• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts, upgrade to remove ads and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your BigSkyFans.com experience today!

WSU to the WAC?

oldrunner

oldrunner

Active member
I really don't think there is anything to this, but here it is.

https://www.ksl.com/article/50063697/southern-utah-seriously-considering-invitation-to-join-the-wac-but-other-schools-also-targeted-for-football-revival
 
I think this is the WAC attempting a Hail Mary...let’s hope it doesn’t work, and Hill stays put.
 
I'm not sure that the WAC is a better option but I think its at least giving some consideration. The Big Sky is a better football conference than the theoretical WAC although there would be some potential there with the Texas schools.

Basketball, I think the WAC would be significantly better in the long run. NMSU, SFA, GCU are already good programs. Others such as CBU, ACU, Seattle have potential to be good. I also assume that Chicago St. will disappear at some point. My biggest concern is if this is still a guaranteed 1 bid league, that's likely even tougher competition for that one bid. Although that bid could result in a higher seed than the Big Sky usually earns.

Overall, I think the WAC could have a higher ceiling, while also having a lower floor. The Big Sky isn't likely to grow much over the next decade but it is home and it would take a good opportunity to leave home. I don't know how valuable being with the other Utah schools is, but from a travel perspective that would be nice. The other schools tend to be closer to major metro areas compared to the Big Sky.
 
WxMW said:
I'm not sure that the WAC is a better option but I think its at least giving some consideration. The Big Sky is a better football conference than the theoretical WAC although there would be some potential there with the Texas schools.

Basketball, I think the WAC would be significantly better in the long run. NMSU, SFA, GCU are already good programs. Others such as CBU, ACU, Seattle have potential to be good. I also assume that Chicago St. will disappear at some point. My biggest concern is if this is still a guaranteed 1 bid league, that's likely even tougher competition for that one bid. Although that bid could result in a higher seed than the Big Sky usually earns.

Overall, I think the WAC could have a higher ceiling, while also having a lower floor. The Big Sky isn't likely to grow much over the next decade but it is home and it would take a good opportunity to leave home. I don't know how valuable being with the other Utah schools is, but from a travel perspective that would be nice. The other schools tend to be closer to major metro areas compared to the Big Sky.
Click to expand...

I agree it's at least worth looking into. Big Sky basketball has been bad for a long time and the WAC would be an immediate improvement. Plus, being in the same conference as three other Utah schools would be nice and travel costs would be less with closer schools and schools in major metro areas. And although it would be a step down for football now, a WAC FCS conference with some of the teams rumored to be joining has the potential to be as good as the Big Sky in the future.
 
Depends on what we see ourselves as being? Meaning are we a football or basketball school? Even if we see ourselves as a basketball school, and can agree that the WAC is a stronger basketball conference than the Sky? Will it always be better and if so, is it so much better that it would make a move beneficial financially? Finally, which sport has the potential to best develop the athletics department and to generate revenue, create fan support, and build a generous and strong alumni organization?

The WAC is interesting, but I don't see its basketball prowess being at such a level to offset the potential that football can create for our school. Right now, football is king, even if we see ourselves as a basketball school, it will be through football that the university could potentially gain much more from a continued membership in the Big Sky than a membership in a realigned WAC and stronger basketball conference. I just don't see how basketball can provide the benefits that a good football team can. NOW, the athletics department needs to take advantage of good football program, great coach in Jay Hill, and being the only show in town this Spring. Gotta get butts in the seats once it is safe to do so. Even then, find a way to get students into the games and use up every available space the bleachers allow. SUU is banking on a close rivalry with Dixie to generate increased funding and support. Weber will still get that and add Dixie to the mix every year. BUT...nothing can take away from playing football against UM, MSU, UI, Eastern, Cal Poly, UC Davis, NAU, PSU, SAC and ISU (UNCO please go to the WAC).
 
talhadfoursteals said:
Depends on what we see ourselves as being? Meaning are we a football or basketball school? Even if we see ourselves as a basketball school, and can agree that the WAC is a stronger basketball conference than the Sky? Will it always be better and if so, is it so much better that it would make a move beneficial financially? Finally, which sport has the potential to best develop the athletics department and to generate revenue, create fan support, and build a generous and strong alumni organization?

