Because UTA's addition nevertheless has the potential to dramatically reshape the reeling WAC's identity as a football conference -- either for the better, or the (even) worse.

A breakdown of both scenarios:

http://eye-on-collegefootball.blogs.cbss...8/30600065

Any "scenario" that includes North Texas reconsidering the conference is beyond the plane of imagination and into complete f---ing insanity.

It will NEVER HAPPEN. NEVER.

If the startups make themselves appealing football opponents, we'll book them for OOC games like we do annually in basketball with UTA.

North Texas passed on the WAC when it had Boise State, Hawaii, Fresno State... All the teams that made it remotely appealing. As it stands now, the WAC is a shaky confederation of teams we abandoned when we left the Big West, and teams we abandoned when we left the Southland.

The only way North Texas joins the WAC is if we need a life raft because the Sun Belt somehow breaks apart. Failing that... You'll see Louisiana Tech pass up a CUSA invite in favor of becoming a satellite campus for ULM before you'll ever see North Texas join the WAC.

With the WAC losig bowl tie ins...tv deals/revenue etc. at this point I just don't see it happening. If the noobs to the WAC get up to speed quickly and are competing well on the field and bringing prestige back to the WAC it may happen but that will take at least three years...most likely 5-7.

The only appealing thing about the WAC for North Texas is 5 years down the road. Texas State San Marcos or UTSA may be good at some sport and it would help attendance, rivalry, or RPI to play them. And we could schedule them OOC (like we do now). North Texas wouldn't even have to join to take advantage of it.

There are 7 other teams (UT, A&M, TT, SMU, TCU, UH, UTEP) in football in this state that serve the same purpose as far as North Texas is concerned and are currently known quantities and established FBS members. Some of whom North Texas is on more equal footing with (not just football) than UTSA and Texas State San Marcos care to admit. Nothing else about the WAC is appealing at all, and the one appealing thing can be obtained by scheduling 1 of 7 teams currently, and soon to be 1 of 9-10 teams. This is why I'm happy for both UTSA and Texas State San Marcos. I think it's a good thing for North Texas, even if we aren't in the same conference.

TV deals, Bowl Tie Ins, Time Zones and perhaps perception (remains to be seen). Right now, I think in all categories SBC>WAC from a North Texas fan perspective, even if the TV deal could be a bit better and I think that is improving.

Also, I think as a collective of schools, the SBC has gotten comfortable with each other and if they don't like each other, they've done one hell of a job providing a stable conference for one another. And another hell of a job by a few teams adding great facilities and fielding better than average products. See the quality of Baseball from last season. See the quality of coaching and recruits in mens' and womens' basketball. The facilities being upgraded/built. The coaching staffs being hired. All of this has really done a nice job working in North Texas' favor and increasing attendance over the past few years has proven that.

For the WAC to be appealing for North Texas in 5-10 years, it would have to be not worse, equal, or even better than the SBC. It would have to have created separation from the SBC and become significantly better than the SBC for North Texas to consider it.

The WAC serves the purpose of the surrogate FBS mother for Texas State San Marcos, UTSA, and UTA. For that I am happy for those schools. But for North Texas, it's not the right fit, right now and not for the foreseeable future. If it was, or the future was obviously brighter than the Sun Belt, North Texas would have already jumped.

I still think the WAC has commitments from two Mountain of Pacific Time Zone schools upgrading to FBS for UTA to have been added. It'll probably be announced once the FCS playoffs are finished. Portland State, Montana, and Montana State might see this as their last chance to move to FBS not that the WAC would only have 2 slots available.

The California FCS schools in the Big West can be football-only members in the WAC, and the WAC could structure the deal requiring them to join for all sports if membership fell to a certain level. Sacramento State might need a little help getting in the Big West (UC San Diego?), but the same could likely be arranged.

The Southland might not have a choice about allowing its members to play football in the WAC given they are down to nine schools, and at least seven of those must be active members of Division I to maintain its automatic bid-any upgrades from Division II won't count towards that requirement right away.

I think Benson wants to try and make the WAC a 12 team league with divisions

(07-14-2011 08:15 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  I still think the WAC has commitments from two Mountain of Pacific Time Zone schools upgrading to FBS for UTA to have been added. It'll probably be announced once the FCS playoffs are finished. Portland State, Montana, and Montana State might see this as their last chance to move to FBS not that the WAC would only have 2 slots available.

