NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Wed Apr 23, 2014 8:37 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1450 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 ... 97  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:57 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7295
Weekend "migrated" post with WAC MB thread discussing UTA/WAC situation at http://forums.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=451&f=2368&t=7656897


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:59 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:52 pm
Posts: 473
tkalmus wrote:
Quinn wrote:
So in theory, based on the membership issues the WAC has dealt with over the past year, it wouldn't be a shock to see Lamar and SHSU join for a 12/14 WAC alignment. But for now, it appears Montana and MSU have the pole position with Lamar and SHSU being passed over in the near future.
I really like the idea of 12/14 because you can pull a divisional alignment that works for almost everyone:
East: LA Tech, Lamar, SHSU, UTA, UTSA, Texas St, and NMSU
West: Denver, Utah St, Montana St, Montana, Idaho, Seattle, and SJSU
That would be a very dangerous game, if the WAC took both Lamar and SHSU you know SFA would also be upgrading soon after, and if the East side of the league was to become successful they could easily attract UNT and ULL to join, and possibly even ULM (if LA Tech says okay), Arkansas St, and other possible upgrades like McNeese or Nichols St.

Basically you'll end up with a FBS verision of the Southland and Big Sky (after Portland St, UC Davis, Cal Poly, and others decide to move to the WAC).


That's the long term plan. I think Benson has said that he expects the conference to eventually split.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:10 am 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3802
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
tkalmus wrote:
Quinn wrote:
So in theory, based on the membership issues the WAC has dealt with over the past year, it wouldn't be a shock to see Lamar and SHSU join for a 12/14 WAC alignment. But for now, it appears Montana and MSU have the pole position with Lamar and SHSU being passed over in the near future.
I really like the idea of 12/14 because you can pull a divisional alignment that works for almost everyone:
East: LA Tech, Lamar, SHSU, UTA, UTSA, Texas St, and NMSU
West: Denver, Utah St, Montana St, Montana, Idaho, Seattle, and SJSU
That would be a very dangerous game, if the WAC took both Lamar and SHSU you know SFA would also be upgrading soon after, and if the East side of the league was to become successful they could easily attract UNT and ULL to join, and possibly even ULM (if LA Tech says okay), Arkansas St, and other possible upgrades like McNeese or Nichols St.

Basically you'll end up with a FBS verision of the Southland and Big Sky (after Portland St, UC Davis, Cal Poly, and others decide to move to the WAC).


That's the long term plan. I think Benson has said that he expects the conference to eventually split.



Yes, that would be some extreme optimism...that a split could happen and both sides remain stable. Because it would mean 16 total FBS football schools in the conference at a minimum. But what happens if even 1 of those schools left for say MWC, CUSA, Sun Belt, etc? Then you're left with 7 with no real FCS options left since all would have upgraded.

Meanwhile, I'm not sure how feasible it would be for a future-new FBS Southland to attract Sun Belt members. Since right now, the WAC has failed at getting Sun Belt members. So it would, right now, be quite a stretch to think that a collection of FCS upgrades would be MORE appealing to Sun belt schools than the existing WAC, since the existing WAC at least has some legacy schools albeit lower FBS ranked.


I'm all for a pacific/mountain new FBS conference (called the WAC) with the existing non-Texas/LA schools and Big Sky schools. And I'd be all for a new FBS Southland too. But I think that it would have to be more like getting the other Southland schools to upgrade for that half to get it's membership.

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:48 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 9:41 pm
Posts: 749
Location: Wilmington, NC
Another factor that might be in play is San Jose St.'s interest in being in the Big West for non revenue sports.

If the Montana Schools agree to come on board and upgrade, it would give the WAC 9 football schools, one above the magic number for fulltime FBS members. If Lamar is added and UTA adds FBS football...San Jose might be given the green light to move non revenue sports to the Big West since their Fulltime presence won't be needed

Possible Future WAC
WAC WEST
Seattle (Non Football)/San Jose (Football Only)
Idaho
Montana
Montana St
Utah St
Denver

WAC SOUTHWEST
New Mexico St
UTSA
Texas St
UTA
Lamar
La Tech

That would leave room for a school like Sacramento St/ UC Davis/Cal Poly to join in football only to get to 12 FBS schools with 10 playing all sports in WAC


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 7:42 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 5:18 pm
Posts: 95
San Jose Mercury News Blog... http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespo ... arlington/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:43 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:52 pm
Posts: 473
Something more must be going on here. When the WAC said they were going to expand they said by 4 schools. It ended up being just one school (Seattle) and the WAC said flat out no new Southwest school. I don't think that was even a month ago. So what changed? And not only is the WAC adding a SW school, it was a unanimous vote. Somehow the western schools went from flat out no to fully agreed on yes.

With all the Montana rumors floating around, this seems perfectly logical. Benson came out and said 4 teams would be added, then it became 1. Perhaps the 4 were supposed to be Seattle, the two Montanas, and a SW school (UT-A). My best guess as to explain the sudden change of heart by the western schools is that the SW schools promised to add two western schools later if they got one SW team now. Which two western schools are rumored to be joining? The Montanas. Perfect.

