(01-13-2022 01:00 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(01-13-2022 12:08 PM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  

(01-13-2022 10:44 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(01-13-2022 08:20 AM)TexasTerror Wrote:  One step at a time

The WAC now has far more Texas schools and students than any other conference. With UIW, UTA and possibly WTAMU joining the conference in 2022. Is there a Texas strategy in the WAC?

Why do you keep mentioning WTAMU? They are no rumors or anything out there implying they are joining the WAC.

Not lately, but there were. If WTAMU can exit Lone Star without tanking the conference. WTAMU has been D1 before.

There were no rumors outside of blog boards like this one. No one credible (ie, Matt Brown, Pete Thamel, etc.) ever stated WTAMU was a candidate. In fact, I think a pundit or two actually went on record to say WTAMU was not being considered or wasn't interested in moving.

Only knob DavidSt has been pimping WTAMU for years. He even “predicted” they were the school the Tarleton president was referring to in that old prediction thread. Matt Brown said it was SUU and Dave said Matt was full of crap and still claimed it was WTAMU.

(01-13-2022 01:53 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  Only knob DavidSt has been pimping WTAMU for years. He even “predicted” they were the school the Tarleton president was referring to in that old prediction thread. Matt Brown said it was SUU and Dave said Matt was full of crap and still claimed it was WTAMU.

If I were the WAC commissioner and I just added UTA, WTAMU would certainly be on my radar. Especially if my next add had to have a good football team and facilities. Being in Texas, and being a pro athletics school is a bonus.

(01-13-2022 01:53 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  Only knob DavidSt has been pimping WTAMU for years. He even “predicted” they were the school the Tarleton president was referring to in that old prediction thread. Matt Brown said it was SUU and Dave said Matt was full of crap and still claimed it was WTAMU.

And those 2 were exchanging blows on Twitter.

(01-14-2022 01:26 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  [quote='DoubleRSU' pid='18007159' dateline='1642100018']
Only knob DavidSt has been pimping WTAMU for years. He even “predicted” they were the school the Tarleton president was referring to in that old prediction thread. Matt Brown said it was SUU and Dave said Matt was full of crap and still claimed it was WTAMU.

And those 2 were exchanging blows on Twitter.
[/quote

Who knows? Matt doesn't know everything.

(01-12-2022 04:59 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(01-12-2022 02:52 PM)TallTexan Wrote:  This will be good for SFA recruiting and alums in the DFW area I think.

How will it help the alums?

Easy way to see your team play. Great for the alumni foundation in planning events to get donors out without a 3 hour trek to Nac. Easier to convince your friends to show up at a game with you to get them looped back in to some college spirit.

(01-14-2022 11:36 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 01:26 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  [quote='DoubleRSU' pid='18007159' dateline='1642100018']
Only knob DavidSt has been pimping WTAMU for years. He even “predicted” they were the school the Tarleton president was referring to in that old prediction thread. Matt Brown said it was SUU and Dave said Matt was full of crap and still claimed it was WTAMU.

And those 2 were exchanging blows on Twitter.
[/quote

Who knows? Matt doesn't know everything.

No but he does stay more plugged into the re-alignment scene than almost anyone.

I like WTAMU. They wouldn't be my first choice, but I like them. But I have heard from Matt and some WT friends that they're not really looking to jump right now.

(01-14-2022 11:36 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 01:26 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  [quote='DoubleRSU' pid='18007159' dateline='1642100018']
Only knob DavidSt has been pimping WTAMU for years. He even “predicted” they were the school the Tarleton president was referring to in that old prediction thread. Matt Brown said it was SUU and Dave said Matt was full of crap and still claimed it was WTAMU.

And those 2 were exchanging blows on Twitter.
[/quote

Who knows? Matt doesn't know everything.

Matt doesn’t and he would probably tell you that himself, but he knows 1000x more than David thinks he knows.

(01-14-2022 11:36 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 01:26 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  [quote='DoubleRSU' pid='18007159' dateline='1642100018']
Only knob DavidSt has been pimping WTAMU for years. He even “predicted” they were the school the Tarleton president was referring to in that old prediction thread. Matt Brown said it was SUU and Dave said Matt was full of crap and still claimed it was WTAMU.

