And Sac is desparetly trying to change the 'commuter school' image by building 5K new beds on campus, with another 3K being planned.

That in itself is a light year difference between Sac and the Big West CSU's.

And the new Sac President wants Sac to be the 'flagship' campus of the CSU. Whatever that means. With no football, it is hard to be a flagship.

I guess if no reason was given then the Big Sky wanting to add bodies and metro markets is your definition as to why they said no (about a year ago).

Remember we are talking about the year 2020 for the WAC and this whole thing is speculation, but leagues have gone down this population based theory before.

I would rather have a Flag Ship University with a large following even if it was from a smaller state, then have a University that is 5th or 6th best in a state that has a small following. Even if that 5th or 6th University was in a "metro area"

I live in Kansas City. If the WAC was choosing between Kansas State University in Manhattan, KS (pop. 44,861) or University of Missouri-Kansas City in Kansas City (pop. 1.6 million), which do you think they would take? I know, I know UMKC dosen't have football so feel free to put in Tulsa, Buffalo, Sac-State, whomever you want. You see my point. Population does not equal following.

Do I think SDSU will be in the WAC in 2020? No. Is it a possibility? Maybe. Stranger things have happened. Is it fun to talk about. Yes, that is what chat boards are all about.

For those who wonder how on earth SDSU got brought up on the WAC Realignment thread here is how it all got started.

In 2020, the BCS will be comprised of soccer schools. ::)

In reality, I see a major shift of the big football schools away from the lower I-A's and I-AA's. Something has to give, ten's of millions of dollars can't be continually spent by colleges on athletics and claim to be academic driven. Underclassmen leaving early, Rice, Tulane, Vanderbilt having issues with the current pattern of the modern football arms race. Schools dropping football in favor of soccer, or severly diminishing the athletic presence on campus.

Or, the BCS schools could leave the NCAA and form their own governing body managed by ESPN and the current lower I-A's and I-AA's would then compete at the highest level of NCAA competetion. :P

From the bark board as the Fresno Bee requires membership nowadays.

Fresno, Boise, Hawai'i finally get together to form a "core" to move the WAC forward.

http://mb1.theinsiders.com/ffresnostatefrm1.showMessage?topicID=8207.topic

This an idea I have never heard anyone really mentioned here (or if anyone has, I have looong forgotten it!!!), but I wonder if the WAC could improve itself by adding some non-football schools to the league, basically following the Big East and Sunbelt models. I'd like to see the WAC grab Gonzaga, Pepperdine, and maybe Cal State-Fullerton.

Any opinions on the WAC having some non-football ("basketball-onlys) members??

What comes to mind regarding that idea is whether or not some of those schools are truly interested and/or able. From the sounds of it such a move may not yield a financial windfall, and the WAC is a fairly dispersed group even without La. Tech.

Good question, though. Given the difficult circumstances in managing a conference in the west, this might be the mechanism that makes the most money for a league that might never field more than 9 for football. Worth considering, for sure. We should see which non-1-A schools fit the geography, sports profile and budget of the remaining WAC members.

No partial membership. Dilutes the message and involvement.

Not really. And in the WAC's case, I can see where it would be good. The WAC needs some type of showcase sport, and I don't think football is it. BTW, basketball members are actually very involved in their conference, oddly enough.