The WAC schools, both those in Texas and a few others, really want to get rid of Seattle. But I don't see a home for them anywhere. Big Sky? MWC? No football, not a public school. Big West? Not a California public school. WCC? Not if Gonzaga or BYU have any say. None of these conferences need anyone anyway, and certainly not a school regularly above 200 NET.

At the end of the day, Seattle is a full equity member of the WAC and they cannot be booted or let go like Chicago State. So they are going to have to live with them.

(05-14-2021 08:30 PM)SactoHornetAlum Wrote:  

(05-14-2021 07:34 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-14-2021 06:30 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’ll play devils’s advocate here a little with Seattle:

The WAC has picked a new direction and footprint and it’s not favorable to them.

The Big Sky has a friendly footprint but is a public school football league.

Their dream conference, the WCC, won’t take them if their bad at basketball (Hurts RPI) nor will they take them if they get good (Gonzaga doesn’t want competition in their backyard).

There’s really not any friendly scenarios for Seattle and I really don’t see that changing unless something crazy and massive (like Gonzaga joining the MWC) happens. Maybe it would be better to cut costs and settle into a geographically friendly D2 or D3 league.

Seattle fits very nice with the Big Sky. But does the Big Sky want a non football school? Seattle as #11 would give the Big Sky the option of 20 conference games which is the trend the conferences are heading towards.

No. Big Sky will not take a non-football school.

I agree, unless the Big Sky loses another all-sports member — say Northern Colorado to the Summit League as a backfill for Western Illinois.

That would drop the conference down to 9 all-sports members, which isn’t ideal for scheduling. In that scenario Seattle might get a look, since the other potential additions in the Big Sky footprint would be limited to D2 move-ups from the GNAC or RMAC.

(05-14-2021 11:24 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(05-14-2021 08:30 PM)SactoHornetAlum Wrote:  

(05-14-2021 07:34 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(05-14-2021 06:30 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’ll play devils’s advocate here a little with Seattle:

The WAC has picked a new direction and footprint and it’s not favorable to them.

The Big Sky has a friendly footprint but is a public school football league.

Their dream conference, the WCC, won’t take them if their bad at basketball (Hurts RPI) nor will they take them if they get good (Gonzaga doesn’t want competition in their backyard).

There’s really not any friendly scenarios for Seattle and I really don’t see that changing unless something crazy and massive (like Gonzaga joining the MWC) happens. Maybe it would be better to cut costs and settle into a geographically friendly D2 or D3 league.

Seattle fits very nice with the Big Sky. But does the Big Sky want a non football school? Seattle as #11 would give the Big Sky the option of 20 conference games which is the trend the conferences are heading towards.

No. Big Sky will not take a non-football school.

I agree, unless the Big Sky loses another all-sports member — say Northern Colorado to the Summit League as a backfill for Western Illinois.

That would drop the conference down to 9 all-sports members, which isn’t ideal for scheduling. In that scenario Seattle might get a look, since the other potential additions in the Big Sky footprint would be limited to D2 move-ups from the GNAC or RMAC.

Also tightens the geography even more to the PNW.

(05-14-2021 11:24 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(05-14-2021 08:30 PM)SactoHornetAlum Wrote:  No. Big Sky will not take a non-football school.

I agree, unless the Big Sky loses another all-sports member — say Northern Colorado to the Summit League as a backfill for Western Illinois.

That would drop the conference down to 9 all-sports members, which isn’t ideal for scheduling. In that scenario Seattle might get a look, since the other potential additions in the Big Sky footprint would be limited to D2 move-ups from the GNAC or RMAC.

This seems like a fair point. I have seen a number of "will not take" schools as expansions ending up as invites by the same conference after it has lost one or more members.

If Seattle were ever in a position to start Pioneer League football, being in the Big Sky at least gives them a ready slate of "non-conference" opponents. Lumen Field would be overkill for home games, but it is 10 minutes from campus.

