GrayEagle

Where in the hell did you see anything about helping SFA, Lamar, UTA et al? This is about Texas State ONLY. They have paid their dues, literally and figuratively. Their being in the conference would help our attendance and reduce our costs. Is that that difficult to understand? I do fault SMU for dodging us and trying to keep us out of CUSA. I don't care where they are open or subtle the results are the same. However, if we are friends with the other members it won't matter what SMU does. I don't know how much influence SMU can muster; maybe enough to keep us out and maybe not but I'm tired of hearing about their hatred for us. Truth is, we probably hate them more than they hate us but they're easier to blame for our failings. Texas State got the jump on us and went for the highest amount that could be done under state law. We didn't go for the max because we didn't want the stadium to fail. I'm sure that we will eventually catch up with them in amount but it'll take a long while to match their total. The reason? We may have fewer undergrads than they will after UNT Dallas is removed from our total this fall. We have about 3,000 more graduate students but they take half the hours of the undergrads.

I assume that those of you that are against the WAC due to travel expenses are assuming the current alignment and that the income will be no more than we are receiving from the SBC. The idea that is being imposed would make New Mexico State our farthest rival within the Southwest Division. With the SBC we have a trip to the Miami area every year. That's opposed to going to Reno every other year. Not all sports would have to have games with each conference opponent if there is a conference tournament. Recruiting would be enhanced where there would be trips to Hawaii possible. While I still would prefer to be in CUSA, the WAC would be a better alternative than where we are now. The current WAC members would no doubt prefer to be in the MWC but a 12 team conference is also better than what they are facing now.

If Vito is correct, then whatever conference we're in is irrevalent. Some that are unworthy will be in the mix because of the conference that they're in now. Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Washington State, Cincinnati, Louisville, Duke, Wake Forest, Iowa State and who knows else would likely all be included and they are likely not in the Top 64, The way the conferences are structured you can't kick anyone out unless there is a serious breach of conduct or performance. Two current BCS AQ conferences would be destroyed. The inmates would have succeeded in taking over the asylum. There might as well not be a NCAA if it's going to be run by the elitists. The only way that it could backfire as I see it is if Congress gets involved or Division I votes them out of the NCAA basketball tournament but either would seriously defame college athletics. This group has to have 64 members so that they will have the majority to keep themselves in power. They will destroy the NCAA with their own greed. Thankfully, I only have a few more years to put up with this crap. My fear is that the government will have taken over college athletics before I leave this earth and screw up the last bastion that I hold dear.

Where did we get our low self-esteem? Do we have no pride in the University of North Texas? If we do then why must we put others down? I must've missed something in the Golden Rule about putting down others because others put you down. I'm old and my memory may be fading but I can still remember that I wouldn't want to be treated the way that we treat Texas State, UTSA and others. Sam Houston State is looking to see if it's possible to seek Division 1-A membership in the future. They haven't yet applied nor or there any assurances that they will. Or that any other Texas schools are also trying to jump to Division 1-A. Texas State and UTSA have already ponied up to the maximum, $20 per semester hour. They will soon have larger budgets than North Texas. Nor is either a tiny school; each has a student enrollment of around 30,000. Texas State has played 898 games in their history, winning 479 for a winning percentage of .549. That winning percentage is 44th in Division 1-AA and the highest in Texas. They have earned their spurs for moving up and why not help them? Wouldn't we want the same for us if the roles were reversed? I'm not sold on UTSA yet. They have a good market city, a reknowned coach and a great stadium, even if it's not on campus. I would not advocate including them at the first opportunity. We need to see how they progress. And yes, Texas State can't be included until next year anyway. But with the money to attract a decent coach they can be a formidable foe and a good rival for the future. They would be included only if we decided on the WAC or elected to stay in the Belt. We have no leverage to include them in any bid for CUSA. I do agree that the best way for any of this to happen is to win.

Sorry Jim, he's an offensive tackle but should be a great one though. We have a number of defensive ends for this coming year who I think will be great but someone forgot defensive tackle.

Foster's

I see improvement from recruiting everywhere on defense except defensive tackle. There was only one recruit there and he was an offensive tackle, at least as a senior in high school. Worse yet, three that we are relying on will be seniors. Unless someone comes through this year none of the underclassmen stir any excitement. No help for this year and, as yet, no proven talent for 2011.

