E W A C Resurfacing On W A C Board

MeanGreen61 · July 14, 2009

Slow time, so EWAC is resurfacing on the WAC board. Deep Green's buddy HogDawg is leadin' the charge for an EWAC.

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=451&f=2368&t=4495775

UNTFan23 · July 15, 2009

Isn't it a little late to demand that the WAC not take in 3 no-name schools???

UNTflyer · July 15, 2009

This is the only way I would support a move to the WAC, but again given the moratorium on new FBS schools, I think a C-USA invite is more likely before the WAC proposes a UNT-TSU-UTSA invitation.

NT80 · July 15, 2009

First, I'm all for Denver going to a western conference, any conference.

Next, I doubt Utah St. would be in favor of being in a division that sends it to Texas and Louisiana for the majority of it's games.

As for UNT changing conferences, it depends on who's in and who's out. With La Tech and NMSU = good. With Tulsa, UH, Rice, Smut, UTEP = better. With UTSA and TSU = last choice, but better than with FIU, FAU et al.

July 15, 2009

What if the MWC wants to become an automatic qualifying by taking Boise State? Or maybe even adding Fresno State and Hawaii or Nevada? Where would the WAC be then? Answer...#11!

It's nice to be wanted but I'd rather hope for CUSA or a 'New Southwest Conference" (which would really cut travel expenses).

Before the Mountain West started making noises about being an auto-qualifying conference this would have been a move up. Now...it's just too volatile and we should just say no.

Edited July 15, 2009 by GrayEagleOne

Arkstfan · July 15, 2009

At a moment in time when the Sun Belt was having to rely on FAU and FIU moving their plans for I-A forward by a couple years and WKU was actively attempting to join the MAC, the WAC called UNT and then ULL and they were told then that if they wanted either they would have to take both not one of them and would also have to take ASU and MTSU to create a division with the four plus Tech and NMSU.

The WAC said no they would take one and if the one offered said no the other will leap at it and it didn't happen.

Since then, the BCS has created a new deal that started giving the Sun Belt an OK amount of money, and it will be replaced by a deal that will bump that money by about 40% next year.

The Sun Belt has started on the track to make more NCAA money than the WAC.

The Belt TV deal has increased and there will be more money and more exposure.

FAU has proven stable and has knocked off a BCS team and won two bowl games.

WKU has lost interest in the MAC and upgraded to FBS football.

USA has started on the path to FBS football.

Denver is on a firm timetable to leave.

When the WAC was interested in only one team, defection was a real threat because there was no assurance there would be a Sun Belt, at least for football. Now the Sun Belt is stronger and improving and there will suddenly be interest to defect?

Worse, the idea for pigdog is to take schools that have shown little commitment to excellence in athletics. USA has demonstrated for years that they are devoted to playing very good basketball and baseball. Where is that in UTSA or Texas State?

Serious disconnect with reality for some people.

Edited July 15, 2009 by Arkstfan

UNTLifer · July 15, 2009

Sure sign of the summer doldrums when this talk shows up.

July 15, 2009

Arkstfan, we're really not trying to badmouth the Sun Belt Conference. The league has done well in a short time. I believe that it has surpassed the MAC in both attendance and quality of teams. But, there are three things that the SBC probably won't ever be able to overcome for us and that's distance, newness, and team familiarity.

Only three of the soon-to-be nine conference football rivals are less than 500 miles from Denton. None are less than 300. This is a fairly expensive conference for travel. We need to keep an eye on the future for ways to bring in more revenue or reduce expenses. CUSA and E-WAC (except for Hawaii) both offer less travel costs than the SBC and the potential for more revenue.

The Sun Belt Conference (at least for football) is the newest FBS conference. It has the newest members. We are the oldest in terms of FBS equivalent membership at 44 years. Louisiana and ASU are the only other members with more than 25 years. None of the others have more than ten years and it goes down to less than a year. Newness usually equates to lesser known and the end of the line when money is distributed. All programs must start sometime; there's nothing wrong with that but I came from an era where you earned your spurs through longevity or being exceptionally good over a shorter period of time. The Sun Belt seems to have the teams that are dedicated to success and will prevail over time if they don't have to be the one taking all of the newbies. I am glad to see that the Belt's TV revenue share is increasing.

