Where There's Smoke - Mwc Attentive To Boise Fans

MeanGreen61 · May 28, 2010

http://www.fox12idaho.com/Global/story.asp?S=12558741

NT80 · May 28, 2010

http://www.fox12idaho.com/Global/story.asp?S=12558741

I believe an invite to Boise will occur, and they will accept by the July deadline. Fresno, Utah St. and Hawaii are also said to be heavily pandering to the MWC for inclusion.

The MWC will not make any other moves until it finds out if BYU/Utah/TCU are defecting to the Pac10 or Big12.

The WAC meanwhile will be searching for a Boise replacement (and possible multiple programs should it lose more). This is where it could get interesting for UNT. Would the WAC try again to snag UNT as a bridge to La Tech and access again to the DFW media market? What would RV say this time? :ph34r:

Edited May 28, 2010 by NT80

UNTflyer · May 28, 2010

A WAC invite is probably coming, but we need more teams in the east. If the WAC can't attract anyone in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, or Arkansas, I say we take a pass....

Daddy Dumpsalot · May 28, 2010

Anything is better than this dying sun suck conference. For the life of me I can't understand why ANYONE would be against a conference jump. Budget...that's going to be changing soon. Travel...we don't travel well as it is because no one wants to see us play these sucky schools that no one cares about. So what if BSU leaves the WAC...it's still light years ahead of what we are currently in. Their members are better recognized schools, they play better against named opponents, and they have a better opportunity to jump into a better conference in time. Lets face it...if getting into a better conference is a stepping stone then moving into the WAC is our first step. No other conference is going to be looking to raid the SunBelt, even the CUSA is looking at the Mtn West instead of the Sunbelt. If we pass on another opportunity our football program is doomed. I for one would rather attend a game in our new stadium against Fresno St, Hawaii, or Nevada than ULaLa, or FIU. It's a no brainer.

Mean Green 93-98 · May 28, 2010

So what if BSU leaves the WAC...it's still light years ahead of what we are currently in.

Wrong. If BSU leaves, the WAC only edges out the Belt by the slightest margin. Look at this, and scroll a little past halfway down to the "By Conference" section and compare the WAC to the Belt. Our better teams are right there with the best of the WAC (minus Boise). And if you disregard W. Ky, whose rating pulls the conference's average way down, the Belt is even more competitive with them. By the way, the team doing the second most to pull the Belt down is North Texas. We might want to be careful calling the Belt a "suck conference" and the other Belt schools "sucky schools" when we're worse than most of them.

No other conference is going to be looking to raid the SunBelt, even the CUSA is looking at the Mtn West instead of the Sunbelt.

If a school has enough to contribute to the conference, the conference will be interested. South Florida went straight to Conference USA without having to do time in any other conference at all. Conference USA would not care if we came from the WAC or Sun Belt, as long as we could contribute something to their conference to make it worth their while. And C-USA can look to the Mountain West all they want, they are not going to be pilfering any of their teams.

If we pass on another opportunity our football program is doomed. I for one would rather attend a game in our new stadium against Fresno St, Hawaii, or Nevada than ULaLa, or FIU. It's a no brainer.

Despite what I have written above, I have feelings both ways about going to the WAC versus staying in the Belt. I do believe turning down the WAC's previous invitation was the right move. I remember the Big West days, and that presented too many additional challenges, all of which we would again take on if we went to the WAC. But the WAC schools do have more name recognition.

CMJ · May 29, 2010

During our time in the Big West - it included about half the schools that are currently in the WAC. Just about all our programs competed terribly in the league and our attendance/support was God awful. Seriously, I think anyone who remembers the Big West would be very hesitant about joining the current WAC.

Edited May 29, 2010 by CMJ

Side Show Joe · May 29, 2010

If Boise were to leave the WAC, and they were the only team to leave, I would still be in favor of joining the WAC.

By leaving Boise will prove that dominating that league and winning impressive ooc games is a magic formual for advancing in the college football world.

We won 4 straight conference titles in the Belt, and most people still didn't care. We won 26 straight conference games in that span. We were never able to put up impressive ooc wins like Boise, but most of those ooc schedules weren't intended to be wins. They were money games.

Troy has won 4 straight titles now, and they have some impressive ooc wins, but big conferences aren't looking to add them.

