Warming Up To The Wac?

[RabidRunner]

Not here to troll/flame, serious ?'s

Is your school warming up to the idea of the WAC, specifically a WAC east division composed of:

LaTech

NMSt

UNT

UTSA

TxSt

Denver (olympic sports only)

Any other schools out there that would make you feel differently, say a Montana for instance?

Rumored that up to 10 schools may be present in Dallas for presentations to the WAC committe on Sept 27/28....any inkling that UNT might be present, even if just to hear the other school's out?

I know the general line of thinking for UNT: west coast conference is a bad fit for central time zone schools, Belt is stronger than the WAC 6 at this point, holding out for CUSA bid, travel for olympic sports...etc..

If you knew for a fact that UNT was NOT the first choice for CUSA expansion do you feel your administration would more strongly consider the WAC?

Does your team's performance over the past couple years, as well as the impending firing of your coach play into UNT's thought process at this point? Do you think you would be able to land a better qualified coach as a WAC member vs. the Belt? Would it be easier to rebuild under a new coach in a different conference with a fresh start, alongside 2 other TX schools that will be experiencing significant growing pains as well leveling the playing field for everyone?

Interested to hear your thoughts.

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

No

[UNTFan23]

Not here to troll/flame, serious ?'s

Is your school warming up to the idea of the WAC, specifically a WAC east division composed of:

LaTech

NMSt

UNT

UTSA

TxSt

Denver (olympic sports only)

Any other schools out there that would make you feel differently, say a Montana for instance?

Rumored that up to 10 schools may be present in Dallas for presentations to the WAC committe on Sept 27/28....any inkling that UNT might be present, even if just to hear the other school's out?

I know the general line of thinking for UNT: west coast conference is a bad fit for central time zone schools, Belt is stronger than the WAC 6 at this point, holding out for CUSA bid, travel for olympic sports...etc..

If you knew for a fact that UNT was NOT the first choice for CUSA expansion do you feel your administration would more strongly consider the WAC?

Does your team's performance over the past couple years, as well as the impending firing of your coach play into UNT's thought process at this point? Do you think you would be able to land a better qualified coach as a WAC member vs. the Belt? Would it be easier to rebuild under a new coach in a different conference with a fresh start, alongside 2 other TX schools that will be experiencing significant growing pains as well leveling the playing field for everyone?

Interested to hear your thoughts.

I'm not the Athletic Director/University President so I can't tell you what they would say, but despite the possible addition of an FCS school and a school that has yet to play a down of football on any level, my answer would still be ... No.

[CMJ]

[Shuke-D]

We do appreciate your tone in posing the question. But at the moment, with the way the season is going, it's kind of hard for us to focus rationally on such a matter. It is the equivalent of being in the car with your buddy. The brakes go out. You're trying to figure out what to do before the car goes off a cliff, and your buddy turns to you and asks, "you think we should have gone to Malibu instead?"

[Keith7]

One can only hope

[VideoEagle]

No. Not maybe, but no.

[DeepGreen]

My loins long for the waccy patch. Not!

[RabidRunner]

We do appreciate your tone in posing the question. But at the moment, with the way the season is going, it's kind of hard for us to focus rationally on such a matter. It is the equivalent of being in the car with your buddy. The brakes go out. You're trying to figure out what to do before the car goes off a cliff, and your buddy turns to you and asks, "you think we should have gone to Malibu instead?"

fair enough

[SilverEagle]

Not here to troll/flame, serious ?'s

Is your school warming up to the idea of the WAC, specifically a WAC east division composed of:

LaTech

NMSt

UNT

UTSA

TxSt

Denver (olympic sports only)

Any other schools out there that would make you feel differently, say a Montana for instance?

Rumored that up to 10 schools may be present in Dallas for presentations to the WAC committe on Sept 27/28....any inkling that UNT might be present, even if just to hear the other school's out?

I know the general line of thinking for UNT: west coast conference is a bad fit for central time zone schools, Belt is stronger than the WAC 6 at this point, holding out for CUSA bid, travel for olympic sports...etc..

If you knew for a fact that UNT was NOT the first choice for CUSA expansion do you feel your administration would more strongly consider the WAC?

Does your team's performance over the past couple years, as well as the impending firing of your coach play into UNT's thought process at this point? Do you think you would be able to land a better qualified coach as a WAC member vs. the Belt? Would it be easier to rebuild under a new coach in a different conference with a fresh start, alongside 2 other TX schools that will be experiencing significant growing pains as well leveling the playing field for everyone?

