With Boise putting non-fb in the WAC you have the following:

7 Football/All sports members...
SJSU
USU
NMSU
Idaho
La Tech
UTSA
Texas State

as well as 4 non-fb members
Boise State
Seattle
Denver
UT-Arlington

11 members right now.

So when paired with Commissioner Benson's comments about getting to 12 teams (for cost saving divisions) is there any indication on who team 12 will be?

Lamar has shown the most interest. You can put them in a central division with Louisiana Tech, UT-Arlington, UT-San Antonio, Texas State, New Mexico State.

Is the WAC going to 12 or will the WAC end up going to 14 with a few more football members in Montana and Montana State?

Finally we may see more movement out of the WAC in the form of Utah State and San Jose State which will open up additional spots in the conference. Portland State, Southern Utah, Northern Arizona. The WAC could completely destroy the Big Sky.

With the recent additions of Houston Baptist and Oral Roberts to the Southland, and all of the chatter about North Alabama and Incarante Word moving up to Division I and the Southland as well, I think the Southland expects to lose Lamar.

WAC North - San Jose State, Seattle, Idaho, Boise State, Utah State, Denver
WAC South - New Mexcio State, UTSA, Texas State, UTA, Lamar, Louisiana Tech

Southland West - Oral Roberts, Stephen F. Austin State, Sam Houston State, Houston Baptist, A&M-Corpus Christi, Incarnate Word
Southland East - Central Arkansas, North Alabama, SE Louisiana, Nicholls State, McNeese State, Northwestern State

The Big Sky has to be careful; if it decides to end football-only memberships, Cal Poly and UC Davis could join the WAC as football-only members.

I have Air Force as my black horse.

Depends on if The Big East is still looking west. A UNLV or New Mexico would be a great basketball addition. If The Big East is done out west then there are way to many teams out there to look at. I know Cal State Bakersfield need a home. That would not be a bad pick plus they have a blue basketball court. And we Boise fans like blue.
Lamar and Weber State are options as well.

(12-15-2011 07:12 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  With Boise putting non-fb in the WAC you have the following:

7 Football/All sports members...
SJSU
USU
NMSU
Idaho
La Tech
UTSA
Texas State

as well as 4 non-fb members
Boise State
Seattle
Denver
UT-Arlington

11 members right now.

So when paired with Commissioner Benson's comments about getting to 12 teams (for cost saving divisions) is there any indication on who team 12 will be?

They need the 12th to be an 8th FB school. Lamar?

(12-15-2011 07:12 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  With Boise putting non-fb in the WAC you have the following:

7 Football/All sports members...
SJSU
USU
NMSU
Idaho
La Tech
UTSA
Texas State

as well as 4 non-fb members
Boise State
Seattle
Denver
UT-Arlington

11 members right now.

So when paired with Commissioner Benson's comments about getting to 12 teams (for cost saving divisions) is there any indication on who team 12 will be?

wait.... boise is in the wac and sdsu is in the big west?????? that is effing funny

Lamar makes the most sense. Hopefully for the WAC with the addition of Boise it will give more impetus to Montana and MSU for them to take the plunge, even if it's football only.

If Montana and MSU go to the WAC- it would be for everything. WAC is higher than Big Sky in bball so they would go all-in....

(12-16-2011 12:33 AM)stever20 Wrote:  If Montana and MSU go to the WAC- it would be for everything. WAC is higher than Big Sky in bball so they would go all-in....

You're right, I meant in my post that even with Boise in the WAC for fb only, that might be enough to help entice Mt and MSU to bring their whole programs. Maybe some OOC games can be scheduled.

(12-16-2011 12:44 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(12-16-2011 12:33 AM)stever20 Wrote:  If Montana and MSU go to the WAC- it would be for everything. WAC is higher than Big Sky in bball so they would go all-in....

You're right, I meant in my post that even with Boise in the WAC for fb only, that might be enough to help entice Mt and MSU to bring their whole programs. Maybe some OOC games can be scheduled.

If the WAC adds Montana and Montana St., they'll have a cluster of schools relatively close to each other for sports other than football (the others being Boise State, Idaho, and Utah State) which makes sense for a northern division that could reduce travel costs.

I still have not heard one good reason why the WAC added UT-Arlington.

(12-16-2011 12:51 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-16-2011 12:44 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(12-16-2011 12:33 AM)stever20 Wrote:  If Montana and MSU go to the WAC- it would be for everything. WAC is higher than Big Sky in bball so they would go all-in....

You're right, I meant in my post that even with Boise in the WAC for fb only, that might be enough to help entice Mt and MSU to bring their whole programs. Maybe some OOC games can be scheduled.

