MAC may have more bowls in 2006

MeanGreen61 · April 13, 2006

Off the MAC board

MAC may have more Bowl Games in 2006

For the past five years, the MAC has had two bowl options, the GMAC Bowl in Mobile, Alabama, and the Motor City Bowl in Detroit. For 2006, that may change for the better. Three new applications will be presented for bowl certification approval later this month

http://www.vandelaysports.com/football/mac..._bowl_2006.html

LoveMG · April 13, 2006

the sunbelt is losing more ground to other conferences. we need out and should have joinrd the wac.

untbowler · April 13, 2006

the sunbelt is losing more ground to other conferences. we need out and should have joinrd the wac.
←

Why move to the WAC? So we have the luxury of traveling further to lose.

We need to take care of our own backyard before we even think of going anywhere else. That means we need to be in the Top 3rd of the Belt in a majority of the sports. Right now we are a mid-low Sun Belt School in terms of Overall Athletics.

*Flame On*

Edited April 13, 2006 by untbowler

LoveMG · April 13, 2006

We need to take care of our own backyard before we even think of going anywhere else. That means we need to be in the Top 3rd of the Belt in a majority of the sports. Right now we are a mid-low Sun Belt School in terms of Overall Athletics.
*Flame On*
←

with that thinking we woulfd still be in the southland and never moved up. ask any fan about the wac vs sunbelt image.

Baby Arm! · April 13, 2006

Ive said it before, I'll say it again. The WAC is not a move up. This ain't your daddy's WAC, Look at the membership....Today's WAC is nothing more than the Big West II Been there, done that! No Thanks.

buff64 · April 13, 2006

Ive said it before, I'll say it again. The WAC is not a move up. This ain't your daddy's WAC, Look at the membership....Today's WAC is nothing more than the Big West II Been there, done that! No Thanks.
←

Amen

statefanatic · April 14, 2006

New Mexico st.

Utah st.

Idaho

these are old Sun Belt teams that team still in the Sun Belt beat. they have low attendance and are ranked lower than any Sun Belt team.

San Jose st. may lose its football program if it doesn't start winning games real soon.

Hawaii

who wants to spend the money to travel to hawaii every other year.

LA Tech

Nevada

one step above sun belt teams

Boise st.

Fresno st.

two very good teams that will leave the WAC as soon as they get an offer from a BCS conf.

tell me what is so good about the WAC besides FRESNO AND BOISE. the rest of the teams are as low as the SUN BELT TEAMS.

MeanGreen61 · April 14, 2006

Personally I wish NMSU had stayed in the Sun Belt.

LoveMG · April 14, 2006

New Mexico st.
Utah st.
Idaho
these are old Sun Belt teams that team still in the Sun Belt beat. they have low attendance and are ranked lower than any Sun Belt team.
San Jose st. may lose its football program if it doesn't start winning games real soon.
Hawaii
who wants to spend the money to travel to hawaii every other year.
LA Tech
Nevada
one step above sun belt teams
Boise st.
Fresno st.
two very good teams that will leave the WAC as soon as they get an offer from a BCS conf.
tell me what is so good about the WAC besides FRESNO AND BOISE. the rest of the teams are as low as the SUN BELT TEAMS.
←

so name a sunbelt team worth it's weight in footballs

buff64 · April 14, 2006

Off the MAC board
MAC may have more Bowl Games in 2006
For the past five years, the MAC has had two bowl options, the GMAC Bowl in Mobile, Alabama, and the Motor City Bowl in Detroit. For 2006, that may change for the better. Three new applications will be presented for bowl certification approval later this month
http://www.vandelaysports.com/football/mac..._bowl_2006.html
←

We need to defeat Akron to establish UNT as a viable bowl opponent for the MAC.

meangreendork · April 14, 2006

The MAC is a better conference right now, period. This isn't a shock to me and it shouldn't surprise anyone else. And as for the WAC- last season proved to me that at least for last fall, our team was not at all prepared for SunBelt play, much less WAC.

Will it be different this year? I have a feeling about it.

NorthTexasFan · April 14, 2006

The MAC is a better conference right now, period. This isn't a shock to me and it shouldn't surprise anyone else. And as for the WAC- last season proved to me that at least for last fall, our team was not at all prepared for SunBelt play, much less WAC.
Will it be different this year? I have a feeling about it.
←

Agreed.

