Realignment Carousel Spins Up again (USC and UCLA to Big 10)

[AZ Shocker]

...in other words...put your money where you're mouth is you stuck up NoCal prinks!

[Signman]

PacMan Conference

[ShockerPrez]

'We played the realignment game and all we got was this damn T shirt' conference.

[pogo]

I really hate to admit that I could have been wrong but it looks like my thinking about not bringing back football was ill conceived. After WSU dropped football I was part of the Alive in 95 movement (I even have a sweat shirt attesting that) Down the road I saw our other sports become more competitive because of more money available because we didn't have to fund a football program that was not popular with Wichita even if I enjoyed it myself. WSU is now on the outside looking in and still without proper funding to re-establish a program that would be enormous to say the least. WSU and Wichita needs to come to a consensus as to what WSU needs to be as a University going forward. Would the University be damaged more by remaining non-football or be better to stay the course. For years WSU showed declines in enrollment by what many thought as the result of eliminating football and indeed there were strong arguments to support that thinking. The Innovative Campus stopped that trend and it came without the re-introduction of football. K-State has shown a decline in enrollment even though they have a very successful football program in a power conference. Would WSU/Wichita be better off as an institution/city with football or not? If football would be the way at what cost and how would it be funded? I have said before that any enterprise to re-establish a program would take community support (sales tax increase) and not on corporate support that has always disappeared after the initial flurry of excitement and the following initiatives to generate support. In a recent study by WSU it was determined that WSU had an impact of 1.3 billion dollars to the state of Kansas of which I would suspect a goodly amount was in Wichita. The question should be would WSU be better off with football and if so should Wichita be be a financial partner/supporter of its implementation?

[yesimaKUfan]

Peep school #2 on the first chart

Most of those other charts can be attributed to the fact that WSU doesn't participate in the top sport that generates 75%+ of AD revenue and TV viewers. The academic ranking is unfortunately real (one of my degrees is from WSU so that's not meant as a dig), but the focus on research and innovation over the past five years has helped and they should continue to lean into that. I really wish Bardo had been successful in bringing back football though. I live in Charlotte now and their football team is going into it's 10th year and looking at stadium expansion.

[Shoxing Me Softly]

I really hate to admit that I could have been wrong but it looks like my thinking about not bringing back football was ill conceived. After WSU dropped football I was part of the Alive in 95 movement (I even have a sweat shirt attesting that) Down the road I saw our other sports become more competitive because of more money available because we didn't have to fund a football program that was not popular with Wichita even if I enjoyed it myself. WSU is now on the outside looking in and still without proper funding to re-establish a program that would be enormous to say the least. WSU and Wichita needs to come to a consensus as to what WSU needs to be as a University going forward. Would the University be damaged more by remaining non-football or be better to stay the course. For years WSU showed declines in enrollment by what many thought as the result of eliminating football and indeed there were strong arguments to support that thinking. The Innovative Campus stopped that trend and it came without the re-introduction of football. K-State has shown a decline in enrollment even though they have a very successful football program in a power conference. Would WSU/Wichita be better off as an institution/city with football or not? If football would be the way at what cost and how would it be funded? I have said before that any enterprise to re-establish a program would take community support (sales tax increase) and not on corporate support that has always disappeared after the initial flurry of excitement and the following initiatives to generate support. In a recent study by WSU it was determined that WSU had an impact of 1.3 billion dollars to the state of Kansas of which I would suspect a goodly amount was in Wichita. The question should be would WSU be better off with football and if so should Wichita be be a financial partner/supporter of its implementation?

I think it boils down to the following;

- WSU was able to get into an athletic league made up of other urban based public institutions like itself, mostly based in Texas and Southeast without football.

- I think this is exactly where WSU wants/needs to be.

- WSU may not always be in this position without football. Not having football obviously limits the options for WSU as leagues change over time.

- Does it really feel like WSU runs a full athletic program while in a league that is so football centric? Again WSU is in the right league and did it without football just saying it doesn’t feel like they are even part of the AAC for 7 months of the year. Feelings of course don’t really mean much.

With the speed in which college athletics is changing and the value future generations place on athletic “fanship” (viewing, spending time and money) who knows if any of it matters.

[Signman]

I really hate to admit that I could have been wrong but it looks like my thinking about not bringing back football was ill conceived. After WSU dropped football I was part of the Alive in 95 movement (I even have a sweat shirt attesting that) Down the road I saw our other sports become more competitive because of more money available because we didn't have to fund a football program that was not popular with Wichita even if I enjoyed it myself. WSU is now on the outside looking in and still without proper funding to re-establish a program that would be enormous to say the least. WSU and Wichita needs to come to a consensus as to what WSU needs to be as a University going forward. Would the University be damaged more by remaining non-football or be better to stay the course. For years WSU showed declines in enrollment by what many thought as the result of eliminating football and indeed there were strong arguments to support that thinking. The Innovative Campus stopped that trend and it came without the re-introduction of football. K-State has shown a decline in enrollment even though they have a very successful football program in a power conference. Would WSU/Wichita be better off as an institution/city with football or not? If football would be the way at what cost and how would it be funded? I have said before that any enterprise to re-establish a program would take community support (sales tax increase) and not on corporate support that has always disappeared after the initial flurry of excitement and the following initiatives to generate support. In a recent study by WSU it was determined that WSU had an impact of 1.3 billion dollars to the state of Kansas of which I would suspect a goodly amount was in Wichita. The question should be would WSU be better off with football and if so should Wichita be be a financial partner/supporter of its implementation?

About time!

[bleed yellow]

The fact that there are no serious discussions about bringing back football right about now between WSU and the city tells me that it’s more than just the numbers that they can’t agree on. There might be disagreements on what level of team they want as well.. Definitely more than a couple road blocks in this discussion it seems

[BostonWu]

Welp

[Stickboy46]

Welp

That is literally using a random twitter account as a source that has been making 20 different scenarios in the last week. Its also impossible for 11 teams to leave with no exit fees because 12 teams have to vote to dissolve. I find it impossible one team will vote to dissolve without a place to land.

[ShockerFever]

Welp

From what I gathered from looking at that website, or blog, is their primary focus is WWE. So I’m not hanging my hat on what some WWE blogger posted on his site.

[SubGod22]

From what I gathered from looking at that website, or blog, is their primary focus is WWE. So I’m not hanging my hat on what some WWE blogger posted on his site.

And even amongst wrestling fans, I don't think sportskeeda has the best reputation.

[BostonWu]

How about the embedded tweets? I don't trust Aresco.

[SubGod22]

The only way 11 votes would dissolve the league is if Navy doesn't get to vote on it. I know we have a voice and I'm pretty sure that even though they're only in for football, they would have a say in something like this since it involves football. If that's the case, they would need a 12th school to go along with it.

Maybe Navy would be persuaded to just go back to being independent in football and would vote with the other 11 and that's how they come to this conclusion.

Charlotte wasn't mentioned in one of those embedded tweets which would lead one to assume they would also be on the outside looking in. Would the third one left out be ECU or Temple?

I'm assuming if this does happen, Aresco is forced to retire.

[BostonWu]

In this scenario the 4 left out are WSU, Tulsa, Charlotte and Navy.

Aresco would receive a golden parachute into retirement.