Seems to be a taylor made proposal to specifically accomodate the WAC. I don't think that this will help them with the BCS, the BCS recognizes conferences with 8 or more FBS members. So the WAC should basically be scheduling alliance for football...

Quote:Finally, some good news for the WAC: Proposal 2010-100 passes
Posted on 01/13/2011 by dmccarney
At long last, some welcome good news for the Western Athletic Conference.

Proposal 2010-100 was adopted Thursday by the NCAA’s Legislative Council, which will allow the WAC to remain an FBS/Division I league as it is currently composed. Provided, of course, it doesn’t continue to hemorrhage members, which likely will remain a concern for the foreseeable future.

But for now, the league can at least breath a little bit easier after the continuity clause that required conferences to maintain a core membership of six schools for at least five years was abolished. In its place, conferences must have “seven active Division I members” – all of which sponsor men’s basketball, and six that sponsor at least five other sports, including football.

There are a handful of other lesser requirements, but that’s the meat of it.

So if the WAC can retain its impending lineup of UTSA, Texas State, Louisiana Tech, Idaho, Utah State, New Mexico State, San Jose State and Denver (men’s basketball), it will retain its valuable automatic NCAA tournament berths, perhaps the biggest key to its future survival.

“It was tailored so it wouldn’t disenfranchise anyone,” said Steve Mallonee, a member of the legislative council and the NCAA’s managing director of academic and membership affairs. “Everybody currently meets the requirements. (The WAC) is taking steps to add members. Let’s hope they’re successful and they can continue on.”

If it can’t?

“It’s an interesting question,” Mallonee said. “In a multi-sport conference, you can still exist, you just might lose your place in the governance structure, or you might lose access to (particular) championships. There is a two-year grace period if you fall below the number, so you have a chance to rectify that.”

At that point, schools would almost certainly begin looking hard at other options (if they aren’t already). And if the conference does break up, and none present themselves?

Mallonee didn’t have an answer. He did float the possibility that the league/schools could petition the NCAA for some sort of hardship waiver, but that was just a brainstorm. Considering there’s no precedent, it’s unlikely anybody has a definitive answer at this point.

Until then, commissioner Karl Benson and his schools can simply be glad for the new rules and hope they never need to find out.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/utsa/2011/0...onvention/

(01-14-2011 12:03 AM)stebo Wrote:  Seems to be a taylor made proposal to specifically accomodate the WAC. I don't think that this will help them with the BCS, the BCS recognizes conferences with 8 or more FBS members. So the WAC should basically be scheduling alliance for football...

Quote:Finally, some good news for the WAC: Proposal 2010-100 passes
Posted on 01/13/2011 by dmccarney
At long last, some welcome good news for the Western Athletic Conference.

Proposal 2010-100 was adopted Thursday by the NCAA’s Legislative Council, which will allow the WAC to remain an FBS/Division I league as it is currently composed. Provided, of course, it doesn’t continue to hemorrhage members, which likely will remain a concern for the foreseeable future.

But for now, the league can at least breath a little bit easier after the continuity clause that required conferences to maintain a core membership of six schools for at least five years was abolished. In its place, conferences must have “seven active Division I members” – all of which sponsor men’s basketball, and six that sponsor at least five other sports, including football.

There are a handful of other lesser requirements, but that’s the meat of it.

So if the WAC can retain its impending lineup of UTSA, Texas State, Louisiana Tech, Idaho, Utah State, New Mexico State, San Jose State and Denver (men’s basketball), it will retain its valuable automatic NCAA tournament berths, perhaps the biggest key to its future survival.

“It was tailored so it wouldn’t disenfranchise anyone,” said Steve Mallonee, a member of the legislative council and the NCAA’s managing director of academic and membership affairs. “Everybody currently meets the requirements. (The WAC) is taking steps to add members. Let’s hope they’re successful and they can continue on.”

If it can’t?

“It’s an interesting question,” Mallonee said. “In a multi-sport conference, you can still exist, you just might lose your place in the governance structure, or you might lose access to (particular) championships. There is a two-year grace period if you fall below the number, so you have a chance to rectify that.”

At that point, schools would almost certainly begin looking hard at other options (if they aren’t already). And if the conference does break up, and none present themselves?

Mallonee didn’t have an answer. He did float the possibility that the league/schools could petition the NCAA for some sort of hardship waiver, but that was just a brainstorm. Considering there’s no precedent, it’s unlikely anybody has a definitive answer at this point.

Until then, commissioner Karl Benson and his schools can simply be glad for the new rules and hope they never need to find out.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/utsa/2011/0...onvention/

That's not a surprise. It's what we'll see from football that will be the big question. The WAC is losing post-season bowl births all over the place and will only have one primary tie-in (the Humanitarian Bowl) beginning in 2012 and extending to whatever is contracted further.

Not sure what the big deal is here. So they get to remain one of 32 DI conferences in the country. ok?

