(06-04-2021 08:32 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 08:25 AM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  If The imagined WAC FBS conference is to be viewed as anything more than a marginal bottom feeder, schools will need to schedule and peers from other G5 conferences. Accomplishing that task will require schools to provide programs with adequate resources, which will require substantial improvement in budgets for coaching upgrades , support staff, recruitment and so forth. NMSU is currently in the bottom 5 for FBS programs with a budget of 28 million. None of the newcomers spend even 20 million. To escape the bottom 10 in terms of budget schools will need to spend 35 million and up. Is this a feasible amount or is it beyond the reach of NMSU and the new members?

So this begs the question who do the WAC schools consider peers?

I used the word to refer to athletic peers and meant FBS programs from other G5 conferences. For the WAC to gain credibility member schools will need to schedule and beat schools that are members of other G5 conferences, particularly schools with proven track records. These schools needn’t be Academic peers with similar enrollment profiles and missions.

I am thinking in this new NCAA landscape which is presently a few years from materializing that both the ASUN and WAC will move up

The WAC and ASUN can maintain their relationship with scheduling and don’t think for a second that the Sun Belt schools wouldn’t be down for scheduling home and home with WAC/ASUN schools. Cheaper to drive than fly to Central Michigan or Buffalo!

More WAC as a whole moving up to FBS talk? LOL

(06-04-2021 11:02 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  More WAC as a whole moving up to FBS talk? LOL

You just don't understand, they've all committed to doing studies That shows they are serious.

(06-04-2021 11:11 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:02 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  More WAC as a whole moving up to FBS talk? LOL

You just don't understand, they've all committed to doing studies That shows they are serious.

But won't front the money to fly to Chicago and/or Seattle. Nevermind the extras scholarships and operational costs associated with a move to FBS. Pure comedy.

(06-04-2021 11:02 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  More WAC as a whole moving up to FBS talk? LOL

More, schools contemplating such a move need to be aware of the cost. Realistically to become competitive they will need to budget 35 million plus per year in addition to facility upgrades.

(06-04-2021 11:27 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:11 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:02 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  More WAC as a whole moving up to FBS talk? LOL

You just don't understand, they've all committed to doing studies That shows they are serious.

But won't front the money to fly to Chicago and/or Seattle. Nevermind the extras scholarships and operational costs associated with a move to FBS. Pure comedy.

Guys why are we pretending this is really about costs when no one from the conference has gone on the record and said as such? Unreconcilable differences. When people get a divorce no one goes on the record and says the real reason is “my partner smelled bad and honestly, I really just don’t like this person.”

I don’t believe for a second that the voting member institutions of the WAC (because let’s be honest if any of the WAC member institutions sans CSU, really viewed CSU as a valuable member and essential to the future of this conference they would still be here) viewed CSU as apart of the future of this conference.

Every organization has a vision of where they’re going and what that looks like. It was decided long ago, probably when in discussions with prospective members, that Seattle is an institutional fit for where we are going as a conference (which is why they are still a member) and CSU, unfortunately is not.

So can we stop pretending this is about cost and that CSU leaving this conference wasn’t a decision made by ALL member institutions. (that includes NMSU and Seattle by the way.) If the new member particularly the Texas four were so concerned about travel I am positive we would’ve stayed in the SLC where travel for all sports were no issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(06-05-2021 07:35 AM)coogkat14 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:27 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:11 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:02 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  More WAC as a whole moving up to FBS talk? LOL

You just don't understand, they've all committed to doing studies That shows they are serious.

But won't front the money to fly to Chicago and/or Seattle. Nevermind the extras scholarships and operational costs associated with a move to FBS. Pure comedy.

Guys why are we pretending this is really about costs when no one from the conference has gone on the record and said as such? Unreconcilable differences. When people get a divorce no one goes on the record and says the real reason is “my partner smelled bad and honestly, I really just don’t like this person.”

I don’t believe for a second that the voting member institutions of the WAC (because let’s be honest if any of the WAC member institutions sans CSU, really viewed CSU as a valuable member and essential to the future of this conference they would still be here) viewed CSU as apart of the future of this conference.

Every organization has a vision of where they’re going and what that looks like. It was decided long ago, probably when in discussions with prospective members, that Seattle is an institutional fit for where we are going as a conference (which is why they are still a member) and CSU, unfortunately is not.