The California FCS schools in the Big West can be football-only members in the WAC, and the WAC could structure the deal requiring them to join for all sports if membership fell to a certain level. Sacramento State might need a little help getting in the Big West (UC San Diego?), but the same could likely be arranged.

The Southland might not have a choice about allowing its members to play football in the WAC given they are down to nine schools, and at least seven of those must be active members of Division I to maintain its automatic bid-any upgrades from Division II won't count towards that requirement right away.

Agree with much of what you wrote.

Montana State as a school is very vulnerable, as an FBS bid for them is not easily obtained under normal circumstances. Montana, on the other hand, basically has an open invitation to the WAC at any time (and probably has had an open invite before even Idaho gained one), but politically can't accept unless Montana State goes along with it. The WAC could have chosen to offer Lamar - closing the door to Montana State and making the WAC less credible academically. Instead, the WAC offered UTArlington, which has notable academic aspirations and the bonus potential of restarting football (UTA has significant nat gas royalties coming in to their treasury from recent Barnett Shale drilling, so UTA funding will not be the issue it once was). The WAC granted Montana State until after this football season to accept, and MSU is using that time to complete its stadium expansion to 16,000. The Montana Board of Regents put pressure on Montana to not accept the WAC offer until Montana State was ready, but won't tie Montana's ambitions up forever.

Look for both Montana and Montana State to move up early in 2012 and be part of the WAC in 2013. Look for San Jose State to request WAC affiliate football membership in 2013, so it can move the rest of its programs to the Big West.

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.

(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.

But with Montana and Montana state you get the pipeline of FBS recruits coming out of Montana. With App. State, you get Georgia and we all know Georgia doesn't produce as many athletes as Montana.

(07-15-2011 10:50 PM)westcoastwolf 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 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.

But with Montana and Montana state you get the pipeline of FBS recruits coming out of Montana. With App. State, you get Georgia and we all know Georgia doesn't produce as many athletes as Montana.

Ap State is located in North Carolina...but your point still stands

(07-14-2011 01:18 AM)thetastygreek Wrote:  Any "scenario" that includes North Texas reconsidering the conference is beyond the plane of imagination and into complete f---ing insanity.

It will NEVER HAPPEN. NEVER.

If the startups make themselves appealing football opponents, we'll book them for OOC games like we do annually in basketball with UTA.

North Texas passed on the WAC when it had Boise State, Hawaii, Fresno State... All the teams that made it remotely appealing. As it stands now, the WAC is a shaky confederation of teams we abandoned when we left the Big West, and teams we abandoned when we left the Southland.

The only way North Texas joins the WAC is if we need a life raft because the Sun Belt somehow breaks apart. Failing that... You'll see Louisiana Tech pass up a CUSA invite in favor of becoming a satellite campus for ULM before you'll ever see North Texas join the WAC.

as the guy told joe dirt:

'thats not what i heard'

(07-15-2011 10:50 PM)westcoastwolf 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 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.

But with Montana and Montana state you get the pipeline of FBS recruits coming out of Montana. With App. State, you get Georgia and we all know Georgia doesn't produce as many athletes as Montana.

For some reason, Montana is very competitive. Don't ask me where they find their recruits, but Montana has an excellent program. They are a far cry better than the Tennessee-Martin and Texas Southern programs, the last FCS teams that Arkansas State would face.

Montana would instantly be the best program in the WAC. That's not enough to entice them though. Neither Montana nor Montana State will move to the WAC. That's not going to happen at all.

(07-15-2011 08:43 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-14-2011 08:15 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  I still think the WAC has commitments from two Mountain of Pacific Time Zone schools upgrading to FBS for UTA to have been added. It'll probably be announced once the FCS playoffs are finished. Portland State, Montana, and Montana State might see this as their last chance to move to FBS not that the WAC would only have 2 slots available.

The California FCS schools in the Big West can be football-only members in the WAC, and the WAC could structure the deal requiring them to join for all sports if membership fell to a certain level. Sacramento State might need a little help getting in the Big West (UC San Diego?), but the same could likely be arranged.

The Southland might not have a choice about allowing its members to play football in the WAC given they are down to nine schools, and at least seven of those must be active members of Division I to maintain its automatic bid-any upgrades from Division II won't count towards that requirement right away.

Agree with much of what you wrote.

