(01-04-2021 10:43 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(01-04-2021 09:00 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(01-04-2021 12:10 AM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(01-03-2021 11:10 PM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  

(01-03-2021 09:42 PM)chrisattsu Wrote:  Agreed. Karl Benson (former WAC and SBC commish) reached out to UNT to join the WAc after the Boise, Hawaii and Fresno departures. They wanted nothing to do with Texas State and UTSA. Even now they still do not want anything to do with the Bobcats.

I think SFA, Sam, and Lamar watched TXST, UtSa, and UT Arlington move on and saw the impact it had on their schools. Each had new facilities and in the conferences these schools want to be in.

While Sam has been to the FCS Championship game twice and SFA has made name for itself in basketball, they are still not being mentioned for Sun Belt or CUSA expansion.

The Southland has tapped out potential for them. It will always be a league centered along the Sabine River and it is not getting any better. Moving on changes the direction of the institution, gives them a shiny toy to dangle at donors for capital projects and eventually makes them more palatable for these other conferences

This.

It's a bigger stage. When Tarleton joined the WAC this year and soon hired BCG, I think that also sent a little message to schools like SHSU and SFA who regularly get poached for coaches like Fritz, Pierce, and Underwood.
The Southland just doesn't offer many prospects for national acclaim. At least the Texas 4 now have close to a blank canvas, and can also use the WACs past to hype its future.

The WAC is hardly a bigger stage than the SLC.

The WAC name is a lot bigger than the Southland.

Chicago State is in the WAC. 4 recent D2 move ups joined this conference and likely didn’t have any other landing spots. UTRGV was kicked out of the Sun Belt and the SLC took several D2 move ups over them during every expansion. Which conferences did the WAC beat out for Seattle and Utah Valley? NMSU tried to get into every other reasonable western conference over the last 7 years. That’s some name.

How long does the D2 stigma last in your opinion?

It wasn't that long ago I was watching Seattle U play as a Division 2 team, so what exactly is your point?

(01-04-2021 11:00 PM)NotANewbie Wrote:  

(01-04-2021 10:43 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(01-04-2021 09:00 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(01-04-2021 12:10 AM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(01-03-2021 11:10 PM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  This.

It's a bigger stage. When Tarleton joined the WAC this year and soon hired BCG, I think that also sent a little message to schools like SHSU and SFA who regularly get poached for coaches like Fritz, Pierce, and Underwood.
The Southland just doesn't offer many prospects for national acclaim. At least the Texas 4 now have close to a blank canvas, and can also use the WACs past to hype its future.

The WAC is hardly a bigger stage than the SLC.

The WAC name is a lot bigger than the Southland.

Chicago State is in the WAC. 4 recent D2 move ups joined this conference and likely didn’t have any other landing spots. UTRGV was kicked out of the Sun Belt and the SLC took several D2 move ups over them during every expansion. Which conferences did the WAC beat out for Seattle and Utah Valley? NMSU tried to get into every other reasonable western conference over the last 7 years. That’s some name.

How long does the D2 stigma last in your opinion?

It wasn't that long ago I was watching Seattle U play as a Division 2 team, so what exactly is your point?

I don’t know, until they’re successful in D1 or 10 years. My point is, the WAC isn’t a better name and it carries no weight. It’s beyond stupid to think the WAC is better than the SLC because of the name. The WAC indeed might be better than the SLC, but not because BYU played there in the 1980s.

(01-04-2021 11:31 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  I don’t know, until they’re successful in D1 or 10 years. My point is, the WAC isn’t a better name and it carries no weight. It’s beyond stupid to think the WAC is better than the SLC because of the name. The WAC indeed might be better than the SLC, but not because BYU played there in the 1980s.

