(08-22-2010 09:49 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(08-22-2010 09:07 PM)cajun4life Wrote:  

(08-22-2010 07:07 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  If things fall apart and the WAC ends, don't you think that the SBC would take NMSU and La Tech back. Maybe you guys are overly hating on them. 12/14 conference title game. Heh you should offer Denver and UALR as compensation. Let the WAC be the hybrid conf. 4/2. I hope the WAC holds together though because you guys know I love conference movement and I'd like to see UTSA, Texas St., Sac St., Montana, UC Davis, Cal Poly in the FBS.

From what I have heard, ASU, UNT and Louisiana would vote no if the subject of La Tech to the Sunbelt were brought to the Belt presidents. The administration of La Tech has publicly spurned all belt schools but those mentioned are the ones who would hold them to their remarks. ASU, UNT and Louisiana would rather see the WAC survive and add 3 FCS schools or more. This would place the WAC below the Belt for a long time, once the big three leave the WAC it will be the worst conference in the country anyway.

I personally want La Tech to die on the vine, either in the WAC or as an independent. Tech going the Indy route would be best case scenario for Louisiana and ULM. The boycott by the Belt schools would continue and it would force Tech to continue their extreme travel without riding the coattails of Boise, Fresno, Nevada and Hawaii like they have for the last 5 years.

Karma is a ***** and they have a lot of bad karma coming their way.

So 3 no votes. ULM not one of them? How many need to say yes for an invite 9 or 8?

4 no votes. ASU ULL ULM UNT. a 5th No Vote is likely in Denver because of Travel.

either 8 or 9 of the 11 have to approve the move

whats to spin. bringing in the two texas schools does make a better outlook for Tech IF they stay in the WAC.

Plane trips are still plane trips, bucko.

I don't see the point in it but if the remaining six stay together, it is no better or worse than the Belt.

This statement by itself shows your complete and utter ignorance.


If Hawaii and USU goes there is no point in even talking about it. compair the schools in the remaining WAC and the sun belt. You still have Troy and MT. Thats it. every other program is either average or well below average. WKU NT ULL ULM FIU FAU Ark st. All pretty average to bad teams. The current Wac has Idaho which won eight games last year. LTU which could still have wiped up the belt even with its 4 wins. USU and N. Mx St.. which average in football are no worse than any of the belt teams mentioned and they are the two core members of the WACs basketball prowess.

The WAC, regardless of who they add, is now the worst FBS conference in America....and that's by a wide margin.

Add TSU UTSA and MOntana and the WAc still on paper looks better than the belt who only has a top two.

Let's see. Two FCS schools (ask any now-FBS school how that transition went...start with WKU which had an FCS National Championship and was a perennial FCS playoff team...and went 0-12.
And, check what the President of Montana had to say. They can't go without Montana State.

Oh, and your third choice doesn't even have a team yet.





What is the difference if Tech dominates the new weakened Wac or dominates or joins MT and Troy at the top of the belt.

You cannot and will not join Troy and MT. I don't think you'll even join Ark. St and UL, but that's just my opinion.

With closer opponents it does make the travel expenses go down for Tech. I have no problem with going to the belt at all but the new WAC if it loses no more members would basically be about the same

The only intelligent part of the last paragraph is that you realize that your travel expenses will go down.

. I mean come on Montana is already a better team than the bottom seven belt schools and UTSA and TSU are surely right about where UNT and WKU are.

Um...UTSA doesn't play football. Geez....

And Montana would have to add two sports to get up to FBS status. Salaries...schollies....travel....and no money to make football better.




Until some of the other schools start getting on the level of MT and Troy, the Sunbelt really doesnt have anything to thump its chest about other than stability.

Well, first of all, stability is a good thing. Secondly, the Sun Belt has received more BCS distribution $$$ than the MAC twice in the last four years. It will now get more than the WAC as well.....if the WAC survives.



the WAC can survive this if they can convince Tech and Hawaii to stay but I find it very doubtful either will. If Cusa doesnt invite Tech this time around I think they will head to the belt. Plain and simple. But you guys act like the belt has just been lighting up the win column lately.

It has. You just haven't paid attention. The Sun Belt had a ten win team and a nine win team (the WAC can't say that.) And, the Sun Belt had as many bowl eligible teams as the WAC did last year.


, I don't see how Tech can avoid getting a bid every year as well.

Yes. In the worst conference in america, you have a chance.


My fear is that now that the conference is weak so will our recruits.

Most intelligent part of your post. Even you realize that it sucks to be you right now.


. We know the new WAC will suck but the question is will it suck any more than the belt. I doubt it.

