99 replies to this topic

[fsdog07]

per Big Sky commish... Seems like a pretty brilliant move all around (given the circumstances)

Idaho and New Mexico State would go Indy; not sure how they would split up the basketball leagues (here's my guess)

WAC
Boise State
Idaho
Seattle
Eastern Washington
Northern Arizona
Denver
New Mexico State
Northern Colorado

Big Sky
Sacramento State
Portland State
Weber State
Southern Utah
North Dakota
Montana
Montana State
Idaho State

Attached Files

•  Screen Shot 2012-07-18 at 4.17.04 PM.png   99.89K   103 downloads

[fbguru]

Likely if this is the case that New Mexico State is invited to the Sun Belt or MAC and Idaho gets the full court pressure on BSU to enter a long term scheduling agreement. I would give Idaho 4 years max before they either get into another conference or join Big Sky for football, as well.

[edluvar]

Hell yes

[Ldino21]

If they did this would Boise stay in the WAC??? Strike this I just noticed Boise listed

Actually would be a very shrewd move, get 2 Qualifiers for Basketball.

The only thing is it gives Boise an out for its Oly sports.

[spartanthunder]

They are calling it a "long shot".....

[Joe from WY]

I could see it as
North
EWU
Idaho
BSU
Idaho State
Montana
Montana State
Seattle
North Dakota

South
Portland State
Sac State
Denver
UNC
Weber
SUU
NAU
NMSU

[fsdog07]

I could see it as
North
EWU
Idaho
BSU
Idaho State
Montana
Montana State
Seattle
North Dakota

South
Portland State
Sac State
Denver
UNC
Weber
SUU
NAU
NMSU

I THINK all of the WAC schools would have to stay together in order to maintain NCAA minimums regarding length of time together.

[Joe from WY]

In divisions even?

[montana_cougar]

Good move on the Big Sky to probably grab onto the WAC name and accomplishments.

[Dogs4Me]

They are calling it a "long shot".....

How long? Long as in you returning to Inside Sparta or SJSU having a winning season? FWIW, I see a winning season as the most likely scenario...thus, somewhat likely this merger happens.

[ziggy29]

Presumably the "WAC" Olympic schools that play football would be in the Big Sky (except for NMSU and Idaho)?

[HawaiiMongoose]

I THINK all of the WAC schools would have to stay together in order to maintain NCAA minimums regarding length of time together.

That's no longer a requirement. The new continuity rule only requires that the conference has sponsored basketball with at least seven D-I members for at least eight years. It doesn't matter how much turnover there's been in the members during that time. So theoretically the Big Sky and WAC could trade members around however they see fit.

[HawaiiMongoose]

I could see it as
North
EWU
Idaho
BSU
Idaho State
Montana
Montana State
Seattle
North Dakota

South
Portland State
Sac State
Denver
UNC
Weber
SUU
NAU
NMSU

Move Portland State to the North and add CSUB and UVU in the South and you'd have two pretty nice nine-member conferences. The North (Big Sky?) would cover Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and North Dakota. The South (WAC?) would cover California, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado.

[Dimwhit]

They are calling it a "long shot".....

Yeah, I don't see it happening. Interesting idea, though.

[fsdog07]

That's no longer a requirement. The new continuity rule only requires that the conference has sponsored basketball with at least seven D-I members for at least eight years. It doesn't matter how much turnover there's been in the members during that time. So theoretically the Big Sky and WAC could trade members around however they see fit.

Move Portland State to the North and add CSUB and UVU in the South and you'd have two pretty nice nine-member conferences. The North (Big Sky?) would cover Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and North Dakota. The South (WAC?) would cover California, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado.

1. Good to know, thanks.

2. I think that's the winning combination right there.

[Joe from WY]

Move Portland State to the North and add CSUB and UVU in the South and you'd have two pretty nice nine-member conferences. The North (Big Sky?) would cover Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and North Dakota. The South (WAC?) would cover California, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado.

I could see that working out.

[CPslograd]

Move Portland State to the North and add CSUB and UVU in the South and you'd have two pretty nice nine-member conferences. The North (Big Sky?) would cover Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and North Dakota. The South (WAC?) would cover California, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado.

I love it on paper, but think it will be just as difficult to implement as CUSA-MWC was.

[CaffeinatedCoog]

I love it on paper, but think it will be just as difficult to implement as CUSA-MWC was.

Not really. There are no exit fees to collect. Im guessing that an alliance agreement would be signed which would waive entry/exit fees between the two conferences. They could share revenue and negotiate TV contract together or seperately. The only issues I could see are how the football only schools would get paid. Revenue splits between the football only Big Sky schools and the all-sports Big Sky schools would have to be determined. I dont think theres alot of income at stake here however, so its likely not a big stumbling block.

[CPslograd]

Awright, well who's going to tell Weber they have to play in the South instead of their traditional rivals?

