Benson Says Nt Still Has Standing Invite

[MeanGreen61]

Post by Jediwarrior in a Big East expansion thread on the WAC board. If true, wierd that Benson keeps bringing up North Texas. Jedi doesn't seem to be too happy with Benson's alledged comment

Don't know.

The great visionary, Karl Benson said during a Hawaii interview yesterday that...North Texas has a standing invitation to join the WAC.

Just awesome..

Scroll down

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=451&f=2368&t=2645016

Edited July 4, 2008 by MeanGreen61

[NT80]

Can we bring four friends with us? If so, let's talk.

[MDH]

I don't know...a WAC that adds UNT means they've lost at least Fresno and Boise which then leaves a marginally better conference than SBC and has us playing teams even farther away.

New SWC FTW!!!

Edited July 4, 2008 by mdh0192

[NT80]

Post July 1, 2008

Montana Grizzlies

There’s been talk off and on about the WAC expanding, especially for basketball. In the Missoulian today, there’s talk about the WAC looking at Montana as a possible full-membership addition.

Commissioner Karl Benson sees good things in Montana.

“History shows that there is migration from the Big Sky to the WAC,” Benson said on Thursday. “And when you look at the Western landscape, except for the Pac-10, which hasn’t changed since 1978, there has been significant change in the football landscape.”

It’s also interesting to learn that the WAC extended an invitation to North Texas once upon a time.

“We did extend an invitation to North Texas, and they declined,” Benson said.

For the record, Benson has said having 10 teams in the WAC is better than nine.

Montana does have a tradition of producing eventual Division I coaches, is highly successful in their football division, and basically owns the state of Montana with their sports programs, but is that really the direction the WAC should be going if they are looking to expand? If the WAC is dedicated to keeping Lousiana Tech in its conference, shouldn’t it look to a school geographically closer to the Bulldogs to make travel easier?

Perhaps Karl Benson sees the writing on the wall that either Boise State or Hawai’i will be leaving the conference eventually and needs to explore his options for replacements.

Incidentally, Montana would not be eligible until the 2011-2012 season when schools in lower divisions can move up. If anything were to happen, it would be a few years out and Benson might not be the conference commissioner anymore anyway.

Don’t be surprised if you start seeing Montana scheduled by WAC schools more and more as the Grizzlies may be auditioning for full-fledged membership.

-Eric

P.S. Montana is currently undergoing a stadium expansion…improving their seating capacity for the third time in 12 years to approximately 25,000 seats. Their community has a strong history of supporting this program and they regularly sell out.

................................

Sidenote: This mentioned invite was back in 2005 after the WAC had accepted NMSU and USU; the last spot came down to Idaho when UNT declined. Have not been able to locate a quote from him on any standing invite to UNT and as this article implies other schools may be on their hunt list too. July 2008 is the 10-year anniversary of the WAC breakup to form the MWC. Many Denver and other papers have stories with Benson quotes about current and future WAC plans.

Edited July 4, 2008 by NT80

[mean green d]

Post July 1, 2008

Montana Grizzlies

There’s been talk off and on about the WAC expanding, especially for basketball. In the Missoulian today, there’s talk about the WAC looking at Montana as a possible full-membership addition.

Commissioner Karl Benson sees good things in Montana.

“History shows that there is migration from the Big Sky to the WAC,” Benson said on Thursday. “And when you look at the Western landscape, except for the Pac-10, which hasn’t changed since 1978, there has been significant change in the football landscape.”

It’s also interesting to learn that the WAC extended an invitation to North Texas once upon a time.

“We did extend an invitation to North Texas, and they declined,” Benson said.

For the record, Benson has said having 10 teams in the WAC is better than nine.

Montana does have a tradition of producing eventual Division I coaches, is highly successful in their football division, and basically owns the state of Montana with their sports programs, but is that really the direction the WAC should be going if they are looking to expand? If the WAC is dedicated to keeping Lousiana Tech in its conference, shouldn’t it look to a school geographically closer to the Bulldogs to make travel easier?

Perhaps Karl Benson sees the writing on the wall that either Boise State or Hawai’i will be leaving the conference eventually and needs to explore his options for replacements.

Incidentally, Montana would not be eligible until the 2011-2012 season when schools in lower divisions can move up. If anything were to happen, it would be a few years out and Benson might not be the conference commissioner anymore anyway.

Don’t be surprised if you start seeing Montana scheduled by WAC schools more and more as the Grizzlies may be auditioning for full-fledged membership.