(05-14-2021 07:50 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  I've said it once, I'll say it again. Outside of the WCC, the Summit is the best fit for Seattle. The flight time from Seattle to MSP is only 5 minutes longer than the flight time from Seattle to El Paso (and St. Thomas is 12 mins to MSP whereas NMSU is 50 mins to ELP). Denver and St. Thomas are peer institutions to Seattle, and several of the schools are in major metro areas (like Seattle). With WIU to the OVC and Seattle to the Summit, the Summit naturally partitions into travel partners (where Seattle is paired with Denver).

https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/...rsity.html
Seattle is an outlier in every league but the WCC. Their students come from out west:

Washington 42.7%
California 21.3%
Oregon 8.6%
Hawaii 8.5%
Colorado 3.7%
Arizona 2.0%
Idaho 1.8%
Utah 1.7%
Texas 1.4%
Nevada 1.2%

Seattle is a western school and needs to be in a western league. One out of five their students come from California, so I cannot imagine why Seattle would want to be in a Dakota centric league. Traveling to Fargo, North Dakota, Brooking South Dakota, Tulsa, Oklahoma and Macomb, Illinois has got to be low on their list. They are not recruiting students or athletes in these areas.

Denver and Seattle joined the WAC together back in 2011, Denver stayed for just one season. As it stands right now, there is no reason to join Denver in the Summit. Denver does not have a baseball team, or a cross country team or a track & field team. In men's soccer, Air Force, UNLV, and San Jose State are associate members of the WAC. In men's baseball, Sacramento State is an associate member. There is no travel advantage to the Summit.

The WAC in 2021 will have 13 baseball teams and 11 men's soccer teams. The Summit will have 7 baseball teams and 7 men's soccer teams. If WIU leaves for the OVC, that will be down to six each. It is not the most secure league. This whole subject started because some guy decided to write a speculative article on contraction. The WAC is not looking to get rid of Seattle. Seattle is the top academic school in the conference. They have developed rivalries with western schools like CBU, GCU and UVU. They have the 14th largest TV market in the country, a lot of athletic talent in the area and they move into the Climate Pledge Arena this fall. The WAC does not want them to leave and it makes no sense for a school like Seattle to leave for the Summit.

(05-15-2021 05:00 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/...rsity.html
Seattle is an outlier in every league but the WCC. Their students come from out west:

Washington 42.7%
California 21.3%
Oregon 8.6%
Hawaii 8.5%
Colorado 3.7%
Arizona 2.0%
Idaho 1.8%
Utah 1.7%
Texas 1.4%
Nevada 1.2%

Seattle is a western school and needs to be in a western league. One out of five their students come from California, so I cannot imagine why Seattle would want to be in a Dakota centric league. Traveling to Fargo, North Dakota, Brooking South Dakota, Tulsa, Oklahoma and Macomb, Illinois has got to be low on their list. They are not recruiting students or athletes in these areas.

Denver and Seattle joined the WAC together back in 2011, Denver stayed for just one season. As it stands right now, there is no reason to join Denver in the Summit. Denver does not have a baseball team, or a cross country team or a track & field team. In men's soccer, Air Force, UNLV, and San Jose State are associate members of the WAC. In men's baseball, Sacramento State is an associate member. There is no travel advantage to the Summit.

The WAC in 2021 will have 13 baseball teams and 11 men's soccer teams. The Summit will have 7 baseball teams and 7 men's soccer teams. If WIU leaves for the OVC, that will be down to six each. It is not the most secure league. This whole subject started because some guy decided to write a speculative article on contraction. The WAC is not looking to get rid of Seattle. Seattle is the top academic school in the conference. They have developed rivalries with western schools like CBU, GCU and UVU. They have the 14th largest TV market in the country, a lot of athletic talent in the area and they move into the Climate Pledge Arena this fall. The WAC does not want them to leave and it makes no sense for a school like Seattle to leave for the Summit.

Thanks for responding with a thought-out, data-driven answer. This board needs more of that. However, I never stated that Seattle would move to the Summit League. I said that the best fit for Seattle, outside of the WCC, is the Summit League less WIU (which could be heading to the OVC). In addition, I don't think that it's likely that they do move.

