Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

A committe consisting of the remaining conference members has been assembled and will be looking at academics, market, sponsorship, attendance, and recent success etc in determining who they will invite.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=12250476&nid=858" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just as long as Weber stays FCS I dont care who goes, I like the FCS

Wildcat Ryan wrote:Just as long as Weber stays FCS I dont care who goes, I like the FCS

It didnt state specific schools, but it did say they would look at schools within their "footprint." And yes, they had the word footprint in parenthesis.

Herky wrote:

Wildcat Ryan wrote:Just as long as Weber stays FCS I dont care who goes, I like the FCS

It didnt state specific schools, but it did say they would look at schools within their "footprint." And yes, they had the word footprint in parenthesis.

so they're limiting the search to teams east of Asia and west of the Mississippi?

Montanan wrote:

Herky wrote:
It didnt state specific schools, but it did say they would look at schools within their "footprint." And yes, they had the word footprint in parenthesis.

so they're limiting the search to teams east of Asia and west of the Mississippi?

Pretty much. But I do think that the schools previously mentioned by Benson are what the article means.

Heres the unofficial list.

Montana - can easily up grade/may only need to squeeze in 5k seats somewhere, good fit
UTEP - far but already a div 1a, may be looking to move confs
UC DAVIS - can easily upgrade and become a contender,good fit imo
CAL POLY - can easily upgrade and become a contender good fit imo
Sac St - track screws sac st. but could be a possiblity bc sac could add deck to both grandstands.

List of school that wont get the invite.

Weber- big stadium,but the purple track & mostly bad play & wierd school name screws weber
Montana St. - dont have the rep or stadium UM does but COULD slip in via a UM/MSU package deal.
SUU-

BlackFalkin wrote:Heres the unofficial list.

Montana - can easily up grade/may only need to squeeze in 5k seats somewhere, good fit
UTEP - far but already a div 1a, may be looking to move confs
UC DAVIS - can easily upgrade and become a contender,good fit imo
CAL POLY - can easily upgrade and become a contender good fit imo
Sac St - track screws sac st. but could be a possiblity bc sac could add deck to both grandstands.

List of school that wont get the invite.

Weber- big stadium,but the purple track & mostly bad play & wierd school name screws weber
Montana St. - dont have the rep or stadium UM does but COULD slip in via a UM/MSU package deal.
SUU-

UTEP will not leave their confernce just like UNT won't. From everything I've read, they are looking at FCS programs.

Herky wrote:

BlackFalkin wrote:Heres the unofficial list.

Montana - can easily up grade/may only need to squeeze in 5k seats somewhere, good fit
UTEP - far but already a div 1a, may be looking to move confs
UC DAVIS - can easily upgrade and become a contender,good fit imo
CAL POLY - can easily upgrade and become a contender good fit imo
Sac St - track screws sac st. but could be a possiblity bc sac could add deck to both grandstands.

List of school that wont get the invite.

Weber- big stadium,but the purple track & mostly bad play & wierd school name screws weber
Montana St. - dont have the rep or stadium UM does but COULD slip in via a UM/MSU package deal.
SUU-

UTEP will not leave their confernce just like UNT won't. From everything I've read, they are looking at FCS programs.

The UM is not going anywhere without MSU and thats a fact. less than a million people in the state. not sure that would work out well for conf. but look at the wac they look horrid now....and the MWC boise state just got burned as BYU goes Ind.

what is wish would happen is Idaho drop to FCS like they should be anyway, maybe make a super west conf in the FCS

mtgrizfankb wrote:

Herky wrote:
UTEP will not leave their confernce just like UNT won't. From everything I've read, they are looking at FCS programs.

The UM is not going anywhere without MSU and thats a fact. less than a million people in the state. not sure that would work out well for conf. but look at the wac they look horrid now....and the MWC boise state just got burned as BYU goes Ind.

what is wish would happen is Idaho drop to FCS like they should be anyway, maybe make a super west conf in the FCS

Not exactly sure what the WAC is thinking right now, but state politics in Montana could prevent UM from moving up, if UM administration even wants to. Market potential (I know, I know it's been talked about and mentioned numerous times) seems to be their big interest at the moment.

At the moment, there are six schools still in the WAC and they only need 8 to stay an FBS conference. That means, for the time being, they only need to invite two schools. Hawaii, Idaho, USU, and SJSU are going to want schools closer to the west whereas LA Tech, and NMSU are going to want conference members closer to them IMO.

The membership committee will be establishing criteria for this process that will include:

-Academics
-Attendance
-Budgets
-Location/transportation
-Market size
-Recent program success
-Sports sponsorship

Any specific announcements or invitations pertaining to expansion are not expected prior to the Spring of 2011.

http://www.wacsports.com/ViewArticle.db ... =204986455" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Herky wrote:

mtgrizfankb wrote:
The UM is not going anywhere without MSU and thats a fact. less than a million people in the state. not sure that would work out well for conf. but look at the wac they look horrid now....and the MWC boise state just got burned as BYU goes Ind.

what is wish would happen is Idaho drop to FCS like they should be anyway, maybe make a super west conf in the FCS

Not exactly sure what the WAC is thinking right now, but state politics in Montana could prevent UM from moving up, if UM administration even wants to. Market potential (I know, I know it's been talked about and mentioned numerous times) seems to be their big interest at the moment.

