WAC General Realignment Thread

mozilla · **Posted:** Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:50 pm

The Bishin Cutter wrote:

mozilla wrote:

Hard to know how the folding of two programs(UTPA/UTB) into one will proceed. They might not want to tackle fb this early in the process??

I'd like to be a fly on the wall for those conversations, if they were happening. Over-saturation or good payoff (the fast rise of UTSA and TSU-SM)?

It's surprising how under-saturated the market actually was. I think the schools to watch as indicators are UIW, HBU, ACU. If these schools start getting competitive in the next few years....then there is still plenty of market left on the bone.

Fresno St. Alum · **Joined:** Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm **Posts:** 2803

tute79 wrote:

Recall that about 1 1/2 year ago (?), UCSD was contemplating a move to D-1, and conducted a student vote on raising an athletic fee to pay for the upgrade.
Had it passed, speculation was that the school would vote to move up to D-1 and a slot in the Big West ws waiting for them.
The vote failed (and it wasn't terribly close...).

CSU-B has been waiting there.... I think hte rap on them is hte quality of their facilities, but I have no first-hand knowledge of anything abot that school.

their arena is only 10-15 years old and would be the biggest in the BW unless Hawaii holds more than 10K. They also have good baseball, the BW's best sport.

46566 · **Joined:** Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:06 am **Posts:** 152

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

46566 wrote:

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

Bakerfield JC has a nice 22K seat stadium and the area has great fb tradition(Fresno St. gets tons of players from there, the Carr Bros for example). So CS Bakersfield would be great but CA cuts fb, it doesn't add it.

I always figured that Cal State Bakersfield has been waiting around for a Big West conference invite. With the Big West having 9 schools now i figure it's a matter of time before Bakersfield gets a invite.

Yeah, I wonder how long they'll wait for UCSD before settling for CSUB. The UC system are research institutions and the CSUs are teacher colleges so I can see why UCSD has dibs but hell the Big West has 4 UCs and 4 CSUs, take the one that wants to be w/ you. CSUB also has a 10K bball arena.

Maybe there using the WAC to help strengthen CSUB? By having them in the WAC for a few years there is the hopes that they would recruit better.As they go to Chicago,Phoenix and Seattle. They will also gain some money with the WAC shares in their NCAA tie ins to the championships. I would also think it would be in the best interested to keep the WAC stable and as a conference. If the WAC was to dissolve i think it would cause more problems then good. Next year they would have only 7 full D-1 Schools if CSUB leaves they would have 6. Maybe there invite them to the big west when Grand Canyon gets closer to full D-1 Status.

ncaanopaawaa2000 · **Posted:** Fri Feb 07, 2014 6:34 am

46566 wrote:

Maybe there using the WAC to help strengthen CSUB? By having them in the WAC for a few years there is the hopes that they would recruit better.As they go to Chicago,Phoenix and Seattle. They will also gain some money with the WAC shares in their NCAA tie ins to the championships. I would also think it would be in the best interested to keep the WAC stable and as a conference. If the WAC was to dissolve i think it would cause more problems then good. Next year they would have only 7 full D-1 Schools if CSUB leaves they would have 6. Maybe there invite them to the big west when Grand Canyon gets closer to full D-1 Status.

Good point. But keep in mind that the minimum number requirement of schools for a D-I conference to maintain stable is 8.

mozilla · **Posted:** Fri Feb 07, 2014 1:26 pm

What does the potential recruiting list look like for the WAC? With a footprint that covers half the Nation...which direction does the conference look for new schools?
Should the WAC try to preemptively grab Tx A&M CC before the Southland grabs UTPA?

Any ideas how the WAC can solidify their situation? Or, is the conference destined to be a transitional school home for the foreseeable future?

ncaanopaawaa2000 · **Posted:** Fri Feb 07, 2014 1:35 pm

mozilla wrote:

What does the potential recruiting list look like for the WAC? With a footprint that covers half the Nation...which direction does the conference look for new schools?
Should the WAC try to preemptively grab Tx A&M CC before the Southland grabs UTPA?

Any ideas how the WAC can solidify their situation? Or, is the conference destined to be a transitional school home for the foreseeable future?

I believe that the WAC should focus on finding any schools from the left side of the Upper/Lower Midwest U.S. areas as well as the Western U.S. area. Like you said, the current footprint the WAC is displaying has been throughout half of the nation. Otherwise, it would act up ending like the recently-defunct Great West Conference. Maybe the WAC should grab Texas A&M at Corpus Christi as a possible candidate of expansion.

tkalmus · **Joined:** Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm **Posts:** 1406

ncaanopaawaa2000 wrote:

mozilla wrote:

What does the potential recruiting list look like for the WAC? With a footprint that covers half the Nation...which direction does the conference look for new schools?
Should the WAC try to preemptively grab Tx A&M CC before the Southland grabs UTPA?

