The fate of the WAC is in serious jeopardy.

If the Nevada, Fresno, and Hawaii defections happen the WAC will be left with 5 football members. Plans include adding UTSA and Texas State to bring the number up to 7. I believe that NCAA rules require 8 teams for a football conference, it may be 7 (temporarily) but if it's not the WAC will need to expand to be allowed to sponsor football.

I still don't understand why the three teams would leave the WAC for the MWC.

- The MWC will NOT get the waiver for AQ status.
- AQ Status will likely be eliminated after this current cycle.
- The remaining 5 teams in the MWC are almost a wash to the what is left of the WAC in terms of competitive play.
- The 3 teams in question would be the top of whichever conference they chose to join.
- The WAC has a TV deal with better exposure than the MWC.
- The MWC sits in the forgotten time zone, which only complicates TV schedules for maximum exposure and $.
- The lands within the MWC footprint are sparsely populated, have little recruiting value, and guarantee expensive and hazardous (mountain/snow) travel.
- The WAC is a better geographic fit.
- The WAC has a much richer tradition and history.

The Alliance will either not happen or be a failure. At the very least, such a large merger would significantly cut down the potential bowl opponents resulting in fewer bowl tie-ns. I highly doubt that the AQ conferences would line up to face the "Alliance" #3-10. Why subsidize the bottom feeders left in the MWC AND the C-USA. Wouldn't it make sense to take the position of power and leverage that power to your advantage as the Top of the WAC?

The WAC looks like this, if these 3 teams stay:

WAC (10-Team)
- Nevada
- Fresno State
- Hawaii
- Louisiana Tech
- Utah State
- New Mexico State
- SJSU
- Idaho
- UTSA
- Texas State

With expansion the WAC can be a 2-division, 12-team league:

WAC West
- Nevada
- Fresno State
- Hawaii
- Utah State
- SJSU
- Idaho

WAC Central
- Louisiana Tech
- New Mexico State
- UTSA
- Texas State
- North Texas
- UTEP/F_U

I think the WAC should go after UNT. Rumors are that UNT covets a spot in C-USA, but I think this 12-team plan would be a better option. And I know that UTEP left the WAC in the past but that was a different WAC and a much different C-USA. Again, I think this 12-team option would be better for UTEP than what would be left of C-USA. Or pick up F_U.

If the 3 teams here stand their ground and remain in the WAC, the ill-conceived "Alliance" is DEAD. PERIOD.

Again, this thread is just for those who would like to discuss this in a positive and productive manner.

Have at it.

EDIT: Oh...How is this MAC related?

Well, a newly formed San Antonio Bowl could/would serve as the MAC/WAC version of the Rose Bowl and match the MAC Champ vs. WAC Champ every year.

A healthy, strong WAC would be a wonderful partner to the MAC.

None of those teams in the WAC, give me any desire to waste money to go to San Antonio to watch any MAC team play including Toledo.

The MWC is more prestigious athletically than the WAC (despite the WAC once having those teams) due to their success. It is similar to how ND is desired just for the name even if they are not great anymore. It is sort of like how the Belt wants to join CUSA even if on the field they are getting closer every year.

(12-18-2011 03:30 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  The MWC is more prestigious athletically than the WAC (despite the WAC once having those teams) due to their success. It is similar to how ND is desired just for the name even if they are not great anymore. It is sort of like how the Belt wants to join CUSA even if on the field they are getting closer every year.

I don't subscribe to that and never have. Sure, teams that were previously in the MWC had some sort of prestige but I see them take that with them. For the most part, those teams were hit-or-miss for a brief time.

I'm curious to see how many people think this way as well.

Informal poll: Those reading this, do you see the MWC (as it would be constituted) having more "prestige" than the WAC?

(12-18-2011 03:02 PM)utpotts Wrote:  None of those teams in the WAC, give me any desire to waste money to go to San Antonio to watch any MAC team play including Toledo.

SA is a city worth visiting.

(12-18-2011 04:11 PM)OZoner Wrote:  

(12-18-2011 03:02 PM)utpotts Wrote:  None of those teams in the WAC, give me any desire to waste money to go to San Antonio to watch any MAC team play including Toledo.

SA is a city worth visiting.

Make sure you visit the Alamo's basement.

