Wac Expansion

PlummMeanGreen · September 29, 2010

I don't say this to insult our friends and visitors from UTSA and TSU, but it might be easier for Karl Benson to take the WAC down to the next NCAA level than trying to life-support the WAC forever at the FBS level. Either way, he still keeps his job.

I think we now know which conference Wright Waters will never be applying. Poor, poor, poor La Tech...they are now stuck in the NCAA version of purgatory. :innocent: One of their posters on BB&B even wants the Dawgs to try for the MAC. :no:

Darn it! If the SBC could just get its bowl-bound conference champ in the Top 25, this league might just be worth it for the next several years, but I just don't see it even based on our non-respect and non-competitivnes, ie, no nationally impressive wins, this Fall. The sportswriters the SBC needs to impress to gain Top 25 votes are unfortunately all along the the eastern seaboard. :thumbdown:

GMG!

Edited September 29, 2010 by PlummMeanGreen

NT80 · September 30, 2010

UTSA and Tx-State-SM as basketball-only members??

"O'Day said he watched four schools give presentations to league officials as basketball-only members: Texas-San Antonio, Texas State-San Marcos, Seattle University and the University of Denver."

http://missoulian.com/college/griz/article_3126e064-cb4d-11df-98cf-001cc4c002e0.html

shaft · September 30, 2010

The WAC still has bigger payouts than the SBC, but I wouldn't want to be in that conference even with UTSA & Texas State.

UTSA is going to cannibalize Texas State.

I think the SBC would be smart to just invite LA Tech & UTSA.

NT80 · September 30, 2010

I think the SBC would be smart to just invite LA Tech & UTSA.

They should invite NMSU too.

Green Otaku · September 30, 2010

If the WAC survives and we don't join, a few years from now we will be looking back wishing we had taken a shot. Just the same as if we had joined in 04, now we realized we could have been playing Boise St., Hawaii when it was ranked, and now a ranked Nevada.

Even now the remaining teams have name recognition. Hawaii, Idaho, Utah State, LA tech, and some what NM State. People know about those schools. You ask about FIU, ULM, etc. and you will get a blank stare. This year has shown this conference is not improving.

Ask our friend RabidRunner why their fans want to join the WAC and not the Sunbelt. They wan't to go to a conference that has a history of building up its teams. No one knew who Boise st. was when they first came to FBS, so who knows what new schools will have the chance to be the new Boise.

Edited September 30, 2010 by Green Otaku

NT80 · September 30, 2010

Ask our friend RabidRunner why their fans want to join the WAC and not the Sunbelt.

Probably because the WAC has shown interest in them (needs them bad to remain a viable conference)and the SunBelt has not (doesn't need them).

Ask La Tech about their travel budget in the WAC and how they would pay for it if it wasn't for BCS and NCAA shares previously received by other WAC members and split...UTSA will get none of those shares to help out.

VideoEagle · September 30, 2010

If the WAC survives and we don't join, a few years from now we will be looking back wishing we had taken a shot.

Not really. A small fraction of our fan base regrets joining back in '04 and the fact we have not taken the WAC up on the standing invitation they have had on the table for us ever since. The professionals who have the real budget figures in front of them universally are opposed to NT joining the WAC. That includes multiple current and past Presidents. The consultant we just hire also said don't do it. Arky State and ULL both looked and won't do it. An "Eastern WAC" makes not sense on two levels. First, Hawaii and San Jose State are completely opposed to the idea. Second, why would NT want join either Idaho or Utah STate - there is no economic model that works for NT to be in a conference or division with either of those schools. You can't get there on an airline. Miami has a major international airport.

The professionals at TExas State and UTSA want to join the WAC only because they can't get into the SBC or CUSA and the only way to move up to FNS ball is to be invited by an FBS conference. In 2012, the WAC technically stops being an FBS conference unless they get can force Nevada and Fresno to stay via a lawsuit or get two new schools and an NCAA waiver to allow transitional FCS to count. The fact the WAC is insisting UTSA join for the 2012 season makes me think the WAC is not sure about the success of their lawsuit.

In short, NT is not going WACy.

