(04-26-2021 10:53 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 08:53 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 07:17 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 10:49 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  As a disinterested outside observer, the move from the Southland to the WAC looks a lot more like leaving the Southland rather than joining the WAC. The newly joining Texas schools have no history with the other WAC schools except for Tarleton St and UTRGV. There is no connection with California Baptist, Dixie St, Grand Canyon, New Mexico St, Seattle, Southern Utah, Utah Valley, or - for a brief period - Chicago St.

I don't think moving to the WAC was flippant but I don't see this as a long-term relationship, either. At best, it looks like a symbiotic relationship with two pseudo-conferences under the same name and banner. I wouldn't be surprised if the six Texas schools split at some point and brought along Incarnate Word and one other like West Texas A&M to create an all-Texas FCS conference. I also wouldn't surprised if they stayed.

The scenario you are proposing is years down the road. And even then I don’t see it. How much exposure do you think a Texas only conference gives them nationally?

It seems like for most of these schools, the relevant question is how much exposure a Texas only conference gives them in Texas.

Look no further than the Southwest Conference. This conference was doomed once mass communications arrived and recruits saw there was a world of football outside Texas. Problem was the SWC saw little exposure nationally and eventually collapsed. Southland fits this same model. Because all the schools were so close no one knew the schools existed outside of their Conference. Very little exposure. So, yes schools want national exposure not Texas exposure.

To your point about the SLC, my freshman year at TXST I remember looking at the schedule poster and I could not recognize 8 out of the 11 logos on it.

I don't really think that being in the WAC is any different in that regard though. Sure, it is spread out over the western half of the US but how much exposure does that net the schools? If I weren't a sports junkie and didn't spend so much time on this board I wouldn't even know of the current WAC schools outside of NMSU, Tarleton, and GCU. Thats not a slight at the WAC, just the nature of non-FBS conferences, heck some might argue non-P5 conferences.

(04-26-2021 10:53 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 08:53 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 07:17 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  The scenario you are proposing is years down the road. And even then I don’t see it. How much exposure do you think a Texas only conference gives them nationally?

It seems like for most of these schools, the relevant question is how much exposure a Texas only conference gives them in Texas.

Look no further than the Southwest Conference. This conference was doomed once mass communications arrived and recruits saw there was a world of football outside Texas. Problem was the SWC saw little exposure nationally and eventually collapsed. Southland fits this same model. Because all the schools were so close no one knew the schools existed outside of their Conference. Very little exposure. So, yes schools want national exposure not Texas exposure.

You are seriously claiming that a conference aspiring, in its time, to being among the major conferences in US college sports and the Southland conference are in a sufficiently similar situation that you can directly export experience from one to the other?

Someone might argue that having a broader geographic profile might in some way increase the profile of these schools within Texas, in which case there might be some benefit, but arguing that these need to be recognizable in California or Georgia or Michigan in order to be successful at their level is just being silly.

And even if there was that abstract argument to be made ... the WAC is going to provide that? Really?

(04-26-2021 06:41 PM)Cowboy Frog Wrote:  Mr SMU ...( I also attended SMU.).I have followed TCU through the Southwest Conference ...Went to EVERY destination ..The WAC also went to every destination ..Conference USA ..Also Every Destination ..The Mountain West ..Also every destination ..The BIG EAST ..TCU was only there long enough to owe a BIG exit fee ..and the BIG 12 ....First You MUST understand WHY colleges offer athletics ...IT IS TO ATTRACT STUDENTS and ENTERTAIN BOOSTERS ...Do you think THE WAC teams think they are going to attract students in Stephenville or Abilene .....??? NO they go to where the potential Students are ....The Metroplex , Houston and Austin/SA..They want to have a PRESENCE in each area ...THE BIG 12 HIRED TCU to PROVIDE an OPPORTUNITY for their ALUMS and BOOSTERS in the METRO AREA to have a place where they could go to see their college play ..THEY NO Longer had to go to Lawrence or Iowa or Lubbock to meet with the College Presidents and promotion folks ...They could see their team play and GIVE MONEY to the SCHOOL and take their kids to see their ALMA Mater Play and stay where they Live and make their living ...SAN ANTONE and UICW would be a BOON to WAC recruiting and fundraising ....THERE is MORE Money in SA than ALL others WAC destinations COMBiNED..!!!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Frog, I agree that San Antonio is a great tourist town. But it is close enough to Austin that anybody who cares about college football there goes for the Texas Longhorns. The WAC adding UIW isn’t going to change that fact. People from Stephenville may prefer to go to San Antonio than Amarillo but at least the people in Amarillo support their team and take ownership of it and are more likely to go to a game. And have no pro sports competing with it for fan support. They have had crowds of more than 20,000 for a non FBS game. The same can’t be said about UIW. I’m not saying that a WTAMU vs SFA game would attract that many, but neither would a UIW game. I’m betting that WTAMU would have a much higher season attendance than UIW. And how many conference championships has UIW had in any sport?

