal Poly, UC Davis and would San Diego be interested in FBS football or scholarship football in general?

With so few of the universities out west at the FBS level is it really as important prestige wise to be playing it?

I get in the south where it does impact your perception moving you from "nothing" school to "half-way decent" by having the FBS ball.

For the schools in MWC you have to realize that was formed to become an AQ conference and be part of major football. There is no fun belt equivalent out west. The Big West had that role 30 years ago but many programs dropped.

(12-14-2020 11:04 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(12-14-2020 10:44 PM)46566 Wrote:  

(12-14-2020 08:39 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(12-14-2020 08:18 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(12-14-2020 07:24 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m confused as to what the WAC long term vs WAC short term plan is.

If the long term goal is better basketball and FBS I don’t see how SUU or Dixie St fit in that vision. Or for that matter NAU, UNC, or some of the other proposed 6th full FCS members tossed around. Those schools would probably have to be traded back to the Big Sky before the WAC could collectively jump up.

Nothing too confusing about it. Short term is clearly FCS when considering DSU and SUU. Neither of those programs will be FBS "ready" in the next decade. UNC is even behind those two. NAU could probably find a way to be FBS but recent statements from then completely squashed their interest in the WAC at this point in time.

SUU and Dixie St help with the short term FCS goal but are incompatible with the long term FBS one. If you’re going to try pulling an FBS reboot you’re going to want the Montana’s, maybe Idaho, and the California trio to pair with the Texas schools.

I could see a south western conference working without having to go to o the montana schools and idaho. Maybe a eastern part with the Texas schools and the western portion with North Arizona, Dixie State, Southern Utah and maybe 3 football only members in California? Maybe Cal Poly, UC Davis and would San Diego be interested in FBS football or scholarship football in general?

With so few of the universities out west at the FBS level is it really as important prestige wise to be playing it?

I get in the south where it does impact your perception moving you from "nothing" school to "half-way decent" by having the FBS ball.

For the schools in MWC you have to realize that was formed to become an AQ conference and be part of major football. There is no fun belt equivalent out west. The Big West had that role 30 years ago but many programs dropped.

With all the teams playing scholarship football but San Diego the money spent from the potential increase in money game in non conference. The california football only schools could easily schedule games against the MWC or Pac 12. It's basically going to turn into the third tiered FBS conference. Kind of how the Sun Belt and C-USA kinda flip flop in the South East. The reason I focused on the south west was Northern Arizona really only shares the state with the PAC 12 Arizona school and NAU can flip flop as a paid home game for the PAC 12 schools. While this almost doubles the utah FBS schools you figure Dixie State or SUU would pick up games against Utah State or BYU.(early non con games against Utah) The only problem would honestly upgrading the Texas schools to FBS. Though I could see home and homes with C-USA or Sun Belt schools.

For the new WAC football conference prestige really wouldn't really factor in other than possibly more tv exposure. The hardest sell would I think be the 3 football only California schools as 2 are happy in the Big West and the third is happy in the WCC and I think playing non scholarship football in the pioneer. In my mind the only reason I would think any of the California schools say yes would be to position themselves for a potential all sports MWC invite. That's mainly because I don't think Hawaii football only is a viable long term solution. I think a team playing in California at the FBS level would be a good replacement.

(12-14-2020 07:24 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m confused as to what the WAC long term vs WAC short term plan is.

If the long term goal is better basketball and FBS I don’t see how SUU or Dixie St fit in that vision. Or for that matter NAU, UNC, or some of the other proposed 6th full FCS members tossed around. Those schools would probably have to be traded back to the Big Sky before the WAC could collectively jump up.

There is no long term plan for the WAC. You can see each move as being triggered by the prior move. Everything has been a game to stay one step ahead of the grim reaper. It was an act of near desperation to add the likes of Utah Valley, Chicago State and UTPA (now UTRGV) and also GCU (last straw for DU). Some of these have worked out reasonably well, and the objections at the time perhaps unwarranted.

