DAgg Wrote:But isn't it the responsibility of the schools who could be left behind to keep themselves also attractive so that circumstances like this don't happen?
This thread wasn't intended to get into who's contributing to the whole and who's not. The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of schools that are making significant contributions to the WAC. Every new school to the WAC is currently paying entrance fees for the betterment of the WAC. And many of those schools are upgrading facilities, if not building brand new facilities. Secondly, many of the new schools have brought different sports that are extremely competitive. Idaho won the women't cross country championship, New Mexico St won's the men's golf, SJSU won the women's golf, Utah St won the men's cross country, Hawaii won volleyball, Fresno St won baseball, Nevada won men's basketball, Boise St won football, La Tech won women's outdoor track and field....
http://www.wacsports.com/view_article.asp?id=3718
Everyone is contributing significantly. Now if you want to argue who's contributing more to the conference monetarily, then I think I could make an arguement for, at least, Nevada and Utah St more than just about any other school. But the ironic part of all of this is that Nevada and Utah St aren't part of all of the talks and perceptions as to who really contributes. Where I take issue with many of the posts is in this thread is when comments like those of DAgg are made.
It bothers me that many of you take on the perception that the big football schools, namely Fresno St and Boise St, are the only teams contributing, considering the above. Secondly, I find it very ironic how bcs conferences have schools that contribute virtually nothing to the goals of the conference in football, yet you never hear of the SEC wanting to rid itself of Vanderbilt, the ACC of Duke, the Big East of Rutgers, the Big 12 of Baylor or the Big 10 of Northwestern, yet many of you wish to become a bcs conference. Well if you want to become a bcs conference, you'd better start realizing what each member of the conference is contributing and start showing some loyalty to those schools as Texas does to Baylor, Georgia to Vanderbilt, West Virginia to Rutgers, etc, etc.
I envy the bcs conferences not so much for their money, but for their stability. I envy the fact that they don't dread having the likes of the Vanderbilts as members of their conference. They seem to be educated enough to appreciate each member for their strengths. And more than anything else, they take pride in being a member of those conferences, despite who's at the bottom of the football standings.
Further, I think it's really funny how we have MWC fans coming into this thread and giving their two cents on investing in a conference's future. When looking for the worst examples of building on a conference's future, I look the MWC's way. It's like taking marital advice from Ted Bundy.
For the MWC fans that think they're so intelligent on the subject, had you made the right choices before and after the WAC break-up you'd probably all ready be a stronger football conference than the Big East. BUT you chose not to go down that road. The last place I'm going to look for advice on building a conference's future is in the MWC!
For those fans that wish their team would leave the WAC, well, you may get your wish if you wish hard enough. And in the mean time, if that is your attitude, thanks for nothing!