The WAC is interesting, but I don't see its basketball prowess being at such a level to offset the potential that football can create for our school. Right now, football is king, even if we see ourselves as a basketball school, it will be through football that the university could potentially gain much more from a continued membership in the Big Sky than a membership in a realigned WAC and stronger basketball conference. I just don't see how basketball can provide the benefits that a good football team can. NOW, the athletics department needs to take advantage of good football program, great coach in Jay Hill, and being the only show in town this Spring. Gotta get butts in the seats once it is safe to do so. Even then, find a way to get students into the games and use up every available space the bleachers allow. SUU is banking on a close rivalry with Dixie to generate increased funding and support. Weber will still get that and add Dixie to the mix every year. BUT...nothing can take away from playing football against UM, MSU, UI, Eastern, Cal Poly, UC Davis, NAU, PSU, SAC and ISU (UNCO please go to the WAC).
Click to expand...

That is all very fair. It's a rare opportunity to sort of self reflect as an athletic department of what you are and what you hope to be. I'll admit I'm primarily a basketball fan, and havent been a life long fan so the history of the Big Sky isnt as deep for myself.

When it comes to football vs basketball, I'll always believe that for a school like Weber St. basketball offers the opportunity to compete at at the highest level in a way that FCS football doesnt allow for. A single win in the NCAA tournament goes so much further in the public eye compared to the FCS playoffs. As it stands, the WAC and Big Sky are pretty comparable in basketball. The addition of what are 4 of the top 5 in this years Southland will only make that league stronger.

I'm assuming the football program would rather stay home in the Big Sky moving forward for the reasons mentioned above. Staying in the Big Sky might be the right move, but I figure with everyone quick to dismiss the idea its worth the discussion. Who doesnt love a good conference realignment discussion :thumb:
 
WxMW said:
talhadfoursteals said:
Depends on what we see ourselves as being? Meaning are we a football or basketball school? Even if we see ourselves as a basketball school, and can agree that the WAC is a stronger basketball conference than the Sky? Will it always be better and if so, is it so much better that it would make a move beneficial financially? Finally, which sport has the potential to best develop the athletics department and to generate revenue, create fan support, and build a generous and strong alumni organization?

The WAC is interesting, but I don't see its basketball prowess being at such a level to offset the potential that football can create for our school. Right now, football is king, even if we see ourselves as a basketball school, it will be through football that the university could potentially gain much more from a continued membership in the Big Sky than a membership in a realigned WAC and stronger basketball conference. I just don't see how basketball can provide the benefits that a good football team can. NOW, the athletics department needs to take advantage of good football program, great coach in Jay Hill, and being the only show in town this Spring. Gotta get butts in the seats once it is safe to do so. Even then, find a way to get students into the games and use up every available space the bleachers allow. SUU is banking on a close rivalry with Dixie to generate increased funding and support. Weber will still get that and add Dixie to the mix every year. BUT...nothing can take away from playing football against UM, MSU, UI, Eastern, Cal Poly, UC Davis, NAU, PSU, SAC and ISU (UNCO please go to the WAC).
Click to expand...

That is all very fair. It's a rare opportunity to sort of self reflect as an athletic department of what you are and what you hope to be. I'll admit I'm primarily a basketball fan, and havent been a life long fan so the history of the Big Sky isnt as deep for myself.

When it comes to football vs basketball, I'll always believe that for a school like Weber St. basketball offers the opportunity to compete at at the highest level in a way that FCS football doesnt allow for. A single win in the NCAA tournament goes so much further in the public eye compared to the FCS playoffs. As it stands, the WAC and Big Sky are pretty comparable in basketball. The addition of what are 4 of the top 5 in this years Southland will only make that league stronger.

I'm assuming the football program would rather stay home in the Big Sky moving forward for the reasons mentioned above. Staying in the Big Sky might be the right move, but I figure with everyone quick to dismiss the idea its worth the discussion. Who doesnt love a good conference realignment discussion :thumb:
Click to expand...

Yep, a discussion is good. I like the points made, but one other point is how volatile the WAC would be as a conference. I could see it fold as far as football goes if one team jumps ship or leaves...then you would have to live as an FCS independent. Really, I could see the WAC dissolving altogether. I think they are desperate to make moves to keep in operation. No way would you want to sign up for that. The quality of football would suffer, too. Big Sky is good football to watch with long rivalries.

I guess we will see what shakes out, but I certainly hope Weber State stays in the Big Sky!
 
