Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)


Post Reply 
Did North Texas kill the WAC ?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
FIUFan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,498
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation: 96
I Root For: FIU
Location: Coral Gables, FL
Post: #21
RE: Did North Texas kill the WAC ?
(08-20-2012 03:31 PM)Tuffguy21 Wrote:  I don't think it was all good (thus why I said for good and bad), but the negatives with the APR, and facility improvements were also taken as well as the positives with more exposure by being on the FBS landscape, additional revenue generated by the conference bcs, and the ability to have a conference rival within driving distance were all benefits of this move. I'm not saying that it was all good or all bad, but the events of that did take shape to create the program that yall have today.

Agreed, however, FAU would have been there whether we were D-IA or not. We've had a game on the schedule with them since day 1.
08-20-2012 03:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Vobserver Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 2,423
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 102
I Root For: Louisiana
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Did North Texas kill the WAC ?
(08-17-2012 05:09 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  When UNT chose to forego the opportunity to move its athletics to the WAC did this signal the beginning of 'the end of days' for the WAC?

Clearly, since that day, the WAC has been in an inextricable death spiral. Now UNT is moving to C-USA; maybe the world really does revolve around nothern Texas. 03-shhhh

Fortunately, the SBC internal affairs police discovered UNT's nefarious plan to kill the SBC and shipped them off to the C-USA camp before they could do much damage. Now they have gone to C-USA and both conferences got better.
08-21-2012 09:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Burn the Horse Offline
I'm Watching You
*

Posts: 8,626
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 280
I Root For: TROY
Location: Heart of Dixie
Post: #23
RE: Did North Texas kill the WAC ?
Agreed, I think we are a stronger Conference now. Losing FIU hurts a little, but we picked up the Atlanta market to replace them AND maintain our Florida presence with Florida Atlantic. Adding Texas State will end up being a great move too, I am happy to trade UNT for the Bobcats.
(This post was last modified: 08-21-2012 10:16 AM by Burn the Horse.)
08-21-2012 10:15 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GreenFlag Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 124
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 5
I Root For: North Texas
Location:
Post: #24
RE: Did North Texas kill the WAC ?
Lee Harvey Oswald killed the WAC. No conspiracy - he acted alone.
08-21-2012 10:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tiguar Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,508
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 121
I Root For: South Alabama
Location: Somewhere studying
Post: #25
RE: Did North Texas kill the WAC ?
(08-21-2012 10:46 AM)GreenFlag Wrote:  Lee Harvey Oswald killed the WAC. No conspiracy - he acted alone.

Stupid theory. There was no "magic conference invite". Stop being sheeple.
08-21-2012 11:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SOT1977 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,410
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 30
I Root For: ULM
Location:
Post: #26
RE: Did North Texas kill the WAC ?
(08-20-2012 07:33 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  
(08-17-2012 08:21 PM)Tuffguy21 Wrote:  Honestly, most fans couldn't blame them for going to the WAC because it presented a better Geographic fit than the current SBC. Now the problem with their move was that they screwed the SBC out of the upper hand. Had NMSU, Idaho, and USU stayed in the SBC, FIU and FAU wouldn't have been invited for football, and ULM wouldn't have been admitted for all sports. Had those 3 schools stuck together like the original plan wanted, then La Tech plus a school or 2 from the WAC would have more than likely been lured back to the SBC. Its sad to think that FIU, FAU, ULM, and to an extent WKU and USA owe the state of their programs to NMSU and Idaho who are both on the path back to FCS or football purgatory (Independance). This is proof that the dominos in conference realignment basically have the ability to cause the butterfly effect on the college football landscape.

A little history and perspective is in order here. FIU joined the Sun Belt in 1999 and began plans to play football shortly thereafter. FIU was already on track to play Sun Belt football when Idaho, USU and NMSU left for the WAC. The schools of FAU, Troy and ULM were invted to join the Sun Belt in order to keep the Belt a D-IA confrence, FIU just moved their D-IA plans up a couple of years. [Note: this move from 65 to 85 scholarships was also a major contributing factor in FIU not having a strong enough APR score to avoid probation and loss of scholarships (a rule implemented during the tenure of the long-time UMiami AD, Paul Dee, who was Chairman of the NCAA rules committee at the time, as was the 15,000 minimum attendance rule; you think he wasn't trying to keep FIU on some type of probation for as long as possible?)].

Secondly, the only schools who may "owe the state of their programs" to anything Idaho and NMSU may have done, again, are FAU, Troy and ULM. The other schools you list have controlled their own destinies, as far as Sun Belt football is concerned, from day 1.

