WAC General Realignment Thread

freaked4collegefb · **Joined:** Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm **Posts:** 7048

Article out of Utah(previously posted in another thread) with comments from Big Sky Commish who apparently believes that the WAC will eventually be a BB only conference.Link at http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/sports/532 ... n.html.csp

freaked4collegefb · **Joined:** Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm **Posts:** 7048

Blog article out of San Antonio(previously posted in another thread)discussing possibility that WAC may be raided in the future by new merged C-USA/MWC league at http://blog.mysanantonio.com/utsa/2012/ ... ons-remain

SJSUFan2010 · **Joined:** Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:52 pm **Posts:** 467

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entr ... 2/34838955

Benson is the first to go. Who should they get to captain this ship? Francesco Schettino?

tkalmus · **Joined:** Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm **Posts:** 1034

SJSUFan2010 wrote:

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6270202/34838955

Benson is the first to go. Who should they get to captain this ship? Francesco Schettino?

How bout the AD of Utah Valley St or Cal St Bakersfield?

Future WAC
Seattle, Boise St, Cal St Bakersfield, Utah Valley St, Denver, Air Force (after they join the BE as fb only), NMSU (who joins the SBC as a fb only), and UND (after they get booted from the Big Sky who claims it was over the nickname although they never wanted them without USD).

freaked4collegefb · **Joined:** Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm **Posts:** 7048

Salt Lake Trib article with comments from UNLV President and USU AD regarding possibility of WAC schools "like" USU eventually leaving for the new merged MWC/C-USA league.Karl Benson to the SBC is also mentioned.Link at http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/sports/535 ... s.html.csp

tute79 · **Joined:** Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm **Posts:** 1490

let's read between the lines here.....

MWC-CUSA to have FB semi-finals... will expand to a multiple of 4... 20 ? 24 ?
Let's say 24 (rather extreme, but if they go that far, it really alters the landscape)

The WAC and Sun-belt will be cherry-picked.....

Add 4 to west (MWC division) move UTEP, add USU, San Jose St. and who ??? Idaho ? NMSU ?
Add 4 (+UTEP replacement to east (CUSA division) North Texas, LTU, FIU, Temple, and another Sun-belt school or WAC Texas school.

Benson (now Sun-belt) will re-stock Sun-belt with his new WAC FB schools: Texas St. / UTSA / UTA / NMSU / LTU (if still there, will finally desert the sinking ship).

If this goes down, WAC is TOAST !!! Non-FB schools Seattle and Denver should be talking to Big Sky.
Idaho and Boise St. are really in a pickle. I'm not sure what they do. Maybe also talk to Big Sky.

JPSchmack · **Joined:** Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm **Posts:** 851

Semifinals are stupid. MWC/CUSA is the second conference to float this idea out there, but it's freaking dumb.

It costs all but four teams a game they could be playing. That's money.

tkalmus · **Joined:** Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm **Posts:** 1034

JPSchmack wrote:

Semifinals are stupid. MWC/CUSA is the second conference to float this idea out there, but it's freaking dumb.

It costs all but four teams a game they could be playing. That's money.

The rules for the semi finals haven't been addressed yet, I assume if the extra game (possible 15th game) for the plus one gets passed then the semifinal (a possible 15th game) can gets passed too. I think the writing is on the wall, the mid-majors and possibly even the Big East will be left out of the plus one model, its just going to be the big 5 conferences with most probably allowing multiple bids which kills off the chance of a non-AQ ever getting in. The only non-AQ team that has ever placed in the top 4 was TCU in 2009 and 2010, and in 2009 Florida (who lost to Bama in the SEC CG) would have most probably gotten the votes over the undefeated TCU team if it meant a spot in the playoff, only the 2010 TCU team had a chance to be included, so that's 1 team every 15 years.

The merger may be a way for the mid majors to branch off into their own championship model. If the MWC, CUSA, MAC, and SBC (assuming the WAC is dead), all get the enough team to stage a CCG then they could host a semifinal game and then their own plus one which would be better than a bid in the Vegas/GoDaddy/Humanitarian/PapaJohns/Motor City Bowl IMO. The rest of the bowl eligible teams could still playing those vs the old "AQ" teams but as far as claiming a championship goes this is the only way any of these team will ever have a chance. Maybe their could be an exemption for top ten team to participate with the big boys but for the majority of the teams I would see this as a better option than just going along with the illusion that they are even on the same playing field as the "AQ"s.

seanbo · **Posted:** Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:17 pm

tkalmus wrote:

JPSchmack wrote:

Semifinals are stupid. MWC/CUSA is the second conference to float this idea out there, but it's freaking dumb.

It costs all but four teams a game they could be playing. That's money.