Games vs current Big Sky schools > Schools currently being courted by the WAC.


We have long history against Idaho State, Montana, Montana State, NAU and Eastern. None of which is worth giving up for games against SUU. We can and will always schedule SUU and or Dixie in football and basketball and UVU in basketball as well. That's good enough for me.

Weber's place is where their rivals are....in the Big Sky.
 
WILDCAT said:
Games vs current Big Sky schools > Schools currently being courted by the WAC.


We have long history against Idaho State, Montana, Montana State, NAU and Eastern. None of which is worth giving up for games against SUU. We can and will always schedule SUU and or Dixie in football and basketball and UVU in basketball as well. That's good enough for me.

Weber's place is where their rivals are....in the Big Sky.
Click to expand...
To me, the plusses of staying with the BSC far, far outweigh those of joining the WAC. If the WAC was getting four teams into the dance for basketball, then I might start thinking more highly of them. I don't see that happening any time soon. Also, for the average WSU fan, travel to Texas for a game is not like going to Idaho, Montana, or even California.

My vote would be absolutely not.
 
that was a weird article. it all hangs on whether bama will join, oh i mean weber. :shock:

current basketball schools of the WAC:
new mexico state
uvu
grand canyon
texas rio grande valley
cal baptist
csu bakersfield
seattle u
missouri kc
chicago state

current football schools of the WAC:
none
last season 2012

according to the article
Utah Division:
dixie state
weber state
suu
uvu ?

Texas Division:
sfa
tarleton state (never heard of)
sam houston st
lamar
abilene christian

that would be 8 fcs teams since new mexico st is fbs. this does not sound like a conf you would want to join by leaving the big sky. that wac hq is in colorado yet no word of UNC.

it might not be a bad idea for suu and dixie to join this "new" conf, it wouldn't hurt the sky to lose suu. it could be a good plan.

is it just me or is this a strange article that doesn't make much sense. The wac used to rock but now is lame. I am not sure if the logo is a good reason to join. Even if it was called the SEC it shouldn't matter. :lol: im not making a case that the sky is the limit :rofl: but there is plenty we can do ourselves to improve the sky.
 
I think Northern Colorado fits the WAC foorprint as well as any of the current members, certainly as well as SUU or Dixie. That would also open the door for some other D11 schools in Cororado to move up in the future. I think UNCO will be the next target for the WAC. :coffee:
 
WxMW said:
talhadfoursteals said:
Depends on what we see ourselves as being? Meaning are we a football or basketball school? Even if we see ourselves as a basketball school, and can agree that the WAC is a stronger basketball conference than the Sky? Will it always be better and if so, is it so much better that it would make a move beneficial financially? Finally, which sport has the potential to best develop the athletics department and to generate revenue, create fan support, and build a generous and strong alumni organization?

The WAC is interesting, but I don't see its basketball prowess being at such a level to offset the potential that football can create for our school. Right now, football is king, even if we see ourselves as a basketball school, it will be through football that the university could potentially gain much more from a continued membership in the Big Sky than a membership in a realigned WAC and stronger basketball conference. I just don't see how basketball can provide the benefits that a good football team can. NOW, the athletics department needs to take advantage of good football program, great coach in Jay Hill, and being the only show in town this Spring. Gotta get butts in the seats once it is safe to do so. Even then, find a way to get students into the games and use up every available space the bleachers allow. SUU is banking on a close rivalry with Dixie to generate increased funding and support. Weber will still get that and add Dixie to the mix every year. BUT...nothing can take away from playing football against UM, MSU, UI, Eastern, Cal Poly, UC Davis, NAU, PSU, SAC and ISU (UNCO please go to the WAC).
Click to expand...

That is all very fair. It's a rare opportunity to sort of self reflect as an athletic department of what you are and what you hope to be. I'll admit I'm primarily a basketball fan, and havent been a life long fan so the history of the Big Sky isnt as deep for myself.

When it comes to football vs basketball, I'll always believe that for a school like Weber St. basketball offers the opportunity to compete at at the highest level in a way that FCS football doesnt allow for. A single win in the NCAA tournament goes so much further in the public eye compared to the FCS playoffs. As it stands, the WAC and Big Sky are pretty comparable in basketball. The addition of what are 4 of the top 5 in this years Southland will only make that league stronger.