So can we stop pretending this is about cost and that CSU leaving this conference wasn’t a decision made by ALL member institutions. (that includes NMSU and Seattle by the way.) If the new member particularly the Texas four were so concerned about travel I am positive we would’ve stayed in the SLC where travel for all sports were no issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm giving the TX schools the benefit of the doubt of costs being the reason of not wanting to be associated with CSU as there are far more tasteless reasons. Then there are the classless narratives of booting Seattle fore geographic reasons. What's the excuse on not wanting to travel there?

The fact is CSU's membership kept the WAC alive, granted they did not live up to their end of the bargain and that university has bigger issues, but every WAC addition knew the existing WAC membership lineup before they joined. Don't want to fly to Chicago and Seattle, then don't join the WAC.

(06-05-2021 02:58 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 07:35 AM)coogkat14 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:27 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:11 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:02 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  More WAC as a whole moving up to FBS talk? LOL

You just don't understand, they've all committed to doing studies That shows they are serious.

But won't front the money to fly to Chicago and/or Seattle. Nevermind the extras scholarships and operational costs associated with a move to FBS. Pure comedy.

Guys why are we pretending this is really about costs when no one from the conference has gone on the record and said as such? Unreconcilable differences. When people get a divorce no one goes on the record and says the real reason is “my partner smelled bad and honestly, I really just don’t like this person.”

I don’t believe for a second that the voting member institutions of the WAC (because let’s be honest if any of the WAC member institutions sans CSU, really viewed CSU as a valuable member and essential to the future of this conference they would still be here) viewed CSU as apart of the future of this conference.

Every organization has a vision of where they’re going and what that looks like. It was decided long ago, probably when in discussions with prospective members, that Seattle is an institutional fit for where we are going as a conference (which is why they are still a member) and CSU, unfortunately is not.

So can we stop pretending this is about cost and that CSU leaving this conference wasn’t a decision made by ALL member institutions. (that includes NMSU and Seattle by the way.) If the new member particularly the Texas four were so concerned about travel I am positive we would’ve stayed in the SLC where travel for all sports were no issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm giving the TX schools the benefit of the doubt of costs being the reason of not wanting to be associated with CSU as there are far more tasteless reasons. Then there are the classless narratives of booting Seattle fore geographic reasons. What's the excuse on not wanting to travel there?

The fact is CSU's membership kept the WAC alive, granted they did not live up to their end of the bargain and that university has bigger issues, but every WAC addition knew the existing WAC membership lineup before they joined. Don't want to fly to Chicago and Seattle, then don't join the WAC.

You’re still caught up on the let’s blame the new guys narratives that’s being pushed. The new members are not official WAC members until July 1st. I don’t believe that institutions who are NOT WAC members can have that much influence on shaping the vision of a conference or the priorities of members who has been associated with the conference for years. They were chosen because they were aligned with those same ideals.

Have you ever gone to work before your hire date. And if you did, would existing employees care about your opinion about who should and should not be associated with that organization? I doubt it, and even if they did, I wouldn’t mean that much. The hard pill that needs to be swallowed is existing WAC members as well as the new members did not think CSU was aligned with the direction the conference wanted to go.

If you think that’s messed up. Fine. I do too. Don’t blame us. Look at your own institutional presidents and ADs. It was their decision. Just like it was their decision to keep Seattle as a member.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Despite all of this negative garbage talk about the pending doom of the New WAC I like the makeup of the Conference and the Geographical footprint of the Southwest US. I look for positive things to continue to happen moving forward.

And as far as CSU, they are dumpster fire and have no business being in D1. And, if they were such a great commodity then why weren't they grabbed up immediately? Fact is no one wants to be saddled with them. Maybe someday when they get their act together and have a few more students than a small D3 they'll be able to jump back into a D1 Conference. Until then, bon débarras!

(06-05-2021 09:27 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  Despite all of this negative garbage talk about the pending doom of the New WAC I like the makeup of the Conference and the Geographical footprint of the Southwest US. I look for positive things to continue to happen moving forward.

And as far as CSU, they are dumpster fire and have no business being in D1. And, if they were such a great commodity then why weren't they grabbed up immediately? Fact is no one wants to be saddled with them. Maybe someday when they get their act together and have a few more students than a small D3 they'll be able to jump back into D1. Until then, bon débarras!

Agreed!! I’m legitimately excited about the WAC! What the new members bring to the conference and building on to some of the old rivalries already established! The WACASUN challenge for football is going to be fun and I can’t wait to visit Vegas for the WAC basketball tournament! I think together we can do some great thing athletically and I can’t wait to see how the conference plays out in the future! Should be tons of fun!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One thing the WAC knows is how to make the best of a bad situation. This time around will be no different.

