Wac Press Conference

MeanGreen61 · June 8, 2010

Scroll down for link to WAC commish press conference

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=451&f=2368&t=6011379&p=1&sto=MS_77952405

gangrene · June 8, 2010

Q: Identify schools as replacements?
A: No specifics. Pool of schools lie within WAC footprint. Includes current FBS schools and FCS schools. BSU and Nevada are examples of schools moving to FBS which have excelled.

Q: Timeline for FCS members?
A: Process to move to FBS? Moratorium expires next year so that is when the process will begin. Would not be bowl eligible until 2013. We have looked at more than 5 or 6 FCS schools.

Hmmm....could two of those 5 or 6 FCS schools be located off I35 south?

NT80 · June 8, 2010

Posted: Today 11:10 PM

RE: WAC Press Conference

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Expand to two divisions - east?

A: I would not rule out schools in the central time zone

Hummm.... :ph34r:

MeanGreen61 · June 8, 2010

About 30 minutes into the interview:

Won't rule out 12 teams with central time zone division.

UNTflyer · June 8, 2010

Screw it. If the WAC is going to become the Sun Belt of the west, I'd just as soon stay where we are.

emmitt01 · June 8, 2010

Screw it. If the WAC is going to become the Sun Belt of the west, I'd just as soon stay where we are.

But don't you know that Nevada, Utah state, Idaho, and New Mexico state will sell out our new stadium on "prestige" alone? It's not like we have historical proof to say they won't.

VideoEagle · June 8, 2010

But don't you know that Nevada, Utah state, Idaho, and New Mexico state will sell out our new stadium on "prestige" alone? It's not like we have historical proof to say they won't.

Emmit, don't forget San Jose State. The Spartans are far more prestigious and draw better than anyone in the Belt.

UNTflyer · June 8, 2010

I want nothing to do with a conference that is going to take Southwest Texas State University of San Marcos. I want even less to do with a conference that targets UTSA. If that is the direction of the WAC, we don't need it. It could be a good mid-major conference if it picks up Tulsa, UNT, and two of the CUSA schools in Texas (SMU and Houston are my preference).

houstonmeangreen · June 8, 2010

I want nothing to do with a conference that is going to take Southwest Texas State University of San Marcos. I want even less to do with a conference that targets UTSA. If that is the direction of the WAC, we don't need it. It could be a good mid-major conference if it picks up Tulsa, UNT, and two of the CUSA schools in Texas (SMU and Houston are my preference).

you are exactly right my brother.

MDH · June 8, 2010

The one thing I do enjoy about the WAC (outside of my well known love for the Bulldogs) is the excitement in the games. WAC schools LOVE to air it out. They're also terrible on D, especially against the run (Nevada and Fresno St running attack is unstoppable in league play). I know our golden boy Dunbar will be gone by the time we would join the WAC, but we have a good recent history of putting out backs that can really run the ball. I get weak in the knees thinking what Dunbar could do to a WAC defense (outside of Boise's legit D).

Side note: I find humor in GMGers using SWTSU to degrade Texas St. when most people go up in arms if anyone ever refers to us as NTSU or even uses our old UNT logo. We're better than that guys.

UNTflyer · June 8, 2010

Side note: I find humor in GMGers using SWTSU to degrade Texas St. when most people go up in arms if anyone ever refers to us as NTSU or even uses our old UNT logo. We're better than that guys.

It's a special situation - SWTSUSM took the name we wanted (Texas State).

MDH · June 8, 2010

I want nothing to do with a conference that is going to take Southwest Texas State University of San Marcos.

Not any worse than being in a conference that is going to take South Alabama, a school that has never even had a football program before last year; and has already taken an FCS football school in the last 2 years (WKU).

I'd rather be in a conference that has had some BCS busting schools in it with some regional new additions that parallel USA and WKU's circumstances.

Edited June 8, 2010 by mdh0192

MDH · June 8, 2010

It's a special situation - SWTSUSM took the name we wanted (Texas State).

Touche, I plead ignorance on that factoid.

cwb · June 8, 2010

Not any worse than being in a conference that is going to take South Alabama, a school that has never even had a football program before last year; and has already taken an FCS football school in the last 2 years (WKU).

I'd rather be in a conference that has had some BCS busting schools in it with some regional new additions that parallel UTSA and WKU's circumstances.

And what is the better roadie?

San Marcos or Bowling Green Ky

San Antonio or Mobile Alabama

Now don't get me wrong. BG has some real nice caves nearby and Mobile is a short drive to soon to be oil rich beaches, but I'll take the Texas destinations if we are to be stuck with up and comers from 1AA.

In the meantime, I will keep checking the mailbox for that Big Tin invite.

3XNTGRAD · June 8, 2010

It's a special situation - SWTSUSM took the name we wanted (Texas State).

Not really. Texas State was one name we considered. University of North Texas was the name we wanted in the early 60's when we got saddled with NTSU. The name change in 1988 included some discussions about the Texas St. name, but we put forth UNT as our choice (I was a student leader at the time and actually was polled personally about that choice - I chose the University of North Texas option because we have been and always will be "North Texas").

