Which conference would you move to?

74,181 Views | 416 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by SFASawmillGuy
TallTexan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TallTexan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nacluth said:

Ok. Just sounds like it already had been, and I'm still in the camp where I would be supportive of any move, but honestly would be shocked if the WAC is a benefit to us. I guess a true Eastern regional makes some sense if it's Texas/New Mexico, but if we get the whole conference as competition?

I'll wait with baited breath.


Ya I haven't seen it laid out either.

From what I've seen, the WAC + SFA & friends just doesn't add up. Well it probably does for Sam, but their math classes just aren't that good. WAC leadership is probably wondering why they take their shoes off any time people start talking numbers.

But for SFA to be interested, there'd have to be more than just single bid conference, but with more travel. And it doesn't make sense for the WAC schools either. Most of them don't even sponsor football, so I'd be interested to see what those strategy plans look like.
PurpleOut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
nacluth said:

Ok. Just sounds like it already had been, and I'm still in the camp where I would be supportive of any move, but honestly would be shocked if the WAC is a benefit to us. I guess a true Eastern regional makes some sense if it's Texas/New Mexico, but if we get the whole conference as competition?

I'll wait with baited breath.
I think that's part of the biggest discussion. We can't have all teams and sports fly to the West Coast every week obviously. But if the majority of our games are in Texas like you said...then there's not going to be much different travel cost wise.

That's a make or break aspect.

I'm still skeptical overall, just want it to be the right decision, but I'm coming around somewhat on the thought. And also like you, I'll support the decision 100%.

I think there's an overall thought that if there's an opportunity to get out of the current situation (SLC), then we should take it and avoid the potential thought of missing out in a few years. But we'll see.
TallTexan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Multiple Montana Grizz fans retweeting Matt Browns tweet. Which is interesting because I haven't seen them mentioned for the WAC, though they considered the move in 2010.
TallTexan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigJack85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PurpleOut said:

nacluth said:

Ok. Just sounds like it already had been, and I'm still in the camp where I would be supportive of any move, but honestly would be shocked if the WAC is a benefit to us. I guess a true Eastern regional makes some sense if it's Texas/New Mexico, but if we get the whole conference as competition?

I'll wait with baited breath.
I think that's part of the biggest discussion. We can't have all teams and sports fly to the West Coast every week obviously. But if the majority of our games are in Texas like you said...then there's not going to be much different travel cost wise.

That's a make or break aspect.

I'm still skeptical overall, just want it to be the right decision, but I'm coming around somewhat on the thought. And also like you, I'll support the decision 100%.

I think there's an overall thought that if there's an opportunity to get out of the current situation (SLC), then we should take it and avoid the potential thought of missing out in a few years. But we'll see.



My takeaway is exactly what you point out. "Thought of missing out in a few years". If we stay with the SLC we will have few options in 2023. When all this starts to shake out. The WAC is not optimal but it may be the "vehicle" that allows us to make a more logical leap in 2023. Besides, if we leave the SLC and it doesn't work I don't think they would shut us out if we wanted to return ? They accepted UIW, correct?
BigJack85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tall, I think there is more to this than we would like to think. Additionally I'm convinced that travel issues are at the top of the discussions. So.... don't look for us to leap unless significant cost containment measures are in place. I would also suggest that some league wide compromises could make this slightly attractive. Math is a big part of it but if we can get one big "body bag" game a year (for example Idaho was paid 1.1 mill to play Florida) this could be a step towards something good.
SFAJack_76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cboothe09
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And so it begins...
TallTexan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm surprised that UCA didn't join the Ohio Valley. That seemed like the perfect conference for them.
CertifiedAxeman98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I didn't expect all this movement this year. I expected it to start next year. I am now leaning toward any move out of the Southland is better than being left stuck in the Southland. The WAC is looking better and better with the Southland potentially bringing in more D2 teams to fill spots as others depart the Southland.
TallTexan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Interesting.

TallTexan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I wonder if this is part of the WAC plan. I remembered a conference had talked about it, but couldn't remember who.

TallTexan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Allow me a moment for unsubstantiated conjecture.

Montana fans are retweeting some of the WAC realignment stuff with comments like "let's see what happens". We also know that SUU is considering the WAC. Additionally there are rumors that Northern Colorado might leave Big Sky.

So, is there the potential of the WAC expanding to 20-22 teams and then splitting into a football and non football conference?

So let's say you add the 4 Texas schools, plus Montana, Northern Colorado, Northern Arizona, and SUU. Plus 3 more basketball focused schools.

Then in 2022 you split into the WAC & WAC2.

WAC:
SFA,
SHSU
Lamar
Tarleton
ACU
NMSU
NAU
SUU,
Montana
Northern Colorado
Dixie State
UT RGV

WAC 2:
Cal Baptist
Chicago
GCU
Seattle
UVU
3 basketball only teams to be named later

BigJack85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I believe I can confirm the number is 12. Two 6 team divisions IF IT HAPPENS . First, Chicago St ,,, gone. Seattle. Probably gone. West - Cal Baptist, Dixie St, Grand Canyon, New Mexico St, Southern Utah, and UVU. East - ACU, Lamar, Sam, SFA, Tarleton and UTRGV.
TallTexan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The potential problem I see here is there is probably a minimum number of teams required for an FCS football conference. FBS requires 8 teams.

This would be 6 FCS teams and 1 FBS independent. So I think they'd probably need two more football schools.
SFASawmillGuy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UTRGV has been working to start football for sometime, so this would be as big a justification as any for them to start a program.
SFAJack_76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TallTexan said:

The potential problem I see here is there is probably a minimum number of teams required for an FCS football conference. FBS requires 8 teams.

