FSSD Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 Give the history of the WAC, I'd prefer that the Big Sky just stay out of it. Fullerton has been sandbagging the WAC in the press for the last two years, and now he wants to merge with it? Not sure the Big Sky is driving this - all the talk is coming from Idaho and WAC... I think the Big Sky is waiting for Idaho to drop down and simply listening at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 A conference must have seven active Division I members that sponsor men’s and women’s basketball and the conference sponsor a minimum of six men’s sports and six women’s sports. NOTE: A conference must have 6 teams to sponsor a sport (I think?). http://www.ncaa.com/...t-wac-auto-bids I believe that the limiting factor is going to be Men’s sports because most schools do not sponsor a wide variety of men’s sports. The WAC sponsors 7 men’s sports one more than required. They are: Baseball, Basketball, Cross-Country, Golf, Tennis, Indoor Track and Outdoor Track. The catch is to be a conference on the mens side you have to play FB and MBB or MBB and two other mens team sports (for example, baseball, soccer). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FSSD Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 The catch is to be a conference on the mens side you have to play FB and MBB or MBB and two other mens team sports (for example, baseball, soccer). Thanks for the information - so the WAC would need to keep baseball and add soccer, hockey or lacrosse. Not sure how the WAC makes it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmksioux Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 How many teams have Golf? Wouldn't that count as a team sport? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 How many teams have Golf? Wouldn't that count as a team sport? Nope. Golf is played as individuals. Same for tennis. I don't have the full list but some of the team sports for men are baseball, soccer, lacrosse, hockey, mens volleyball. and water polo (and of course football). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmksioux Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 What about swimming? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 What about swimming? Swimming is like golf or tennis: You may be on a team, but you compete as an individual. Same for track and cross-country. Not the official way to think about it, but I think of team sports this way: Can you complete a pass/throw to a teammate during play? Football, baseball, basketball, hockey, lacrosse, water polo, soccer, volleyball? Yes. Tennis, golf, skiing, swimming, diving, wrestling? No. I think the NCAA does it this was so a school can't have but one mens tennis player or one wrestler and claim to have a "team". Team sports should mean a roster of team players (see FB, BB, hockey, etc.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 What about swimming? If people compete as individuals, it is considered an individual sport even if they also have team competition. I believe that these are the designations. 17.02.12.1 Team Sports. [#] The following are classified as team sports for purposes of this bylaw: (Revised: 4/24/03, 4/30/09 effective 8/10/10, 1/16/10 effective 8/1/09, 4/30/09 effective 8/1/11) Baseball Basketball Field Hockey Football Ice Hockey Lacrosse Rowing, Women’s Rugby, Women’s Sand Volleyball, Women’s Soccer Softball Volleyball Water Polo 17.02.12.2 Individual Sports. [#] The following are classified as individual sports for purposes of this bylaw: (Revised: 1/17/09 effective 8/1/09, 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11) Bowling, Cross Country Equestrian, Women’s Fencing Golf Gymnastics Women’s Rifle Skiing Swimming and Diving Tennis Track and Field, Indoor and Outdoor Wrestling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 So my "complete a pass/throw to a teammate" theory works for everything except womens rowing ... unless you consider throwing the coxswain into the water after a win a 'throw' ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bincitysioux Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Not sure the Big Sky is driving this - all the talk is coming from Idaho and WAC... I think the Big Sky is waiting for Idaho to drop down and simply listening at this point. I hope so. I'd like to see Idaho added to round out the Big Sky for even numbers. I like that every Big Sky football opponent (except CP and Davis) will also be an opponent for basketball, softball, volleyball, etc........................ With hockey in a separate conference, we get enough mix-and-match league opponents going on. I like the continuity that the Big Sky can provide. When you read the WAC forums, most posters mention North Dakota, Northern Colorado, and Sac St. as the most logical WAC "move-overs" because they are the 3 Big Sky schools that have baseball. All the more reason to drop baseball IMO......................