(04-03-2024 02:15 PM)Utgrizfan Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 02:07 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 01:10 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 12:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The WAC really wasn’t going to be in terrible shape after the SHSU and NMSU departures. FBS dreams are probably dashed but they could have stayed the course.

They needed 1 school to add the West, and it need not be a football school.

In Texas, they had ACU, Tarleton St, SFA, Lamar, UIW, UTA, UTRGV

That’s 7-7 with eventually 8 football schools.

Yep. They were on track to having the numbers to minimize cross-divisional travel. With 14 members they could have set up a 16 or 18 game hoops schedule and each team would have only had to make a single cross-division road trip. Losing CSUB in the west and Lamar, UIW and UTRGV in the east trashed that plan.

The irony is that the eastern defectors backed out to join a less competitive conference. That's very unusual in conference realignment. Basically they all bought into the idea of separating themselves from the poorly-funded Louisiana schools in the Southland and giving themselves the opportunity to earn a higher national profile in the WAC. Then they decided the challenge was too much for them, chickened out and turned tail.

CSUB was gone by the time the 7-7 scheme was built. NMSU and SHSU dropped them to 6/6 but UIW was supposed to come in and boost the Texas side up to 7. They literally just needed a team, any team, out west to keep the plan alive.

It was a dumb call by Lamar and UIW—very short sighted. Why stay in a weak league when you could build something much stronger with minimal impact on the travel budget?

Only thing that makes sense is the $$ to invest and improve/maintain a higher level of performance was to much for them to handle. UIW in particular went from a Playoff team in a Conference that would have had the potential to get 2 schools in the post season every year to a 1 bid Conference.

So what you're saying is they went from a more expensive one bid league to a less expensive one bid league?

(04-03-2024 02:25 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 02:15 PM)Utgrizfan Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 02:07 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 01:10 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 12:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The WAC really wasn’t going to be in terrible shape after the SHSU and NMSU departures. FBS dreams are probably dashed but they could have stayed the course.

They needed 1 school to add the West, and it need not be a football school.

In Texas, they had ACU, Tarleton St, SFA, Lamar, UIW, UTA, UTRGV

That’s 7-7 with eventually 8 football schools.

Yep. They were on track to having the numbers to minimize cross-divisional travel. With 14 members they could have set up a 16 or 18 game hoops schedule and each team would have only had to make a single cross-division road trip. Losing CSUB in the west and Lamar, UIW and UTRGV in the east trashed that plan.

The irony is that the eastern defectors backed out to join a less competitive conference. That's very unusual in conference realignment. Basically they all bought into the idea of separating themselves from the poorly-funded Louisiana schools in the Southland and giving themselves the opportunity to earn a higher national profile in the WAC. Then they decided the challenge was too much for them, chickened out and turned tail.

CSUB was gone by the time the 7-7 scheme was built. NMSU and SHSU dropped them to 6/6 but UIW was supposed to come in and boost the Texas side up to 7. They literally just needed a team, any team, out west to keep the plan alive.

It was a dumb call by Lamar and UIW—very short sighted. Why stay in a weak league when you could build something much stronger with minimal impact on the travel budget?

Only thing that makes sense is the $$ to invest and improve/maintain a higher level of performance was to much for them to handle. UIW in particular went from a Playoff team in a Conference that would have had the potential to get 2 schools in the post season every year to a 1 bid Conference.

So what you're saying is they went from a more expensive one bid league to a less expensive one bid league?

No, he's saying they went from a league that would frequently be in the running for two bids to a marginally less expensive league that would never be in the running for two bids.

(04-03-2024 02:52 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 02:25 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 02:15 PM)Utgrizfan Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 02:07 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 01:10 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Yep. They were on track to having the numbers to minimize cross-divisional travel. With 14 members they could have set up a 16 or 18 game hoops schedule and each team would have only had to make a single cross-division road trip. Losing CSUB in the west and Lamar, UIW and UTRGV in the east trashed that plan.

The irony is that the eastern defectors backed out to join a less competitive conference. That's very unusual in conference realignment. Basically they all bought into the idea of separating themselves from the poorly-funded Louisiana schools in the Southland and giving themselves the opportunity to earn a higher national profile in the WAC. Then they decided the challenge was too much for them, chickened out and turned tail.

CSUB was gone by the time the 7-7 scheme was built. NMSU and SHSU dropped them to 6/6 but UIW was supposed to come in and boost the Texas side up to 7. They literally just needed a team, any team, out west to keep the plan alive.

