FWIW. Agree or disagree, it's entertaining.

Bleacher Report
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/31517...conference

(12-28-2009 10:17 AM)MeanGreen61 Wrote:  FWIW. Agree or disagree, it's entertaining.

Bleacher Report
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/31517...conference

the article is like any other conference realignment thread, a lot of assumptions without serious consideration of the motivations of all the schools mentioned.

(12-28-2009 10:23 AM)SpaceRaider Wrote:  

(12-28-2009 10:17 AM)MeanGreen61 Wrote:  FWIW. Agree or disagree, it's entertaining.

Bleacher Report
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/31517...conference

the article is like any other conference realignment thread, a lot of assumptions without serious consideration of the motivations of all the schools mentioned.

sounds like the musings of a guy sitting around in his underwear, having a brew, scratching his butt, and typing random thoughts . . .

(12-28-2009 10:30 AM)ManzanoWolf Wrote:  

(12-28-2009 10:23 AM)SpaceRaider Wrote:  

(12-28-2009 10:17 AM)MeanGreen61 Wrote:  FWIW. Agree or disagree, it's entertaining.

Bleacher Report
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/31517...conference

the article is like any other conference realignment thread, a lot of assumptions without serious consideration of the motivations of all the schools mentioned.

sounds like the musings of a guy sitting around in his underwear, having a brew, scratching his butt, and typing random thoughts . . .

That's funny, I thought that was the standard for every blog site and message board.

(12-28-2009 10:30 AM)ManzanoWolf Wrote:  

(12-28-2009 10:23 AM)SpaceRaider Wrote:  

(12-28-2009 10:17 AM)MeanGreen61 Wrote:  FWIW. Agree or disagree, it's entertaining.

Bleacher Report
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/31517...conference

the article is like any other conference realignment thread, a lot of assumptions without serious consideration of the motivations of all the schools mentioned.

sounds like the musings of a guy sitting around in his underwear, having a brew, scratching his butt, and typing random thoughts . . .

I think he makes an interesting point about what would happen if Boise State left the WAC.

Tech would have leverage at that point. There is nowhere else to expand except to the East.

I wonder if UNT and ULL would accept invitations. It would mean more money, more exposure, and more prestige for their programs.

The WAC may look something like this:

Hawaii
Nevada
Fresno St
Idaho
San Jose St
Utah St
New Mexico St
UNT
La Tech
UL-Lafayette

Could happen.

(12-28-2009 10:48 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  I think he makes an interesting point about what would happen if Boise State left the WAC.

Tech would have leverage at that point. There is nowhere else to expand except to the East.

I wonder if UNT and ULL would accept invitations. It would mean more money, more exposure, and more prestige for their programs.

The WAC may look something like this:

Hawaii
Nevada
Fresno St
Idaho
San Jose St
Utah St
New Mexico St
UNT
La Tech
UL-Lafayette

Could happen.

There is no WAC prestige without BSU...One good season and IDaho are world-beaters? Tech...leverage?

(12-28-2009 10:56 AM)trojanbrutha Wrote:  

(12-28-2009 10:48 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  I think he makes an interesting point about what would happen if Boise State left the WAC.

Tech would have leverage at that point. There is nowhere else to expand except to the East.

I wonder if UNT and ULL would accept invitations. It would mean more money, more exposure, and more prestige for their programs.

The WAC may look something like this:

Hawaii
Nevada
Fresno St
Idaho
San Jose St
Utah St
New Mexico St
UNT
La Tech
UL-Lafayette

Could happen.

There is no WAC prestige without BSU...One good season and IDaho are world-beaters? Tech...leverage?

Believe it or not, the WAC is still more prestigious than the Sun Belt and the MAC without Boise. They have better television contracts and an extra bowl game. Tech's leverage is that they will leave the conference and go Independent or ask for admission to the Sun Belt. The WAC would then fold. It would make sense for the WAC to either ask for Montana to move up or expand eastward.

The WAC is the Big West with different patches on the uniforms.

The WAC was unable to expand east with the chip of Boise and without the nightmare road trip to Idaho. Losing Boise does NOT make the WAC more attractive.

If Boise leaves, the WAC either stands pat at 8 or they start calling Montana, Portland State, Sacramento State, Cal-Davis, and Cal-Poly to add a new 9th and maybe 10th member.

(12-28-2009 11:13 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The WAC is the Big West with different patches on the uniforms.

The WAC was unable to expand east with the chip of Boise and without the nightmare road trip to Idaho. Losing Boise does NOT make the WAC more attractive.

If Boise leaves, the WAC either stands pat at 8 or they start calling Montana, Portland State, Sacramento State, Cal-Davis, and Cal-Poly to add a new 9th and maybe 10th member.

The Big West was the Sun Belt west. The WAC rakes in about 3 x's as much revenue as the Sun Belt/Big West. I think if UNT sees that CUSA will never invite them and ULL wants separation from ULM, the WAC would welcome their admission.

(12-28-2009 11:13 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The WAC is the Big West with different patches on the uniforms.

The WAC was unable to expand east with the chip of Boise and without the nightmare road trip to Idaho. Losing Boise does NOT make the WAC more attractive.

If Boise leaves, the WAC either stands pat at 8 or they start calling Montana, Portland State, Sacramento State, Cal-Davis, and Cal-Poly to add a new 9th and maybe 10th member.

If Boise State does leave the WAC, re: latech's fate, the Sun Belt will have the leverage, but I doubt, considering latech's past history of being an s.o.b. to deal with, the Sun Belt would have interest in latech. I'd hope we could do better.

(12-28-2009 11:16 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(12-28-2009 11:13 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The WAC is the Big West with different patches on the uniforms.

