How Many Think It Is Time To Revisit The Idea Of The Wac?

[GreenEddieNT]

Oops let me clarify what I meant to say. "Build the Belt" meaning adding teams to the sunbelt. Adding two CUSA texas teams gives 3 teams in TX. I dont think that 3 will be too many. For a state this big it will probably have benefits.

On the 2nd option (when we go to CUSA) we are swapping UNT for UTEP. The number of TX teams stays the same.

CUSA would never throw out UTEP. For a school not in the BCS leagues they have tremendous facilities and fan support in the 2 major sports. I do however see UTEP bolting to a 14-team MWC along with Fresno State, Boise State, Hawaii, and Nevada from the WAC which would essentially accomplish the same task of opening up a spot in CUSA.

[GreenEddieNT]

The WAC would be a terrible idea. And I LIVE in the West. Every year the SBC gets better. We had a winning record against CUSA this season. Their would be little more interest in any WAC opponents in DFW than SBC opponents(sans BSU). TCU didn't draw particularly well in the WAC from what I recall.

TCU doesn't draw particularly well anywhere but I do agree that going to the WAC won't be a good idea because I don't see the WAC lasting more than 5-10 years before the MWC raids it into extinction.

[El Paso Eagle]

CUSA would never throw out UTEP. For a school not in the BCS leagues they have tremendous facilities and fan support in the 2 major sports. I do however see UTEP bolting to a 14-team MWC along with Fresno State, Boise State, Hawaii, and Nevada from the WAC which would essentially accomplish the same task of opening up a spot in CUSA.

The only way UTEP leaves C-USA is for a move to the MWC. That being said, while there are a lot that would love it there are also a lot of influential people that still hold a grudge for the way the MWC teams broke away from the WAC and the “slap in the face” that many felt UTEP received from a lot of schools that thought were “Old Friends”.

[Guest GrayEagleOne]

I was an advocate of joining the WAC but only under certain conditions. The main condition was to combine the 12 best teams (with the best attendance as well) into one conference, Division play would have greatly reduced the travel costs and the rewards would have been even greater.

The 12 teams that I wanted were Hawaii, Boise State, Fresno State, Nevada, Utah State and San Jose State OR Idaho in the West and New Mexico State, North Texas, Louisiana (Lafayette), Arkansas State, Louisiana Tech and Troy in the East. At the time that would've meant that Middle would have joined the MAC and Idaho/ULM reverted to 1-AA. One sticking point was that either Benson or Waters would have been eliminated as a commissioner. So it was turned down.

The SBC then goes and gets Florida Atlantic and eventually gets members Florida International and Western Kentucky to advance to 1-A football and the scenery changes considerably. Instead of three teams cut loose there would now be six and that is truly an unacceptable position.

Yes, the WAC would be an advancement. In football, Boise State is at the pinnacle. Hawaii had a great year. Fresno State has been well regarded and should return to at least the Top 50. Nevada after a hiccup at the coaching slot is on it's way back. San Jose State is another that has had a wakeup call. New Mexico State is trying and I believe will eventually gain strength, much as UTEP did. Idaho is a huge question mark as is Utah State. LaTech has never been very weak but I don't see improvement with its new coach. As the weaker teams improve the conference will become even stronger, largely because of Boise.

The Belt is still #11 but is getting stronger. Troy is getting some national acclaim and Middle Tennessee and Arkansas State are becoming pretty solid. ULL is having trouble getting it done, though and ULM is pesky but I question that they'll ever be a Top 60 (in the upper half) program. Ditto for the Floridas. We won't know about WKU until they've had a few years with a 1-A program.

This is a long-winded way of saying that the WAC is a stronger conference that could offer greater rewards (along with greater risks) but it's too late now. I'm afraid that the ship has sailed.

[UNTLifer]

All of you that want to go to the WAC, drop by the La Tech board and ask them how it has worked out for the athletic department financially.

[ltudchi72]

In the 2004- 2005 school year, the Louisiana Legislature Audit showed the Tech spent a total of $300,000 more that ULL in travel costs. That cost includes a trip for the football team to Hawaii.