The main issue is that they only have five FBS schools after July (because it takes at least a year to transition from one conference to another). Texas St. is making a transition to the WAC (football usually takes a couple of years from FCS to FBS) and UTSA is starting to schedule their first FCS games for this fall; then they'll need to start their transition as well.

Even with the Texas twins the WAC is at 7 some point in the future. They would need to bring up (or down) another program to reach 8 if that is where the current BCS by-laws stand (or petition for an exception). There will obviously be a lapse in BCS continuity for the WAC because the TT's can't get up to FBS speed in a year. I guess after the TT's +1 get up to speed (probably 5 years from now), they can petition the BCS to allow them back in.

Sounds to me like they are still 'stuck between a rock and a hard place' even after the 2010-100 amendment.

The interesting thing will come tomorrow (at least it is supposed to come tomorrow) when the MWC meets to discuss expansion. If Utah State is offered as rumored, then the NCAA's efforts will have been wasted and the WAC will be dead.

(01-14-2011 08:44 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  The interesting thing will come tomorrow (at least it is supposed to come tomorrow) when the MWC meets to discuss expansion. If Utah State is offered as rumored, then the NCAA's efforts will have been wasted and the WAC will be dead.

What if USU is not offered? What then? Five members, all hanging on to FBS by a thread (except for arguably La Tech.) + two schools who have yet to even begin the transition from FCS to FBS. Compounded by the fact that they are still a member short and they have (or will) lose all their bowl tie-in's.

Whose going to bring in Bowl games? Are they really going to play 6 OOC games a year? That leaves only 3 guaranteed home games. The best they can hope for would be a 5/7 home road split.

Seems like the WAC has lots of questions, but very few answers right now even if the MWC leaves them alone.

Just have to wait and see...I think Benson is still going to push for a block deal with UNT, ASU and ULL. Whether or not they decide to go that route will be on them.

(01-14-2011 10:30 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  Just have to wait and see...I think Benson is still going to push for a block deal with UNT, ASU and ULL. Whether or not they decide to go that route will be on them.

What does the WAC have to offer? No bowls. No BCS $$$ and further travel. And the very real possibility that as soon as any current WAC school is offered another conference you'll be without a home.

Plus those schools built this conference.

(01-14-2011 10:30 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  Just have to wait and see...I think Benson is still going to push for a block deal with UNT, ASU and ULL. Whether or not they decide to go that route will be on them.

You really have nothing to worry about there. I'm sure that if NT wanted to be in the WAC, they'd already be there. The Cajuns have never had an interest in joining Big West II--Electric Boogaloo.

What we really ought to do if offer NM State, it would be both the stake in the heart and the silver bullet to finish off the WAC.

(01-14-2011 11:12 AM)AstroCajun Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 10:30 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  Just have to wait and see...I think Benson is still going to push for a block deal with UNT, ASU and ULL. Whether or not they decide to go that route will be on them.

You really have nothing to worry about there. I'm sure that if NT wanted to be in the WAC, they'd already be there. The Cajuns have never had an interest in joining Big West II--Electric Boogaloo.

What we really ought to do if offer NM State, it would be both the stake in the heart and the silver bullet to finish off the WAC.

I agree 100%. I was for UTSA as well, until I saw the orange field...They can keep that crap in the WAC.

(01-14-2011 11:11 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  What does the WAC have to offer? No bowls. No BCS $$$ and further travel. And the very real possibility that as soon as any current WAC school is offered another conference you'll be without a home.

Plus those schools built this conference.

The WAC offers nothing that we don't have already.....and it lacks the stability that we do have. Why even consider it?
If the SBC loses a team or 3 in the future, no sweat, there are plenty of regional teams to persuade. That will never be the case with the WAC. Why would any school want to be a part of that?

Wasn't there a requirement that both the rule change pass AND some board rule the new rule be interpreted in a new way also?

And, while they might retain their auto bids, I don't think they qualify as a FBS conference, just a Division 1 conference. In 2012, I believe they will still just be "a scheduling alliance of independent schools."

(01-14-2011 11:11 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 10:30 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  Just have to wait and see...I think Benson is still going to push for a block deal with UNT, ASU and ULL. Whether or not they decide to go that route will be on them.

What does the WAC have to offer? No bowls. No BCS $$$ and further travel. And the very real possibility that as soon as any current WAC school is offered another conference you'll be without a home.

Plus those schools built this conference.

The WAC has absolutely nothing to offer! NT, stAte, and the UL Cajuns will not go West yet again. That would be beyond crazy !!!

Go SBC !!!

like I've been saying for months the NCAA was gonna drop the 6/5 rule. That was the reason they proposed the new rule last year, knowing it would pass, since everyone one is playing musical conferences. So the WAC is safe for now as the worst conf. with 7 FBS teams. Until the MWC considers snagging USU, oh joy . Then you guys can decide if you wanna snag the FBS start-up or La Tech. If those things happen the rest of the Great West bball members will join the WAC and be a bball only conf.