Interested to hear your thoughts.

Do you honestly think that this would make any sort of difference to any coach (qualified or not) regarding his interest in being the head coach of North Texas?

I'm going to politely say...no thanks.

[KoldBeer]

As always, it will come down to money. I don't know what kind of TV deal the new WAC can get. Also, with two non-football schools (Denver and somebody in west) football would have more trips to undesirable western area (from UNT perspective). If the WAC had 12 football schools (replace Denver with LA school) then I could see it might work. Then football would only go west once or twice a year.

There is also the question of how viable the WAC is. I'm not sure but what happens if one of the current schools leave. Does the conference lose all of it's automatic bids? If so, UNT is better staying in the Sun Belt.

I'm in the minority but I would at least take a hard look at the WAC if it went to 12 teams and UTSA and Texas St were in it. I also don't think UNT is getting a CUSA bid anytime soon so maybe that's why I have a different opinion.

[Eagle-96]

In the immortal words of the former mayor of Dallas, the Honorable Laura Miller:

"No"

[Army of Dad]

"Warming Up To The Wac?"

It doesn't get warmer if hell freezes over...

[ADLER]

no

[MeanGreen61]

Big West plus Southland = WAC Lite..........No thanks.

[TheColonyEagle]

Do you think you would be able to land a better qualified coach as a WAC member vs. The sunbelt?

With all due respect...

I just don't understand this point. You're not alone, many have the same feeling. Three years ago, maybe the WAC name meant something when compared to the sunbelt. But the WAC will soon not be the WAC anymore. It's like the WAC name means something. With the exception of Hawaii, The top 3 programs that really had anything close to success in the past 3-5 years are leaving. Who knows what Hawaii is going to do. The rest of the teams have no recent success, no real history of success and don't appear to be headed for success. 3 current teams are sunbelt teams that never won the sunbelt, the conference supposedly inferior to the WAC. Now the WAC is going to include 2-3 1AA teams, sunbelt rejects, and a group of teams that have never challenged in the conference?

Why on earth would UNT want to be included in that group?

Where is the improvement for UNT?

[Green Mean]

Soooooooooooo.......

[NT71]

Not here to troll/flame, serious ?'s

Is your school warming up to the idea of the WAC, specifically a WAC east division composed of:

LaTech

NMSt

UNT

UTSA

TxSt

Denver (olympic sports only)

Any other schools out there that would make you feel differently, say a Montana for instance?

Rumored that up to 10 schools may be present in Dallas for presentations to the WAC committe on Sept 27/28....any inkling that UNT might be present, even if just to hear the other school's out?

I know the general line of thinking for UNT: west coast conference is a bad fit for central time zone schools, Belt is stronger than the WAC 6 at this point, holding out for CUSA bid, travel for olympic sports...etc..

If you knew for a fact that UNT was NOT the first choice for CUSA expansion do you feel your administration would more strongly consider the WAC?

Does your team's performance over the past couple years, as well as the impending firing of your coach play into UNT's thought process at this point? Do you think you would be able to land a better qualified coach as a WAC member vs. the Belt? Would it be easier to rebuild under a new coach in a different conference with a fresh start, alongside 2 other TX schools that will be experiencing significant growing pains as well leveling the playing field for everyone?

Interested to hear your thoughts.

RR you do not know that NT has tried the WAC before in a conference named the Big West. That was a miserable experiment and did not do anything to help promote NT. Until the conference alignment is done no one knows where NT will wind up but until such time as those things are settled then we will be in the Sunbelt conference. As to your questions about the hiring of a coach that resides with the AD.

[gangrene]

No, no, no, no, no, never, never, never, no!

[TheTastyGreek]

I'll repeat the "not trying to sound rude or unpleasant" sentiment. But, to make the answer as obvious as it ought to be, I'll respond in the form of a question:

North Texas declined the WAC 6 years ago, when it had Boise State, Nevada, and Fresno State as stable members.

North Texas ignored a standing invite from Karl Benson for all the years in-between.

North Texas made it so clear that there was no interest in moving to the WAC when Boise State announced a move to the MWC that Karl Benson didn't even bother making another formal pitch to try and lure us in.

