UTSA is the best WAC candidate in my opinion. They have already signed 7 FBS teams to home and home contracts including, Arizona, Arizona State, Baylor, Kansas St, Houston, and others. Playing at the 65K Alamodome, and should draw well with no competition in San Antonio. They have a lot of potential. As someone said they can't play FBS until 2013 (will be FCS in 11 and 12), unless that can be moved up a year.

(06-15-2010 10:02 PM)Airport KC Wrote:  

(06-15-2010 09:52 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(06-15-2010 09:43 PM)Airport KC Wrote:  

(06-15-2010 09:28 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(06-15-2010 09:25 PM)Airport KC Wrote:  

(06-15-2010 09:17 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(06-15-2010 09:08 PM)anothertigerfan Wrote:  The MWC is so screwed.

I would love to be in that "screwed" MWC. Just like you would love to be in the shaky BE. Even if somehow BYU and Air Force got B12 invites. MWC-3 is still better with Fresno, Nevada, UTEP in it over WAC

WAC is on shaky ground right now.

Do you see an invite to UTSA or UNT? That would shore up the ranks.

Probably the future of the conference relies on picking up more FCS programs but none appear that ready or valueable as UTSA.

UNT, UTSA and Texas State make the most sense for the WAC, IMHO. It ties the league together with La Tech and gives it a strong presence in Texas. The AD directors at Cal Poly and Sac State have both said in interviews they would aspire to the WAC if they had the chance. So there will be some options. Montana could compete pretty much from day one.

UNT has been reluctant to take the WAC offer because it fears Big West type instability.

That is why the WAC needs to be proactive and offer UTSA to tempt UNT into the conference. UNT will want to be in the same conference with an in-state rival.

Better yet go offer UTSA and Tx State. That would give the WAC a strong base in Texas like they have in California.

IF UCF, ECU or Memphis go Big East, the Sun Belt will automatically lose some teams. Why stay in that sinking shiop if you are UNT?

Problem with UTSA is they don't start fb until 2011 and can't start FBS transition until 2013. WAC needs someone now.

UNT turned the WAC down a few years ago because we weren't willing to take Arkansas St., ULL with them.

WAC's list

1.Montana (turned down a fee hike, needs to add 2 sports and is getting a new Prez, old Prez is anti FBS)
2.UC-Davis needs to add 5,000 seats to football stadium
3.Cal Poly needs to add 4,000 seats to fb stadium and needs a bigger bball arena
4.Texas St. is the most ready but is way out in Texas
5.Sacramento St. needs to play basketball at Arco Arena, Sac's is only 1,500 seats.

-Montana has the Montana State issue otherwise it would have moved up 10-15 years ago.

-UC-Davis doesn't really have much tradition in DI. I agree they would be a nice add but would they be more comfortable in the Big West?

-TX State is a must if interested. The WAC must rebuild its Texas base. All FBS conferences have eastern range or beyond members (including PAC-10 now with Colorado).

-UTSA is potentially CUSA/MWC material but they haven't proven anything yet accept the ability to sign some home-homes. The WAC sounds like the perfect starter league for UTSA.

Montana St. might be an issue but they would not have left 15 years ago. They aren't sure now. The current Prez is NOT on board with it. If MSU was the problem they could always add both if they wanted Montana.

UCD-Tradition doesn't matter, see Troy St. D-II, I-AA, I-A pretty fast. FIU, FAU, USA from thin air to FBS.

Texas St. 100% on board but all the WAC minus NMSU and La Tech would want Montana or CA school.

UTSA in MWC, no but if they pay their dues CUSA could happen later on.

Good for Utah, they've earned a BCS bid. They should be proud.

they don't have to add anyone else.
basically, if they get 1 team in the final bcs rankings each of the next 2 yrs, they are in for 12,13.

(06-15-2010 10:16 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  they don't have to add anyone else.
basically, if they get 1 team in the final bcs rankings each of the next 2 yrs, they are in for 12,13.

Read the thread I posted on the MWC BCS rankings. They are not on target to get a BCS bid, even if they keep Utah, because the 3rd criteria is not being met due to the poor teams at the bottom. The 3rd criteria is the average ranking of ALL teams in the conf. Currently they sit at about 58. They need to get that above 50 (the Big 10s ranking at #6), to get a BCS bid. Either that or get a waiver. They bottom of the league would have to improve tremendously in order to meet this. The other 2 criteria they are meeting.

I believe you as I cannot decipher it. It would appear they are close to the criteria under the exemption request criteria.

http://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=5126859

(06-15-2010 10:05 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  UTSA is the best WAC candidate in my opinion. They have already signed 7 FBS teams to home and home contracts including, Arizona, Arizona State, Baylor, Kansas St, Houston, and others. Playing at the 65K Alamodome, and should draw well with no competition in San Antonio. They have a lot of potential. As someone said they can't play FBS until 2013 (will be FCS in 11 and 12), unless that can be moved up a year.

If the WAC loses another school it will NEED without doubt another school.

The NCAA would likely give the WAC a 2 year wavier on the 8 FBS school requirement, like they did the Big East when they had to reload.

I hope that the WAC has a June 30 deadline to add another member, just to make sure they are safe for a while.

I think people are saying that the MWC is screwed because they just took a major blow in their attempt become a BCS conference. Boise is in much better shape, but they were also hoping for an agreement from Utah, TCU and BYU that they wouldn't go anywhere. Now, Utah is gone and BYU and Air Force could be following them out the door. And, you never know, the Big East might make a play for TCU.

(06-15-2010 10:11 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  Good for Utah, they've earned a BCS bid. They should be proud.

The Utes earned the "promotion" on the field and on the court, in a way that no school has since Florida State did in Bowden's early years there.

Q. How many schools have both played for a men's basketball national title and finished in the top 2 in the final football polls within the last 15 years?

A. Two. Florida and Utah.

(06-15-2010 11:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-15-2010 10:11 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  Good for Utah, they've earned a BCS bid. They should be proud.

The Utes earned the "promotion" on the field and on the court, in a way that no school has since Florida State did in Bowden's early years there.

Q. How many schools have both played for a men's basketball national title and finished in the top 2 in the final football polls within the last 15 years?

A. Two. Florida and Utah.

Ohio State also has done that in the last 15 years.

(06-15-2010 09:08 PM)anothertigerfan Wrote:  The MWC is so screwed.

No more so than Memphis. And I got 10 mil reasons to feel that way.

(06-15-2010 11:28 PM)CatsClaw Wrote:  

(06-15-2010 11:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-15-2010 10:11 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote:  Good for Utah, they've earned a BCS bid. They should be proud.

The Utes earned the "promotion" on the field and on the court, in a way that no school has since Florida State did in Bowden's early years there.

Q. How many schools have both played for a men's basketball national title and finished in the top 2 in the final football polls within the last 15 years?

A. Two. Florida and Utah.

Ohio State also has done that in the last 15 years.

You are correct. Maybe they deserve to be in a BCS conference too.

Lol! But that makes your stat about Utah even more impressive, especially since those schools won national titles in football, and you can make a case that Utah should have claimed a share of the national title over that stretch.

looks like it's about to be official:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5293329