I think it comes down to the Sun Belt being weighed down by under funded teams, that have to take bodybag games to keep in operation. A Sun Belt team has no realistic chance at an undefeated season like Boise, be cause funding issues will always require them to accept bodybag games on the road against the reigning, or future National Championship team. In my opinion, that's not a formual for growth or success.

Any way I look at it, if we can't get into C-USA then I'm ready for the WAC. I don't think our program can afford to stay in the Sun Belt for 10 more seasons. If we do, Texas State and UTSA will probably pass us by.

NT80 · May 29, 2010

If Boise were to leave the WAC, and they were the only team to leave, I would still be in favor of joining the WAC.

By leaving Boise will prove that dominating that league and winning impressive ooc games is a magic formual for advancing in the college football world.
We won 4 straight conference titles in the Belt, and most people still didn't care. We won 26 straight conference games in that span. We were never able to put up impressive ooc wins like Boise, but most of those ooc schedules weren't intended to be wins. They were money games.

Troy has won 4 straight titles now, and they have some impressive ooc wins, but big conferences aren't looking to add them.

I think it comes down to the Sun Belt being weighed down by under funded teams, that have to take bodybag games to keep in operation. A Sun Belt team has no realistic chance at an undefeated season like Boise, be cause funding issues will always require them to accept bodybag games on the road against the reigning, or future National Championship team. In my opinion, that's not a formual for growth or success.

Any way I look at it, if we can't get into C-USA then I'm ready for the WAC. I don't think our program can afford to stay in the Sun Belt for 10 more seasons. If we do, Texas State and UTSA will probably pass us by.

Agree very much with the above.

stebo · May 29, 2010

Agree very much with the above.

I am getting there, too. If we were to say no - the WAC really has no other choie but to offer an invitation to a school that is ready to move up - Texas State at San Marcos... or a school that promises to move up, UTSA... or BOTH. How would we all feel about the Belt if the two upstarts in Texas were now in the WAC and we were still in the Belt? We have to show separation from them.

Agreed about the budget problems of the Belt. If we do stick with the Belt, the schools need to make a commitment to athletic success, monetarily. NT, WKY, USA, Troy, MTSU, UL, and the F_U's have all put the resources into their programs. ULM is a Southland school playing in the Belt... their budget is an embarrasment to Div I.

If the WAC invite comes around, we should probably take it this time. We can afford the WAC now - our new fee kicks in this year after the stadium is completed... we would have a legitimate reason to max out the 10% annual increase for the next 8 years to cover the increased travel costs. It might be time to get a little WACKY just to show separation from the upstarts in Texas.

MCMLXXX · May 29, 2010

The last time we were invited to the WAC they only wanted one team. Had they offered ASU and ULL along with us I believe we would have gone. A non AQ conference consisting of teams primarily from the Mountain and Pacific time zones is not a good option (Idaho, Utah St., SJSU, Fresno, Nevada, and Hawaii are to far away). A 12 team WAC with an eastern division that includes LT, NMSU, NT,and 3 additional Central time zone teams might work. Nonetheless, I would want the option to leave on short notice with minimal fees to join and to exit.

MeanGreen61 · May 29, 2010

I am getting there, too. If we were to say no - the WAC really has no other choie but to offer an invitation to a school that is ready to move up - Texas State at San Marcos... or a school that promises to move up, UTSA... or BOTH. How would we all feel about the Belt if the two upstarts in Texas were now in the WAC and we were still in the Belt? We have to show separation from them.

Agreed about the budget problems of the Belt. If we do stick with the Belt, the schools need to make a commitment to athletic success, monetarily. NT, WKY, USA, Troy, MTSU, UL, and the F_U's have all put the resources into their programs. ULM is a Southland school playing in the Belt... their budget is an embarrasment to Div I.

If the WAC invite comes around, we should probably take it this time. We can afford the WAC now - our new fee kicks in this year after the stadium is completed... we would have a legitimate reason to max out the 10% annual increase for the next 8 years to cover the increased travel costs. It might be time to get a little WACKY just to show separation from the upstarts in Texas.

Compared to the other non-AQ conferences, the Belt is akin to Sisters of the Poor.