Now, with the WAC on the verge of complete collapse and fishing for unprepared 1-AA schools and/or teams that have never even played a down of NCAA football at ANY level... With Boise, Nevada, and Fresno State gone...

Why would North Texas decide to make a move to the WAC now?

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

Why would North Texas decide to make a move to the WAC now?

Because rarely does any UNT action make sense.

[RabidRunner]

With all due respect...

I just don't understand this point. You're not alone, many have the same feeling. Three years ago, maybe the WAC name meant something when compared to the sunbelt. But the WAC will soon not be the WAC anymore. It's like the WAC name means something. With the exception of Hawaii, The top 3 programs that really had anything close to success in the past 3-5 years are leaving. Who knows what Hawaii is going to do. The rest of the teams have no recent success, no real history of success and don't appear to be headed for success. 3 current teams are sunbelt teams that never won the sunbelt, the conference supposedly inferior to the WAC. Now the WAC is going to include 2-3 1AA teams, sunbelt rejects, and a group of teams that have never challenged in the conference?

Why on earth would UNT want to be included in that group?

Where is the improvement for UNT?

I'll repeat the "not trying to sound rude or unpleasant" sentiment. But, to make the answer as obvious as it ought to be, I'll respond in the form of a question:

North Texas declined the WAC 6 years ago, when it had Boise State, Nevada, and Fresno State as stable members.

North Texas ignored a standing invite from Karl Benson for all the years in-between.

North Texas made it so clear that there was no interest in moving to the WAC when Boise State announced a move to the MWC that Karl Benson didn't even bother making another formal pitch to try and lure us in.

Now, with the WAC on the verge of complete collapse and fishing for unprepared 1-AA schools and/or teams that have never even played a down of NCAA football at ANY level... With Boise, Nevada, and Fresno State gone...

Why would North Texas decide to make a move to the WAC now?

thanks for answering with more than a "no"

Im well aware of UNT's stance in the past regarding the WAC, simply wondering if more TX schools and other realignment scenarios might bring about some different thinking. You can certainly make the argument that the Belt is stronger than what will remain of the WAC, but the average person will still view the WAC as the better of the two IMO. Its still going to take a few years of consistency by Belt teams for that perception to change. The WAC will always have some type of ESPN deal, deserved or not, to fill late night slots. I think many are quick to dismiss the brand recognition that Boise has built for the WAC, I dont think that recognition dissapears the moment Fresno and BSU leave. IMO, knowing that a non AQ conference has produced multiple BCS at large teams within the past few years alone puts it way ahead in perception. It leaves the door open for the remaining/new members to have similar success, and offer that potential to recruits and fans. The belt ceiling still doesnt go that high IMO. Thats why I am asking now if anyone feels differently. Your program is on the verge of having to hit the reset button, momentum built by your last Sunbelt 'ship has nearly been erased by the Dodge tenure. If a program has to start over, with a new stadium to boot, why not consider a new conference as well. Call it the ultimate of clean slates i guess.

Edited September 21, 2010 by RabidRunner

[All About UNT]

thanks for answering with more than a "no"

Im well aware of UNT's stance in the past regarding the WAC, simply wondering if more TX schools and other realignment scenarios might bring about some different thinking. You can certainly make the argument that the Belt is stronger than what will remain of the WAC, but the average person will still view the WAC as the better of the two IMO. Its still going to take a few years of consistency by Belt teams for that perception to change. The WAC will always have some type of ESPN deal, deserved or not, to fill late night slots. I think many are quick to dismiss the brand recognition that Boise has built for the WAC, I dont think that recognition dissapears the moment Fresno and BSU leave. IMO, knowing that a non AQ conference has produced multiple BCS at large teams within the past few years alone puts it way ahead in perception. It leaves the door open for the remaining/new members to have similar success, and offer that potential to recruits and fans. The belt ceiling still doesnt go that high IMO. Thats why I am asking now if anyone feels differently. Your program is on the verge of having to hit the reset button, momentum built by your last Sunbelt 'ship has nearly been erased by the Dodge tenure. If a program has to start over, with a new stadium to boot, why not consider a new conference as well. Call it the ultimate of clean slates i guess.

Rabid....I have to say that having you on here and posing a question the way you did is doing your future team's fanbase a bit of good PR when all I can see are the same three knuckleheads posting garbage all over the net. Thanks for checking in on what we are thinking in the manner your did. Kudos and good luck beating Tuber Tech (no offense TxState).

