Big West realignment

accseahawk · **Posted:** Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:27 am

SJSUFan2010 wrote:

accseahawk wrote:

i highly doubt the wac would let san jose stay for football only. that would kill any chance at recruting another all sports fbs member from california as well as put the wac in deeper jeopardy of losing fbs status. they have to have 8 all sports members who play football to remain an fbs conference. if lamar does not move up as expected they could lose their fbs status which would prevent them from inviting fcs upgrades and therefore permanently kill the an fbs wac

I disagree. They need 8 football playing members to be an FBS conference (and I'm pretty sure they don't need 8 full time members to stay in D-1 and of course their FBS status is completely unrelated to their D-I status). By allowing SJSU (and in turn Idaho) stay as football only members, they significantly cut down on travel costs in other sports. It's win-win for everyone involved. The WAC seems to realize that their future is as a Texas centered conference and that's where they will expand.

So to stay an FBS conference they need 8 football playing members. They currently have 7. Even if SJSU and Idaho move their Olympic sports, they still have 7 football members. They'd still need an upgrade from FCS (Lamar, UT-Arlington ect). If SJSU and Idaho move their Olympic sports they'd have 6 full time members (I believe they would need 7) so again, still only need 1. Of course it would be nice to have more, but that's what is required.

I see your point about never being able to expand on the West Coast after, but at this point, and for the foreseeable future, there are no schools looking to upgrade on the West Coast anyway.

i gotta disagree with you SJSU and Fresno...

see page 328 Rule 20.02.6
http://www.ncaapublications.com/product ... s/D111.pdf

you are right that an FBS conference must have 8 FBS members but
"An institution shall be included as one of the eight full Football Bowl Subdivision members
only if the institution participates in the conference schedule in at least six men’s and eight women’s conference sponsored
sports, including men’s basketball and football and three women’s team sports including women’s basketball."

This rule prevents 8 FBS teams coming together and establishing a football only FBS conference while maintaining their non revenue sports elsewhere.

If San Jose St. were to go football only for the WAC, they would not count towards the magic number of 8. What would probably be best for the WAC would be to get 8 non California FBS football schools (Lamar and one other) then allow San Jose St to go football only, all other sports in Big West, which would allow for other California schools to do the same thing (Cal Poly, Sacramento St, and Cal Davis)

WAC Southwest
Lamar
Texas Expansion #2
UTSA
Texas St
New Mexico St
La Tech

WAC West
San Jose St (FB ONLY)
Sacramento St (FB ONLY)
Cal Davis (FB ONLY)
Cal Poly (FB ONLY)
Utah St.
Idaho

Denver and Seattle would make non revenue sports at 10, football would be at 12.

not ideal by any means but workable

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

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

Pacific to the WCC makes sense but I haven't heard any news on that since 2007. No one would leave the Big West for the WAC unless they had football that was coming with them. That makes UCD and CP as the only options. Both said no already and joined the Sky for fb.

Any chance that the WAC would allow SJSU to be fb only and the rest of sports join the BW? They and UCSD gets you to 12. I still say they should just take CSUB and UCSD to go to 12. The UCs get one the CSUs get one. Aren't they supposed to stick together on a vote. CSUs should say give us CSUB we'll vote yes on UCSD.

Not to mention, the WCC commish openly said that the WCC has no interest in expanding beyond BYU. And rightly so. St. Marys got left out this year. Had BYU been in this year to boost the RPI, then WCC was a 3 bid conference. Swap BYU for Pacific, and St. Mary's goes from bubble team to "no chance". There are no candidates that help the WCC bottomline. Seattle and denver don't, nobody available does. WCC is in a rare spot where they have a level of success and expansion will likely hurt that sweet spot. Whereas other conferences without success can expand without hurting their revenue streams (or tourney bids)

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

accseahawk wrote:

SJSUFan2010 wrote:

accseahawk wrote:

i highly doubt the wac would let san jose stay for football only. that would kill any chance at recruting another all sports fbs member from california as well as put the wac in deeper jeopardy of losing fbs status. they have to have 8 all sports members who play football to remain an fbs conference. if lamar does not move up as expected they could lose their fbs status which would prevent them from inviting fcs upgrades and therefore permanently kill the an fbs wac

I disagree. They need 8 football playing members to be an FBS conference (and I'm pretty sure they don't need 8 full time members to stay in D-1 and of course their FBS status is completely unrelated to their D-I status). By allowing SJSU (and in turn Idaho) stay as football only members, they significantly cut down on travel costs in other sports. It's win-win for everyone involved. The WAC seems to realize that their future is as a Texas centered conference and that's where they will expand.

