EXERPTS

Hawaii, a member of the Western Athletic Conference for 32 years, is the longest-standing school in the conference.

Its defection to the Mountain West would bring the MWC to 10 teams and contribute the latest blow to WAC Commissioner Karl Benson and his attempt to keep his league together.

The Mountain West board of directors is expected to meet again after the end of the year to decide whether it wants to stay a 10-team conference or expand to 12 teams and add a championship game.

If further expansion is the decision, Utah State University and the University of Texas El-Paso would be likely candidates for inclusion.

FULL ARTICLE
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/sports/5080...t.html.csp

Do you realize that none of the WAC-5 are even bowl eligible?

SBC = 3
WAC-5 = 0

I guess the MAC fans will get their wish and take some of the WAC's bowl bids, along with the Mountain West, Sun Belt, ACC, Big East . . .

(12-06-2010 11:01 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  Do you realize that none of the WAC-5 are even bowl eligible?

SBC = 3
WAC-5 = 0

do you really think any of the belt would be bowl eligible in the WAC this year? I doubt it. I am also positive that Tech would be bowl eligible in the Belt this year. As a matter of fact we would have probably been undefeated in the belt this year.

(12-06-2010 10:42 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  do you really think any of the belt would be bowl eligible in the WAC this year? I doubt it. I am also positive that Tech would be bowl eligible in the Belt this year. As a matter of fact we would have probably been undefeated in the belt this year.

You mean LaTech that only beat a SWAC team by 14? Hm...

(12-06-2010 10:42 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  

(12-06-2010 11:01 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  Do you realize that none of the WAC-5 are even bowl eligible?

SBC = 3
WAC-5 = 0

do you really think any of the belt would be bowl eligible in the WAC this year? I doubt it. I am also positive that Tech would be bowl eligible in the Belt this year. As a matter of fact we would have probably been undefeated in the belt this year.

Well since it looks like the Belt may leave your butts out on the line when the WAC falls apart, I suppose we'll never know, huh? Hey try and catch my Trojans in their bowl game on Dec. 18th if you get a chance.

(12-06-2010 10:42 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  

(12-06-2010 11:01 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  Do you realize that none of the WAC-5 are even bowl eligible?

SBC = 3
WAC-5 = 0

do you really think any of the belt would be bowl eligible in the WAC this year? I doubt it. I am also positive that Tech would be bowl eligible in the Belt this year. As a matter of fact we would have probably been undefeated in the belt this year.

Based on what?

When is it time to admit you made a mistake leaving one conference for another? When all of your nearby Conference breathren jump ship leaving you stranded? When you are a regular floormat for your new Conference? When everyone else bolts for greener pastures, leaving you all alone and seperated by half the country from your closest conference-mate? when? It's just so hard to put your finger on it, wouldn't you agree Tech?

(12-06-2010 11:33 PM)BlueRaiderFan. Wrote:  

(12-06-2010 10:42 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  

(12-06-2010 11:01 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  Do you realize that none of the WAC-5 are even bowl eligible?

SBC = 3
WAC-5 = 0

do you really think any of the belt would be bowl eligible in the WAC this year? I doubt it. I am also positive that Tech would be bowl eligible in the Belt this year. As a matter of fact we would have probably been undefeated in the belt this year.

Based on what?

do you really have to ask that question this year. come on. You guys were fighting to see who could be worse. Somebody had to come out on top but nobody looked good doing it.

(12-06-2010 10:44 AM)MG61 Wrote:  EXERPTS

Hawaii, a member of the Western Athletic Conference for 32 years, is the longest-standing school in the conference.

Its defection to the Mountain West would bring the MWC to 10 teams and contribute the latest blow to WAC Commissioner Karl Benson and his attempt to keep his league together.

The Mountain West board of directors is expected to meet again after the end of the year to decide whether it wants to stay a 10-team conference or expand to 12 teams and add a championship game.

If further expansion is the decision, Utah State University and the University of Texas El-Paso would be likely candidates for inclusion.

FULL ARTICLE
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/sports/5080...t.html.csp

I've been saying this ever since Hawaii was first announced as a football-only member. How long has that been? Alot of people think I'm blowing smoke! The freakin' Mountain West headquarters is only 2 hours away from me while the RMAC headquarters is also in the Springs.

The RMAC commish and Craig Thompson are good friends and the two have exchanges often about membership and conference movements! Shoot! The RMAC has been trying to push the University of Nebraska-Kearney and Chadron State (NE) out the doors for a while now. UNK is finally making the move to another conference and Chadron is likely to follow soon!

If Utah State leaves the WAC (which I've been saying WILL be announced before June 1st or the end of the academic year), the WAC will collapse. This leaves Denver wide open to the Mountain West as they will compliment the other sports Hawaii won't bring. It's either them or BYU's other sports, but I don't think our admin is interested.

(12-06-2010 11:52 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  

(12-06-2010 11:33 PM)BlueRaiderFan. Wrote:  

(12-06-2010 10:42 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  

(12-06-2010 11:01 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  Do you realize that none of the WAC-5 are even bowl eligible?

SBC = 3
WAC-5 = 0

do you really think any of the belt would be bowl eligible in the WAC this year? I doubt it. I am also positive that Tech would be bowl eligible in the Belt this year. As a matter of fact we would have probably been undefeated in the belt this year.

