NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Fri Oct 31, 2014 3:05 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1485 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89 ... 99  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:12 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:50 pm
Posts: 268
wbyeager wrote:
One way for the WAC to avoid the multi-sport membership requirement is to start FCS football. Utah Valley is looking at starting a program, so the WAC would need five more. Grab the two Big West schools playing Big Sky football, and 3 full members from the Big Sky (Northern Colorado, North Dakota, Northern Arizona, and Sacramento State are all affiliates of the WAC in at least one sport) and you have an FCS league. If Idaho and New Mexico State reclassify, then the WAC could have as many as 8 for football.



Why would NAU or any other BSC school leave for the current WAC??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:16 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7439
Article out of Las Cruces reporting that as expected the WAC has officially announced that they are adding CSUB and UVU for non-FB in 2013.Link at http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-sp ... valley-non


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:32 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:52 pm
Posts: 473
Holding out hope that the reason UTPA and Chicago State weren't invited already is because they're still trying to get that BSC/WAC merger to happen. Probably won't. Good news for the WAC is it seems like they would probably be able to continue sponsoring the majority of the sports they sponsor now if they add Chicago St and UTPA (minus Men's Tennis).

Problem is that AFA may be on the move which could mean NMSU could get their much needed MWC invite. It pains me to see the WAC go like this after all the glory years. Here's to La Tech running the table and giving the WAC one last BCS buster.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:29 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1719
I think there are 2 reasons UTPA and Chicago State weren't invited.

1) Both schools have had issues with compliance, etc. in the past.
Not familiar wiht UTPA's situation, but Chicago State left the Summit under duress, had they not done so, they would 've been kicked out.
Note that no other conferences in each schools espective region has been falling over themselves to invite these 2 schools.
Having said that, UTPA hsa recently gotten interest from the Southland.
I think this is an indication that their sompliance issues are behind them, and the main reason IWA, ACU, and UNO were chosen over UTPA had to do with football /
potential of a football program.

2) Location - the WAC is a western conference. If you invite a school for an interim period, you may NEVER get rid of them, even if they become a real out-lier.
Chicago belongs in a mid-western league. Teams in Idaho and Utah expect to have to travel to Utah and Idaho. Chicago is an incredible haul.
The WAC doesn't want to grow into a collection of western schools who are stuck with a Chicago school in their midst.
UTPA is down by the Mexican / Gulf coast border (Edinburg, TX - near Brownsville).
If you think El Paso and Las Cruces are out of the way for western schools, look at how much further away Brownsville is.
UTPA's only geographical appeal would be to a Texas-based conference (see dialogue with SLC...).

I would also like to see UTPA, Chicago State and NJIT find homes, but the WAC really isn't an appropriate solution. It woud be an act of desperation (which is what the Great West has become).
Ulatimately, UTPA belongs in SLC, Chicago State in the Summit / Horizon, NJIT in AE, NEC, or MAAC.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:38 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:52 pm
Posts: 473
tute79 wrote:
I think there are 2 reasons UTPA and Chicago State weren't invited.

1) Both schools have had issues with compliance, etc. in the past.
Not familiar wiht UTPA's situation, but Chicago State left the Summit under duress, had they not done so, they would 've been kicked out.
Note that no other conferences in each schools espective region has been falling over themselves to invite these 2 schools.
Having said that, UTPA hsa recently gotten interest from the Southland.
I think this is an indication that their sompliance issues are behind them, and the main reason IWA, ACU, and UNO were chosen over UTPA had to do with football /
potential of a football program.

2) Location - the WAC is a western conference. If you invite a school for an interim period, you may NEVER get rid of them, even if they become a real out-lier.
Chicago belongs in a mid-western league. Teams in Idaho and Utah expect to have to travel to Utah and Idaho. Chicago is an incredible haul.
The WAC doesn't want to grow into a collection of western schools who are stuck with a Chicago school in their midst.
UTPA is down by the Mexican / Gulf coast border (Edinburg, TX - near Brownsville).
If you think El Paso and Las Cruces are out of the way for western schools, look at how much further away Brownsville is.
UTPA's only geographical appeal would be to a Texas-based conference (see dialogue with SLC...).

