johnnylightnin

Just wanted to drop by and offer my congratulations. I'm looking forward to some road trips to Denton. I know y'all have been waiting for this week as long as Tech has. It's finally here. Enjoy it!

4 is less than half of a 9 team conference (last I checked anyway). Could be that some of the fans have realized that an E-WAC is the best separation UNT can get at this time. If it provides much at all, it could lead to that CUSA invite in time. Who knows? It's not CUSA, but is it better than the current Sunbelt?

That'd be something, but what they described is more like hoping for a straight on the flop.

??? I think you're projecting. UNT is one of the two sunbelt programs that Tech has played in football in the recent past (depending on how you define recent, you could say that UNT is the lone sunbelt program we've played in football). I rarely see Tech fans run UNT down individually. They want no part of the sunbelt conference, but the same could be said for a few sunbelt programs too. As for my motives, I'm just a fan (a fan who reads multiple boards and has never been disruptive at gomeangreen.com). There are no motives because I don't make decisions about these things...I figure most of you don't either. It's the off-season. What's my motive? Stave off boredom. What's yours?

I don't know about the 20 mil, but I'm CERTAIN King Karl wouldn't say two words about the MeanGreen Network...

I was waiting for the "objective" one to weigh in... I have no peace offering and I'm no decision maker. I'm just wondering what your fan base thinks. I knew there would be some who would rather decline the WAC just to spite Tech. I've read quite a few posts about how bad Wright Waters is and about a desire to leave the Belt. I think this could be a workable solution for all involved. How many scalded dogs are there in the Belt that would leap at the chance to get into CUSA (MTSU, UNT, Troy, FIU, FAU, ULL, A-State, WKU...did I miss one? Oh yeah, ULM!). So, I think you'd be hard pressed to say that the desire to leave by Fresno and Nevada makes the WAC less stable than the Belt. The WAC I've proposed is more stable than the current SunBelt and is more stable than the current WAC. It would give UNT a bigger (read more respected) platform. Looks like a few fans out there agree with me...even though I knew you never would.

That'll never happen. If one gets a smack, so does everybody else. If you get the assurance, you get locked in too. If you go without the assurance, you're also free to leave. I'm fine either way, but a special penalty for one team is excessive...especially since the more likely defectors might be in the west.

I might not have made myself clear. Sub-out UTSA and TxSt. and sub-in A-State and ULM/Troy/MTSU/WKU. UTSA and TxSt. are just my preferences based on market-size and "potential". So, your eWAC could look like this: Tech UNT NMSU ULL A-State Troy That better?

Feel free to explain your preferences (if you don't mind).

I come in peace. I know UNT isn't interested in the WAC as a 9th member, but I was wondering if the WAC is more appealing if UNT is offered as #9 of 12. Just for the sake of conversation, you could bring in whoever you'd like. My personal list looks like this: eWAC: Tech NMSU UNT ULL Texas State UTSA We operate as a 10 team football conference for 2 years while the FCS teams move up. You could replace the FCS teams with whoever...A-State, ULM, Troy, MTSU...whoever. Is there a formulation of the WAC that you, as a fan, would definitely be interested in? I think the reestablishment of the eWAC does a few good things for the WAC: 1. It makes the league immediately more stable. 2. It protects the WAC from a western raid (MWC). 3. It protects the WAC from an eastern raid (CUSA). 4. It gives the WAC a foothold in Texas that it hasn't had since 2005. What does it do for a team like UNT? It shows upward mobility and gives you a better platform for your CUSA pitch. It gives you better ESPN access and a higher conference RPI in football and basketball. It's a long-term non-Belt option in the event that CUSA never delivers with the invite. Anyway, just looking for opinions. Thanks in advance.

Link? Nevermind...I found it. http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/sha...clines_off.html

In other news: Dooley leaves Toilet Seat up! SOB! If the obsession with Dooley and Tech weren't so funny, it'd be sad.

$111,111.11 is what the net loss would be (per team)...obviously, that's better than the $500,000 (per team) that would be subtracted without the new contract. It has the potential to be a break even proposition once we have the right teams in the right bowls...even without the BCS. The point is that the pay-out isn't going to all of a sudden become equitable with the SBC when there is no BCS team.

Not sure where you got those figures ASF. Those numbers will look a lot better next year now that ESPN is increasing what they pay us 4-fold. That, paired with getting Hawaii and Boise in their own bowls will have the pay-out back to where it should be. Ticket sales at the Hawaii and Boise Bowls are what really killed us.

How'd you get into the locker room travis? Anyway, there have been quite a few changes since you visited in 2005. Brand new field-turf (this year) and complete locker-room renovation. Scoreboard is on the way for 2009 with rumors of luxury suites. This Dooley guy knows what he's doing.

According to the most recent numbers, if you compare travel costs v/s conference pay-out, Tech finished ahead of ULL. Those costs would go even further down if Tech had a real travel partner (UNT). Also, UNT's travel costs would be less than Tech's as they don't have to travel as far to get to a real airport.

This statement is ridiculous. In football, Tech has out-recruited it's sister programs in the ULS almost every year. Tech's decline had little to do with athletes and MUCH to do with VERY poor coaching and worse administration. That is turning around. If you look at TCU, you'll see that you're mistaken.

It doesn't matter at all. Dooley made comments to a group of Tech supporters and a NewsStar "blogger" put a few, relatively out of context quotes out there. It's really as simple as that. These types of things are said at fund-raisers at nearly every school every off-season and it's usually not news. The NewsStar has taken up ULMs cause for whatever reason and every time Dooley farts without saying excuse me, it makes the paper. The ULMers getting up in arms is a joke. ASFan's blog entry was entertaining...as usual.

I doubt it. Again, CUSA doesn't care about performance. They want big markets and a big market will always take precedence over performance. MTSU is more likely IF Memphis were the CUSA team to depart. I don't see CUSA expanding beyond 12, so somebody has got to go. As of right now, I don't see that happening before 2012...2010 at the earliest.

CUSA doesn't care. They are gambling on the USF/UCF factor. If they really cared about attendance, do you think they would've invited SMU and Rice?

Then non-BCS isn't non-BCS. Word is that FAU is the choice if CUSA takes from the Belt.

If non-BCS is non-BCS, why should CUSA be your goal?

Well, you know what they say...perception is reality...

How many fans to ULL and ULM bring to games at UNT? We've long desired to be in CUSA as well, but their field production has been total crap the last two years. They've chased markets until they're blue in the face, but they've ignored performance. With a travel partner, I would prefer Tech stay in the WAC. My personal preference is a new E-WAC, but that may not happen. If Benson could get one more Bowl and a CUSA-type TV deal, I'm fairly certain that the big dogs of the conference (Boise, Nevada, Fresno) would agree not to jump to a conference that isn't a BCS conference. If that happened, even at 10, the WAC is a better option for Tech than CUSA. JMO, of course

I didn't hear it, but apparently Benson stated that UNT has an open invitation to join the WAC whenever they want. What do y'all think about that?