Just an FYI

[ColoradoEagle]

For 2005-2006, Louisiana Tech received $892,091 more in conference revenue than UL-Lafayette did.

[MeanGreen61]

In the 2004- 2005 school year, the Louisiana Legislature Audit showed the Tech spent a total of $300,000 more that ULL in travel costs. That cost includes a trip for the football team to Hawaii.

Just an FYI

There was still an EWAC then. Haven't seen any travel figures released with Tech's actual travel cost with their closest conference member being NMSU. Also how about the road trips for "other" sports. Didn't Tech fans have to take up a collection so the tennis team could play a tournament in El Paso ?

Edited January 14, 2007 by MeanGreen61

[UNTflyer]

The WAC will mean road games in California, Oregon, Idaho, Washington, and Hawaii.

I like being able to travel to road games.

[GreenBat]

But most fans would not be able to make road trips.

[ltudchi72]

There was still an EWAC then. Haven't seen any travel figures released with Tech's actual travel cost with their closest conference member being NMSU. Also how about the road trips for "other" sports. Didn't Tech fans have to take up a collection so the tennis team could play a tournament in El Paso ?

These numbers include the "other" sports. This is a comparision of all travel. It also include trips to Auburn, Miami and Tennessee for football.

I do not know about the Tennis team and thier trip to El Paso. I cannot even tell you if they played in El Paso that year or not.

[foutsrouts]

I was an advocate of joining the WAC but only under certain conditions. The main condition was to combine the 12 best teams (with the best attendance as well) into one conference, Division play would have greatly reduced the travel costs and the rewards would have been even greater.

The 12 teams that I wanted were Hawaii, Boise State, Fresno State, Nevada, Utah State and San Jose State OR Idaho in the West and New Mexico State, North Texas, Louisiana (Lafayette), Arkansas State, Louisiana Tech and Troy in the East. At the time that would've meant that Middle would have joined the MAC and Idaho/ULM reverted to 1-AA. One sticking point was that either Benson or Waters would have been eliminated as a commissioner. So it was turned down.

The SBC then goes and gets Florida Atlantic and eventually gets members Florida International and Western Kentucky to advance to 1-A football and the scenery changes considerably. Instead of three teams cut loose there would now be six and that is truly an unacceptable position.

Yes, the WAC would be an advancement. In football, Boise State is at the pinnacle. Hawaii had a great year. Fresno State has been well regarded and should return to at least the Top 50. Nevada after a hiccup at the coaching slot is on it's way back. San Jose State is another that has had a wakeup call. New Mexico State is trying and I believe will eventually gain strength, much as UTEP did. Idaho is a huge question mark as is Utah State. LaTech has never been very weak but I don't see improvement with its new coach. As the weaker teams improve the conference will become even stronger, largely because of Boise.

The Belt is still #11 but is getting stronger. Troy is getting some national acclaim and Middle Tennessee and Arkansas State are becoming pretty solid. ULL is having trouble getting it done, though and ULM is pesky but I question that they'll ever be a Top 60 (in the upper half) program. Ditto for the Floridas. We won't know about WKU until they've had a few years with a 1-A program.

This is a long-winded way of saying that the WAC is a stronger conference that could offer greater rewards (along with greater risks) but it's too late now. I'm afraid that the ship has sailed.

Perfect post GrayeagleOne. Everything you say is true. Case closed.

[Guest Aquila_Viridis]

The WAC does not offer enough benefits to justify the downsides. Now the MWC on the other hand...

[LongJim]

NO.

WAC = Kiss of death.

Build the Belt, and the program, and bide your time.

[LoveMG]

NO.

WAC = Kiss of death.

Build the Belt, and the program, and bide your time.

wac = respect. why not bide our time there? does not have to be for 20 years.

[UNTFan23]

Weren't there a couple games for LaTech where kick off was at 11pm Central time?

[ltudchi72]

Weren't there a couple games for LaTech where kick off was at 11pm Central time?

Our Hawaii game kicked off at 10pm CST.

Boise was at 7pm and SJSU was at 5pm Central time.

