http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5735144

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I hope the folks running CSU/Fresno and Nevada have
learned something about making hasty decisions in signing and
then promptly breaking contracts.

I hope the WAC adds Montana, UTSA, Denver and Seattle.
The additions help with market size, and FB, BB probably will
be okay. It would be really good for FB if Montana could
duplicate what Boise has accomplished. IMO Probably not going
to happen.

(10-28-2010 12:01 PM)paco Wrote:  I hope the WAC adds Montana, UTSA, Denver and Seattle.
The additions help with market size, and FB, BB probably will
be okay.

How is adding 1 FCS program helping the conference's football? (UTSA's FB team exists just a little bit more than Denver and Seattle's does.)

(10-28-2010 03:11 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(10-28-2010 12:01 PM)paco Wrote:  I hope the WAC adds Montana, UTSA, Denver and Seattle.
The additions help with market size, and FB, BB probably will
be okay.

How is adding 1 FCS program helping the conference's football? (UTSA's FB team exists just a little bit more than Denver and Seattle's does.)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Apparently there are no FBS programs avaliable to the WAC.
Montana may be FCS, but IMO Montana has name recognition,
probably will draw more than twenty thousand to its FB games,
and has been successful at the FCS level. All a benefit to the WAC.

UTSA, from everything I read--- is going to put a FB team on the
field, playing at FBS level. UTSA has potential, large market, and
a ready to go FB stadium.

Seattle and denver both reside in large market area's, something
needed and that will be a benefit to the WAC.

(10-28-2010 12:01 PM)paco Wrote:  ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I hope the folks running CSU/Fresno and Nevada have
learned something about making hasty decisions in signing and
then promptly breaking contracts.

I hope the WAC adds Montana, UTSA, Denver and Seattle.
The additions help with market size, and FB, BB probably will
be okay. It would be really good for FB if Montana could
duplicate what Boise has accomplished. IMO Probably not going
to happen.

From reading the thread on the WAC Board there is no lesson to be learned here as Nevada and Fresno pay $900K each over a 5 year period, but they keep their share of the WAC revenue this year, and the MWC may yet waive the $1M buy-in. Sounds like Nevada and Fresno State did not get such a bad deal . . .

(10-28-2010 04:52 PM)ManzanoWolf Wrote:  

(10-28-2010 12:01 PM)paco Wrote:  ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I hope the folks running CSU/Fresno and Nevada have
learned something about making hasty decisions in signing and
then promptly breaking contracts.

I hope the WAC adds Montana, UTSA, Denver and Seattle.
The additions help with market size, and FB, BB probably will
be okay. It would be really good for FB if Montana could
duplicate what Boise has accomplished. IMO Probably not going
to happen.

From reading the thread on the WAC Board there is no lesson to be learned here as Nevada and Fresno pay $900K each over a 5 year period, but they keep their share of the WAC revenue this year, and the MWC may yet waive the $1M buy-in. Sounds like Nevada and Fresno State did not get such a bad deal . . .

And they are only stuck in that craphole for one more season. The deal is through JUNE of 2012 - so they will just play one more season of Wacky football. Paco - I don't know who you are but to assume that UTSA - a school that does not even draw 1000 people to their basketball games and has ZERO on campus activity (UTSA takes commuter school to a new level) will be the next big thing is just insane. There is a reason that the Belt was not interested in UTSA - they have no history at all. They have yet to play a down of football, have had exactly one recruiting class (which means that they have about 25 players) and you expect them to go straight to FBS when there is a moratorium in place? It is impossible. First off, its against the rules - and secondly it would kill the program before it had even started. The earliest that they will play as a transitional program will be 2012. Then two year, 2012 and 2013 - with the first year of POSSIBLE FBS membership in 2014. Texas State is ahead of them but they have a problem with their attendance. They are averaging about 10K a game and I don't think that visits from Idaho, SJSU, NMSU, USU, and such will help that much.

That WAC is basically in survival mode. It reminds me a lot of the Big West when NT joined. They will lose a couple more schools, try to keep things going, and probably fold in the next 5 or 6 years with some schools going to CUSA, some to the Belt, and some to MWC. Just my opinion.

(10-28-2010 03:50 PM)paco Wrote:  UTSA, from everything I read--- is going to put a FB team on the field, playing at FBS level.

I'll believe it when I see it. Georgia State put a team together with less hullabaloo and I live in metro Atlanta. All I keep seeing is "Look at UTSA! We're going straight to the BCS with our big market and un-fillable stadium!" but every fundraising goal has been missed, every overture to a conference has been shot down (until the WAC collapsed and they began listening), and their plan to jump to FBS independent has been snuffed by the NCAA.

The WAC is likely going to add Montana, UTSA, & Texas St to replace Boise, Fresno, and Nevada. There's also the possibility that Seattle and Denver will be added as non-football schools

I think Georgia State should join the WAC, as well.