(02-04-2016 05:20 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  If it turns out that none of the G5 are interested, do you think there's will at WSU to press on as a FCS program in the MVFC?

No. It's been stated in the past that if we bring back football, FCS would only be a pit stop on our way to FBS. If there's zero interest from FBS conferences, I doubt football will return.

(02-04-2016 07:02 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 06:58 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Add WSU non-football to balance out Navy football-only?

So why would WSU add fb then?

Because their fans and students want it? That's how most programs usually get started.

(02-04-2016 07:44 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 05:20 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  If it turns out that none of the G5 are interested, do you think there's will at WSU to press on as a FCS program in the MVFC?

No. It's been stated in the past that if we bring back football, FCS would only be a pit stop on our way to FBS. If there's zero interest from FBS conferences, I doubt football will return.

There probably will be zero interest from FBS conferences for Wichita football. That doesn't mean Wichita cant eventually end up in plying FBS football inside of a decade.

(02-04-2016 07:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 07:02 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 06:58 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Add WSU non-football to balance out Navy football-only?

So why would WSU add fb then?

Because their fans and students want it? That's how most programs usually get started.

The fans have been wanting it to come back for decades. The President this time believes he can lead them to the promised FBS land.

(02-04-2016 07:02 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 06:58 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Add WSU non-football to balance out Navy football-only?

So why would WSU add fb then?

?????
I have to think if they're an AAC member, and they have FCS football, and the AAC loses someone to the P5, Wichita would have a claim to move up to FBS with the AAC.

And if AAC football stays stable, Wichita still strengthens AAC hoops.

(02-04-2016 08:29 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 07:02 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 06:58 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Add WSU non-football to balance out Navy football-only?

So why would WSU add fb then?

?????
I have to think if they're an AAC member, and they have FCS football, and the AAC loses someone to the P5, Wichita would have a claim to move up to FBS with the AAC.

And if AAC football stays stable, Wichita still strengthens AAC hoops.

AAC is clearly the goal, but football would be a hindrance to acceptance in the near term.

If AAC accepts WSU non-football, I'd have to think that it would within an understanding that WSU is bringing football online, fully funded to a AAC budget level, big $$$ renovation of stadium, etc.

Otherwise, might as well stay in MVC.

(02-04-2016 08:29 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 07:02 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 06:58 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Add WSU non-football to balance out Navy football-only?

So why would WSU add fb then?

?????
I have to think if they're an AAC member, and they have FCS football, and the AAC loses someone to the P5, Wichita would have a claim to move up to FBS with the AAC.

And if AAC football stays stable, Wichita still strengthens AAC hoops.

I think early on, the location of the taken member, the available candidates, and the input from TV would all outweigh any claim that Wichita would have. But as an existing member, they would have the opportunity to create more relationships within the conference while building their program. Over time, they certainly would have a better opportunity to slowly build support for full membership within the conference. So to an extent, I agree with you that it would likely be much easier to gain an FBS invite from the inside conference than from the outside. I just think that early in the process it probably wouldn't make much difference---but it would help as time passes. So, if they join this year and we lose a member next year, it may not help much. If we lose a member 5 years from now, being a member might help a lot.

(02-04-2016 11:19 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  charger (post #37),

The MVC currently has five FCS playing, public full-members, one non-football, public full-member and four private full-members.

With WSU making all six public schools FCS playing, I think the private schools will want to add another to their ranks. In comes Valpo. And this especially makes sense for when/if Wichita flies the coop. Then it goes to 5/5 public FCS/private non-football (ignore the fact that Drake plays non-scholarship "DIII equivalent" football).


As far as the MVFC goes, the obvious #12 is North Dakota. It completes the Dakota flagships. I don't think there would be need for divisions, especially since UNI, MO St and WSU will demand not to be pigeonholed into playing all four Dakota schools every year.

NDSU, UND, SDSU, USD, MO St, Wichita St, UNI, W ILL, S ILL, ILL St, IN St, Youngstown St

North Dakota isn't coming to the MVC or MVFC - the MVC will not extend them an all sports invitation, and moving to the MVFC would require North Dakota's other sports to move to the Summit. The Summit League burnt bridges with North Dakota over the nickname issue, so unless if Tom Douple isn't the commissioner, North Dakota isn't joining the Summit League.

Since WSU is already in the MVC, the Shockers joining the MVFC means that either zero or two schools will be added to the MVC. If North Dakota and the Summit League get over their differences (see above), then it could very well be North Dakota to the Summit and MVFC. If not, then there would be two additions, one who plays football (most likely Murray State), and one that does not (either Valparaiso or Belmont).

The MVC has 10. If it's just WSU joining the MVFC ... why would any schools be added to the MVC? Unless, it's a scenario like I described where the private schools want another school like themselves to bolster their ranks. In that case I would say Valpo.

Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about with the Summit. I wouldn't expect someone in Kentucky to know anything about North Dakota or the Summit League, so it's not a big deal.

If offered a spot in the MVFC and Summit, UND would take it in a second. Their travel in the Big Sky is ridiculous. They're not a western school, no matter how hard a handful of their online fans try to tell anyone who will listen that UND is actually located between Idaho and Colorado.

They're literally located on the border with Minnesota, and they belong in the Summit with their Dakota brethren.

(02-04-2016 09:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  The MVC has 10. If it's just WSU joining the MVFC ... why would any schools be added to the MVC? Unless, it's a scenario like I described where the private schools want another school like themselves to bolster their ranks. In that case I would say Valpo.

Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about with the Summit. I wouldn't expect someone in Kentucky to know anything about North Dakota or the Summit League, so it's not a big deal.