Any ideas how the WAC can solidify their situation? Or, is the conference destined to be a transitional school home for the foreseeable future?

I believe that the WAC should focus on finding any schools from the left side of the Upper/Lower Midwest U.S. areas as well as the Western U.S. area. Like you said, the current footprint the WAC is displaying has been throughout half of the nation. Otherwise, it would act up ending like the recently-defunct Great West Conference. Maybe the WAC should grab Texas A&M at Corpus Christi as a possible candidate of expansion.

Why would A&M CC leave the Southland for a less relevant conference with that cost the athletes/admin more travel time/money?

The WAC needs Idaho to make friends in the Big Sky for a few years so they can help the WAC restart itself as a FBS football conference by convincing Utah Valley and Grand Canyon to start teams to go with NMSU, Idaho, and at least 4 more from the Big Sky.

There is no point to expanding East of the Mountain Time Zone unless they absolutley have to in order to keep their NCAA bid....and then it would just be NJIT because the WAC isn't raiding anyone...UMKC was the exception not the rule.

mozilla · **Posted:** Fri Feb 07, 2014 4:07 pm

If the WAC can't pull Corpus Christie....does that guarantee that UTPA will leave for the Southland? And if UTPA leaves....do you see the WAC wanting to stay in Texas?

Should the WAC attempt to pull up some DII fb schools? Or is it smarter to recruit the Big Sky, like you mentioned?
How many schools does it take to restart the fb conference?

TexasTerror · **Joined:** Sun Jun 12, 2011 5:18 pm **Posts:** 95

As one person put it to me, "UTPA is still UTPA". The school is making upgrades to their facilities, but in my guesstimate, that it would take adding football for them to realize their Southland Conference dream. They have applied multiple times and were the only one of the group the last go around to not "make it to the dance". BTW - they did just announce an upgrade for soccer/T&F.

TAMU-CC is going to really have to have a compelling reason to leave the Southland for the WAC. While access to the postseason could be considerably easier due to limited programs, you would see an increase in budget due to travel. With regular games in Houston (HBU) and San Antonio (UIW), they are competing in their primary recruiting base for students and student-athletes outside of areas further south in Texas and they do seem to play UTPA across the board. A regular presence in those key areas is good for them.

Fresno St. Alum · **Joined:** Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm **Posts:** 2803

ncaanopaawaa2000 wrote:

46566 wrote:

Maybe there using the WAC to help strengthen CSUB? By having them in the WAC for a few years there is the hopes that they would recruit better.As they go to Chicago,Phoenix and Seattle. They will also gain some money with the WAC shares in their NCAA tie ins to the championships. I would also think it would be in the best interested to keep the WAC stable and as a conference. If the WAC was to dissolve i think it would cause more problems then good. Next year they would have only 7 full D-1 Schools if CSUB leaves they would have 6. Maybe there invite them to the big west when Grand Canyon gets closer to full D-1 Status.

Good point. But keep in mind that the minimum number requirement of schools for a D-I conference to maintain stable is 8.

Bball conf. needs 7 counting members to be "stable" WAC has that. GCU not counting until their provisional status is up. fbs is 8.

UTRGV may have been rejected many times, just like Longwood was to the Big South, and Savannah St. to the MEAC. Both finally got in. If No D-II Tx, Ok, Ark school is ready to move up UTRGV is going to get in the SLC. They don't need fb, ORU didn't have fb so there's no need to replace them w/ one that does, they can but not a must.

UTRGV leaves I bet UMKC will do all they can to go back to the Summit. NJIT would be the only counting option if anyone leaves the WAC, however now that they're becoming more AEC friendly by adding sports they will probably be the 10th member of the AEC.

tkalmus · **Joined:** Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm **Posts:** 1406

mozilla wrote:

If the WAC can't pull Corpus Christie....does that guarantee that UTPA will leave for the Southland? And if UTPA leaves....do you see the WAC wanting to stay in Texas?

Should the WAC attempt to pull up some DII fb schools? Or is it smarter to recruit the Big Sky, like you mentioned?
How many schools does it take to restart the fb conference?

That's a complicated question.

Yes, UTPA would leave the WAC for the Southland in a heartbeat.

As would UMKC or Chicago St for the Horizon or MVC, or Seattle for the WCC, or CSUB for the Big West or NMSU for the Sun Belt.

The WAC is the lowest of the low, except for maybe the Summit, but that move has a big astrisk as when you realize one of the reason they got dumped by UMKC was because UMKC wasn't competitive enough to play in the Summit.

The WAC isn't really concern with markets, its concerned with keeping the conference afloat. Its basically become the new Great West except they have an automatic bid to the tourney and NJIT hasn't been invited...yet. So if a Texas school want to move up to D1 with the WAC they'd take them, but I don't think they'll specifically target the State of Texas for membership, their target are teams that want to move up, PERIOD.