Regarding your undergraduate breakdown - I think this actually provides evidence that Seattle ought to leave the WAC. Yes, Seattle has a large population of students who come from western states. I think it is silly to assume that this is closely tied to the fact that Seattle is in the WAC. I think it's far more likely that Seattle is pulling students from across the west due to it being located in a major, popular city that's fairly close by. Seattle's pull in California isn't going to rapidly decline because they're no longer playing Cal Baptist. In contrast, they could attempt to make inroads in Denver, Minneapolis, Kansas City, and Omaha were they to join the Summit. Denver and MSP in particular are culturally similar enough to Seattle that they could probably get a good chunk of students from these areas by raising awareness of their existence. Matt Brown has written much on this topic.

Regarding recruiting - this may be a loss. However, it looks like most of their basketball recruits come from the Bay Area. Only two of their men's basketball players came from the LA area, and one is a grad transfer from Washington State. Otherwise, their roster overlaps minimally with the rest of the WAC footprint.

On soccer, cc, and track and field - yes, travel may be worse in these sports. I think overall, travel will be easier (if and only if WIU leaves). In sports like MBB, they also won't have to play the same team twice in one weekend, which looks bush league.

Regarding stability - this is a real concern. Purely personal opinion, but I do think that the Summit is getting more stable and is certainly of comparable stability to the WAC. The sports question is a real concern though.

Regarding the WAC getting rid of Seattle - I think for the most part, this is correct. However, the WAC isn't a monolith and there are clearly some people in the WAC who do want to get rid of Seattle. We can only speculate on how prevalent that view is.

(05-16-2021 11:40 AM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  

(05-15-2021 05:00 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/...rsity.html
Seattle is an outlier in every league but the WCC. Their students come from out west:

Washington 42.7%
California 21.3%
Oregon 8.6%
Hawaii 8.5%
Colorado 3.7%
Arizona 2.0%
Idaho 1.8%
Utah 1.7%
Texas 1.4%
Nevada 1.2%

Seattle is a western school and needs to be in a western league. One out of five their students come from California, so I cannot imagine why Seattle would want to be in a Dakota centric league. Traveling to Fargo, North Dakota, Brooking South Dakota, Tulsa, Oklahoma and Macomb, Illinois has got to be low on their list. They are not recruiting students or athletes in these areas.

Denver and Seattle joined the WAC together back in 2011, Denver stayed for just one season. As it stands right now, there is no reason to join Denver in the Summit. Denver does not have a baseball team, or a cross country team or a track & field team. In men's soccer, Air Force, UNLV, and San Jose State are associate members of the WAC. In men's baseball, Sacramento State is an associate member. There is no travel advantage to the Summit.

The WAC in 2021 will have 13 baseball teams and 11 men's soccer teams. The Summit will have 7 baseball teams and 7 men's soccer teams. If WIU leaves for the OVC, that will be down to six each. It is not the most secure league. This whole subject started because some guy decided to write a speculative article on contraction. The WAC is not looking to get rid of Seattle. Seattle is the top academic school in the conference. They have developed rivalries with western schools like CBU, GCU and UVU. They have the 14th largest TV market in the country, a lot of athletic talent in the area and they move into the Climate Pledge Arena this fall. The WAC does not want them to leave and it makes no sense for a school like Seattle to leave for the Summit.

Thanks for responding with a thought-out, data-driven answer. This board needs more of that. However, I never stated that Seattle would move to the Summit League. I said that the best fit for Seattle, outside of the WCC, is the Summit League less WIU (which could be heading to the OVC). In addition, I don't think that it's likely that they do move.

Regarding your undergraduate breakdown - I think this actually provides evidence that Seattle ought to leave the WAC. Yes, Seattle has a large population of students who come from western states. I think it is silly to assume that this is closely tied to the fact that Seattle is in the WAC. I think it's far more likely that Seattle is pulling students from across the west due to it being located in a major, popular city that's fairly close by. Seattle's pull in California isn't going to rapidly decline because they're no longer playing Cal Baptist. In contrast, they could attempt to make inroads in Denver, Minneapolis, Kansas City, and Omaha were they to join the Summit. Denver and MSP in particular are culturally similar enough to Seattle that they could probably get a good chunk of students from these areas by raising awareness of their existence. Matt Brown has written much on this topic.

