Wac Staying Put

Harry · June 30, 2010

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hB8xOqYsDm6-4jDog2I5hRHPyx1gD9GL79IO4

PlummMeanGreen · June 30, 2010

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hB8xOqYsDm6-4jDog2I5hRHPyx1gD9GL79IO4

You still add North Texas, Arkansas State and/or ULouisiana and you have a "do-able" conference with 4 bowls and a league with a legacy of having made the collegiate football version of the Big Dance, ie, a revenue-generating BCS bowl game. A good salesman from the WAC would be able to market that league with the dramatic new upswing of a Top 10 TV market for the WAC, a new Texas presence that would include the future 2'nd largest university in Texas, too.

The NCAA is all about playing musical chairs now. If the SBC loses any one of its top programs, then it becomes even less marketable/formidable and who they would replace said school(s) with would probably make all of us start looking for our Gillette razor blades. :rolleyes:

Edited June 30, 2010 by PlummMeanGreen

Arkstfan · June 30, 2010

Translation.

UNT ain't coming.

Montana has developed cold feet.

Cal Davis and Cal Poly can't afford to upgrade their 11,000 seat stadiums.

Sac State ain't very good.

Texas State will kill our power ratings and RPI if we let them in.

UTSA hasn't played a game and come next summer, still won't have.

UNT and Montana are the only schools off this purported list that are in the top 3rd of the nation in RPI. UTSA the only one in the middle third, and the rest are all 200+

NT80 · June 30, 2010

Translation.

UNT ain't coming....Yet.
Montana has developed cold feet.
Cal Davis and Cal Poly can't afford to upgrade their 11,000 seat stadiums.
Sac State ain't very good.
Texas State will kill our power ratings and RPI if we let them in.
UTSA hasn't played a game and come next summer, still won't have.

UNT and Montana are the only schools off this purported list that are in the top 3rd of the nation in RPI. UTSA the only one in the middle third, and the rest are all 200+

The WAC really had only one option for new member inclusion starting in 2011 = UNT. UNT wasn't ready to commit and will take it's recruiting visits to other conferences to see if it can pull in a better offer! This will give all sides time to see what other conferences do, consult consultants, and make the best decision next summer for 2012 entry.

foutsrouts · June 30, 2010

You still add North Texas, Arkansas State and/or ULouisiana and you have a "do-able" conference with 4 bowls and a league with a legacy of having made the collegiate football version of the Big Dance, ie, a revenue-generating BCS bowl game. A good salesman from the WAC would be able to market that league with the dramatic new upswing of a Top 10 TV market for the WAC, a new Texas presence that would include the future 2'nd largest university in Texas, too.

The NCAA is all about playing musical chairs now. If the SBC loses any one of its top programs, then it becomes even less marketable/formidable and who they would replace said school(s) with would probably make all of us start looking for our Gillette razor blades.

Very true. I could see us losing Middle and Western to the MAC (or possibly USA), and San Marcos/San Antonio eventually heading to the WAC. Where would we be then? Entrenched in entry level land if we don't get proactive real quick!

VideoEagle · June 30, 2010

Very true. I could see us losing Middle and Western to the MAC (or possibly USA), and San Marcos/San Antonio eventually heading to the WAC. Where would we be then? Entrenched in entry level land if we don't get proactive real quick!

If TSSM and UTSA went Wacy, then the Wac would be entry level land now wouldn't it.

KAjunRaider · June 30, 2010

Very true. I could see us losing Middle and Western to the MAC (or possibly USA), and San Marcos/San Antonio eventually heading to the WAC. Where would we be then? Entrenched in entry level land if we don't get proactive real quick!

WKU already tried to go to the MAC, but the MAC wanted a package deal with WKU/MT (several years back). They wanted both of us, or none.

MT is a Southern school, and will go down fighting in the Belt (per our AD). Just Say NO to the MAC.

Edited June 30, 2010 by KAjunRaider

UNTflyer · June 30, 2010

To me, a believer in the potential of the WAC, this is a good thing. It takes the pressure off of us to either accept a WAC invite or missing out on a CUSA spot.

We got two years to make a splash.