In 2005 our latest kickoff was at 8pm in Fresno.

Edited January 14, 2007 by ltudchi72

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

wac = respect. why not bide our time there? does not have to be for 20 years.

Disagree -- maybe at one time with the UTEP basketball and track program and when BYU and Colorado State and others were members but not any more. Boise and Hawaii are the only teams getting any attention now.... and there is no guarantee that it will last.

The WAC has one rated basketball team ( Nevada) at the moment, CUSA also has one,( Memphis). I am so old I remember North Texas being in the Missouri Valley in the 60's and at Christmas of my senior year 5* of the top 10 [ rankings only went to 10 then ] were MVC members and on our schedule, twice each.

*Louisville, Wichita State, Cincinnati, Bradley, and Drake?.

[MeanGreen61]

Remember that in '04 the EWAC still existed. '05 is the new WAC with NMSU being Tech's closest conference mate.

Here's some travel figures from another board for Tech

'04 - $1,175,000

'05 - $1,600,000 (no Hawaii trip)

Edited January 18, 2007 by MeanGreen61

[Daddy Dumpsalot]

NO.

WAC = Kiss of death.

Build the Belt, and the program, and bide your time.

Who on earth would want to stay in the crummy SBC? The teams suck the school suck the sports suck.

None of our fans want to go to a game where they play some school that they have never heard of. You all are complaining about the cost of traveling. What about the cost of a dying football program where they have to give out free shirts so people will come to the games because otherwise no one will come we play a bunch of no namers?

When we play teams that people have heard of like SMU, La Tech, and Tulsa people actually come to the games. When we play La Monroe no one comes and they aren't going to start now.

Proof, my first year at UNT we dominated our conference. We blew out Baylor that year. BUT we still had problems getting fans and when you asked why people didnt come, they said it was because there was no competition. Well now the tables have turned and we aren't any good and now people dont want to come because we suck. BUT they do come when we play teams that people have heard of and what does that mean...more money.

Lets get out of this sinking ship as soon as we can. No use drowning.

My vote CUSA, WAC, MWC here we come....

[Travis]

Who on earth would want to stay in the crummy SBC? The teams suck the school suck the sports suck.

None of our fans want to go to a game where they play some school that they have never heard of. You all are complaining about the cost of traveling. What about the cost of a dying football program where they have to give out free shirts so people will come to the games because otherwise no one will come we play a bunch of no namers?

When we play teams that people have heard of like SMU, La Tech, and Tulsa people actually come to the games. When we play La Monroe no one comes and they aren't going to start now.

Proof, my first year at UNT we dominated our conference. We blew out Baylor that year. BUT we still had problems getting fans and when you asked why people didnt come, they said it was because there was no competition. Well now the tables have turned and we aren't any good and now people dont want to come because we suck. BUT they do come when we play teams that people have heard of and what does that mean...more money.

Lets get out of this sinking ship as soon as we can. No use drowning.

My vote CUSA, WAC, MWC here we come....

First of all, it is really hard to dye a football program. And I don't like the idea of our unis looking tie-dye-ish.

Second of all, two of those teams SMU and Tulsa aren't even in the WAC (they are in CUSA). There is no point in being in that WACked out conference because the benefits don't even come close to the expense. All we would have is La Tech to travel with. And outside of Boise St and FresnoI dont care too much about the schools there either.

[greenminer]

Who on earth would want to stay in the crummy SBC? The teams suck the school suck the sports suck.

You're love of UNT and our affiliate is beaming. I love your attitude. Is your dad from SMU? I think he just dumped something in this thread.

None of our fans want to go to a game where they play some school that they have never heard of. You all are complaining about the cost of traveling. What about the cost of a dying football program where they have to give out free shirts so people will come to the games because otherwise no one will come we play a bunch of no namers?

I've been to many football and bball games in MANY different venues. I don't recall - do you? - even one that DOESN'T give away shirts. Don't put the attendance spin on promotions. It is my experience that UNT athletics does some wonderful things with promotions. Fee free to disagree. But not with tie-dye.