Looks like the WAC has quietly passed on UIW. We can start throwing dirt on the coffin.

UIW's problems (poor Basketball, inadequate Football and Basketball facilities, lack of fans) are not something that can be fixed over night. Their being passed over means they will not be reconsidered for a long number of years.

(04-27-2021 01:20 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Looks like the WAC has quietly passed on UIW. We can start throwing dirt on the coffin.

UIW's problems (poor Basketball, inadequate Football and Basketball facilities, lack of fans) are not something that can be fixed over night. Their being passed over means they will not be reconsidered for a long number of years.

Haven’t seen anything that the WAC has passed on UIW. I’m not sure they’ve decided anything yet.

(04-27-2021 01:29 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 01:20 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Looks like the WAC has quietly passed on UIW. We can start throwing dirt on the coffin.

UIW's problems (poor Basketball, inadequate Football and Basketball facilities, lack of fans) are not something that can be fixed over night. Their being passed over means they will not be reconsidered for a long number of years.

Haven’t seen anything that the WAC has passed on UIW. I’m not sure they’ve decided anything yet.

Site visits are pretty late in the vetting. If nothing happens in a couple weeks after then it's dead. We are at the very end of that possible window, and it's crickets.

(04-27-2021 01:35 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 01:29 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 01:20 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Looks like the WAC has quietly passed on UIW. We can start throwing dirt on the coffin.

UIW's problems (poor Basketball, inadequate Football and Basketball facilities, lack of fans) are not something that can be fixed over night. Their being passed over means they will not be reconsidered for a long number of years.

Haven’t seen anything that the WAC has passed on UIW. I’m not sure they’ve decided anything yet.

Site visits are pretty late in the vetting. If nothing happens in a couple weeks after then it's dead. We are at the very end of that possible window, and it's crickets.

The WAC has time. They are probably exploring all of their options. They don't have to make an announcement immediately after a site visit.

Nobody waits a long time after site visits. Cannot think of a case in the last decade where the site visit was more than a short time before the informal invite. And those are never secret for more than minutes.

The WAC would be FOOLS to pass on having a Presence in Texas Premier Destination for Tourism


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

(04-27-2021 04:32 PM)Cowboy Frog Wrote:  The WAC would be FOOLS to pass on having a Presence in Texas Premier Destination for Tourism


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

And yet neither the Mountain West nor American took UTSA or Texas State

Maybe the “American” and the Mountain West play at a little different level than the WAC ...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

(04-27-2021 04:46 PM)Cowboy Frog Wrote:  Maybe the “American” and the Mountain West play at a little different level than the WAC ...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

So wait the MTW and American aren't FOOLS to pass up on Texas' premier tourist destination?

(04-27-2021 04:32 PM)Cowboy Frog Wrote:  The WAC would be FOOLS to pass on having a Presence in Texas Premier Destination for Tourism


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

That's a pretty low bar

(04-27-2021 04:59 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 04:46 PM)Cowboy Frog Wrote:  Maybe the “American” and the Mountain West play at a little different level than the WAC ...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

So wait the MTW and American aren't FOOLS to pass up on Texas' premier tourist destination?

