(06-13-2021 02:30 AM)Todor Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 12:10 AM)Lopes87 Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 12:00 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 10:38 AM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  I don’t have a problem with any school talking crap about Chicago State and not wanting to play them. Does anyone here think NMSU, SU, GCU, CBU, and UVU want to travel to a bad part of Chicago to play in front of 100 people???

I have a problem. Chicago State saved the WAC’s bacon. Now the AD’s are emailing each other about dropping Seattle and you are talking $hit.

D1 isn't for everyone and ChiSt held on long enough to help the WAC and now it's time for the WAC and ChiSt to go their separate ways. Unlike ChiSt SeattleU has great academics and puts money into their athletics. It wouldn't shock me to see SU leave at some point but they bring a lot to the table minus football. We all can easily see why no one wants to associate with ChiSt but holding those same ideas with SeattleU is moronic.

Without football and not being in Texas, you're both on the hot seat. That's the wave of the future for the conference apparently. Where will GCU go? I see limited s prospects.

Looks like you'll be subsidizing the trips west if you want to stick around long term lol.

I don't see not having a football program as an issue. There has almost always been at least one school in the Southland that didn't play football. UNO is there today, before that there was UTA and years ago UTRGV was part of the SLC. I doubt travel is nearly as big of an issue as some on this board are trying to make it either. I for one am good with FCS or FBS either one. The main reason for FBS to me is the opportunity to play some old rivals potentially at home in football. Teams like La Tech, Rice, ULM, UTSA and others. There are more non-conference FBS schools closer to Beaumont than there were non-conference FCS schools until the T4 left the SLC.

(06-13-2021 07:03 AM)FirstandGoal Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 02:30 AM)Todor Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 12:10 AM)Lopes87 Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 12:00 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 10:38 AM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  I don’t have a problem with any school talking crap about Chicago State and not wanting to play them. Does anyone here think NMSU, SU, GCU, CBU, and UVU want to travel to a bad part of Chicago to play in front of 100 people???

I have a problem. Chicago State saved the WAC’s bacon. Now the AD’s are emailing each other about dropping Seattle and you are talking $hit.

D1 isn't for everyone and ChiSt held on long enough to help the WAC and now it's time for the WAC and ChiSt to go their separate ways. Unlike ChiSt SeattleU has great academics and puts money into their athletics. It wouldn't shock me to see SU leave at some point but they bring a lot to the table minus football. We all can easily see why no one wants to associate with ChiSt but holding those same ideas with SeattleU is moronic.

Without football and not being in Texas, you're both on the hot seat. That's the wave of the future for the conference apparently. Where will GCU go? I see limited s prospects.

Looks like you'll be subsidizing the trips west if you want to stick around long term lol.

I don't see not having a football program as an issue. There has almost always been at least one school in the Southland that didn't play football. UNO is there today, before that there was UTA and years ago UTRGV was part of the SLC. I doubt travel is nearly as big of an issue as some on this board are trying to make it either. I for one am good with FCS or FBS either one. The main reason for FBS to me is the opportunity to play some old rivals potentially at home in football. Teams like La Tech, Rice, ULM, UTSA and others. There are more non-conference FBS schools closer to Beaumont than there were non-conference FCS schools until the T4 left the SLC.

I didn't either until recently. Now there's more and more talk about expelling people, being Texas centric etc. The distance seems to be a huge issue for some budgets. All of WAC schools already have good budgets for travel. The new members will have to either increase their overall budget with all of it for travel, or decrease their current budgets to account for new travel.

(06-13-2021 07:03 AM)FirstandGoal Wrote:  I don't see not having a football program as an issue. There has almost always been at least one school in the Southland that didn't play football. UNO is there today, before that there was UTA and years ago UTRGV was part of the SLC. I doubt travel is nearly as big of an issue as some on this board are trying to make it either. I for one am good with FCS or FBS either one. The main reason for FBS to me is the opportunity to play some old rivals potentially at home in football. Teams like La Tech, Rice, ULM, UTSA and others. There are more non-conference FBS schools closer to Beaumont than there were non-conference FCS schools until the T4 left the SLC.

UTRGV was not in the Southland. They were an affiliate in men’s tennis. The former UTPA was in the Sun Belt (as was UNO). Other non football SLC schools over years include Corpus, UTSA, ULM (who played football at FBS level and had other sports in SLC) and Oral Robert’s. Centenary was also an affiliate like UTPA.

