Arkstfan

I don't think Leach is a hot commodity. Jobs that opened after he was fired that would not interview him. USC, hired a coach who had ties to conduct that led to their probation and had marginal success at prior job. Tennessee, hired La.Tech coach with moderate success. East Carolina Ruffin McNeill who was the interim at Texas Tech after Leach was fired but would not interview Leach. South Florida, hired Skip Holtz, who had a pretty good resume and unlike Leach no allegation of player abuse. Who knows what stupid things politicians think but hiring Leach is GOOD for the lawsuit from the state's viewpoint.

I doubt that would make a significant difference and would be welcomed because it would mean he's mitigating his damages. Now he might not want the UNT job because he is arguing that the damage caused to his reputation is preventing him from getting an FBS job, but a bona fide offer from UNT puts him in a bad position on that assertion, other than to argue that he had to take a job at much less pay with a much lower profile. I'd be more concerned that Leach hasn't come to grips with the fact that AD's are going to shy away from a coach who got sideways with ESPN and presidents are going to be leery of a coach fired for purported abusive behavior toward players. Same issue with Leavitt finding other work except for the ESPN issue.

You missed the point by a mile and three-quarters. BYU as an independent needed the WAC's ability to provide them with four games per year. They needed a home for their other sports. Killing the WAC means no one giving them four games per year and their preferred home dying is a screwing of BYU. Your analogy isn't remotely close to what happened. More apt would be the Sun Belt working a deal to get SMU and Houston to join and CUSA offering UNT a spot, UNT rejecting it and CUSA raiding the rest of the Sun Belt so that it is no longer able to be a league. And for anyone who think USU was acting with honor in rejecting the MWC, isn't paying attention. USU wanted to affiliate with the most popular program in the state (by a wide margin), a program that outdraws MOST BCS teams. Their interest wasn't WAC or MWC but rather BYU,

What is really important in comparing costs is to not use the fraudulent comparison that Tech touts. Compare Tech to ULM not Tech to ULL, because ULM due to location can bus to sites that ULL can't and Tech could bus to any place ULM could bus to.

BULL I went through a Houston media guide a couple years ago. The only difference in Houston attendance now and in the SWC is they don't get the attendance spikes that Texas, Texas A&M, and Arkansas provided. Their fan base is their fan base and it hasn't changed. The only people they lost were the ones who were there wearing burnt orange, maroon, or Hog red. Those weren't people donating or buying season tickets.

USU invite tells me all I need to know. You don't want to be in a backalley knife fight with the MWC. They went for them first to provide maximum screwing to BYU.

Look at the six team WAC. Who is the premier program? If your answer is anything other than Hawaii, I suggest you look again. You need numbers if you are the WAC. Texas State is easy if you are so inclined. Montana is best pick but has rejected three prior offers to move up. Sacramento State is possibly close to making the move if they want to. The best option is Cal-Davis a very good program, they just aren't there stadium-wise. You want to make life easy for Hawaii so you want Cali schools. Your focus is Cal-Davis, Cal-Poly, and SacSt. Davis and Poly need more seats. There is no rule since they changed FBS criteria that you draw 15,000 to stadium with PERMANENT SEATS. You help Davis and/or Poly rent 8,000 portable seats and meet attendance. They can start transition in 2011, play a WAC schedule in transition in 2012, and as an FBS in 2013, same method we used with FIU/FAU. If they can iron out the Cali schools, Texas State and UTSA are probably hosed. They might take one simply to give Tech a bit of relief on travel. Now you have a conference that goes from Ruston to Hawaii and is functioning on bad Sun Belt season revenue.

If you can get a bunch of waivers and rule changes from the NCAA and BCS, it works great. Otherwise its the stupidest idea ever. First to pit CUSA-MWC you need that spot locked in, which means giving them a spot without them actually meeting the criteria set forth to get a spot. Second to have that game you have three choices. 1. Get the NCAA to approve you playing an additional post-season game which sure looks like a playoff and likely won't be well received giving teams possibly a 14th game, maybe 15th if they go to Hawaii. 2. If you can't do that you can merge into one league and then have a conference title game, but you need a waiver from the requirement that every team in a division play each other. In CUSA division with 12 teams, that means playing 11 conference games and 10 in the MWC division. 3. If you can't get that waiver, then you use one of your 12 regular season games to play that showdown. Now if you merge, the NCAA doesn't operate on a one-school one vote system, each conference receives a vote. Right you have 11 leagues. Merge and there are 10. The interests of MWC/CUSA are going to be more like Sun Belt and MAC than Big 10 and SEC but now the vote is 6/4 rather than 6/5. At 6/5 you need to convince but one to join you in the vote. You go from one autobid per 10 or 12 schools to one for 20+ In sports like baseball, volleyball, that can be a really big deal. You could have all the football schools from one league join for football and stay in the other sports but the school losing the football schools, now is a I-AAA league again impacting voting. The whole idea assumes that either there is no rule book or that the NCAA and BCS are going to clap their hands and say "That's wonderful! Let's change a bunch of rules to make that happen!"

The WAC dying? Just because 16 teams leave in the span of 11 years shouldn't be misconstrued as a problem with the league.

No one rushed to save us when the WAC fired what appeared to be the kill shot, and would have been had UNT and ULL not held firm. It is in our interest to put the WAC out of business. The question is are there 8 university presidents in the Sun Belt willing to cast votes to add Tech and NMSU.