The WAC was unable to expand east with the chip of Boise and without the nightmare road trip to Idaho. Losing Boise does NOT make the WAC more attractive.

If Boise leaves, the WAC either stands pat at 8 or they start calling Montana, Portland State, Sacramento State, Cal-Davis, and Cal-Poly to add a new 9th and maybe 10th member.

The Big West was the Sun Belt west. The WAC rakes in about 3 x's as much revenue as the Sun Belt/Big West. I think if UNT sees that CUSA will never invite them and ULL wants separation from ULM, the WAC would welcome their admission.

Other than Hawaii. Name the WAC teams that didn't play football in the Big West. Funny that the Sun Belt has improved now that NMSU, USU, and Idaho are gone without having once earned a Sun Belt title and more often than not having finished in the bottom half of the Sun Belt.

I don't think people really grasp how spread out the WAC is. The closest conference opponent to NMSU is Utah State but it is only a few minutes shorter drive to Logan from Las Cruces than Las Cruces to Ruston.

(12-28-2009 11:36 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-28-2009 11:16 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(12-28-2009 11:13 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The WAC is the Big West with different patches on the uniforms.

The WAC was unable to expand east with the chip of Boise and without the nightmare road trip to Idaho. Losing Boise does NOT make the WAC more attractive.

If Boise leaves, the WAC either stands pat at 8 or they start calling Montana, Portland State, Sacramento State, Cal-Davis, and Cal-Poly to add a new 9th and maybe 10th member.

The Big West was the Sun Belt west. The WAC rakes in about 3 x's as much revenue as the Sun Belt/Big West. I think if UNT sees that CUSA will never invite them and ULL wants separation from ULM, the WAC would welcome their admission.

Other than Hawaii. Name the WAC teams that didn't play football in the Big West. Funny that the Sun Belt has improved now that NMSU, USU, and Idaho are gone without having once earned a Sun Belt title and more often than not having finished in the bottom half of the Sun Belt.

Fresno State was not in the Big West.

The WAC stayed about the same with NMSU, USU, and Idaho because they replaced SMU, Tulsa, and UTEP (they were all horrible at the time). The WAC moved past CUSA to be the 2nd best Non-AQ conference after the last realignment.

I think NMSU, USU, and Idaho have only won like 3 games in the WAC that weren't against each other... 2 were against Tech (sad to say). Idaho made some progress this year and it looks like USU is about to break through. NMSU seems hopeless, but they play good basketball.

(12-28-2009 11:57 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  Fresno State was not in the Big West.

The WAC stayed about the same with NMSU, USU, and Idaho because they replaced SMU, Tulsa, and UTEP (they were all horrible at the time). The WAC moved past CUSA to be the 2nd best Non-AQ conference after the last realignment.

I think NMSU, USU, and Idaho have only won like 3 games in the WAC that weren't against each other... 2 were against Tech (sad to say). Idaho made some progress this year and it looks like USU is about to break through. NMSU seems hopeless, but they play good basketball.

Winning six Big West titles without being in the Big West was a helluva trick then.

WAC football is like Tark era Big West hoops or more recently Cal era C-USA basketball.

(12-28-2009 11:57 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(12-28-2009 11:36 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-28-2009 11:16 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(12-28-2009 11:13 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The WAC is the Big West with different patches on the uniforms.

The WAC was unable to expand east with the chip of Boise and without the nightmare road trip to Idaho. Losing Boise does NOT make the WAC more attractive.

If Boise leaves, the WAC either stands pat at 8 or they start calling Montana, Portland State, Sacramento State, Cal-Davis, and Cal-Poly to add a new 9th and maybe 10th member.

The Big West was the Sun Belt west. The WAC rakes in about 3 x's as much revenue as the Sun Belt/Big West. I think if UNT sees that CUSA will never invite them and ULL wants separation from ULM, the WAC would welcome their admission.

Other than Hawaii. Name the WAC teams that didn't play football in the Big West. Funny that the Sun Belt has improved now that NMSU, USU, and Idaho are gone without having once earned a Sun Belt title and more often than not having finished in the bottom half of the Sun Belt.

Fresno State was not in the Big West.

WRONG, dog breath...

1969-1991 Big West Conference

Fresno was Big West Champions five times, co-champs once.

Well if you are going to put it that way, then Hawaii was also in the Big West from 1984-1996.

I thought you were talking about the Big West that included Eastern teams (Tech, USL, Ark St, and NIU).

(12-28-2009 12:24 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  Well if you are going to put it that way, then Hawaii was also in the Big West from 1984-1996.

I thought you were talking about the Big West that included Eastern teams (Tech, USL, Ark St, and NIU).

Hawaii never played Big West football or any men's sport in the Big West.

(12-28-2009 12:28 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-28-2009 12:24 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  Well if you are going to put it that way, then Hawaii was also in the Big West from 1984-1996.

I thought you were talking about the Big West that included Eastern teams (Tech, USL, Ark St, and NIU).

Hawaii never played Big West football or any men's sport in the Big West.

I see... women's basketball only.

And Tech, USL, A-State, and NIU were football-only in the Big West.

(12-28-2009 11:13 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The WAC is the Big West with different patches on the uniforms.

The WAC was unable to expand east with the chip of Boise and without the nightmare road trip to Idaho. Losing Boise does NOT make the WAC more attractive.

If Boise leaves, the WAC either stands pat at 8 or they start calling Montana, Portland State, Sacramento State, Cal-Davis, and Cal-Poly to add a new 9th and maybe 10th member.

Agree; the WAC has nothing to offer without Boise. Boise is the WAC !!!