Fast forward, you see the addition of Cal Baptist, and what looked like stability and a western wing, only to see CSU Bakersfield depart and UMKC decide to limp back to the Summit. Add one lose two, Chicago State a basket case no one dares pull the trigger to execute because of the need for a warm (in this case warmed over) body just to make the numbers.

Next they turned to football schools in D-II, but in talking Dixie State and then Tarleton State to join they essentially commit to fhe future formation of an FCS football conference. But even picking up Southern Utah (possibly making the dumbest move since UMKC switched from the Summit to the WAC in the first place -- i dunno perhaps the same logic at play, "if we move down to the WAC our teams will move up in the standings"), the WAC found itself forced to push east to find teams.

Enter the disgruntled Texas State U schools of the SLC plus fellow SLC member Abilene Christian. Suddenly Football looks plausible, but can they get a 6th current FCS member? There is no long term planning. They are desperately banging on the doors of Weber State, trying to find somebody acceptable to the Texas five. Perhaps they succeed, perhaps Central Arkansas can be convinced to swing West instead if East. Then what?

IMO they create a ready made split. All the schools who play Football don't play Men's soccer and vis versa. The Football will have 5 schools in Texas, and perhaps a 6th from the same region. These schools will soon tire of trips to Utah, Arizona, California and Washington for their women's Tennis and Volleyball. Sports like Baseball will almost certainly divide along the same lines with essentially Independent Divisions for play. I have little doubt this group having essentially formed an new Texas based Division for Football will break away from the rest of the WAC, maybe taking NMSU with them, enough schools to meet the continuous play.

But then again the WAC commissioner is in his late 60's, and those 5+ years secure his retirement pension. That in the end may well be the extent of WAC long term planning.

Stu I don't think you are giving the WAC enough credit here. Sure early on it was purely survival, but as time went on and the WAC realized they were going to make it as a conference they were able to cobble together a plan. It may look like a haphazard formation of an FCS conference, but getting more than 1 D2 FB school to sign on followed by a potential raid of the SLC (yes, I said it, the WAC is raiding the SLC, somebody had to f*cking say it) is certainly more than just "desperately banging on doors".

And knocking the WAC for having too many members is a pleasant problem for the WAC to have considering what they clawed themselves out of. So I say kudos to the WAC for even being where they are. I hope they pull this off.

(12-14-2020 07:24 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m confused as to what the WAC long term vs WAC short term plan is.

If the long term goal is better basketball and FBS I don’t see how SUU or Dixie St fit in that vision. Or for that matter NAU, UNC, or some of the other proposed 6th full FCS members tossed around. Those schools would probably have to be traded back to the Big Sky before the WAC could collectively jump up.

Short term is probably guaranteeing long term survival and improving hoops. For the D2 call ups it’s about getting FCS football and having opponents to play

Long term maybe you can squint and see FBS football but that still seems very far away and probably only if a few schools are willing to be bold and move up on their own first

(12-15-2020 06:32 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(12-14-2020 07:24 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m confused as to what the WAC long term vs WAC short term plan is.

If the long term goal is better basketball and FBS I don’t see how SUU or Dixie St fit in that vision. Or for that matter NAU, UNC, or some of the other proposed 6th full FCS members tossed around. Those schools would probably have to be traded back to the Big Sky before the WAC could collectively jump up.

Short term is probably guaranteeing long term survival and improving hoops. For the D2 call ups it’s about getting FCS football and having opponents to play

Long term maybe you can squint and see FBS football but that still seems very far away and probably only if a few schools are willing to be bold and move up on their own first

Long term is also having those FBS thoughts with a willing cluster that attracts other potential candidates to hop aboard and move up. And WAC can reemerge as one of those western conferences with a far-flung footprint yet again. And maybe once it reemerges as FBS, attracts others already in FBS? Rebuild the MWC feeder conference, but more unlikely to get poached as deeply as it did the last time.

One thing is for sure, Chicago State’s days are done.