Montana State as a school is very vulnerable, as an FBS bid for them is not easily obtained under normal circumstances. Montana, on the other hand, basically has an open invitation to the WAC at any time (and probably has had an open invite before even Idaho gained one), but politically can't accept unless Montana State goes along with it. The WAC could have chosen to offer Lamar - closing the door to Montana State and making the WAC less credible academically. Instead, the WAC offered UTArlington, which has notable academic aspirations and the bonus potential of restarting football (UTA has significant nat gas royalties coming in to their treasury from recent Barnett Shale drilling, so UTA funding will not be the issue it once was). The WAC granted Montana State until after this football season to accept, and MSU is using that time to complete its stadium expansion to 16,000. The Montana Board of Regents put pressure on Montana to not accept the WAC offer until Montana State was ready, but won't tie Montana's ambitions up forever.

Look for both Montana and Montana State to move up early in 2012 and be part of the WAC in 2013. Look for San Jose State to request WAC affiliate football membership in 2013, so it can move the rest of its programs to the Big West.

No way the Montana schools join that conference.

(07-15-2011 11:02 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(07-15-2011 10:50 PM)westcoastwolf 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 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.

But with Montana and Montana state you get the pipeline of FBS recruits coming out of Montana. With App. State, you get Georgia and we all know Georgia doesn't produce as many athletes as Montana.

Ap State is located in North Carolina...but your point still stands

damnit.

(07-14-2011 07:18 AM)MagNTX Wrote:  The only appealing thing about the WAC for North Texas is 5 years down the road. Texas State San Marcos or UTSA may be good at some sport and it would help attendance, rivalry, or RPI to play them. And we could schedule them OOC (like we do now). North Texas wouldn't even have to join to take advantage of it.

There are 7 other teams (UT, A&M, TT, SMU, TCU, UH, UTEP) in football in this state that serve the same purpose as far as North Texas is concerned and are currently known quantities and established FBS members.

Don't forget Baylor and Rice.

(07-16-2011 08:48 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(07-14-2011 07:18 AM)MagNTX Wrote:  The only appealing thing about the WAC for North Texas is 5 years down the road. Texas State San Marcos or UTSA may be good at some sport and it would help attendance, rivalry, or RPI to play them. And we could schedule them OOC (like we do now). North Texas wouldn't even have to join to take advantage of it.

There are 7 other teams (UT, A&M, TT, SMU, TCU, UH, UTEP) in football in this state that serve the same purpose as far as North Texas is concerned and are currently known quantities and established FBS members.

Don't forget Baylor and Rice.

Doh! Thanks. You can really add Norman, OKU and Tulsa to the list of regional rivalries as well. They are closer than some of those in state schools and closer than the new FBS startups.

(07-14-2011 08:15 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  I still think the WAC has commitments from two Mountain of Pacific Time Zone schools upgrading to FBS for UTA to have been added. It'll probably be announced once the FCS playoffs are finished. Portland State, Montana, and Montana State might see this as their last chance to move to FBS not that the WAC would only have 2 slots available.

The California FCS schools in the Big West can be football-only members in the WAC, and the WAC could structure the deal requiring them to join for all sports if membership fell to a certain level. Sacramento State might need a little help getting in the Big West (UC San Diego?), but the same could likely be arranged.

The Southland might not have a choice about allowing its members to play football in the WAC given they are down to nine schools, and at least seven of those must be active members of Division I to maintain its automatic bid-any upgrades from Division II won't count towards that requirement right away.

The Southland Confierence will probably invite North Alabama, Delta State and Valdosta State and save room for West Florida and possibly UNO in the future.

(07-15-2011 11:15 PM)TennesseeBoyintheRockies Wrote:  

(07-15-2011 08:43 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-14-2011 08:15 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  I still think the WAC has commitments from two Mountain of Pacific Time Zone schools upgrading to FBS for UTA to have been added. It'll probably be announced once the FCS playoffs are finished. Portland State, Montana, and Montana State might see this as their last chance to move to FBS not that the WAC would only have 2 slots available.

The California FCS schools in the Big West can be football-only members in the WAC, and the WAC could structure the deal requiring them to join for all sports if membership fell to a certain level. Sacramento State might need a little help getting in the Big West (UC San Diego?), but the same could likely be arranged.

The Southland might not have a choice about allowing its members to play football in the WAC given they are down to nine schools, and at least seven of those must be active members of Division I to maintain its automatic bid-any upgrades from Division II won't count towards that requirement right away.

Agree with much of what you wrote.