You're making no sense. You forward the idea that it takes being "successful in D1 for 10 years" to be established...
And that makes sense to me. Branding is all about prolonged success, which in turn builds identity and legacy.
But, OTOH, you claim that its "beyond stupid" to factor in the WAC's brand recognition.
I see it differently.
While the WAC brand may not be as helpful as the "Big East" brand was to the new catholic league that bought the name in 2013, it STILL brings with it a modicum of recognition (which is all a brand name is supposed to do).
For those football schools on the come-up, they'll have a recognizable patch on their unis and a highlight package for their promos that will include BYU and Boise State. That's a pretty nice deal.

(01-05-2021 12:31 AM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  

(01-04-2021 11:31 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  I don’t know, until they’re successful in D1 or 10 years. My point is, the WAC isn’t a better name and it carries no weight. It’s beyond stupid to think the WAC is better than the SLC because of the name. The WAC indeed might be better than the SLC, but not because BYU played there in the 1980s.

You're making no sense. You forward the idea that it takes being "successful in D1 for 10 years" to be established...
And that makes sense to me. Branding is all about prolonged success, which in turn builds identity and legacy.
But, OTOH, you claim that its "beyond stupid" to factor in the WAC's brand recognition.
I see it differently.
While the WAC brand may not be as helpful as the "Big East" brand was to the new catholic league that bought the name in 2013, it STILL brings with it a modicum of recognition (which is all a brand name is supposed to do).
For those football schools on the come-up, they'll have a recognizable patch on their unis and a highlight package for their promos that will include BYU and Boise State. That's a pretty nice deal.

Yes, but again totally different. The Big East includes Georgetown, St Johns, Providence, Seton Hall, and Villanova though. You know, all original or long time Big East members. The WAC hasn’t played football for what 7 years and no long time or original member will be playing in it.

(01-05-2021 12:31 AM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  

(01-04-2021 11:31 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  I don’t know, until they’re successful in D1 or 10 years. My point is, the WAC isn’t a better name and it carries no weight. It’s beyond stupid to think the WAC is better than the SLC because of the name. The WAC indeed might be better than the SLC, but not because BYU played there in the 1980s.

You're making no sense. You forward the idea that it takes being "successful in D1 for 10 years" to be established...
And that makes sense to me. Branding is all about prolonged success, which in turn builds identity and legacy.
But, OTOH, you claim that its "beyond stupid" to factor in the WAC's brand recognition.
I see it differently.
While the WAC brand may not be as helpful as the "Big East" brand was to the new catholic league that bought the name in 2013, it STILL brings with it a modicum of recognition (which is all a brand name is supposed to do).
For those football schools on the come-up, they'll have a recognizable patch on their unis and a highlight package for their promos that will include BYU and Boise State. That's a pretty nice deal.

Thats because those Big East schools stayed strong in basketball and kept the reputation that was previously earned. This WAC is not currently good at basketball or football so it doesn't have any positive "brand recognition". It's not the name or history of a conference that elevates the schools, its the schools that build the reputation of a conference. If the SEC and the Sun Belt suddenly switched schools is anyone going to sit and act like the new "SEC" is the superior conference? No.

(01-05-2021 10:47 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(01-05-2021 12:31 AM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  

(01-04-2021 11:31 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  I don’t know, until they’re successful in D1 or 10 years. My point is, the WAC isn’t a better name and it carries no weight. It’s beyond stupid to think the WAC is better than the SLC because of the name. The WAC indeed might be better than the SLC, but not because BYU played there in the 1980s.

You're making no sense. You forward the idea that it takes being "successful in D1 for 10 years" to be established...
And that makes sense to me. Branding is all about prolonged success, which in turn builds identity and legacy.
But, OTOH, you claim that its "beyond stupid" to factor in the WAC's brand recognition.
I see it differently.
While the WAC brand may not be as helpful as the "Big East" brand was to the new catholic league that bought the name in 2013, it STILL brings with it a modicum of recognition (which is all a brand name is supposed to do).
For those football schools on the come-up, they'll have a recognizable patch on their unis and a highlight package for their promos that will include BYU and Boise State. That's a pretty nice deal.