Shof · September 30, 2010

Not really. A small fraction of our fan base regrets joining back in '04 and the fact we have not taken the WAC up on the standing invitation they have had on the table for us ever since. The professionals who have the real budget figures in front of them universally are opposed to NT joining the WAC. That includes multiple current and past Presidents. The consultant we just hire also said don't do it. Arky State and ULL both looked and won't do it. An "Eastern WAC" makes not sense on two levels. First, Hawaii and San Jose State are completely opposed to the idea. Second, why would NT want join either Idaho or Utah STate - there is no economic model that works for NT to be in a conference or division with either of those schools. You can't get there on an airline. Miami has a major international airport.

The professionals at TExas State and UTSA want to join the WAC only because they can't get into the SBC or CUSA and the only way to move up to FNS ball is to be invited by an FBS conference. In 2012, the WAC technically stops being an FBS conference unless they get can force Nevada and Fresno to stay via a lawsuit or get two new schools and an NCAA waiver to allow transitional FCS to count. The fact the WAC is insisting UTSA join for the 2012 season makes me think the WAC is not sure about the success of their lawsuit.

In short, NT is not going WACy.

To quote DFM on the Tech board:

To fill in the total story -

Prior to that release - Benson offered full membership to both UNT and the Cajuns and both declined....

Can't say I blame them -

PlummMeanGreen · September 30, 2010

Not really. A small fraction of our fan base regrets joining back in '04 and the fact we have not taken the WAC up on the standing invitation they have had on the table for us ever since. The professionals who have the real budget figures in front of them universally are opposed to NT joining the WAC. That includes multiple current and past Presidents. The consultant we just hire also said don't do it. Arky State and ULL both looked and won't do it. An "Eastern WAC" makes not sense on two levels. First, Hawaii and San Jose State are completely opposed to the idea. Second, why would NT want join either Idaho or Utah STate - there is no economic model that works for NT to be in a conference or division with either of those schools. You can't get there on an airline. Miami has a major international airport.

The professionals at TExas State and UTSA want to join the WAC only because they can't get into the SBC or CUSA and the only way to move up to FNS ball is to be invited by an FBS conference. In 2012, the WAC technically stops being an FBS conference unless they get can force Nevada and Fresno to stay via a lawsuit or get two new schools and an NCAA waiver to allow transitional FCS to count. The fact the WAC is insisting UTSA join for the 2012 season makes me think the WAC is not sure about the success of their lawsuit.

In short, NT is not going WACy.

Boise State dropping out of the WAC made a future with that league a complete "no go." Hawaii will soon drop out and then what do you have? A league with La Tech as its #1 team? No, the WAC was just merely a passing fancy and something to speculate about on this forum. We really do have bigger fish to fry IMHO.

SBC for sure ain't no Highland Park, but it's also not a trailor park where tenants don't know if they should stay or move out, either.

GMG!

Edited September 30, 2010 by PlummMeanGreen

wardly · September 30, 2010

If the WAC survives and we don't join, a few years from now we will be looking back wishing we had taken a shot. Just the same as if we had joined in 04, now we realized we could have been playing Boise St., Hawaii when it was ranked, and now a ranked Nevada.

Even now the remaining teams have name recognition. Hawaii, Idaho, Utah State, LA tech, and some what NM State. People know about those schools. You ask about FIU, ULM, etc. and you will get a blank stare. This year has shown this conference is not improving.

Ask our friend RabidRunner why their fans want to join the WAC and not the Sunbelt. They wan't to go to a conference that has a history of building up its teams. No one knew who Boise st. was when they first came to FBS, so who knows what new schools will have the chance to be the new Boise.

the wac just doesn't work for us. closest school, other than la tech who has bags packed, is 600 miles from us [nmsu]. our experiebce in the big worst taught us that. also, 6 years ago we didn't have the budget. playing boise, nevada, and hawaii are not the same as competing with them, especially boise. they are the largest state school in the largest city[ which i think is state capitol] in a small state. in a micro way you might compate they to ut. bottom line; we will never have resourses they do. the belt is a much better conference than the new wac, and a better fit for us. just an opinion.

Green Mean · September 30, 2010

Not really. A small fraction of our fan base regrets joining back in '04 and the fact we have not taken the WAC up on the standing invitation they have had on the table for us ever since.

