Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UMKC to the WAC?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • JackJD
    replied
    Re: UMKC to the WAC?

    I have tired of the conference shuffle so I haven't followed it of late. I read the story linked above and saw this: "...although Idaho is expected to leave for the Big Sky in 2014-15."

    I recall reading some speculation about that but is anyone aware of some substance to Idaha moving down to FCS in football -- that'd be a return to its roots.

    Leave a comment:


  • filbert
    replied
    Re: UMKC to the WAC?

    Originally posted by Grizzled_Jack View Post
    Hate to see KC go since it was one of my closest Summit trips, but this is not a good program. It's far weaker in the stands and on the floor than Lindenwood, and the AD seems truly clueless. And where are these private funds for extra travel coming from? Prediction: they'll be playing Quincy in the GLVC in five years.
    There's plenty of money in Kansas City.

    There's also the Royals. And the Chiefs.

    Inept and clueless sports operations are old hat in Kansas City. UMKC fits right in.

    Leave a comment:


  • Grizzled_Jack
    replied
    Re: UMKC to the WAC?

    Kudos to the World Herald for covering the Mavs so well compared to the KCStar-Roos. Of course much of this is because of hockey. I'll take Denver, USD and Omaha anytime over ORU, Centenary and UMKC. The Summit IS getting stronger.

    Leave a comment:


  • Grizzled_Jack
    replied
    Re: UMKC to the WAC?

    Hate to see KC go since it was one of my closest Summit trips, but this is not a good program. It's far weaker in the stands and on the floor than Lindenwood, and the AD seems truly clueless. And where are these private funds for extra travel coming from? Prediction: they'll be playing Quincy in the GLVC in five years.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldHare
    replied
    Re: UMKC to the WAC?

    Originally posted by RowdyRabbit View Post
    Basically, "We're terrible, we know we're terrible, and the only way we can compete is by switching to a conference full of patsies."
    Rowdy; Not politicalty correct, but accurate. Most of YMKC leaving has nothing to do with Summit. It has to do with terrible management of YMKC program.

    Leave a comment:


  • RowdyRabbit
    replied
    Re: UMKC to the WAC?

    Originally posted by LakeJack View Post
    Basically, "We're terrible, we know we're terrible, and the only way we can compete is by switching to a conference full of patsies."

    Leave a comment:


  • LakeJack
    replied
    Re: UMKC to the WAC?

    Originally posted by LakeJack View Post
    My takeaways were
    1. The WAC is an easier conference for UMKC to win in
    2. The WAC paid to get UMKC out of the Summit and didn't charge an admission fee
    3. The WAC will let Kansas City host the conference basketball tournament for 2 years
    4. It will cost UMKC more $$$ to travel in the WAC, but they have a donor that will pay the difference - so travel cost is a wash
    5. The WAC still has name recognition - read that as - it will take the locals a long time to figure out that the new WAC isn't the old WAC

    Like I said:

    http://www.kansascity.com/2013/02/14...asketball.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Southeast
    replied
    Re: UMKC to the WAC?

    TV provided a link to a KC Star article about the KC move:

    “Competitive success matters,” A. D. Hall said. “We need to put ourselves in a position to win more frequently, sooner. Once we get into the NCAA Tournament I think some other things will fall into place for us.”

    I guess that is one way to get the NCAA tournament (if you count the "play-in" game as actually being in the NCAA tourney).

    Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/02/14...#storylink=cpy

    Leave a comment:


  • jacksfan29
    replied
    Re: UMKC to the WAC?

    Exactly. By the way, what kind of crowds do you think they can expect when they host the WAC tournament? They better find themselves a nice gym that will hold at least 1,000.

    Originally posted by LakeJack View Post

    My takeaways were
    1. The WAC is an easier conference for UMKC to win in
    2. The WAC paid to get UMKC out of the Summit and didn't charge an admission fee
    3. The WAC will let Kansas City host the conference basketball tournament for 2 years
    4. It will cost UMKC more $$$ to travel in the WAC, but they have a donor that will pay the difference - so travel cost is a wash
    5. The WAC still has name recognition - read that as - it will take the locals a long time to figure out that the new WAC isn't the old WAC

    Leave a comment:


  • OldHare
    replied
    Re: UMKC to the WAC?

    Originally posted by joeboo22 View Post
    My guess, is they thought something like, well the Summit isn't working, its not going to cost us anything to go to the WAC, if the WAC falls apart I'm sure the Summit would take us back, why not?

    I don't know a lot about UMKC, I always thought they should have been much better, I understand facilities weren't great but they should have been able to recruit.
    There were good recruits through there. Remember Reggie Hamilton of Oakland. I think he started at UMKC as well as some others. The Summit should keep their sights a bit higher if possible. However, another takeaway from this is that the WAC has had 35 different members. 6 in the past year. There are 2 teams left in a small conference with 5? new members. They told us about the buyout money, I wonder if there were some other spiffs. We will see them in Sioux Falls before the exit. Good luck to the Roos and we should expect some new faces from Tom Douple in the Summit.

    Leave a comment:


  • LakeJack
    replied
    Re: UMKC to the WAC?

    My takeaways were
    1. The WAC is an easier conference for UMKC to win in
    2. The WAC paid to get UMKC out of the Summit and didn't charge an admission fee
    3. The WAC will let Kansas City host the conference basketball tournament for 2 years
    4. It will cost UMKC more $$$ to travel in the WAC, but they have a donor that will pay the difference - so travel cost is a wash
    5. The WAC still has name recognition - read that as - it will take the locals a long time to figure out that the new WAC isn't the old WAC

    Leave a comment:


  • joeboo22
    replied
    Re: UMKC to the WAC?

    My guess, is they thought something like, well the Summit isn't working, its not going to cost us anything to go to the WAC, if the WAC falls apart I'm sure the Summit would take us back, why not?

    I don't know a lot about UMKC, I always thought they should have been much better, I understand facilities weren't great but they should have been able to recruit.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldHare
    replied
    Re: UMKC to the WAC?

    UMKC chancellor says that the WAC will make the Roos a better draw for Kansas City. Go figure that is what held them back. Tim Hall also let out that WAC bought the Summit exit and waived entry fee. UMKC will help Seattle draw big crowds is my guess. Or it is the WAC begging for members to keep the AQ for NCAA basketball.

    Leave a comment:


  • LakeJack
    replied
    Re: UMKC to the WAC?

    Here is a link if you want to watch it.

    http://www.umkc.edu/ia/streaming/live-streams.cfm

    Leave a comment:


  • LakeJack
    replied
    Re: UMKC to the WAC?

    Tomorrow we get to hear more as UMKC will hold their presser

    http://www.umkckangaroos.com/ViewArt...B_OEM_ID=18300

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X