Everyone's moving but us...

[wsucatfan]

It is highly possible that by the end of May we will have seen 5 of 6 Utah Universities change conference affiliations in the past year. Starting with Utah, then BYU, SUU, now USU to the Mountain West. Now with the WAC desperate for members UVU is a top identified target to join.

I know it is nice to have a stable conference but I don't like the fact that everyone else in the state is improving their conference affilations while we have stayed with the status quo. You could argue that we have taken a step back with the new additions to the big sky.

It is going to be just that much more difficult to compete on the field against our rival Utah schools and against them in the continuous battle for recuits.

 

[WILDCAT]

Weber is right where they belong, there is nothing fantastic about the WAC at all, and that is the ONLY conference Weber would be invited to, and it wont be a shock if Weber does get an invite. And I hope Weber says NO.


With the new addititions, the Big Sky has become THE most powerful FCS conference, why move from the most powerful FCS conference to the soon to be worst FBS conference? A football conference that may soon cease to exist. Why?

Playoffs>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bowls.

The only reason USU is even in the WAC is because Boise and San Diego State left, even the Aggie fans believe that, then when it came to the last 4 members for Mountain West membership (a MWC that is basically a whole new WAC, its best football members now gone.) between Idaho, USU, NMSU and SJSU. It came down to the one school with the best market and the one school with the best facilities. It's not like the Mountain West had the greatest of options, so they picked the best two of the four. Trust me, USU would still be in the WAC had Boise or even San Diego State stayed.

THe only reason SUU is in the Big Sky was because the impending destruction of the WAC only meant a imminent WAC raid on the SKY, so the Sky added Poly and Davis. The teams the WAC talked too, Weber included all told the WAC to get lost, and That was when the likes of Hawaii, Fresno State and Hawaii were still in the conference. So with Poly and Davis gone, the Great West was reduced to 3 members, and that is not enough members to keep a conference, so the Big Sky offerred the last three a spot, only 2 took it of course, and the way I hear it, Weber really pushed for the Thunderbirds to join, cause lets face it, you can never have too many in conference rivalries, especially instate ones.

Let UVU join the WAC, its not like that addition makes the WAC that much stronger if at all, and Cal State Bakersfield. The Big Sky is a better hoops conference now than the WAC.

LONG LIVE THE BIG SKY

 

[wsucatfan]

Weber is right where they belong, there is nothing fantastic about the WAC at all, and that is the ONLY conference Weber would be invited to, and it wont be a shock if Weber does get an invite. And I hope Weber says NO.

Let UVU join the WAC, its not like that addition makes the WAC that much stronger if at all, and Cal State Bakersfield. The Big Sky is a better hoops conference now than the WAC.

As it stands now yes the Big Sky is better than the WAC - but national perception the WAC still has clout. I don't disagree with you that Weber is where they need to be for now (FCS Football) but I like this senario:

Maybe this is Weber's chance to really raise the level of basketball, and other Olympic sports where we are strong. Let's tell the Sky that we will stick around for football only. Then build the WAC for other sports:

Seattle
Denver
Weber
Boise
Idaho
NMSU
SDSU
Hawaii

http://www.bigskyfans.com/wildcats/posting.php?mode=quote&f=2&p=28334
And you could cherry pick the top Big Sky teams too
And it is always possible to have a FCS WAC: http://forums.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=451&f=2368&t=8960780

 

[webercat]

My hope is that wherever the Montana schools go, Weber is with them. Whether that be the Sky or WAC or whatever.

 

[talhadfoursteals]

I'm sorry...but Movement isn't necessarily a sign of development or progress. Not one team from the Big Sky including Montana has moved during the last couple of years of uncertainty. Say what you want about Fullerton, but I think he has done a admirable job, as well as Bovee. The Sky is stable and successful. It is the best FCS league in the nation, and routinely beats FBS teams. Weber's athletic budget has been in the black for the past four or five years, unlike Utah State, Idaho, New Mexico State, Colorado State, Wyoming, New Mexico, SJSU, La Tech, and about 50 other FBS schools. We have been relatively successful overall, and our facilities and programs continue to improve. No nothing amazing has occurred, but for me, it is steady progress. What else can we ask for?

