WAC 2010 ?

CajunNation · January 7, 2006

UTAH STATE

DENVER--(TV market, good basketball, road trip)

NEVADA

SAN JOSE STATE

FRESNO STATE

HAWAII

NEW MEXICO STATE

TEXAS STATE--(TV market, good baseball,great potential)

NORTH TEXAS

MISSOURI STATE--(great basketball, great fan support, good TV market, great potential)

LOUISIANA TECH

LOUISIANA

12 for basketball

10 for baseball

9 for football(leaving room for Texas St. and Missouri St. to move up when ready)

Boise to the MWC.

Idaho must go.

If the SBC doesn't improve, and there is no CUSA option, this would be better than our current situation, IMHO.

http://realtimerpi.com/rpi_Men.html

http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/current...e_rankings.html

http://boydsworld.com/baseball/rpi/currentrpi.html

CURRENT SBC NUMBERS:

113--Avg. Baseball RPI ranking

#16--Conference Basketball RPI ranking(0.4882)

106--Avg. Football computer ranking(119 1-a teams)

WAC 2010 NUMBERS:

127--Avg. Baseball RPI ranking

#8---Conference Basketball RPI ranking(0.5275)

76---Avg. Football computer ranking(30 places better)

WAC 2010 would put us in a basketball conference ranked ahead of the A-10, MWC, CUSA, and the MAC.

It would put us in a LEGIT football conference with an attractive home schedule.

The travel would not kill us.

Edited January 7, 2006 by CajunNation

NT80 · January 7, 2006

First, 1-A conferences base decisions first on football. They are moving toward all-sports only members, starting with them playing 1-A football. I can't see the WAC dropping a 1-A football-playing member (Idaho) to pickup a non-football playing member (Denver). I'd prefer a CUSA spot, otherwise I've always liked the possibility of an east/west division WAC/SBC. Something more like:

West:

Nevada

Fresno St.

Boise

Hawaii

Idaho

SanJose

Utah St.

East:

NMSU

North Texas

La Tech

Louisiana

Ark. St.

ULM

MTSU, Troy, TX St. or MO St.

Opps, forgot Nevada...that would make a 14-team league more likely.

Edited January 7, 2006 by NT80

January 7, 2006

While it would alleviate some travel costs, it would still be a burden travelling to Hawaii every other year. Plus, I'm not very sure that the MWC would take Boise State, even though they are better in football than most of their teams.

The only way that I could see a merger is if they enforce the attendance rule. The most likely casualties would likely be San Jose State and Idaho in the current WAC and ULM (but not until after their deal with Arkansas runs out), FAU and FIU in the current SBC. That would mean the disqualification of both conferences since neither would meet the eight teams required for voting.

If it were those teams, that would leave 12 teams which could be divided:

WEST

Hawaii

New Mexico State

Fresno State

Nevada

Utah State

Boise State

EAST

North Texas

Arkansas State

Louisiana Tech

Louisiana

Middle Tennessee

Troy

I think that those could eventually make a solid league in all sports. My problem is what to do with the five teams cut loose. San Jose would drop football if the Faculty Senate had their way. Idaho would be welcomed back in the Big Sky and would not need to upgrade facilities. ULM could go back to the Southland but FAU and FIU have never been in a 1-AA football conference. Besides, they have committed mega-bucks to achieve Division 1-A.

Anyway, the eastern teams would have to go to Hawaii only once every four years in football; once every two years in basketball. Not sure about the other sports. The western teams would be no worse off than they are now.

CajunNation · January 7, 2006

First, 1-A conferences base decisions first on football. They are moving toward all-sports only members, starting with them playing 1-A football. I can't see the WAC dropping a 1-A football-playing member (Idaho) to pickup a non-football playing member (Denver). I'd prefer a CUSA spot, otherwise I've always liked the possibility of an east/west division WAC/SBC. Something more like:
West:
Fresno St.
Boise
Hawaii
Idaho
SanJose
Utah St.
East:
NMSU
North Texas
La Tech
Louisiana
Ark. St.
ULM
If you want a 14 team league you could swing NMSU to the west and add 2 of Texas St., Mo. St., MTSU, or Troy.
←

Replace ULM with Troy, and I think you have the 12 team model that was floated before and shot down by Boise and Fresno.