(01-14-2011 06:54 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  like I've been saying for months the NCAA was gonna drop the 6/5 rule. That was the reason they proposed the new rule last year, knowing it would pass, since everyone one is playing musical conferences. So the WAC is safe for now as the worst conf. with 7 FBS teams. Until the MWC considers snagging USU, oh joy . Then you guys can decide if you wanna snag the FBS start-up or La Tech. If those things happen the rest of the Great West bball members will join the WAC and be a bball only conf.

I've seen you here enough that you ought to know what our thoughts are as it relates to adding a third school from Louisiana.

The black balls that will get pulled out of the hat will be a direct consequence of their own misdeeds as they have backstabbed many around here.

They abandoned this conference when the conference needed them the most. Very soon they will need the conference the most and I would hope that we (rightfully) turn our backs to them.

Karma.

(01-14-2011 09:00 PM)AstroCajun Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 06:54 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  like I've been saying for months the NCAA was gonna drop the 6/5 rule. That was the reason they proposed the new rule last year, knowing it would pass, since everyone one is playing musical conferences. So the WAC is safe for now as the worst conf. with 7 FBS teams. Until the MWC considers snagging USU, oh joy . Then you guys can decide if you wanna snag the FBS start-up or La Tech. If those things happen the rest of the Great West bball members will join the WAC and be a bball only conf.

I've seen you here enough that you ought to know what our thoughts are as it relates to adding a third school from Louisiana.

The black balls that will get pulled out of the hat will be a direct consequence of their own misdeeds as they have backstabbed many around here.

They abandoned this conference when the conference needed them the most. Very soon they will need the conference the most and I would hope that we (rightfully) turn our backs to them.

Karma.

Indeed they did, but they may offer all of you BJs if you take them back.

(01-15-2011 03:00 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 09:00 PM)AstroCajun Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 06:54 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  like I've been saying for months the NCAA was gonna drop the 6/5 rule. That was the reason they proposed the new rule last year, knowing it would pass, since everyone one is playing musical conferences. So the WAC is safe for now as the worst conf. with 7 FBS teams. Until the MWC considers snagging USU, oh joy . Then you guys can decide if you wanna snag the FBS start-up or La Tech. If those things happen the rest of the Great West bball members will join the WAC and be a bball only conf.

I've seen you here enough that you ought to know what our thoughts are as it relates to adding a third school from Louisiana.

The black balls that will get pulled out of the hat will be a direct consequence of their own misdeeds as they have backstabbed many around here.

They abandoned this conference when the conference needed them the most. Very soon they will need the conference the most and I would hope that we (rightfully) turn our backs to them.

Karma.

Indeed they did, but they may offer all of you BJs if you take them back.

Albeit an unnecessarily aggressive and toothy one performed behind a dumpster and they'll still find a way to stab us in the back if we get close enough to them.

No thanks.

This was really the only thing the conference was worried about as far as the NCAA is concerned. The WAC can keep adding FCS schools if it'd like and still be recognized as an FBS league because a two year grace period is allowed

(01-15-2011 03:00 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 09:00 PM)AstroCajun Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 06:54 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  like I've been saying for months the NCAA was gonna drop the 6/5 rule. That was the reason they proposed the new rule last year, knowing it would pass, since everyone one is playing musical conferences. So the WAC is safe for now as the worst conf. with 7 FBS teams. Until the MWC considers snagging USU, oh joy . Then you guys can decide if you wanna snag the FBS start-up or La Tech. If those things happen the rest of the Great West bball members will join the WAC and be a bball only conf.

I've seen you here enough that you ought to know what our thoughts are as it relates to adding a third school from Louisiana.

The black balls that will get pulled out of the hat will be a direct consequence of their own misdeeds as they have backstabbed many around here.

They abandoned this conference when the conference needed them the most. Very soon they will need the conference the most and I would hope that we (rightfully) turn our backs to them.

Karma.

Indeed they did, but they may offer all of you BJs if you take them back.

First, I am certainly not predicting that the WAC will crash & burn. It may not.

But, if the MWC does expand with two of the far west schools (USU and SJSU seem to may make sense for market), I would like to see the Sun Belt invite UTSA, Texas State, La Tech, and New Mexico State to form a 14 team football league. I believe it's the right thing to do and it would benefit all involved.

It would allow the Sun Belt to create two seven team divisions to gain new markets, increase regional rivalries and further reduce travel costs for both divisions. I also think having UTSA, Tex St, NMSU, La Tech, Louisiana, and Ark St joining North Texas in a western division would be a hell of a fun travel schedule. It would also create a buffer so that the Sun Belt wasn't adversely affected if a school (or two) were to leave for another conference. (Yes, I expect every school to better itself if opportunities present themselves.)

(01-15-2011 03:00 AM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  Indeed they did, but they may offer all of you BJs if you take them back.

Woh, that's putting it bluntly, but that's basically what I meant when I said it would take the new members of the WAC willing to make "serious concessions" to Louisiana-Lafayette and North Texas in order to get them to leave the Sun Belt as one San Antonio, Texas article speculated.