Just Wondering

johnnylightnin · July 2, 2010

I come in peace. I know UNT isn't interested in the WAC as a 9th member, but I was wondering if the WAC is more appealing if UNT is offered as #9 of 12.

Just for the sake of conversation, you could bring in whoever you'd like. My personal list looks like this:

eWAC:

Tech

NMSU

UNT

ULL

Texas State

UTSA

We operate as a 10 team football conference for 2 years while the FCS teams move up.

You could replace the FCS teams with whoever...A-State, ULM, Troy, MTSU...whoever.

Is there a formulation of the WAC that you, as a fan, would definitely be interested in?

I think the reestablishment of the eWAC does a few good things for the WAC:

1. It makes the league immediately more stable.

2. It protects the WAC from a western raid (MWC).

3. It protects the WAC from an eastern raid (CUSA).

4. It gives the WAC a foothold in Texas that it hasn't had since 2005.

What does it do for a team like UNT? It shows upward mobility and gives you a better platform for your CUSA pitch. It gives you better ESPN access and a higher conference RPI in football and basketball. It's a long-term non-Belt option in the event that CUSA never delivers with the invite.

Anyway, just looking for opinions.

Thanks in advance.

johnnylightnin · July 2, 2010

Feel free to explain your preferences (if you don't mind).

forevereagle · July 2, 2010

I don't want to move to a conference that is accepting FCS teams. In order for this to be a move up for us, then we don't need to be taking those teams. Otherwise we are moving laterally. If there was a solution that had all current FBS teams, I may be more open to it.

johnnylightnin · July 2, 2010

I don't want to move to a conference that is accepting FCS teams. In order for this to be a move up for us, then we don't need to be taking those teams. Otherwise we are moving laterally. If there was a solution that had all current FBS teams, I may be more open to it.

I might not have made myself clear. Sub-out UTSA and TxSt. and sub-in A-State and ULM/Troy/MTSU/WKU. UTSA and TxSt. are just my preferences based on market-size and "potential".

So, your eWAC could look like this:

Tech

UNT

NMSU

ULL

A-State

Troy

That better?

Mean Green 93-98 · July 2, 2010

I might not have made myself clear. Sub-out UTSA and TxSt. and sub-in A-State and ULM/Troy/MTSU/WKU. UTSA and TxSt. are just my preferences based on market-size and "potential".

So, your eWAC could look like this:

Tech
UNT
NMSU
ULL
A-State
Troy

That better?

Yes, that does look better. I wouldn't mind being in a conference with Texas State, if they were able to make the move up. But being in a conference with both Southwest and UTSA leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

And I would slightly prefer being in that alignment to the present Sun Belt.

foutsrouts · July 2, 2010

I might not have made myself clear. Sub-out UTSA and TxSt. and sub-in A-State and ULM/Troy/MTSU/WKU. UTSA and TxSt. are just my preferences based on market-size and "potential".

So, your eWAC could look like this:

Tech
UNT
NMSU
ULL
A-State
Troy

That better?

Better, but it's a tough call on who to slide into spot #6. If I had to choose between San Marcos and San Antonio I would choose San Antonio. Unfortunately, for now that would require them to suit up their intramural team.

DeepGreen · July 2, 2010

First of all, no Texas State-San Marcus or UTSA, or any other FCS programs. Second, substitute Arkansas State and MTSU or Troy. Third, a huge financial hicky placed on Louisiana Tech should they try and move to CUSA within 5+ years after the creation of the EWAC. Call it blackmail, but I want assurances that La Tech stays around. UNT, on the other hand can bolt at any time.

johnnylightnin · July 2, 2010

Call it blackmail, but I want assurances that La Tech stays around. UNT, on the other hand can bolt at any time.