Regarding recruiting - this may be a loss. However, it looks like most of their basketball recruits come from the Bay Area. Only two of their men's basketball players came from the LA area, and one is a grad transfer from Washington State. Otherwise, their roster overlaps minimally with the rest of the WAC footprint.

On soccer, cc, and track and field - yes, travel may be worse in these sports. I think overall, travel will be easier (if and only if WIU leaves). In sports like MBB, they also won't have to play the same team twice in one weekend, which looks bush league.

Regarding stability - this is a real concern. Purely personal opinion, but I do think that the Summit is getting more stable and is certainly of comparable stability to the WAC. The sports question is a real concern though.

Regarding the WAC getting rid of Seattle - I think for the most part, this is correct. However, the WAC isn't a monolith and there are clearly some people in the WAC who do want to get rid of Seattle. We can only speculate on how prevalent that view is.

Aside from Temple football who was really been kicked out of a conference? Seattle will leave the WAC voluntarily when and if they ever do.

(05-16-2021 11:52 AM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(05-16-2021 11:40 AM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  

(05-15-2021 05:00 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/...rsity.html
Seattle is an outlier in every league but the WCC. Their students come from out west:

Washington 42.7%
California 21.3%
Oregon 8.6%
Hawaii 8.5%
Colorado 3.7%
Arizona 2.0%
Idaho 1.8%
Utah 1.7%
Texas 1.4%
Nevada 1.2%

Seattle is a western school and needs to be in a western league. One out of five their students come from California, so I cannot imagine why Seattle would want to be in a Dakota centric league. Traveling to Fargo, North Dakota, Brooking South Dakota, Tulsa, Oklahoma and Macomb, Illinois has got to be low on their list. They are not recruiting students or athletes in these areas.

Denver and Seattle joined the WAC together back in 2011, Denver stayed for just one season. As it stands right now, there is no reason to join Denver in the Summit. Denver does not have a baseball team, or a cross country team or a track & field team. In men's soccer, Air Force, UNLV, and San Jose State are associate members of the WAC. In men's baseball, Sacramento State is an associate member. There is no travel advantage to the Summit.

The WAC in 2021 will have 13 baseball teams and 11 men's soccer teams. The Summit will have 7 baseball teams and 7 men's soccer teams. If WIU leaves for the OVC, that will be down to six each. It is not the most secure league. This whole subject started because some guy decided to write a speculative article on contraction. The WAC is not looking to get rid of Seattle. Seattle is the top academic school in the conference. They have developed rivalries with western schools like CBU, GCU and UVU. They have the 14th largest TV market in the country, a lot of athletic talent in the area and they move into the Climate Pledge Arena this fall. The WAC does not want them to leave and it makes no sense for a school like Seattle to leave for the Summit.

Thanks for responding with a thought-out, data-driven answer. This board needs more of that. However, I never stated that Seattle would move to the Summit League. I said that the best fit for Seattle, outside of the WCC, is the Summit League less WIU (which could be heading to the OVC). In addition, I don't think that it's likely that they do move.

Regarding your undergraduate breakdown - I think this actually provides evidence that Seattle ought to leave the WAC. Yes, Seattle has a large population of students who come from western states. I think it is silly to assume that this is closely tied to the fact that Seattle is in the WAC. I think it's far more likely that Seattle is pulling students from across the west due to it being located in a major, popular city that's fairly close by. Seattle's pull in California isn't going to rapidly decline because they're no longer playing Cal Baptist. In contrast, they could attempt to make inroads in Denver, Minneapolis, Kansas City, and Omaha were they to join the Summit. Denver and MSP in particular are culturally similar enough to Seattle that they could probably get a good chunk of students from these areas by raising awareness of their existence. Matt Brown has written much on this topic.

Regarding recruiting - this may be a loss. However, it looks like most of their basketball recruits come from the Bay Area. Only two of their men's basketball players came from the LA area, and one is a grad transfer from Washington State. Otherwise, their roster overlaps minimally with the rest of the WAC footprint.

On soccer, cc, and track and field - yes, travel may be worse in these sports. I think overall, travel will be easier (if and only if WIU leaves). In sports like MBB, they also won't have to play the same team twice in one weekend, which looks bush league.

Regarding stability - this is a real concern. Purely personal opinion, but I do think that the Summit is getting more stable and is certainly of comparable stability to the WAC. The sports question is a real concern though.