It was a dumb call by Lamar and UIW—very short sighted. Why stay in a weak league when you could build something much stronger with minimal impact on the travel budget?

Only thing that makes sense is the $$ to invest and improve/maintain a higher level of performance was to much for them to handle. UIW in particular went from a Playoff team in a Conference that would have had the potential to get 2 schools in the post season every year to a 1 bid Conference.

So what you're saying is they went from a more expensive one bid league to a less expensive one bid league?

No, he's saying they went from a league that would frequently be in the running for two bids to a marginally less expensive league that would never be in the running for two bids.

Even when they had New Mexico St, when is the last time the WAC was in the running for two bids?

(04-03-2024 03:04 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 02:52 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 02:25 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 02:15 PM)Utgrizfan Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 02:07 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  CSUB was gone by the time the 7-7 scheme was built. NMSU and SHSU dropped them to 6/6 but UIW was supposed to come in and boost the Texas side up to 7. They literally just needed a team, any team, out west to keep the plan alive.

It was a dumb call by Lamar and UIW—very short sighted. Why stay in a weak league when you could build something much stronger with minimal impact on the travel budget?

Only thing that makes sense is the $$ to invest and improve/maintain a higher level of performance was to much for them to handle. UIW in particular went from a Playoff team in a Conference that would have had the potential to get 2 schools in the post season every year to a 1 bid Conference.

So what you're saying is they went from a more expensive one bid league to a less expensive one bid league?

No, he's saying they went from a league that would frequently be in the running for two bids to a marginally less expensive league that would never be in the running for two bids.

Even when they had New Mexico St, when is the last time the WAC was in the running for two bids?

This season. In mid-February GCU was number 44 in the NET rankings and there was speculation that the 'Lopes might land an at-large bid if they were upset in the WAC tournament.

https://arizonasports.com/story/3542796/...-at-large/

Subsequently GCU dropped a couple of games and its NET ranking fell into the mid-50s which took it out of contention for an at-large bid.

Anyhow this isn't about history but rather potential. The WAC is the 14th rated conference this season. (The Southland is 27th.) A WAC with more members that are as dedicated to investing in basketball as the current members and are able to travel less during the conference season should find itself in an even better position to steal an extra bid.

(04-03-2024 03:34 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 03:04 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 02:52 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 02:25 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 02:15 PM)Utgrizfan Wrote:  Only thing that makes sense is the $$ to invest and improve/maintain a higher level of performance was to much for them to handle. UIW in particular went from a Playoff team in a Conference that would have had the potential to get 2 schools in the post season every year to a 1 bid Conference.

So what you're saying is they went from a more expensive one bid league to a less expensive one bid league?

No, he's saying they went from a league that would frequently be in the running for two bids to a marginally less expensive league that would never be in the running for two bids.

Even when they had New Mexico St, when is the last time the WAC was in the running for two bids?

This season. In mid-February GCU was number 44 in the NET rankings and there was speculation that the 'Lopes might land an at-large bid if they were upset in the WAC tournament.

https://arizonasports.com/story/3542796/...-at-large/

Subsequently GCU dropped a couple of games and its NET ranking fell into the mid-50s which took it out of contention for an at-large bid.

Anyhow this isn't about history but rather potential. The WAC is the 14th rated conference this season. (The Southland is 27th.) A WAC with more members that are as dedicated to investing in basketball as the current members and are able to travel less during the conference season should find itself in an even better position to steal an extra bid.

Thanks but 1) one year isn't anyone's definition of "frequent" and 2) one hometown article speculating hardly means GCU was ever on anyone's radar for an at-large bid this year. These are two, one bid leagues. One makes geographic sense and the other is a Frankenstein conference.

(04-03-2024 04:04 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 03:34 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 03:04 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 02:52 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 02:25 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  So what you're saying is they went from a more expensive one bid league to a less expensive one bid league?

No, he's saying they went from a league that would frequently be in the running for two bids to a marginally less expensive league that would never be in the running for two bids.

Even when they had New Mexico St, when is the last time the WAC was in the running for two bids?

This season. In mid-February GCU was number 44 in the NET rankings and there was speculation that the 'Lopes might land an at-large bid if they were upset in the WAC tournament.

https://arizonasports.com/story/3542796/...-at-large/

Subsequently GCU dropped a couple of games and its NET ranking fell into the mid-50s which took it out of contention for an at-large bid.

Anyhow this isn't about history but rather potential. The WAC is the 14th rated conference this season. (The Southland is 27th.) A WAC with more members that are as dedicated to investing in basketball as the current members and are able to travel less during the conference season should find itself in an even better position to steal an extra bid.