(12-14-2020 08:39 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(12-14-2020 08:18 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(12-14-2020 07:24 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m confused as to what the WAC long term vs WAC short term plan is.

If the long term goal is better basketball and FBS I don’t see how SUU or Dixie St fit in that vision. Or for that matter NAU, UNC, or some of the other proposed 6th full FCS members tossed around. Those schools would probably have to be traded back to the Big Sky before the WAC could collectively jump up.

Nothing too confusing about it. Short term is clearly FCS when considering DSU and SUU. Neither of those programs will be FBS "ready" in the next decade. UNC is even behind those two. NAU could probably find a way to be FBS but recent statements from then completely squashed their interest in the WAC at this point in time.

SUU and Dixie St help with the short term FCS goal but are incompatible with the long term FBS one. If you’re going to try pulling an FBS reboot you’re going to want the Montana’s, maybe Idaho, and the California trio to pair with the Texas schools.

If I remember right, Dixie State did raised money for an upgrade on their stadium. The idea is to have a 15,000 seats in the next few years, and could go beyond that. Dixie State along with West Texas A&M can help on the men's basketball side. Offer Texas Southern as a football only since they do have the stadium size to play with.

Northern Colorado would have trouble in raising money to go FBS. They are in the shadows of Colorado and Colorado State. That is why Colorado Mesa's name came up.

(12-15-2020 12:46 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(12-14-2020 07:24 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’m confused as to what the WAC long term vs WAC short term plan is.

If the long term goal is better basketball and FBS I don’t see how SUU or Dixie St fit in that vision. Or for that matter NAU, UNC, or some of the other proposed 6th full FCS members tossed around. Those schools would probably have to be traded back to the Big Sky before the WAC could collectively jump up.

There is no long term plan for the WAC. You can see each move as being triggered by the prior move. Everything has been a game to stay one step ahead of the grim reaper. It was an act of near desperation to add the likes of Utah Valley, Chicago State and UTPA (now UTRGV) and also GCU (last straw for DU). Some of these have worked out reasonably well, and the objections at the time perhaps unwarranted.

Fast forward, you see the addition of Cal Baptist, and what looked like stability and a western wing, only to see CSU Bakersfield depart and UMKC decide to limp back to the Summit. Add one lose two, Chicago State a basket case no one dares pull the trigger to execute because of the need for a warm (in this case warmed over) body just to make the numbers.

Next they turned to football schools in D-II, but in talking Dixie State and then Tarleton State to join they essentially commit to fhe future formation of an FCS football conference. But even picking up Southern Utah (possibly making the dumbest move since UMKC switched from the Summit to the WAC in the first place -- i dunno perhaps the same logic at play, "if we move down to the WAC our teams will move up in the standings"), the WAC found itself forced to push east to find teams.

Enter the disgruntled Texas State U schools of the SLC plus fellow SLC member Abilene Christian. Suddenly Football looks plausible, but can they get a 6th current FCS member? There is no long term planning. They are desperately banging on the doors of Weber State, trying to find somebody acceptable to the Texas five. Perhaps they succeed, perhaps Central Arkansas can be convinced to swing West instead if East. Then what?

IMO they create a ready made split. All the schools who play Football don't play Men's soccer and vis versa. The Football will have 5 schools in Texas, and perhaps a 6th from the same region. These schools will soon tire of trips to Utah, Arizona, California and Washington for their women's Tennis and Volleyball. Sports like Baseball will almost certainly divide along the same lines with essentially Independent Divisions for play. I have little doubt this group having essentially formed an new Texas based Division for Football will break away from the rest of the WAC, maybe taking NMSU with them, enough schools to meet the continuous play.

But then again the WAC commissioner is in his late 60's, and those 5+ years secure his retirement pension. That in the end may well be the extent of WAC long term planning.

The long term plan is that California Baptist, Seattle U. and Chicago State will not be in the WAC. Matt said the plan for the conference is to have schools in a tight pattern of Arizona, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Texas and maybe Oklahoma in Central Oklahoma as another name that came up.