Everybody knows the San Marcos Outlet Mall is the #1 tourist destination in Texas (by the numbers)

(04-27-2021 08:56 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 06:41 PM)Cowboy Frog Wrote:  Mr SMU ...( I also attended SMU.).I have followed TCU through the Southwest Conference ...Went to EVERY destination ..The WAC also went to every destination ..Conference USA ..Also Every Destination ..The Mountain West ..Also every destination ..The BIG EAST ..TCU was only there long enough to owe a BIG exit fee ..and the BIG 12 ....First You MUST understand WHY colleges offer athletics ...IT IS TO ATTRACT STUDENTS and ENTERTAIN BOOSTERS ...Do you think THE WAC teams think they are going to attract students in Stephenville or Abilene .....??? NO they go to where the potential Students are ....The Metroplex , Houston and Austin/SA..They want to have a PRESENCE in each area ...THE BIG 12 HIRED TCU to PROVIDE an OPPORTUNITY for their ALUMS and BOOSTERS in the METRO AREA to have a place where they could go to see their college play ..THEY NO Longer had to go to Lawrence or Iowa or Lubbock to meet with the College Presidents and promotion folks ...They could see their team play and GIVE MONEY to the SCHOOL and take their kids to see their ALMA Mater Play and stay where they Live and make their living ...SAN ANTONE and UICW would be a BOON to WAC recruiting and fundraising ....THERE is MORE Money in SA than ALL others WAC destinations COMBiNED..!!!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Frog, I agree that San Antonio is a great tourist town. But it is close enough to Austin that anybody who cares about college football there goes for the Texas Longhorns. The WAC adding UIW isn’t going to change that fact. People from Stephenville may prefer to go to San Antonio than Amarillo but at least the people in Amarillo support their team and take ownership of it and are more likely to go to a game. And have no pro sports competing with it for fan support. They have had crowds of more than 20,000 for a non FBS game. The same can’t be said about UIW. I’m not saying that a WTAMU vs SFA game would attract that many, but neither would a UIW game. I’m betting that WTAMU would have a much higher season attendance than UIW. And how many conference championships has UIW had in any sport?

I like San Antonio its an easy roadtrip for me. Games in Canyon against West Texas are better and more fun.

They will be better supported (on both sides)

(04-27-2021 08:56 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Frog, I agree that San Antonio is a great tourist town. But it is close enough to Austin that anybody who cares about college football there goes for the Texas Longhorns. The WAC adding UIW isn’t going to change that fact. People from Stephenville may prefer to go to San Antonio than Amarillo but at least the people in Amarillo support their team and take ownership of it and are more likely to go to a game. And have no pro sports competing with it for fan support. They have had crowds of more than 20,000 for a non FBS game. The same can’t be said about UIW. I’m not saying that a WTAMU vs SFA game would attract that many, but neither would a UIW game. I’m betting that WTAMU would have a much higher season attendance than UIW. And how many conference championships has UIW had in any sport?

There are a lot of things that need to happen before a 14th team joins the WAC, but one is not football attendance of UIW or WTAMU. If a team joins, it will not happen before 2022-2023. UIW's advantage is being full D1 and being located in San Antonio, and a very nice section of San Antonio (Alamo Heights). They are five miles from the airport and five miles from the Alamo Dome, which could become be helpful in the far-fetched idea that they become FBS. UIW needs to upgrade their basketball facility and basketball offers the most potential revenue for the WAC at this point in time.

WTAMU is D2 and in Canyon, Texas. If they joined the WAC in 2022-2023, they would not be full D1 until 2026-2027. As an FCS school, if they draw 20,000 per game, who does that help? The WAC re-started football for additional membership, to survive. There is no real TV revenue from football, and attendance is good for the school, but overall the attendance is really not that important unless your ultimate goal is to go FBS.

The WAC needs markets and a TV contract that will give them exposure for basketball. San Antonio is a perfect market to be in if UIW can upgrade their basketball program. There is no D1 competition in the city, other than UTSA and they averaged 1,120 fans per game in 2019-2020. An opportunity is there if UIW can expand and improve their basketball facilities, which should improve recruiting.