(12-18-2011 04:11 PM)OZoner Wrote:  

(12-18-2011 03:02 PM)utpotts Wrote:  None of those teams in the WAC, give me any desire to waste money to go to San Antonio to watch any MAC team play including Toledo.

SA is a city worth visiting.

It sure is !!!
Did my basic training at Lackland AFB... Would like to get back there especially for a bowl game... The downtown river walk in SA is a must do...

San Antone is a very underrated city.

Weather during bowl season would be perfect too. When cold fronts sweep into Texas and freeze DFW, San Antone usually avoids the frost/ice because it is so far south.

I think this would be a great Annual showcase for the MAC Champ.

(12-18-2011 03:39 PM)Howl-n-Prowl Wrote:  

(12-18-2011 03:30 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  The MWC is more prestigious athletically than the WAC (despite the WAC once having those teams) due to their success. It is similar to how ND is desired just for the name even if they are not great anymore. It is sort of like how the Belt wants to join CUSA even if on the field they are getting closer every year.

I don't subscribe to that and never have. Sure, teams that were previously in the MWC had some sort of prestige but I see them take that with them. For the most part, those teams were hit-or-miss for a brief time.

I'm curious to see how many people think this way as well.

Informal poll: Those reading this, do you see the MWC (as it would be constituted) having more "prestige" than the WAC?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
MWC more name recognition. A better TV/media contract,
and a 24/7 TV net of their own. And finally the MWC receives way more
money than the WAC. And the MWC will have at least four publically
funded state flagship universities. IMO the fans of USU, NMSU, SJSU,
and Idaho, would all support the moves of their institutions to the MWC.

(12-18-2011 10:10 PM)paco Wrote:  +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
MWC more name recognition. A better TV/media contract,
and a 24/7 TV net of their own. And finally the MWC receives way more
money than the WAC. And the MWC will have at least four publically
funded state flagship universities. IMO the fans of USU, NMSU, SJSU,
and Idaho, would all support the moves of their institutions to the MWC.

MWC does not have a better TV deal. You can't get their games even locally without a premium cable/dish package. It gets worse exposure than almost every other conference.

I don't know about the financial terms, but even if it's more money that was based on the membership at the time of the last contract negotiation. Utah, TCU, BYU are all gone. That's why all the talk about the "Alliance" because both the MWC and CUSA know they are due for a DECREASE in TV Revenue, so they are trying to "align" themselves for a "big contract," which when divided among all the member institutions could be less per school than the current deal.

The only MWC state flagship universities among the remaining five members would be Wyoming and New Mexico.

The WAC has tried over and over and over again to get North Texas, and the Mean Green have said no over and over and over again.

UNT ULL and ASU have been together in the same conference for a very long time, and the only league that could seperate the 3 of them would be CUSA.

UNT wants to play Texas teams...they fully acknowledge it, but they want those Texas teams to be Rice Houston and SMU...no one cares about Texas State.

MWC has the better nationwide recognition/reputation compared to the WAC, present and foreseeable future. And there will be 5 flagships, actually (Wyoming, UNM, CSU is that state's land-grant and flagship of its state system [similar to Texas A&M's standing in TX], while UNLV and UNR are classified as equal flagships by the state).

(12-19-2011 07:06 AM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  MWC has the better nationwide recognition/reputation compared to the WAC, present and foreseeable future. And there will be 5 flagships, actually (Wyoming, UNM, CSU is that state's land-grant and flagship of its state system [similar to Texas A&M's standing in TX], while UNLV and UNR are classified as equal flagships by the state).

I'm referring to the MWC prior to any potential additions from the WAC, or just the 5 remaining schools as I detailed in an earlier post.

Of the 5, only Wyoming and UNM are STATE FLAGSHIP UNIVERSITIES. I understand what you are saying re: CSU, but CU (Boulder) is the STATE FLAGSHIP, that's the distinction I was calling out. UNR is not one of the 5 current/remaining MWC schools and UNLV is NOT an equal flagship university. UNR was founded in 1874 and is Nevada's only and true flagship University no matter what the folks at UNLV say, which by the way, was established in 1957 or 17 years AFTER the historic institution known as McDonald's.

The MWC ONLY has 2 state flagships.