Thanks but 1) one year isn't anyone's definition of "frequent" and 2) one hometown article speculating hardly means GCU was ever on anyone's radar for an at-large bid this year. These are two, one bid leagues. One makes geographic sense and the other is a Frankenstein conference.

Of course the WAC is a Frankenstein conference. With six schools in the far west and only four left in Texas, no one is denying it. That's not the point.

The assertion being made is that the vision that drove the 2021 WAC expansion was sound. There was nothing nonsensical looking about building a 14-member two-division southwestern conference, with minimized cross-division travel, and all members committed to investing in improved men's basketball. If you have a critique of that model based solely on what the realignment landscape was at that time (as opposed to what we know now), please share it.

I admit it is a little strange to me to see so much criticism of the WAC coming off one of its most successful seasons. There is a difference between a low-major one-bid conference and a mid-major one-bid conference when it comes to attractiveness to players/coaches and the ability to pull upsets in the tournament. The only reason the Southland got a 12 seed this year is because McNeese was a major outlier, and the rest of its teams would have been 16 seeds; meanwhile even if GCU hadn't won its tournament, the WAC had three additional teams (Seattle, UTA, Tarleton) that would've been 14 seeds, and 14 seeds are 10x more likely to pull a R16 upset than 16 seeds. Not to mention that playing tougher conference opponents likely prepared GCU better for the postseason than McNeese. That matters.

The best home for UTRGV was the Southland, they had no hope of competing in the WAC and the Southland gives them much better stability. But the rest of the Texas teams are doing fine in the WAC and don't need their metrics being dragged down by Southland teams if they can help it. I don't begrudge any team for not wanting to play in a low-major league, even if it means spending more money on travel.

(04-03-2024 04:50 PM)jcohen42 Wrote:  I admit it is a little strange to me to see so much criticism of the WAC coming off one of its most successful seasons. There is a difference between a low-major one-bid conference and a mid-major one-bid conference when it comes to attractiveness to players/coaches and the ability to pull upsets in the tournament. The only reason the Southland got a 12 seed this year is because McNeese was a major outlier, and the rest of its teams would have been 16 seeds; meanwhile even if GCU hadn't won its tournament, the WAC had three additional teams (Seattle, UTA, Tarleton) that would've been 14 seeds, and 14 seeds are 10x more likely to pull a R16 upset than 16 seeds. Not to mention that playing tougher conference opponents likely prepared GCU better for the postseason than McNeese. That matters.

The best home for UTRGV was the Southland, they had no hope of competing in the WAC and the Southland gives them much better stability. But the rest of the Texas teams are doing fine in the WAC and don't need their metrics being dragged down by Southland teams if they can help it. I don't begrudge any team for not wanting to play in a low-major league, even if it means spending more money on travel.

Regionalism should matter more in the FCS. Teams at that level don't have the money to be able to afford long distance travel that the Power 4 does.

I’m not a fan of more Division 1 schools considering there’s 350+, but CSU-Pueblo really should join the WAC/UAC (FCS).

(04-03-2024 03:04 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 02:52 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 02:25 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 02:15 PM)Utgrizfan Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 02:07 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  CSUB was gone by the time the 7-7 scheme was built. NMSU and SHSU dropped them to 6/6 but UIW was supposed to come in and boost the Texas side up to 7. They literally just needed a team, any team, out west to keep the plan alive.

It was a dumb call by Lamar and UIW—very short sighted. Why stay in a weak league when you could build something much stronger with minimal impact on the travel budget?

Only thing that makes sense is the $$ to invest and improve/maintain a higher level of performance was to much for them to handle. UIW in particular went from a Playoff team in a Conference that would have had the potential to get 2 schools in the post season every year to a 1 bid Conference.

So what you're saying is they went from a more expensive one bid league to a less expensive one bid league?

No, he's saying they went from a league that would frequently be in the running for two bids to a marginally less expensive league that would never be in the running for two bids.

Even when they had New Mexico St, when is the last time the WAC was in the running for two bids?

Before any current members were in the league.

(04-03-2024 08:13 PM)AuzGrams Wrote:  I’m not a fan of more Division 1 schools considering there’s 350+, but CSU-Pueblo really should join the WAC/UAC (FCS).

Not all 350 D1 schools sponsor football.