(06-13-2021 07:27 AM)TexasTerror Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 07:03 AM)FirstandGoal Wrote:  I don't see not having a football program as an issue. There has almost always been at least one school in the Southland that didn't play football. UNO is there today, before that there was UTA and years ago UTRGV was part of the SLC. I doubt travel is nearly as big of an issue as some on this board are trying to make it either. I for one am good with FCS or FBS either one. The main reason for FBS to me is the opportunity to play some old rivals potentially at home in football. Teams like La Tech, Rice, ULM, UTSA and others. There are more non-conference FBS schools closer to Beaumont than there were non-conference FCS schools until the T4 left the SLC.

UTRGV was not in the Southland. They were an affiliate in men’s tennis. The former UTPA was in the Sun Belt (as was UNO). Other non football SLC schools over years include Corpus, UTSA, ULM (who played football at FBS level and had other sports in SLC) and Oral Robert’s. Centenary was also an affiliate like UTPA.

I think what he meant was that Lamar and UTPA were both in the Sun Belt until 1998 when Lamar went to Southland and we started our 14 years of pariah status.

(06-11-2021 10:26 PM)Todor Wrote:  I'm kind of sad to see KC gone, but I get it. They're in a better conference now. But they had some decent years in basketball and some of their other sports were decent. Their women had better teams than the men, but to me, it was at least a sign they were working on things.

The downside is, even with Chicago State, the WAC reached a higher RPI than this future group will probably ever achieve. We lost Chicago and picked 300+ NET Lamar, so its a push as far as NET rankings go. With all the football fantasies, that's likely where the money will flow, so ultimately, as a basketball league, this "reload" won't likely achieve anything new. Not any at large bids, unless its a one off fluke. Even with NMSU back to a more normal NET ranking 100 spots higher than last season, there's not much new in the cupboard going forward.

Meh.

SFA/ACU are bringing in more Tournament wins in the past 5 years than the rest of the current WAC members have combined over the past 30…I think we may move the needle just a little.

(06-13-2021 11:31 AM)WestTexas409 Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 10:26 PM)Todor Wrote:  I'm kind of sad to see KC gone, but I get it. They're in a better conference now. But they had some decent years in basketball and some of their other sports were decent. Their women had better teams than the men, but to me, it was at least a sign they were working on things.

The downside is, even with Chicago State, the WAC reached a higher RPI than this future group will probably ever achieve. We lost Chicago and picked 300+ NET Lamar, so its a push as far as NET rankings go. With all the football fantasies, that's likely where the money will flow, so ultimately, as a basketball league, this "reload" won't likely achieve anything new. Not any at large bids, unless its a one off fluke. Even with NMSU back to a more normal NET ranking 100 spots higher than last season, there's not much new in the cupboard going forward.

Meh.

SFA/ACU are bringing in more Tournament wins in the past 5 years than the rest of the current WAC members have combined over the past 30…I think we may move the needle just a little.

And when the new WAC gets up to a NET conference ranking of higher than 15, the needle will have reached where the old WAC did. Until then, I'm waiting to see.

(06-13-2021 11:31 AM)WestTexas409 Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 10:26 PM)Todor Wrote:  I'm kind of sad to see KC gone, but I get it. They're in a better conference now. But they had some decent years in basketball and some of their other sports were decent. Their women had better teams than the men, but to me, it was at least a sign they were working on things.

The downside is, even with Chicago State, the WAC reached a higher RPI than this future group will probably ever achieve. We lost Chicago and picked 300+ NET Lamar, so its a push as far as NET rankings go. With all the football fantasies, that's likely where the money will flow, so ultimately, as a basketball league, this "reload" won't likely achieve anything new. Not any at large bids, unless its a one off fluke. Even with NMSU back to a more normal NET ranking 100 spots higher than last season, there's not much new in the cupboard going forward.

Meh.

SFA/ACU are bringing in more Tournament wins in the past 5 years than the rest of the current WAC members have combined over the past 30…I think we may move the needle just a little.

And yet ACU and SFA decided to upgrade and join the WAC. 30 years might be kind of true, but NMSU hasn’t made the NCAAs 30 straight years with no wins. SU, UVU, UTRGV, and Chicago State have no appearances and CBU, DSU, and TSU are currently ineligible. You can’t win if you don’t make it. Grand Canyon made their debut this year.

(06-13-2021 11:53 AM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 11:31 AM)WestTexas409 Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 10:26 PM)Todor Wrote:  I'm kind of sad to see KC gone, but I get it. They're in a better conference now. But they had some decent years in basketball and some of their other sports were decent. Their women had better teams than the men, but to me, it was at least a sign they were working on things.

