(09-07-2010 09:02 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  

(09-07-2010 08:23 PM)Hilltopper2K Wrote:  

(09-07-2010 08:10 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  UNT won't, but we sure would. The Sunbelt isn't looking to expand at this time and if we're wanting to transition, this might be our only chance.

Just out of curiosity, would you prefer the Sunbelt or Wac lite?

Overall, if we can get UTSA in on this action and be assured Hawaii and LaTech are staying, I would prefer the WAC. This way, our transition to FBS would be a little easier and we could run the table baseball wise.

A good question to ask is how would our fan base respond to the Belt. Some over at bobcatfans think there would only be short lasting excitement for FBS, until our base realizes the Belt is only the Southland on steroids. The WAC at least offers name recognition and something new to try (by no means am I trying to knock the Sun Belt).

EDIT: With that said, there are a handful of Belt schools I would love to see us play even if we do jump to the WAC (ULala, Ark St, Troy, MTSU)..

You have a math issue.

WAC has 6. They need 8 to FBS.
If any one of the six leaves, absent special dispensation from the NCAA you have a conference that does not have an automatic bid in any sport (recruit baseball, volleyball, basketball, etc with little chance of post-season). You no longer have the required number to FBS at six and the BCS will have to vote on how to treat the WAC. Precedent says, they treat the WAC like they did the Sun Belt, no equity membership instead receiving only a flat token sum from the BCS while transitioning back. I suspect the Sun Belt reps to the BCS will make a point of reminding people forcefully how the league was treated and ask if the group plans to be arbitary and capricious in how it applies its standards, probably followed by a demand for back pay if the WAC isn't treated identically.

Texas State has already chosen to stand-down once before when unable to move FBS in a prudent manner. The reports that they have crunched the numbers and found the WAC to not be feasible are highly plausible. WAC membership come 2012 (if not 2011) will produce the same or less revenue as Sun Belt membership with significantly higher expenses.

If Texas State has the sort of money needed to survive that, they are on the verge of Sun Belt membership because they can demonstrate to the league they have the resources to compete.

As to the fans calling the Sun Belt the Southland on steroids, got no problem with that. Louisiana Monroe was I-AA champion as a member of the SLC, Arkansas State was a runner-up and still holds on the best winning percentages for the playoffs by any program. North Texas in 12 years represented the SLC four times in post-season. Troy won the SLC 3 times in six years and represented the league 4 times in the playoffs. Sun Belt members won outright or shared 17 SLC titles of 46. Throw in Tech and that's 25 titles held by schools that moved to FBS. Non-football UTA won three, and bringing back football Lamar won two more. With the exception of McNeese State, all the established proven muscle in the conference has moved on.

The SLC hasn't sent a team to the title game since 1997, 12 years ago. It went from having three appearances in a four year period (followed by the great migration) to three appearances in 22 years.