wardly

the state of new mexico is basically broke, and nmsu recently reduced their athletic budget by $1.5 million. in addition, their football program is actually worse than ours, they are a 10 hr. drive from denton, and have about a 100,000 population base.i don't see that they bring much to the table,plus the belt might increase their travel cost.i also don't see any interest on their part in moving from the wac.in addition, texas state and utsa are the only two schools on your list that i am aware of presently committed to a 1a football program. has ark.st. indicated an interest in moving to the wac?

agreed. la. tech would like to join cusa/ west, as would we. hell will freeeze over before they join same conference as ulm. having said that, all lousiana schools are in financial trouble, with ulm the most as they have a very small athletic budget for a 1a program. if they are forced back to southland, then all bets are off regarding la.tech and the belt. in addition, we are being very shortsighted if we overlook the markets that texas state and utsa would bring to either the wac or belt. i think that with exception of ull, all existing belt members have a 1aa background. i don't understand thinking of those who look down on 1a want-a-be programs. the belt is just a glorified 1aa conference, and in fact is rated by polsters below several 1aa conferences. i have been a unt supporter since freshman year of 61', and lately with all discussions regarding realignment have come to believe that we have an inflated opinion of our value to any conference. just an opinion.

besides, i never liked being around drunks, even when i was one.

the last thing smu and tcu want is a successful large state university [north texas]to compete against in the metroplex. the difference between the two is smu is open about it. regarding la.tech/ulm,it seems more personal.

please refer to smu/unt.same problem. two programs in same market, and one looks down on the other.

like north texas, they are looking to future conference realignment that may enhance their cusa chances. i wish we could aford to have another series with them, but both programs need occ paydays.

when checking college sports at ft. worth star telegram on line there is information on,texas,a$m,tt,okla,okla st, baylor,uta,and smu, but no longer north texas. any one know why?

the reason the difference is only 3, according to your data, is that our football program is so bad it drags the wac down, and our departure increases belt average by that number. no wonder conferences are beating a path to our door.

tcu refuses to play us in football, and both smu and horned frogs refuse to share dfw market with unt.i suggest we get real. its either wac or belt for us, which considering our most recent lack of success in football[ 5 years and counting] and our poor support of a successful basketball program[less than 3,000 average attendance] is probably where we belong AT THIS POINT IN TIME!

montana has hired consultant to review their athletic program. president stated they are not going anywhere without montana state. interest by fanbase in moving up appears to be lukewarm at best.

great question. i think wac wants presence in texas, but also travel partner for la.tech.if la.tech were to exit wac, i think interest in wac/east dies. however, la.tech will not return to belt as long as ulm is a member. in addition, they still have cusa hopes, as does unt. what the belt should do to strengthen conference is to require a minimum athletic budget from its members in the $12 million range, give them 3 years to get there or else.

i have a real interest in a wac/east division, but also some real concerns. i am unsure as to the health of ark. state's athletic budget, but as we know the louisiana schools are in real trouble. in addition, while new mexico state is trying to maintain 1a status, they were recently forced to reduce their athletic budget by $1.5 million. it appears that if ark. state is financially stable, and new mecico state has stopped the bleeding, moving to the wac with the red wolves now and adding texas st. and utsa later might work. however, a lot of "if's" and moving parts.

we are in violent agreement!peace!

easy, big guy! 1st, utep averages about 7,000 more basketball fans per game than us, and about 12,000 more football fans, regardless of record. i would love to have support like them. 2nd, i didn't say we could not compete with the best of wac in future. i said we can' now. [10 wins in 5 years. thank GOD for western k.] 3rd, some conferences will look at utsa as a possible utep in terms of fan support.4th, when is last time we beat la. tech in anything? finally, what i suggested was establishing a regional division of wac that would still allow those few of us that travel to continue to do so. i doubt many n.tex. fans venture east of la.monroe. finally, why is my post a "looser mentality?" the question was," would we have been better off going to the wac instead of belt 10 years ago?" my answer is, which is only an opinion," not then, but under right conditions, maybe now".get a grip.

i think we made the right decision at the time to stay in the belt. our athletic budget was a lot less than it is now, all away games require air transportation, and our small traveling fan base of would shrink. in addition, no way we win conference title and new orleans bowl 4 years straight. we can't then nor now compete against bosie, nevada, hawaii, fresno st., or la.tech. we would have been another san jose. having said that, i still think the time is ripe to create an eastern division of wac consisting of existing members n.mex.st, la.tech, adding n. texas, ark. st.,ull, and texas st. while we still might not travel well, those who do would have an opportunity to do so. also, i would rather see hawaii, fresno st.,and nevada than fla.international,fau, or la.monroe. finally, i just don,t see smu ever letting us into any conference of which they are a member. if houston moves to mt. west in a few years, utsa would stand a better chance of getting that slot without ever having fielded a team than us because of san antonio market. big 12 doesn't want to expand into their existing territory, and neither does cusa.smu feels they deliver dfw market, and don't need nor want us. just an opinion.hope i am proven wrong.

i am not opposed to the wac, but i would like ark. st . to join as well and make it a 10 school conference with a 9 conference and 3 out of conference games. looks like all Louisiana schools are having financial problems, and i don't want to be out on a limb alone with la.tech. it remains to be seen if ull, and especially ulm, can remain at 1a level. if not, and la. tech rejoins belt, i probably would be o.k. with sitting where we are and see if there is an opportunity in cusa. i still fear smu will kill our chances. tough call to make.wac with Hawaii,fresno st.,and nevada, or belt with troy, middle,and ark.st.

i agree. however, problem is that we don't travel. we don't travel to ull,ulm,or ark.st. in numbers beyond 100. i can't see any increase in our fan base going to ruston, and we sure are not going to travel west. its a 12 hour drive to las cruces. also, while we may be willing to hold our nose when playing utah. st. or san jose, would the rest of wac be willing to hold theirs while playing us? ten wins in 5 years in worst 1a program in ncaa doesn't get you many invites. i can find reasons why we would want to join the wac. i just can't find many for them to want us.

we have lost as many belt conference games as we have won. i think we are 1 game over 500.

our big west conference record was: 1996, 3-2,3rd ; 1997,2-3,4th ; 1998, 3-2,2nd ; 1999, 1-5,7th; 2000,1-4,tied for 4th. we didn't exactly tear the big west up.

i think its great to play one of the best teams in cusa to see how we stack up against them. also, do they "travel" as well as we do ?

great post! yes, we need to take care of our business and hopefully good things will happen. having said that, wonder who would get the spot in cusa/west if houston replaces utah in mt. west. us or la.tech?

go with ark. st and make it a 10 team round robin conference. works for mt. west and "new" big 12/southwest conference.

seems like yesterday when d.d was head coach that we we ranked in mid 60's.

i find it hard to complain about the wac, when n.t. has won about 10 games the last 5 seasons, and is the "worst of the worst" at this point. in fact, our overall belt record is around 50% won/loss. we probably should be happy that anyone wants us until/if football program turns around.

just having one vote and being able to keep a team in or out of a conference are not the same. smu has the power, in my opinion, to either help or hinder our hopes of admission into cusa should houston replace utah in mt.west. to say smu has " only " one vote in cusa is like saying texas has "only" one vote in big 12.