So to stay an FBS conference they need 8 football playing members. They currently have 7. Even if SJSU and Idaho move their Olympic sports, they still have 7 football members. They'd still need an upgrade from FCS (Lamar, UT-Arlington ect). If SJSU and Idaho move their Olympic sports they'd have 6 full time members (I believe they would need 7) so again, still only need 1. Of course it would be nice to have more, but that's what is required.

I see your point about never being able to expand on the West Coast after, but at this point, and for the foreseeable future, there are no schools looking to upgrade on the West Coast anyway.

i gotta disagree with you SJSU and Fresno...

see page 328 Rule 20.02.6
http://www.ncaapublications.com/product ... s/D111.pdf

you are right that an FBS conference must have 8 FBS members but
"An institution shall be included as one of the eight full Football Bowl Subdivision members
only if the institution participates in the conference schedule in at least six men’s and eight women’s conference sponsored
sports, including men’s basketball and football and three women’s team sports including women’s basketball."

This rule prevents 8 FBS teams coming together and establishing a football only FBS conference while maintaining their non revenue sports elsewhere.

If San Jose St. were to go football only for the WAC, they would not count towards the magic number of 8. What would probably be best for the WAC would be to get 8 non California FBS football schools (Lamar and one other) then allow San Jose St to go football only, all other sports in Big West, which would allow for other California schools to do the same thing (Cal Poly, Sacramento St, and Cal Davis)

WAC Southwest
Lamar
Texas Expansion #2
UTSA
Texas St
New Mexico St
La Tech

WAC West
San Jose St (FB ONLY)
Sacramento St (FB ONLY)
Cal Davis (FB ONLY)
Cal Poly (FB ONLY)
Utah St.
Idaho

Denver and Seattle would make non revenue sports at 10, football would be at 12.

not ideal by any means but workable

Ah interesting, good call. I was not aware of that. Seems strange to me that a school can play FBS football but not be classified as an FBS school and therefore not count as one of the eight members. Well that definitely changes things.

As a California guy I love the idea of 4 California schools in the WAC but I don't see it happening. I would think Lamar, UT-Arlington, Seattle and maybe one more. That would at least allow SJSU or Idaho to send their Olympic sports elsewhere (assuming UT-A adds football).

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Sun Mar 20, 2011 11:50 pm

acc, I think you also need 16 sports instead of 14 if you play FBS. You can check, not positive but i swear I heard it somewhere.

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

Article out of Long Beach with comments from Big West Commish regarding possible future league expansion at http://www.presstelegram.com/sports/ci_17729507

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:59 pm

I can't believe how blind they are. CUSA and B12, ACC, BE have 12 or more and don't have divisions for basketball. They could play 16 or 18 w/ a 12 team league and not have to split north/south. How are these people in charge? They use the ASun to compare for 11 but won't use any that I named to compare for 12. They can schedule whoever they want, they'll be getting 1 bid, unless UNLV from 1990,1991 come back to the BW and throw the conf. tourney. It sure sound like they hope SJSU will become an option too. Well UCSD sounds like they're stuck in D-II and CSUB will have to hope for a WAC invite.

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

Quinn wrote:

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

Pacific to the WCC makes sense but I haven't heard any news on that since 2007. No one would leave the Big West for the WAC unless they had football that was coming with them. That makes UCD and CP as the only options. Both said no already and joined the Sky for fb.