If Boise doesn't leave, the WAC ain't doing anything. But, as most people think, they are invited to the MWC, the WAC will need to add 'cause Tech can't stay forever either.

Now, the first places they'll go to are Denton and Lafayette. The trio of Tech, North Texas, and Louisiana just might have enough power to insist on a few stipulations to the deal.

Give Idaho the boot. If the Big East can kick out Temple, the WAC can kick out Idaho. They offer nothing and are in the middle of nowhere. We could insist on a few other schools being added to help out travel costs, help baseball and basketball, and have a possibly, very bright 1-A future.

There are simply no attractive 1-AA schools out west that would help their situation. So, we could use this to our advantage to build a core group of schools to possibly one day transform the WAC to the new SWC.

Edited January 7, 2006 by CajunNation

MeanGreen61 · January 8, 2006

Where is Louisiana ? There's no school listed as playing 1A football by that name. There's Louisiana Tech, Louisiana-Monroe and Louisiana-Lafayette but no Louisiana.

Edited January 8, 2006 by MeanGreen61

CajunNation · January 8, 2006

Where is Louisiana ? There's no school listed as playing 1A football by that name. There's Louisiana Tech, Louisiana-Monroe and Louisiana-Lafayette but no Louisiana.
←

I think you want the Tech board. They seem to have the same screwball problem as you.

I hope you come in person to Lafayette next season to see your Mean Green get gutted like a tuna.

Your beating will be supplied courtesy of Louisiana or UL-Lafayette.

You decide.

have a nice day

January 8, 2006

Where is Louisiana ? There's no school listed as playing 1A football by that name. There's Louisiana Tech, Louisiana-Monroe and Louisiana-Lafayette but no Louisiana.
←

We can call a university whatever we want to call it. I prefer to call the University of Louisiana at Lafayette just Louisiana. Actually, it was that briefly until the LSU majority in the legislature changed it. The university at Lafayette is about 40 or 50 years older (as a 4-year school; Monroe started as a junior college) and almost twice as large. Lafayette should have been the flagship for a University of Louisiana system and, as such would have been called Louisiana. Sort of like the University of Texas at Austin is just Texas. Texas State University at San Marcos is now simply Texas State (but as of now there are no other TSUs of course). It would also be less confusing because there is a Lafayette (1-AA) in Pennsylvania.

stebo · January 8, 2006

We can call a university whatever we want to call it. I prefer to call the University of Louisiana at Lafayette just Louisiana. Actually, it was that briefly until the LSU majority in the legislature changed it. The university at Lafayette is about 40 or 50 years older (as a 4-year school; Monroe started as a junior college) and almost twice as large. Lafayette should have been the flagship for a University of Louisiana system and, as such would have been called Louisiana. Sort of like the University of Texas at Austin is just Texas. Texas State University at San Marcos is now simply Texas State (but as of now there are no other TSUs of course). It would also be less confusing because there is a Lafayette (1-AA) in Pennsylvania.
←

I agree - UL (for LA) is in Lafayette. Period, end of discussion. Their hometown paper which is a fairly large publication - the largest in the state of LA now that the Picune (sp?) times is serving a much lower population - issued an official release about a year ago recognizing that they support the name and ALL articles that reference UL (Lafayette) simply abbreviates their school name as UL. That is good enough for me. I have always believed that this name thing with UL/ULM should be tried and convicted in the court of public opinion... UL has won over their own city and its newspaper - and that is good enough for me. At this point I will respect their desire to be called simply UL and not think another moment about it. Having UL become simply UL in EVERY CITY (not just Lafayette) can do nothing but help North Texas. We can have UL on the schedule; rather then ULL or ULaLa. It looks better on paper and we can sell those games to our fans in the form of tickets. If ULM wants to fight for the name, they need to get their hmoetown paper to begin to call them UL as well ... until that happens, their is only one UL (in LA) that is recognized by an established newspaper everyday in every article having to do with our Sun Belt brethren... We should respect that they have won that small battle and help spread the word about it.