April 14, 2006

Tell me what is so good about the WAC besides FRESNO AND BOISE. the rest of the teams are as low as the SUN BELT TEAMS.
←

Three others are not. That would be Hawaii, Nevada and Louisiana Tech. We've never played Hawaii but Nevada and La Tech have beaten us badly. Over the last three years all have records over .500. Our record during that time is an even .500 (18-18). Troy is one game under .500 and we are the best, record wise, of all of the Sun Belt teams.

It is true, however, that their bottom four are worse than our weakest team. But, the three that came from the Belt are the reason because they are not up to the standards of the WAC. Utah State was able to beat San Jose State; the others were not.

The WAC is definitely stronger than the Sun Belt.

Lastly, why do we knock the old Big West Conference? Even if it had warts, it was a godsend for us at the time. I don't think that we could have made it as an independent. Maybe we have a bad taste because we were at the lower end of the standings. Or, because we weren't selected for the WAC?

Arkstfan · April 14, 2006

Three others are not. That would be Hawaii, Nevada and Louisiana Tech. We've never played Hawaii but Nevada and La Tech have beaten us badly. Over the last three years all have records over .500. Our record during that time is an even .500 (18-18). Troy is one game under .500 and we are the best, record wise, of all of the Sun Belt teams.
It is true, however, that their bottom four are worse than our weakest team. But, the three that came from the Belt are the reason because they are not up to the standards of the WAC. Utah State was able to beat San Jose State; the others were not.
The WAC is definitely stronger than the Sun Belt.
Lastly, why do we knock the old Big West Conference? Even if it had warts, it was a godsend for us at the time. I don't think that we could have made it as an independent. Maybe we have a bad taste because we were at the lower end of the standings. Or, because we weren't selected for the WAC?
←

You just become a UNT fan? UNT turned down a WAC offer as did ULL.

La.Tech makes more money in the WAC from revenue sharing than they would in the Sun Belt and that sounds really cool, until you hear the rest of the story. Their travel costs literally eat up that difference plus some. They've had two improvement projects on campus in athletics. A metal fence around the stadium and new backdrop for softball and neither happens but for fund-raising. Those of the sort of penny-ante projects that Belt schools fund out of the regular athletic budget.

VideoEagle · April 15, 2006

You just become a UNT fan? UNT turned down a WAC offer as did ULL.
La.Tech makes more money in the WAC from revenue sharing than they would in the Sun Belt and that sounds really cool, until you hear the rest of the story. Their travel costs literally eat up that difference plus some. They've had two improvement projects on campus in athletics. A metal fence around the stadium and new backdrop for softball and neither happens but for fund-raising. Those of the sort of penny-ante projects that Belt schools fund out of the regular athletic budget.
←

In fairness, GreyEagleOne has been a fan forever.

Anyone who still doubts NT is far better off in the SBC must not have read the Dallas Morning News from earlier this week. At the top of the sports section was a little blurb that read if you want to see the scores from either the Rangers or the Mavericks, go to the website as they were played on the West Cost and we won't print the scores till tomorrow. Now, according to the DMN, their "click through rate" is about 1%.

As for TV coverage, the local stations didn't even have anything about the games the next day as it was then "old news."

And those are pro teams, they aren't going to do that much for a mere college!

Hawaii has stated repeatedly their bowl is only for the University of Hawaii and will fold, just like the Silicon Valley Bowl, if Hawaii is not in it at least 2 out of every 3 years. The WAC's promise of a bowl for it's top two teams is getting much harder to keep, unless Hawaii is one of the top two teams every year.

The old Big West was our only choice, even if it was a bad choice. The Sunbelt is a much better fit for a team in the Central Time Zone.

statefanatic · April 15, 2006

so name a sunbelt team worth it's weight in footballs
←

you don't get the point. the WAC is falling apart. to much travel cost and not enough attendance at games. i wouldn't be suprised to see LA Tech wanting to come to the Sun Belt in a couple years. if any Sun Belt team wants to move on to another conf. i would pick Conf. USA. we are getting more competetive with each other and making the conf stronger as a whole. all we have to do is start winning OOC games. remember we are still a young conf.

shaft · April 15, 2006

The Big West was a failure, that's why it doesn't exist anymore.

The WAC is a horrible fit for North Texas.

Its spread out and full of unstable members. The WAC payouts are also skewed because the new members aren't recieving equal payments.

The SBC provides us a D1 home and is a place to stablize and grow.