Thats because those Big East schools stayed strong in basketball and kept the reputation that was previously earned. This WAC is not currently good at basketball or football so it doesn't have any positive "brand recognition". It's not the name or history of a conference that elevates the schools, its the schools that build the reputation of a conference. If the SEC and the Sun Belt suddenly switched schools is anyone going to sit and act like the new "SEC" is the superior conference? No.

The WAC as a whole is a lot better in basketball than the Southland in the RPI. Other schools mentioned like Central Washington, Western Washington, Azusa Pacific, Angelo State, Colorado Mesa and West Texas A&M all have strong basketball in D2. Colorado Mesa is the only one the strongest in the top 3 money sports for the men. Football, basketball and baseball.
The WAC seems to be making it a very strong conference for the 3 money sports. Can they tried to get Sacramento State and Northern Arizona? It depends since Big Sky have not been strong in all three sports in recent years.

(01-05-2021 05:33 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-05-2021 10:47 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(01-05-2021 12:31 AM)TroyTBoy Wrote:  

(01-04-2021 11:31 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  I don’t know, until they’re successful in D1 or 10 years. My point is, the WAC isn’t a better name and it carries no weight. It’s beyond stupid to think the WAC is better than the SLC because of the name. The WAC indeed might be better than the SLC, but not because BYU played there in the 1980s.

You're making no sense. You forward the idea that it takes being "successful in D1 for 10 years" to be established...
And that makes sense to me. Branding is all about prolonged success, which in turn builds identity and legacy.
But, OTOH, you claim that its "beyond stupid" to factor in the WAC's brand recognition.
I see it differently.
While the WAC brand may not be as helpful as the "Big East" brand was to the new catholic league that bought the name in 2013, it STILL brings with it a modicum of recognition (which is all a brand name is supposed to do).
For those football schools on the come-up, they'll have a recognizable patch on their unis and a highlight package for their promos that will include BYU and Boise State. That's a pretty nice deal.

Thats because those Big East schools stayed strong in basketball and kept the reputation that was previously earned. This WAC is not currently good at basketball or football so it doesn't have any positive "brand recognition". It's not the name or history of a conference that elevates the schools, its the schools that build the reputation of a conference. If the SEC and the Sun Belt suddenly switched schools is anyone going to sit and act like the new "SEC" is the superior conference? No.

The WAC as a whole is a lot better in basketball than the Southland in the RPI. Other schools mentioned like Central Washington, Western Washington, Azusa Pacific, Angelo State, Colorado Mesa and West Texas A&M all have strong basketball in D2. Colorado Mesa is the only one the strongest in the top 3 money sports for the men. Football, basketball and baseball.
The WAC seems to be making it a very strong conference for the 3 money sports. Can they tried to get Sacramento State and Northern Arizona? It depends since Big Sky have not been strong in all three sports in recent years.

I agree with the first sentence. All I'm saying is that while the Big East is still a big brand despite having new members the WAC name doesnt carry the weight it used to....

Funny that DavidSt keeps bringing up WTAMU to the WAC. Here’s Matt Brown telling him to shut the f up about it

https://twitter.com/mattbrownep/status/1...36416?s=21

I think people put too much value into a conference name, personally.

The SoCon is far from the SoCon that I grew up paying attention to. Yeah, still a good conference, but I dont put the same level of prestige athletically on them as I did.

The Gulf South Conference (D2) was once regarded as one of the best conferences for college football at any level, consistently putting pros in the NFL, when I was a kid, you would go to a game and the crowds were electric, the hate between schools were real, fans couldn't stand each other. At the time, it was small school version of the SEC. But now, while still a good D2 conference, its nowhere what it used to be.

Point is, the collective group of schools in the conference has to be able to come together to make the conference as good as it can be. If everyone is on board with the mission and has the ability to strive for the mission, that's what makes the conference. Just putting schools together based on Geography, public or private, rivals and so on, may not be the best answer for long term success in a given conference. Media contracts and greed, although some necessarily, have decimated aspects that make some conferences great....