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Talks on. Talks off. Upcoming announcement after up coming announcement missed. The conference had no idea what they are doing. Didn't they say two or three weeks ago there should be another announcement any day now. I would love to be in a northern WAC with Idaho Montana MSU Denver Seattle EWU Idaho State Probably pipe dream though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Bilo College Football Report From WAC Media Day... That was followed by a meeting with WAC Commissioner Jeff Hurd, who probably has one of the most difficult jobs in the FBS ranks this season. He is losing 5 members, leaving just 2, but he was as upbeat as ever heading into the season, and we were able to discover that he will be making an announcement in the next 2 to 3 weeks about possible new members joining the WAC for football. He could not give me any other details, as he is sworn to secrecy and is trying to prevent leaks. The news that there could be some new members on the horizon, and it seems like a lock now, was enough to peak our interest. Thursday will be three weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Thursday will be three weeks. That's a very interesting observation because ... The State of Idaho Board of Regents (they govern UI, ISU, and BSU) meet this week in Pocatello. UI has to put their cards on the table in one way, shape, or form then because if UI plans to (a) change conferences, or (b) change FB subdivisions, like FBS to FCS, the Regents have to approve it. The Idaho Regents don't meet again until October. That's also important because ... In the article from over the weekend (linked in this thread) the UI AD says they need to have a plan by September 1. They also admit they (UI) only have one FBS home game scheduled for 2013. They need 5 to maintain FBS status. (They also need to average 15k at home at least once on a rolling two-yearly basis. They have only hit 15k average once in the last six and not in the last three. Technically, the NCAA has grounds to move UI back to FCS.) UI is jammed up writ large. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 When you read the WAC forums, most posters mention North Dakota, Northern Colorado, and Sac St. as the most logical WAC "move-overs" because they are the 3 Big Sky schools that have baseball. All the more reason to drop baseball IMO......................... Background info: Read or the conversation won't make sense. To be a DI conference on the mens side you must sponsor either: (a) MBB and FB or (b) MBB and two additional team sports (see this thread for what "team sports" are) The folks writing that are thinking of the WAC as a Olympic sports only (no FB) conference. Thus they are thinking of having to play MBB plus two additional team sports. That's why they keep bringing up baseball and UND. I'm trying to think of where Idaho (and Seattle U and Denver U) are in this. (I'm not thinking about Boise State because they've already started begging to get into the Big West; I'm not thinking about NMSU because they will probably cajole their way into a conference with Texas teams.) Idaho is jammed up (see above). There's about no way they can survive as an FBS independent. They don't have the bling. So, if they face reality, FCS is staring them in the face. Does Idaho really want to have to go back to the Big Sky? (Boise State fans would never let them forget it.) What's a better option for Idaho? Honestly, trying to survive the WAC not as an Oly, not as an FBS conference, but as an FCS conference. That would require UI to go back to FCS but at least they would still be in the WAC (that they'd be relatively dominant in). The WAC has better NCAA MBB money coming into it and it has exit fee dollars coming to it from Nevada, Hawaii, et al, over the next few years. But for the WAC to live on as an FCS DI conference UI: (i) UI would have to move down to FCS, and (ii) UI would have to convince 5 FCS schools to join the WAC, and (iii) convince DU and SU to stay (as non-FB schools) This scenario would put the WAC at 8 MBB and 6 FB schools and that qualifies as a full DI conference (albeit FCS in this case). The WAC lives on, but at FCS level. (If NMSU tried to do indy FBS FB and play the other sports in this new WAC it's not a make or break.) Who would UI and SU and DU want in that scenario? Schools that look like them with similar budgets and academics and research. UI would love to have the Montanas. Academically, UND is the best in the Big Sky today. That would make UI and DU happy (and DU would like to spread the rivalry beyond hockey). Find two more BSC schools with academics and research that make sense (cough-Portlant State-cough-Sac State-cough) and you might have something. SU/UI; Sac/PSU; MSU/UM; UND/DU as a new FCS WAC. If Sac State isn't interested (pretty sure they'd rather be in the Big West to save on travel costs) you go with EWU and have SU/PSU; EWU/UI; MSU/UM, DU/UND. Now some of you are rightly asking: Why move from the stability of the BSC to the turmoil of the WAC? Well, ... - to be aligned with peer institutions (and that's an ego thing that matters to university presidents) - because the WAC has better MBB NCAA money coming in ($2.9M to WAC; $1.7M to BSC) with fewer splits of it - because the WAC has exit fees coming in for the next five years from Nevada, Hawaii, et al - because of the potential future opportunities the WAC gives over other conferences All this is pure speculation and supposition by me (and others on various boards I've read lately). Feel free to shoot it to ribbons. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted August 14, 2012 Author Share Posted August 14, 2012 I also recall reading one of Siouxfan's posts on the WAC board that there is a small window of opportunity for the WAC to be FCS for a short period ot time and invite FCS teams to join them and revert back to an FBS conference bringing all of the teams with them. I may butchered what he was saying, but I seem to recall there being a two year window on the rule that he was citing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDColorado Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 I also recall reading one of Siouxfan's posts on the WAC board that there is a small window of opportunity for the WAC to be FCS for a short period ot time and invite FCS teams to join them and revert back to an FBS conference bringing all of the teams with them. I may butchered what he was saying, but I seem to recall there being a two year window on the rule that he was citing. I saw that too and that's how I understood it; interesting times.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 I also recall reading one of Siouxfan's posts on the WAC board that there is a small window of opportunity for the WAC to be FCS for a short period ot time and invite FCS teams to join them and revert back to an FBS conference bringing all of the teams with them. I may butchered what he was saying, but I seem to recall there being a two year window on the rule that he was citing. Isn't that against NCAA rules. I mean you can't move a whole conference up...can you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 There is an ongoing discussion on one board about how to interpret the NCAA rules as written. Basically, for a team to move FCS to FBS they must have an invitation from an FBS conference. (No disagreement on that.) However, the disagreements in interpretations starts with when does a conference lose FBS status and thus the right to give invitations to FBS. Basically, does the currently FBS WAC lose its FBS-making "magic wand" and if so, when. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 There is an ongoing discussion on one board about how to interpret the NCAA rules as written. Basically, for a team to move FCS to FBS they must have an invitation from an FBS conference. (No disagreement on that.) However, the disagreements in interpretations starts with when does a conference lose FBS status and thus the right to give invitations to FBS. Basically, does the currently FBS WAC lose its FBS-making "magic wand" and if so, when. I am guessing next year when Idaho and NMSU is left with a 2 team conference and has a choice...Big Sky or Indy. If they choose Indy they might as well drop football altogether, if they choose Big Sky at least they can make some money and hope to re-establish themselves back into the FBS along with Montana, MSU, UND in say 10-20 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 NMSU probably has better options as an FBS indy given that they have relationships with UNM and UTEP for home games and they have a good sized stadium (gate revenues). Being next to all the programs in Texas doesn't hurt either. Idaho is in a world of hurt when it comes to trying to survive as an FBS indy. Small stadium. Small budget. To me, the keystone in the WAC becoming an FCS conference is Idaho admitting they need to move to FCS and reset and regroup for a few years. If they do that I suspect there is a group of BSC schools that'd make some moves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 The Boise State president is making all sorts of statements today that his school is definitely in the Big West (for Oly sports) and a presidents' vote is now just a formality. What's that mean (if accurate)? If nothing changes, come July 1, 2013, the WAC is down to four: Idaho, New Mexico State, Denver, and Seattle U. If you've never seen a slow-motion train wreck before, you should be watching the WAC. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teeder11 Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Brian Murphy @murphsturph Big Sky commish doesn't think alliance with WAC will happen. "Very difficult for my presidents to think about breaking off part of Big Sky." Retweeted by SiouxFootballInsider Brian Murphy @murphsturph Big Sky commish says he would welcome Idaho in all sports even if Vandals try independent FBS football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Idaho leaving the WAC leaves too much money on the table, money Idaho can't affort to leave behind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDColorado Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Idaho leaving the WAC leaves too much money on the table, money Idaho can't affort to leave behind. This is probably true, but does it out weigh the money they would hemorrhage trying to play as an FBS Independent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDColorado Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Brian Murphy @murphsturph Idaho will go independent in football and join the Big Sky in all other sports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.