(06-15-2021 02:06 AM)Todor Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 11:17 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  It is ridiculous for anyone to say the new schools, plus the departure of ChiSt, won't make the WAC better. People are using artificial qualifiers like better than 15 in NET rankings or NCAA tourney wins. I think it is a fact that the WAC will be a stronger conference with the new additions.

It is also ridiculous to say NMSU does not play a tough OOC schedule. Not only do they play multiple P5 teams every year, they regularly beat said teams in the OOC.

This board is getting more and more ludicrous by the day. And it's literally 2-3 posters that are dragging it down. But those individuals have no self awareness to know they are a problem. They actually come here to state over the top opinions and start fights. I think most everyone else comes here for info and quality dialog, not to talk trash.

I clearly stated I think the conference will be in the 19-22 range for NET rankings next year. Is that clear enough? Got it? I said that long ago. It might be better going forward, but better than the reccent WAC best or better than a terrible season for the conference like last year?

If you don't want to hear about NCAA tournament wins or to predict, or compare NET rankings to previous years to specify how (or how much) better it might be, you're in the wrong place. Those things matter and will be discussed. Perhaps when I was talking about NET rankings, I assumed they had actually read my prediction when they stated how much better it will be. So I challenged them. If the ensuing engagement is simply based on their lack of reading, I'm not sorry. I was clear and specific and thought people who bother to post also bother to read. Responding to posts without having followed the board is a good way to create a disagreement, fyi to some.

Sorry man, but your comments are a clown show. The WAC has been on life support from year to year with members all looking at each other and asking themselves who’s leaving next. It became an island of misfit toys. The laughing stock of D1 Conferences with NO CREDIBILITY. NONE. Schools were using it a stay over Conference until something better came along. These statements are not opinions it just the way it was.

For you to come here and even suggest that the WAC of the last decade plus was something to behold is ludicrous. You should be dancing in the streets that the WAC Commissioner pulled it off. Start with getting Dixie to sign on with no place for football. Great move. Next, getting Tarleton one of the fastest growing Universities in Texas to sign on when it appeared they were SLC bound. Great move. McNeese friends are still in my ear crying about Tarleton not coming to the SLC. Finally adding 5 D1 schools that all could have easily said no and stay put. Brilliant.

Btw, I was told before all this happened that Hurd had pulled a mover and shaker exec away from the MWC.

The WAC today is light years at its head of the garbage your spewing. Btw, last time I checked Athletic Conferences play more sports than just Basketball regardless if they are competitive or not. Even more good news for the WAC is bulk of these schools are growing rapidly. They are all a nice geographical fit except Seattle. But everything doesn’t always neatly fit. The positives of the new look WAC just pounds the few negatives you harbor. It’s a new day you can put away the Apple Vinegar Cider for at least a few years and enjoy being in a stable Conference for some time to come. Ok

Agree that the WAC is in a much better place with the additions, that not debatable imo. But the western D2 move-ups had no other option than the WAC so not sure how much credit to Hurd is due there. I assume Utah Tech wanted the BSC and were told no, so that left the WAC as their only D1 option. Not sure what Tarleton wanted but if their fist choice was the SLC and they were told no, then their only option was the WAC as well.

The bigger coups were getting the SLC defectors on board and the SUU move and for that Hurd deserves a mountain of credit. FBS nonsense aside, the WAC is in a great position moving forward.

Seems like is widespread agreement everything is better. So, back to my original post regarding the NET rankings, and how this new setup will compare to the best of the old setup.

2013-20 reached 15* in the NET/RPI rankings. How much better will next season be?
*corrected

Top 12 or 13 out of the 32 conferences? That will place us above CUSA and should be a spot or so below the Mountain West. Schools in that range are often 2 bid leagues, so if the new setup is indeed better, we'll be right in that range.

(06-17-2021 11:01 AM)Todor Wrote:  Seems like is widespread agreement everything is better. So, back to my original post regarding the NET rankings, and how this new setup will compare to the best of the old setup.

2013-20 reached 16 in the NET/RPI rankings. How much better will next season be?

Top 12 or 13 out of the 32 conferences? That will place us above CUSA and should be a spot or so below the Mountain West. Schools in that range are often 2 bid leagues, so if the new setup is indeed better, we'll be right in that range.

2019 - the league reached 16. You had three teams in the top 100 include a No. 40. You had Chicago State literally dead last and then three programs in the 200s.

The key for going forward is to move as many teams in the top 200 as possible. Chicago State is likely to be in the bottom 10-15 of the country and you got to stomach that 'hit' for one more year.

You look at CUSA, they had three teams in the 200s and five teams in the 50-100 range to rank No. 14 in NET rankings last year.

So I really do think the goal is get everyone <200 and you will in turn have a few teams <100, which should get you top 15 NET.

ACU, SFA & Sam were all <175 last year which will help the league if they can maintain, but what do you think Todor? Is that a reasonable goal? Getting everyone in the next year or two under 200?

(06-17-2021 11:01 AM)Todor Wrote:  Seems like is widespread agreement everything is better. So, back to my original post regarding the NET rankings, and how this new setup will compare to the best of the old setup.

2013-20 reached 16 in the NET/RPI rankings. How much better will next season be?

Top 12 or 13 out of the 32 conferences? That will place us above CUSA and should be a spot or so below the Mountain West. Schools in that range are often 2 bid leagues, so if the new setup is indeed better, we'll be right in that range.

I have not seen one person say that the new WAC will eclipse the best year the WAC ever had. Not one post. And they certainly won't do that in year 1.

What we refer to as WAC 2.0 (when the MWC took several WAC teams) slowly rose up the rankings with a peak of 15 or 16 for one year. The WAC has fallen off a cliff the last couple years.

I think what posters are saying (I know this is what I am saying) is that the WAC 3.0 is going to see an improvement from the past few years when the WAC fell of a cliff. And I believe we will see a rise similar to what we experienced previously in WAC 2.0.

Your argument seems to be that WAC 3.0 will not be higher than 15 in the NET in year one and therefore will not be any better than WAC 2.0.