Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)


Post Reply 
CBS Sports: With UT-Arlington addition, where does WAC stand?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
TennesseeBoyintheRockies Offline
Banned

Posts: 1,591
Joined: Dec 2009
I Root For: .
Location:
Post: #21
RE: CBS Sports: With UT-Arlington addition, where does WAC stand?
(07-16-2011 06:23 PM)techdawg88 Wrote:  Montana & Montana St. might realize that it might be now or never if they are ever going to move up to FBS


No, because they know what is going on in the $EC. They know that the face of college football in the FBS favors the 16-member super conferences. They also saw what the now Pac-12 originally tried to do to the Big XII. Montana can find a better conference than the WAC, if they ever decided to move up.
07-16-2011 06:28 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ManzanoWolf Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 2,831
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 95
I Root For: stAte
Location: Phoenix Metro
Post: #22
RE: CBS Sports: With UT-Arlington addition, where does WAC stand?
(07-16-2011 06:25 PM)TennesseeBoyintheRockies Wrote:  #1. I'm LDS, so I don't gamble.
#2. The Bobcat Report is a sorry attempt at objective journalism. This same sports website made assertions that North Texas and Louisiana-Lafayette were greatly interested in joining this new WAC.

Montana rejected an invitation to the WAC when they had Boise, Nevada, Fresno, and Hawaii. The WAC approached Montana several years ago when the WAC lost UTEP, SMU, Rice, and Tulsa to Conference USA! The WAC was even trying to steal all the Sun Belt schools at the time and not just North Texas! The WAC pulled away New Mexico State and Utah State and settled for Idaho since UNT wouldn't budge!

However, the WAC absolutely put out feelers to Montana during that realignment mess, and Montana rejected the WAC! Now, why in the world would Montana join this WAC conference now after it lost its four most credible teams and the only credible teams in the conference? Why now would Montana join this conference which is now worse than the Big Sky?

The answer? They wouldn't. Which is why they won't. I don't care how much you read the Bobcat Report. It doesn't change the fact that Montana will not join the abomination that has befalled the Western Athletic Conference and its desperate attempt to remain FBS.

Agree; Montana will not leave the BSC for a severely watered down new WAC if they would not join when the WAC was a far superior football conference . . 04-jawdrop
07-16-2011 07:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #23
RE: CBS Sports: With UT-Arlington addition, where does WAC stand?
(07-15-2011 10:39 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Lord knows the Sun Belt is shivering in fear of any conference with such powers as Montana State, Montana, and Texas San Antoinio.

If worse comes to absolute worse the SBC feels the need to add and picks up Appalachian State... Sort of like we see your 20, and raise your 40.

IF the SBC wishes to expand to 12 (and we don't), I see the candidates list as follows:

1) La Tech (if they are willing to agree to a massive payment if they bolt again)
2) App State
3) Georgia State (another former SBC member that would probably have to sign the same sort of agreement that LTU would)
4) Georgia Southern

I don't see moving further West as doing the SBC any real favors. We tried it before with Idaho, Denver, and NM State. Its just too expensive for travel and created an unstable conference. UNT isn't going to leave for the WAC anytime soon (they've already turned them down several times). If somehow UNT got a bid from the CUSA (I think one of the South Florida schools is more likely), I think that the conference would simply replace UNT with another school from the Southeast (and LTU, Georgia State, App State are the most likely candidates).

The Sun Belt isn't the SEC and won't ever be. We know where we are and we're improving. And we can argue that we're now better than the MAC and are definately better than the new WAC. Unless we have to make a move, and it looks like we don't, I say we just concentrate on getting WKU and USA more competitve in the league before we invite any new FCS teams to join up. I say, let the WAC be the new home of 'move up' schools.
07-17-2011 10:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Adler Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 421
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 27
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #24
RE: CBS Sports: With UT-Arlington addition, where does WAC stand?
(07-17-2011 10:40 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(07-15-2011 10:39 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Lord knows the Sun Belt is shivering in fear of any conference with such powers as Montana State, Montana, and Texas San Antonio.

If worse comes to absolute worse the SBC feels the need to add and picks up Appalachian State... Sort of like we see your 20, and raise your 40.

IF the SBC wishes to expand to 12 (and we don't), I see the candidates list as follows:

1) La Tech (if they are willing to agree to a massive payment if they bolt again)
2) App State
3) Georgia State (another former SBC member that would probably have to sign the same sort of agreement that LTU would)
4) Georgia Southern

I don't see moving further West as doing the SBC any real favors. We tried it before with Idaho, Denver, and NM State. Its just too expensive for travel and created an unstable conference. UNT isn't going to leave for the WAC anytime soon (they've already turned them down several times). If somehow UNT got a bid from the CUSA (I think one of the South Florida schools is more likely), I think that the conference would simply replace UNT with another school from the Southeast (and LTU, Georgia State, App State are the most likely candidates).

The Sun Belt isn't the SEC and won't ever be. We know where we are and we're improving. And we can argue that we're now better than the MAC and are definitely better than the new WAC. Unless we have to make a move, and it looks like we don't, I say we just concentrate on getting WKU and USA more competitive in the league before we invite any new FCS teams to join up. I say, let the WAC be the new home of 'move up' schools.