Texas State has suddenly become a force to be taken seriously - I think it has A LOT to do with the name and the winning (a combo of the two)... UL turned around their program this year, going 6-5. If they have another good season - perhaps go to a bowl game - and are able to use the UL designation; it will benefit the Belt and North Texas. Why fight it?

MeanGreen61 · January 8, 2006

We can call a university whatever we want to call it. I prefer to call the University of Louisiana at Lafayette just Louisiana.
←

You're right. You call them Louisiana and I'll call them UL-Lafayette, Louisiana-lafayette or ULL; the names used by the print media except for their local paper.

UNTFan23 · January 8, 2006

The problem is that both Monroe and Lafayette claim the moniker U. of Louisiana. So, in order to avoid confusion, many add the city so we know who we're talking about. And to be truthful, most people (outside of La) could really care less to get in the middle of the pissing contest all the Louisiana schools are having because they all want a piece of the U. of Louisiana pie.

buff64 · January 8, 2006

Why would the WAC want any of the Sun Belt teams ? Just to add numbers ?

If you are intent on moving UNT west why not to a real DI conference , the Mountain West. Much more attractive schools and recognition. Brigham Young, Air Force, Colorado State, Utah, San Diego State, TCU, Wyoming, New Mexico, UNLV. These are schools that would bring in the crowds we need.If we are going to move, move up , not laterally.

Hunter Green · January 8, 2006

I just pray to all things holy, that RV gets us in CUSA. We must have regional, local schools for the casual fan to identify with. That is the only way we are going to be recognized as an "equal" to the folks in Texas.

Arkstfan · January 8, 2006

First and foremost, adding Denver blows the football schedule to hell.

Secondly. No way Missouri State would even for an instant consider such a move dramatic cost increase without improving basketball and cuts them off from their rivals.

Texas State. They just have a way to go.

If the WAC had vision, which they do not have, the solution was in their own past but they weren't smart enough to learn from the mistakes of their past.

The solution is also from the past of college athletics.

Outside of the rich six and arguably MWC and CUSA their model of a tight-knit league being an economic unit where everyone shares and shares alike is workable.

The WAC should have gone to 16. The current WAC sans La.Tech in one division and the other division comprised of La.Tech and seven current Sun Belt football schools.

League basically makes 3 TV deals. A primary deal for the entire conference plus secondary deals for each division. (ie. league has a deal with ESPN/ESPN2, west has a deal with Fox West, Rocky Mountain, etc and the east has a deal with SW, South, and Sunshine).

Instead of the bulk of the money going into a pool to share, the bulk is awarded based on appearances with a very small shared pool.

Football would play 7 divisional games and one cross-over.

Basketball would play 14 divisional games and 4 cross-over with cross-overs done in pairs (ie. Thursday at X, Saturday at Y). For the 8 WAC western schools travel would end up being nearly identical or at times cheaper (ie. can fly to Dallas or Nashville more cheaply than Ruston).

For La.Tech travel costs would plummet.

For the 7 Belt schools travel would increase only a small amount because there would be so few games cross-division.

The limited interaction would avoid the strong teams thinking they were hurt in SOS by playing the other division.

With a greater number of teams the negotiating clout would be higher with both TV and bowls.

The old WAC 16 failed for 2 reasons. #1. They couldn't structure it so BYU, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado State, Air Force and to a lesser degree New Mexico played each other every year. Core rivalries were severed. #2. Everyone of the 16 members received basically the same share of revenue.

The new WAC16 avoids problem #1 because it doesn't break-up any natural rivalries except arguably UNT-NMSU and that one has already been severed by choice of NMSU. It avoids problem #2 because an "eat what you kill" system puts more of the revenue in the hands of the schools producing the revenue.

WAC16 would be more an association than a league.

NT91 · January 8, 2006

Has anyone emaild the offices of C-USA about adding North Texas?

You can go to the C-USA site and do just that. Just give them your ideas.

Add NT to the west and La Tech to the east div.

http://conferenceusa.collegesports.com/fee...a-feedback.html

Edited January 8, 2006 by NT91

MeanGreen61 · January 8, 2006

Has anyone emaild the offices of C-USA about adding North Texas?
You can go to the C-USA site and do just that. Just give them your ideas.
Add NT to the west and La Tech to the east div.
http://conferenceusa.collegesports.com/fee...a-feedback.html
←

That would be about as effective as a message in a bottle.