-Eric

P.S. Montana is currently undergoing a stadium expansion…improving their seating capacity for the third time in 12 years to approximately 25,000 seats. Their community has a strong history of supporting this program and they regularly sell out.

................................

Sidenote: This mentioned invite was back in 2005 after the WAC had accepted NMSU and USU; the last spot came down to Idaho when UNT declined. Have not been able to locate a quote from him on any standing invite to UNT and as this article implies other schools may be on their hunt list too. July 2008 is the 10-year anniversary of the WAC breakup to form the MWC. Many Denver and other papers have stories with Benson quotes about current and future WAC plans.

I say if the chance arises for UNT again to take it. What do you say?

GMG

[filmerj]

I like the idea of being able to go to away games, I don't know about you guys, but it's getting harder and harder to travel. I just don't think the wac is a good fit geographically.

Edited July 5, 2008 by filmerj

[NT80]

I like the idea of being able to go to away games, I don't know about you guys, but it's getting harder and harder to travel. I just don't think the wac is a good fit geographically.

Geography and team expense for travel will become even more of an issue with any expansion as fuel prices rise. The problem for UNT is currently we're on the far western edge of the SBC and the far eastern edge of the WAC. W-CUSA or the Big 12 is better suited to us geographically. The only realistic way to make the WAC work for us is for them to go to divisions (like CUSA) and include us with NMSU and La Tech then also add ASU, ULL, and ULM, or another filler.

[MeanGreen61]

The Mean Green dilemma

1. In the Sun Belt & many fans wanta be somewhere else.

2. CUSA doesn't want us & we'd really like to be there.

3. WAC (rated higher than CUSA) wants us & we won't say yes.

[Arkstfan]

Considering that since UNT rejected the WAC (in great part influenced by documents from Louisiana showing what La.Tech was having to spend and was bring in for revenue) I cannot imagine the answer would change.

Since that time the cost of fuel has doubled. Airlines have created baggage fees (try moving an athletic team without carrying extra equipment). The number of flights have been cut making it harder to get an entire team on one flight.

But also since that time, the Sun Belt's share of BCS revenue has increased and NCAA money has increased and one long road trip will be going away.

[Guest GrayEagleOne]

Post July 1, 2008

Montana Grizzlies

There’s been talk off and on about the WAC expanding, especially for basketball. In the Missoulian today, there’s talk about the WAC looking at Montana as a possible full-membership addition.

Commissioner Karl Benson sees good things in Montana.

“History shows that there is migration from the Big Sky to the WAC,” Benson said on Thursday. “And when you look at the Western landscape, except for the Pac-10, which hasn’t changed since 1978, there has been significant change in the football landscape.”

It’s also interesting to learn that the WAC extended an invitation to North Texas once upon a time.

“We did extend an invitation to North Texas, and they declined,” Benson said.

For the record, Benson has said having 10 teams in the WAC is better than nine.

Montana does have a tradition of producing eventual Division I coaches, is highly successful in their football division, and basically owns the state of Montana with their sports programs, but is that really the direction the WAC should be going if they are looking to expand? If the WAC is dedicated to keeping Lousiana Tech in its conference, shouldn’t it look to a school geographically closer to the Bulldogs to make travel easier?

Perhaps Karl Benson sees the writing on the wall that either Boise State or Hawai’i will be leaving the conference eventually and needs to explore his options for replacements.

Incidentally, Montana would not be eligible until the 2011-2012 season when schools in lower divisions can move up. If anything were to happen, it would be a few years out and Benson might not be the conference commissioner anymore anyway.

Don’t be surprised if you start seeing Montana scheduled by WAC schools more and more as the Grizzlies may be auditioning for full-fledged membership.

-Eric

P.S. Montana is currently undergoing a stadium expansion…improving their seating capacity for the third time in 12 years to approximately 25,000 seats. Their community has a strong history of supporting this program and they regularly sell out.

................................

Sidenote: This mentioned invite was back in 2005 after the WAC had accepted NMSU and USU; the last spot came down to Idaho when UNT declined. Have not been able to locate a quote from him on any standing invite to UNT and as this article implies other schools may be on their hunt list too. July 2008 is the 10-year anniversary of the WAC breakup to form the MWC. Many Denver and other papers have stories with Benson quotes about current and future WAC plans.

Without question Montana would be a good addition to the WAC but I believe that there is a problem with them. If I'm not mistakened, the Montana legislature made it manditory that Montana could not go to a new conference without Montana State.

In years past that would have negated any deal because Montana State was averaging a little under 10,000 attendance and were not very competitive on the field. Recently, however, MSU has raised their attendance to near the 15,000 mark, field a more competitive team, and they might be a more attractive package.