I would also like to see UTPA, Chicago State and NJIT find homes, but the WAC really isn't an appropriate solution. It woud be an act of desperation (which is what the Great West has become).
Ulatimately, UTPA belongs in SLC, Chicago State in the Summit / Horizon, NJIT in AE, NEC, or MAAC.



That's all fine but ultimately the WAC needs members and UTPA and Chicago St aren't getting homes right now (unless C Arkansas moves down or there is a shakeup in the Summit). It's not like there are a half dozen D-II schools banging on their door right now. Hopefully Grand Canyon will make the jump if the BSC/WAC thing doesn't happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:41 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
tute79 wrote:
I think there are 2 reasons UTPA and Chicago State weren't invited.

1) Both schools have had issues with compliance, etc. in the past.
Not familiar wiht UTPA's situation, but Chicago State left the Summit under duress, had they not done so, they would 've been kicked out.
Note that no other conferences in each schools espective region has been falling over themselves to invite these 2 schools.
Having said that, UTPA hsa recently gotten interest from the Southland.
I think this is an indication that their sompliance issues are behind them, and the main reason IWA, ACU, and UNO were chosen over UTPA had to do with football /
potential of a football program.

2) Location - the WAC is a western conference. If you invite a school for an interim period, you may NEVER get rid of them, even if they become a real out-lier.
Chicago belongs in a mid-western league. Teams in Idaho and Utah expect to have to travel to Utah and Idaho. Chicago is an incredible haul.
The WAC doesn't want to grow into a collection of western schools who are stuck with a Chicago school in their midst.
UTPA is down by the Mexican / Gulf coast border (Edinburg, TX - near Brownsville).
If you think El Paso and Las Cruces are out of the way for western schools, look at how much further away Brownsville is.
UTPA's only geographical appeal would be to a Texas-based conference (see dialogue with SLC...).

I would also like to see UTPA, Chicago State and NJIT find homes, but the WAC really isn't an appropriate solution. It woud be an act of desperation (which is what the Great West has become).
Ulatimately, UTPA belongs in SLC, Chicago State in the Summit / Horizon, NJIT in AE, NEC, or MAAC.


UTPA, kicked out of the Sun Belt in 1998ish.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:38 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 733
Location: Columbus, OH
This has buying for time written all over it. New Mexico St, and to a lesser extent Idaho, are still waiting for the Big East to woo a MWC school to create another round of conference shuffling and hopefully land them a better spot. (I'm guessing Idaho and NMSU have some unwritten agreement that they will try FBS independence out as long as its the two of them, but should NMSU get a MWC invite Idaho will wish them well and join the Big Sky for all sports, downgrading football in the process) We also have to remember there is the 12th spot in the Big West still in play and the WCC could go to 12 on a whim or find itself replacing BYU should the Cougars ever get in the Big 12 so Seattle and Denver are also playing the waiting game and need to keep this conference alive for at least one more year.

Since it does not look as if anything will be finalized in this regard for the 2013 season they need CSU-B and UVU to keep the WAC alive until something finally happens.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 5:22 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7439
AP article posted on Bakersfield media site with comments from WAC Commish regarding future WAC expansion intentions that apparently involve a step by step approach if possible.Link at http://www.turnto23.com/news/local-news ... ac-in-2013


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 09, 2012 5:22 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7439
Article out of Idaho discussing why UI will "likely" stay in the WAC for non-FB at least in 2013-2014 at http://vandalnation.wordpress.com/2012/ ... -for-idaho


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:10 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
For those of you that keep saying that NMSU will take AFAs spot in the MWC haven't been paying attention. Craig Thompson told them to move on to plan B because they had NO, NONE, ZIP, NADA interest in NMSU or Idaho. He said they'd look to Texas if they need a replacement school(Texas St.). Remember just because it fits in our minds/geographically doesn't mean that's what they want. Big East(Yes to SDSU, No to ECU) B12 Yes to WVU no to Louisville. ND no to B1G yes to ACC.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 9:02 am 
Offline
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
For those of you that keep saying that NMSU will take AFAs spot in the MWC haven't been paying attention. Craig Thompson told them to move on to plan B because they had NO, NONE, ZIP, NADA interest in NMSU or Idaho. He said they'd look to Texas if they need a replacement school(Texas St.). Remember just because it fits in our minds/geographically doesn't mean that's what they want. Big East(Yes to SDSU, No to ECU) B12 Yes to WVU no to Louisville. ND no to B1G yes to ACC.