When we play teams that people have heard of like SMU, La Tech, and Tulsa people actually come to the games. When we play La Monroe no one comes and they aren't going to start now.

Proof, my first year at UNT we dominated our conference. We blew out Baylor that year. BUT we still had problems getting fans and when you asked why people didnt come, they said it was because there was no competition. Well now the tables have turned and we aren't any good and now people dont want to come because we suck. BUT they do come when we play teams that people have heard of and what does that mean...more money.

Hard to argue. But we always had some attendance problems, even when we dominated (did we even dominate? we blew out Baylor and ArkSt, but other than we basically squeaked by with hard defense and a ball-control offense). The counter-argument is a GREAT 2002 NMSU/Sun Belt championship game. Seems to me that if something is on the line, even a conference championship for this "sinking ship" Sun Belt, the fans will come. I think that's something to build on.

Edited January 18, 2007 by greenminer

[Daddy Dumpsalot]

First of all, it is really hard to dye a football program. And I don't like the idea of our unis looking tie-dye-ish.

Second of all, two of those teams SMU and Tulsa aren't even in the WAC (they are in CUSA). There is no point in being in that WACked out conference because the benefits don't even come close to the expense. All we would have is La Tech to travel with. And outside of Boise St and FresnoI dont care too much about the schools there either.

die1 /daɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dahy] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–verb (used without object), died, dy·ing. 1. to cease to live; undergo the complete and permanent cessation of all vital functions; become dead.

Well regardless of what conference they are in, they sure arent in the Sun Butt Conference. And either way you look at it people show up to those games when we play those teams. I cant believe people somehow think that the SButtC is better than the WAC. Boise beat OU, Fresno st almost beat USC last year, Hawaii stomped Arizona St , San jose beat New mexico this bowl, Nevada almost beat Miami. These are schools that fans want to see NT play. Its a strong conference. So you say well those schools will be drafted up to bigger better conferences, what happens then? Well the schools that dominate the weaker conferences move up (UNT) so the conference doesnt move back down it keeps growing.

Benefits dont come close to the expenses, you have have no idea what the benefits will be and dont even know what he costs will be. I would certainly travel a little farther away to watch a MUCH better game against a MUCH better team in a MUCH better conference than go to a neighboring city to watch...all the opposite of above.

You may not care about the schools but how could you possibly care for ULM, ULL, FIU, FAU? Please...

[shaft]

One more reason the WAC is a bad idea:

The WAC doesn't have even payouts. The new schools won't get the same money that the existing schools get for another season or two. So not only to you have the increase travel cost you don't get the increase payout to cover them the first 3-4 seasons.

When the current round of uneven payouts end, LA Tech will be shopping for a new conference.

[Daddy Dumpsalot]

You're love of UNT and our affiliate is beaming. I love your attitude. Is your dad from SMU? I think he just dumped something in this thread.

What is there to beam about? That I am talking to people that just want to make the SBC better? How do we do that?? We are competeing against schools that have just become 1A. The SBC is a conference that you start in and QUICKLY move out of as soon as you can. not one you try to make the most of and just hope that it gets better, because it aint!

I've been to many football and bball games in MANY different venues. I don't recall - do you? - even one that DOESN'T give away shirts. Don't put the attendance spin on promotions. It is my experience that UNT athletics does some wonderful things with promotions. Fee free to disagree. But not with tie-dye.

No, I actually haven't. They are always doing something to get more fans at the games...and when does that happen?? When we play schools that mean something. Save the money on the free shirts and towels do something to boost the Football program. Why focus on the symptom when we should be focusing on the problem??

Hard to argue. But we always had some attendance problems, even when we dominated (did we even dominate? we blew out Baylor and ArkSt, but other than we basically squeaked by with hard defense and a ball-control offense). The counter-argument is a GREAT 2002 NMSU/Sun Belt championship game. Seems to me that if something is on the line, even a conference championship for this "sinking ship" Sun Belt, the fans will come. I think that's something to build on.

We have much more than an 'attendance problem', we have NO fan support and free t shirts will not solve that problem. Better games against better schools WILL.