GreenBat · January 8, 2006

I agree - UL (for LA) is in Lafayette. Period, end of discussion. Their hometown paper which is a fairly large publication - the largest in the state of LA now that the Picune (sp?) times is serving a much lower population - issued an official release about a year ago recognizing that they support the name and ALL articles that reference UL (Lafayette) simply abbreviates their school name as UL. That is good enough for me. I have always believed that this name thing with UL/ULM should be tried and convicted in the court of public opinion... UL has won over their own city and its newspaper - and that is good enough for me. At this point I will respect their desire to be called simply UL and not think another moment about it. Having UL become simply UL in EVERY CITY (not just Lafayette) can do nothing but help North Texas. We can have UL on the schedule; rather then ULL or ULaLa. It looks better on paper and we can sell those games to our fans in the form of tickets. If ULM wants to fight for the name, they need to get their hmoetown paper to begin to call them UL as well ... until that happens, their is only one UL (in LA) that is recognized by an established newspaper everyday in every article having to do with our Sun Belt brethren... We should respect that they have won that small battle and help spread the word about it.
Texas State has suddenly become a force to be taken seriously - I think it has A LOT to do with the name and the winning (a combo of the two)... UL turned around their program this year, going 6-5. If they have another good season - perhaps go to a bowl game - and are able to use the UL designation; it will benefit the Belt and North Texas. Why fight it?
←

You can call it defication in solid form from the anus, but it is still a TURD. It doesn't matter what your name is. It matters how you play on the field. And I'll be the first to admit we played like $h!t in 2005.

NT91 · January 9, 2006

That would be about as effective as a message in a bottle.
←

We gotta do something!!

January 9, 2006

Has anyone emaild the offices of C-USA about adding North Texas?
You can go to the C-USA site and do just that. Just give them your ideas.
Add NT to the west and La Tech to the east div.
http://conferenceusa.collegesports.com/fee...a-feedback.html
←

CUSA knows about us. The conference collected a dossier on us before they selected UTEP as the 12th member. Even a mass write-in would produce zero results. Besides, last time I checked they wanted to stay with 12 and there are no openings.

NT91 · January 9, 2006

CUSA knows about us. The conference collected a dossier on us before they selected UTEP as the 12th member. Even a mass write-in would produce zero results. Besides, last time I checked they wanted to stay with 12 and there are no openings.
←

UTEP needs to go to the WAC or Mt West.

We will get in sooner than later!

Edited January 9, 2006 by NT91

Coffee and TV · January 9, 2006

UTEP needs to go to the WAC or Mt West.
We will get in sooner than later!
←

WAC? Don't get your hopes up there buddy. The only way I can see us replacing UTEP is if they jumped with Boise and Fresno to create a 12 team MWC.

NT80 · January 9, 2006

WAC? Don't get your hopes up there buddy. The only way I can see us replacing UTEP is if they jumped with Boise and Fresno to create a 12 team MWC.
←

That's actually not a bad idea, a 12-team MWC. UTEP would help bridge the UNM-TCU gap and Fresno would help bridge the SDSU distance. Only thing is Hawaii being left out, but that is an expensive trip for most programs.

Arkstfan · January 9, 2006

That's actually not a bad idea, a 12-team MWC. UTEP would help bridge the UNM-TCU gap and Fresno would help bridge the SDSU distance. Only thing is Hawaii being left out, but that is an expensive trip for most programs.
←

MWC won't consider 12 if there is any possibility that BYU, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado State, and Air Force won't be in the same division.

Coffee and TV · January 9, 2006

MWC won't consider 12 if there is any possibility that BYU, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado State, and Air Force won't be in the same division.
←

With Boise that makes the northern conference. UTEP, Fresno, SDSU, UNM, UNLV, TCU in the south.

Of course you could play around with any possible scenarios when you speak of conference realignment. New assignment, someone make up a conference where UL and UNT replace Michigan and Wisconsin in the Big 11. Go!