Montana State as a school is very vulnerable, as an FBS bid for them is not easily obtained under normal circumstances. Montana, on the other hand, basically has an open invitation to the WAC at any time (and probably has had an open invite before even Idaho gained one), but politically can't accept unless Montana State goes along with it. The WAC could have chosen to offer Lamar - closing the door to Montana State and making the WAC less credible academically. Instead, the WAC offered UTArlington, which has notable academic aspirations and the bonus potential of restarting football (UTA has significant nat gas royalties coming in to their treasury from recent Barnett Shale drilling, so UTA funding will not be the issue it once was). The WAC granted Montana State until after this football season to accept, and MSU is using that time to complete its stadium expansion to 16,000. The Montana Board of Regents put pressure on Montana to not accept the WAC offer until Montana State was ready, but won't tie Montana's ambitions up forever.

Look for both Montana and Montana State to move up early in 2012 and be part of the WAC in 2013. Look for San Jose State to request WAC affiliate football membership in 2013, so it can move the rest of its programs to the Big West.

No way the Montana schools join that conference.

If you were a betting man, I'd ask you to put money on it because I strongly believe the Montana's (at the very least UM) will join the WAC for the 2013 season. Their AD sent donors a long letter sunshine pumping FBS not too long ago and said this in a recent interview:

Quote:is it true that Montana will be moving up to the WAC after this season?

Answer: Last year we went through an extensive review of our program and where The University of Montana athletic teams should participate. After studying all elements closely, President Royce Engstrom decided it was best to remain where we are in the Big Sky Conference, and there are no plans to do anything different at this time.

It should also be noted that Montana needs to keep their mouth closed until after FB season if they want any post season play.

Montana & Montana St. might realize that it might be now or never if they are ever going to move up to FBS

(07-16-2011 04:56 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  

(07-15-2011 11:15 PM)TennesseeBoyintheRockies Wrote:  

(07-15-2011 08:43 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(07-14-2011 08:15 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  I still think the WAC has commitments from two Mountain of Pacific Time Zone schools upgrading to FBS for UTA to have been added. It'll probably be announced once the FCS playoffs are finished. Portland State, Montana, and Montana State might see this as their last chance to move to FBS not that the WAC would only have 2 slots available.

The California FCS schools in the Big West can be football-only members in the WAC, and the WAC could structure the deal requiring them to join for all sports if membership fell to a certain level. Sacramento State might need a little help getting in the Big West (UC San Diego?), but the same could likely be arranged.

The Southland might not have a choice about allowing its members to play football in the WAC given they are down to nine schools, and at least seven of those must be active members of Division I to maintain its automatic bid-any upgrades from Division II won't count towards that requirement right away.

Agree with much of what you wrote.

Montana State as a school is very vulnerable, as an FBS bid for them is not easily obtained under normal circumstances. Montana, on the other hand, basically has an open invitation to the WAC at any time (and probably has had an open invite before even Idaho gained one), but politically can't accept unless Montana State goes along with it. The WAC could have chosen to offer Lamar - closing the door to Montana State and making the WAC less credible academically. Instead, the WAC offered UTArlington, which has notable academic aspirations and the bonus potential of restarting football (UTA has significant nat gas royalties coming in to their treasury from recent Barnett Shale drilling, so UTA funding will not be the issue it once was). The WAC granted Montana State until after this football season to accept, and MSU is using that time to complete its stadium expansion to 16,000. The Montana Board of Regents put pressure on Montana to not accept the WAC offer until Montana State was ready, but won't tie Montana's ambitions up forever.

Look for both Montana and Montana State to move up early in 2012 and be part of the WAC in 2013. Look for San Jose State to request WAC affiliate football membership in 2013, so it can move the rest of its programs to the Big West.

No way the Montana schools join that conference.

If you were a betting man, I'd ask you to put money on it because I strongly believe the Montana's (at the very least UM) will join the WAC for the 2013 season. Their AD sent donors a long letter sunshine pumping FBS not too long ago and said this in a recent interview:

Quote:is it true that Montana will be moving up to the WAC after this season?

Answer: Last year we went through an extensive review of our program and where The University of Montana athletic teams should participate. After studying all elements closely, President Royce Engstrom decided it was best to remain where we are in the Big Sky Conference, and there are no plans to do anything different at this time.

It should also be noted that Montana needs to keep their mouth closed until after FB season if they want any post season play.

#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.