Guys not trying to bash but is Idaho a good choice for your confernece other than location? I mean what does their stadium hold for football...16,000? Come on. :laugh:

whedbee Wrote:Guys not trying to bash but is Idaho a good choice for your confernece other than location? I mean what does their stadium hold for football...16,000? Come on. :laugh:

I am not trying to bash Idaho either, but they really need to be D1aa in football. I think the WAC should trade Idaho to the Big Sky Conference for Montana!!!!!

Really I am from the east coast and I am not in the know like many here but I do like the WAC. I just figure that adding schools to get to a certain number is ridiculous. Idaho does not belong just like La. tech should be in th Sun Belt or CUSA.

whedbee Wrote:Really I am from the east coast and I am not in the know like many here but I do like the WAC. I just figure that adding schools to get to a certain number is ridiculous. Idaho does not belong just like La. tech should be in th Sun Belt or CUSA.

Well, the WAC needs at least 8 teams to be a NCAA D1A football conference per NCAA Rules!
But obviously Idaho does not belong in the WAC. I am not trying to bash Idaho either. I think Idaho could be a great NAIA sports program or maybe even NCAA division 2.

I don't know if they are good enough for the Big Sky!!!!!

And so you know how someone on the east coast feels...I totally feel that Boise st. and Fresno deserve the MWC....its a shame they both deserve it before anyone else.

whedbee Wrote:Guys not trying to bash but is Idaho a good choice for your confernece other than location? I mean what does their stadium hold for football...16,000? Come on. :laugh:

I am not trying to bash Idaho either, but it is very difficult to find anything good about Idaho in the WAC! They should be in the Big Sky. Their facilities would be in the top half of the conference in the Big Sky after Montana leaves for the WAC!!!!!!

whedbee Wrote:And so you know how someone on the east coast feels...I totally feel that Boise st. and Fresno deserve the MWC....its a shame they both deserve it before anyone else.

With the Addition of TCU, the MWC lost a lot of its attractiveness for Boise State and Fresno State. The MWC dropped ESPN for some obscure tv network package. No one will be seeing the MWC schools on TV in the very near future!!!!

Maybe San Diego State and UNLV will see the light and join the WAC!!!!!!

FOOTBALLFANATIC Wrote:

whedbee Wrote:And so you know how someone on the east coast feels...I totally feel that Boise st. and Fresno deserve the MWC....its a shame they both deserve it before anyone else.

With the Addition of TCU, the MWC lost a lot of its attractiveness for Boise State and Fresno State. The MWC dropped ESPN for some obscure tv network package. No one will be seeing the MWC schools on TV in the very near future!!!!

Maybe San Diego State and UNLV will see the light and join the WAC!!!!!!

Why Not Idaho?????

Every Conference needs a bottom feeder and San Jose State needs a team to push around in Football and Basketball!!!!!!!!

whedbee Wrote:Guys not trying to bash but is Idaho a good choice for your confernece other than location? I mean what does their stadium hold for football...16,000? Come on. :laugh:

Still trolling, eh? :rolleyes:

Guess you had to find some other pot to stir up since your nearly identical flame bait post (substitute Rice and SMU for Idaho) on the CUSA board got locked.

Couldn't have been identical, Cane Gang... our stadium holds a lot more than 16,000. :D

lauramac Wrote:Couldn't have been identical, Cane Gang... our stadium holds a lot more than 16,000. :D

yeah... but does it need to?

(just getting the smack warmed up a week early)

We like to put our feet up, Wheat Boy. :D

whedbee Wrote:Guys not trying to bash but is Idaho a good choice for your confernece other than location? I mean what does their stadium hold for football...16,000? Come on. :laugh:

Uhhhh, exactly WHO would you have the W.A.C. add instead of Idaho???? Hmmmmm???

Instead of asking WHY IDAHO.......perhaps you ought to do a wee bit of actual THINKING and ask yourself ..................WHO ELSE?

To answer that question for you (in case ACTUAL thinking is not your strong suit) THERE WAS NOONE ELSE TO CHOOSE. North Texas turned down an invitation from the W.A.C. to remain in the pathetic Scum Belt Conference and they were the only other viable option other than Idaho.

I personally do not want Idaho in the W.A.C. at all, but what I personally want isn't relevant at all. It's simply a matter of WHO is viable.

Unfortunately, I'm with whedbee on this one.

I was fine with the additions of USU and NMSU, but I think adding Idaho was a TERRIBLE stretch.

I'm sorry, but you have to draw the line somewhere, and adding Idaho adds absolutely NOTHING to the WAC, except geography for Boise State and Nevada. Idaho is having allot of trouble just competing in the weak Sunbelt, and they probably won't meet the 15K home attendance average. And if everything I've heard is true, the Kibbie Dome only seats 16K, and Idaho's facilities are well below Div 1A standards.