That makes you ignorant.
[/quote]

(08-22-2010 09:29 PM)CajunT Wrote:  

(08-22-2010 02:47 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  whats to spin. bringing in the two texas schools does make a better outlook for Tech IF they stay in the WAC. I don't see the point in it but if the remaining six stay together, it is no better or worse than the Belt. If Hawaii and USU goes there is no point in even talking about it. compair the schools in the remaining WAC and the sun belt. You still have Troy and MT. Thats it. every other program is either average or well below average. WKU NT ULL ULM FIU FAU Ark st. All pretty average to bad teams. The current Wac has Idaho which won eight games last year. LTU which could still have wiped up the belt even with its 4 wins. USU and N. Mx St.. which average in football are no worse than any of the belt teams mentioned and they are the two core members of the WACs basketball prowess. Add TSU UTSA and MOntana and the WAc still on paper looks better than the belt who only has a top two. What is the difference if Tech dominates the new weakened Wac or dominates or joins MT and Troy at the top of the belt. With closer opponents it does make the travel expenses go down for Tech. I have no problem with going to the belt at all but the new WAC if it loses no more members would basically be about the same. I mean come on Montana is already a better team than the bottom seven belt schools and UTSA and TSU are surely right about where UNT and WKU are. Until some of the other schools start getting on the level of MT and Troy, the Sunbelt really doesnt have anything to thump its chest about other than stability. the WAC can survive this if they can convince Tech and Hawaii to stay but I find it very doubtful either will. If Cusa doesnt invite Tech this time around I think they will head to the belt. Plain and simple. But you guys act like the belt has just been lighting up the win column lately. Its been a two man team now for years and hasnt really gotten much better. Hawaii will always be guaranteed a bowl if they get to six wins so I don't know why they would even want to leave, and now that Fresno Nev and Boise are gone, I don't see how Tech can avoid getting a bid every year as well. My fear is that now that the conference is weak so will our recruits. I find it funny how even you guys on your board say that in a few years of Tech being in the belt they will start losing quality recruits and be losing to Belt teams.
We have been saying that all along. We can dominate the belt with the current recruits but our recruiting will drop drastically in the belt or the new WAC. On top of it, we have been getting these great coaching staffs, well its doubtful they will look at Tech as some great place to coach in these two bad conferences either. We do seem to have more pull in the new WAC but as someone stated, who cares, the conference will be no better than the belt. but it will probably be no worse either. No one at Tech is being delusional. We know the new WAC will suck but the question is will it suck any more than the belt. I doubt it.

Man you must have worked in the Clinton administration, talk about spin. UL has a basketball program that has been to the NCAA's in the last 20 years, Football has won six games, three out of the past four years, Baseball usually in Regionals and Softball in the top 20 every year.

Yep, worse then adding FCS programs? Uh no!

The WAC without Boise State is the Sun Belt without snow.

The WAC without Boise State,Fresno St and Neveda is the worst Bowl Division conference in the NCAA's, enjoy.

Tech is the only program I've ever known that can convince its fans after looking into a mirror with a dress on, that they really aren't a cross dresser.

(08-22-2010 09:49 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(08-22-2010 09:07 PM)cajun4life Wrote:  

(08-22-2010 07:07 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  If things fall apart and the WAC ends, don't you think that the SBC would take NMSU and La Tech back. Maybe you guys are overly hating on them. 12/14 conference title game. Heh you should offer Denver and UALR as compensation. Let the WAC be the hybrid conf. 4/2. I hope the WAC holds together though because you guys know I love conference movement and I'd like to see UTSA, Texas St., Sac St., Montana, UC Davis, Cal Poly in the FBS.

From what I have heard, ASU, UNT and Louisiana would vote no if the subject of La Tech to the Sunbelt were brought to the Belt presidents. The administration of La Tech has publicly spurned all belt schools but those mentioned are the ones who would hold them to their remarks. ASU, UNT and Louisiana would rather see the WAC survive and add 3 FCS schools or more. This would place the WAC below the Belt for a long time, once the big three leave the WAC it will be the worst conference in the country anyway.

I personally want La Tech to die on the vine, either in the WAC or as an independent. Tech going the Indy route would be best case scenario for Louisiana and ULM. The boycott by the Belt schools would continue and it would force Tech to continue their extreme travel without riding the coattails of Boise, Fresno, Nevada and Hawaii like they have for the last 5 years.

Karma is a ***** and they have a lot of bad karma coming their way.

So 3 no votes. ULM not one of them? How many need to say yes for an invite 9 or 8?