Getting into the current MW isn't anything to be proud of. Once Utah, BYU, Boise, TCU, and to a lesser extent, but significant nonethless especially since the MW is now more of a basketball conference than a football conference, SDSU, left the conference there isn't any noteworthy teams left. HELL PEOPLE!! Weber should have beaten WYO twice and CSU. Even when Utah went 13-0, the Cats played the Utes tough and the game should have been closer than it was; it wasn't a blow out. What I am getting at is that the MW isn't that great of a conference. What it provides to USU is stability and regionalization. Is it going to be a huge money maker? Probably not. Are they making more than they were before? Well, since they were in the red before then I would say yes, but in all likelihood, USU will continue to run an annual deficiet, which is something they can't afford to continue. Unfortunately for lower level FBS teams that is the norm.

The MW's will continue to be a basketball conference, but a watered down one, granted they have been terrible for the last 7 years, but the Utes have a top 10 NCAA winning percentage, BYU is a huge loss, and SDSU which was previously mentioned. Only NM, UNLV, and USU have strong traditions, and USU, well, they have won a lot but not when it matters. Better than us though. In the west, there is a lot more parity. WCC, Big West, Sky, and MW all can at anytime be really strong. Each have a couple of anchor programs, and solid consistent contending programs.

 

[wsucatfan]

I am not saying we have to move to FBS. I am saying there is a chance that we could mix the remaining WAC teams and the Big Sky, take the top teams and have a better conference than what we have now. If we are in a better basketball conference we get better recruits, we get better opponents, we get better fan participation. Tell me you would not get more excited to have home games against UI, BSU, SDSU, etc, or UND, UNC, (any other lowly BSC school). I am just hoping that Bovee is keeping all his options open, and to make sure that if the Big Sky changes that WSU is part of the movement with the best schools and not left behind with the leftovers.

Utah move to PAC12 : Huge Improvement - BCS championship possibility, BCS $

BYU move to WCC/Independance : Even, good for football bad for everything else, ESPN $, but they are setting themselves up for a move to a BCS conference and that = Huge Improvement

Utah State move to MW : Huge Improvement, you can't spin this as a negative for them, it might be WAC 2.0 but it is a better conference than where they were at (and where we are at x10). And yes occasionally a Big Sky team beats a MW team but last I checked we are still hanging our hat's on we played them tough, it doesn't matter if you lose by 1 or 30 it still is a loss. Close is not good enough for me, in basketball or football. And I know the coaches would feel the same way.

SUU to the Big Sky: Huge Improvement, auto bids for F-ball and B-Ball, better conference than wherever they were at, summit, great west? (don't know, don't care)

UVU possibility to a new WAC 3.0: Huge for them, yes in our eyes the 3.0 would be worse than the BSC but the WAC has a 50 year history that UVU will be able to recruit on. Huge Improvement

 

[WILDCAT]

I dont know, I kinda like where we are and who we are affiliated with right now.

 

[weberwildcat]

:thumbdown: do not like this thread. :wall:

i have grown numb to conference realignment.

i would just like to say, someone let me know when the dust has settled and then i would love to give my opinion.

 

[wsucatfan]

:thumbdown: do not like this thread. :wall:

i have grown numb to conference realignment.

i would just like to say, someone let me know when the dust has settled and then i would love to give my opinion.

Well there isn't much else to talk about until football camps start up this summer and the NBA draft...

So here is an interesting article on movement: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/friday-expansion-many-winners-losers-153609114.html

2 interesting points By Graham Watson:
1.

Since that year (2010), 31 teams — a little more than 25 percent of the FBS membership — will have switched conferences

2.

College football is a living thing. It's constantly changing and adapting while teams try to positions themselves for more money and more notoriety. As we'll see Friday, there are winners and losers in this game, but it's definitely not over.

I just want Weber to be in the best position it can, if that means a mega team Big Sky Conference then so be it.

 

[SWeberCat02]

I'm completely happy with FCS and the Big Sky. And adding Idaho would make it even better. You can't overstate how important stability is. Just ask USU.

 

[Born2BleedPurpleGuy]

yes, let's move to the MWC and be near the bottom every year.....NOT! I also feel FCS is awesome. It's where championships are WON!

 

[wsucatfan]

Here is a good thread on another forum, with a similiar idea I had to re-create the top Big Sky teams into a new WAC (FCS Conference).
http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=567721

RE: The WAC is dead

The only positive that could emerge would be if the Montana schools saw a WAC with Boise, Idaho, New Mexico St., Seattle, and Denver as a chance to rebuild a Big Sky like conference with the premier Big Sky members. If they are unhappy with what the Big Sky has become, the WAC could be seen as a chance to "start over"

With no trips to Texas, Montana may enjoy parking its non football sports in the WAC along with Montana St and 5 others. Montana could build the WAC into a conference of their liking.