That'll never happen. If one gets a smack, so does everybody else. If you get the assurance, you get locked in too. If you go without the assurance, you're also free to leave. I'm fine either way, but a special penalty for one team is excessive...especially since the more likely defectors might be in the west.

foutsrouts · July 2, 2010

First of all, no Texas State-San Marcus or UTSA, or any other FCS programs. Second, substitute Arkansas State and MTSU or Troy. Third, a huge financial hicky placed on Louisiana Tech should they try and move to CUSA within 5+ years after the creation of the EWAC. Call it blackmail, but I want assurances that La Tech stays around. UNT, on the other hand can bolt at any time.

If there were no other option to round out the 12, I might give Missouri State a look over San Marcos or San Antonio. They're not too far from Jonesboro or Middleboro, and not that bad of a drive from here. You would think that Missouri is a big enough state to support two FBS schools.

MeanGreen61 · July 2, 2010

The WAC has gotta be in serious trouble if a Tech poster is over here with a peace offering. Tech just wants to cover it's butt until they can bolt the WAC like a scalded dog. Plus the WAC without Boise Along with Fresno, Nevada and Hawaii looking for the exit doesn't offer much stability. :rolleyes:

Edited July 2, 2010 by MeanGreen61

Mean Green 93-98 · July 2, 2010

The WAC has gotta be in serious trouble if a Tech poster is over here with a peace offering. Tech just wants to cover it's butt until they can bolt the WAC like a scalded dog. Plus the WAC without Boise Along with Fresno, Nevada and Hawaii looking for the exit doesn't offer much stability.

I don't know that it speaks to any trouble with the WAC, but rather to LaTech's isolation from other conference mates.

MeanGreen61 · July 2, 2010

I don't know that it speaks to any trouble with the WAC, but rather to LaTech's isolation from other conference mates.

If Fresno and Nevada were to get the MWC invite they want, yep there would really be trouble in the WAC.

Edited July 2, 2010 by MeanGreen61

GrayEagle · July 2, 2010

Interested....yes

Above all others....definitely not

ColoradoEagle · July 2, 2010

It seems like a lot of WAC schools are dying on the vine. In the past few weeks, I've never read so many articles about budget problems as I have for several of the schools in that conference. Seems too risky, especially if we end up in a double dip recession where states have to make further cuts.

Mean Green 93-98 · July 2, 2010

If Fresno and Nevada were to get the MWC invite they want, yep there would really be trouble in the WAC.

I'm not saying that there isn't trouble in the WAC, but LaTech's interest in adding UNT (and other more eastern teams) to the WAC really has nothing to do with that.

johnnylightnin · July 2, 2010

The WAC has gotta be in serious trouble if a Tech poster is over here with a peace offering. Tech just wants to cover it's butt until they can bolt the WAC like a scalded dog. Plus the WAC without Boise Along with Fresno, Nevada and Hawaii looking for the exit doesn't offer much stability.

I was waiting for the "objective" one to weigh in...

I have no peace offering and I'm no decision maker. I'm just wondering what your fan base thinks. I knew there would be some who would rather decline the WAC just to spite Tech.

I've read quite a few posts about how bad Wright Waters is and about a desire to leave the Belt. I think this could be a workable solution for all involved. How many scalded dogs are there in the Belt that would leap at the chance to get into CUSA (MTSU, UNT, Troy, FIU, FAU, ULL, A-State, WKU...did I miss one? Oh yeah, ULM!). So, I think you'd be hard pressed to say that the desire to leave by Fresno and Nevada makes the WAC less stable than the Belt.

The WAC I've proposed is more stable than the current SunBelt and is more stable than the current WAC. It would give UNT a bigger (read more respected) platform.

Looks like a few fans out there agree with me...even though I knew you never would.

Arkstfan · July 2, 2010

Makes better sense to leave NMSU in the west and to add UNT, ULL, ASU, MTSU, WKU, and Troy. That makes for 7 team divisions and only two cross-over games instead of three. The downside is that by cutting the throat of USA, you probably lose the GMAC.

gangrene · July 2, 2010

What would it take to get UNT to join the WAC?

A WAC TV package with assurances of up to $20 million per year and the guarantee that UNT will be allowed to pursue our own TV network.

MeanGreen61 · July 2, 2010

I was waiting for the "objective" one to weigh in...