I believe the magic number of votes is 8. ULM would more than likely be a yes vote due to the fact that it would force Tech to recognize them and have to play home and home in all sports. ULM needs Tech in the Belt in order to stay a viable 1A program. There are numerous rumors within the state of Louisiana that ULM will move back down to 1AA due to the dire financial situation for higher ed in Louisiana. These rumors are from within the legislature and ULS board. We will see how true or untrue those rumors are. Hiring a new athletic friendly pres is essential for them to remain in 1A IMO.

Saw this post about Tech on the MAC Board and thought it was a hoot:

Does the common fan in the MAC area care about La Tech?? I really don't think so, they would draw like EMU does, nothing. People in the Great Lakes area have no common bond with southern hillbillies from Louisana. Their football program is mediocre, their mens basketball program is garbage and their women's program has fallen off the map. Its just not worth it.

I never said we didnt want to be in the belt. I just said that if there were no more defections, it would be a matter of picking between one sucky conference or another. You guys keep saying the belt has improved but take whats left in the wac and they would still do very well in the belt. The belt has two good teams, two competitive teams and the rest barely treading water. How is that any better than. Hawaii, LaTech Nmx St USU and Idaho? All these teams are just as good if not better than the belt. Add the bottom dwellers Montana, UTSA and TSU and they are no worse than your bottom dwellers, USA W. KY NT Ark St. and ULM. Actually you have more bottom dwellers as I feel Montana could actually beat those teams in your bottom five. It is just a matter of what bottom dweller conference we want to be in. You guys are still not any better than the crippled WAC. Sorry you guys know it too. Right now its just a matter of what will cost Tech less to travel and that may be the belt. and I am sorry I forgot to include the two florida schools. whatever. Since when are you guys under the impression that even whats left in the WAC couldnt still do better than the belt. 80 percent of your conference is not winning games and a crippled WAC aint gonna change that.

(08-22-2010 10:55 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  I never said we didnt want to be in the belt. I just said that if there were no more defections, it would be a matter of picking between one sucky conference or another. You guys keep saying the belt has improved but take whats left in the wac and they would still do very well in the belt. The belt has two good teams, two competitive teams and the rest barely treading water. How is that any better than. Hawaii, LaTech Nmx St USU and Idaho? All these teams are just as good if not better than the belt. Add the bottom dwellers Montana, UTSA and TSU and they are no worse than your bottom dwellers, USA W. KY NT Ark St. and ULM. Actually you have more bottom dwellers as I feel Montana could actually beat those teams in your bottom five. It is just a matter of what bottom dweller conference we want to be in. You guys are still not any better than the crippled WAC. Sorry you guys know it too. Right now its just a matter of what will cost Tech less to travel and that may be the belt. and I am sorry I forgot to include the two florida schools. whatever. Since when are you guys under the impression that even whats left in the WAC couldnt still do better than the belt. 80 percent of your conference is not winning games and a crippled WAC aint gonna change that.

Sorry, but you may want to rethink this portion of your analysis. ULM is not an SBC bottom dweller in football...especially not with two (2) 6-6 seasons within the past three (3) seasons. In any event, I love how you have to use so many words, and come up with creative arguments, to try to convince yourself that staying in the WAC as it will be constituted within the next few years will be a good thing.

(08-22-2010 11:15 PM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  

(08-22-2010 10:55 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  I never said we didnt want to be in the belt. I just said that if there were no more defections, it would be a matter of picking between one sucky conference or another. You guys keep saying the belt has improved but take whats left in the wac and they would still do very well in the belt. The belt has two good teams, two competitive teams and the rest barely treading water. How is that any better than. Hawaii, LaTech Nmx St USU and Idaho? All these teams are just as good if not better than the belt. Add the bottom dwellers Montana, UTSA and TSU and they are no worse than your bottom dwellers, USA W. KY NT Ark St. and ULM. Actually you have more bottom dwellers as I feel Montana could actually beat those teams in your bottom five. It is just a matter of what bottom dweller conference we want to be in. You guys are still not any better than the crippled WAC. Sorry you guys know it too. Right now its just a matter of what will cost Tech less to travel and that may be the belt. and I am sorry I forgot to include the two florida schools. whatever. Since when are you guys under the impression that even whats left in the WAC couldnt still do better than the belt. 80 percent of your conference is not winning games and a crippled WAC aint gonna change that.

Sorry, but you may want to rethink this portion of your analysis. ULM is not an SBC bottom dweller in football...especially not with two (2) 6-6 seasons within the past three (3) seasons. In any event, I love how you have to use so many words, and come up with creative arguments, to try to convince yourself that staying in the WAC as it will be constituted within the next few years will be a good thing.

neither is Arkansas State who has finished top 3 in the conference the majority of the last several years

and then to argue that they arent as good as FCS teams when they traditionally have beaten those squads fairly handily

(08-23-2010 01:49 AM)panther viscosity Wrote:  "My fear is that now that the conference is weak so will our recruits. I find it funny how even you guys on your board say that in a few years of Tech being in the belt they will start losing quality recruits and be losing to Belt teams."