Tech and NMSU probably can leave without penalty because the WAC does not have 8 FBS schools and is therefore not an FBS league.

Could it be that most people understand that the WAC is on life support if not already dead so not a viable option for UNT, while the MWC is aiming at schools with longer track records of success and even if UNT were on radar, UNT joining likely results in TCU leaving? Doesn't leave a lot to discussion about UNT.

RPI boost

Denver would likely end up in the WAC as they try to put something together to at least take care of sports other than football. UALR? Might want to call the Southland if Tex St and UTSA leave.

In life there are winners and losers. The WAC has 16 teams since 1999. They are down to little of value. Time for the Sun Belt to grab two, kill them and collect the power-up coin. http://beltboard.com/?p=432

I don't see any compelling reason to expand at this time. I think the current 9/12 soon to be 10/12 format is good. I'm not a fan of title games by non-AQ leagues, the money isn't there. As I scan the horizon looking for schools that we ought to look at, my list of schools looks roughly like this. 1. Missouri State. Sort of the Midwest's version of Montana except they aren't nearly that good in football. In their market, they hold about the same percentage of the fan interest as WKU does in Bowling Green but the market is 3X larger. Would enter the league with best basketball and baseball facilities and it wouldn't be close. Problem is they aren't likely to leave the Valley for football reasons. Still would be the head of my wish list. If they call we start talking how soon can they come. 2. Louisiana Tech. Already FBS, might be the tipping point to get the league into the I-Bowl in next contract. Doesn't add anything new to the league but they are in the region and aren't transitioning. That carries value. 3. Appalachian State. Fringe of the footprint, can transition easily, compatible with most of the league academically. Sucks to get to. 4. Georgia Southern. Better within the footprint bridges Troy/USA to FIU/FAU gap. 5. UTSA. Decent not great hoops, clean slate helps in transition. 6. Texas State. No consistent success in either football or basketball

FAU made the I-AA semi-finals and began transition. They won 9 games in transition and went 4-3 vs. I-A. The next year playing a Sun Belt schedule they fell flat and went 2-9. UConn fell off big as they moved into I-A, bounced back and fell again once they began playing a Big East schedule and are doing fairly well. South Florida did well until their second CUSA and first Big East years. UAB was fairly constant. UCF transitioned well and fell apart as they joined the MAC and have rebounded. Studying transition teams it is very rare to maintain a fairly high level through I-AA into I-A and league play. Not that uncommon for a school to have bust year in the process but that is likely attributable to the difference in transfer rules and the smaller scholarship limits. Looking at a historical perspective, the prospects for UTSA are better than the prospects for Texas State. A TSSM has to deal with a real and identifiable history of limited success and is more likely to struggle through the process. UTSA will be more similar to the USF, FIU, FAU, UAB scenarios (though UAB had a fairly decent Division III history). FIU over-accelerated and have a hole to get out of while FAU has done well having a winning record against everyone in the Sun Belt except Troy (1-4), Middle Tennessee (1-4)(2007 the only year they won a share of the title is the only year they beat those schools), and ULM (3-2) (bizarrely the home team has never won in FAU-ULM series) and has a winning record vs. UNT (5-0) ULL (4-1) FIU (4-1) and ASU (3-2) (home team has never lost). It is counter-intuitive, but if you want to push another Texas team for the Sun Belt UTSA is likely the better choice.

Expansion is really a presidential matter.

Actually it was William Safire who wrote it for Agnew.

They don't even play a game until 2011 and they are passing ya'll in 2013? Western Kentucky was a pretty good FCS and they haven't been able to beat you when the program was like a turtle on its back.

I meant I-AA but the whiners changed the name to get more prestige.

My contacts tell me UTSA has missed every fund-raising target milestone. I've only driven by the AlamoDome but what about it makes it a cinch to draw recruits and crowds. Houston gave up playing in an NFL dome once they no longer had the assurance of Texas, TAMU, and Arkansas boosting their crowds. Tulane struggles to draw a crowd. Minnesota averages more than 14,000 unsold seats per game in an NFL dome hosting folks like Iowa, Penn State, Michigan, and Ohio State and having gone to bowls the last two years. USF playing in a pro stadium hasn't been able to get close to filling it and they could sell 30,000 tickets for a bowl in their metro area. San Diego State barely outdraws UNT in an NFL stadium. So what is it about the AlamoDome that will send such huge support their way.

FCS opponent Navy @ Bad Big 10 Indiana @ FBS transition WKU 8 MAC games Had Ball State in the magic BCS 12 or better range before they lost to Buffalo in the MAC title game. Problem for Sun Belt is unlike Hawaii and Boise we don't schedule realistically Hawaii 2 FBS @ 1 bad MWC UNLV 1 bad Pac-10 Washington (second loss of 15 game losing streak) 8 WAC Boise (first time) 1 FBS Good Pac-10 Oregon State @ mediocre MWC Wyoming @ 3rd in MWC Utah 8 WAC Boise (second time) Pac-10 champ 12th best MAC Miami (OH) @ Bowling Green FBS 8 WAC No one in the league schedules like that. MTSU's schedule this year is the closest.

The red jersy black pant combo looks like what ASU rolled out against Southern Miss.

Fixed.