If offered a spot in the MVFC and Summit, UND would take it in a second. Their travel in the Big Sky is ridiculous. They're not a western school, no matter how hard a handful of their online fans try to tell anyone who will listen that UND is actually located between Idaho and Colorado.

They're literally located on the border with Minnesota, and they belong in the Summit with their Dakota brethren.

This proves that Minneapolis posters know less about N Dakota politics as Kentucky posters.

(02-04-2016 06:19 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 05:34 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 05:19 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  And I think it's pretty common knowledge around the MVC that nobody wants the Dakotas.

North Dakota State and South Dakota State made the men's basketball tournament the past few years. North Dakota State knocked Oklahoma out of the 64 team second round tournament. Those 2 RPIs is much better than Loyola-Chicago, Evansville and others. Adding those 2 would help boast the MVC's RPI much better than what it is now.

One more time: Last year's RPI's from Ken Pom:

87 South Dakota St. Sum
103 Evansville MVC
129 Loyola Chicago MVC
138 North Dakota St. Sum


Evansville won the CIT
Loyola won the CBI




Try facts for a change

North Dakota State went to the 68 team field last year. They did not went to no lousy CIT or CBI.

Unless WSU could be going to the MWC. Who would join them? UTEP? North Dakota State? Portland State? BYU?

(02-04-2016 06:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think the AAC would take them as non-football members. They could then play FCS football in the totally separate MVC Football league. I think that would work fine for them. Down the road, maybe they can be full members or go elsewhere to become FBS.

Simple questions.

If AAC would take them as a non-football, why aren't they in AAC? If Wichita were getting positive feedback from AAC (or MWC) about joining without football why has Wichita suddenly found interest in adding football?

(02-04-2016 06:16 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 05:20 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  If it turns out that none of the G5 are interested, do you think there's will at WSU to press on as a FCS program in the MVFC?

There seems to be the will for football probably even at FCS from the overwhelming response by the president's tweets.

I think however, the Sunbelt (and to the lesser extent CUSA) would be very interested in WSU...especially if it makes Missouri St. come along also.
But it seems that WSU at first wants either the MW or AAC to make the move to a different conference. Depends on what the reports will come back with. If FBS football in the Sunbelt or CUSA makes up for the downgrade in basketball, it may be worthwhile as the MVC without Creighton isn't the same conference...as it was a few years ago.

If you take Wichita State out of the Valley, what's left in the Valley doesn't look much different than Sun Belt or CUSA basketball. Wichita State is 46-1 in MVC regular season play since Creighton left. Not like the rest of the Valley is pushing them.

(02-05-2016 01:22 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 06:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think the AAC would take them as non-football members. They could then play FCS football in the totally separate MVC Football league. I think that would work fine for them. Down the road, maybe they can be full members or go elsewhere to become FBS.

Simple questions.

If AAC would take them as a non-football, why aren't they in AAC? If Wichita were getting positive feedback from AAC (or MWC) about joining without football why has Wichita suddenly found interest in adding football?

Don't get me started on the lack of bold vision and timid leadership in the AAC. Obviously, the AAC isn't adding anyone. I think we should have added Wichita long ago, but apparently we remain emotionally scarred and deathly fearful of evil basketball schools. I suspect in AAC meetings "non-football schools" are, like Voldemort, words that shall not be spoken.

But, just for grins, let's say the AAC decided Wichta might just make a fine non-football member. If you were running Wichita, what would be your very next athletic move after joining the AAC or MW as a non-football member? Mine would be adding football.

(02-05-2016 01:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 01:22 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 06:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think the AAC would take them as non-football members. They could then play FCS football in the totally separate MVC Football league. I think that would work fine for them. Down the road, maybe they can be full members or go elsewhere to become FBS.

Simple questions.

If AAC would take them as a non-football, why aren't they in AAC? If Wichita were getting positive feedback from AAC (or MWC) about joining without football why has Wichita suddenly found interest in adding football?

Don't get me started on the lack of bold vision and timid leadership in the AAC. Obviously, the AAC isn't adding anyone. I think we should have added Wichita long ago, but apparently we remain emotionally scarred and deathly fearful of evil basketball schools. I suspect in AAC meetings "non-football schools" are, like Vldemort, words that shall not be spoken.

But, just for grins, let's say the AAC decided Wichta might just make a fine non-football member. If you were running Wichita, what would be your next move after joining the AAC or MW as a non-football member?

Stupid suggestion: This is Wichita State's way of telling the AAC they're not an icky urban private baskebtall school. Look, FCS!

I read the MVFC had attendance of eleven thousand.
The MAC had reported attendance under 15k last year.

I bet their actual attendance is pretty close considering how FBS schools fudge the numbers.

The fantasy BSC FBS conference already has higher reported attendance than the MAC. Give them a couple of thousand a game for tickets sold and there would be a nice gap.

I bet they would prefer a football only spot in a new FBS conference and either MVC or A10 all sports membership. That would work unless AAC or MWC called .

(02-04-2016 07:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 07:44 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 05:20 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  If it turns out that none of the G5 are interested, do you think there's will at WSU to press on as a FCS program in the MVFC?

No. It's been stated in the past that if we bring back football, FCS would only be a pit stop on our way to FBS. If there's zero interest from FBS conferences, I doubt football will return.

There probably will be zero interest from FBS conferences for Wichita football. That doesn't mean Wichita cant eventually end up in plying FBS football inside of a decade.

Zero immediate entrance interest is different than saying if you bring it back and show success/support you'll get a strong look if kind of interest. If the conferences said with or without football we'd never consider you, that's the zero interest I'm talking about.

WSU has no desire to play FCS football any longer than absolutely necessary. Fans won't support that long term. They will support that if they know we're going to be headed to bigger and better things.