Boise St (olympic only)
Idaho
Seattle (olympic only)
Eastern Washington
Portland St
Sacramento St

Montana
Montana St
New Mexico St
Denver (olympic only)
Utah Valley St (olympic only)
Weber St

The only team I would change is replacing UVU with NMSU.

RE: The WAC is dead

From a business standpoint, it makes sense that there be some type of merger / association between the Big Sky and WAC.

All Big Sky schools move to WAC. Fullerton becomes commissioner of new WAC. Assets combined. Ogden, Utah Big Sky office closed. Engelwood (Denver) WAC offices remain.

WAC assets are considerable:

$'s in bank - likely more than $3 million
WAC has ability, under NCAA rules, to invite FCS schools to FBS status. Such a right gives the Montana's, Portland St, and Sac St the future right to move to FBS if the leagues merge under the WAC banner.
WAC is based in Denver, with more options for corporate sponsorship. The Big Sky, in contrast, is based in Ogden, Utah.
The WAC offers a number of sports that the Big Sky doesn't, yet a number need the WAC to continue offering them:

Baseball: N Colorado, N Dakota, S Utah, and Sac St all need a baseball league. So do N Mex St and Seattle.
Women's swimming: N Colorado, N Dakota, N Arizona, and Sac St all need that sport sponsored. So do N Mex St, Seattle, Denver, and Idaho.
Softball: The Big Sky will begin softball, but with only six members.
Men's golf: Not sponsored by Big Sky, but offered by N Colorado, N Dakota, and Sac St.
Gymnastics: Not sponsored by Big Sky, but offered by S Utah and Sacramento St as well as Denver
Men's swimming: Not sponsored by either conference, but offered by Denver, N Dakota, Seattle.

A straight out merger would work, but, ideally to keep more NCAA money flowing and maximize autobids, a loose association would be better. Move four or five teams over from the Big Sky, keep the Big Sky functioning by adding Bakersfield, Utah Valley, and Grand Canyon, and coordinate scheduling in all sports.

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=567721&page=7

 

[oldrunner]

I wouldn't touch the wac with a 10 foot pole. I think it has STDs, Sports Transmitted Dimensia. The WAC is more than DEAD, it toxic. Programs go there to die. They have no good options for survival. The Montanas turned them down when they were a bit more viable. They are less so, now. :yikes:

The Big Sky is a much better confrence. We do, however, need one more member to even things out. it will make for regular travel partners and more stable scheduling in basketball and even divisions in football. :nod:

The best thing the WAC could do is to help its leftovers find good homes. :twocents:

 

[Weberstguy728]

UVU in our same conference. Heck no. We need to be more selective.

We need to be playing Montana's more instead of having them at home every 4 years.

We need to make this new FCS conference. I think Idaho would gladly drop down to join this conference. It is very regional and makes the rivalries all that more important. This conference could still have 4 teams in the playoffs. We would even take the Root Sports deal with us because all they want is the Montana's so the TV money would be the same.

Idaho
Eastern Washington
Weber State
Seattle (Non-Football)
Denver (Non-Football)
Montana
Montana State
Pick One (Portland State or Sacramento State)I am leaning towards Portland State.

This makes a 6 team football conference and 8 team basketball conference. We could be very selective of who we put on the rest of our schedule. We could make the playoffs every year because we could pad our schedule with Idaho State and Northern Arizona as well as playing a few more FCS home and homes.
Our Schedule would look like this.
FBS $
FBS $
Idaho
Eastern Washington
Weber State
Montana
Montana State
Pick One (Portland State or Sacramento State).
Big Sky Opponent
FCS Opponent
FCS Opponent.

 

[Weberstguy728]

Looking at the miles it would be to get from Idaho U to everyone else, it makes sense to me.

School Distance
Eastern Washington 71 miles
Montana 251 miles
Seattle 295 miles
Portland State 360 miles
Montana State 450 miles
Weber State 626 miles
Denver 1,151 miles

 

[wsucatfan]

Looking at the miles it would be to get from Idaho U to everyone else, it makes sense to me.

School Distance
Eastern Washington 71 miles
Montana 251 miles
Seattle 295 miles
Portland State 360 miles
Montana State 450 miles
Weber State 626 miles
Denver 1,151 miles

It's like a do-over of the Big Sky, top teams move to the new conference, good rivals, and having 2 FCS conferences in the West makes for a better games out of conference.