Based on what?

do you really have to ask that question this year. come on. You guys were fighting to see who could be worse. Somebody had to come out on top but nobody looked good doing it.

The belt was down this year yes, but come on, you beat 5 bad teams and that is your premise for why you would have probably gone undefeated in the sunbelt? Give me a break. You'd be top half yes, but I highly doubt undefeated.

Tying up a few things.

You, me, and everyone else with a map says UTEP is a perfect fit for the MWC. Most people tied to the UTEP program say UTEP has no interest in going to the MWC because their largest alumni concentrations outside of the immediate El Paso area are in DFW, Houston, and San Antonio. They believe their recruiting has improved by traveling to Central Time Zone Texas and they believe donations to athletics AND ACADEMICS have been boosted by playing regularly in the Houston and Dallas areas. UTEP believes their media presence in the population centers of Texas has improved by aligning with SMU, Houston, and Rice. If TCU were still MWC and Houston were coming along, UTEP would be fighting to get in MWC. I see UTEP to MWC as very improbable.

Utah State obviously wants in but absent UTEP there isn't anyone to pair them with that improves the league if UTEP isn't biting.

Hawaii creates an issue. Take Hawaii only and you have 10 for football and 9 for basketball. That is backwards of what you want. 10 for basketball and 9 for football is much better. In basketball you don't want the off dates created by an odd number of teams. In football coaches really want the off date and with the squirrely schedule issues of mid-week games off-dates become more important. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Denver might yet slide in. 10-10 is a better scheduling alignment. If you want to do travel partners you can pair AFA/Denver and CSU/WYO very easily.

Other matters.
The Belt was down this year. Not sure that it was as down as we tended to think as we watched the non-con losses pile-up each week. A record of 4-32 in non-conference just isn't acceptable. Sun Belt teams I think went 0-14 against schools from BCS leagues making a bowl game (need to double check that) including 0-3 vs. teams selected for a BCS game. Toss the BCS games against BCS teams making a bowl and its still and ugly 4-18.

The interesting thing to me is the non-con record in games determined by 7 points or less: 2-10
What went wrong that the number wasn't 6-6? 10-26 isn't pretty either but with 14 games any reasonable observer expects you to lose that wouldn't be a bad performance. We were four plays from a year we feel OK about and 10 plays from a good year.

What is the missing element to convert those?

Ah forgot one other housekeeping matter.

WAC 5.
Since it will likely be the WAC 7 (I would interpret the NCAA rule to the favor of TxSt and UTSA). That means there will be a 6 game league slate. If you look at the history of leagues playing 6 game slates odds are most years you will produce a team that wins 5 or 6 league games meaning you need one non-conference win at most to get eligible. Typically will produce 1 or 2 schools that win 4 requiring two non-conference wins. I think the WAC likely produces two bowl eligible most years if they don't go nuts replacing the two missing league games. With a break or two, some three eligible seasons are possible.

(12-06-2010 11:33 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  

(12-06-2010 10:42 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  

(12-06-2010 11:01 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  Do you realize that none of the WAC-5 are even bowl eligible?
SBC = 3
WAC-5 = 0

do you really think any of the belt would be bowl eligible in the WAC this year? I doubt it. I am also positive that Tech would be bowl eligible in the Belt this year. As a matter of fact we would have probably been undefeated in the belt this year.

Well since it looks like the Belt may leave your butts out on the line when the WAC falls apart, I suppose we'll never know, huh? Hey try and catch my Trojans in their bowl game on Dec. 18th if you get a chance.

And don't forget to catch all the action of the Little Caesar's Bowl on the 26th of December.

(12-07-2010 09:53 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Ah forgot one other housekeeping matter.

WAC 5.
Since it will likely be the WAC 7 (I would interpret the NCAA rule to the favor of TxSt and UTSA). That means there will be a 6 game league slate. If you look at the history of leagues playing 6 game slates odds are most years you will produce a team that wins 5 or 6 league games meaning you need one non-conference win at most to get eligible. Typically will produce 1 or 2 schools that win 4 requiring two non-conference wins. I think the WAC likely produces two bowl eligible most years if they don't go nuts replacing the two missing league games. With a break or two, some three eligible seasons are possible.

And while there was a nightmarish scenario as recently as a few weeks ago that the Sun Belt could produce no teams with winning records, that scenario becomes much more possible with a 6 game slate. La Tech could go 4-2 in conference, beat some local FCS on homecoming, and lose to a couple of SEC and C-USA schools and win the confence and 5-6...

The WAC should have invited six schools from the Southland:

Texas State
UTSA
Lamar
Sam Houston State
Texas-Arlington
Texas A&M-Corpus Christi

The first two are definitely upgrading to FBS, the second two are capable of upgrading to FBS, and the last two are the warm bodies needed to maintain compliance with the 6/5 rule for basketball. Adding Denver would have been unnecessary, and the four remaining FBS members (New Mexico State, Idaho, San Jose State, Louisiana Tech) would give the conference 10 schools overall.

It also leaves the Southland with six schools, all of whom play FCS football. They can add UTPA and Arkansas Little-Rock to get back to eight members, and would have the option of adding schools like Oral Roberts, Houston Baptist, and any number of schools form Division II.