The downside is, even with Chicago State, the WAC reached a higher RPI than this future group will probably ever achieve. We lost Chicago and picked 300+ NET Lamar, so its a push as far as NET rankings go. With all the football fantasies, that's likely where the money will flow, so ultimately, as a basketball league, this "reload" won't likely achieve anything new. Not any at large bids, unless its a one off fluke. Even with NMSU back to a more normal NET ranking 100 spots higher than last season, there's not much new in the cupboard going forward.

Meh.

SFA/ACU are bringing in more Tournament wins in the past 5 years than the rest of the current WAC members have combined over the past 30…I think we may move the needle just a little.

And yet ACU and SFA decided to upgrade and join the WAC. 30 years might be kind of true, but NMSU hasn’t made the NCAAs 30 straight years with no wins. SU, UVU, UTRGV, and Chicago State have no appearances and CBU, DSU, and TSU are currently ineligible. You can’t win if you don’t make it. Grand Canyon made their debut this year.

Ok, how bout this. The WAC hasn’t won a single NCAA game in 15 years regardless of who was in the conference…I think we’ll move the needle a little.

And when any joining member wins a tourney game while in the WAC, the needle may move. Until then you're not moving anything. What evidence do you have that you can win while in the WAC?

The new members can make fun of how bad the WAC is all you want, but you are the ones who wanted in...

(06-13-2021 12:06 PM)Todor Wrote:  And when any joining member wins a tourney game while in the WAC, the needle may move. Until then you're not moving anything. What evidence do you have that you can win while in the WAC?

The new members can make fun of how bad the WAC is all you want, but you are the ones who wanted in...

I am not making fun of how bad the WAC is, just pointing out facts. I believe you are the one saying that the new additions will not improve the WACs standing. I disagree and am giving factual points as to why.

More bad teams have tournament wins than have high net rankings.

Show me mathematically how its realistically possible for the new teams added to the old WAC get us up to a higher NET ranking than the old WAC had.

Show me the averages. Show me how your potential rankings boost us up that much? Take some NET 15 conferences from the past few seasons and show how our new rankings will compare..

I never said they wouldn't move the needle at all. I said they won't even get the WAC over where its been recently.

Shoe me those figures. Show me those facts.

(06-13-2021 12:32 PM)Todor Wrote:  More bad teams have tournament wins than have high net rankings.

Show me mathematically how its realistically possible for the new teams added to the old WAC get us up to a higher NET ranking than the old WAC had.

Show me the averages. Show me how your potential rankings boost us up that much? Take some NET 15 conferences from the past few seasons and show how our new rankings will compare..

I never said they wouldn't move the needle at all. I said they won't even get the WAC over where its been recently.

Shoe me those figures. Show me those facts.

I looked at NET rankings and put the Texas institutions into the WAC

In a combined NET ranking - ACU, SFA and Sam would be top 4 with GCU.

Or in 19-20, the same three schools would rank in a top 5 with NMSU and Cal Baptist.

If averaging NET rankings, the Texas schools even with Lamar impact literally improve the league average NET by a decent amount. Doesn’t that help the conference? You’ve literally brought in schools who are out performing what you have.

(06-13-2021 01:26 PM)TexasTerror Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 12:32 PM)Todor Wrote:  More bad teams have tournament wins than have high net rankings.

Show me mathematically how its realistically possible for the new teams added to the old WAC get us up to a higher NET ranking than the old WAC had.

Show me the averages. Show me how your potential rankings boost us up that much? Take some NET 15 conferences from the past few seasons and show how our new rankings will compare..

I never said they wouldn't move the needle at all. I said they won't even get the WAC over where its been recently.

Shoe me those figures. Show me those facts.

I looked at NET rankings and put the Texas institutions into the WAC

In a combined NET ranking - ACU, SFA and Sam would be top 4 with GCU.

Or in 19-20, the same three schools would rank in a top 5 with NMSU and Cal Baptist.

If averaging NET rankings, the Texas schools even with Lamar impact literally improve the league average NET by a decent amount. Doesn’t that help the conference? You’ve literally brought in schools who are out performing what you have.

Yeah but the WAC still won’t be as good as it was in 2005! WHAAAAHHH!!!??

Nmsu days as the easy-does-it OOC scheduling WAC bully are over. And they know it. The WAC is likely to win it's first NCAA tourney game in decades this year. Why? Because the Jr. Aggies won't be playing in it.

(06-13-2021 01:34 PM)WestTexas409 Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 01:26 PM)TexasTerror Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 12:32 PM)Todor Wrote:  More bad teams have tournament wins than have high net rankings.

Show me mathematically how its realistically possible for the new teams added to the old WAC get us up to a higher NET ranking than the old WAC had.