What Louisiana Tech didn't even have a better recruiting class than FIU last year. Now that it's in the Weakly Wac conference forget about it, just look at rivals 2010. FIU hasn't even done well, has only been around div. 1 football since 2004, and just got its stadium and weight room. Yet it still recruited better than louisiana tech.....Do you use any facts in you arguments or are they just illogical reasoning? Sun belt should take NMSU and leave louisiana tech to rot.

La Tech might be looking to the SBC sooner than they thought if this "insider on the BYU board is right(he's the one that first talked about them going Indy)

http://www.cougarboard.com/nologin/messa...id=5818739

I figure Houston and/or UTEP would want to stay put if true and Utah St. will get an invite, Hawaii would get a fb only invite, however I think 12/13 would be better so they don't have to hit up the WCC or Big West.

NMSU/La Tech will beg the SBC to get in and Idaho will drop to FCS and rejoin the Sky while SJSU drops fb and rejoins the Big West. Thus leaving the FCS schools in the FCS. I hate it.

Fresno, read yesterday in one of the Utah papers where an ass't AD who does football scheduling at Notre Dame said that if BYU goes indy that he'd like to do a long-term deal for games in November.

I know one rumor floating was USU for all-sports, BYU everything but football and Hawaii for football only.

I don't see UTEP wanting in MWC unless Houston joins. They have big alumni bases in DFW and Houston. If the Coogs stay CUSA, UTEP will stay so they get the SMU/Rice/Houston games. If Houston were to leave then I think they'd prefer TCU/Houston over SMU/Rice plus having some closer games in the west.

A month ago I don't believe Houston would have accepted an MWC invite with BYU out, if the CUSA TV contract is going as bad as rumored, Houston may be chomping to get in.

(08-23-2010 01:52 AM)panther viscosity Wrote:  

(08-23-2010 01:49 AM)panther viscosity Wrote:  "My fear is that now that the conference is weak so will our recruits. I find it funny how even you guys on your board say that in a few years of Tech being in the belt they will start losing quality recruits and be losing to Belt teams."

What Louisiana Tech didn't even have a better recruiting class than FIU last year. Now that it's in the Weakly Wac conference forget about it, just look at rivals 2010. FIU hasn't even done well, has only been around div. 1 football since 2004, and just got its stadium and weight room. Yet it still recruited better than louisiana tech.....Do you use any facts in you arguments or are they just illogical reasoning? Sun belt should take NMSU and leave louisiana tech to rot.

very simply put. Sunbelt=Troy MT and a bunch of sucky teams. New Wac= Hawaii, Idaho, Tech and a bunch of sucky teams. Not much difference. Not alot of words is that good enough for you? I would probably rather go the belt route but it wouldnt matter if we just stayed where we were. If more teams leave its not even a question. And please Arkansas St you are about as consistent as a bowel movement. You went to the coveted Lafayette bowl with a six win team. Name me the last time anyone besides Troy Mt or FAU has topped 6 wins in a regular season. I think you have to really reach. It would probably be N. Texas years ago.

(08-23-2010 07:29 AM)theATLDawg Wrote:  

(08-23-2010 01:52 AM)panther viscosity Wrote:  

(08-23-2010 01:49 AM)panther viscosity Wrote:  "My fear is that now that the conference is weak so will our recruits. I find it funny how even you guys on your board say that in a few years of Tech being in the belt they will start losing quality recruits and be losing to Belt teams."

What Louisiana Tech didn't even have a better recruiting class than FIU last year. Now that it's in the Weakly Wac conference forget about it, just look at rivals 2010. FIU hasn't even done well, has only been around div. 1 football since 2004, and just got its stadium and weight room. Yet it still recruited better than louisiana tech.....Do you use any facts in you arguments or are they just illogical reasoning? Sun belt should take NMSU and leave louisiana tech to rot.

very simply put. Sunbelt=Troy MT and a bunch of sucky teams. New Wac= Hawaii, Idaho, Tech and a bunch of sucky teams. Not much difference. Not alot of words is that good enough for you? I would probably rather go the belt route but it wouldnt matter if we just stayed where we were. If more teams leave its not even a question. And please Arkansas St you are about as consistent as a bowel movement. You went to the coveted Lafayette bowl with a six win team. Name me the last time anyone besides Troy Mt or FAU has topped 6 wins in a regular season. I think you have to really reach. It would probably be N. Texas years ago.