Regarding the WAC getting rid of Seattle - I think for the most part, this is correct. However, the WAC isn't a monolith and there are clearly some people in the WAC who do want to get rid of Seattle. We can only speculate on how prevalent that view is.

Aside from Temple football who was really been kicked out of a conference? Seattle will leave the WAC voluntarily when and if they ever do.

None of the new members, who seem to be terrified of having to board a plane, will hardly ever actually visit Seattle for any sport, so they don't have squat to say.

The WAC is stuck with Seattle. A full equity member in good standing cannot be booted, even if a clear majority wants them out, as is the case. (The Texas schools count, they are an important bloc now)

Bottom SU will not invest the tens of $millions they need to in order to have WCC level basketball, which means they are stuck. Football rules them out of the MWC and Big Sky, not being a CSU or UC rules them out of the Big West. So they have nowhere to go.

But SU has little incentive to invest what is needed in basketball. The AI indicates they suffer not one iota from having lousy basketball and athletics that draw essentially zero students to attend. It is not a factor in kids deciding to attend. I know this also from my son's HS, Archbishop Mitty, where they have a board up on the wall and an annual report on where students are accepted and attend. After the UCs and CSUs, the WCC schools (except BYU) and SU are the preferred destinations of those who go to a private below the Ivy League, each getting anywhere from a half dozen to twenty applications (It's a decent sized high school). SU is Jesuit and well tied into the West Coast Catholic HS system. That is far more important than sports for recruiting for all of theses schools. Especially since they tend to run almost 7 to 5 women.

ADs can bark all they want, but the contract is solid. They are going to have to pay the expensive flights to Seattle and deal with lost class time. The preference is to shrink to 12, but nobody has an exit. To be quite frank the most likely school to bolt is New Mexico State, should any G5 slot open up.

(05-16-2021 11:40 AM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  

(05-15-2021 05:00 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

Thanks for responding with a thought-out, data-driven answer. This board needs more of that. However, I never stated that Seattle would move to the Summit League. I said that the best fit for Seattle, outside of the WCC, is the Summit League less WIU (which could be heading to the OVC). In addition, I don't think that it's likely that they do move.

Those two things are both true. (I don't know that Western Illinois is motivated to move, but the rest holds up.)

Quote:Yes, Seattle has a large population of students who come from western states. I think it is silly to assume that this is closely tied to the fact that Seattle is in the WAC. I

This is true. But the sentence right before it.....

Quote:Regarding your undergraduate breakdown - I think this actually provides evidence that Seattle ought to leave the WAC.

The problem is, realistically there's nowhere to go. The WCC would be Seattle's choice, but WCC pretty clearly doesn't want them. Big Sky is a geographic fit (mostly--not as much California as Seattle U would prefer) but not a cultural fit (public universities) and not a sports lineup fit (no football). There's no evidence the Summit would return a phone call--hypothetical Seattle-metro-area applications vs very real travel dollars flying to the Pacific coast.

So you say "they should leave the WAC", when that means--freeze in the dark as a Division I independent.

Even if there were any traction behind a real anti-Seattle movement (which I don't believe is anything more than casual b*tching) all Seattle has to do is wait a few years until half the Texas schools move on to their next "dream" conference and the WAC is again the Western Athletic Conference and schools actually in the West predominate. I can't imagine this iteration of the conference without Seattle. They are an essential member in my opinion.

Outside of RGV, the Texas schools are the WAC misfits, not Seattle.

(05-16-2021 01:04 PM)Todor Wrote:  Even if there were any traction behind a real anti-Seattle movement (which I don't believe is anything more than casual b*tching) all Seattle has to do is wait a few years until half the Texas schools move on to their next "dream" conference and the WAC is again the Western Athletic Conference and schools actually in the West predominate. I can't imagine this iteration of the conference without Seattle. They are an essential member in my opinion.

Outside of RGV, the Texas schools are the WAC misfits, not Seattle.