Enjoy the new Asun challenge.

(06-05-2021 10:49 PM)Todor Wrote:  One thing the WAC knows is how to make the best of a bad situation. This time around will be no different.

Enjoy the new Asun challenge.

What’s the bad situation right now?

(06-05-2021 10:49 PM)Todor Wrote:  One thing the WAC knows is how to make the best of a bad situation. This time around will be no different.

Enjoy the new Asun challenge.

What’s wrong with the ASUN challenge? It provides a quality schedule for all the teams and they don’t need to do that disaster thing the SLC is doing and bridges the gap with the transition situation

As an NMSU fan, you should appreciate having decent answers to fill a schedule

(06-06-2021 07:00 AM)TexasTerror Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 10:49 PM)Todor Wrote:  One thing the WAC knows is how to make the best of a bad situation. This time around will be no different.

Enjoy the new Asun challenge.

What’s wrong with the ASUN challenge? It provides a quality schedule for all the teams and they don’t need to do that disaster thing the SLC is doing and bridges the gap with the transition situation

As an NMSU fan, you should appreciate having decent answers to fill a schedule

Like its really hard to schedule 1 FCS game a year.

(06-06-2021 06:25 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

(06-06-2021 07:00 AM)TexasTerror Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 10:49 PM)Todor Wrote:  One thing the WAC knows is how to make the best of a bad situation. This time around will be no different.

Enjoy the new Asun challenge.

What’s wrong with the ASUN challenge? It provides a quality schedule for all the teams and they don’t need to do that disaster thing the SLC is doing and bridges the gap with the transition situation

As an NMSU fan, you should appreciate having decent answers to fill a schedule

Like its really hard to schedule 1 FCS game a year.

Surely your not drinking that sour vinegar Toad is?

(06-05-2021 10:49 PM)Todor Wrote:  One thing the WAC knows is how to make the best of a bad situation. This time around will be no different.

Enjoy the new Asun challenge.

Thanks. Likewise, enjoy your FBS season. How many W’s do you imagine are in your future?

(06-05-2021 03:25 PM)coogkat14 Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 02:58 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 07:35 AM)coogkat14 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:27 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:11 PM)Todor Wrote:  You just don't understand, they've all committed to doing studies That shows they are serious.

But won't front the money to fly to Chicago and/or Seattle. Nevermind the extras scholarships and operational costs associated with a move to FBS. Pure comedy.

Guys why are we pretending this is really about costs when no one from the conference has gone on the record and said as such? Unreconcilable differences. When people get a divorce no one goes on the record and says the real reason is “my partner smelled bad and honestly, I really just don’t like this person.”

I don’t believe for a second that the voting member institutions of the WAC (because let’s be honest if any of the WAC member institutions sans CSU, really viewed CSU as a valuable member and essential to the future of this conference they would still be here) viewed CSU as apart of the future of this conference.

Every organization has a vision of where they’re going and what that looks like. It was decided long ago, probably when in discussions with prospective members, that Seattle is an institutional fit for where we are going as a conference (which is why they are still a member) and CSU, unfortunately is not.

So can we stop pretending this is about cost and that CSU leaving this conference wasn’t a decision made by ALL member institutions. (that includes NMSU and Seattle by the way.) If the new member particularly the Texas four were so concerned about travel I am positive we would’ve stayed in the SLC where travel for all sports were no issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm giving the TX schools the benefit of the doubt of costs being the reason of not wanting to be associated with CSU as there are far more tasteless reasons. Then there are the classless narratives of booting Seattle fore geographic reasons. What's the excuse on not wanting to travel there?

The fact is CSU's membership kept the WAC alive, granted they did not live up to their end of the bargain and that university has bigger issues, but every WAC addition knew the existing WAC membership lineup before they joined. Don't want to fly to Chicago and Seattle, then don't join the WAC.

You’re still caught up on the let’s blame the new guys narratives that’s being pushed. The new members are not official WAC members until July 1st. I don’t believe that institutions who are NOT WAC members can have that much influence on shaping the vision of a conference or the priorities of members who has been associated with the conference for years. They were chosen because they were aligned with those same ideals.

Have you ever gone to work before your hire date. And if you did, would existing employees care about your opinion about who should and should not be associated with that organization? I doubt it, and even if they did, I wouldn’t mean that much. The hard pill that needs to be swallowed is existing WAC members as well as the new members did not think CSU was aligned with the direction the conference wanted to go.