This would be 6 FCS teams and 1 FBS independent. So I think they'd probably need two more football schools.
I believe FCS has typically been a minimum of six teams to get an AQ.
BigJack85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFAJack_76 said:

TallTexan said:

The potential problem I see here is there is probably a minimum number of teams required for an FCS football conference. FBS requires 8 teams.

This would be 6 FCS teams and 1 FBS independent. So I think they'd probably need two more football schools.
I believe FCS has typically been a minimum of six teams to get an AQ.


SFA Sam Lamar ACU SUU Dixie and Tarleton. That's 7. Eyeing to go to 1a (FBS) in 4-5 years. If you do a split (road/home) with SUU and Dixie you only hop on a plane once for football (in conference).
nacluth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Well I'm flummoxed 85. The problem I see with a 6 team regional is that it only benefits one sport: football. It would have no benefit for anything else except maybe soccer? Anything else?

The problem I see with this is that it sounds like this would be a football-first decision to move to the WAC. People have consistently said that Carthel wants to move out of the SLC, but football is the one thing that the SLC does well. The Southland has had 2-4 bids in the playoffs consistently this last decade. Just because SFA has stunk it up, the SLC hasn't. To move to a 1 bid league with the hope of a FBS move down the road I guess is something, but it sounds like pipe dreaming for a fan who hasn't seen much in 30 years of FCS play (a couple notable exceptions).

Again for every other sport it makes more sense than football despite the enormous travel costs, but if this is going to be a football decision than I guess there's more going on than I have a clue about.
nacluth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
New poll up.
BigJack85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I agree that the "Olympic" sports would be a troubling waste of $$$. I don't think the "cross divisional" play will be nearly as comprehensive as you see in typical 2 division conferences. What if you could gain most of the advantages of a larger conference without doing complete cross division competition. Settle it in a conference championship, that pits the top 4 in each division. Neutral site. . The WAC has better brand equity than the SLC or the ASUN. That UCA is headed to the ASUN is not a coincidence.
Ljacks&Longnecks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So I'm following this thread and I realize that the SLC is what it is, so let me get a couple of answers here from you guys that are more into a WAC move....

If the WAC is only a one bid MBB tourney school---and most here want to move to help SFA BB move up the ladder----then how does moving to another one bid league help men's BB?

If anyone on here thinks SFA will ever be capable of FBS football, I have a bridge to sell you and that comes from one of the biggest SFA football fans on this board. I can only imagine the complaining on the board if we moved up in football and went 2-9, 1-10 every year although I suppose if we were FBS with these WAC teams we would fare better.

Like all here I want the best possibilities and outcomes for SFA athletics---guess I'm just asking if this is a smart/good move overall ? OR is it a move we make to set up a different move later?
nacluth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thanks for the post 85. I'll be the first to admit that I don't understand the financial or political arithmetic of conference realignment. Thanks for bearing with my questions.
BigJack85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think this is a set up move.
SFAJack_76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big picture folks. If our university administration and athletic department leaderships determine the WAC is the right move, then they believe it is the right move towards the " best mid major" vision. They believe it is a move that helps us get to a 15,000 enrollment, or more. Not a football move. Not a basketball move. An SFA and SFA women and men athletics move. I embrace the bigger, broader vision of what can be.

(FBS football is way down the road, if ever.)
BigJack85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFAJack_76 said:

Big picture folks. If our university administration and athletic department leaderships determine the WAC is the right move, then they believe it is the right move towards the " best mid major" vision. They believe it is a move that helps us get to a 15,000 enrollment, or more. Not a football move. Not a basketball move. An SFA and SFA women and men athletics move. I embrace the bigger, broader vision of what can be.

(FBS football is way down the road, if ever.)


Bravo. Bravo.
SFASawmillGuy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Seems like a copy paste of my Twitter post but whatever...
In seriousness, you're right. We need to keep the big picture in mind.
SFAJack_76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFA_03 said:

Seems like a copy paste of my Twitter post but whatever...
In seriousness, you're right. We need to keep the big picture in mind.
Which Tweet? I probably saw it, but don't recall and curious about exactly what you said.
TallTexan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Not that I trust Katfans, but this is the first I've heard about Commerce. At some point you add too many former D2 teams to make the WAC palatable.

BigJack85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
None of the D2 squads that are mentioned have an active (study) to move to D1. The costs , including the entrance fee to a conference, typically over $1 million, loads of other costs. Color me skeptical of all the D2 mentioned other than WTAMU.
TheRevSFA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TallTexan said:

Not that I trust Katfans, but this is the first I've heard about Commerce. At some point you add too many former D2 teams to make the WAC palatable.




He's not tied into the A&M system so I doubt the accuracy. (I know the guy who runs that twitter)
SFASawmillGuy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unrelated but I'm honestly very surprised Midwestern hasn't made the jump to an FCS conference. They're always pretty competitive at the D2 level, Memorial Stadium is a great stadium, and Wichita Falls is a very good city for recruiting. MSU was actually my second choice school when choosing a college.
BigJack85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doubt it. The only D2 that is ready , willing AND able is likely WTAM. I don't see right now. I really think if we go , it is with ACU, Lamar, Sam and the already joined Tarleton. Besides do we really want to recreate the Lone Star Conference? I don't.
BigJack85
How long do you want to ignore this user?
When the AD at NWST weighs in over Twitter about Southland Conference departures, you know that something is happening.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.