NMSU is actually the misfit

(05-16-2021 01:36 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(05-16-2021 01:04 PM)Todor Wrote:  Even if there were any traction behind a real anti-Seattle movement (which I don't believe is anything more than casual b*tching) all Seattle has to do is wait a few years until half the Texas schools move on to their next "dream" conference and the WAC is again the Western Athletic Conference and schools actually in the West predominate. I can't imagine this iteration of the conference without Seattle. They are an essential member in my opinion.

Outside of RGV, the Texas schools are the WAC misfits, not Seattle.

NMSU is actually the misfit

The entire conference was misfits until Dixie joined. That was the beauty of and why it worked. NMSU was no more a misfit than any of the rest.

Did none of the Texas schools look at a map?

(05-16-2021 02:01 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(05-16-2021 01:36 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(05-16-2021 01:04 PM)Todor Wrote:  Even if there were any traction behind a real anti-Seattle movement (which I don't believe is anything more than casual b*tching) all Seattle has to do is wait a few years until half the Texas schools move on to their next "dream" conference and the WAC is again the Western Athletic Conference and schools actually in the West predominate. I can't imagine this iteration of the conference without Seattle. They are an essential member in my opinion.

Outside of RGV, the Texas schools are the WAC misfits, not Seattle.

NMSU is actually the misfit

The entire conference was misfits until Dixie joined. That was the beauty of and why it worked. NMSU was no more a misfit than any of the rest.

I dont think he means that in a bad way. Just that yall are FBS and by far the biggest brand in the league.

"not being a CSU or UC rules them out of the Big West."
Hawaii says hello.

What rules Seattle out is the other reasons listed, the struggles in basketball attendance, performance and spending. Not them being a private university.

(05-16-2021 02:59 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(05-16-2021 02:01 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(05-16-2021 01:36 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(05-16-2021 01:04 PM)Todor Wrote:  Even if there were any traction behind a real anti-Seattle movement (which I don't believe is anything more than casual b*tching) all Seattle has to do is wait a few years until half the Texas schools move on to their next "dream" conference and the WAC is again the Western Athletic Conference and schools actually in the West predominate. I can't imagine this iteration of the conference without Seattle. They are an essential member in my opinion.

Outside of RGV, the Texas schools are the WAC misfits, not Seattle.

NMSU is actually the misfit

The entire conference was misfits until Dixie joined. That was the beauty of and why it worked. NMSU was no more a misfit than any of the rest.

I dont think he means that in a bad way. Just that yall are FBS and by far the biggest brand in the league.

I know, I'm just pointing out no school was THE misfit. We're all misfits. Virtually no 2 had anything in common.

As much as the Texans seem to favor a geographically close, tight knit, stable conference, they joined a far flung, widely varied and highly unstable conference. How that spells "added stability" to some is beyond comprehension.

This thing is gonna blow up faster than a Pinto in a rear end collision. Texans will jump at the first possible exit opportunity. The WAC was just their first chance to "stick it" to the Southland for not following their commands fast enough. And they got themselves booted out instead of leaving amicably.

(05-16-2021 12:51 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  So you say "they should leave the WAC", when that means--freeze in the dark as a Division I independent.

You're right. What I should have said is that, in the hierarchy of conference options for Seattle, we have that WCC > Summit minus WIU > WAC > Independence. I would put the Big West and Big Sky somewhere after the Summit and somewhere before Independence, but I haven't thought too much about it.

(05-16-2021 03:34 PM)Todor Wrote:  Texans will jump at the first possible exit opportunity. The WAC was just their first chance to "stick it" to the Southland for not following their commands fast enough. And they got themselves booted out instead of leaving amicably.

My "tinfoil-hat-but-maybe-possible" theory is that the Texas 4 + TSU + UTRGV want a Texas FCS conference, but don't want to start a new one because they don't want to wait 6 years for continuation or w/e it's called. So instead, they join the WAC and demand a seventh Texas member, which puts Texas schools at 50% of the conference. Eventually, another school will leave (NMSU to a G5, Seattle somewhere more natural, etc.), and the Texas schools will only allow replacing them with another Texas school. Then, the Texas schools will have full control of the conference, boot out who they don't want, and they will have successfully commandeered a long established conference for their own purposes.

In the mean time, the Texas division of the WAC functions as its own conference. They only have to leave Texas for a select few sports.