And those 2 were exchanging blows on Twitter.
[/quote

Who knows? Matt doesn't know everything.

DavidSt does though

(01-14-2022 01:58 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 11:36 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 01:26 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  [quote='DoubleRSU' pid='18007159' dateline='1642100018']
Only knob DavidSt has been pimping WTAMU for years. He even “predicted” they were the school the Tarleton president was referring to in that old prediction thread. Matt Brown said it was SUU and Dave said Matt was full of crap and still claimed it was WTAMU.

And those 2 were exchanging blows on Twitter.
[/quote

Who knows? Matt doesn't know everything.

Matt doesn’t and he would probably tell you that himself, but he knows 1000x more than David thinks he knows.

Are you sure about that? David sure thinks he knows everything, so Matt couldn't possibly know more, could he?

There’s an article about Portland State’s next step as the 400-page athletic department vision/review study has been available for a few months… if you make an FOIA request. Which The Oregonian hasn’t bothered to do, but someone else has. And if there were an indication that football is on the chopping block, I could couple that with the school President’s statement in that article that he’s committed to keeping Portland State in D-1 and make something of a deal about possibilities with the WAC.

But the committee using the study to make a decision can’t land a new AD. And, to put it mildly, Portland State is the Kobayashi Maru of athletic department case studies.

Sorry, had to get that off my chest. Back to your usual.

(01-14-2022 11:36 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 01:26 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  [quote='DoubleRSU' pid='18007159' dateline='1642100018']
Only knob DavidSt has been pimping WTAMU for years. He even “predicted” they were the school the Tarleton president was referring to in that old prediction thread. Matt Brown said it was SUU and Dave said Matt was full of crap and still claimed it was WTAMU.

And those 2 were exchanging blows on Twitter.
[/quote

Who knows? Matt doesn't know everything.

David is like us, a schmuck fan on the internet who likes to chat about sports. Like the site is designed for. David makes predictions for fun.

Matt Brown is here to sell subscriptions, sell books and promote his business for free, instead of buying ads. He's not here for fun, he's here for work. Matt Brown doesn't predict anything. He only reports what others decided after the fact.

2 different animals.

(01-14-2022 06:02 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 11:36 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 01:26 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  [quote='DoubleRSU' pid='18007159' dateline='1642100018']
Only knob DavidSt has been pimping WTAMU for years. He even “predicted” they were the school the Tarleton president was referring to in that old prediction thread. Matt Brown said it was SUU and Dave said Matt was full of crap and still claimed it was WTAMU.

And those 2 were exchanging blows on Twitter.
[/quote

Who knows? Matt doesn't know everything.

David is like us, a schmuck fan on the internet who likes to chat about sports. Like the site is designed for. David makes predictions for fun.

Matt Brown is here to sell subscriptions, sell books and promote his business for free, instead of buying ads. He's not here for fun, he's here for work. Matt Brown doesn't predict anything. He only reports what others decided after the fact.

2 different animals.

Yes, we’re aware. The difference is, the internet “schmuck” was telling him, he was wrong. And he did so based on some article he read years ago and believes it is 100% truth.

David doesn’t make “predictions” either. He never gives dates or timeframes. He only looks at map and the geographical makeup of the conference. He “predicted” NJIT to the MEAC days before they joined the AEC. He knows absolutely nothing, but there are a few people dumber than him that believe he is.

(01-14-2022 05:24 PM)Pounder Wrote:  There’s an article about Portland State’s next step as the 400-page athletic department vision/review study has been available for a few months… if you make an FOIA request. Which The Oregonian hasn’t bothered to do, but someone else has. And if there were an indication that football is on the chopping block, I could couple that with the school President’s statement in that article that he’s committed to keeping Portland State in D-1 and make something of a deal about possibilities with the WAC.

But the committee using the study to make a decision can’t land a new AD. And, to put it mildly, Portland State is the Kobayashi Maru of athletic department case studies.

Sorry, had to get that off my chest. Back to your usual.

It’s an interesting piece. From a WAC aspect, would a now more “Texas centric” conference add PSU if they did drop football? I don’t know. It would be nice for “travel partners” with SU, but what do they really add. WAC from 3 years ago, would have rolled out the red carpet for them.