In short, NT is not going WACy.

Going to the WAC in 2004 would have been beneficial for UNT from a reputation stand point. Playing in the same conference with Boise, Nevada, Fresno, and to some extent Hawaii is a lot better than what the SBC throws out there.

However today going to the WAC would be a disaster. The SBC IMO would be better overall than the new WAC that will form in the next couple of years.

RabidRunner · September 30, 2010

If the WAC survives and we don't join, a few years from now we will be looking back wishing we had taken a shot. Just the same as if we had joined in 04, now we realized we could have been playing Boise St., Hawaii when it was ranked, and now a ranked Nevada.

Even now the remaining teams have name recognition. Hawaii, Idaho, Utah State, LA tech, and some what NM State. People know about those schools. You ask about FIU, ULM, etc. and you will get a blank stare. This year has shown this conference is not improving.

Ask our friend RabidRunner why their fans want to join the WAC and not the Sunbelt. They wan't to go to a conference that has a history of building up its teams. No one knew who Boise st. was when they first came to FBS, so who knows what new schools will have the chance to be the new Boise.

You pretty much hit it on the head. I wont argue that as it stands right now it IS the worst FBS conference, but IMO there is still upside to joining the WAC. Above all else it has a track record of bringing up programs and making them known on the national stage (Fresno, BSU , Hawaii). Thus far the Belt has not been able to duplicate that. The WAC will still have some type of presence on ESPN, and with the addition of large media markets in SA/Austin, Seattle, Denver there is a chance a new ESPN deal could be pretty decent. At the end of the day I still feel the ceiling is higher in the WAC than the Belt. UTSA, with our facility, Coker, and our strong OOC schedule has the opportunity to replicate what BSU has done in the WAC. By no means am I saying they will....but just to know that opportunity exists is very exciting.

BeanCounterGrad'03 · September 30, 2010

Ask our friend RabidRunner why their fans want to join the WAC and not the Sunbelt. They wan't to go to a conference that has a history of building up its teams. No one knew who Boise st. was when they first came to FBS, so who knows what new schools will have the chance to be the new Boise.

How much did the WAC have a hand in building up BSU? My thought is not much if any. The success that Boise (and Hawaii, Nevada, and Fresno to a lesser extent) has had is due to years of them winning the games they needed to win. Even with Idaho's recent relative success, did the WAC hire their coach four years ago?

TIgreen01 · September 30, 2010

You pretty much hit it on the head. I wont argue that as it stands right now it IS the worst FBS conference, but IMO there is still upside to joining the WAC. Above all else it has a track record of bringing up programs and making them known on the national stage (Fresno, BSU , Hawaii). Thus far the Belt has not been able to duplicate that. The WAC will still have some type of presence on ESPN, and with the addition of large media markets in SA/Austin, Seattle, Denver there is a chance a new ESPN deal could be pretty decent. At the end of the day I still feel the ceiling is higher in the WAC than the Belt. UTSA, with our facility, Coker, and our strong OOC schedule has the opportunity to replicate what BSU has done in the WAC. By no means am I saying they will....but just to know that opportunity exists is very exciting.

Ok...let's be honest here. The WAC is, and has been, completely terrible. The draw here, for anyone, is to run the tables through that weak conference and hope to bolster your won/loss record accordingly. Winning, will in turn, open the doors for everything else to come much easier. The biggest problem UTSA faces is that they are an hour away from UT, they have freaking 'UT' in their name (so they will always fight the stigma of being a side-kick to UT-Austin), and they are in a state that is dominated by pro football. They need to get the city behind them ASAP....with a crazy campus that is scattered throughout SA and truly is a commuter school, they can't possibly hope to get that mess put together without first getting the city behind them. So...they get the Alamo bowl for a home stadium and hire a national name to startup the program. Now all they need is a way into the system and against weak competition so they can win early and often. The Southland saw this coming and made rule changes to prevent UTSA from using them. Then the depleted WAC situation drops and is a dream scenario for UTSA. It presents the weakest possible football schedule, and one in which they have a chance to win a lot of games. That won't happen if they take the WAC bait of joining early and send a team of underclassmen in there in year one and two. They will lose and that would kill all the momentum they have going.