And I wouldn't be so sure that the Sun Belt will be better than the WAC for very long. I bet in 5 years the WAC is better again. And at that point, UNT and ULL may reconsider.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:14 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2753
Location: Reedley, CA
The problem w/ UTA is if the Montanas join for 9/12. Say that somehow UNT, ULL or CP and UC Davis wanted to join. It would be a no brainer yes if it was a 10/12 model. just go 12/14. Would they do 11/14 and try and get 12/15? those are bad numbers in either fb or bball depending which way they went. If UTA has fb by 2016 then this won't matter.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 7:41 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 2:27 am
Posts: 478
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Considering what he had to work with, Benson did an incredible job to save the conference. Getting the 2 Montana schools was/is key. Getting them opens up the Big Sky to the WAC allowing the WAC to pick the "best of the best" from the Southland and Big Sky conferences ensuring long term security for the WAC. Good job, commish.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 9:37 am 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3802
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
The problem w/ UTA is if the Montanas join for 9/12. Say that somehow UNT, ULL or CP and UC Davis wanted to join. It would be a no brainer yes if it was a 10/12 model. just go 12/14. Would they do 11/14 and try and get 12/15? those are bad numbers in either fb or bball depending which way they went. If UTA has fb by 2016 then this won't matter.


Thing is, at this level, I don't think it matters as much to have an ideal balance. It's not like they've added a single school that will give a strong boost to revenue. But for the wAC, it's about survival. And actually, they can save money by developing tighter knit divisions. For instance, if it were, say, 12 for football and 15 for other sports, it would mean a 7/8 division split. So in theory, you can do home and home for basketball with just a handful of intra-division games per season. So LA Tech would in a bad year have to travel only twice to western schools...like 1 trip to SJSU and 1 game at Idaho. So the potential savings might come from travel ease.

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 9:38 am 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3802
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
The problem w/ UTA is if the Montanas join for 9/12. Say that somehow UNT, ULL or CP and UC Davis wanted to join. It would be a no brainer yes if it was a 10/12 model. just go 12/14. Would they do 11/14 and try and get 12/15? those are bad numbers in either fb or bball depending which way they went. If UTA has fb by 2016 then this won't matter.

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:04 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2753
Location: Reedley, CA
Quinn wrote:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
The problem w/ UTA is if the Montanas join for 9/12. Say that somehow UNT, ULL or CP and UC Davis wanted to join. It would be a no brainer yes if it was a 10/12 model. just go 12/14. Would they do 11/14 and try and get 12/15? those are bad numbers in either fb or bball depending which way they went. If UTA has fb by 2016 then this won't matter.


Thing is, at this level, I don't think it matters as much to have an ideal balance. It's not like they've added a single school that will give a strong boost to revenue. But for the wAC, it's about survival. And actually, they can save money by developing tighter knit divisions. For instance, if it were, say, 12 for football and 15 for other sports, it would mean a 7/8 division split. So in theory, you can do home and home for basketball with just a handful of intra-division games per season. So LA Tech would in a bad year have to travel only twice to western schools...like 1 trip to SJSU and 1 game at Idaho. So the potential savings might come from travel ease.

No one would want to schedule for 15 team league w/ the west playing 14 home&home while the south would have 12 home&home making the cross over messy since the west would have more conf games.

Lamar would have prevented having to worry about this. UTA adding fb is a must if they ever want to expand to add CP, PSU, Sac St., or UCD down the road. If the Montanas leaving I'm guessing others will want to follow and UND will try as hard as possible to get in the MVFC/Summit since they are far from everyone w/o UM/MSU

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 7:11 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 674
Location: Louisville, KY
A 15-team league really only works if you can have 3 groups of 5:

Louisiana Tech
UTSA
Texas State
UTA (non-football, for now)
Lamar

New Mexico State
Utah State
Montana
Montana State
Denver (non-football)

Seattle (non-football)
Idaho
San Jose State
Sacramento State
Cal Poly SLO

At that point you can play 18 conference games in basketball, although each team will have three "byes", or alternatively, some weeks with three games instead of two if you did not want to start playing conference games in December.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:12 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7295
CBSSports blog article discussing UTA and WAC expansion at http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entr ... 8/30600065


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:44 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7295
Fort Worth Star-Telegram article with report that UT-BOR signed off on UTA to WAC move earlier today and official announcement expected at 4pm(local) presser.Link at http://www.startelegram.com/2011/07/14/ ... o-wac.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:45 pm 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3802
freaked4collegefb wrote:
Fort Worth Star-Telegram article with report that UT-BOR signed off on UTA to WAC move earlier today and official announcement expected at 4pm(local) presser.Link at http://www.startelegram.com/2011/07/14/ ... o-wac.html


Yeah, this one was a done deal when the invite went out. A nice move by UTA.

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1450 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 ... 97  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group