CONFERENCE COMPARISONS - PUBLIC SCHOOLS ONLY - YEAR ENDING JUNE 2009

Mountain West

Lowest budget $21,681,000 (Colorado State)

Only CSU and Wyoming under $30,000,000

MAC

Lowest budget $16,321,000 (Bowling Green)

4 schools with budgets under $20,000,000

WAC

Lowest budget $13,900,000 (La Tech)

3 others (idaho, Utah State, San Jose0 with budgets over $15,000,000 but under $20,000,000

CUSA

Lowest budget $18,623,000 (Southern Miss)

All other budgets over $22,000,000

SUN BELT

6 of 10 schools have budgets under $15,000,000

3 at $12,000,000 or less (ULM, ASU, ULL)

4 have budgets over $16,000,000 (FIU, WKU, MTSU, UNT)

Remaining 3 (USA, Troy & FAU) range from $12,875,000 to $14,389,000)

CONFERENCE AVERAGE

$29,275,000 - Mountain West

$25,958,500 - CUSA

$20,717,700 - MAC

$18,908,900 - WAC

$13,388,200 - Sun Belt

Edited May 29, 2010 by MeanGreen61

stebo · May 29, 2010

Good post 61, what are your thoughts about the WAC this time around? I know that you have looked for the positives of the Belt (like I have)... but what are your thoughts about replacing Boise? I would even be willing to go it alone, without any other Belt schools. TCU has been doing very good in the MWC and now that we will be funded properly, I think that we could be competitive. My opinion is that no other schools will be asked to the MWC. Perhaps the MWC will get raided by the Pac 10 though... I still think that the basics of the league would be stable. The bowls options are crap in the WAC but we haven't exactly been eligible for anything close to the post season lately.

NM Green · May 29, 2010

It's weird that I feel like the WAC may be the way to go because I have always been a Sun Belt fan, but the lack of Sun Belt prominence and growth is making me change my tune.

Also did you know that the WAC is moving it's basketball tournament to Las Vegas beginning next year I believe. That is an easy destination to get in and out of. El Paso (NMSU) is easy to get in and out of. La Tech would be an easy drive. Hawaii would be a vacation every other year. Reno not too hard to get in and out of. Fresno and Idaho the only tough destinations to get to and though the power rankings may not be significant with a Boiseless WAC, the perception is HUGE.

If offered again I would think we would have to consider it in full.

GMG

Good post 61, what are your thoughts about the WAC this time around? I know that you have looked for the positives of the Belt (like I have)... but what are your thoughts about replacing Boise? I would even be willing to go it alone, without any other Belt schools. TCU has been doing very good in the MWC and now that we will be funded properly, I think that we could be competitive. My opinion is that no other schools will be asked to the MWC. Perhaps the MWC will get raided by the Pac 10 though... I still think that the basics of the league would be stable. The bowls options are crap in the WAC but we haven't exactly been eligible for anything close to the post season lately.

GreenStreet · May 30, 2010

Basically I take the article to mean that Boise is guaranteed more air time by joining the MW. But really does the whole country not really know about BSU already? Why should boise change and not guarantee themselves a undefeated season. BYU/TCU/UTAH is no WAC

MeanGreen61 · May 30, 2010

Some more non-AQ conference comparisons. How the Belt stacks up vs the others. Information from the official NCAA site. The Belt is well behind the MWC, CUSA and WAC.

FOOTBALL ATTENDANCE AVERAGES

Mountain West - 33,395

CUSA - 26,111

WAC - 22,329

Sun Belt - 16,337

MAC - 15,165

3 Sun Belt teams (FIU,ULM,WKU) under 15,000 per game average

BASKETBALL ATTENDANCE AVERAGES

Mountain West - 8,176

CUSA - 5,701

WAC 5,070

MAC - 2,798

Sun Belt - 2,451

5 Sun Belt teams (Denver,FIU,FAU,ULM,Troy) have attendance averages underj 2,000.

BASKETBALL TOURNAMENT ATTENDANCE AVERAGES

Mountain West - 12,002

CUSA - 7,846

WAC - 4,469

Sun Belt - 4,295

MAC - 3,477

Edited May 30, 2010 by MeanGreen61

MeanGreen61 · May 30, 2010

Of the 120 schools in the FBS, only seven have athletic budgets under 15,000,000. Of the seven, only ONE........... Louisiana Tech is not a Belt member.

Wondering if there will be many, if any, changings in the latest report due out soon ?

stebo · May 30, 2010

Of the 120 schools in the FBS, only seven have athletic budgets under 15,000,000. Of the seven, only ONE........... Louisiana Tech is not a Belt member.