The rules for the semi finals haven't been addressed yet, I assume if the extra game (possible 15th game) for the plus one gets passed then the semifinal (a possible 15th game) can gets passed too. I think the writing is on the wall, the mid-majors and possibly even the Big East will be left out of the plus one model, its just going to be the big 5 conferences with most probably allowing multiple bids which kills off the chance of a non-AQ ever getting in. The only non-AQ team that has ever placed in the top 4 was TCU in 2009 and 2010, and in 2009 Florida (who lost to Bama in the SEC CG) would have most probably gotten the votes over the undefeated TCU team if it meant a spot in the playoff, only the 2010 TCU team had a chance to be included, so that's 1 team every 15 years.

The merger may be a way for the mid majors to branch off into their own championship model. If the MWC, CUSA, MAC, and SBC (assuming the WAC is dead), all get the enough team to stage a CCG then they could host a semifinal game and then their own plus one which would be better than a bid in the Vegas/GoDaddy/Humanitarian/PapaJohns/Motor City Bowl IMO. The rest of the bowl eligible teams could still playing those vs the old "AQ" teams but as far as claiming a championship goes this is the only way any of these team will ever have a chance. Maybe their could be an exemption for top ten team to participate with the big boys but for the majority of the teams I would see this as a better option than just going along with the illusion that they are even on the same playing field as the "AQ"s.

tkalmus, could not agree with you more. As far as the rules go, they are being rewritten as we speak thanks to the Plus 1 proposals. I do know that semi-final games will make schools money rather this is good for the student-athlete or not is another question. If a conference had semi-finals maybe it would lose a regular season game, maybe it will not. Who knows what things may look like in 2014. It is not only a money maker for the smaller conferences but for the larger conferences as well.

Right now, schools play 12 regular season games, a conference championship game and a bowl game. That's 14 games for 2 teams in a conference and that's not counting if you play at Hawaii (possibly 15). With conference semi-finals, you would play 12 regular season games, 2 schools would play a semifinal game and a bowl game (14 games) with 1 playing an additional championship game and a bowl (15 games) and the champion wouldn't play in a bowl but in the Plus 1 (15 games) and if they play in the national championship game (16 games). Admittedly, 16 games is a lot for college, but you would only have 2 schools do this every year. Every one else would play 15 games or less. Conferences with semi-finals would have 1 additional school playing 15 games (2 if their team loses 1st round of Plus 1). The other 2 conference semi-final schools would play no more than the 14 games which happens now under the current system. The SMALLER conferences having semi-finals would have no more than 2 teams playing 15 games unless their champion can get ranked in the top 4 which is highly unlikely.

Just imagine this. The SEC goes to 16 teams and splits into 4 divisions with the winners of each division participating in the semi-finals. First, they could bid out the games, for example, 1 semi-final game in Dallas, and another in Nashville with the championship game in Atlanta. The SEC would have plenty of host cities, the 3 above plus Houston, New Orleans, St. Louis, Memphis, Tampa, Orlando, Miami, Jacksonville. I know for Jacksonville, they would rather host an SEC semi-final than host the Gator Bowl. If the B1G can get 24 million for their championship, what would the SEC bring in from the networks for their championship and semi-final games. I would bet you in the range of 60 to 75 million in addition to the host cities bid money. Yes, I realize that the smaller conferences would make considerably less but I believe more than what they are currently making plus they will still get to go to their usual bowl games (GoDaddy, Humanitarian, PapaJohns, Motor City Bowls).

With NBC Sports, FOX, CBS, ABC/ESPN programming is at a premium and an Alliance, Sun Belt or MAC semi-finals could be away that
these smaller conference can make some money for their schools as well as get more exposure for their programs.

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Fri Feb 24, 2012 4:35 pm

I hope we don't have semi finals, or else 24 would probably be more likely than 18. Plus the Big 5 and BE would look at 16 and do the same.

JPSchmack · **Joined:** Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm **Posts:** 851

Yeah, but the common element in all that is that they are willingly relegating themselves to lesser status.

They need to be creative in making their champions MORE likely to go undefeated (and get BCS paychecks) than LESS LIKELY to go undefeated. A smaller conference slate, no championship games, leaving a weaker WAC around to get wins against... that's going to give you the best shot of going undefeated.

Think about what the changes the BCS AQ conferences have made and look at the BCS standings entering championship week in 2011:

#1-8, #13 Mich St, #23 West Virginia are from eight different conferences. For six AQ champs and the MWC and CUSA champs.

Under 2013's format, #6 (Boise) and #7 (Houston) are playing for the Big East WEST DIVISION's spot in the Big East CCG, #18 TCU and #23 WVU are fifth and sixth in the Big XII with no shot a BCS spot.

Bigger, deeper BCS AQ conferences mean more losses for the middle of the pack. Yeah, getting into the top four is difficult, but if you're undefeated and on the outside looking in, you'll have Congressmen and Senators pounding on the BCS's doorstep with threats.

With semifinals adding THREE LOSSES to your top four teams, you've got virtually no shot of having multiple teams in the final BCS standings at all.

