(03-29-2011 03:14 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  I am not calling any of you liars nor am I a big proponent for staying in the WAC but even at 75 percent less the WAC contract still outweighs the belt and with no real travel expenses anymore, what is the incentive to get Tech to leave? Can anybody come up with any real facts as to what your ESPN contract is worth?

Sun Belt is guaranteed two Tue/Wed games football games and two men's basketball. Additional games may be taken for other dates and other networks (ie. ESPNU) and last year more than two were selected.

It pays $900,000.

That's within +/- $100,000 of what the WAC will receive.

Travel. You went from no bus trips to two bus trips in the WAC. The cost of that is a Southland school you once left the SLC to avoid being affiliated with that hasn't played an FBS game and has an FCS record that pales compared to what Tech, ASU, ULM, MTSU, or UNT did in FCS. You still have to go to Idaho (worst trip in the world), Utah State (no fun), San Jose, NMSU, Denver, and likely Seattle.

The Sun Belt by contrast offers seven bus trip opponents and a divisional alignment that minimizes exposure to the four non-bus trip opponents.

The money difference no longer exists. The travel cost difference is apparent (compare ULM travel to Tech).

The question is.

If Tech is a better program than is present in the Sun Belt why not join, win the league in each sport and claim the auto berths to NCAA competition and to regional bowls that are actually in existence and a reasonable distance from the base? If Tech is not a better program than the rest of the Sun Belt then why not join and use the travel savings on expenditures that win games?

Ok so basically about the same only devided by less schools. They really shouldn't look to anyone but Montana to join. Not worth splitting the pot with a Sam Houston.

I would like to see La Tech in the Belt. It makes a lot of sense for both sides. The WAC may not even be a recognized BCS conference in a year without another football playing member. Your big arrangement with BYU has already screwed you over- they have agreed to play a total of one away game, at Hawaii. The other game was going to be with Tech but BYU backed out of it. The television money and BCS payouts will decrease dramatically.

I think that Tech's game plan (i.e. gamble) is to put it all on WAC and hope that they come out a winner. But what if Idaho wins the WAC? Or NMSU? Or USU? Too many unknowns for a smart AD to gamble with. It is really looking like Seattle will be the next school. If it is Lamar - well, you have done everything in your power to stay away from ULM to be in a conference with a school even lower on the food chain. In a perfect world, we would add Tech but only if Tech wants to be in the Belt. I really think that they would rather go Indy than be in a conference with ULM. Going Independent might actually save Tech some money over being in the new WAC - if you could find a place to house your other sports.

This whole "travel to the F_U's is expensive" arguement is a tired one. It is a cheap, cheap, cheap plane ride to get to BOTH of the Florida schools. It is probably more expensive to travel to Troy than FIU or FAU. You can get there on any of the regional airline with a nonstop commercial or charter flight.

When I was a corporate sponsor for UNT, I was able to catch a ride on some of the team trips. I went to Boise, Idaho, USU (along with Nevada for a basketball tourney). I don't think that I could describe hell in a better light. I remember our very last trip to Boise in the Big West. After the game was over, our radio guys sat in the hotel bar and talked about what a pain in the ass it had been to be in a conference with the Idaho schools those years. For Boise, I think that we flew into Denver - then we flew into Boise after a stop in some state along the way. That wasn't too bad - it was just really long and the time change made it seem even longer. Plus moving a whole team and the equipment around seemed like a real pain in the ass. When we flew to Idaho - that was even worse. We had to make two plane transfers before we could get onto a bus in another state and drive the rest of the way. We were all exhausted and it took about 10 hours before we arrived. There was no energy to enjoy the trip because we travelled the entire time. Once we got there - nothing to do whatsoever. We literally had to sit in a piece of crap hotel (the best available but crappy none the less) and drink. Utah State was a lot like Boise - no direct flight, so you fly into Denver and then you transfer an entire team from one plane to another - hoping that no equipment gets lost or misplaced in the first transfer. Then you fly into an airport in Utah only to get onto a bus for another hour. It is really exhausting and tough to get the team excited about because they are so miserable from the trip. USU has one of the most beautiful stadium settings in the country, but once the game was over - we had to do everything in reverse to get home. It was just exhausting. I remember thinking that no "free" trip is worth this hassle - even if I love my team. And I never accepted another invite to any of those locations again.