Can someone close to the softball situation tell me what they will use for pitching this coming season? As I look at the roster for this year, I see two pitchers listed. One of them apparently didn't pitch last year and although she has good high school credentials she has no college experience. Her name is Ashley Kirk and she is listed as a sophomore. Why? The other is Brittany? Simmons, a relievf pitcher. How can you let yourself get in that situation? Unless the schedule is really stretched out I would think that you would need a minimum of two starters and it might not be a bad idea to have a second reliever. If one pitcher gets a sore arm, they're cooked.

Not for K-State. That was for Southern, located in Baton Rouge, which is less than a hundred miles away. For their home game against Kansas State they had a whopping 16,431.

Pretty good list. I'd take J.T. Smith and Chuck Beatty over Reese and Pegram. Otherwise, I like it.

I know that it's been said before, but Derek Thompson. Also hoping for Shavod Atkinson

1. No Don't get me wrong. As long as there's a chance of getting in CUSA, that's where I want to be. But I want to know the ins and outs, the good and the bad, of the WAC because it could be better than where we are now. It's still a little on the fun side to speculate. Besides, conference talk is about all there is for the next forty days.

My choices: 1. Chuck Neinas 2. Paul Tagliabue (he could piggyback us w/Memphis) 3; Michael Slive 100. Gene Stallings

If CUSA loses two eastern teams why would you want to replace them with two more teams even farther away from the core? CUSA is headquartered in Irving, thirty miles away from North Texas. There are seven teams on or west of the Mississippi River and an eighth, Southern Miss, is little more than 100 miles to the east. Why would you want to add teams in the east and further your travel expenses? North Texas and Louisiana Tech would be closer to the core of Conference USA than any other candidates. North Texas has been in the highest classification for 46 years and La Tech for 28. I don't believe that any other candidates have that length of service. No one will have a significantly larger stadium or attendance. Both have produced quality football teams over the years. Furthermore, North Texas has other advantages. Thirty minutes away from one of the country's busiest airports, for example. It gives them great accessibility and cheaper airfares for its opponents. It would have the largest alumni base of any of the candidates. It is in the fifth largest TV market and with SMU, would give CUSA more viewers than any other conference. Don't forget there are two teams in the Houston area which is at number ten. If there were need for two additional teams, I frankly don't see why North Texas would not be number one. While the fight for number two would be closer, I'd still give the margin to Louisiana Tech over Middle Tennessee.

Eventually, Louisiana Tech will get to the point that they can't afford being the only eastern member of the WAC. ULM is now operating with the smallest budget in the FBS and any cuts would be fatal in time because they do not have the attendance nor the donors to make up the shortfall. That would seem to leave La Tech with three choices: 1) Join another conference. CUSA is likely the only one available to them since they are adamant about joining the Belt. I know that ULM is the main problem but WW could also be a factor. 2) Get enough additions to form an eastern division. That probably require three or four members to realistically work. The only ones that might be available are North Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas State. If CUSA should add only eastern teams then UTEP might also be a possibility. 3) Try to tough it out until ULM has to drop back to FCS due to expenses. The WAC can't add another western team until next year. No one will drop from the Pac 10 or MWC and those are the only others in their footprint.

Yes, we would've IF we had won three straight titles, which would've killed Boise's chances at the BCS bowls. Otherwise, nothing for runnerup; just ask Fresno or Hawaii.

I'm amazed that they're even talking about us. I didn't think that they knew that we existed.