[TheColonyEagle]

thanks for answering with more than a "no"

Im well aware of UNT's stance in the past regarding the WAC, simply wondering if more TX schools and other realignment scenarios might bring about some different thinking. You can certainly make the argument that the Belt is stronger than what will remain of the WAC, but the average person will still view the WAC as the better of the two IMO. Its still going to take a few years of consistency by Belt teams for that perception to change. The WAC will always have some type of ESPN deal, deserved or not, to fill late night slots. I think many are quick to dismiss the brand recognition that Boise has built for the WAC, I dont think that recognition dissapears the moment Fresno and BSU leave. IMO, knowing that a non AQ conference has produced multiple BCS at large teams within the past few years alone puts it way ahead in perception. It leaves the door open for the remaining/new members to have similar success, and offer that potential to recruits and fans. The belt ceiling still doesnt go that high IMO. Thats why I am asking now if anyone feels differently. Your program is on the verge of having to hit the reset button, momentum built by your last Sunbelt 'ship has nearly been erased by the Dodge tenure. If a program has to start over, with a new stadium to boot, why not consider a new conference as well. Call it the ultimate of clean slates i guess.

I see what you're saying, yes Boise built brand recognition for the Wac. But Boise is no longer going to be in the WAC. "A non AQ conference" did not produce multiple BCS at large teams. Boise did. Boise is no longer going to be in that non AQ conference. The average person may view the WAC as better for a while but it won't last. It can't. There aren't any good teams left in the conference! And they'll possibly have a quarter of the conference made up of 1AA teams how long will the "average fan" really view it as better?

If the Big 12 commissioner lost his mind and kicked all of the current Big 12 teams out and replaced them with teams from the Lonestar conference, how long would the Big 12 be considered a good conference?

It's still the Big 12 in name but none of the teams in it are any good.

[VideoEagle]

thanks for answering with more than a "no"

Im well aware of UNT's stance in the past regarding the WAC, simply wondering if more TX schools and other realignment scenarios might bring about some different thinking. You can certainly make the argument that the Belt is stronger than what will remain of the WAC, but the average person will still view the WAC as the better of the two IMO. Its still going to take a few years of consistency by Belt teams for that perception to change. The WAC will always have some type of ESPN deal, deserved or not, to fill late night slots. I think many are quick to dismiss the brand recognition that Boise has built for the WAC, I dont think that recognition dissapears the moment Fresno and BSU leave. IMO, knowing that a non AQ conference has produced multiple BCS at large teams within the past few years alone puts it way ahead in perception. It leaves the door open for the remaining/new members to have similar success, and offer that potential to recruits and fans. The belt ceiling still doesnt go that high IMO. Thats why I am asking now if anyone feels differently. Your program is on the verge of having to hit the reset button, momentum built by your last Sunbelt 'ship has nearly been erased by the Dodge tenure. If a program has to start over, with a new stadium to boot, why not consider a new conference as well. Call it the ultimate of clean slates i guess.

Yes, the WAC with more Texas schools would be more interesting but it has to be the right Texas schools. Those are FBS schools, not FCS move ups. We were playing at the University level in the NCAA before they called it Division 1 or 1A.

As for travel, for everything other than football, it is much cheaper and easier to get to Miami in Florida than than USU or Idaho. Last time I looked it took not one but two plane changes to get from Dallas to Moscow or Logan. And for charters, I'm told the Moscow airport requites planes to take off and fly to Boise to get a full load of fuel before continuing although this might have changed since the Big West days. Nothing compares to the price of getting a team to Hawaii but I think Hawaii helps subsidize those trips.

As for perception, it is not unusual for WAC games to not even be listing in the Dallas Morning News on Sunday morning and the Cowboys push out all college coverage on Monday. By Tuesday, the news is so old it isn't printed. TV gives the WAC even less coverage. That is a big reason TCU, SMU, Rice and Tulsa all left the WAC when they did. The WAC-lite will get even less coverage as the sports writers and editors locally were most impressed with Boise, then Fresno, Nevada and Hawaii.

Yes, the WAC will always have a spot on ESPN. But we are in the Central Time Zone and few stay up to watch games that start at 9pm or later after watching games all day. Gaining more fans and viewers for UNT who live in California really doesn't do us any good here in North Texas. If we were the University of Northern New Mexico joining the WAC would have been a no brainer. But we are the University of North Texas.