I'm assuming the football program would rather stay home in the Big Sky moving forward for the reasons mentioned above. Staying in the Big Sky might be the right move, but I figure with everyone quick to dismiss the idea its worth the discussion. Who doesnt love a good conference realignment discussion :thumb:
Click to expand...

I agree...it is fun to discuss possible realignment options. The Southland and the Big Sky are both too big for FCS conferences. And, we all know another FCS conference in the west is needed. Finally, there are a number of DII programs who are hoping to move up and another conference other than the Pioneer League can give them those most prepared that chance (Central Washington might be the only other program I see making the jump soon, but what do I know). So, there are opportunities for a rejuvenated WAC with football. I'd love to see a Big Sky that has, as the most, 10 football playing teams. My dream is definitely a pipe dream. The Sky has an open invitation for NMSU, if they ever drop down. So there is a chance that SUU switches with NMSU. Getting NMSU immediately improves the Big Sky all around, except travel. Hahahah.
 
talhadfoursteals said:
WxMW said:
talhadfoursteals said:
Depends on what we see ourselves as being? Meaning are we a football or basketball school? Even if we see ourselves as a basketball school, and can agree that the WAC is a stronger basketball conference than the Sky? Will it always be better and if so, is it so much better that it would make a move beneficial financially? Finally, which sport has the potential to best develop the athletics department and to generate revenue, create fan support, and build a generous and strong alumni organization?

The WAC is interesting, but I don't see its basketball prowess being at such a level to offset the potential that football can create for our school. Right now, football is king, even if we see ourselves as a basketball school, it will be through football that the university could potentially gain much more from a continued membership in the Big Sky than a membership in a realigned WAC and stronger basketball conference. I just don't see how basketball can provide the benefits that a good football team can. NOW, the athletics department needs to take advantage of good football program, great coach in Jay Hill, and being the only show in town this Spring. Gotta get butts in the seats once it is safe to do so. Even then, find a way to get students into the games and use up every available space the bleachers allow. SUU is banking on a close rivalry with Dixie to generate increased funding and support. Weber will still get that and add Dixie to the mix every year. BUT...nothing can take away from playing football against UM, MSU, UI, Eastern, Cal Poly, UC Davis, NAU, PSU, SAC and ISU (UNCO please go to the WAC).
Click to expand...

That is all very fair. It's a rare opportunity to sort of self reflect as an athletic department of what you are and what you hope to be. I'll admit I'm primarily a basketball fan, and havent been a life long fan so the history of the Big Sky isnt as deep for myself.

When it comes to football vs basketball, I'll always believe that for a school like Weber St. basketball offers the opportunity to compete at at the highest level in a way that FCS football doesnt allow for. A single win in the NCAA tournament goes so much further in the public eye compared to the FCS playoffs. As it stands, the WAC and Big Sky are pretty comparable in basketball. The addition of what are 4 of the top 5 in this years Southland will only make that league stronger.

I'm assuming the football program would rather stay home in the Big Sky moving forward for the reasons mentioned above. Staying in the Big Sky might be the right move, but I figure with everyone quick to dismiss the idea its worth the discussion. Who doesnt love a good conference realignment discussion :thumb:
Click to expand...

I agree...it is fun to discuss possible realignment options. The Southland and the Big Sky are both too big for FCS conferences. And, we all know another FCS conference in the west is needed. Finally, there are a number of DII programs who are hoping to move up and another conference other than the Pioneer League can give them those most prepared that chance (Central Washington might be the only other program I see making the jump soon, but what do I know). So, there are opportunities for a rejuvenated WAC with football. I'd love to see a Big Sky that has, as the most, 10 football playing teams. My dream is definitely a pipe dream. The Sky has an open invitation for NMSU, if they ever drop down. So there is a chance that SUU switches with NMSU. Getting NMSU immediately improves the Big Sky all around, except travel. Hahahah.
Click to expand...
The problem with NMSU is the same as the problem with UH. It's not that they are not nice destinations, it's the travel to the destination. at least with UH you have the beaches. It seems that nobody really seems to want NMSU. Let's face it, USU was extremely fortunate to get a MWC invitation when they did. I agree that the BSC needs to lose a little excess weight. Some of that just left. There is still a chance of a west coast FCS conference starting up. A lot of change is in the wind with the NCAA dropping FBS football administration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top