Wac Expansion

[shaft]

The WAC is looking at adding Montana, Texas State, and UTSA in football and Seattle & Denver is other sports.

So does this make the WAC a better conference?

[Mean Green 93-98]

Better than what?

[VideoEagle]

The WAC is looking at adding Montana, Texas State, and UTSA in football and Seattle & Denver is other sports.

So does this make the WAC a better conference?

Better than what?

If football, who on that list equals Boise, Nevada or Fresno? Actually, who on that list is better than them at basketball?

[Green Mean]

The WAC is looking at adding Montana, Texas State, and UTSA in football and Seattle & Denver is other sports.

So does this make the WAC a better conference?

The key word is looking. I don't think Seattle moves up nor do I think Montana would. I do think Montana has a great fan following which may be able to support it but I have read that their AD isn't too keen on making the move up. As it is they are very successful in FCS. Adding UTSA and Texas State are desperate moves for the WAC and even then...none of those schools could get in if they aren't approved by the NCAA. With the WAC constructed like this they would be the worst conference by far IMO.

[RabidRunner]

The key word is looking. I don't think Seattle moves up nor do I think Montana would. I do think Montana has a great fan following which may be able to support it but I have read that their AD isn't too keen on making the move up. As it is they are very successful in FCS. Adding UTSA and Texas State are desperate moves for the WAC and even then...none of those schools could get in if they aren't approved by the NCAA. With the WAC constructed like this they would be the worst conference by far IMO.

meep meep!

[wardly]

The key word is looking. I don't think Seattle moves up nor do I think Montana would. I do think Montana has a great fan following which may be able to support it but I have read that their AD isn't too keen on making the move up. As it is they are very successful in FCS. Adding UTSA and Texas State are desperate moves for the WAC and even then...none of those schools could get in if they aren't approved by the NCAA. With the WAC constructed like this they would be the worst conference by far IMO.

seattle and denver have both tried to get in the wcc, who says they are not expanding after addition of byu. montana, who is experiencing financial problems, is locked at the hip with montana state, and they are not going anywhere. for basketball, it makes sense to add seattle and denver. for football, the have no choice but to add texas state and utsa to get up to 8 schools. does it make them a better conference? no way, but it keeps them alive until realignment strikes again. i give them credit. they are the conference that should be dead but find a way to survive, even if its at a much lower level of competation.

[PlummMeanGreen]

The WAC is looking at adding Montana, Texas State, and UTSA in football and Seattle & Denver is other sports.

So does this make the WAC a better conference?

I think what will piss off any one ever connected with UNT or Mean Green football is if UTSA pulls off another Univ. of South Florida deal and catapults itself over any SBC school into a much better situation, ie, a la South Florida.

That would all but break the spirit of many on this board (including yours truly) albeit we are resilient and always seem to rebound.

Thank goodness we are not having to fight our future battles in the NCAA still stuck at Fouts Field, though--our forever albatross in more ways than many would ever believe. I hope UNT officials will allow us to come up and watch its implosion rather than having one at 3:00 AM in the morning.

Question 1: Has the WAC considered going down to the next level of NCAA competition?

Question 2: Which is the next conference that will go through what the WAC has? I don't think this stops with the WAC at all.

GMG!

Edited September 29, 2010 by PlummMeanGreen

[RabidRunner]

I think what will piss off any one ever connected with UNT or Mean Green football is if UTSA pulls off another Univ. of South Florida deal and catapults itself over any SBC school into a much better situation, ie, a la South Florida.

That would all but break the spirit of many on this board (including yours truly) albeit we always seem to rebound.

Thank goodness we are not having to fight our future battles in the NCAA still stuck at Fouts Field, though--our forever albotross in more ways than many would ever believe. I hope UNT officials will allow us to come up and watch its implosion rather than having one at 3:00 AM in the morning.

PS Has the WAC considered going down to the next level of NCAA competition?

GMG!

UTSA has a lot of pieces in place to rise up quickly, it really boils down to how quickly they can become competitive. They have a brutal OOC schedule starting in 2013. My hope is that come 2014 they can be competitive atleast in WAC conference play, at that point they will have approx 50 players that will be 4th and 5th year seniors with a lot of playing time under their belt.