Wondering if there will be many, if any, changings in the latest report due out soon ?

I guess that San Jose and Idaho have raised their budgets along with a lotof MAC schools. This is my concern about the Belt. Most of you probably know that I have been a Belt fan from Day 1. The apparent lack of resources/desire to commit for excellence is my concern. If we are not getting better, we are stagnant. If we are not spending money, we are not going to get better. 4 or 5 schools in the Belt are spending the money to be competitve (somewhat) - the rest are drastically underfunded. I am really considering the WAC invite, hopefully it is still a standing invite.

GrayEagle · June 1, 2010

I guess that San Jose and Idaho have raised their budgets along with a lotof MAC schools. This is my concern about the Belt. Most of you probably know that I have been a Belt fan from Day 1. The apparent lack of resources/desire to commit for excellence is my concern. If we are not getting better, we are stagnant. If we are not spending money, we are not going to get better. 4 or 5 schools in the Belt are spending the money to be competitve (somewhat) - the rest are drastically underfunded. I am really considering the WAC invite, hopefully it is still a standing invite.

I don't think that we have a standing invite any longer. However, if Boise (and only Boise) leaves for the MWC that offer will return. We have a lot going for us on that front...market, size, facilities, forty years of FBS membership, former converence mates with five WAC members and a nearby companion for Louisiana Tech.

But all of that is very fragile for two reasons: te MWC and CUSA. If the MWC loses more than one to the Pac 10 or Big 12, replacements will come from the WAC, virtually destroying the conference. CUSA could take up to four teams, including both North Texas and Louisiana Tech or the western CUSA could form its own conference; again taking both North Texas and La Tech. Or, if we are the only expansion team chosen would we turn down CUSA for the WAC? I don't think so.

NT80 · June 1, 2010

I don't think that we have a standing invite any longer. However, if Boise (and only Boise) leaves for the MWC that offer will return. We have a lot going for us on that front...market, size, facilities, forty years of FBS membership, former converence mates with five WAC members and a nearby companion for Louisiana Tech.

But all of that is very fragile for two reasons: te MWC and CUSA. If the MWC loses more than one to the Pac 10 or Big 12, replacements will come from the WAC, virtually destroying the conference. CUSA could take up to four teams, including both North Texas and Louisiana Tech or the western CUSA could form its own conference; again taking both North Texas and La Tech. Or, if we are the only expansion team chosen would we turn down CUSA for the WAC? I don't think so.

We could also get left out in the cold. The WAC may consider adding Montana and some moveups from west coast 1-AAs. CUSA would probably get raided on the eastern side thus needing eastern teams as replacements..ie Troy, FAU, WKU, and Muts have been mentioned...plus it was said DFW was already covered by Smut.

I can see a situation where we might have to add a UTSA and Texas State just to keep a viable SunBelt from failing to meet the minimum number of teams to qualify as a conference. I think we need to be proactive promoting ourselves to get an offer, otherwise...

untjim1995 · June 1, 2010

.

To me, the WAC looks good for UNT if the following occur with it:

We move with another Texas school--preferably UTSA, but also would like to see ULL and Texas State move there, too. That would make the WAC look like this:

W-WAC= Hawaii, SJSU, Fresno, Idaho, Utah State, Nevada

E-WAC= NMSU, Texas State, UTSA, UNT, La Tech, and ULL

This would be a good regional division for UNT with schools that are very similar to us and would provide great travel for fans. The games against the W-WAC wouldn't be too fun to travel for, but neither is traveling to eastern SBC cities. The biggest fear for me in this is if the MWC does take Boise, which is basically going to replace Utah going to the Pac-10. If this happened, the MWC would be back to 9 teams. You could see a scenario play out where they take three other teams from eiter the WAC or CUSA. Imagine that we join the WAC, then see the WAC lose Fresno and Nevada, and then CUSA loses SMU, UTEP, or UH to the MWC. All of a sudden, we are stuck in the WAC without any of the big names to the west, and then CUSA has a spot open up that La Tech fills up. That would stink, but I really do think that are best plan for now is to get into a conference with those two Texas starups and try to become a trio of programs that grow together and move together down the road.