LoveMG · April 15, 2006

you don't get the point. the WAC is falling apart. to much travel cost and not enough attendance at games. i wouldn't be suprised to see LA Tech wanting to come to the Sun Belt in a couple years. if any Sun Belt team wants to move on to another conf. i would pick Conf. USA. we are getting more competetive with each other and making the conf stronger as a whole. all we have to do is start winning OOC games. remember we are still a young conf.
←

i don't see the wac falling apart. it has ties with mwc and pac-10 and more bowls than the sbc will ever have. sbc teams are no better now than in 2001. i would take a wac invite just to get out and then into cusa later.

VideoEagle · April 15, 2006

i don't see the wac falling apart. it has ties with mwc and pac-10 and more bowls than the sbc will ever have. sbc teams are no better now than in 2001. i would take a wac invite just to get out and then into cusa later.
←

As has been repeatedly proven, going Wacy would kill football at NT. So, there would NEVER be a CUSA invite if we did something that stupid.

I suppose the WAC has "tie-ins" with the Pac-10 in the same vein as the SBC has "tie-ins" with the Big 12. The MWC has cut the number of bowls they will play with the WAC.

As for "more bowls than the SBC will ever have," they have two. One of the two has said it will fold unless Hawaii is the host team most years. After the 2004 season, the SBC also got two bowl bids.

Arkstfan · April 15, 2006

The WAC is fine despite La.Tech being in a position that is draining their budget and the oddity of Utah State, Idaho, and NMSU all seeing attendance drop this year.

If you look at the collapse of Idaho in the Sun Belt two big things stand out.

1. They hired the wrong coach.

2. During October and November when most games include a number of recruits in the stand Idaho's stands were pretty empty because they were losing AND they RARELY played a team from the Mountain or Pacific time zones at home in that period.

Idaho TV is Pac-10 dominate around UI. The Sun Belt schools coming in weren't showing up in scores around the Pac-10 on TV.Those names are only uttered when UI played them.

Now in our natural territory the TV is depending on market either SEC, ACC, or Big 12 dominate. The same people we play so many of our non-conference games against.

Now for years La.Tech was assured visits to Tulsa, Dallas and Houston. The latter two, vital to their recruiting lifeblood. That assurance is gone except for the non-conference scheduling of UNT.

They no longer play road games in their recruiting base, their conference opponents are now less visible in their TV market in their non-conference scheduling, and the travel costs now exceed league revenue by a wide margin and if they get really lucky the scores of some of their road games no longer appear in Sunday's paper.

Much better than being in the Sun Belt.

shaft · April 15, 2006

The WAC is fine? There's a 25 page thread on Collegefootballnews.com that says otherwise. The WAC is the most unstable of all D1 conferences.

Does the MAC adding a bowl, give them a one up on the SBC? Yes.

Are the SBC programs better off now than in 2000? Yes.

Is it possible for SBC to pass the MAC? Yes. Sure NT had a down year in 2005, but the rest of the conference made some strides, less MTSU.

April 15, 2006

As has been repeatedly proven, going Wacy would kill football at NT. So, there would NEVER be a CUSA invite if we did something that stupid.
I suppose the WAC has "tie-ins" with the Pac-10 in the same vein as the SBC has "tie-ins" with the Big 12. The MWC has cut the number of bowls they will play with the WAC.
As for "more bowls than the SBC will ever have," they have two. One of the two has said it will fold unless Hawaii is the host team most years. After the 2004 season, the SBC also got two bowl bids.
←

I must have missed where it was repeatedly proven that joining the WAC would kill football at NT. It wouldn't be the WAC per se but the level of competition that might hurt us.

As for CUSA not inviting us from the WAC, how do you account for them taking UTEP, SMU, Tulsa and Rice? Compare that with ZERO from the Belt.

I agree about not understanding any tie-ins between the WAC and the Pac-10 but the new proposed bowl in Albuquerque will be between representatives from the WAC and the Mountain West. That will be the third bowl tie-in for the WAC, who has one more member than the Sun Belt. The SBC may add a second bowl but I can't see it going any higher than that unless we went to 12 teams and had better attendance.

Having said all that, I am still not advocating a jump to the WAC. Besides, we've already made that decision although it was based on single membership. I would not want to consider membership without Louisiana (Lafayette) AND Arkansas State. The WAC would be a step up, however.

