I bet, we hit 80* yesterday. Going to the Eno River Park this weekend, so keep your fingers crossed for continued clear, cool weather.

does wac football die if sjsu drops out?

heres how i see it:


the "core" seven:
fresno st.- wants mwc
hawaii- wants mwc
nevada-wants mwc
boise st.-wants mwc
utah st.-wants mwc but knows better
new mexico st.-wants mwc but knows better
utep-wants mwc, but should consider cusa if offered due to the uncertain wac future

wild cards:
san jose st.
la tech
idaho (i know they arent in the wac)

the wac is the most unstable 1-a football conference at the moment, and if the mwc expands again, especially if its to 12, it will die as a 1-a football conference.

I'm not so sure the WAC will die. Let's say MWC expands to 12, adding Boise State, Fresno State, and Nevada-Reno. (Also assume that LaTech moves to CUSA and Idaho gets into the WAC). This leaves:

Hawaii
Utah State
New Mexico State
UTEP
San Jose State
Idaho

This leaves 6 members. You need 8 total. Who would be replacements?

Montana, E Wash, Sac State, Montana State--1-AA upgrades and very viable members

You would only need two out of those to maintain 1-A. Even though many in the WAC want better, so do most other schools. I'm sure there are many in the MWC that wouldn't think twice about going to the PAC10. Or there are some schools in CUSA that would immediately jump to the Big12 or Big East. It doesn't mean that they wouldn't be content to stay in their current conference.

If the WAC loses 3 members, it would hurt them very much. Mainly because the 3 members would be the cream of the crop. But they would be able to stay as a 1-A conference. They have this funny ability to regroup and stay strong. They lost a few members (rice, tulsa, smu) and quickly added two (nm state and utah state). Without any more additions/subtractions, I think they will compete with MWC very well. If there are more additions by MWC from the WAC, then that's a completely different story and the WAC would be knocked down a notch. But I don't think they'll go away. I think that the current conferences are a good fit and most schools will be ok with meeting 1-A.

If MWC takes Boise ST, Fresno St, and Nevada, and Tech goes to CUSA, then I think the WAC will look east and either take teams from the Sun Belt to form an eastern division of the WAC or will merge with the Belt and do the same thing.......West and East Divisions.

WEST
Hawaii
New Mexico State
Utah State
UTEP
San Jose State
Idaho
North Texas

EAST
Troy State
Middle Tenn State
UL-Lafayette
UL-Monroe
Florida Atlantic
Florida International
Arkansas State

i posted this in the cusa general alignment thread in response to a question, but it makes more sense here.

here is the link to the article explaining the wac's woes.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Jan/04/sp/sp06a.html

however, idaho would do a lot to help them meet the numbers requirements.

Quote:But if Louisiana Tech leaves the WAC for Conference USA, as has been speculated upon, the WAC would have the minimum numbers of participating schools in only four sports — men's basketball, football, golf and tennis.



they would need to qualify in two more men's sports.

Quote:With New Mexico State and Utah State but minus Louisiana Tech, the WAC would have five members in cross country, four in outdoor track and three in indoor track.



adding idaho would give them six in cross country, five in outdoor track, and four indoor track, increasing the number of sports in which they qualify from four to five. easy solutions include adding gonzaga and portland to outdoor track making the number of schools in that sport seven, and the number of sports sponsered w/ the required number six. gonzaga and portland are in the wcc for most of their other sports, and wouldnt seek affiliation for anything else, mainly basketball.

portand could also be added for indoor track as could uc riverside, which is happy in the big west for all their other sports. adding these two would give the wac six indoor track schools keeping them eligible for an auto bid and increasing the magic number from the required six to seven.


Quote:Without Louisiana Tech, for example, the WAC would be left with just four baseball-playing members (Fresno, UH, Nevada and San Jose State). Of New Mexico State and Utah State, the two new members who come aboard in 2005, only New Mexico State has baseball but at least six members are necessary for the conference to retain its automatic NCAA Tournament bid.



so even with idaho, who doesnt offer baseball, the wac will only have five baseball playing members, and will be in need of one more to keep the auto bid. affiliate options include sacramento state and the university of hawaii at hilo. sac. st. is in the big sky for everything else and uh hilo is d2 for everything else, so neither school will want more than what is offered.

other options for affiliate membership are texas am cc, ut pan american, and utah valley state college. these three are indy in virtually everything, including what the wac needs: indoor and outdoor track, cross country, and baseball, and may not mind filling in the gaps when needed. however, these schools may demand full afilliation for there participation for helping keep the wac alive.