(04-27-2021 07:43 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 10:53 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 08:53 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 07:17 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  The scenario you are proposing is years down the road. And even then I don’t see it. How much exposure do you think a Texas only conference gives them nationally?

It seems like for most of these schools, the relevant question is how much exposure a Texas only conference gives them in Texas.

Look no further than the Southwest Conference. This conference was doomed once mass communications arrived and recruits saw there was a world of football outside Texas. Problem was the SWC saw little exposure nationally and eventually collapsed. Southland fits this same model. Because all the schools were so close no one knew the schools existed outside of their Conference. Very little exposure. So, yes schools want national exposure not Texas exposure.

You are seriously claiming that a conference aspiring, in its time, to being among the major conferences in US college sports and the Southland conference are in a sufficiently similar situation that you can directly export experience from one to the other?

Someone might argue that having a broader geographic profile might in some way increase the profile of these schools within Texas, in which case there might be some benefit, but arguing that these need to be recognizable in California or Georgia or Michigan in order to be successful at their level is just being silly.

And even if there was that abstract argument to be made ... the WAC is going to provide that? Really?

Yes, the more these Texas schools play in other states raises their profile much more than if they stayed in their own backyard as the SLC has done for years.

(04-27-2021 11:33 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 07:43 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 10:53 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 08:53 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 07:17 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  The scenario you are proposing is years down the road. And even then I don’t see it. How much exposure do you think a Texas only conference gives them nationally?

It seems like for most of these schools, the relevant question is how much exposure a Texas only conference gives them in Texas.

Look no further than the Southwest Conference. This conference was doomed once mass communications arrived and recruits saw there was a world of football outside Texas. Problem was the SWC saw little exposure nationally and eventually collapsed. Southland fits this same model. Because all the schools were so close no one knew the schools existed outside of their Conference. Very little exposure. So, yes schools want national exposure not Texas exposure.

You are seriously claiming that a conference aspiring, in its time, to being among the major conferences in US college sports and the Southland conference are in a sufficiently similar situation that you can directly export experience from one to the other?

Someone might argue that having a broader geographic profile might in some way increase the profile of these schools within Texas, in which case there might be some benefit, but arguing that these need to be recognizable in California or Georgia or Michigan in order to be successful at their level is just being silly.

And even if there was that abstract argument to be made ... the WAC is going to provide that? Really?

Yes, the more these Texas schools play in other states raises their profile much more than if they stayed in their own backyard as the SLC has done for years.

UMKC’s profile wasn’t raised playing at WAC schools. Their support went backyards to the point they moved home games into a 1k seat gym.

(04-27-2021 11:33 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  Yes, the more these Texas schools play in other states raises their profile much more than if they stayed in their own backyard as the SLC has done for years.

Not vaguely "in other states" ... specifically, at WAC schools. Playing in St. George or Orem Utah is really going to boost their profile in Texas?

(04-27-2021 11:33 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 07:43 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 10:53 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 08:53 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 07:17 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  The scenario you are proposing is years down the road. And even then I don’t see it. How much exposure do you think a Texas only conference gives them nationally?

It seems like for most of these schools, the relevant question is how much exposure a Texas only conference gives them in Texas.

Look no further than the Southwest Conference. This conference was doomed once mass communications arrived and recruits saw there was a world of football outside Texas. Problem was the SWC saw little exposure nationally and eventually collapsed. Southland fits this same model. Because all the schools were so close no one knew the schools existed outside of their Conference. Very little exposure. So, yes schools want national exposure not Texas exposure.

You are seriously claiming that a conference aspiring, in its time, to being among the major conferences in US college sports and the Southland conference are in a sufficiently similar situation that you can directly export experience from one to the other?

Someone might argue that having a broader geographic profile might in some way increase the profile of these schools within Texas, in which case there might be some benefit, but arguing that these need to be recognizable in California or Georgia or Michigan in order to be successful at their level is just being silly.

And even if there was that abstract argument to be made ... the WAC is going to provide that? Really?

Yes, the more these Texas schools play in other states raises their profile much more than if they stayed in their own backyard as the SLC has done for years.

How so? I don't disagree with you btw. I just don't think it applies to all levels.