If they do drop football, it does not automatically mean their basketball program will start being good. They need some kind of investment and just reiterates my belief that some schools are better off without football. That’s why schools like UTA, Grand Canyon, and UVU don’t and shouldn’t add football.

(01-14-2022 06:13 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 06:02 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 11:36 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 01:26 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  [quote='DoubleRSU' pid='18007159' dateline='1642100018']
Only knob DavidSt has been pimping WTAMU for years. He even “predicted” they were the school the Tarleton president was referring to in that old prediction thread. Matt Brown said it was SUU and Dave said Matt was full of crap and still claimed it was WTAMU.

And those 2 were exchanging blows on Twitter.
[/quote

Who knows? Matt doesn't know everything.

David is like us, a schmuck fan on the internet who likes to chat about sports. Like the site is designed for. David makes predictions for fun.

Matt Brown is here to sell subscriptions, sell books and promote his business for free, instead of buying ads. He's not here for fun, he's here for work. Matt Brown doesn't predict anything. He only reports what others decided after the fact.

2 different animals.

Yes, we’re aware. The difference is, the internet “schmuck” was telling him, he was wrong. And he did so based on some article he read years ago and believes it is 100% truth.

David doesn’t make “predictions” either. He never gives dates or timeframes. He only looks at map and the geographical makeup of the conference. He “predicted” NJIT to the MEAC days before they joined the AEC. He knows absolutely nothing, but there are a few people dumber than him that believe he is.

I may have missed some of the drama, fortunately. I have had both of the morons on ignore for ages. I don't need David's lists and I don't need extra points advertisements disguised as posts.

(01-14-2022 06:18 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 05:24 PM)Pounder Wrote:  There’s an article about Portland State’s next step as the 400-page athletic department vision/review study has been available for a few months… if you make an FOIA request. Which The Oregonian hasn’t bothered to do, but someone else has. And if there were an indication that football is on the chopping block, I could couple that with the school President’s statement in that article that he’s committed to keeping Portland State in D-1 and make something of a deal about possibilities with the WAC.

But the committee using the study to make a decision can’t land a new AD. And, to put it mildly, Portland State is the Kobayashi Maru of athletic department case studies.

Sorry, had to get that off my chest. Back to your usual.

It’s an interesting piece. From a WAC aspect, would a now more “Texas centric” conference add PSU if they did drop football? I don’t know. It would be nice for “travel partners” with SU, but what do they really add. WAC from 3 years ago, would have rolled out the red carpet for them.

If they do drop football, it does not automatically mean their basketball program will start being good. They need some kind of investment and just reiterates my belief that some schools are better off without football. That’s why schools like UTA, Grand Canyon, and UVU don’t and shouldn’t add football.

Some schools, and I think PSU is one, have football simply because they've always had football, and they are in a conference with other schools that have football.

If they were designing an athletics program from scratch today, they definitely wouldn't include football. But proactively getting rid of something is a whole other beast.

(01-14-2022 06:18 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 05:24 PM)Pounder Wrote:  There’s an article about Portland State’s next step as the 400-page athletic department vision/review study has been available for a few months… if you make an FOIA request. Which The Oregonian hasn’t bothered to do, but someone else has. And if there were an indication that football is on the chopping block, I could couple that with the school President’s statement in that article that he’s committed to keeping Portland State in D-1 and make something of a deal about possibilities with the WAC.

But the committee using the study to make a decision can’t land a new AD. And, to put it mildly, Portland State is the Kobayashi Maru of athletic department case studies.

Sorry, had to get that off my chest. Back to your usual.

It’s an interesting piece. From a WAC aspect, would a now more “Texas centric” conference add PSU if they did drop football? I don’t know. It would be nice for “travel partners” with SU, but what do they really add. WAC from 3 years ago, would have rolled out the red carpet for them.

If they do drop football, it does not automatically mean their basketball program will start being good. They need some kind of investment and just reiterates my belief that some schools are better off without football. That’s why schools like UTA, Grand Canyon, and UVU don’t and shouldn’t add football.

Exactly! Adding football is a money pit unless you have an elite program. Schools salivate over football thinking they will eventually be rolling in the dough. Some schools (especially mid-majors) have been waiting for this "pay day" for decades.