If the WAC adds Montana and Montana St., they'll have a cluster of schools relatively close to each other for sports other than football (the others being Boise State, Idaho, and Utah State) which makes sense for a northern division that could reduce travel costs.

I still have not heard one good reason why the WAC added UT-Arlington.

The WAC would love to land Montana and Montana State although those schools haven't expressed interest in moving up from FCS. So Lamar may end up being the fallback choice.

UTA was added for several reasons:

- Convenient travel partner for LaTech
- Presence in the DFW market
- Brand new $78 million 7,000-seat arena opening in February
- Considering bringing back football, possibly in 2016
- Pretty respectable academics (which does count for something)

Also there have been reports that both UTA and UTSA athletic events will get some coverage on the Longhorn Network.

(12-16-2011 01:51 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(12-16-2011 12:51 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-16-2011 12:44 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(12-16-2011 12:33 AM)stever20 Wrote:  If Montana and MSU go to the WAC- it would be for everything. WAC is higher than Big Sky in bball so they would go all-in....

You're right, I meant in my post that even with Boise in the WAC for fb only, that might be enough to help entice Mt and MSU to bring their whole programs. Maybe some OOC games can be scheduled.

If the WAC adds Montana and Montana St., they'll have a cluster of schools relatively close to each other for sports other than football (the others being Boise State, Idaho, and Utah State) which makes sense for a northern division that could reduce travel costs.

I still have not heard one good reason why the WAC added UT-Arlington.

The WAC would love to land Montana and Montana State although those schools haven't expressed interest in moving up from FCS. So Lamar may end up being the fallback choice.

UTA was added for several reasons:

- Convenient travel partner for LaTech
- Presence in the DFW market
- Brand new $78 million 7,000-seat arena opening in February
- Considering bringing back football, possibly in 2016
- Pretty respectable academics (which does count for something)

Also there have been reports that both UTA and UTSA athletic events will get some coverage on the Longhorn Network.

#1 reason was they were the best geographical partner for LT that was interested that also would not be so remote as to create a problem if LT bolted. In the absence of a blockbuster TV deal you have travel cost cutting moves as a priority.

The other stuff is good to show commitment to athletics but it will be a long road for the UT-A Mavericks...

If Montana and Montana St come... I think Lamar still comes... Fits perfectly.
North-
Boise, Montana, Montana St, Idaho, Utah St, Seattle, Denver
South-
La Tech, UTSA, Tex Arl, Texas St, New Mexico St, San Jose St, Lamar

The conference would have 10 football and 14 basketball teams.

Correct me if I'm wrong, however, if the WAC loses La Tech they also lose their FBS status; they would be down to 4 FBS schools as UTSA and TSU are still making the transition.

Therefore the WAC becomes a non-FBS conference with an association of football playing members. Maybe, in four or five years, with the addition of a couple of FCS schools, they can reapply to become an FBS conference. However, as you can imagine, realigning with the Bowls and creating media contracts for this conference will be quite cumbersome.

I wonder if Sacramento St. would be interested in moving up?

(12-16-2011 10:17 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  I wonder if Sacramento St. would be interested in moving up?

They would be a good choice because their stadium is already big enough for FBS football, although their BB venue is tiny.

The thing is, I think with the WAC- La Tech wouldn't be gone until 2013- and by then Texas St and UTSA would be ok. So, WAC will survive.

(12-16-2011 10:22 AM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(12-16-2011 10:17 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  I wonder if Sacramento St. would be interested in moving up?

They would be a good choice because their stadium is already big enough for FBS football, although their BB venue is tiny.

Sac State has been a WAC target for the past couple of years. They probably would make the jump if Nevada and Fresno State were staying in the conference. But the loss of those two to the MWC, and the potential future loss of SJSU, has made them wary.

(12-16-2011 11:00 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The thing is, I think with the WAC- La Tech wouldn't be gone until 2013- and by then Texas St and UTSA would be ok. So, WAC will survive.

It could be touch and go though, unless they try the nationwide approach. Lamar is certainly a possibility and UT-Arlington has talked about reviving FB down the road. But most of the western FCS schools have been very reluctant so far. If the Montana schools plus Lamar and UTA join with Texas St, UTSA, Idaho, La Tech, Utah St, NMSU and SJSU then that gives them 11 and they could survive losing a few schools. La Tech, USU, SJSU and UTSA are all good possibilities for the MWC or CUSA or the Alliance if that happens. I hope the WAC does survive as an FBS conference. My school was a member for over 30 years. They have to get past a lot of "ifs" to make it.