I don't think that you can fly straight into San Jose, can you? You have to go through a hub like San Francisco or LA - or even Burbank. Same goes with NMSU - it is very similar to USU. Great little stadium, great fans, wonderful non-BCS football atomsphere - LONG trip. You fly into El Paso and get on a bus... see above for the rest of the story. UTSA and San Marcos will help - but do you get excited about playing those schools? How the heck do you get excited about playing Lamar?

Everyone needs to drop their egos and the past and just come together. It made complete sense for the Techsters to choose the WAC over the Belt when they joined. You could even argue the financial part for staying in the WAC after you guys were left behind.... but what you are in now - is the Big West. And it is a really bad version of the Big West. At least the Big West had some good football teams in it. You can count winning seasons on one hand for the entire group of WAC leftovers over the last decade. No travel benefit, no financial benefit, no separation benefit - no benefit at all.

(03-29-2011 06:51 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  Ok so basically about the same only devided by less schools. They really shouldn't look to anyone but Montana to join. Not worth splitting the pot with a Sam Houston.

You have to factor in BCS money. If you don't find another FCS to move up you only get $700,000 from the BCS. Bottom league, which WAC will be with three transitionals gets more than twice that.

If a remaining WAC defects bottom BCS goes over $2 million.

(03-29-2011 10:17 PM)stebo Wrote:  I would like to see La Tech in the Belt. It makes a lot of sense for both sides. The WAC may not even be a recognized BCS conference in a year without another football playing member. Your big arrangement with BYU has already screwed you over- they have agreed to play a total of one away game, at Hawaii. The other game was going to be with Tech but BYU backed out of it. The television money and BCS payouts will decrease dramatically.

BYU does plan to reschedule that game at Louisiana Tech for later in the future.

I have gone on record as stating that I want nothing but the best for La Tech, Tex St, UTSA, and NMSU, even going so far as advocating that the Sun Belt invite all four for a 14 team, two football division Sun Belt.

That being said, this little ***** session doesn't really mean much. The WAC has absolutely no control over it's future and it's fate may already be sealed.

The Big Twelve will not stay at ten members for long. There may be several potential expansion candidates but MWC member Air Force is all but guaranteed to receive one of the spots.

The dominoes will then start falling again and there is virtually no way the WAC remains a viable conference.............well, unless Utah St and San Jose' St turn down MWC offers.

(03-29-2011 06:25 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-29-2011 03:14 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  I am not calling any of you liars nor am I a big proponent for staying in the WAC but even at 75 percent less the WAC contract still outweighs the belt and with no real travel expenses anymore, what is the incentive to get Tech to leave? Can anybody come up with any real facts as to what your ESPN contract is worth?

Sun Belt is guaranteed two Tue/Wed games football games and two men's basketball. Additional games may be taken for other dates and other networks (ie. ESPNU) and last year more than two were selected.

It pays $900,000.

That's within +/- $100,000 of what the WAC will receive.

Travel. You went from no bus trips to two bus trips in the WAC. The cost of that is a Southland school you once left the SLC to avoid being affiliated with that hasn't played an FBS game and has an FCS record that pales compared to what Tech, ASU, ULM, MTSU, or UNT did in FCS. You still have to go to Idaho (worst trip in the world), Utah State (no fun), San Jose, NMSU, Denver, and likely Seattle.

The Sun Belt by contrast offers seven bus trip opponents and a divisional alignment that minimizes exposure to the four non-bus trip opponents.

The money difference no longer exists. The travel cost difference is apparent (compare ULM travel to Tech).

The question is.

If Tech is a better program than is present in the Sun Belt why not join, win the league in each sport and claim the auto berths to NCAA competition and to regional bowls that are actually in existence and a reasonable distance from the base? If Tech is not a better program than the rest of the Sun Belt then why not join and use the travel savings on expenditures that win games?