Some chatter that the WAC may try to get a waiver to allow UTSA entry for the 2012 season. Our AD isnt too thrilled with that idea, but if thats what the WAC demands than we have no choice really. A team full of red shirt sophs and freshman are going to be in WAY over their head at that point.

[PlummMeanGreen]

UTSA has a lot of pieces in place to rise up quickly, it really boils down to how quickly they can become competitive. They have a brutal OOC schedule starting in 2013. My hope is that come 2014 they can be competitive atleast in WAC conference play, at that point they will have approx 50 players that will be 4th and 5th year seniors with a lot of playing time under their belt.

Some chatter that the WAC may try to get a waiver to allow UTSA entry for the 2012 season. Our AD isnt too thrilled with that idea, but if thats what the WAC demands than we have no choice really. A team full of red shirt sophs and freshman are going to be in WAY over their head at that point.

Of course, the other side of the coin for USF was how badly the Big East needed another member & their location and program success was just what the doctor ordered for Big East officials; just like now as the Big East are apparently flirting with TCU. This is so very strange with the geography of all this in the NCAA--doesn't seem to matter anymore. (I mean UT was flirting on having conference rivals 2,000 miles away in California).

UTSA's problem may be the same as ours--the state we are located and the fact that neither have the skins on the wall like all the other ex SWC/non Big 12 schools all seem to have (which puts them in the front of the line over those of us who were never in the SWC). Yall are too young to know how political UT-Austin may get with your program, too. After all, they are The University of Texas and the rest of us have to not forget that; especially those schools who are in its system.

Also, rabid-runner, what about TSU-SM's role in all this? Is the WAC trying to get a waiver for the Bobcats, too?

And you mentioned future OOC schools on your schedule? Care to elaborate on the ones you play at home? Thanks in advance.

GMG

Edited September 29, 2010 by PlummMeanGreen

[MeanGreenTexan]

meep meep!

What is the meaning of this post? Insinuating that we are being passed by? Is UNT supposed to be Wylie E. Coyote?

It's great that you have a strong allegiance to your school, but you should take off the Alamo-tinted glasses and understand that UTSA has not played a down of football and is at least 20 years behind where UNT is now, let alone where WE will be in 20 years.

The University of North Texas is terminating our contract with ACME products after this season (Fouts implosion) due to their inferior product. and will soon have the necessary tools to eat that stupid roadrunner.

Mmmm...Roadrunner.

[RabidRunner]

What is the meaning of this post? Insinuating that we are being passed by? Is UNT supposed to be Wylie E. Coyote?

It's great that you have a strong allegiance to your school, but you should take off the Alamo-tinted glasses and understand that UTSA has not played a down of football and is at least 20 years behind where UNT is now, let alone where WE will be in 20 years.

The University of North Texas is terminating our contract with ACME products after this season (Fouts implosion) due to their inferior product. and will soon have the necessary tools to eat that stupid roadrunner.

Mmmm...Roadrunner.

nope, why you jumping to conclusions....maybe YOU are worried about something. Read my posts here on GMG, I have been nothing but respectful.

[PlummMeanGreen]

What is the meaning of this post? Insinuating that we are being passed by? Is UNT supposed to be Wylie E. Coyote?

It's great that you have a strong allegiance to your school, but you should take off the Alamo-tinted glasses and understand that UTSA has not played a down of football and is at least 20 years behind where UNT is now, let alone where WE will be in 20 years.

The University of North Texas is terminating our contract with ACME products after this season (Fouts implosion) due to their inferior product. and will soon have the necessary tools to eat that stupid roadrunner.

Mmmm...Roadrunner.

I think "meep meep" is a desparate cry for help in road-runner talk (or is it chirp)? Hellsbells! Almost ran over one today on Bankhead Hwy. I also brake for birds, too. I've even gotten out of my car and removed a very slow turtle from the middle of a country road that young guys in pickups would run over for sport. Bet some of you, too, are softies for animals.