(04-03-2024 08:04 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 04:50 PM)jcohen42 Wrote:  I admit it is a little strange to me to see so much criticism of the WAC coming off one of its most successful seasons. There is a difference between a low-major one-bid conference and a mid-major one-bid conference when it comes to attractiveness to players/coaches and the ability to pull upsets in the tournament. The only reason the Southland got a 12 seed this year is because McNeese was a major outlier, and the rest of its teams would have been 16 seeds; meanwhile even if GCU hadn't won its tournament, the WAC had three additional teams (Seattle, UTA, Tarleton) that would've been 14 seeds, and 14 seeds are 10x more likely to pull a R16 upset than 16 seeds. Not to mention that playing tougher conference opponents likely prepared GCU better for the postseason than McNeese. That matters.

The best home for UTRGV was the Southland, they had no hope of competing in the WAC and the Southland gives them much better stability. But the rest of the Texas teams are doing fine in the WAC and don't need their metrics being dragged down by Southland teams if they can help it. I don't begrudge any team for not wanting to play in a low-major league, even if it means spending more money on travel.

Regionalism should matter more in the FCS. Teams at that level don't have the money to be able to afford long distance travel that the Power 4 does.

There are only so many football-playing teams, and the distances being traveled by the Utah teams and the Texas teams is not unusual for football west of the Mississippi. Basketball plays a much bigger part in the calculus of conferences at the FCS level, because the money in FCS isn't there.

(04-03-2024 03:04 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 02:52 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 02:25 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 02:15 PM)Utgrizfan Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 02:07 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  CSUB was gone by the time the 7-7 scheme was built. NMSU and SHSU dropped them to 6/6 but UIW was supposed to come in and boost the Texas side up to 7. They literally just needed a team, any team, out west to keep the plan alive.

It was a dumb call by Lamar and UIW—very short sighted. Why stay in a weak league when you could build something much stronger with minimal impact on the travel budget?

Only thing that makes sense is the $$ to invest and improve/maintain a higher level of performance was to much for them to handle. UIW in particular went from a Playoff team in a Conference that would have had the potential to get 2 schools in the post season every year to a 1 bid Conference.

So what you're saying is they went from a more expensive one bid league to a less expensive one bid league?

No, he's saying they went from a league that would frequently be in the running for two bids to a marginally less expensive league that would never be in the running for two bids.

Even when they had New Mexico St, when is the last time the WAC was in the running for two bids?

Ohh I thought we were talking about football since UIW being a playoff team was mentioned. Regardless they're both definitely one bid basketball leagues as well.

(04-03-2024 12:17 PM)Utgrizfan Wrote:  OU and Texas moves changed what was at the time logical moves for a variety of reasons. I think the WAC will be fine in the long run, but they're going to have to do a few things. First they're going to have to get a few D2 callups to join:

-Central Oklahoma: Have the facilities, enrollment and would fit in the geographic footprint.

-WTA&M: Once their current AD is gone (he is 73) could be a chance they could make the move as they also have the facilities and enrollment to make it happen.

Get those 2 schools and try and encourage teams like GCU, UTA, CBU and or Utah Valley to start football. Also this is VERY much a personal opinion but I'd be okay with cutting a few more teams from the Big Sky, the CAA is proving that having super large Conferences is detrimental at the FCS level with lots of unhappy members (from what im hearing).

I'd rather have 2 medium sized FCS Conferences with a western presence, it would be healthier overall for all involved for OOC scheduling, you'd play Conference opponents more, etc. To make this example easier, remove UC-Davis and Cal Poly as they're Football only members in the Big Sky and put them in the WAC, if this happened it wouldn't be a terrible looking FCS Conference:

Cal Poly..............................WTA&M
UC-Davis.............................Central Oklahoma
SUU.....................................Abeline Christian
UT-Tech...............................Tarleton State
*GCU/UVU/UTA/CBU*.......SFA

With this setup it would give the WAC 10 Football members (same as the Big Sky) and 12 Full time members.

Colorado Mesa also have the facilities as well. WAC wanted a Colorado presence, but would that also try to lure Northern Colorado by adding Colorado Mesa? That could have Big Sky invite Central Washington which could help EWU money wise to save on travel.

Midwestern State is another one to look at and UTPB is the other.

(04-04-2024 02:45 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-03-2024 12:17 PM)Utgrizfan Wrote:  OU and Texas moves changed what was at the time logical moves for a variety of reasons. I think the WAC will be fine in the long run, but they're going to have to do a few things. First they're going to have to get a few D2 callups to join:

-Central Oklahoma: Have the facilities, enrollment and would fit in the geographic footprint.

-WTA&M: Once their current AD is gone (he is 73) could be a chance they could make the move as they also have the facilities and enrollment to make it happen.