Show me the averages. Show me how your potential rankings boost us up that much? Take some NET 15 conferences from the past few seasons and show how our new rankings will compare..

I never said they wouldn't move the needle at all. I said they won't even get the WAC over where its been recently.

Shoe me those figures. Show me those facts.

I looked at NET rankings and put the Texas institutions into the WAC

In a combined NET ranking - ACU, SFA and Sam would be top 4 with GCU.

Or in 19-20, the same three schools would rank in a top 5 with NMSU and Cal Baptist.

If averaging NET rankings, the Texas schools even with Lamar impact literally improve the league average NET by a decent amount. Doesn’t that help the conference? You’ve literally brought in schools who are out performing what you have.

Yeah but the WAC still won’t be as good as it was in 2005! WHAAAAHHH!!!??

More like 2-3 years ago. Things go up and down. But the southland schools aren't consistent winners so we'll have to take it year by year and see if you eventually contribute to a better conference ranking.

I notice you didn't bother to give me any comparison of net rankings there IT. Didn't think you would. If you had looked over a few years, I don't blame you for not posting them though

(06-13-2021 02:35 PM)Todor Wrote:  More like 2-3 years ago. Things go up and down. But the southland schools aren't consistent winners so we'll have to take it year by year and see if you eventually contribute to a better conference ranking.

I notice you didn't bother to give me any comparison of net rankings there IT. Didn't think you would. If you had looked over a few years, I don't blame you for not posting them though

Sam and SFA for the last decade have been pretty consistent. SHSU has won 18+ games in 9 of last 11 years (Hooten era). Outside of 18-19 and this shortened calendar year, SFA has not dipped below 18 wins since 07-08. How many current WAC programs have that kind of sustained success? One. New Mexico State. Now you are getting two similar programs, which is a sizable increase!

ACU is relatively new to the stage and now has a HC coaching change. They have the resources and the new HC has been part of the building of their program.

Question, is there any school left in the conference that was part of the WAC before NMSU was invited to join in 2005? Answer is "NO". So, exactly what years are these where it was years? Seattle is the next oldest conference member joining in 2012. Come next fall almost two thirds of the members were in a different conference and in some cases a different NCAA division four years ago.

(06-13-2021 07:12 PM)FirstandGoal Wrote:  Question, is there any school left in the conference that was part of the WAC before NMSU was invited to join in 2005? Answer is "NO". So, exactly what years are these where it was years? Seattle is the next oldest conference member joining in 2012. Come next fall almost two thirds of the members were in a different conference and in some cases a different NCAA division four years ago.

Say what???

My glass I half full.

Fact: The WAC is adding schools with 3 year net ratings that will elevate the conference. Both ACU and SFA have recent tournament wins against top tier P5 teams.

Fact: Southern Utah is going to win the All Sports trophy in the Big Sky this year.

Fact: SFA, Sam Houston, and ACU will likely finish 1-2-3 in all sports race in the Southland, with Lamar at 8th out of 13 schools.

Fact:Sam Houston just won the FCS National Championship.

The new look WAC may not be what it was back in the day but it’s inconceivable that there are those who leave the impression that the WAC is treading water, taking on a bunch of Chicago State’s. And there is absolutely no evidence that any of these teams are simply biding their time awaiting an opportunity to move to a better conference.

To be clear: I’m not suggesting the new schools will dominate the WAC. I am saying there is ample evidence that the combined efforts of the new and existing schools will enhance the national profile of the league, particularly as California Baptist, Dixie (Utah Tech) and Tarleton complete the transition to D1. Enjoy the ride!

(06-13-2021 11:31 AM)WestTexas409 Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 10:26 PM)Todor Wrote:  I'm kind of sad to see KC gone, but I get it. They're in a better conference now. But they had some decent years in basketball and some of their other sports were decent. Their women had better teams than the men, but to me, it was at least a sign they were working on things.

The downside is, even with Chicago State, the WAC reached a higher RPI than this future group will probably ever achieve. We lost Chicago and picked 300+ NET Lamar, so its a push as far as NET rankings go. With all the football fantasies, that's likely where the money will flow, so ultimately, as a basketball league, this "reload" won't likely achieve anything new. Not any at large bids, unless its a one off fluke. Even with NMSU back to a more normal NET ranking 100 spots higher than last season, there's not much new in the cupboard going forward.

Meh.

SFA/ACU are bringing in more Tournament wins in the past 5 years than the rest of the current WAC members have combined over the past 30…I think we may move the needle just a little.

NMSU has 3 NCAA Tournament wins since 1991. That would be in the last 30 years.