Please NOTE: That the whole "flagship" issue is not part of the original post, I was only responding to someone who left erroneous information on a reply post.

Not getting into the specifics of who is going to be in the WAC vs. MWC, I like the idea of another primary bowl tie-in for the MAC. Plus regardless of the teams San Antonio is a great location and would make a nice December / January trip. From my perspective, the important thing for the MAC is to increase the conference's primary bowl tie-ins.

(12-19-2011 09:32 AM)TUJim Wrote:  Not getting into the specifics of who is going to be in the WAC vs. MWC, I like the idea of another primary bowl tie-in for the MAC. Plus regardless of the teams San Antonio is a great location and would make a nice December / January trip. From my perspective, the important thing for the MAC is to increase the conference's primary bowl tie-ins.

Very much agreed.

Plus with the continuing dilution of the bowls, prime match-ups are few and far between. This bowl season showcases only 3 "Champ v Champ" games (The MAC is in one, the Rose Bowl is another). NOTE: The "National Championship" game is not one of the three.

I think it would be wise for MAC leadership to seek out an additional primary bid bowl and extend the MAC Champ as a carrot to another conference willing to do the same. I really like the idea of San Antonio as a bowl site. So whichever conference UTSA ends up in, should work with the City to make a second bowl happen.

(12-19-2011 09:32 AM)TUJim Wrote:  Not getting into the specifics of who is going to be in the WAC vs. MWC, I like the idea of another primary bowl tie-in for the MAC. Plus regardless of the teams San Antonio is a great location and would make a nice December / January trip. From my perspective, the important thing for the MAC is to increase the conference's primary bowl tie-ins.

Last season Nevada, Fresno, Hawaii (football only) agreed to join the MWC for the 2012 season. With the WAC now featuring 4 non-FB schools (Seattle, Boise, Denver, UT-Arlington) Nevada, Fresno and Hawaii are not going to return to the WAC.

What is more possible is if the MWC/CUSA merger turns into plain CUSA or MWC expansion.

If the MWC picks up the autobid they could raid CUSA for UTEP, Rice, Tulsa and So Miss.

I: Hawaii, Fresno, Nevada, UNLV, Wyoming, Col St
II: Air Force, New Mexico, UTEP, Tulsa, Rice, So Miss

Conversely if the MWC does not pick up the autobid, CUSA may just expand with all of the MWC (minus Hawaii) for a nice 16 team all sport conference.

I: Fresno, Nevada, UNLV, Wyoming, Col St, Air Force, UNM, UTEP
II: Tulsa, Rice, Tulane, So Miss, Memphis, UAB, ECU, Marshall

I think there is a slight chance that Hawaii is not accepted into the merger and forced to go back to the WAC but Fresno and Nevada are not going back to the WAC at this point.

(12-19-2011 09:51 AM)Howl-n-Prowl Wrote:  

(12-19-2011 09:32 AM)TUJim Wrote:  Not getting into the specifics of who is going to be in the WAC vs. MWC, I like the idea of another primary bowl tie-in for the MAC. Plus regardless of the teams San Antonio is a great location and would make a nice December / January trip. From my perspective, the important thing for the MAC is to increase the conference's primary bowl tie-ins.

Very much agreed.

Plus with the continuing dilution of the bowls, prime match-ups are few and far between. This bowl season showcases only 3 "Champ v Champ" games (The MAC is in one, the Rose Bowl is another). NOTE: The "National Championship" game is not one of the three.

I think it would be wise for MAC leadership to seek out an additional primary bid bowl and extend the MAC Champ as a carrot to another conference willing to do the same. I really like the idea of San Antonio as a bowl site. So whichever conference UTSA ends up in, should work with the City to make a second bowl happen.

Agree with San Antonio and I like the champ vs. champ idea with the WAC.

I think its unclear yet where the post season structure is headed for 2014 and beyond. My guess is there will continue to be a bowl system and some form of a BCS bowl system.

Think about the following:

-The SEC wants the ability to place more than 2 schools in a BCS bowl, thus the continuity of the BCS system is practically ensured.

-Everyone wants to eliminate the AQ status. There is discussions about the BCS being nothing more than a platform to seed the top 2 bowls but what about the BCS paychecks that go out to all of the conferences?