Any chance that the WAC would allow SJSU to be fb only and the rest of sports join the BW? They and UCSD gets you to 12. I still say they should just take CSUB and UCSD to go to 12. The UCs get one the CSUs get one. Aren't they supposed to stick together on a vote. CSUs should say give us CSUB we'll vote yes on UCSD.

Not to mention, the WCC commish openly said that the WCC has no interest in expanding beyond BYU. And rightly so. St. Marys got left out this year. Had BYU been in this year to boost the RPI, then WCC was a 3 bid conference. Swap BYU for Pacific, and St. Mary's goes from bubble team to "no chance". There are no candidates that help the WCC bottomline. Seattle and denver don't, nobody available does. WCC is in a rare spot where they have a level of success and expansion will likely hurt that sweet spot. Whereas other conferences without success can expand without hurting their revenue streams (or tourney bids)

In the last seven years, Pacific is 144-81 with five post-season bids, 3 NCAA trips and two NCAA tournament wins. And they are 9-4 vs the WCC in that time, as well.

And they lost one OOC game to someone who didn't make the post-season.

Basically, Pacific keeps losing Big West road games. Of course, in the WCC, that wouldn't be an issue. They'd simply say "no, BWC teams, you come to us or the series is over." And bring 9-11 wins into WCC play.

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

JPSchmack wrote:

Quinn wrote:

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

Pacific to the WCC makes sense but I haven't heard any news on that since 2007. No one would leave the Big West for the WAC unless they had football that was coming with them. That makes UCD and CP as the only options. Both said no already and joined the Sky for fb.

Any chance that the WAC would allow SJSU to be fb only and the rest of sports join the BW? They and UCSD gets you to 12. I still say they should just take CSUB and UCSD to go to 12. The UCs get one the CSUs get one. Aren't they supposed to stick together on a vote. CSUs should say give us CSUB we'll vote yes on UCSD.

Not to mention, the WCC commish openly said that the WCC has no interest in expanding beyond BYU. And rightly so. St. Marys got left out this year. Had BYU been in this year to boost the RPI, then WCC was a 3 bid conference. Swap BYU for Pacific, and St. Mary's goes from bubble team to "no chance". There are no candidates that help the WCC bottomline. Seattle and denver don't, nobody available does. WCC is in a rare spot where they have a level of success and expansion will likely hurt that sweet spot. Whereas other conferences without success can expand without hurting their revenue streams (or tourney bids)

In the last seven years, Pacific is 144-81 with five post-season bids, 3 NCAA trips and two NCAA tournament wins. And they are 9-4 vs the WCC in that time, as well.

And they lost one OOC game to someone who didn't make the post-season.

Basically, Pacific keeps losing Big West road games. Of course, in the WCC, that wouldn't be an issue. They'd simply say "no, BWC teams, you come to us or the series is over." And bring 9-11 wins into WCC play.

That's all well and good. But it does nothing to change the fact that the WCC has not and is not at this time interested in them or expansion. When BYU was available, they jumped at the chance. But Pacific brings nothing to the WCC table other than an extra mouth to feed. BYU brings alot to the other members...so they aren't jumping at the chance to give that away to a newbie that is unlikely to bring anything at all in the form of new revenue. Unless of course if vintage Michael Olowokandi jerseys are now able to be used as currency.

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

Quinn wrote:

JPSchmack wrote:

Quinn wrote:

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

Pacific to the WCC makes sense but I haven't heard any news on that since 2007. No one would leave the Big West for the WAC unless they had football that was coming with them. That makes UCD and CP as the only options. Both said no already and joined the Sky for fb.

Any chance that the WAC would allow SJSU to be fb only and the rest of sports join the BW? They and UCSD gets you to 12. I still say they should just take CSUB and UCSD to go to 12. The UCs get one the CSUs get one. Aren't they supposed to stick together on a vote. CSUs should say give us CSUB we'll vote yes on UCSD.