+1 Nice argument

(03-30-2011 12:23 AM)Adler Wrote:  I have gone on record as stating that I want nothing but the best for La Tech, Tex St, UTSA, and NMSU, even going so far as advocating that the Sun Belt invite all four for a 14 team, two football division Sun Belt.

That being said, this little ***** session doesn't really mean much. The WAC has absolutely no control over it's future and it's fate may already be sealed.

The Big Twelve will not stay at ten members for long. There may be several potential expansion candidates but MWC member Air Force is all but guaranteed to receive one of the spots.

The dominoes will then start falling again and there is virtually no way the WAC remains a viable conference.............well, unless Utah St and San Jose' St turn down MWC offers.

If the Big 12 is able to get the TV money it is seeking, then the only realistic option for expansion will be the addition of Arkansas. Arkansas is content right now with SEC money, but if the Big 12 gets what it is looking for, then Arkansas will be able to realize more financial benefit in the Big 12. Some say that Arkansas is not going anywhere, but the facts are that some money people at Arkansas are pushing to get back with UT, Oklahoma etc. Maybe the SEC and Big 12 will be able to swap TAMU and Arkansas.

(03-30-2011 09:02 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  

(03-30-2011 12:23 AM)Adler Wrote:  I have gone on record as stating that I want nothing but the best for La Tech, Tex St, UTSA, and NMSU, even going so far as advocating that the Sun Belt invite all four for a 14 team, two football division Sun Belt.

That being said, this little ***** session doesn't really mean much. The WAC has absolutely no control over it's future and it's fate may already be sealed.

The Big Twelve will not stay at ten members for long. There may be several potential expansion candidates but MWC member Air Force is all but guaranteed to receive one of the spots.

The dominoes will then start falling again and there is virtually no way the WAC remains a viable conference.............well, unless Utah St and San Jose' St turn down MWC offers.

If the Big 12 is able to get the TV money it is seeking, then the only realistic option for expansion will be the addition of Arkansas. Arkansas is content right now with SEC money, but if the Big 12 gets what it is looking for, then Arkansas will be able to realize more financial benefit in the Big 12. Some say that Arkansas is not going anywhere, but the facts are that some money people at Arkansas are pushing to get back with UT, Oklahoma etc. Maybe the SEC and Big 12 will be able to swap TAMU and Arkansas.

Arkansas needs to get back to the Big XII for one reason: Recruiting. Their natural recruiting base is 75% or nore inside the footprint of the Big XII. Problem is, they need to be in the Big XII South, and the vacancy is in the North.

aTm ain't going anywhere.

I don't see the Air Force Academy in the Big XII either, but bringing them and Arkansas in in the North makes a certain amount of sense. Adds a little football to the North to replace Nebraska and holds on to some of the Colorado TV market.

(03-30-2011 11:50 AM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(03-30-2011 09:02 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  

(03-30-2011 12:23 AM)Adler Wrote:  I have gone on record as stating that I want nothing but the best for La Tech, Tex St, UTSA, and NMSU, even going so far as advocating that the Sun Belt invite all four for a 14 team, two football division Sun Belt.

That being said, this little ***** session doesn't really mean much. The WAC has absolutely no control over it's future and it's fate may already be sealed.

The Big Twelve will not stay at ten members for long. There may be several potential expansion candidates but MWC member Air Force is all but guaranteed to receive one of the spots.

The dominoes will then start falling again and there is virtually no way the WAC remains a viable conference.............well, unless Utah St and San Jose' St turn down MWC offers.

If the Big 12 is able to get the TV money it is seeking, then the only realistic option for expansion will be the addition of Arkansas. Arkansas is content right now with SEC money, but if the Big 12 gets what it is looking for, then Arkansas will be able to realize more financial benefit in the Big 12. Some say that Arkansas is not going anywhere, but the facts are that some money people at Arkansas are pushing to get back with UT, Oklahoma etc. Maybe the SEC and Big 12 will be able to swap TAMU and Arkansas.

Arkansas needs to get back to the Big XII for one reason: Recruiting. Their natural recruiting base is 75% or nore inside the footprint of the Big XII. Problem is, they need to be in the Big XII South, and the vacancy is in the North.

aTm ain't going anywhere.