-Does the BCS take then the top 10 into its set of bowl games and give every conference the equivalent of a second BCS game payment (6 million dollars) as part of the contract?

Once the post season format for the next four years is decided at the top it will trickle down to all of the bowl games. The MAC can't answer what bowls it will have in the next cycle until then.

(12-19-2011 09:02 AM)Howl-n-Prowl Wrote:  Of the 5, only Wyoming and UNM are STATE FLAGSHIP UNIVERSITIES. I understand what you are saying re: CSU, but CU (Boulder) is the STATE FLAGSHIP, that's the distinction I was calling out. UNR is not one of the 5 current/remaining MWC schools and UNLV is NOT an equal flagship university. UNR was founded in 1874 and is Nevada's only and true flagship University no matter what the folks at UNLV say, which by the way, was established in 1957 or 17 years AFTER the historic institution known as McDonald'.

To be far, you are making assumptions. If CSU is not a 'state flagship' (even though the state of Colorado says it is) then Texas A&M, Mich. St, and Purdue are not either? You had said NIU was a flagship in a prior post when it is in fact part of no system and is not designated as one by the state of Illinois. Research the actual state doctrines. The state of Nevada says UNLV is an equal flagship to UNR, not simply the UNLV admins.

(12-19-2011 03:31 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(12-19-2011 09:02 AM)Howl-n-Prowl Wrote:  Of the 5, only Wyoming and UNM are STATE FLAGSHIP UNIVERSITIES. I understand what you are saying re: CSU, but CU (Boulder) is the STATE FLAGSHIP, that's the distinction I was calling out. UNR is not one of the 5 current/remaining MWC schools and UNLV is NOT an equal flagship university. UNR was founded in 1874 and is Nevada's only and true flagship University no matter what the folks at UNLV say, which by the way, was established in 1957 or 17 years AFTER the historic institution known as McDonald'.

To be far, you are making assumptions. If CSU is not a 'state flagship' (even though the state of Colorado says it is) then Texas A&M, Mich. St, and Purdue are not either? You had said NIU was a flagship in a prior post when it is in fact part of no system and is not designated as one by the state of Illinois. Research the actual state doctrines. The state of Nevada says UNLV is an equal flagship to UNR, not simply the UNLV admins.

I wrote no such thing.

You must be an attorney the way you distort the facts to try to make your point and in doing so, try to claim that I am guilty of the very offense that you are committing.

What I wrote in that previous post was that NIU is the flagship of the de facto Illinois State system. I never claimed that NIU was the State Flagship University of the Great State of Illinois. That distinction goes to the Flailing school with the racist and inappropriate mascot in Champaign.

I am not disputing CSU's status as the flagship of the State system in Colorado. And despite what you write here and care to believe, neither CSU nor UNLV are State Flagship Universities.

Are you intentionally being difficult or are you truly confused by the term State Flagship University? It's not a complex concept.

(12-19-2011 04:10 PM)Howl-n-Prowl Wrote:  I wrote no such thing.

You must be an attorney the way you distort the facts to try to make your point and in doing so, try to claim that I am guilty of the very offense that you are committing.

What I wrote in that previous post was that NIU is the flagship of the de facto Illinois State system. I never claimed that NIU was the State Flagship University of the Great State of Illinois. That distinction goes to the Flailing school with the racist and inappropriate mascot in Champaign.

I am not disputing CSU's status as the flagship of the State system in Colorado. And despite what you write here and care to believe, neither CSU nor UNLV are State Flagship Universities.

Are you intentionally being difficult or are you truly confused by the term State Flagship University? It's not a complex concept.

No, I am correcting your inaccuracies. What you believe the deviding line should be is not fact. You are creating some sort of fanciful line with terms of 'State Flagship U.' vs 'System Flagship U.', which cannot be done because different states have no system, or 1 system, or multiple systems. State's declare their flagships, and they are all documented. That is the only concept that requires understanding.

UNLV: "1968:The university is granted autonomy under the state's higher-education system, giving it status equal to that of University of Nevada, Reno"

And your 'De facto' assetion for NIU, when there is no "Illinois State system" and no state, institutional, or media documentation on the topic, is a far less than dubious claim. I understand that there is no doubt NIU is the largest and most research-intensive of the non-U. of Illinios institutions, but it is a single entity, unconnected to the other state schools.