The eastern Sun Belt has 4 schools along the Interstate 65 corridor and two in the Miami area. None of those schools would be willing in play in a western division consisting of Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana schools. Any additions to the east would be due to the Sun Belt either losing an eastern team to another conference or the Sun Belt making two seven team divisions. If eastern schools were added, Georgia State would have the best market and the Georgia Dome adjacent to campus but both Appalachian State and Georgia Southern have both had incredible success at the FCS level and add new regions.

Among the western Sun Belt candidates, Louisiana Tech has the most established program but adds no market value as long as ULM remains in the conference. Texas State is well prepared for the move from FCS and should quickly become become competitive at the FBS level. Like Texas State, UT-San Antonio has enormous potential, but the probability for success in their football program is still very suspect. NMSU is an established FBS school but Las Cruces is a thousand miles past, well, anything. Missouri State is the only other likely candidate for the western Sun Belt expansion. Missouri State is the second largest school in Missouri and has a very solid basketball program, but has not pursued a move to FBS football and seems content for now in the Missouri Valley Conference.

The best bet for the Sun Belt would probably be to sit tight and wait to see what the Big East and Big Twelve moves will be, and adjust accordingly as the dominoes fall. Additions to those two conferences would likely result in openings in either the MWC or to CUSA.

A CUSA opening would probably result in the Sun Belt losing an eastern school, and a MWC expansion could possibly result in a couple more WAC schools joining that league.

At that time the Sun Belt should evaluate the potential expansion candidates and invite the schools that would create the best 12, 14, or even 16 team conference. A lot can change between now and then. UT-San Antonio could have a solid football program, UT-Arlington might also have a football program, and Missouri state may then be interested in FBS football.
07-17-2011 11:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FIUFan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,498
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation: 96
I Root For: FIU
Location: Coral Gables, FL
Post: #25
RE: CBS Sports: With UT-Arlington addition, where does WAC stand?
In the current evolution of the Sun Belt football conference, I don't agree that market size of a particular program matters that much. We need to put a more and more compelling product on the field. No offense to the Sun Belt football teams but other than a MTSU and Troy (and UNT in the past), no conference team strikes fear in an opponent on a national level. Any win against an AQ can simply be dismissed as the proverbial 'blind squirrel finding an acorn'.

That said, we have t.v. contracts being negotiated in the near future. We need teams that ESPN can wrap a story around. You know, like when Fresno St. traveled across the country and scared the living daylights out of one of those power conference teams. Like Boise and Utah do (yeah I know, the Utes have crossed over to the dark side). And we need these programs yesterday! There are only two programs that I can think of that would put some starch in our pants as we walk into the ESPN HQ's, and they are Appy and Tech.

In my opinion market size is only important after you've put an interesting team on the field. We need strong programs in the Belt...it makes all of our games more important. FIU was not legit until it beat Troy last year. Your conference games don't mean much without some good teams to beat (see La Tech c. 2013).

I challenge any one to tell me we don't need better football teams in this conference. Appy and Tech are the only game in town any other additions would start at the bottom, (Ga St., UTSA, TX ST., Ga Southern, UNCC, or any other start-up/FCS in our footprint), and we certainly don't need them.
(This post was last modified: 07-18-2011 09:25 AM by FIUFan.)
07-18-2011 09:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #26
RE: CBS Sports: With UT-Arlington addition, where does WAC stand?
(07-18-2011 09:23 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  In the current evolution of the Sun Belt football conference, I don't agree that market size of a particular program matters that much. We need to put a more and more compelling product on the field. No offense to the Sun Belt football teams but other than a MTSU and Troy (and UNT in the past), no conference team strikes fear in an opponent on a national level. Any win against an AQ can simply be dismissed as the proverbial 'blind squirrel finding an acorn'.

That said, we have t.v. contracts being negotiated in the near future. We need teams that ESPN can wrap a story around. You know, like when Fresno St. traveled across the country and scared the living daylights out of one of those power conference teams. Like Boise and Utah do (yeah I know, the Utes have crossed over to the dark side). And we need these programs yesterday! There are only two programs that I can think of that would put some starch in our pants as we walk into the ESPN HQ's, and they are Appy and Tech.

In my opinion market size is only important after you've put an interesting team on the field. We need strong programs in the Belt...it makes all of our games more important. FIU was not legit until it beat Troy last year. Your conference games don't mean much without some good teams to beat (see La Tech c. 2013).

I challenge any one to tell me we don't need better football teams in this conference. Appy and Tech are the only game in town any other additions would start at the bottom, (Ga St., UTSA, TX ST., Ga Southern, UNCC, or any other start-up/FCS in our footprint), and we certainly don't need them.

I agree completely. We don't need potential. We need teams that compete today. I say we just sit tight and wait for La Tech to ask for re-admission (or not - I really don't see that they're a threat in the new WAC to the SBC). Lets give Western Ky and South Alabama a chance to grow into D-1 before we decide to take more climbers into the conference.

The Sun Belt right now is, gasp, STABLE. It makes sense economically and geographically. And that's a good thing that hasn't been the case for the Sun Belt in decades. Its good for the fans and the teams.

Sure, have a contingency plan in place in case the Big East takes Houston and then the CUSA goes after FIU or UNT. But we don't have to do anything and we'll have plenty of options if we do.
07-18-2011 12:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.