The WAC could restart football with 8. Pulling some DII schools it would be high unlikely that a school would jump from DII to FBS. But the big issue is that they'll be left out of the college football playoff money which is a huge deal.

That's why I said they should have Idaho working on the Big Sky schools while also looking for any western startups (be it in the WAC, Big West, WCC, or D2) or FCS upgrades (Big West, Southland, or MVFC), and then right before the contract is up for renegotiation in the early 2020's they could start their move with the 8 best they could get to rejoin the FBS and hope to be included in the next college playoff system like the Sun Belt/CUSA/MAC/MWC/AAC are.

I could see a WAC football conference formed with with almost any of the Big Sky members (except Southern Utah) and possibly some of the following...

Cal Poly (fb only)
UC Davis (fb only)
NDSU (fb only)
SDSU (fb only)
South Dakota (fb only)
SHSU (fb only)
SFA (fb only)
Lamar (fb only)
Missouri State (fb only)

46566 · **Joined:** Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:06 am **Posts:** 152

tkalmus wrote:

mozilla wrote:

If the WAC can't pull Corpus Christie....does that guarantee that UTPA will leave for the Southland? And if UTPA leaves....do you see the WAC wanting to stay in Texas?

Should the WAC attempt to pull up some DII fb schools? Or is it smarter to recruit the Big Sky, like you mentioned?
How many schools does it take to restart the fb conference?

That's a complicated question.

Yes, UTPA would leave the WAC for the Southland in a heartbeat.

As would UMKC or Chicago St for the Horizon or MVC, or Seattle for the WCC, or CSUB for the Big West or NMSU for the Sun Belt.

The WAC is the lowest of the low, except for maybe the Summit, but that move has a big astrisk as when you realize one of the reason they got dumped by UMKC was because UMKC wasn't competitive enough to play in the Summit.

The WAC isn't really concern with markets, its concerned with keeping the conference afloat. Its basically become the new Great West except they have an automatic bid to the tourney and NJIT hasn't been invited...yet. So if a Texas school want to move up to D1 with the WAC they'd take them, but I don't think they'll specifically target the State of Texas for membership, their target are teams that want to move up, PERIOD.

The WAC could restart football with 8. Pulling some DII schools it would be high unlikely that a school would jump from DII to FBS. But the big issue is that they'll be left out of the college football playoff money which is a huge deal.

That's why I said they should have Idaho working on the Big Sky schools while also looking for any western startups (be it in the WAC, Big West, WCC, or D2) or FCS upgrades (Big West, Southland, or MVFC), and then right before the contract is up for renegotiation in the early 2020's they could start their move with the 8 best they could get to rejoin the FBS and hope to be included in the next college playoff system like the Sun Belt/CUSA/MAC/MWC/AAC are.

I could see a WAC football conference formed with with almost any of the Big Sky members (except Southern Utah) and possibly some of the following...

Cal Poly (fb only)
UC Davis (fb only)
NDSU (fb only)
SDSU (fb only)
South Dakota (fb only)
SHSU (fb only)
SFA (fb only)
Lamar (fb only)
Missouri State (fb only)

I could see the potential move up of schools for football.Though i could see it also the other way maybe the WAC is hoping that some of the big sky schools decide to cut football and might want to move to the WAC.(I'm assuming the Big Sky would want them out) I know Portland State has budget problems. I'm assuming there might be some quiet talk towards Idaho to see if there going to move there football down to FCS.(could be why they accepted them next year?) If Idaho doesn't move down i don't see why the Big Sky would want them other then a possible travel partner with Idaho state. I could see Idaho coming back to the WAC if the Big Sky want full membership.

Fresno St. Alum · **Joined:** Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm **Posts:** 2803

rumor from the WAC board is that an e-mail from their commish to a fan said they are in talks to add UA-Anchorage and UA-Fairbanks, however UAF is much further behind and would need to do a study.

ncaanopaawaa2000 · **Posted:** Sun Feb 23, 2014 7:35 am

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

rumor from the WAC board is that an e-mail from their commish to a fan said they are in talks to add UA-Anchorage and UA-Fairbanks, however UAF is much further behind and would need to do a study.

Adding an Alaska school to Division I would be a first; but it would cost travel issues. Plus, it would make them be the Hawaii of the non-football scene.

Fresno St. Alum · **Joined:** Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm **Posts:** 2803

ncaanopaawaa2000 wrote:

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

rumor from the WAC board is that an e-mail from their commish to a fan said they are in talks to add UA-Anchorage and UA-Fairbanks, however UAF is much further behind and would need to do a study.

Adding an Alaska school to Division I would be a first; but it would cost travel issues. Plus, it would make them be the Hawaii of the non-football scene.

They already travel a lot in D-II and in D-I Hockey. WAC is desperate, they're one UTRGV to the SLC or UMKC or Chicago St. back to the Summit away from their AQ being in jeopardy. GCU should be a counter towards the 7 needed in 2018.

WAC General Realignment Thread

Who is online