I have no peace offering and I'm no decision maker. I'm just wondering what your fan base thinks. I knew there would be some who would rather decline the WAC just to spite Tech.

I've read quite a few posts about how bad Wright Waters is and about a desire to leave the Belt. I think this could be a workable solution for all involved. How many scalded dogs are there in the Belt that would leap at the chance to get into CUSA (MTSU, UNT, Troy, FIU, FAU, ULL, A-State, WKU...did I miss one? Oh yeah, ULM!). So, I think you'd be hard pressed to say that the desire to leave by Fresno and Nevada makes the WAC less stable than the Belt.

The WAC I've proposed is more stable than the current SunBelt and is more stable than the current WAC. It would give UNT a bigger (read more respected) platform.

Looks like a few fans out there agree with me...even though I knew you never would.

I just find it strange that a tech guy would come here with a conference questions/proposal. Tech folks make it plain they feel UNT is beneath them and doesn't really have much to offer as a conference mate so pardon me if I am more than skeptical abut your motive(s).

johnnylightnin · July 2, 2010

What would it take to get UNT to join the WAC?

A WAC TV package with assurances of up to $20 million per year and the guarantee that UNT will be allowed to pursue our own TV network.

I don't know about the 20 mil, but I'm CERTAIN King Karl wouldn't say two words about the MeanGreen Network...

johnnylightnin · July 2, 2010

I just find it strange that a tech guy would come here with a conference questions/proposal. Tech folks make it plain they feel UNT is beneath them and doesn't really have much to offer as a conference mate so pardon me if I am more than skeptical abut your motive(s).

???

I think you're projecting. UNT is one of the two sunbelt programs that Tech has played in football in the recent past (depending on how you define recent, you could say that UNT is the lone sunbelt program we've played in football).

I rarely see Tech fans run UNT down individually. They want no part of the sunbelt conference, but the same could be said for a few sunbelt programs too.

As for my motives, I'm just a fan (a fan who reads multiple boards and has never been disruptive at gomeangreen.com). There are no motives because I don't make decisions about these things...I figure most of you don't either. It's the off-season.

What's my motive? Stave off boredom. What's yours?

UNTFan23 · July 2, 2010

I might not have made myself clear. Sub-out UTSA and TxSt. and sub-in A-State and ULM/Troy/MTSU/WKU. UTSA and TxSt. are just my preferences based on market-size and "potential".

So, your eWAC could look like this:

Tech
UNT
NMSU
ULL
A-State
Troy

That better?

So, brining most of the Sun Belt with us into the WAC is a move up? I thought [some] UNT fans wanted to distance themselves from the Sun Belt teams due to lack of their brand awareness with our fans?

johnnylightnin · July 2, 2010

So, brining most of the Sun Belt with us into the WAC is a move up? I thought [some] UNT fans wanted to distance themselves from the Sun Belt teams due to lack of their brand awareness with our fans?

4 is less than half of a 9 team conference (last I checked anyway). Could be that some of the fans have realized that an E-WAC is the best separation UNT can get at this time. If it provides much at all, it could lead to that CUSA invite in time. Who knows? It's not CUSA, but is it better than the current Sunbelt?

kj86 · July 2, 2010

So, brining most of the Sun Belt with us into the WAC is a move up? I thought [some] UNT fans wanted to distance themselves from the Sun Belt teams due to lack of their brand awareness with our fans?

Yes, it is. Just a change is conference name would be a move up. No one's saying this scenario is ideal or even OK, but it is better than the Belt as it is now.

UNTFan23 · July 2, 2010

4 is less than half of a 9 team conference (last I checked anyway). Could be that some of the fans have realized that an E-WAC is the best separation UNT can get at this time. If it provides much at all, it could lead to that CUSA invite in time. Who knows? It's not CUSA, but is it better than the current Sunbelt?

Even if the WAC somehow manages to bring in 4 Belt teams, there will be 7 former Belt teams in the new WAC. Not exactly a move up in my opinion, just a reshuffling of some teams and a new shoulder patch. Big deal. :ermm: