No offense to La. Tech or Wac fans. I'm not trying to challenge your committment to each other.

From an outsiders perspective it just seems like La. Tech is a better fit in a different conference. I'm not talking about the Sun Belt. If La. Tech went to CUSA would La. Tech fans embrace that move? I think if I were a Wac fan, and La. Tech left, I would actually look forward to the opportunity to regionalize the Wac. There aren't any western teams not affiliated with the Wac that have La. Tech's profile, but it wouldn't seem like that big of a loss. The money saved on travel costs would probably make up for the money La. Tech makes the Wac.

It just doesn't seem like there would be a lot of animosity on either side if La. Tech left the Wac for CUSA.

That brings up another point. Why aren't Wac fans pissed off at Utep, SMU, Rice, TCU, and Tulsa for leaving the Wac? You guys sure are pissed off at MWC schools for leaving. What is the difference?

I can speak only for myself but I was happy to see the MWC split come along. It opened up an opportunity for Nevada and Boise right away and the departures of the Eastern WAC schools opened a door for USU, NMSU and Idaho. Those schools are all long time rivals of Nevada. The Eastern WAC schools are happy in CUSA and the newbies are happy here..It's all good.

As far as I am concerned the MWC has never done anything bad to Nevada. Other schools have have legitimate complaints with you folks but not me

CJ - You're right that there would be "no" animosity at all. I'd be happy for La. Tech. This is something they need...and if C-USA extended an invite, there's no question that they'd need to accept.

But if I had my druthers, I'd prefer them in the WAC. Somehow or another, the WAC needs some sort of presence in the Central time-zone.

Cowboy Junky Wrote:No offense to La. Tech or Wac fans. I'm not trying to challenge your committment to each other.

From an outsiders perspective it just seems like La. Tech is a better fit in a different conference. I'm not talking about the Sun Belt. If La. Tech went to CUSA would La. Tech fans embrace that move? I think if I were a Wac fan, and La. Tech left, I would actually look forward to the opportunity to regionalize the Wac. There aren't any western teams not affiliated with the Wac that have La. Tech's profile, but it wouldn't seem like that big of a loss. The money saved on travel costs would probably make up for the money La. Tech makes the Wac.

It just doesn't seem like there would be a lot of animosity on either side if La. Tech left the Wac for CUSA.

That brings up another point. Why aren't Wac fans pissed off at Utep, SMU, Rice, TCU, and Tulsa for leaving the Wac? You guys sure are pissed off at MWC schools for leaving. What is the difference?

I wouldn't have a problem with La Tech leaving. It would be a perfectly understandable move for them, assuming a jump to C-USA. When it comes to certain teams leaving the WAC, I was disappointed when UTEP left. For a short period of time, I thought that Utah St, NMSU and UTEP would be in the same conference. I thought they'd still be a good fit in the WAC also. In some ways I miss their fans and the old Owl board.

When it comes to Utah, BYU, Colorado St, Air Force and Wyoming as relating to Utah St, that would lead to a long history lesson that I'm sure you've been through numerous times. I don't care to go there. But I do recognize the "gang of five" for what they are and what they have been and what they've done to conference mates left behind.

Cowboy Junky Wrote:That brings up another point. Why aren't Wac fans pissed off at Utep, SMU, Rice, TCU, and Tulsa for leaving the Wac? You guys sure are pissed off at MWC schools for leaving. What is the difference?

In my mind, the difference is timing, rather than consequences. Suppose that the eastern schools mentioned had announced in 1998 that they were leaving the WAC, in order to stem financial losses and restore traditional rivalries (or whatever the reasons), with the MWC schools following thereafter (IOW, reversing the order of departure). I can imagine that there would be some who would blame the Texas/Oklahoma schools for the breakup of the WAC, in the sense that, if they hadn't left, no one else would have either. The MWC schools could rightly say that they were just leaving a sinking ship that others had already torpedoed. It's an understandable search for a lighning rod.

In the end, as has been discussed many times, the WAC-16 was a bloated monstrosity that was inevitably doomed from its creation, with the only issues being when it disintegrated and by what means. Although it was a painful parting, in the end, I think the football landscape emerged the better for it. It provided a haven for the football schools that needed a port of refuge from the Big West and allowed the Texas schools that preferred to look east the opportunity to do so. It also indisputably opened up more bowl opportunities and TV revenue.

Finally, it allowed schools to play each other on a yearly, rather than twice-every-six-years basis. The WAC-16 felt like a New York subway, with all the teams coming and going from the schedule and very few constants. For instance, it wasn't until Colorado State come to Provo in 1999, to play the conference's first ever game, that I really realized how much had been missing without the Rams on the schedule.

The Chinese have a saying that crisis is really just another word for opportunity. I think the WAC-16 debacle turned out to illustrate that.

I would mostly agree with you there, SPCoug. However (ironically another time I use that word), if the WAC 16 was such a bad thing, why was it organized in the first place? Don't many members of the MWC hold some responsibility for setting up the WAC 16? Shouldn't they be held, in part, responsible for setting that up? Shouldn't compensation, that was never given to the schools left behind, be demanded, in part, from those MWC officials? IMO, the answer is, yes.

Further, this is not the first time that Utah, BYU, Wyoming and Colorado St have left for greener pastures. This seems to be a recurring trend. nvspuds has pointed out this same trend with TCU. In fact, it makes me question these teams' judgement and how trustworthy they are based on their frequency of breaking up conferences and building anew for their own benefit and often at a great loss for those left behind. Now, it's debatable as to whether they are wise for doing so or not. But you can't argue that the teams left behind (delusional for believing in them in the first place, IMO), often get a raw deal. JMHO. It seems to me that it is the effect you have on others around you that determines your character.

Quote:In the end, as has been discussed many times, the WAC-16 was a bloated monstrosity that was inevitably doomed from its creation, with the only issues being when it disintegrated and by what means.

I disagree with that. The problem with the WAC 16 wasn't its size but the fact that it encompassed three geographic subregions and those didn't fit into two rational divisions.

If 8 of the schools had been in each of two contiguous time zones, then the WAC 16 would be alive today. We wouldn't have had to go to rotating quads instead of fixed divisions and geographic rivalries would have been maintained.

Yoda out...

If the eastern/Texas schools would have left first, the MWC wouldn't have formed. No one would have had to go anywhere.

The formation of the MWC has led to a better conference for every party involved, with the exception of Hawaii and Fresno.

It was the Texas triangle that led to the break-up. If they would have agreed to a conference set-up that preserved the mountain rivalries, we could have peacefully co-existed. Their insistance on rotating games with mountain schools is what killed the Wac 16.

It's not like the Mountain West left the Wac with nothing. We left a lot of basketball revenue, the Wac label, conference connections, and a lot of bowl games. We started out with nothing. We had to build everything we have now.

ejmpalle Wrote:I would mostly agree with you there, SPCoug. However (ironically another time I use that word), if the WAC 16 was such a bad thing, why was it organized in the first place? Don't many members of the MWC hold some responsibility for setting up the WAC 16? Shouldn't they be held, in part, responsible for setting that up? Shouldn't compensation, that was never given to the schools left behind, be demanded, in part, from those MWC officials? IMO, the answer is, yes.

Actually Wyo, Air Force, BYU, and Utah voted against the WAC 16 and were not happy when it formed in the first place on a simple 5-4 vote.

New Mexico was not present at the meeting and did not vote.

So SDSU and CSU are the only current MWC members who voted in favor of the WAC 16 mess. (although New Mexico favored it supposedly)

Rumor at the time was Fresno and SDSU wanted SJSU included. In exchage for New Mex and Utep votes they would support the inclusion of the Texas schools, who New Mex and Utep wanted. Who knows what really happend but you can bet there was some wheeling and dealing going on and four schools wanted no part of any of it from day one. Hawaii broke the tie in favor of expansion.

Yoda Wrote:

Quote:In the end, as has been discussed many times, the WAC-16 was a bloated monstrosity that was inevitably doomed from its creation, with the only issues being when it disintegrated and by what means.

I disagree with that. The problem with the WAC 16 wasn't its size but the fact that it encompassed three geographic subregions and those didn't fit into two rational divisions.

If 8 of the schools had been in each of two contiguous time zones, then the WAC 16 would be alive today. We wouldn't have had to go to rotating quads instead of fixed divisions and geographic rivalries would have been maintained.

Yoda out...

In theory, your concept of two 8-team divisions sounds good. Implementing would have been every bit as nightmarish as the quads.

Let's start with the two "ends," Central and Pacific/Hawaii time zones. In the former, you'd have TCU, SMU, Rice and Tulsa. In the latter, you'd have Hawaii, SDSU, FSU, SJSU and UNLV.

So far, so good. How would you break up the remaining 7 teams? If you put BYU, Utah and Wyoming in with the Pacific timezone, you've just killed the Border War, which is unacceptable. If you put BYU, Utah and New Mexico in the Pacific, you've wiped out those schools playing Air Force, CSU and Wyoming, another nonstarter, since Wyoming is BYU's second oldest rivalry. IOW, there was no way to keep BYU, Utah, CSU, Wyoming, Air Force and New Mexico together without creating a second division that spread from Texas to Hawaii, which was also unacceptable.

I don't see a viable way to make the split, not to mention the other fatal problem: Too many hungry mouths and too little tv and bowl revenue. It's worth noting that BYU, which has always run its athletic program in the black or at a break even point, incurred its first red ink in 1996, despite going to the Cotton Bowl.

It's no suprise that splitting the mountain five was not a good idea. Utah, Wyoming, BYU, and CSU formed the Skyline in 1938. In 1962 Wyoming, Utah, BYU, and New Mexico formed the Wac.

It's a pretty safe bet that Wyoming, Utah, BYU, CSU, and AFA need to play each other every year.

ejmpalle Wrote:Further, this is not the first time that Utah, BYU, Wyoming and Colorado St have left for greener pastures. This seems to be a recurring trend. nvspuds has pointed out this same trend with TCU. In fact, it makes me question these teams' judgement and how trustworthy they are based on their frequency of breaking up conferences and building anew for their own benefit and often at a great loss for those left behind. Now, it's debatable as to whether they are wise for doing so or not. But you can't argue that the teams left behind (delusional for believing in them in the first place, IMO), often get a raw deal. JMHO. It seems to me that it is the effect you have on others around you that determines your character.

Someone recently posted a URL, which I can't find but which provided a history of the Skyline (?) Conference and how it was formed by a meeting of 7 presidents of the existing conference in a Salt Lake hotel, about breaking away and forming a new conference. I think the participants that time were BYU, Utah, Utah State, Wyoming, CSU, CU and Denver. That breakup also had some howls and complaints.

It's interesting how history repeats itself and apparently for the same reason: The existing conference had gotten too big and bloated to be viable any more.

Here's a link to a board with information about the old conferences Wac and MWC teams play in.

It is interesting to note that Wyoming, Utah, and BYU, have been founding members of three different conferences together. Maybe those old Texas Wac teams should have researched the history of their conference mates before they decided breaking up the mountain schools leads to the formation of new conferences.

http://sports.mariah95.com/wacalltimefootball.htm

SPCoug Wrote:

ejmpalle Wrote:Further, this is not the first time that Utah, BYU, Wyoming and Colorado St have left for greener pastures. This seems to be a recurring trend. nvspuds has pointed out this same trend with TCU. In fact, it makes me question these teams' judgement and how trustworthy they are based on their frequency of breaking up conferences and building anew for their own benefit and often at a great loss for those left behind. Now, it's debatable as to whether they are wise for doing so or not. But you can't argue that the teams left behind (delusional for believing in them in the first place, IMO), often get a raw deal. JMHO. It seems to me that it is the effect you have on others around you that determines your character.

Someone recently posted a URL, which I can't find but which provided a history of the Skyline (?) Conference and how it was formed by a meeting of 7 presidents of the existing conference in a Salt Lake hotel, about breaking away and forming a new conference. I think the participants that time were BYU, Utah, Utah State, Wyoming, CSU, CU and Denver. That breakup also had some howls and complaints.

It's interesting how history repeats itself and apparently for the same reason: The existing conference had gotten too big and bloated to be viable any more.

I couldn't agree more, SPCoug, that the WAC 16 was doomed based on how it was established. There were main hair brained people that got together to put that together who didn't have any foresight or real understanding of the past and historical rivals, etc. But that is essentially what I'm getting at. Often times "the gang of five" is involved in some form or another in those hair brained schemes, whether they agree with the schemes or not.

One of my favorite lines from Dr. Laura (I'm not a Dr. Laura fan, but I'll never forget this one.) is when she gets ladies that call in her show who tell her their heart-felt stories about how they get involved with these losers for men and the men cheat on them or are disloyal in some other form. And it happens over and over again to them. Dr. Laura simply asks, "How do you keep finding these men?". IOW, check your very own wisdom before you get involved with them. Set your standard higher.

I see this same thing happening with "the gang of five", but in sporting terms. Why do they get themselves involved in these unfavorable circumstances in the first place, which often has negative effects on the teams left behind. When will they be able to form their own conference that is solid and remain loyal to that conference? Why build a convoluted corsortium (sp?) that is doomed from the beginning?

Yes, Utah St has moved from one conference to another. They were left behind by the Skyline. They moved to the only regional conference that would accept them, in the Big West, knowing full well all the way along that they wanted to be members of the WAC and have continued to covet the WAC from the break-up of the Skyline. Now that Utah St is in the WAC, they have achieved thier goal and have no reason to move on, unless the WAC were to fail. Point being, Utah St was loyal to the WAC from the point that the WAC was formed. Nor has Utah St been involved with building a conference doomed for failure from one that was all ready successfull (IOW, poor judgement and foresight). Don't fix it if it isn't broken.

I doubt anyone in the WAC would begrudge La Tech the opportunity to join a more geographically friendly conference. They have been a great WAC member, but were left simply off the guest list when CUSA formed. No hards feelings there (among WAC members).


As for the MWC split - recall the 16 team WAC was precipitated by the "availability" of the 3 Southwest Conf castoffs. I wonder if many of the WAC and future WAC presidents became enamored with the ideas of expanding into the Dallas and Houston media markets and of forming a powerhouse super-conference, and as those discussions evolved, it turned out to be a massive political compromise on whom to include. As with most political solutions - the reality didn't match the fanatasy, and folks on both sides of the WAC 16 become dissolusioned.

When the split occured it left the remaining WAC with two very different components that were destined to eventually get divorced. The fact that it lasted as long as it did was because there were no viable options available.

So IMO the reason there are hard feelings for the MWC split is that the remaining western schools felt jilted. The reason there are no hard feelings about the CUSA realignment is because it actually put schools into a better situation than the were in (the bifurcated WAC) and represented a new beginning (and made sense! - mostly).

Cowboy Junky Wrote:No offense to La. Tech or Wac fans. I'm not trying to challenge your committment to each other.

From an outsiders perspective it just seems like La. Tech is a better fit in a different conference. I'm not talking about the Sun Belt. If La. Tech went to CUSA would La. Tech fans embrace that move? I think if I were a Wac fan, and La. Tech left, I would actually look forward to the opportunity to regionalize the Wac. There aren't any western teams not affiliated with the Wac that have La. Tech's profile, but it wouldn't seem like that big of a loss. The money saved on travel costs would probably make up for the money La. Tech makes the Wac.

It just doesn't seem like there would be a lot of animosity on either side if La. Tech left the Wac for CUSA.

That brings up another point. Why aren't Wac fans pissed off at Utep, SMU, Rice, TCU, and Tulsa for leaving the Wac? You guys sure are pissed off at MWC schools for leaving. What is the difference?

Sure no one would hate Tech if we left for CUSA but we have to get the invite first. I for one hope when that day comes we schedule some WAC teams in our OOC. I would really miss playing Boise, Hawaii, Nevada, Fresno in football or Fresno, NMSU, USU, and Nevada in basketball. Really I just want to play Fresno is every sport. I really like beating them.

SPCoug Wrote:

Cowboy Junky Wrote:That brings up another point. Why aren't Wac fans pissed off at Utep, SMU, Rice, TCU, and Tulsa for leaving the Wac? You guys sure are pissed off at MWC schools for leaving. What is the difference?

In my mind, the difference is timing, rather than consequences. Suppose that the eastern schools mentioned had announced in 1998 that they were leaving the WAC, in order to stem financial losses and restore traditional rivalries (or whatever the reasons), with the MWC schools following thereafter (IOW, reversing the order of departure). I can imagine that there would be some who would blame the Texas/Oklahoma schools for the breakup of the WAC, in the sense that, if they hadn't left, no one else would have either. The MWC schools could rightly say that they were just leaving a sinking ship that others had already torpedoed. It's an understandable search for a lighning rod.

In the end, as has been discussed many times, the WAC-16 was a bloated monstrosity that was inevitably doomed from its creation, with the only issues being when it disintegrated and by what means. Although it was a painful parting, in the end, I think the football landscape emerged the better for it. It provided a haven for the football schools that needed a port of refuge from the Big West and allowed the Texas schools that preferred to look east the opportunity to do so. It also indisputably opened up more bowl opportunities and TV revenue.

Finally, it allowed schools to play each other on a yearly, rather than twice-every-six-years basis. The WAC-16 felt like a New York subway, with all the teams coming and going from the schedule and very few constants. For instance, it wasn't until Colorado State come to Provo in 1999, to play the conference's first ever game, that I really realized how much had been missing without the Rams on the schedule.

The Chinese have a saying that crisis is really just another word for opportunity. I think the WAC-16 debacle turned out to illustrate that.

The bullsheet meter is clanging so loudly here it can be heard all the way to the C-USA Board.

The BIG difference; the Texas schools left the WAC in accordance with the rules and while being up front with the other universities in their intentions.

The sleazy, corrupt Airport 5 met secrectly in violation of the WAC by-laws and scheduled a press conference to spring the news on the others. The slime will never wash from Air Force, BYU, Colorado State, Utah and Wyoming.

And the Texas schools, coveted by C-USA and at least one by your own MWC, joined with the understanding they would wind up in an eventual permanent division with UTEP, New Mexico, Air Force, and Colorado State. Apparently Colorado State and New Mexico liked that idea.

While it is true that Rice and the others landed in the best possible circumstance in C-USA, the revisionist history spun by the shameful Airport 5 is pathetic.

To me, as a Tech fan, I am completely happy from a purely on the field sports and competitive standpoint. I don't see anything major that C-USA offers in that regard that the WAC doesn't offer.

The difference is in Bowls , Revenue and Travel. Not just travel dollars but the ability for our fans to travel to more away games.

Once again ,on the field, I think the WAC is underrated and I am happy we are here.

From a regional standpoint the Sunbelt would make sense but the on the field product is weak compared with the WAC and any gains made by decreased travel costs would be offset by losses in conference revenue.

So CUSA makes the most sense. There isn't an opening in CUSA so here we are. And I am happy we are here and I have no complaints. I think most of our WAC bretheren appreciate us, are happy we are here but would understand and have no hard feelings towards us if we left for C-USA. Remember as far as traveling goes that many WAC schools are actually closer to us than they are to Hawaii. I don't see us here in 5 years but the WAC has been good to us and I wish the WAC well now and after we eventually leave.

For now though I just want to beat Boise as they have beaten us 4 years in a row and I want to make it 3 in a row against Fresno this year at home. I can't wait for Tech/WAC football to begin.

ESE84 Wrote:The BIG difference; the Texas schools left the WAC in accordance with the rules and while being up front with the other universities in their intentions.

The sleazy, corrupt Airport 5 met secrectly in violation of the WAC by-laws and scheduled a press conference to spring the news on the others. The slime will never wash from Air Force, BYU, Colorado State, Utah and Wyoming.

Okay, please cite the rules that the departing schools violated and how they were not up front with their intentions. They announced their intention to leave some 18 months before it happened and gave their formal notice of departure 1 year beforehand, exactly as WAC by-laws required.

In particular, please provide chapter and verse of the WAC by-laws where university presidents are prohibitted from meeting on an informal basis to discuss individual and collective concerns. I won't hold my breath.

BTW, may I assume that Army's unilateral decision to leave CUSA was also illegal and deceitful, since they sprung it on an unsuspecting membership?

You're right SPCoug. I'm surprised that the bitterness has gone on this long for some.

If the WAC would have fallen apart, or if we were relegated to D-1aa status because of the split, then I can see harboring bitterness.

But no real damage was done. The teams that went to the MWC weren't the pillars holding up the WAC conference. The teams that left for C-USA weren't the pillars eithers.

It's pretty clear to me now that this conference will rock no matter who's in it.

You bring aboard a NMSU and what do they do? The bag coaches like Reggie and Hal.

You bring in an Idaho and what do they do? They bag one of the best college football coaches in Dennis Erickson.

The WAC is standing strong...and only getting stronger.

There's nothing that happened that the WAC couldn't or didn't recover from.

It's time to let go...and put on them shades.