(12-05-2012 01:40 PM)Tuffguy21 Wrote:  

(12-05-2012 01:37 PM)VideoGreenEagle Wrote:  Didn't all those schools now in the MWC vote against an Eastern WAC while them were in the WAC last year? It's the same schools faced with traveling, why would they now think its a good idea when they were so opposed last year?

I thought, and actually remember hearing that UNT, UL, and stAte were all targeted (I believe twice) to create an eastern WAC and were turned down. If that's the case, then at least some of those schools had to be on board with voting for an eastern division.

This is correct. You guys would have been joining UTSA, TX St, and La Tech in the WAC- East. With everything that has happened with conference realignment since then, I wonder what things would like like now if you guys had accepted the offer. I'd guess that UNT, Tech and UTSA would have still left for CUSA, but the WAC could've reloaded with whoever UL and ASU wanted to cherry pick out of the SBC.

The WAC was not going to cherry pick anyone out of the SBC, that is why the WAC doesn't exist anymore.

(12-05-2012 01:54 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I will believe it when I see it or at least get some solid info.

But I don't know that you can compare the WAC & MWC scenarios.

Back then it was accepted as Gospel that it was a matter of time before one or all of Montana, Cal-Davis, Sac St, Portland State would go FBS.

They have learned they were wrong about that.

The MWC is hemmed in and while NMSU is an option I doubt they consider Idaho a viable option.

I don't know what MWC's theory is but outside of SJSU & UNLV their preference has been schools that win and sell tickets without regard to market. They'll take markets but its not what drives their decisions.

This is absolutely correct.