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:49 pm

JPSchmack wrote:

Yeah, but the common element in all that is that they are willingly relegating themselves to lesser status.

They need to be creative in making their champions MORE likely to go undefeated (and get BCS paychecks) than LESS LIKELY to go undefeated. A smaller conference slate, no championship games, leaving a weaker WAC around to get wins against... that's going to give you the best shot of going undefeated.

Think about what the changes the BCS AQ conferences have made and look at the BCS standings entering championship week in 2011:

#1-8, #13 Mich St, #23 West Virginia are from eight different conferences. For six AQ champs and the MWC and CUSA champs.

Under 2013's format, #6 (Boise) and #7 (Houston) are playing for the Big East WEST DIVISION's spot in the Big East CCG, #18 TCU and #23 WVU are fifth and sixth in the Big XII with no shot a BCS spot.

Bigger, deeper BCS AQ conferences mean more losses for the middle of the pack. Yeah, getting into the top four is difficult, but if you're undefeated and on the outside looking in, you'll have Congressmen and Senators pounding on the BCS's doorstep with threats.

With semifinals adding THREE LOSSES to your top four teams, you've got virtually no shot of having multiple teams in the final BCS standings at all.

All good points. But they wanted the 1 year security of an AQ. Think it's done in 2014. They wanted the Bigger pay check. We'll see how much bigger it is and if it's worth it to kill of your other sports. SDSU is a basketball school anyway and should comeback if they money isn't there. BSU too but more so SDSU.

freaked4collegefb · **Joined:** Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm **Posts:** 7048

Jon Wilner blog article(previously posted in another thread)discussing upcoming MWC/C-USA merger and possible impact on the WAC and other conferences at http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespo ... and-others

Quinn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am **Posts:** 3753

freaked4collegefb wrote:

Jon Wilner blog article(previously posted in another thread)discussing upcoming MWC/C-USA merger and possible impact on the WAC and other conferences at http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespo ... and-others

Something I've thought about too: if the MWC/CUSA take WAC/SB schools, those conferences might be forced to form an alliance just to ensure number of games each year.

That said, the Sunbelt is in a much better position.

Why?

Say the MWC/CUSA does expand to 18, 20 or 22 (do not see 24 happening).
It means the current 16
Plus 2, 4 or 6
Who are they?
Utah St (WAC), No Texas (SB), FIU (SB), FAU (SB), SJSU (WAC), UTSA (WAC), LA Tech (WAC), Texas St (WAC), MTSU (SB), NMSU (WAC)

So lets take 6 of those schools for a 22 school MWC/CUSA...which might be a stretch since 18 adds 2 good markets, 20 adds likely So. Florida market (if only 1 FL school), SLC, Bay Area which, Dallas. Always could do 2 FL schools and pass on say, SJSU.

What does that leave...if a massive 22 school conference formed?

WAC FB: UTSA, Texas St., LA Tech, Idaho, NMSU
Sunbelt FB: Arkansas St., ULL, ULM, MTSU, USA, Troy, WKU
FAU (maybe they leave), Charlotte (potential newcomer), UTSA (potential newcomer)

Solution:
SB is poised to add schools even now. So if they lose any, it's not the end of the world. If they lose 4, no worries, because they can just bring in schools from the candidates pool:
LA Tech, UTSA, Texas St., NMSU from the WAC, as well as FBS upgrades like Charlotte, GA State, App St., GA Southern, Lamar, SHSU, etc.

SB will be fine.

Easiest thing to do?

* Sun Belt, if at 8 (9 with UALR) can just bring in LA Tech, UTSA, Texas St., and NMSU to be 12 for football.
* If Idaho is the last, all alone, throw them a bone with a FB only invite (since I'm sure the NCAA would get involved to find them a home if they were the ONLY FBS school unable to have a home since they have a rule in place to stop FCS school from upgrading w/o a conference). Want to balance things out for basketball? Bring in UTA (to replace No. Texas) as a non-football member (#14).

What does this lineup do:

1) give MWC/CUSA full control over whatever they want to do
2) Regardless of MWC/CUSA plans, the Sun Belt has lots of options: ANY WAC schools (Idaho, Utah St and SJSU the only less desirable ones due to location) and it seems ALL the possible FCS upgrade schools are already in the SB footprint
3) WAC can remain a non-football conference for all those left out of MWC/CUSA or SB changes since they could just pick up schools from other conference. That, or maybe you'll see moves like UTA to SB, Denver to Summit, Seattle to WCC, Idaho to Big Sky for non-football.
4) Only Idaho seems screwed, which is why I think you'd see the NCAA lend a hand in getting them into SB for FB only. If not, no worries, can go at it alone.

freaked4collegefb · **Joined:** Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm **Posts:** 7048

Blog article out of San Antonio discussing possibility of UTSA leaving the WAC for another conference "like" the SBC.Link at http://blog.mysanantonio.com/utsa/2012/ ... peculation

WAC General Realignment Thread

Who is online