(02-09-2016 05:07 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 02:06 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 12:51 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 12:35 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  The only way a football only agreement would work is if there was some scheduling agreement that put them playing the majority of the Sun Belt in their other sports.

But then... if that were the case, it would be harmful to their RPI in their other sports, making it a non-starter, just like it's a non-starter for us to take a football only agreement with an FCS move up (or in the case of Wichita, a start up).

You mean like the MAC deal with Temple and UMass?
4 Mens/Women's Basketball games (2 home/2 road)

As Rokamortis noted, MAC recognized they got the short end of the stick. So (and I'm TOTALLY guessing here) it would take more than 4 games, probably more like 8. But then, how does that affect WSU's basketball program playing 8 Sun Belt schools? Sure, it's a benefit to us, but it does slow down WSU in basketball. So there has to be an equilibrium hit. Then, the Sun Belt would have to determine if the pickup in basketball is enough to offset the drag in football.

And I don't think that equilibrium would be enough for us.

or, the short version: There's not enough to gain for us or them do the deal.

And WSU needs high RPI OOC games in basketball. Lots of them. MVC schedule plus a bunch of SBC OOC is probably just as much of a non-starter as WSU joining the Belt in all sports

I actually think it would be worse to play 8 OOC basketball games against Belt schools, that would be taking a lot away from their non-conference schedule and would likely hurt their RPI more than completely moving conferences. This year the Sun Belt and MVC are close in RPI (especially when removing WSU from the equation), there's no guarantee that will continue of course, but I think it makes a lot of sense for Wichita State to jump to either the Sun Belt or C-USA, whichever offers full membership first.

(02-10-2016 08:27 AM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 05:07 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 02:06 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 12:51 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 12:35 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  The only way a football only agreement would work is if there was some scheduling agreement that put them playing the majority of the Sun Belt in their other sports.

But then... if that were the case, it would be harmful to their RPI in their other sports, making it a non-starter, just like it's a non-starter for us to take a football only agreement with an FCS move up (or in the case of Wichita, a start up).

You mean like the MAC deal with Temple and UMass?
4 Mens/Women's Basketball games (2 home/2 road)

As Rokamortis noted, MAC recognized they got the short end of the stick. So (and I'm TOTALLY guessing here) it would take more than 4 games, probably more like 8. But then, how does that affect WSU's basketball program playing 8 Sun Belt schools? Sure, it's a benefit to us, but it does slow down WSU in basketball. So there has to be an equilibrium hit. Then, the Sun Belt would have to determine if the pickup in basketball is enough to offset the drag in football.

And I don't think that equilibrium would be enough for us.

or, the short version: There's not enough to gain for us or them do the deal.

And WSU needs high RPI OOC games in basketball. Lots of them. MVC schedule plus a bunch of SBC OOC is probably just as much of a non-starter as WSU joining the Belt in all sports

I actually think it would be worse to play 8 OOC basketball games against Belt schools, that would be taking a lot away from their non-conference schedule and would likely hurt their RPI more than completely moving conferences. This year the Sun Belt and MVC are close in RPI (especially when removing WSU from the equation), there's no guarantee that will continue of course, but I think it makes a lot of sense for Wichita State to jump to either the Sun Belt or C-USA, whichever offers full membership first.

I vote for CUSA at this point. They seem more interested in them anyway. Its not that WSU can't provide value. Especially if they come with Missouri State. But that would be for all sports. And a real long-term commitment to the conference. I don't see WSU doing that at this point.

I don't see them committing to CUSA either, but that's not our problem.

Beyond a commitment to the conference, I see an issue with their commitment to football. Barring a blank check from the Koch's, there will be competing claims on limited resources. When push comes to shove, will WSU invest in football over basketball?

The only way we get a WSU that is happy in the Belt is if they end up with a period of 'disappointment' after the other conferences express no interest. That's been the historical model for teams that might assign a higher value to their worth than the general consensus.

I actually am starting to like the flexibility that having 12 teams but with 2 teams that can be jettisoned if better options present themselves. Who knows what happens down the road? Taking one slot for a team that doesn't want to be here and doesn't commit to football first is probably not the right answer at this time.

I wish WSU the best of luck in the MVFC or CUSA. Perhaps in the future there will be mutual alignment of interest and institutional priorities.

Why would they really have to move??? If they play FCS for two or three years and become FBS-ready, perhaps they get a direct line to the AAC...or are you saying that the AAC/MWC etc. are going to want to see them as an FBS product before extending them an offer?

Don't they have a pretty decent money package with their basketball alone???

(02-10-2016 02:50 PM)THUNDERGround Wrote:  Why would they really have to move??? If they play FCS for two or three years and become FBS-ready, perhaps they get a direct line to the AAC...or are you saying that the AAC/MWC etc. are going to want to see them as an FBS product before extending them an offer?

Don't they have a pretty decent money package with their basketball alone???

They are welcome to join the FCS MVFC. Or see if the AAC or MWC is willing to take a moveup. I don't think either conference can afford to take a moveup in football at this point.

http://webs.wichita.edu/dt/newsletter/sh...&AID=26454

New message from Wichita State President.

A quip I found interesting from the Prez's written statement included pretty much throwing all MVC members under the bus with the exception of Illinois State and Southern Illinois

"WSU has been a member of the Missouri Valley Conference since 1945. This is a well-run conference composed of academically strong institutions. With only two exceptions, however, these institutions are not of the same type and location as WSU. Only Illinois State is classified as a "high research" university of about the same type as WSU, and only Southern Illinois is nationally classified as more complex with regard to its emphasis on research. Therefore, WSU's relationships with other member institutions are athletic and not more broadly based. There are other conferences where the universities are more closely aligned in mission with WSU. That is why we are exploring possibilities. In the end the MVC may remain our athletic home, but strategically we need to understand what is possible."