in closing, losing la tech won't doom the wac. idaho would be a valuable member as it would give them six members in five sports as well as give football the preferred nine. if idaho is added, only one affiliate member will HAVE to be added in either outdoor track or baseball, though the wac will probably prefer having six schools in all the sports they sponser.

im opening the discussion about what the wac will do if they lose utep.

im doing some research on what the wac will need if utep leaves. if utep leaves they will still qualify in the four sports previously listed: basketball, tennis, golf, and football. if la tech then leaves too, the wac will be really screwed and have to take on not only idaho, but affliate members as well.

in cross country (w/o utep and la tech, but w/ idaho)
only 5 members

in indoor track
only 3 members

in outdoor track
only 4 members

in baseball
only 4 members

this leaves the wac hanging by a thread with only 8 football members (which leads to teams running the risk of not having 5 home games a year) and only 4 sports in which the qualify. they could probably get affliate members in cross country and baseball to meet the six sports requirement, but losing utep still hurts.

this might force the wac to try and raid/merge w/ some sunbelt schools. in closing, the fate of many sunbelt and wac schools would be drastically altered if utep is chosen instead of la tech.

If the recent Orlando Sentinel article is deemed premature regarding UTEP moving to C-USA, perhaps the WAC is developing a package to have them stay put. If a major concern of UTEP is having other opponents in East Texas, and if they are to stay with the WAC, then bringing in North Texas to the WAC is about as much as can be done. However, the C-USA potential move for UTEP appears real, though no formal and official announcement of consensus has been conveyed.

San Jose State academic senate votes to drop IA Football. What will the consequences be on the WAC?

ADVISORY VOTE WOULD CUT FUNDING

In a move that could threaten San Jose State University's 110-year-old football tradition, the Academic Senate voted by secret ballot Monday to limit funding for sports teams and recommended withdrawing from Division I-A and the Western Athletic Conference altogether.

( By Becky Bartindale, Mercury News, 04/20/2004 03:01 AM PDT)

Posted on Tue, Apr. 20, 2004

SJSU senate targets football

ADVISORY VOTE WOULD CUT FUNDING

By Becky Bartindale

Mercury News

In a move that could threaten San Jose State University's 110-year-old football tradition, the Academic Senate voted by secret ballot Monday to limit funding for sports teams and recommended withdrawing from Division I-A and the Western Athletic Conference altogether.

The action is meant to send a strong signal to the new university president -- who could be named as soon as today -- that in tight budget times, academics take priority over football. However, presidents have ignored faculty recommendations on athletic funding before, most recently in 1993.

``We're not opposed to football per se, but Division I-A has costs we can't afford,'' said James Brent, the political science professor who pushed Division I-A withdrawal through on a 21-11 vote. He conceded that dropping out of Division I-A ``probably means having to get rid of football.''

Although the senate vote is only symbolic, Brent said he hopes ``it will counter what the president will hear from a group of very loud boosters who don't have the best interests of the university as a whole at heart.''

The Academic Senate -- a group of faculty, students, staff and administrators that advises the president -- also voted to put the question of withdrawing from Division I-A and the WAC before the entire faculty in a referendum later this term.

The vote is the first formal faculty recommendation to emerge from a yearlong debate over athletics funding that has heated up as budgets have tightened, and the football program has struggled to fill seats and win games.

Both candidates who are finalists for the university presidency spoke out last week against taking quick action on the football question and pointed to the beneficial relationships that intercollegiate athletics bring the university.

Proponents of withdrawing argued that few students attend games. And despite publicity about needing to boost attendance to meet NCAA guidelines to stay in Division I-A, the university barely made the required 15,000 average attendance per game last year. Private fundraising to support the program also is down, they said.

A referendum, like the senate vote, would be advisory only. But it could put political pressure on a new president as the university gears up for some of the worst budget reductions in decades.

The senate proposal calls for a cap on the amount of general fund dollars used for athletics, and suggests that any savings be transferred to academic programs. General fund money now accounts for 58 percent of the $11.8 million athletic budget.

The university could substantially reduce spending by eliminating Division 1-A football, Brent said. He said San Jose State could stay in Division I and play all other sports in the Big West Conference, which does not require its members to play football.

The university also could play Division I-AA football in a different conference. Today, San Jose State is one of six among 23 CSU campuses that field a football team, and one of three in Division I-A.

In a four-page e-mail that was circulated on campus, Interim President Joseph Crowley called for all interested parties to talk about the future of Spartan athletics. He urged against voting to withdraw from Division I-A, though he supports scaling back general fund contributions to 35-45 percent of the athletic budget.