(01-14-2022 07:12 PM)DZ1 Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 06:18 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 05:24 PM)Pounder Wrote:  There’s an article about Portland State’s next step as the 400-page athletic department vision/review study has been available for a few months… if you make an FOIA request. Which The Oregonian hasn’t bothered to do, but someone else has. And if there were an indication that football is on the chopping block, I could couple that with the school President’s statement in that article that he’s committed to keeping Portland State in D-1 and make something of a deal about possibilities with the WAC.

But the committee using the study to make a decision can’t land a new AD. And, to put it mildly, Portland State is the Kobayashi Maru of athletic department case studies.

Sorry, had to get that off my chest. Back to your usual.

It’s an interesting piece. From a WAC aspect, would a now more “Texas centric” conference add PSU if they did drop football? I don’t know. It would be nice for “travel partners” with SU, but what do they really add. WAC from 3 years ago, would have rolled out the red carpet for them.

If they do drop football, it does not automatically mean their basketball program will start being good. They need some kind of investment and just reiterates my belief that some schools are better off without football. That’s why schools like UTA, Grand Canyon, and UVU don’t and shouldn’t add football.

Exactly! Adding football is a money pit unless you have an elite program. Schools salivate over football thinking they will eventually be rolling in the dough. Some schools (especially mid-majors) have been waiting for this "pay day" for decades.

UTA found out first hand what a money pit football was. I sincerely doubt if they will go that route again.

(01-14-2022 06:18 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 05:24 PM)Pounder Wrote:  There’s an article about Portland State’s next step as the 400-page athletic department vision/review study has been available for a few months… if you make an FOIA request. Which The Oregonian hasn’t bothered to do, but someone else has. And if there were an indication that football is on the chopping block, I could couple that with the school President’s statement in that article that he’s committed to keeping Portland State in D-1 and make something of a deal about possibilities with the WAC.

But the committee using the study to make a decision can’t land a new AD. And, to put it mildly, Portland State is the Kobayashi Maru of athletic department case studies.

Sorry, had to get that off my chest. Back to your usual.

It’s an interesting piece. From a WAC aspect, would a now more “Texas centric” conference add PSU if they did drop football? I don’t know. It would be nice for “travel partners” with SU, but what do they really add. WAC from 3 years ago, would have rolled out the red carpet for them.

If they do drop football, it does not automatically mean their basketball program will start being good. They need some kind of investment and just reiterates my belief that some schools are better off without football. That’s why schools like UTA, Grand Canyon, and UVU don’t and shouldn’t add football.

Portland State invested a ton into their new basketball arena. $52.1 million into their last renovation in 2016, reno was finished in 2018.

(01-14-2022 07:50 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 07:12 PM)DZ1 Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 06:18 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 05:24 PM)Pounder Wrote:  There’s an article about Portland State’s next step as the 400-page athletic department vision/review study has been available for a few months… if you make an FOIA request. Which The Oregonian hasn’t bothered to do, but someone else has. And if there were an indication that football is on the chopping block, I could couple that with the school President’s statement in that article that he’s committed to keeping Portland State in D-1 and make something of a deal about possibilities with the WAC.

But the committee using the study to make a decision can’t land a new AD. And, to put it mildly, Portland State is the Kobayashi Maru of athletic department case studies.

Sorry, had to get that off my chest. Back to your usual.

It’s an interesting piece. From a WAC aspect, would a now more “Texas centric” conference add PSU if they did drop football? I don’t know. It would be nice for “travel partners” with SU, but what do they really add. WAC from 3 years ago, would have rolled out the red carpet for them.

If they do drop football, it does not automatically mean their basketball program will start being good. They need some kind of investment and just reiterates my belief that some schools are better off without football. That’s why schools like UTA, Grand Canyon, and UVU don’t and shouldn’t add football.

Exactly! Adding football is a money pit unless you have an elite program. Schools salivate over football thinking they will eventually be rolling in the dough. Some schools (especially mid-majors) have been waiting for this "pay day" for decades.

UTA found out first hand what a money pit football was. I sincerely doubt if they will go that route again.

You can’t compare pre-90’s UTA to now. Apples and oranges in many ways.