Back to the topic of discussion - I think the SWTSUSM is a great alphabet soup and love those who use it. I personally refuse to ever call them Texas State. They are Texas State University at San Marcos (TSU-SM). To call them anything else implies that they are somehow the flagship of the Texas State System (which doesn't have one).

CMJ · June 8, 2010

Not any worse than being in a conference that is going to take South Alabama, a school that has never even had a football program before last year; and has already taken an FCS football school in the last 2 years (WKU).

I'd rather be in a conference that has had some BCS busting schools in it with some regional new additions that parallel UTSA and WKU's circumstances.

It's not exactly a fair comparison. The Belt didn't take USA and WKU in or anything. Both have been members of the SBC for decades. Of course if both ever went up to the top tier of football they'd have a home in the league. It is THEIR league.

MeanGreenTexan · June 8, 2010

It's a special situation - SWTSUSM took the name we wanted (Texas State).

That still doesn't excuse the double standard of people whining over us being referred to as NTSU. I happen to like North Texas!

Shof · June 8, 2010

Not really. Texas State was one name we considered. University of North Texas was the name we wanted in the early 60's when we got saddled with NTSU. The name change in 1988 included some discussions about the Texas St. name, but we put forth UNT as our choice (I was a student leader at the time and actually was polled personally about that choice - I chose the University of North Texas option because we have been and always will be "North Texas").

Back to the topic of discussion - I think the SWTSUSM is a great alphabet soup and love those who use it. I personally refuse to ever call them Texas State. They are Texas State University at San Marcos (TSU-SM). To call them anything else implies that they are somehow the flagship of the Texas State System (which doesn't have one).

Oh, a name game thread. I love it!

Shof

Cajun fan since.........holy cr@p, has it been that long? ;-)

VideoEagle · June 8, 2010

Not any worse than being in a conference that is going to take South Alabama, a school that has never even had a football program before last year; and has already taken an FCS football school in the last 2 years (WKU).

I'd rather be in a conference that has had some BCS busting schools in it with some regional new additions that parallel UTSA and WKU's circumstances.

Are you aware that both South Alabama and Western Kentucky were already full members of the Sunbelt Conference? There was no "take" USA or WKU, they were already members and base on conference rules they were entitled to be football members if they ever chose to upgrade their programs. It was the same a few years back when Big East member Connecticut decided to move up to FBS membership.

Early on, the SBC was force to take the Florida's in order to have enough football members to be a FBS conference. That is no longer the case as we will have 10 once USA completes the transition they announced before the moratorium went into place.

Neither UTSA or TSSM are members of a FBS conference. Among the new requirements to move to FBS is to have secured membership in a FBS conference before you are allow to begin the two year transition. Right now, there is not enough support for either one to join the SBC.

Furthermore, the Southland voted to kick out any school that tried to move up, forcing them to be a Division 1 independent in all sports during their transition. While the "coach" at UTSA has stated they could go that route, that means no chance at basketball or other sport playoffs. Even Notre Dame isn't an independent in sports other than football. I think there is a reason no school that actually plays football had any interest in hiring the "coach" at UTSA!

There is nothing wrong with the WAC if you are in the Mountain or Pacific time zones. If we were the University of North New Mexico it would make perfect sense. But we've proved over and over again that being an outlier with La Tech greatly increases travel costs, greatly reduces press coverage in our home market, does not increase home attendance and ties our football team to bowls that would be decidedly more difficult for our alumni and students to attend. If the WAC adds five Central Time Zone schools that currently play FBS ball, then we could make a go of it. Otherwise, we are demonstrably better off where we are now.

NT80 · June 8, 2010

Not really. Texas State was one name we considered. University of North Texas was the name we wanted in the early 60's when we got saddled with NTSU. The name change in 1988 included some discussions about the Texas St. name, but we put forth UNT as our choice (I was a student leader at the time and actually was polled personally about that choice - I chose the University of North Texas option because we have been and always will be "North Texas").

Back to the topic of discussion - I think the SWTSUSM is a great alphabet soup and love those who use it. I personally refuse to ever call them Texas State. They are Texas State University at San Marcos (TSU-SM). To call them anything else implies that they are somehow the flagship of the Texas State System (which doesn't have one).

You can call them whatever you want but to people and media around the country they are simply "Texas State". It will be a marketing boon for them until another Texas State Univ System school also wants to be a Texas State - @ city. Then they will become like ULM and ULL.

We were stupid not to take the TSU name if we truly had an option for it; I heard we did not since not a part of that system. While I love "North Texas" and it has always been in our history, it has a regional name implication. No, we are not like USC.

Otherwise, TSU@SM as TSU is currently no different than the "U. of Texas at Austin", shortened to just "Texas". It implies Flagship status even though we know they are not.

ColoradoEagle · June 8, 2010

If we were the University of North New Mexico it would make perfect sense. But we've proved over and over again that being an outlier with La Tech greatly increases travel costs, greatly reduces press coverage in our home market, does not increase home attendance and ties our football team to bowls that would be decidedly more difficult for our alumni and students to attend.

Wait, we can have less press coverage than we do already?