First of all you have to consider where the article came from. The Fresno Bee is noted for sensationalism. It may be owned by the National Enquirer. In 2009, playing in this underfunded conference, Fresno State had a surplus of 2.1 million dollars. To put that in perspective, Boise had a surplus of $90K. Two others in the WAC had surpluses; San Jose State with $888,000 and La Tech with a microscopic $3,895. But remember, La Tech has one of the smallest operating revenues in the FBS. Underfunded, but profitable. Five of the programs had revenues of more than $20 million, often considered the benchmark for an FBS budget. So it's not just money that makes a program successful. Fresno State, with the second highest budget in the WAC, made a good profit...err surplus. I'm sure that Boise wasn't solely responsible for that surplus so Fresno could look forward to good years even after Boise's gone. I think that it's just the Bee's way of saying we need in the Mountain West. Does that mean that the WAC is stable? Not on your life. With only eight teams and little replacement prospects they can't afford for anyone to stumble. The only schools in their geographic area worthy of replacement is a FCS team...Montana. They have been strong on the field, strong in attendance, and have a good basketball program as well. Other possibilities are Montana State (13,000 attendance) and UC-Davis (10,000 attendance). That's pretty slim pickings. For now, Fresno is just going to have to be happy being the dominant member of the WAC (maybe along with Hawaii). It could be worse. They are making money and their dominance could lead to the MWC the way that Boise was able to accomplish.

It still does; they should be in the WAC as long as it exists. Provided, that is, that they can meet the attendance requirements. Idaho has very marginal attendance and probably should be in 1-AA. They have a campaign to enlarge the seating capacity of Kibbie to 20K and my big question is why? They can't fill their 16K capacity now. Logan is almost as remote. Neither have large enrollments or are in large population centers so their chance for improvement is almost nil. Both do have a long history of being in 1-A or equivalent so it would be a blow, especially for Utah State, to have to go to the FCS. Anyway, if either could match Boise State's winning acumen they'd still have a tough time making the MWC.

LA Tech would be pretty formidable. They are in the 60s on the all-time football rating list; we are in the 80s. Their market is rather small but they add Shreveport (who does not have a FBS or FCS team and where Tech usually plays one game a year) which takes their market rank to the upper 60s. They have some tremendous budget problems without a doubt but if Louisiana decides to consolidate some of their colleges then Louisiana Tech would be the benefactor. One plan has them doing away with ULM and Grambling as four-year institutions which would consolidate operations at La Tech. Northwestern State is also in the mix which could make them even larger. If CUSA needs two more teams I would hope that the two conferences (CUSA and SBC) could somehow merge and ten divide east/west. It could cut travel costs for everyone tremendously.

Yep, you got it Bill. I thought that the flock would indicate flying pigs. I should've tried to work in the phrase, "when pigs fly" instead. You're right about the feral hogs though; they are really becoming a problem in the rural areas and lake bottoms of the Metroplex.

Jeff is right. If you really want to think big then add the Big XII to the poll. That's where we should aspire to be. I vote for the Big 12.

This should be a natural. Similar in size, core population, striving for tier 1 research status, degrees offered and academics. We were once a near-equal but they moved forward and we moved backward to the point that they have all to lose and nothing to gain even if they won against us. For that reason I'd come nearer believing that TCU was to be the opening opponent. Or that a flock of pigs were descending on Denton.. Now tell us who the real opponent will be.

You need some more posters for those places in your garage. Let's see, a picture of Charr Gehagen by your weight bench, a Dodge Charger for in front of your wife's car, a picture of Todd Dodge by the water heater (because if he doesn't win big this year he's really in hot water), posters of the golf team including Ortiz, Cauzabon, the freshman from PA and the transfer from LSU, and posters from pictures of the updates of the stadium in progress. I'd top that off with a picture of Mike Canales by your vehicle and you'll be a true greenblood.

This is a difficult response. If we assume that we cannot get into CUSA and the net revenue is the equal of the Sun Belt or better, then I'd say yes. I'd prefer it if Louisiana comes along as well as it would reduce expenses. I believe that it would be easier to recruit to the WAC because it is perceived to be a better conference (actually is). To me, the Big West wasn't that bad because without it we would not have been in Division 1A. True, until Arky State returned in '99 we were the only school in the Central Time Zone and that made it a little awkward for us. The BWC was never the equal of the WAC during our tenure so there's no real comparison. Lastly, our refusal in 2004 saved the Sun Belt Conference as it would have left them with only seven members so we refused for a different reason. We could have also left the next year when NMSU, Utah State and Idaho did leave but with only Troy coming in that would've left them three short instead of two. That's when basketball-playing FIU began football and 1AA FAU came aboard, leaving a viable (voting) conference. We could now leave without leaving the SBC in a lurch since WKU and USA have added football.