If you think that’s messed up. Fine. I do too. Don’t blame us. Look at your own institutional presidents and ADs. It was their decision. Just like it was their decision to keep Seattle as a member.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There has literally been a half dozen online articles based on "geographic outliers" from the FOIA emails. Like it or not there is a narrative being pushed.

And your analogy is terrible. Try a different one.

(06-07-2021 10:42 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 03:25 PM)coogkat14 Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 02:58 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 07:35 AM)coogkat14 Wrote:  

(06-04-2021 11:27 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  But won't front the money to fly to Chicago and/or Seattle. Nevermind the extras scholarships and operational costs associated with a move to FBS. Pure comedy.

Guys why are we pretending this is really about costs when no one from the conference has gone on the record and said as such? Unreconcilable differences. When people get a divorce no one goes on the record and says the real reason is “my partner smelled bad and honestly, I really just don’t like this person.”

I don’t believe for a second that the voting member institutions of the WAC (because let’s be honest if any of the WAC member institutions sans CSU, really viewed CSU as a valuable member and essential to the future of this conference they would still be here) viewed CSU as apart of the future of this conference.

Every organization has a vision of where they’re going and what that looks like. It was decided long ago, probably when in discussions with prospective members, that Seattle is an institutional fit for where we are going as a conference (which is why they are still a member) and CSU, unfortunately is not.

So can we stop pretending this is about cost and that CSU leaving this conference wasn’t a decision made by ALL member institutions. (that includes NMSU and Seattle by the way.) If the new member particularly the Texas four were so concerned about travel I am positive we would’ve stayed in the SLC where travel for all sports were no issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm giving the TX schools the benefit of the doubt of costs being the reason of not wanting to be associated with CSU as there are far more tasteless reasons. Then there are the classless narratives of booting Seattle fore geographic reasons. What's the excuse on not wanting to travel there?

The fact is CSU's membership kept the WAC alive, granted they did not live up to their end of the bargain and that university has bigger issues, but every WAC addition knew the existing WAC membership lineup before they joined. Don't want to fly to Chicago and Seattle, then don't join the WAC.

You’re still caught up on the let’s blame the new guys narratives that’s being pushed. The new members are not official WAC members until July 1st. I don’t believe that institutions who are NOT WAC members can have that much influence on shaping the vision of a conference or the priorities of members who has been associated with the conference for years. They were chosen because they were aligned with those same ideals.

Have you ever gone to work before your hire date. And if you did, would existing employees care about your opinion about who should and should not be associated with that organization? I doubt it, and even if they did, I wouldn’t mean that much. The hard pill that needs to be swallowed is existing WAC members as well as the new members did not think CSU was aligned with the direction the conference wanted to go.

If you think that’s messed up. Fine. I do too. Don’t blame us. Look at your own institutional presidents and ADs. It was their decision. Just like it was their decision to keep Seattle as a member.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There has literally been a half dozen online articles based on "geographic outliers" from the FOIA emails. Like it or not there is a narrative being pushed.

And your analogy is terrible. Try a different one.

So you take FOIA'd emails between AD's as gospel but laugh at the fact that the WAC announcement about the TX4 and Southern Utah came with an announcement of studies on FBS.

The emails are just some AD's discussing their opinions. Mario Moccia has openly stated several times he prefers 12 schools to 14, but that is just his opinion. It is a fact that FCS schools are doing studies on FBS. I understand your skepticism on any of these schools moving to FBS. But it's a fact they are studying it. It is not a fact that any school will jump to FBS or that the WAC will become an FBS conference.

Edit: I was on the official WAC website. They have a area devoted to the expansion. There is a FAQ section:

Does the WAC have plans to eventually become an FBS conference again?
There is no established timetable for such a move as a conference, but there is an agreement among the football-playing institutions to commit to an analysis of all the implications of such a move. It also will be important to monitor the national football landscape for any potential changes that could occur.

https://www.wacsports.com/expansion/index

(06-07-2021 05:37 AM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  

(06-05-2021 10:49 PM)Todor Wrote:  One thing the WAC knows is how to make the best of a bad situation. This time around will be no different.

Enjoy the new Asun challenge.

Thanks. Likewise, enjoy your FBS season. How many W’s do you imagine are in your future?

I can see 2 wins. Anything less wouldn’t surprise me, anything more would be a gift. How about you guys?