At the moment, there are six schools still in the WAC and they only need 8 to stay an FBS conference. That means, for the time being, they only need to invite two schools. Hawaii, Idaho, USU, and SJSU are going to want schools closer to the west whereas LA Tech, and NMSU are going to want conference members closer to them IMO.

Then the WAC will probably take both Texas State and Texas San Antonio to try to keep Lou Tech from bolting

Wildcat Ryan wrote:

Herky wrote:
Not exactly sure what the WAC is thinking right now, but state politics in Montana could prevent UM from moving up, if UM administration even wants to. Market potential (I know, I know it's been talked about and mentioned numerous times) seems to be their big interest at the moment.

At the moment, there are six schools still in the WAC and they only need 8 to stay an FBS conference. That means, for the time being, they only need to invite two schools. Hawaii, Idaho, USU, and SJSU are going to want schools closer to the west whereas LA Tech, and NMSU are going to want conference members closer to them IMO.

Then the WAC will probably take both Texas State and Texas San Antonio to try to keep Lou Tech from bolting

Benson has said on numerous occassions that LA Tech has already told him that they are actively looking for a new conference. I do not think they'll have much clout in decision making during all of this, especially since they've been talking to C-USA.

Herky wrote:

Wildcat Ryan wrote:

Then the WAC will probably take both Texas State and Texas San Antonio to try to keep Lou Tech from bolting

Benson has said on numerous occassions that LA Tech has already told him that they are actively looking for a new conference. I do not think they'll have much clout in decision making during all of this, especially since they've been talking to C-USA.

Hmmmm not surprising, the C-USA would definetely be a better fit for the Bulldogs than the WAC, and if Hawaii goes indy what happens to the WAC?

Wildcat Ryan wrote:

Herky wrote:
Benson has said on numerous occassions that LA Tech has already told him that they are actively looking for a new conference. I do not think they'll have much clout in decision making during all of this, especially since they've been talking to C-USA.

Hmmmm not surprising, the C-USA would definetely be a better fit for the Bulldogs than the WAC, and if Hawaii goes indy what happens to the WAC?

I think the WAC is intent on staying in existance and is willing to do whatever it takes to stay alive. There's no place for Idaho, SJSU, NMSU, or USU to go and their not dropping to FCS.

Herky wrote:Benson has said on numerous occassions that LA Tech has already told him that they are actively looking for a new conference. I do not think they'll have much clout in decision making during all of this, especially since they've been talking to C-USA.

Can you point me to a link RE: LA Tech looking for a new conference. Not a very diplomatic thing to say at the moment, the best play right now would be "we are happy to be in the "______" conference and look forward to years of competition.

What do they need a committee for? The criteria should be "anybody who'll say 'yes'".

2 more years with threads of who should, who shouldn't, who can't, who won't, and the ever popular "how 'bout this conference"

BlackFalkin wrote:Heres the unofficial list.

Montana - can easily up grade/may only need to squeeze in 5k seats somewhere, good fit
UTEP - far but already a div 1a, may be looking to move confs
UC DAVIS - can easily upgrade and become a contender,good fit imo
CAL POLY - can easily upgrade and become a contender good fit imo
Sac St - track screws sac st. but could be a possiblity bc sac could add deck to both grandstands.

List of school that wont get the invite.

Weber- big stadium,but the purple track & mostly bad play & wierd school name screws weber
Montana St. - dont have the rep or stadium UM does but COULD slip in via a UM/MSU package deal.
SUU-

i dont even know if i would want to move up even if weber could. but i dont think our name would be the reason we dont get in. i think attendance might matter more. ewu has a better chance, the wac said they prefer directional schools.

LastMinuteman wrote:What do they need a committee for? The criteria should be "anybody who'll says 'yes'".

thats what it is looking like if there are no FBS candidates.



its really embarrassing for the wac that north texas, a crappy sun belt team said, nah, no thanks to the invite a few months back.

the WAC might think it is up to them to decide who they would like to add next spring. is anyone going to tell them there is still a chance the WAC might not exist in 2013???? I think USU, Hawaii n La Tech might have some say in this...

If both Montanas move up I do not want to stay in the big sky.

WSU students and Ogden mutes: Come out of the woodwork and fill the stadium, 18,000 per home game then we can get on the "list". In basketball we had the 10th highest attendance average in 2010 minus the pac 10 in the entire western US (mtn west, wac, wcc, big west, big sky).

LastMinuteman wrote:What do they need a committee for? The criteria should be "anybody who'll says 'yes'".

True.

One thing;s dam sure - they weren't thinking "academic excellence" with Boise Stte on board. They have what, 3 doctoral programs? Acqademic excellence is just b..l sh..t for public consuumption.

Our local sports guy, from the SMDR, got a one-on-one with Benson after the conference call today. Here's the short Q&A

Cat's Cradle

frinq wrote:One thing;s dam sure - they weren't thinking "academic excellence" with Boise Stte on board. They have what, 3 doctoral programs? Acqademic excellence is just b..l sh..t for public consuumption.

ya if the wac is picky about who they take they wont exist in 2013.

LastMinuteman wrote:What do they need a committee for? The criteria should be "anybody who'll say 'yes'".

Agreed - the WAC is nothing more than a carcass right now - if anybody is willing to step into that mess voluntarily they'll sign them up in a heartbeat (which, incidently, is something the WAC doesn't have).