GreenEddieNT · April 15, 2006

I must have missed where it was repeatedly proven that joining the WAC would kill football at NT. It wouldn't be the WAC per se but the level of competition that might hurt us.
As for CUSA not inviting us from the WAC, how do you account for them taking UTEP, SMU, Tulsa and Rice? Compare that with ZERO from the Belt.
I agree about not understanding any tie-ins between the WAC and the Pac-10 but the new proposed bowl in Albuquerque will be between representatives from the WAC and the Mountain West. That will be the third bowl tie-in for the WAC, who has one more member than the Sun Belt. The SBC may add a second bowl but I can't see it going any higher than that unless we went to 12 teams and had better attendance.
Having said all that, I am still not advocating a jump to the WAC. Besides, we've already made that decision although it was based on single membership. I would not want to consider membership without Louisiana (Lafayette) AND Arkansas State. The WAC would be a step up, however.
←

Actually, it is 5 teams from the WAC that have gone to CUSA(Rice, Tulsa, SMU, UTEP, and TCU). If the historical trends hold up it means that NMSU and Louisiana Tech are more likely to be invited than anyone from the Sun Belt. Clearly, the road to CUSA goes through the WAC.

Edited April 15, 2006 by GreenEddieNT

VideoEagle · April 15, 2006

I must have missed where it was repeatedly proven that joining the WAC would kill football at NT. It wouldn't be the WAC per se but the level of competition that might hurt us.
As for CUSA not inviting us from the WAC, how do you account for them taking UTEP, SMU, Tulsa and Rice? Compare that with ZERO from the Belt.
I agree about not understanding any tie-ins between the WAC and the Pac-10 but the new proposed bowl in Albuquerque will be between representatives from the WAC and the Mountain West. That will be the third bowl tie-in for the WAC, who has one more member than the Sun Belt. The SBC may add a second bowl but I can't see it going any higher than that unless we went to 12 teams and had better attendance.
Having said all that, I am still not advocating a jump to the WAC. Besides, we've already made that decision although it was based on single membership. I would not want to consider membership without Louisiana (Lafayette) AND Arkansas State. The WAC would be a step up, however.
←

What would kill football is not the level of competition of being WACy. It would be MUCH higher travel costs, MUCH less publicity and realistic access to only one bowl in Boise, Idaho. All of those negative would combine to hurt if not kill any chances of a CUSA invite. And all of those negative are well documented from lwhen we turned down the WAC.

The latest on the Albuquerque Bowl is being effected by the potential folding of the Houston Bowl. If Houston doesn't come up with the cash to pay the teams from last year, they are going to be suspended by the NCAA. If Houston goes way, look for Albuquerque to become a Big 12-MWC bowl.

And while some of the are pretty WACy, the schools there now are solidly against trying an Eastern Wac again.

We are much better off trying to build up the Sunbelt than going WACy.

Arkstfan · April 15, 2006

Wrong cause and effect.

CUSA expansion.

Most recent:

UTEP: Smaller market, great fan support, only credible basketball candidate in the expansion pool.

Next most recent:

Rice: Large market private school great baseball not much else.

SMU: Large market private school, little success in key sports.

Tulsa: Moderate market recent national hoop success, football emerging.

UCF: Large market school on eastern edge of league.

Marshall: Small market school with recent national success in form of poll ratings and bowl victories.

Prior exapansion:

TCU: Large market private school on clear upward football trend.

Army: Nationally recognized.

If you look at the types of schools CUSA has typically added, which schools in the Belt look like them?

National basketball presence? None.

National presence in football? None.

Large market? UNT but offset by the fact CUSA already had a presence in the market and added teams closer to the model by being private.

Remember CUSA has three dynamics at play.

1. The private school elitism. Tulane's president is a strong force in the league bolstered by his anti-BCS campaign. There was never any question that he was going to fight to get SMU, Tulsa, and Rice nor was it any secret that he was prepared to at least talk to the WAC about membership and led many to think that if push came to shove he could Houston to come with him if had been able to do that, CUSA would have lost all its units and they would have gone to the schools that earned them, namely Louisville, Cincinnati, and Marquette for the most part. And folks wonder why TCU was so ready to get out. They were fed up and didn't like being held hostage.

2. Football priority schools. USM, UCF, Marshall, and ECU are schools that basically have basketball because they have to have it. Only one is large market while the rest have solid fan bases for football.

3. Balanced schools. UTEP, Houston, Memphis, UAB. The four schools that consider basketball important. Of the four if push came to shove Memphis, UAB and maybe even UTEP would throw their resources into hoops if forced to choose.

To get in, you've got to get 2 of those three groups behind you and grab at least one vote out of the third group.

UNT starts out with the privates unlikely to support and the four "balanced" schools unlikely to support.

UNT's problem getting in wasn't the Sun Belt it was that you aren't private and play crappy basketball. Where were the votes going to come from?