UMKC to leave Summit League for WAC?!?
Breaking news:
?!?!?! RT @domizzowday: WHM-AM radio in Kansas City reporting UMKC will be leaving the #SummitLeague for the WAC w/ announcement coming soon
If true, I find this a pretty incomprehensible decision by Missouri-Kansas City. The Summit League, which Denver recently announced it would leave the WAC to join, may be unsexy, but it’s at least relatively stable (or, it was relatively stable – *gulp*), in the grand scheme of conference realignment. The WAC, by contrast, is hanging on for dear life, and has been for some time now, always one defection away from not just difficulty (nearly all mid-major leagues are always one defection away from difficulty in this day and age), but from literal death as a conference, if the commissioner doesn’t pull another rabbit out of his hat.
Moreover, to the extent competitiveness is a factor, the WAC’s level of competition will be absolutely putrid after this season. Don’t get me wrong, I love me some #WACtion, and want to see this league survive and succeed – but, objectively, the WAC going forward is both completely unsexy and completely unstable. So, why would UMKC move from a bad neighborhood to one that’s perpetually on the verge of literally falling apart? Perhaps UMKC just wants an easier road to an NCAA autobid? That’s not usually how these decisions are made, though. Just a bizarre move. I feel the Summit got the better of the Denver-UMKC “trade,” but I truly don’t understand what UMKC is thinking here, if this report is accurate.
From Denver’s perspective, this wouldn’t be an enormous blow, nor cause for #PANIC – provided UMKC is alone in this move. Take a look at the map of the Summit League. If other teams in the league’s western flank were to follow UMKC, that would be a disaster for Denver. But for now: meh. Denver didn’t join the Summit League because of the anticipated epic showdowns with the ‘Roos. The Dakota States are the powers of the conference, along with Oakland (though Oakland itself may leave at some point for the Horizon, as has long been known/rumored). Western Illinois has vaulted itself into contention this year; we’ll see if the Leathernecks have staying power. Regardless, UMKC is largely an afterthought, competitively.
[UPDATE / ADDENDUM: On the other hand, a more alarming way to think about UMKC’s move, from Denver’s perspective, is to think of conference realignment as a giant bank run. Over on Twitter, Zack Pendleton (@ZacksKC) suggests UMKC may be leaving because it fears that various other Summit programs are contemplating leaving, and it wants to get out first, before the league gets too unstable (although the WAC seems an odd destination if that’s their thinking). We’ve seen this dynamic repeatedly in realignment. Of course, as with a bank run, this fear of as-yet nonexistent instability creates the feared instability. George Bailey’s bank had plenty of money, and the Summit League has plenty of teams, and if everyone just sticks together, they’ll be fine. But if everyone freaks out, thinking only of him or herself, their #PANIC will become a self-fulfilling prophesy of #DOOM.
Here, UMKC’s departure might cause other Summit programs to freak out, leading to a cascading effect that has Denver wishing it had never left the WAC. Who knows? I wouldn’t hit the #PANIC button just yet, but the reaction of other Summit League schools – particularly the ones in that western flank – bears close watching.]
From the WAC’s perspective, meanwhile, this would be huge. I’ve written before about the WAC’s math problems, and the commissioner confirmed my analysis of the numbers. Even with Chicago State joining next year, the WAC was still in a situation where it seemed like it would inevitably need some sort of new waiver of exemption from the NCAA in order to stay alive as a conference for the next four seasons. Now, that no longer appears true.
First, remember the rules: a league must have 7 members to maintain its automatic bid. It can drop down to 6 members temporarily, but can only do so for 2 years; after that, it must return to 7 or more members.
Also, teams moving up from Division II (like new WAC member Grand Canyon) have a 4-year transitional period during which they do not “count” for purposes of the above-stated 6-team/7-team rule.
Those are the mathematical parameters we’re dealing with.
Now, let’s look at the WAC’s expected membership for each of the next four years. For this exercise, I’m assuming that New Mexico State will find a new conference home eventually – though that hasn’t happened yet. As you’ll see, the timing of NMSU’s hypothetical move is important, but initially, let’s keep the Red Aggies in the WAC for two more seasons (unlike Idaho, which is leaving after one more season).
2013-14 (8 members that “count”)
Cal State Bakersfield
Chicago State
[Grand Canyon]
Idaho
New Mexico State
Seattle
UMKC
UT-Pan American
Utah Valley
2014-15 (7 members that “count”)
Cal State Bakersfield
Chicago State
[Grand Canyon]
New Mexico State
Seattle
UMKC
UT-Pan American
Utah Valley
2015-16 (6 members that “count”)
Cal State Bakersfield
Chicago State
[Grand Canyon]
Seattle
UMKC
UT-Pan American
Utah Valley
2016-17 (6 members that “count”)
Cal State Bakersfield
Chicago State
[Grand Canyon]
Seattle
UMKC
UT-Pan American
Utah Valley
2017-18 (7 members that “count”)
Cal State Bakersfield
Chicago State
Grand Canyon
Seattle
UMKC
UT-Pan American
Utah Valley
If New Mexico State leaves a year earlier than I’ve depicted above, departing along with Idaho after the 2013-14 season, then the WAC would drop down to 6 members in 2015-16, meaning they would need to either add another new, current Division I team, or else obtain an exemption or waiver for a third consecutive 6-team season in 2016-17 (or else a shortened transitional period for Grand Canyon).
But 2016-17 is a long ways off, and Grand Canyon will be just one year away from “counting” by then anyway. I imagine the NCAA would be willing to make that work, one way or another, in order to keep the WAC alive as a conference. In any event, at a minimum, UMKC joining would put off the WAC’s day of reckoning for quite a while, regardless of what New Mexico State does. The Red Aggies could announce tomorrow that they’re leaving for the Sun Belt or C-USA this summer, and it wouldn’t matter: the WAC would still be on solid footing for at least the next three seasons if UMKC joins. That’s a huge deal.
Of course, this all assumes no further defections (aside from NMSU), which you can never assume in this realignment circus, especially when you’re the WAC. I know some Seattle fans want out; if that happens, it would be another blow, requiring another rabbit pulled out of the hat. The same would hold true if, for instance, one of the Texas-centric leagues decided to give UTPA a look, and the Broncs decided to flirt back. But for now – for now, always the operative phrase in realignment – it appears the WAC may actually be able to limp along without further NCAA charity, if this UMKC report is true.
If this move does happen, and no more immediate defections occur, expect Jeff Hurd & co. to turn their attention to adding more Division II teams in the near future. Hurd has indicated before that, once the immediate math problem governing short-time conference survival is solved, he’ll focus more on long-term membership goals, with the idea of getting to 10 or 12 teams in the long run. So don’t be surprised if there are more D2 invites (West Texas A&M to WAC?) going out in the near future.