I figure BSU and Nevada fans are the only WAC fans that are truly happy about adding Idaho. for the rest of us, it's just an embarrassment.

HD

A. You "figure" completely wrong...........Boise State fans do NOT want Idaho in the WAC at all. I don't know what on earth would lead ANYONE to that erroneous conclusion

B. You completely missed the point.....................IF NOT IDAHO THEN WHO? DUhhhhhhhhh
Try ANSWERING THAT QUESTION and quit your bitching about Idaho being added if you don't have some other team you can name who would be a realistic candidate for addition to the WAC. The fact is there is nobody else that the WAC could have added................period................whether you (or I) like it or not. Dat's da fact, Jack!!

I do differ from whedbee's comments about Louisiana Tech belonging in CUSA or the Sunbelt. He is obviously a Sunbelt fan who is upset that Idaho is moving to the WAC, and that LA Tech refuses to join the Sunbelt.

Fact is, LA Tech is too big for the Sunbelt, and will likely end up in CUSA someday. But in the meantime, we LOVE the WAC and love the competitiveness of the WAC.

Whedbee, it's NOT just about geography. Attempting to put Idaho and LA Tech in the same bucket is silly. LA Tech has MUCH better athletic facilities than UI, consistently averages 20K at home in football, and consistently competes for WAC titles in several sports, including football, men's basketball and women's basketball. Furthermore, LA Tech has the big time ability to jump up and beat a "BCS" school at almost any time, just as they've done so many times in recent years. Since 1997, LA Tech has beaten CAL, Mississippi State, Alabama (twice), Oklahoma State, and Michigan State.

That's 6 wins over BCS schools in 7 years. Idaho can't touch that.

HD

Hey BoiseStateRules:

Do me a favor and quit acting like a 10-year old. If you are gonna talk to me, quit saying silly stuff like "quit your bitchin". That's tired and overused. Besides, you people ASKED!!!!!

If you don't want an answer, for God's sake DON'T ASK!!!!!

You have to make a decision. Do you want HONEST feedback or not? I gave you honest feedback about the addition of Idaho from Louisiana Tech's perspective. You may not like the answer, but these ARE the facts. Sunbelt members down south think it's LAUGHABLE that the WAC added Idaho. And I agree with them.

I don't adhere to the "warm body" rule like you do. The WAC shouldn't be in the busines of just adding "warm bodies". For the sake of it's longivity, the WAC should have cut a deal to add UNT, AND the New Orleans Bowl to the eastern WAC. This would have made the WAC more viable LONG TERM for LA Tech. And the WAC COULD have made it more attractive to both (UNT & the NO Bowl) to join us in the WAC.

The problem now is, the WAC left the Sunbelt in tact by not getting UNT and the New Orleans Bowl. That leaves LA Tech still looking for a bid from CUSA someday. It didn't have to be that way.

HD

Dewd, you start the smack and then abandon it -- whuzzup wi' dat?

Anyway, y'all Tulsa Wheaties will get crunched next week when Rice "Chex" your enthusiasm.

:D

(Yes, I'm milking that wheat thing from the Nevada broadcast. Something that stupid, you've got to run with it.)

NOTE: The post above was for Cane Gang. For some weird reason, I don't get a "QUOTE" reply button -- have to do it manually. Can't seem to edit my own posts either, to put the quote in after the fact.

Quote:

lauramac Wrote:Couldn't have been identical, Cane Gang... our stadium holds a lot more than 16,000. :D

yeah... but does it need to?

(just getting the smack warmed up a week early)

And there he abandoned the smack.

HogDawg Wrote:I do differ from whedbee's comments about Louisiana Tech belonging in CUSA or the Sunbelt. He is obviously a Sunbelt fan who is upset that Idaho is moving to the WAC, and that LA Tech refuses to join the Sunbelt.

Fact is, LA Tech is too big for the Sunbelt, and will likely end up in CUSA someday. But in the meantime, we LOVE the WAC and love the competitiveness of the WAC.

Whedbee, it's NOT just about geography. Attempting to put Idaho and LA Tech in the same bucket is silly. LA Tech has MUCH better athletic facilities than UI, consistently averages 20K at home in football, and consistently competes for WAC titles in several sports, including football, men's basketball and women's basketball. Furthermore, LA Tech has the big time ability to jump up and beat a "BCS" school at almost any time, just as they've done so many times in recent years. Since 1997, LA Tech has beaten CAL, Mississippi State, Alabama (twice), Oklahoma State, and Michigan State.

That's 6 wins over BCS schools in 7 years. Idaho can't touch that.

HD

<span style='font-family:Times'><span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:blue'>Incorrect. "Wetbed" is David Krysakowski in disguise. I don't know if he is a Sun Belt fan or not. What I do know is that Sun Belt fans are not a fan of his.</span></span></span>