True. But that is under the assumption that current Texas schools would jump at the chance of joining the MWC. The MWC is not in any way the conference it once was. All the programs that were worth higher merit are gone: Utah, BYU, Boise St., TCU and even a Tier 2 like SDSU. So if you're a Texas school now in CUSA, you're likely staying in CUSA. So that leaves Texas schools from the Sunbelt. But if you're Texas St., and you have UT-Arlington in the conference with almsot all the members being a bus trip away, would they JUMP at the chance to join the MWC? Maybe not since there is no BCS type of reward associated with being in the MWC. Could Texas St. join the MWC if they needed a replacement? Sure. But this isn't the MWC of years past and Texas St. might not want to increase their travel budget that much, having to fly all their sports teams versus being in a tighter regional footprint. In the end it's reward that is the motivation. The MWC would need to have a reward value for Texas St. to join.

After that, you're looking at Southland upgrades as options...in which case, NMSU could be a better option. UTEP is still the best fit...but they'd have to be willing to give up on the benefits of east coast TV markets to join the MWC where they have the benefits of more local travel.

_________________
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: Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:27 am 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 733
Location: Columbus, OH
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
For those of you that keep saying that NMSU will take AFAs spot in the MWC haven't been paying attention. Craig Thompson told them to move on to plan B because they had NO, NONE, ZIP, NADA interest in NMSU or Idaho. He said they'd look to Texas if they need a replacement school(Texas St.). Remember just because it fits in our minds/geographically doesn't mean that's what they want. Big East(Yes to SDSU, No to ECU) B12 Yes to WVU no to Louisville. ND no to B1G yes to ACC.


I think most of us on here are aware of Craig Thompson's comments regarding NMSU and Idaho but I think the truth of the matter is that these schools are still holding out hope that they will get a phone call from Craig or else they probably would have started the downgrading process already and formalized an agreement with the Big Sky. As Quinn pointed out, there really isn't any other replacement options out there for the MWC as the Texas C-USA schools and Texas St are in a better position travel-wise in their current home and this is no longer the MWC that has BYU, Utah, TCU, and Boise St (and for that matter San Diego St).

Also, I find it dishonorable the way the MWC has left the NMSU and Idaho programs out in the cold. Of the MWC membership, Nevada, Fresno St, Hawaii, Utah St, and San Jose St were all former conference mates of the schools in question. New Mexico and NMSU are instate rivals and I think they owe it to their little brother to see that they are able to be in a sustainable conference in order to keep that rivalry meaningful. That's 5 full members and a football affiliate directly played a part in the demise of the WAC and who should have advocated to keep the WAC "family" together. As for the others (Wyoming, Colorado St, Air Force), they were the ones sending out the invitations that destroyed the WAC in the first place.

In many ways leaving these programs independent is detrimental to the MWC programs. The Pac 12, Big 12, and other major conferences who schedule guarantee games against lower tier competition are aware of Idaho and New Mexico St's scheduling woes and they know they can ask less than fair market price for a body bag game against these schools thus driving down the price Wyoming, Utah St, etc can ask for a trip to one of those stadiums.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 7:45 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
Quinn wrote:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
For those of you that keep saying that NMSU will take AFAs spot in the MWC haven't been paying attention. Craig Thompson told them to move on to plan B because they had NO, NONE, ZIP, NADA interest in NMSU or Idaho. He said they'd look to Texas if they need a replacement school(Texas St.). Remember just because it fits in our minds/geographically doesn't mean that's what they want. Big East(Yes to SDSU, No to ECU) B12 Yes to WVU no to Louisville. ND no to B1G yes to ACC.


True. But that is under the assumption that current Texas schools would jump at the chance of joining the MWC. The MWC is not in any way the conference it once was. All the programs that were worth higher merit are gone: Utah, BYU, Boise St., TCU and even a Tier 2 like SDSU. So if you're a Texas school now in CUSA, you're likely staying in CUSA. So that leaves Texas schools from the Sunbelt. But if you're Texas St., and you have UT-Arlington in the conference with almsot all the members being a bus trip away, would they JUMP at the chance to join the MWC? Maybe not since there is no BCS type of reward associated with being in the MWC. Could Texas St. join the MWC if they needed a replacement? Sure. But this isn't the MWC of years past and Texas St. might not want to increase their travel budget that much, having to fly all their sports teams versus being in a tighter regional footprint. In the end it's reward that is the motivation. The MWC would need to have a reward value for Texas St. to join.