What does "state of their programs" mean? Is this a personal observation or is it based on actual facts that back up that observation? Would this phrase have been used exactly one year ago at this time, before the 2011 season? Would you have said FAU, ULL, ASU, WKU, and ULM instead of the other list a year ago? And why does the presence or absence of Idaho and NMSU affect some schools and not others? ULM controlled its destiny in that it was always looking to get into a conference (and we did) and to join the Sun Belt in Olympic sports at some point after we took the two years to legally leave the Southland Conference without penalty (and we did that, too). This would have happened no matter what Idaho and New Mexico State did.
08-21-2012 02:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FIUFan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,498
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation: 96
I Root For: FIU
Location: Coral Gables, FL
Post: #27
RE: Did North Texas kill the WAC ?
(08-21-2012 02:13 PM)SOT1977 Wrote:  
(08-20-2012 07:33 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  
(08-17-2012 08:21 PM)Tuffguy21 Wrote:  Honestly, most fans couldn't blame them for going to the WAC because it presented a better Geographic fit than the current SBC. Now the problem with their move was that they screwed the SBC out of the upper hand. Had NMSU, Idaho, and USU stayed in the SBC, FIU and FAU wouldn't have been invited for football, and ULM wouldn't have been admitted for all sports. Had those 3 schools stuck together like the original plan wanted, then La Tech plus a school or 2 from the WAC would have more than likely been lured back to the SBC. Its sad to think that FIU, FAU, ULM, and to an extent WKU and USA owe the state of their programs to NMSU and Idaho who are both on the path back to FCS or football purgatory (Independance). This is proof that the dominos in conference realignment basically have the ability to cause the butterfly effect on the college football landscape.

A little history and perspective is in order here. FIU joined the Sun Belt in 1999 and began plans to play football shortly thereafter. FIU was already on track to play Sun Belt football when Idaho, USU and NMSU left for the WAC. The schools of FAU, Troy and ULM were invted to join the Sun Belt in order to keep the Belt a D-IA confrence, FIU just moved their D-IA plans up a couple of years. [Note: this move from 65 to 85 scholarships was also a major contributing factor in FIU not having a strong enough APR score to avoid probation and loss of scholarships (a rule implemented during the tenure of the long-time UMiami AD, Paul Dee, who was Chairman of the NCAA rules committee at the time, as was the 15,000 minimum attendance rule; you think he wasn't trying to keep FIU on some type of probation for as long as possible?)].

Secondly, the only schools who may "owe the state of their programs" to anything Idaho and NMSU may have done, again, are FAU, Troy and ULM. The other schools you list have controlled their own destinies, as far as Sun Belt football is concerned, from day 1.

What does "state of their programs" mean? Is this a personal observation or is it based on actual facts that back up that observation? Would this phrase have been used exactly one year ago at this time, before the 2011 season? Would you have said FAU, ULL, ASU, WKU, and ULM instead of the other list a year ago? And why does the presence or absence of Idaho and NMSU affect some schools and not others? ULM controlled its destiny in that it was always looking to get into a conference (and we did) and to join the Sun Belt in Olympic sports at some point after we took the two years to legally leave the Southland Conference without penalty (and we did that, too). This would have happened no matter what Idaho and New Mexico State did.

If you look above my comment to TG's comment, I was quoting him to more accurately address his point.

If Idaho, NMSU and Utah St. had not left the Sun Belt in 2005, then the Sun Belt would have had no sense of urgency in inviting ULM, FAU or Troy. Realignment, which I believe was precepitated by UM's move from the Big East to the ACC, rolled all the way down to the Sun Belt.

As members in good standing FIU (and WKU and USA for that matter) would have been able to move to Sun Belt football whenever we felt we were ready. This was FIU's plan all along but were forced to move early in order to support the league, certainly not based on our best wishes. This is not the case for the 3 schools who joined in 2005. So the only destiny ULM controlled was the fact that it was ready, willing and able to move to D-IA when the invite was received.
08-21-2012 03:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MagNTX Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 336
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 14
I Root For: North Texas
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Did North Texas kill the WAC ?
(08-21-2012 10:15 AM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  Agreed, I think we are a stronger Conference now. Losing FIU hurts a little, but we picked up the Atlanta market to replace them AND maintain our Florida presence with Florida Atlantic. Adding Texas State will end up being a great move too, I am happy to trade UNT for the Bobcats.
I don't know if the conference got stronger, but I think the future for the sun belt is very bright when you can add the atl market, and a school that is making commitments like tx st.

We are happy you are happy and couldn't be happier about leaving the sun belt for the closer cusa schools. I guess you could call it a win win.

I wish nothing but the best for sbc and tx st.
(This post was last modified: 08-22-2012 04:57 PM by MagNTX.)
08-22-2012 04:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Burn the Horse Offline
I'm Watching You
*

Posts: 8,626
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 280
I Root For: TROY
Location: Heart of Dixie
Post: #29
RE: Did North Texas kill the WAC ?
thanks MagNTX. 04-cheers
08-22-2012 05:09 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.