Figuring out what to do with the athletic program requires ``careful, comprehensive examination of the financial and other ramifications for the university,'' Crowley said. He suggested that a withdrawal could hurt financial donations from alumni.

That resonates with Ed Mosher, class of 1952, a donor who serves on several university committees, most of them involved with fundraising.

``If San Jose State threw out Division I football, I'd write them out of my will, never step foot on the campus again and resign all the boards I'm on because they would become just another mediocre state university,'' Mosher said.

During an emotional, two-hour senate debate, proponents of withdrawing from Division 1-A cited the loss of lecturers and course sections to budget cuts.

Noting that the English department gets much less money than athletics, English Professor Nancy Stork said, ``I don't mind being smaller than athletics. But when I am turning students away and meeting students who can't get the classes they need, I feel we are letting down students.''

Faculty members who opposed the idea said there had not been enough time to consider the potential fallout and the debate was lopsided because there was no presentation made by the athletic department. Although he was invited, Athletic Director Chuck Bell was traveling and could not attend.

``If athletics can pay for itself, it's a great luxury to have,'' said senior Huy Tran. ``But it's getting a large portion of the general fund, and it doesn't make sense for our priorities as a university.''

San Jose State will be moving to the Big West soon. The money to save the program will just not "appear". This is very threatening to the WAC! Interesting to see where this goes? Any predictions?

who wants to trade place with karl benson right now? man you gotta begin to feel for that guy.

17 of the 40 or so schools involved in this mid-major reshuffling lie west of Dallas, essentially the continental divide when it comes to 1-A ball. That's a rough number for managing 2 "regional" conferences, let alone one. Even if SJSU drops, TCU's involvement and past experience says 16 is a clear no go. In fact, given the chance it's safe to say neither the WAC or MWC wants to expand beyond the minimum number of 12 schools necessary for a championship game, and would only go to 12 if the $$ worked out. Some schools will be lucky, some will (unfairly?) lose out.

The MWC, if the members are smart, is now reviewing alignments of membership by different sports and considering what it can do to position itself for the BCS. Recent discussion and articles concerning the BCS have moved the Cotton and Houston Bowls into consideration for the 5th spot, and while many things remain for consideration the prospect of having an established conference tie-in would go a long way to support the new bowl. As such, speculation abounds that the MWC, with the right additional members, could fill that role with either of the new Bowls or with the Fiesta should the B12 move to Dallas or Houston.

If the BCS solidifies itself over the next few years (meaning if the money is there), the gap between the haves and have nots will likely grow wider. If that writing is on the wall, the WAC schools and all the mid-majors must plan for their financial health and long term viability. The MAC has cost efficiency and density of market place to accept is role as a mid-major, while CUSA appears headed in that same direction. Should UTEP leave and SJSU drop down, Fresno State, Hawaii and Boise State should begin jockeying for MWC candidacy, as any configuration of the WAC I see after those members leaves will not, IMO, pan out financially or garner the strength and attention to compete on it's own.

If the MWC decided to render the WAC the ultimate pain by taking Fresno St., Hawaii, and Boise State, and going to 12, the MWC, may just look dandy; unless/until the PAC 10 reminds them who are the true big boys out west, and just hold their nose and pick the two from the MWC for their own 12 ;D!

D&C, such a move would not be considered too much of a surprise and may in fact be a modest blessing to everyone else, including the MWC. Not that the MWC would like to lose any schools, let alone any considered high profile and quality that the Pac 10 would be interested, but that move would also assure the death of the WAC and the chance for the MWC to plan long term.

I can't say with certainty that the MWC has stronger, deeper connections among its members that it could avoid the meltdown currently under way at the WAC. The sheer fact that the WAC is suffering like this right now is not a good sign, though. CUSA can't be happy to see the article concerning Rice's athletic study either. That's why I'm presuming more schools will do at least a cursory review of athletic budgets and programs in an attempt to be the next SJSU. Conference affiliation goes a long way to establishing health in those departments.

Absent UTEP and SJSU, does it appear the WAC can foster BCS calibre programs? Don't know. Among the closest would be Fresno St. in terms of performance, ability to draw fans, and market potential. If they do improve academics as discussed and remain a competitive program, that will make them appear all the more attractive should the MWC decide to expand further.

Should UTEP stay, the chance to remain a healthy regional conference remains more viable, IMO. The loss of LTU could be offset through travel savings and the chance to foster a stronger identity. Thinking long term, who knows if the schools mentioned like Montana might ever step to the plate. It would also be helped by the acceptance of regionalism by CUSA.

Bottom line, I feel the WAC lives or dies over the next year and much of that decision will come from outside the conference.