Six wins in an 11 game season.

I defer to your expertise on bowel movements since you tend to be full of ****.

(08-23-2010 07:29 AM)theATLDawg Wrote:  New Wac= Hawaii, Idaho, Tech and a bunch of sucky teams.

Since when did Idaho become an elite team? They had one good season in the past however many years.
2000 5-6
2001 1-10
2002 2-10
2003 3-9
2004 3-9
2005 2-9
2006 4-8
2007 1-11
2008 2-10
2009 8-5

Loser Tech's record doesn't fare much better than ours either.
2000 3-9
2001 7-5
2002 4-8
2003 5-7
2004 6-6
2005 7-4
2006 3-10
2007 5-7
2008 8-5
2009 4-8

ASU
2000 1-10
2001 2-9
2002 6-7
2003 5-7
2004 3-8
2005 6-6
2006 6-6
2007 5-7
2008 6-6
2009 4-8

Now why would you go and do that? Posting all these facts instead of biased opinion?

You're dropping the ball.

(08-23-2010 08:18 AM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  Now why would you go and do that? Posting all these facts instead of biased opinion?

You're dropping the ball.

:Iagree:

How DARE you use facts to prove a LA Tech poster is full of

(08-23-2010 07:29 AM)theATLDawg Wrote:  

(08-23-2010 01:52 AM)panther viscosity Wrote:  

(08-23-2010 01:49 AM)panther viscosity Wrote:  "My fear is that now that the conference is weak so will our recruits. I find it funny how even you guys on your board say that in a few years of Tech being in the belt they will start losing quality recruits and be losing to Belt teams."

What Louisiana Tech didn't even have a better recruiting class than FIU last year. Now that it's in the Weakly Wac conference forget about it, just look at rivals 2010. FIU hasn't even done well, has only been around div. 1 football since 2004, and just got its stadium and weight room. Yet it still recruited better than louisiana tech.....Do you use any facts in you arguments or are they just illogical reasoning? Sun belt should take NMSU and leave louisiana tech to rot.

very simply put. Sunbelt=Troy MT and a bunch of sucky teams. New Wac= Hawaii, Idaho, Tech and a bunch of sucky teams. Not much difference. Not alot of words is that good enough for you? I would probably rather go the belt route but it wouldnt matter if we just stayed where we were. If more teams leave its not even a question. And please Arkansas St you are about as consistent as a bowel movement. You went to the coveted Lafayette bowl with a six win team. Name me the last time anyone besides Troy Mt or FAU has topped 6 wins in a regular season. I think you have to really reach. It would probably be N. Texas years ago.

I have stayed out of this, but it has gotten to the point to where you just need to shut up. You are making yourself look like an @ss with every post. You have no facts to back up anything you post. Please go post on the WAC board while there is still a WAC.

(08-23-2010 09:08 AM)statefanatic Wrote:  

(08-23-2010 07:29 AM)theATLDawg Wrote:  

(08-23-2010 01:52 AM)panther viscosity Wrote:  

(08-23-2010 01:49 AM)panther viscosity Wrote:  "My fear is that now that the conference is weak so will our recruits. I find it funny how even you guys on your board say that in a few years of Tech being in the belt they will start losing quality recruits and be losing to Belt teams."

What Louisiana Tech didn't even have a better recruiting class than FIU last year. Now that it's in the Weakly Wac conference forget about it, just look at rivals 2010. FIU hasn't even done well, has only been around div. 1 football since 2004, and just got its stadium and weight room. Yet it still recruited better than louisiana tech.....Do you use any facts in you arguments or are they just illogical reasoning? Sun belt should take NMSU and leave louisiana tech to rot.

very simply put. Sunbelt=Troy MT and a bunch of sucky teams. New Wac= Hawaii, Idaho, Tech and a bunch of sucky teams. Not much difference. Not alot of words is that good enough for you? I would probably rather go the belt route but it wouldnt matter if we just stayed where we were. If more teams leave its not even a question. And please Arkansas St you are about as consistent as a bowel movement. You went to the coveted Lafayette bowl with a six win team. Name me the last time anyone besides Troy Mt or FAU has topped 6 wins in a regular season. I think you have to really reach. It would probably be N. Texas years ago.

I have stayed out of this, but it has gotten to the point to where you just need to shut up. You are making yourself look like an @ss with every post. You have no facts to back up anything you post. Please go post on the WAC board while there is still a WAC.

This guy is just not intelligent; when he looks in the mirror his best thought for the day is 'I see stupid people' . . .