Coog2Knight518

No.. I'm just an observer with a keen eye for contradiction. When the privates bolted the WAC for CUSA, UNT resisted jumping to the WAC because it wasn't geographically sensible. There was a lot of hoo hahing on this board about how the belt was better for the Mean Green.. blah, blah, blah.. I thought then that UNT should have taken the deal. It ended up costing UNT millions, as the WAC sent their champ to the BCS three times in that period. WAC = 3, Belt = 0 Now, the WAC is shifting its membership to Texas and the discourse on this site is still slanted toward not making the move. What I find really funny is that the MWC has suddenly become disireable when it's almost the exact same league that you turned down in '04! UTAH, BYU, and TCU are gone and now the upper end of that league are all WAC teams. I guess all of a sudden travel is no longer an issue with those same teams, and you scoff at a more regional conference that doesn't include all the directionals. Perhaps, since UNT is a directional itself, that makes the Belt most appropriate. To each their own.. but it certainly seems like you keep chasing your own tails about it.

It all comes down to what you are looking for in a conference, I guess. The fact that UTSA and Lamar are just getting their programs going again doesn't concern me in light of the fact that a teams like USF and UCONN are practically babies and they're in a BCS conference. The key is those teams are in Texas and play in a conference that has won in BCS bowls. I'd argue that they'll have recruiting advantages being in a more well-known conference with a bigger presence in Texas. Not to mention that there is a local Texas buzz right now about the programs Coker and Fran are building. I just happen to see more potential in Texas State and UTSA than the Louisiana directionals et al. Structurally, the coaching hires and locations should enhance that divisions potential over UNT's status quo in the Belt. Sure its a bigger perceived risk at this point. However, even the "Harvard of the South" Louisiana Tech offers some tradition (much more than their neighbors). Sonny Dykes is another name that is familiar within Texas football circles.

I think UNT would be better off in the WAC. With the addition of Lamar (who has been at the FBS level before), that'd finally put UNT in a FBS Conference that has strong Texas flavor. UNT, UTSA, Tx State, and Lamar, would form a solid foundation to a Eastern WAC division, along with Louisiana Tech and New Mexico State. IMO, those peer institutions are a cut above the alphabet soup group you're in now with ULL, ArkSt, ULM, etc. The coaching hires at UTSA and Tx State should tell you about their commitment to do this thing right. Personally, I think you gentlemen should take a step back and consider the potential. Texas kids don't want to go to ULM or ULL. The new alternative of having a FBS alma mater in San Antonio and San Marcos trumps that. There is legit water cooler debate that can grow out of a WAC with that flavor. Louisiana Tech also provides a nearby opponent that is just a cut above your current neighbors. The only question beyond Lamar is how the composition of the Western WAC will shape up. I'm liking the addition of basketball-only schools like Denver and Seattle. Benson is going after major markets and he's leaving some good slack for future positive growth of a sound league. If I were you, I'd be keeping a close eye on these developments. The WAC as a brand trumps the Belt. Their future locales can only help your cause if you have your sights set on the MWC.