GMG!

I think we will all be intrigued to see what UTSA does with FBS football. After all, they do have a city and stadium to sell itself with, right? And last I heard, in PeeWee's Big Adventure (his stolen bike is still in the basement of the Alamo for heaven's sake)!

Edited September 29, 2010 by PlummMeanGreen

[RabidRunner]

Of course, the other side of the coin for USF was how badly the Big East needed another member & their location and program success was just what the doctor ordered for Big East officials; just like now as the Big East are apparently flirting with TCU. This is so very strange with the geography of all this in the NCAA--doesn't seem to matter anymore. (I mean UT was flirting on having conference rivals 2,000 miles away in California).

UTSA's problem may be the same as ours--the state we are located and the fact that neither have the skins on the wall like all the other ex SWC/non Big 12 schools all seem to have (which puts them in the front of the line over those of us who were never in the SWC). Yall are too young to know how political UT-Austin may get with your program, too. After all, they are The University of Texas and the rest of us have to not forget that; especially those schools who are in its system.

Also, rabid-runner, what about TSU-SM's role in all this? Is the WAC trying to get a waiver for the Bobcats, too?

And you mentioned future OOC schools on your schedule? Care to elaborate on the ones you play at home? Thanks in advance.

GMG

Exactly, USF benfitted from a desperate conference, so is UTSA. I havent heard mention on a TXSt join date. Already being FCS they are a year ahead of us on progression so they should be able to go in 2012 as well if they want.

UTSA currently has home games scheduled with:

Arizona

Arizona St

Virgina

Baylor

Ok St

Kansas St

La Tech

Colorado St

Also we are in discussions with New Mexico, Tech Tech and Air Force, but that may all be on hold now until this WAC situation plays out.

EDIT: clarification on TxSt's possible join date, looks like they are a go for 2012.

http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblogs/utsa/2010/09/

Edited September 29, 2010 by RabidRunner

[PlummMeanGreen]

Exactly, USF benfitted from a desperate conference, so is UTSA. I havent heard mention on a TXSt join date. Already being FCS they are a year ahead of us on progression so they should be able to go in 2012 as well if they want.

UTSA currently has home games scheduled with:

Arizona

Arizona St

Virgina

Baylor

Ok St

Kansas St

La Tech

Colorado St

Also we are in discussions with New Mexico, Tech Tech and Air Force, but that may all be on hold now until this WAC situation plays out.

Duly impressed. I can see the virtues of everything starting out new like it will be at UTSA.

GMG!

[MeanGreenTexan]

nope, why you jumping to conclusions....maybe YOU are worried about something. Read my posts here on GMG, I have been nothing but respectful.

I appreciate your respectful nature...Absolutely.

Sorry if my tone was too mean (we are the MEAN GREEN). I'm just trying to understand your agenda here, and that post was a little suspect.

I had to jump to conclusions because "meep. meep." leaves so much to my wild imagination...just making sure the record was straight.

Good to have you here rabidrunner. My, what nice legs you have...

[RabidRunner]

I appreciate your respectful nature...Absolutely.

Sorry if my tone was too mean (we are the MEAN GREEN). I'm just trying to understand your agenda here, and that post was a little suspect.

I had to jump to conclusions because "meep. meep." leaves so much to my wild imagination...just making sure the record was straight.

Good to have you here rabidrunner. My, what nice legs you have...

fair enough, thanks for the welcome.

remember, the coyote never wins

[Green Mean]

South Florida was the exception, not the rule. I'm not saying UTSA couldn't do what USF did but if that is what they are hanging their hat on then it's not a good move. Just because you are scheduling great home games doesn't mean a whole lot. They can always back out and to many of the good opponents, their idea will be they are recruiting the state and they won't have to play outdoors in San Antonio. It truly takes a long long long time to build equity into your program and there will be a ton of growing pains. In my estimation TSU is still way ahead of UTSA because they already have an established football program and they are already making their plans of their own stadium expansion.

[aztecskin]

I've said before that I'd rather have them in our conference, whether that be the WAC or the Sunbelt.