I don't see the Air Force Academy in the Big XII either, but bringing them and Arkansas in in the North makes a certain amount of sense. Adds a little football to the North to replace Nebraska and holds on to some of the Colorado TV market.

Money.

Eventually, money will break apart the Big-12.

It almost happenned recently. It is going to happen sooner or later.

Texas will go to whoever kisses their tail the most, and if that means that nobody can do a better job of that than themselves, then they will go Indy.

A&M will be in the SEC.

(03-30-2011 11:50 AM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(03-30-2011 09:02 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  

(03-30-2011 12:23 AM)Adler Wrote:  I have gone on record as stating that I want nothing but the best for La Tech, Tex St, UTSA, and NMSU, even going so far as advocating that the Sun Belt invite all four for a 14 team, two football division Sun Belt.

That being said, this little ***** session doesn't really mean much. The WAC has absolutely no control over it's future and it's fate may already be sealed.

The Big Twelve will not stay at ten members for long. There may be several potential expansion candidates but MWC member Air Force is all but guaranteed to receive one of the spots.

The dominoes will then start falling again and there is virtually no way the WAC remains a viable conference.............well, unless Utah St and San Jose' St turn down MWC offers.

If the Big 12 is able to get the TV money it is seeking, then the only realistic option for expansion will be the addition of Arkansas. Arkansas is content right now with SEC money, but if the Big 12 gets what it is looking for, then Arkansas will be able to realize more financial benefit in the Big 12. Some say that Arkansas is not going anywhere, but the facts are that some money people at Arkansas are pushing to get back with UT, Oklahoma etc. Maybe the SEC and Big 12 will be able to swap TAMU and Arkansas.

Arkansas needs to get back to the Big XII for one reason: Recruiting. Their natural recruiting base is 75% or nore inside the footprint of the Big XII. Problem is, they need to be in the Big XII South, and the vacancy is in the North.

aTm ain't going anywhere.

I don't see the Air Force Academy in the Big XII either, but bringing them and Arkansas in in the North makes a certain amount of sense. Adds a little football to the North to replace Nebraska and holds on to some of the Colorado TV market.

I would place my $5 on Houston to get an invite to the Big 12. Maybe along with Tulsa.

(03-30-2011 01:17 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(03-30-2011 11:50 AM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(03-30-2011 09:02 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  

(03-30-2011 12:23 AM)Adler Wrote:  I have gone on record as stating that I want nothing but the best for La Tech, Tex St, UTSA, and NMSU, even going so far as advocating that the Sun Belt invite all four for a 14 team, two football division Sun Belt.

That being said, this little ***** session doesn't really mean much. The WAC has absolutely no control over it's future and it's fate may already be sealed.

The Big Twelve will not stay at ten members for long. There may be several potential expansion candidates but MWC member Air Force is all but guaranteed to receive one of the spots.

The dominoes will then start falling again and there is virtually no way the WAC remains a viable conference.............well, unless Utah St and San Jose' St turn down MWC offers.

If the Big 12 is able to get the TV money it is seeking, then the only realistic option for expansion will be the addition of Arkansas. Arkansas is content right now with SEC money, but if the Big 12 gets what it is looking for, then Arkansas will be able to realize more financial benefit in the Big 12. Some say that Arkansas is not going anywhere, but the facts are that some money people at Arkansas are pushing to get back with UT, Oklahoma etc. Maybe the SEC and Big 12 will be able to swap TAMU and Arkansas.

Arkansas needs to get back to the Big XII for one reason: Recruiting. Their natural recruiting base is 75% or nore inside the footprint of the Big XII. Problem is, they need to be in the Big XII South, and the vacancy is in the North.

aTm ain't going anywhere.

I don't see the Air Force Academy in the Big XII either, but bringing them and Arkansas in in the North makes a certain amount of sense. Adds a little football to the North to replace Nebraska and holds on to some of the Colorado TV market.

I would place my $5 on Houston to get an invite to the Big 12. Maybe along with Tulsa.

Only if the Big 12 doesn't include Texas, TAMU or OU would that happen. If Tulsa and Houston were to end up with what's left, just rename it to reflect history. Missouri Valley Conference.