Not to mention, the WCC commish openly said that the WCC has no interest in expanding beyond BYU. And rightly so. St. Marys got left out this year. Had BYU been in this year to boost the RPI, then WCC was a 3 bid conference. Swap BYU for Pacific, and St. Mary's goes from bubble team to "no chance". There are no candidates that help the WCC bottomline. Seattle and denver don't, nobody available does. WCC is in a rare spot where they have a level of success and expansion will likely hurt that sweet spot. Whereas other conferences without success can expand without hurting their revenue streams (or tourney bids)

In the last seven years, Pacific is 144-81 with five post-season bids, 3 NCAA trips and two NCAA tournament wins. And they are 9-4 vs the WCC in that time, as well.

And they lost one OOC game to someone who didn't make the post-season.

Basically, Pacific keeps losing Big West road games. Of course, in the WCC, that wouldn't be an issue. They'd simply say "no, BWC teams, you come to us or the series is over." And bring 9-11 wins into WCC play.

That's all well and good. But it does nothing to change the fact that the WCC has not and is not at this time interested in them or expansion. When BYU was available, they jumped at the chance. But Pacific brings nothing to the WCC table other than an extra mouth to feed. BYU brings alot to the other members...so they aren't jumping at the chance to give that away to a newbie that is unlikely to bring anything at all in the form of new revenue. Unless of course if vintage Michael Olowokandi jerseys are now able to be used as currency.

I understand full well why Pacific isn't in the WCC: Stockton. Move their campus to Sacramento and they might be in.

My quarrel was on the "Pacific hurts MBB profile of the WCC" topic.

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

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

Pacific to the WCC makes sense but I haven't heard any news on that since 2007. No one would leave the Big West for the WAC unless they had football that was coming with them. That makes UCD and CP as the only options. Both said no already and joined the Sky for fb.

Any chance that the WAC would allow SJSU to be fb only and the rest of sports join the BW? They and UCSD gets you to 12. I still say they should just take CSUB and UCSD to go to 12. The UCs get one the CSUs get one. Aren't they supposed to stick together on a vote. CSUs should say give us CSUB we'll vote yes on UCSD.

Any updates on CSUB or UCSD? From what I've been reading there are some rumors of CSUB possibly joining the WAC. If that was to happen would it leave UCSD without a home or would the WAC just be a quick stop for CSUB until the Big West is ready to expand to 12? Currently the Big West has 4 Cal schools and 4 Cal St schools, so the only way I see them adding another Cal/Cal St system school is if one moves up to an FBS conference or if they add one of each to keep the voting equal. Of course they could always add a non Cal/Cal St school...

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Mon May 09, 2011 4:00 pm

The Big West sounds like they don't want more than 10 but they said that 11 was possible, they looked at the A-Sun and OVC to see how they do it. They did not talk about 12 w/o div., but that would be better than 12 w/ division in the BW since 8 of the 12 would be in the south. CSUB would drop the WAC for a BW invite in a sec.

wbyeager · **Posted:** Mon May 09, 2011 6:31 pm

Since the WAC has come out and said they do not want to add a Texas school until a "western" school is added, the Big West might want to wait until the WAC adds either UC Davis or Cal Poly SLO. If the WAC adds both I'd imagine UCSD and CSUB both get invites to keep the UC/Cal State balance intact.

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

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

The Big West sounds like they don't want more than 10 but they said that 11 was possible, they looked at the A-Sun and OVC to see how they do it. They did not talk about 12 w/o div., but that would be better than 12 w/ division in the BW since 8 of the 12 would be in the south. CSUB would drop the WAC for a BW invite in a sec.

The answer to all of your questions is money.

Everything is always about the money. And in this case, it's the money from traveling to Hawaii. If they go to 12, five teams go to Hawaii every year, and the other six go every other year. Sure, Hawaii is paying some travel costs, but not all the travel costs. If you keep the round robin, everyone has equal Hawaii trips (aka travel costs).

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Fri May 13, 2011 11:21 pm

Big West rejected UCSD today.

http://www.10news.com/news/27875297/detail.html

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

Article out of San diego discussing possibility of SDSU putting it's non FB sports in the Big West at http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011 ... t-big-west

Big West realignment

Who is online