When the conference began playing football our fans were fairly familiar with most of our members. We had played New Mexico State more than thirty times and ASU, ULM, and Louisiana as well. Only MTSU was unknown. Today, although we've now played several times, our fans know little of Troy, Florida Atlantic, FIU, Western Kentucky or South Alabama. Most of the schools mentioned in the realignment blurbs are familiar. We have played SMU and Texas State more than thirty times and been in a conference with Houston, Tulsa, Memphis, NMSU and others. Many that have been mentioned are reasonably close and in a 12-team, 2 division conference, travel would still be less than the SBC and the teams are more familiar to us.

Arkstfan · July 15, 2009

My ire was at the posters on the WAC board who cannot accept the fact that at an instant in time when the Sun Belt was on the verge of collapse, UNT turned them down.

They believe that now despite the fact that the Sun Belt is closing the quality of play gap and the financial gap and is much more stable that UNT still would come a running.

The idea that the WAC members who rejected the idea of taking UNT, ULL, ASU, and MTSU as group would suddenly turn around and invite UNT and two programs that have never played a down of FBS football, one which hasn't played a down of any sort of football is simply ridiculous.

No one other than the infamous HogDawg would for a minute think that UNT would be better off with an annual schedule of:

Tech, UTSA, TexSt, Utah State, and NMSU, while rotating three of San Jose State, Idaho, Nevada, Hawaii, Boise, and Fresno every other year vs. a Sun Belt schedule.

That eastern division is the Southland on back of a comic book muscle pills. Even if UNT were interested, where is the benefit to the remainder of the WAC?

The Sun Belt bet its future on schools climbing up out of need, not want. The WAC isn't going to base its future on such schools out of want.

Now you can cut the math anyway you want, but there ain't going to be an EWAC like that. As for travel, people just don't grasp the distances out west. If you rode a bus from Ruston to New Mexico State and then took that bus to your next closest WAC school, the drive that school (Utah State) takes almost exactly the same amount of time as Ruston to Las Cruces.

There is simply no way Utah State supports an expansion that increases their travel that dramatically. Nevada is on record stating that they want any WAC expansion to focus on a team moving from I-AA to I-A.... in CALIFORNIA.

Of nine WAC members one and only one has any interest in Texas.

Chrisattsu · July 16, 2009

My ire was at the posters on the WAC board who cannot accept the fact that at an instant in time when the Sun Belt was on the verge of collapse, UNT turned them down.
They believe that now despite the fact that the Sun Belt is closing the quality of play gap and the financial gap and is much more stable that UNT still would come a running.
The idea that the WAC members who rejected the idea of taking UNT, ULL, ASU, and MTSU as group would suddenly turn around and invite UNT and two programs that have never played a down of FBS football, one which hasn't played a down of any sort of football is simply ridiculous.
No one other than the infamous HogDawg would for a minute think that UNT would be better off with an annual schedule of:
Tech, UTSA, TexSt, Utah State, and NMSU, while rotating three of San Jose State, Idaho, Nevada, Hawaii, Boise, and Fresno every other year vs. a Sun Belt schedule.
That eastern division is the Southland on back of a comic book muscle pills. Even if UNT were interested, where is the benefit to the remainder of the WAC?
The Sun Belt bet its future on schools climbing up out of need, not want. The WAC isn't going to base its future on such schools out of want.
Now you can cut the math anyway you want, but there ain't going to be an EWAC like that. As for travel, people just don't grasp the distances out west. If you rode a bus from Ruston to New Mexico State and then took that bus to your next closest WAC school, the drive that school (Utah State) takes almost exactly the same amount of time as Ruston to Las Cruces.
There is simply no way Utah State supports an expansion that increases their travel that dramatically. Nevada is on record stating that they want any WAC expansion to focus on a team moving from I-AA to I-A.... in CALIFORNIA.
Of nine WAC members one and only one has any interest in Texas.

The following message comes from Tux on Bobcatfans.com. There was a request to quote it over here. ---

1) it's not fair to say UTSA and Texas State have shown little commitment to excellence in athletics. Both schools are very committed to athletics, and the commitment is growing. I can not speak for UTSA, but Texas State is spending millions to upgrade its athletic and athletic academic facilities, while striving to attract and retain coaching talent by increasing salaries. With donations/fund-raising going up and with the new student fee increase passage the athletic budget has seen significant growth.