What happens to all the money the WAC is collecting the next few years? Right now, Boise is on the hook for a million over the next three years, if they go to the Big Sky, is that voided? Are Denver and Seattle, who are paying 600k to be in the WAC, ok with Boise's fee being voided?

Would NAU rather be playing Montana or Southern Utah?

How is this substantially helping NMSU and Idaho for football? They could get a couple of FCS games anyway.

It will be complicated as hell to work it out.

[sfcal]

1) Weber and SUU are excited to play each other annually. and geographically they save on travel costs to North Dakota for basketball

2) dunno, who said the wac has any money to collect with 4 schools (maybe 5 with boise state) by 2013?

3) Nau is considered a rival with SUU per the big sky dual rivalry rotation in sky football. NAU plays SUU and UNColo. I don't think they match up with Montana anyway competively or saving travel to play a SUU or possibly NMSU weak team

link

4)They don't have anyone calling them, and independence is likely the last straw before joining the Big Sky (NMSU has an outside chance at MWC but it ain't happening due to lack of all common sense basketball wise)

[CPslograd]

1) Weber and SUU are excited to play each other annually. and geographically they save on travel costs to North Dakota for basketball

My point is splitting up leagues is always hard. Weber may be ok with playing the Thunderbirds, but they aren't a traditional rival.

2) dunno, who said the wac has any money to collect with 4 schools (maybe 5 with boise state) by 2013?

If the WAC adds two or three schools, they stay a conference and collect the money.
1 million Boise
600k Denver, Seattle, TxST, UTSA, UTA
Lets guess 600k from CSUB and UVU.
Just under 200k a year from Reno and Fresno.

That is over 5 million, annual Big Sky conference revenue is under 2 million.

Also, the tourney credits will be divided up only 4 ways this year. It will cost the WAC schools money to do this.




3) Nau is considered a rival with SUU per the big sky dual rivalry rotation in sky football. NAU plays SUU and UNColo. I don't think they match up with Montana anyway competively or saving travel to play a SUU or possibly NMSU weak team

SUU has a very good football team, but my high school stadium was better and bigger. Not exaggerating. NMSU was quite a bit better last year btw.

link

4)They don't have anyone calling them, and independence is likely the last straw before joining the Big Sky (NMSU has an outside chance at MWC but it ain't happening due to lack of all common sense basketball wise)

Like I said, I like the idea in theory. But it won't be easy to get a bunch of school presidents with their own vested interests to agree to it.

[CaffeinatedCoog]

Awright, well who's going to tell Weber they have to play in the South instead of their traditional rivals?

What happens to all the money the WAC is collecting the next few years? Right now, Boise is on the hook for a million over the next three years, if they go to the Big Sky, is that voided? Are Denver and Seattle, who are paying 600k to be in the WAC, ok with Boise's fee being voided?

Would NAU rather be playing Montana or Southern Utah?

How is this substantially helping NMSU and Idaho for football? They could get a couple of FCS games anyway.

It will be complicated as hell to work it out.

The WAC isnt going to collect a dime if it doesnt exist. I suspect it would be willing to waive entry fees to everyone in order to continue as an entity. I dont think there are any exit fees to collect. I was told the WAC has no exit fees. Could be wrong on that one.

[CPslograd]

The WAC isnt going to collect a dime if it doesnt exist. I suspect it would be willing to waive entry fees to everyone in order to continue as an entity. I dont think there are any exit fees to collect. I was told the WAC has no exit fees. Could be wrong on that one.

No, you're not wrong on the exit fees. But the exiting schools don't get their conference payout, it gets distributed to the other members, so there is a defacto exit fee.

On entry fees I don't know what would happen either. You're right, if the WAC doesn't add somebody they don't get any money. But Denver and Seattle are going to want some compensation considering they just paid 600k, I would think. My guess is that it would be forfeited revenue in lieu of an entry fee.

[UNLV2001]

per Big Sky commish... Seems like a pretty brilliant move all around (given the circumstances)

Idaho and New Mexico State would go Indy; not sure how they would split up the basketball leagues (here's my guess)

WAC
Boise State
Idaho
Seattle
Eastern Washington
Northern Arizona
Denver
New Mexico State
Northern Colorado

Big Sky
Sacramento State
Portland State
Weber State
Southern Utah
North Dakota
Montana
Montana State
Idaho State

I lke it, go with it !!

[HawaiiMongoose]

Like I said, I like the idea in theory. But it won't be easy to get a bunch of school presidents with their own vested interests to agree to it.

Agreed, there are many details to be worked out and the whole thing could go nowhere because of all the complexity. But there's a confluence of interests here. The WAC lacks enough schools to remain viable, but is in position to collect some money. The Big Sky has lots of schools, in fact too many for convenient scheduling or easy travel, but is relatively cash poor. It looks to me like a partnership could be mutually beneficial, in which case the parties at least have an incentive to try working out the details.