GrayEagle · June 1, 2010

We could also get left out in the cold. The WAC may consider adding Montana and some moveups from west coast 1-AAs. CUSA would probably get raided on the eastern side thus needing eastern teams as replacements..ie Troy, FAU, WKU, and Muts have been mentioned...plus it was said DFW was already covered by Smut.

I can see a situation where we might have to add a UTSA and Texas State just to keep a viable SunBelt from failing to meet the minimum number of teams to qualify as a conference. I think we need to be proactive promoting ourselves to get an offer, otherwise...

Sorry Jeff, I just don't have that low self-esteem. Granted, we could get left out but we'd almost have to 'not try' to do that. Of course, we've often been guilty of not trying whenever there was expansion or reorganization in the area.

First, of all take the Dallas market. SMU doesn't cover it; they may be the smallest factor in the market. Texas, A&M, Tech, and us definitely have more alumni and families of alumni in the area than SMU. TCU may not have any more alums than SMU but they have more support from Fort Worth than SMU has from Dallas. Anyway, how about picking up several hundred thousand potential viewers (and purchasers) without any additional expenses?

The most likely eastern CUSA losses would be East Carolina and UCF. Except for Marshall, the easternmost team then would be UAB. Southern Miss is not that far from the Mississippi and Memphis and Tulane(already in the west) are on the River. North Texas would be closer to the geographical center of the conference than WKU, MTSU, Troy and (definitely moreso than FAU). And I won't even go into their other liabilities.

Now, if you want to dwell on our failures of the past five years in football and that is the only criteria, then you are right. Even then our attendance for an abysmal program was greater than two of the four that you mentioned. Two trips to the Dance and vast improvement in our minor sports should be of some help when it comes evaluation time. And remember, it will be the university presidents, not the fans, who will decide who is to be added.

GrayEagle · June 2, 2010

Sorry, about so many posts to this thread but I did want to discuss other potential candidates for the WAC.

The reason that I think that we'd be first choice is that we are the only established FBS program west of La Tech. The WAC would prefer not to elevate a 1-AA team unless it's necessary for survival. And only one of the FCS colleges would be a valued addition. That would be Montana, and unless their state legislature rescinds their resolution, they would have to bring Montana State with them. Montana could easily qualify the 15,000 average attendance whereas Montana State likely could not. Of the other possibilities, all would have trouble meeting attendance requirements. Texas State is the only other FCS program that seems close enough in average attendance to warrant an invitation. UTSA might but we don't know that since they've never played anyone. Cal-Davis has had some success but I'm not sure that they, Sacramento State or Portland State are ready for the FBS at this time.

The WAC, unless they lose only one or unless the MWC loses several (a distinct possibility), has some pretty limited choices.

Edited June 2, 2010 by GrayEagle

Side Show Joe · June 2, 2010

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

To me, the WAC looks good for UNT if the following occur with it:
We move with another Texas school--preferably UTSA, but also would like to see ULL and Texas State move there, too. That would make the WAC look like this:
W-WAC= Hawaii, SJSU, Fresno, Idaho, Utah State, Nevada
E-WAC= NMSU, Texas State, UTSA, UNT, La Tech, and ULL

This would be a good regional division for UNT with schools that are very similar to us and would provide great travel for fans. The games against the W-WAC wouldn't be too fun to travel for, but neither is traveling to eastern SBC cities. The biggest fear for me in this is if the MWC does take Boise, which is basically going to replace Utah going to the Pac-10. If this happened, the MWC would be back to 9 teams. You could see a scenario play out where they take three other teams from eiter the WAC or CUSA. Imagine that we join the WAC, then see the WAC lose Fresno and Nevada, and then CUSA loses SMU, UTEP, or UH to the MWC. All of a sudden, we are stuck in the WAC without any of the big names to the west, and then CUSA has a spot open up that La Tech fills up. That would stink, but I really do think that are best plan for now is to get into a conference with those two Texas starups and try to become a trio of programs that grow together and move together down the road.

I have no interest in watching our program grow with Texas State or UTSA. To do that would mean North Texas would be doing nothing to better its current situation. We are ahead of those two programs. We need to stay ahead, not sit around until someone else can help us advance.

I believe to a large extent, people make their luck. When the realignment happens, we need to think long term. Right now I don't what that is, but I'm confident the right choice will be to land in a conference where schools have committed real money to athletics, not loose change, like half of the Belt.