A ten team conference works well for scheduling (all are involved in conference games on a given week) but only the Big 10 has seemed to carry on for years with an eleven team league.

If the WAC can grab up just Montana, they should do it post haste. They would become fourth in the WAC in attendance and should be in the upper half in strength.

I still like the WAC because it is a stronger conference but only in a 12-team conference with two more being within a few hundred mile radius of Denton. The SBC will become a much better conference in time (if they can get financial support from each institution) but that will take years to establish.

[UNTFan23]

But also since that time, the Sun Belt's share of BCS revenue has increased and NCAA money has increased and one long road trip will be going away.

Elaborate please.

[ADLER]

Elaborate please.

The Sun Belt has given Denver clearance to locate a new more suitable western conference home and a timetable to which their Sun Belt affiliation will end.

It's best for both parties.

[johnnylightnin]

Considering that since UNT rejected the WAC (in great part influenced by documents from Louisiana showing what La.Tech was having to spend and was bring in for revenue) I cannot imagine the answer would change.

According to the most recent numbers, if you compare travel costs v/s conference pay-out, Tech finished ahead of ULL. Those costs would go even further down if Tech had a real travel partner (UNT). Also, UNT's travel costs would be less than Tech's as they don't have to travel as far to get to a real airport.

[MDH]

Maybe they told us we had to have a new stadium built, pledged $ in place by X date. Not like La Tech, USU or NMSU have great stadiums but they all top Fouts for sure

[MeanGreen61]

UNT gets fair amount of mention in this Boise State thread.

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=336&f=2246&t=2643841

[Travis]

Maybe they told us we had to have a new stadium built, pledged $ in place by X date. Not like La Tech, USU or NMSU have great stadiums but they all top Fouts for sure

Apparently you have never been to Ruston... I can assure you our stadium is better than La Tech's.

Edited July 5, 2008 by Travis

[UNT_playmaker]

Apparently you have never been to Ruston... I can assure you our stadium is better than La Tech's.

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictu...oe_aillet.shtml

It still looks better than Fouts.

No track and better view of the action on the field, not the sidelines

[MDH]

I agree with UNT playmaker. Haven't been but watched many times when Fresno St. is there. +100 for not having a track

[Travis]

I have been there and it made me thankful for fouts. Better sightlines... maybe... but that is all it has.

i think if you were there you would agree with me.

[greenminer]

Apparently you have never been to Ruston... I can assure you our stadium is better than La Tech's.

You mean to tell us that you've seen both of these in person and still think Fouts is better? I want to know your criteria for stadium experience...

[Travis]

You mean to tell us that you've seen both of these in person and still think Fouts is better? I want to know your criteria for stadium experience...

I like how you throw in a stadium in there from shreveport in addition to the others in ruston to make it look like that is what the stadium looks like on the outside.

Stadium experience sucked at la tech... and unt's was better. Their concessions, ticket booths, bathrooms, scoreboard, facilities, locker room, etc.. was weaker. It ifeels just like a tin can.

I didn't like it and i thought fouts game-day experience was better.

Edited July 5, 2008 by Travis

[johnnylightnin]

How'd you get into the locker room travis? Anyway, there have been quite a few changes since you visited in 2005. Brand new field-turf (this year) and complete locker-room renovation. Scoreboard is on the way for 2009 with rumors of luxury suites. This Dooley guy knows what he's doing.

[Travis]

How'd you get into the locker room travis? Anyway, there have been quite a few changes since you visited in 2005. Brand new field-turf (this year) and complete locker-room renovation. Scoreboard is on the way for 2009 with rumors of luxury suites. This Dooley guy knows what he's doing.

that is good to hear. i wasn't impressed so much back in '06 when I was last there. the place does have better sight lines...

I do want to schedule more home and homes with la tech because of proximity... just a little over a 3 hour drive...

[MeanGreen61]

that is good to hear. i wasn't impressed so much back in '06 when I was last there. the place does have better sight lines...

I do want to schedule more home and homes with la tech because of proximity... just a little over a 3 hour drive...

There's really not a lot to gain by scheduling OC games with Tech. We don't recruit there & already go to the area every other year to play ULM. Rather see us schedule Houston to go along with Rice & Tulsa.

[MDH]

He didn't throw in a picture from Shreveport...he actually threw one in from Boise. That pic was coming up when I google imaged La Techs..not sure how. That's definitiely Bronco Stadium though! (below for clarification)

For the record, the track @ Boise RUINS their stadium

Edited July 5, 2008 by mdh0192