After that, you're looking at Southland upgrades as options...in which case, NMSU could be a better option. UTEP is still the best fit...but they'd have to be willing to give up on the benefits of east coast TV markets to join the MWC where they have the benefits of more local travel.

FYI MWC even w/o AFA still better than the SBC. You really annoy me with lies of Texas St. being a bus trip away from their other members go look at a map. How far do you want to drive on your bus trip? FL? AL? TN? AK? LA(even the La schools are a ways away)? I never said CUSA schools, why do you even bring them up? Fresno, AFA, Nevada are far better than SDSU. So if you want to prop them up, you don't know fb. Basketball still has UNM, UNLV, CSU that all made the tourney last year, the first 2, most years. SBC has WKU and and and??? Plus it's not like Texas St. has any in state football rivals to help keep them in the inferior SBC. If there's a way around having to get a 6th full baseball member then Montana would also be ahead of NMSU on the MWC list. But hey, you know more about the MWC than Thompson or I so it's settled Idaho and NMSU are in. :lol:

_________________
Image


Last edited by Fresno St. Alum on Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:06 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 7:50 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
fighting muskie wrote:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
For those of you that keep saying that NMSU will take AFAs spot in the MWC haven't been paying attention. Craig Thompson told them to move on to plan B because they had NO, NONE, ZIP, NADA interest in NMSU or Idaho. He said they'd look to Texas if they need a replacement school(Texas St.). Remember just because it fits in our minds/geographically doesn't mean that's what they want. Big East(Yes to SDSU, No to ECU) B12 Yes to WVU no to Louisville. ND no to B1G yes to ACC.


I think most of us on here are aware of Craig Thompson's comments regarding NMSU and Idaho but I think the truth of the matter is that these schools are still holding out hope that they will get a phone call from Craig or else they probably would have started the downgrading process already and formalized an agreement with the Big Sky. As Quinn pointed out, there really isn't any other replacement options out there for the MWC as the Texas C-USA schools and Texas St are in a better position travel-wise in their current home and this is no longer the MWC that has BYU, Utah, TCU, and Boise St (and for that matter San Diego St).

Also, I find it dishonorable the way the MWC has left the NMSU and Idaho programs out in the cold. Of the MWC membership, Nevada, Fresno St, Hawaii, Utah St, and San Jose St were all former conference mates of the schools in question. New Mexico and NMSU are instate rivals and I think they owe it to their little brother to see that they are able to be in a sustainable conference in order to keep that rivalry meaningful. That's 5 full members and a football affiliate directly played a part in the demise of the WAC and who should have advocated to keep the WAC "family" together. As for the others (Wyoming, Colorado St, Air Force), they were the ones sending out the invitations that destroyed the WAC in the first place.

In many ways leaving these programs independent is detrimental to the MWC programs. The Pac 12, Big 12, and other major conferences who schedule guarantee games against lower tier competition are aware of Idaho and New Mexico St's scheduling woes and they know they can ask less than fair market price for a body bag game against these schools thus driving down the price Wyoming, Utah St, etc can ask for a trip to one of those stadiums.

There's no honor in conf. realignment. Why should we have to take a school who hasn't been to a bowl since 1960 or another that is in the middle of nowhere that plays in a tiny airplane hanger. The only reason we were in a conf. w/ Idaho and NMSU is because the WAC needed 8 to keep themselves a FBS conf and 9 for balance schedule. Fresno has been trying to get in the MWC since it was formed in 1999, we don't owe NMSU or Idaho sh*t.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:20 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
Texas St. gets 1 or 2 bus trips for football, maybe, the rest flights.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/Cbd1.PNG

Since it's all about distance and MWC and CUSA not being much different, that must be why FIU(nowhere close to any CUSA members), ODU(eastern edge) and Charlotte chose the shorter distances of the SBC over CUSA, oh they didn't, even though Houston, SMU, UCF left. Fact is you get more money, more tv games, more bowl games in the MWC and CUSA, that's why they go. It's a step up the ladder. They could also just make Hawaii a full member and not have to pay subsidies.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1485 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89 ... 99  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