Given the recent Neinas report on the UNT Althetics, it looks like our conference will remain the 'Belt for a while.

So, in lieu of conference clashes, I hope we can schedule some OOC games with them. Gotta get a rivalry going, man.

[MeanGreenTexan]

I've said before that I'd rather have them in our conference, whether that be the WAC or the Sunbelt.

Given the recent Neinas report on the UNT Althetics, it looks like our conference will remain the 'Belt for a while.

So, in lieu of conference clashes, I hope we can schedule some OOC games with them. Gotta get a rivalry going, man.

I can definitely see this for TXSt, since we kind of already have one from the I-aa days, but why do we need to engage in a rivalry with UTSA? Let them create a rivalry with UTEP or some other UT system school.

[TIgreen01]

I don't think either UTSA or TSU are in for any kind of meteoric rise, ala South Florida. The biggest reason is that these 2 schools only further dilute an already tapped out talent pool. Florida only had 3 major football playing universities, until 10 years ago (or whenever UCF and USF jumped into the fray, then FIU and FAU behind them), in a state that produces as much FBS talent as Texas---which has 9-10 FBS schools by comparison. When you factor in that these two schools will soon field 85 scholarship athletes each, the number of I-A athletes produced by Texas will instantly increase (at least on paper)---but by pulling many of the same players that would have previously signed with them at the FCS level. We're just diluting the pool even further. I think a big part of USF's rise was that they were immediately able to land top-notch athletes....a feat that UTSA and TSU will have a very difficult time duplicating.

[RabidRunner]

I don't think either UTSA or TSU are in for any kind of meteoric rise, ala South Florida. The biggest reason is that these 2 schools only further dilute an already tapped out talent pool. Florida only had 3 major football playing universities, until 10 years ago (or whenever UCF and USF jumped into the fray, then FIU and FAU behind them), in a state that produces as much FBS talent as Texas---which has 9-10 FBS schools by comparison. When you factor in that these two schools will soon field 85 scholarship athletes each, the number of I-A athletes produced by Texas will instantly increase (at least on paper)---but by pulling many of the same players that would have previously signed with them at the FCS level. We're just diluting the pool even further. I think a big part of USF's rise was that they were immediately able to land top-notch athletes....a feat that UTSA and TSU will have a very difficult time duplicating.

I understand your point, but I think you underestimate how many HS athletes we export from this state each year. I took a quick look through the out of state MWC rosters and there is atleast 10 TX kids on each one, some like Colorado St have 20 or 30. Not to say these are all world talents, but I find it hard to believe more kids wouldn't stay in state if the option was available to them. With the addition of 2 more schools you are really only adding an additional 50-60 scholys in any given recruiting cycle.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---Good article in Midland paper about this today... The UTSA problem is that the WAC needs them to compete in 2012 and at that point they will have only freshmasn and sophomores and maybe a few transfers or JC players... That is a tough way to start and the administration is not too excited about that. The WAC is desparately trying to survive it seems and has even filed suit to keep some of those leaving the confernece to stay a bit longer...

---Nothing was said about the NCAA allowing TxState and UTSA be allowed to move to the upper division.

---TxState has not been a "world-beater" in the Southland Conference and of course UTSA football doesn't even exist yet. This really demonstates how desparate they are... nothing was saii about Montana -- at least I don't remember it.. and I don't have the paper nearby. below article on web seems to be same with additional paragraph about Denver etc.

http://star.txstate.edu/content/texas-state-makes-favorable-wac-impression

Edited September 29, 2010 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Rudy]

[VideoEagle]

I thought the WAC's lawsuit to force Nevada and Fresno to stay an extra year was a "slam dunk." If so, then they don't need UTSA till 2013. Is the WAC giving up on that?

[NT80]

The WAC is now in full survival mode.

They will/must try to sign 3 schools to make a football league of 9 for 2012. Since there are no viable (gullible) FBS schools available then they will turn to the best available FCS football schools within their geographic footprint. They will also add a couple non-football schools to round out a complete conference schedule for all sports.

The WAC still has name recognition value, but beyond that it is a dead-FBS-conference-walking.