Get those 2 schools and try and encourage teams like GCU, UTA, CBU and or Utah Valley to start football. Also this is VERY much a personal opinion but I'd be okay with cutting a few more teams from the Big Sky, the CAA is proving that having super large Conferences is detrimental at the FCS level with lots of unhappy members (from what im hearing).

I'd rather have 2 medium sized FCS Conferences with a western presence, it would be healthier overall for all involved for OOC scheduling, you'd play Conference opponents more, etc. To make this example easier, remove UC-Davis and Cal Poly as they're Football only members in the Big Sky and put them in the WAC, if this happened it wouldn't be a terrible looking FCS Conference:

Cal Poly..............................WTA&M
UC-Davis.............................Central Oklahoma
SUU.....................................Abeline Christian
UT-Tech...............................Tarleton State
*GCU/UVU/UTA/CBU*.......SFA

With this setup it would give the WAC 10 Football members (same as the Big Sky) and 12 Full time members.

Colorado Mesa also have the facilities as well. WAC wanted a Colorado presence, but would that also try to lure Northern Colorado by adding Colorado Mesa? That could have Big Sky invite Central Washington which could help EWU money wise to save on travel.

Midwestern State is another one to look at and UTPB is the other.

WTAMU YES Colorado Mesa YES Midwestern State NO CSU Pueblo NO MSU is more Southland material and CSU Pueblo has no business jumping to D1. WTAMU is a prime candidate when their current prez retires or gets fired. Angelo State and Central Oklahoma as well are right below WTAMU and Col-Mesa. UTPB is too small to go D1 but check back with them in 10 years. Colorado Mines would be an interesting candidate, but I think they are too small to want to jump to D1. I would love CAL Poly and Davis to move to WAC (at least for football but preferably full members) but I highly doubt that happens unless the Big Sky kicks them out. Would love for Idaho, Montana, Montana State and Weber St to move to WAC and relegate Utah Tech and SUU to the Big Sky and then the WAC could go FBS.
Most likely scenario:

At least 2 of 4 of WTAMU, Col Mesa, Angelo St, Cental Oklahoma join in the next year or 2 .

Better Scenario but far less Likely Cal Poly/Davis join WAC

Dream scenario Idaho, Montana, Montana St, Weber St, ACU, SFA, WTAMU, and Tarleton revive WAC football and immediately move to FBS.

(04-03-2024 04:50 PM)jcohen42 Wrote:  I admit it is a little strange to me to see so much criticism of the WAC coming off one of its most successful seasons. There is a difference between a low-major one-bid conference and a mid-major one-bid conference when it comes to attractiveness to players/coaches and the ability to pull upsets in the tournament. The only reason the Southland got a 12 seed this year is because McNeese was a major outlier, and the rest of its teams would have been 16 seeds; meanwhile even if GCU hadn't won its tournament, the WAC had three additional teams (Seattle, UTA, Tarleton) that would've been 14 seeds, and 14 seeds are 10x more likely to pull a R16 upset than 16 seeds. Not to mention that playing tougher conference opponents likely prepared GCU better for the postseason than McNeese. That matters.

The best home for UTRGV was the Southland, they had no hope of competing in the WAC and the Southland gives them much better stability. But the rest of the Texas teams are doing fine in the WAC and don't need their metrics being dragged down by Southland teams if they can help it. I don't begrudge any team for not wanting to play in a low-major league, even if it means spending more money on travel.

+1000

Looks like SFA may be on the way out as well.
https://twitter.com/WACHoopsNation/statu...c7hWQ&s=19

Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk

(04-23-2024 09:27 AM)danieldemer Wrote:  Looks like SFA may be on the way out as well.
https://twitter.com/WACHoopsNation/statu...c7hWQ&s=19

Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk

(04-23-2024 09:27 AM)danieldemer Wrote:  Looks like SFA may be on the way out as well.
https://twitter.com/WACHoopsNation/statu...c7hWQ&s=19

SFA getting the call from Judy and CUSA? I don't think most of their fans would be happy downgrading to the Southland but we'll see.

(04-23-2024 10:34 AM)Mid-Major Hoops Enthusiast Wrote:  

(04-23-2024 09:27 AM)danieldemer Wrote:  Looks like SFA may be on the way out as well.
https://twitter.com/WACHoopsNation/statu...c7hWQ&s=19

SFA getting the call from Judy and CUSA? I don't think most of their fans would be happy downgrading to the Southland but we'll see.

SFA should get in before Tarleton State. TSU just completed their transition from D2, and they haven't really proven themselves at the FCS level yet.