UNTFan23 · June 30, 2010

To me, a believer in the potential of the WAC, this is a good thing. It takes the pressure off of us to either accept a WAC invite or missing out on a CUSA spot.

We got two years to make a splash.

It'll also give North Texas to see if the WAC is worth the risk. I'd really like to see what the WAC's new TV contract will look like without their sugar daddy to make all the money.

UNTLifer · June 30, 2010

It'll also give North Texas to see if the WAC is worth the risk. I'd really like to see what the WAC's new TV contract will look like without their sugar daddy to make all the money.

I hate it because it will lead to two more years of Pro-WAC/Anti-WAC discussions.

foutsrouts · June 30, 2010

If TSSM and UTSA went Wacy, then the Wac would be entry level land now wouldn't it.

I'm not one who wants to hang out with San Marcos or San Antonio. Let them pay their dues in entry level while we move on to hopefully greener pastures. Successful or not, I think we've paid our entry level dues by now. Besides, if we are successful in the WAC, we would have at least some say as to who gets in or not. Roll the dice while we have the chance.

KRAM1 · June 30, 2010

I hate it because it will lead to two more years of Pro-WAC/Anti-WAC discussions.

UGH! Agree...+1 for you, Lifer!

foutsrouts · June 30, 2010

To me, a believer in the potential of the WAC, this is a good thing. It takes the pressure off of us to either accept a WAC invite or missing out on a CUSA spot.

We got two years to make a splash.

I agree that two year window sounds about right. This year is crucial, and I hope we can pull off something significant to the upside.

Arkstfan · June 30, 2010

I'm not one who wants to hang out with San Marcos or San Antonio. Let them pay their dues in entry level while we move on to hopefully greener pastures. Successful or not, I think we've paid our entry level dues by now. Besides, if we are successful in the WAC, we would have at least some say as to who gets in or not. Roll the dice while we have the chance.

If they find a conference home, it will likely be in the entry level WAC.

foutsrouts · June 30, 2010

If they find a conference home, it will likely be in the entry level WAC.

And what are the 1AA entrant numbers of the WAC vs. the SBC? I think that tells the story. Personally, I would like you guys and others to join us in the move. Maybe the powers that be will be a little more open to the idea this time around.

VideoEagle · June 30, 2010

And what are the 1AA entrant numbers of the WAC vs. the SBC? I think that tells the story. Personally, I would like you guys and others to join us in the move. Maybe the powers that be will be a little more open to the idea this time around.

First, the administrators of the various schools are of course LESS interested this time in joining a depleted Wac. They don't have a death wish about their jobs!

Have you been reading any of the newspaper articles of postings about Wac expansion? Other than NT, all but 1 of the candidates are FCS schools: Davis, Sac State, Montana, TSSM, Portland State and Cal Polly. The only one who isn't a FCS school doesn't even have a TEAM yet - UTSA. They are not EVEN an FCS school. While in the past, the Belt has been the entry level conference, it is now the WAC taking on that job by their own admission.

foutsrouts · June 30, 2010

First, the administrators of the various schools are of course LESS interested this time in joining a depleted Wac. They don't have a death wish about their jobs!

Have you been reading any of the newspaper articles of postings about Wac expansion? Other than NT, all but 1 of the candidates are FCS schools: Davis, Sac State, Montana, TSSM, Portland State and Cal Polly. The only one who isn't a FCS school doesn't even have a TEAM yet - UTSA. They are not EVEN an FCS school. While in the past, the Belt has been the entry level conference, it is now the WAC taking on that job by their own admission.

All pure speculation because there are clearly no FBS possibilities out west. If they are able to expand east, I don't really think that more than one or possibly two of those teams would end up in the WAC in the near-term. Regardless, the SBC isn't going to lose their entry level football status anytime soon no matter what happens with the WAC. A soon to be FBS South Alabama and future FBS Texas schools among others will see to that.

Arkstfan · June 30, 2010

And what are the 1AA entrant numbers of the WAC vs. the SBC? I think that tells the story. Personally, I would like you guys and others to join us in the move. Maybe the powers that be will be a little more open to the idea this time around.

Do you know why some of them didn't come up from I-AA? Because Pacific playing at South Carolina in 1981 made their home and away attendance average just over 20,000. But for that, the Big West would have been reclassified I-AA.