See bolded text above...it's PRECISELY why the WAC has a history of bringing up programs. It's a weak conference that if an up and coming school can get their act together (see Boise--and BYU before them) can be easily dominated. Saying the Sun Belt (or the MAC for that matter) can't produce the same lightning in a bottle scenario is silly. It has everything to do with the individual institutions that made those jumps getting their stuff together and doing it....and being in a league that wasn't too difficult to win every year. The Sun Belt, the MAC, the WAC....these leagues are all interchangeable. It's the school's commitment that matters. So far, it looks like UTSA has that going for them.

Edited September 30, 2010 by TIgreen01

PlummMeanGreen · September 30, 2010

You pretty much hit it on the head. I wont argue that as it stands right now it IS the worst FBS conference, but IMO there is still upside to joining the WAC. Above all else it has a track record of bringing up programs and making them known on the national stage (Fresno, BSU , Hawaii). Thus far the Belt has not been able to duplicate that. The WAC will still have some type of presence on ESPN, and with the addition of large media markets in SA/Austin, Seattle, Denver there is a chance a new ESPN deal could be pretty decent. At the end of the day I still feel the ceiling is higher in the WAC than the Belt. UTSA, with our facility, Coker, and our strong OOC schedule has the opportunity to replicate what BSU has done in the WAC. By no means am I saying they will....but just to know that opportunity exists is very exciting.

The upside is that UTSA and TSU(SM) don't have to waller in a non-revenue level of an NCAA co-existence forever as others will. This part will have been handed to you (somewhat) on a silver platter if yall get thru the waiver part--both schools should build a statue of Karl Benson because he's the man who would have made it happen. Some will say you 2 schools will have almost had it too easy in fact, but that is probably those of us who have wondered aimlessly forever. (We have young alums who have never seen a UNT HFC who had more winning seasons than losing ones, career-wise. Yet UNT has thru the decades had poor leadership, ie, those who really never had a clue about the rewards of being successful in the upper echelon of NCAA football, especially in Texas of which most of our leaders of late have not been Lone Star natives.

It was their cluelessness that kept UNT wandering in the NCAA wilderness for 3 plus decades and therefore lost many alums along the way because they would not do what Gretchen B. had the b@lls (if she had been a man) to do. I think her plugging our new football stadium was part of her personal demise at UNT quite frankly and no one has yet to say it wasn't. In fact, has there been any explanation as to why she was fired?

I am intrigued with UTSA's situation. You have a great city and a decent domed stadium to start out with--not a bad way to debut any football program.

Not sure that UTSA can emulate South Florida because of being in Texas, but I think yall could become good OOC foes for UNT in due time. Most of us in the DFW Metroplex like an occassional trip down to Austin/San Antonio from time to time--mine as a Texas history enthusiast of which your area is most rich.

I wish yall luck. I think TSU(SM) has a tougher road to travel but they do have their selling points and I mean........Arnold the Flying Pig @ Aquarena Springs at the top of that list? UNT cannot top that in any way! (Come on TSU'ers--we're waiting)! :lol:

GMG!

Edited September 30, 2010 by PlummMeanGreen

Green Mean · October 1, 2010

Ok...let's be honest here. The WAC is, and has been, completely terrible.

I disagree. If the WAC has been terrible then I don't even want go imagine how the SBC has been.

VideoEagle · October 1, 2010

and our strong OOC schedule has the opportunity to replicate what BSU has done in the WAC.

That part I have to disagree with. Check out BSU's OOC schedule and you will see very, very few strong teams. The schedule you have will help pay for a program, but not build it. Just ask La Tech about playing the kind of schedule you have.

The other think about you schedule is I wonder how many of those return games are actually going to happen. Everyone of you contacts has a buy-out or other escape clause and while I'm sure some of the teams will come to SA to play I'm equally sure a lot of them will "reschedule" for an undetermined date in the future. Most lower level FBS schools find that to be a common occurrence no matter what stadium them own (or rent).

For UTSA, the WAC makes sense as it is the only possible way to move to FBS football. There is a rerason NT and ULL and Arky State aren't interested and Hawaii is considering the Big West!

Edited October 1, 2010 by VideoEagle