On the field, the results from the last two years speak for themselves:

Volleyball - 2007 Southland Conference Tournament Champions, NCAA Tournament First-Round

Women's Basketball - 2007-08 Southland Conference Regular Season Champions, WNIT Second-Round

Women's Golf - 2007-08 Southland Conference Tournament Champions, NCAA Regionals

Softball - 2008 Southland Conference Regular Season Champions

Women's Soccer - 2008 Southland Conference Regular Season Champions

Women's Soccer - 2008 Southland Conference Tournament Champions

Volleyball - 2008 Southland Conference Regular Season Champions

Football - 2008 Southland Conference Champions - NCAA FCS Playoffs

Softball - 2009 Southland Conference Regular Season Champions

Softball - 2009 Southland Conference Tournament Champions - NCAA Regionals

Baseball - 2009 Southland Conference Regular Season Champions - NCAA Regionals

In addition, the football team has been to the FCS playoffs 2 of the last four years, the athletic program has won the SLC commissioner's cup four times, placed 2nd three times and 3rd twice in the last 10 years and won nine straight women's all-sports trophies. While basketball is at a nadir, it is improving. As for the baseball team, we had victories over Big XII teams Baylor (ranked at the time) and Texas Tech, and C-USA's Rice (Also ranked). These are not the typical achievements of a school that has "shown little commitment to excellence in athletics".

2) It is true that Texas State is not a FBS division team and therefore does not play in the FBS football division, however to say that it has never played a down of FBS football is inaccurate. Texas state regularly schedules FBS teams and has played well against Texas A&M, Baylor and SMU. This year we will play TCU.

http://bobcatfans.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=17452

Arkstfan · July 16, 2009

Taking a look.

Texas State joined I-AA/FCS in 1984. In 25 seasons has made it to the playoffs twice and went 2-2. Posted five winning seasons in 20 years.

Basketball in the past six seasons didn't post a winning record and has never done better than .500 in basketball.

The women got the auto WNIT berth and beat Prarie View by one and got crushed by Texas Tech.

Baseball was 2 and out. The RPI of 34 is honestly the only thing I see compatible with the Sun Belt.

If you equate playing a single FBS opponent per year with playing FBS football it shows how little you understand of what it is like being FBS. I've seen that so many times, I was guilty of it as well when ASU was I-AA for ten years (6-4 record in the playoffs, never lost in the first round) your opponent is less intense and your players are fired up to prove a point. Doing it once (or in our case often 3 times a year) is far different than doing it 11 times a year against schools that regard you as a peer. Western Kentucky (2002 I-AA champions) thought it was an easy transition and they've dropped 7 straight against the Belt in transition.

Sorry I ruffled feathers but the Sun Belt and WAC are going to want to see expansion candidates that sell tickets and can play our key sports (football, men's and women's hoops, baseball, softball) at our level without us having to wait too long for the growth period.

NT80 · July 16, 2009

the Sun Belt and WAC are going to want to see expansion candidates that sell tickets and can play our key sports (football, men's and women's hoops, baseball, softball) at our level without us having to wait too long for the growth period.

I also see geography/location to the league, population demographics, and media outlet as being important factors to a candidate's application for membership, and being a vacation destination doesn't hurt. This is where San Antonio has an edge before they even play a down of football....one million people and a vacation spot. The SBC seemed interested in south Florida for such reasons, other than athletic or academic success.

mad dog · July 16, 2009

EWAC?

Arkstfan · July 16, 2009

FIU came into the Sun Belt with Denver because former commissioner Craig Thompson's vision of the league was urban basketball schools.

When the last realignment hit the motivation for adding FIU and FAU in football was to meet NCAA requirements to remain a conference taking any school willing to move to I-A on an ultra-fast timetable. FIU and FAU met that bill. FAMU wanted to and likely would have been invited had they had the resources to do it. People who tout Georgia Southern and Appy need to remember that at the hour of need they weren't interested. Doesn't hurt to remember that WKU wasn't willing to make that move at the time either.

FIU/FAU was in no way about vacation destinations, population demographics, or media outlets, it was simply to survive for another day.