(10-29-2021 08:45 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I think Texas St can be a MWC target when BSU leaves, along with LA Tech should they go beyond 12. Don’t see American teams jumping to the MWC barring major defections which is extremely unlikely at this point (aside from the expected 2-3 schools rumored for the Big 12).

If they leave.

(10-29-2021 06:50 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 04:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 04:17 PM)LaTechBanjo Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 04:16 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  What if the Sunbelt and C-USA agreed on a swap of Texas State for Louisiana Tech?

Why would Tx State agree to that?

I agree. Texas State is in a stable, expanding conference, they have no incentive to join the collapsing clown-show known as CUSA.

Geez, what did La Tech, UTEP and FIU do to you? So much hate for us.

Some people think that being lucky enough to fail upwards is a positive statement about themselves. Therefore, those that didn't fail upwards must have done something wrong.

(10-29-2021 08:52 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 04:16 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  What if the Sunbelt and C-USA agreed on a swap of Texas State for Louisiana Tech?

The Sun Belt has had the opportunity to invite La.Tech. We didn’t.

And CUSA had an opportunity to “merge” with the SBC and split up teams geographically. CUSA didn’t want to listen. They only tried later, when they were in no position to bargain.

Texas state would not want anything to do with that unstable mess. Even if the CUSA reloaded with Texas WAC/SLC schools, Texas State would turn it down.

SBC isn't likely to kick them out either. They get Texas exposure from the Bobcats. The Bobcats have nice modern facilities, the 2nd highest athletic budget in the league and have won the Commissioners Cup multiple times in recent years despite being garbage at football.

(10-29-2021 09:27 PM)chrisattsu Wrote:  Texas state would not want anything to do with that unstable mess. Even if the CUSA reloaded with Texas WAC/SLC schools, Texas State would turn it down.

SBC isn't likely to kick them out either. They get Texas exposure from the Bobcats. The Bobcats have nice modern facilities, the 2nd highest athletic budget in the league and have won the Commissioners Cup multiple times in recent years despite being garbage at football.

Yeah but if the sprawl keeps heading your way you may not fit our model and become another Georgia State urban team.

(10-29-2021 08:45 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I think Texas St can be a MWC target when BSU leaves, along with LA Tech should they go beyond 12. Don’t see American teams jumping to the MWC barring major defections which is extremely unlikely at this point (aside from the expected 2-3 schools rumored for the Big 12).

I agree about Texas State. Can’t really see it for Louisiana Tech, though - their only hope is that the Sun Belt will take them some day.

(10-29-2021 04:31 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 04:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 04:23 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  I am surprised the AAC didn't pick La. Tech instead of UNT. Nothing against UNT, except it's market duplication.

I am not surprised the AAC did not invite LA-Tech.

I am baffled as to why we decided to expand with everyone we chose save Rice, and of the other five that baffle me, UNT is far and away the most baffling, for exactly the reason you mention.

I suspect it was for a really dumb reason - the idea that we needed to "block" the MW from entering the DFW area via UNT.

And what exactly does South Florida bring to the AAC?

They are there to play little brother to whatever other Florida team is in conference. UCF at first, soon FAU and I assume in a couple decades West Florida or Embry Riddle.

Louisiana Tech left the Sun Belt rather than be a part of Sun Belts football at the beginning. Some of us haven't forgot that.

(10-29-2021 08:34 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 04:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 04:23 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  I am surprised the AAC didn't pick La. Tech instead of UNT. Nothing against UNT, except it's market duplication.

I am not surprised the AAC did not invite LA-Tech.

I am baffled as to why we decided to expand with everyone we chose save Rice, and of the other five that baffle me, UNT is far and away the most baffling, for exactly the reason you mention.

I suspect it was for a really dumb reason - the idea that we needed to "block" the MW from entering the DFW area via UNT.

I think Charlotte is the most baffling. The other 5 were pretty good adds.

Charlotte is also very baffling. The old misguided worship of "markets", I guess.

But UNT didn't even have that, as SMU already covers that "market".

(10-30-2021 06:22 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  Louisiana Tech left the Sun Belt rather than be a part of Sun Belts football at the beginning. Some of us haven't forgot that.

To join a conference with Rice, SMU, Tulsa, and UTEP.

Why wouldn’t we do that?

People keep bringing this up like it’s some slight.

(10-30-2021 08:00 AM)LaTechBanjo Wrote:  

(10-30-2021 06:22 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  Louisiana Tech left the Sun Belt rather than be a part of Sun Belts football at the beginning. Some of us haven't forgot that.

To join a conference with Rice, SMU, Tulsa, and UTEP.

Why wouldn’t we do that?

People keep bringing this up like it’s some slight.

Eh, that's the way it works in college athletics. If you are perceived to have done something that hurts us, we hate you even if we would have done it too, LOL.

And it happens to everyone. Just look at the ridonculous flak the SEC has got from supporters of other P conferences for adding TX and OU, when any of them would have added TX and OU in a heartbeat too.

(10-30-2021 07:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 08:34 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 04:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 04:23 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  I am surprised the AAC didn't pick La. Tech instead of UNT. Nothing against UNT, except it's market duplication.

I am not surprised the AAC did not invite LA-Tech.

I am baffled as to why we decided to expand with everyone we chose save Rice, and of the other five that baffle me, UNT is far and away the most baffling, for exactly the reason you mention.

I suspect it was for a really dumb reason - the idea that we needed to "block" the MW from entering the DFW area via UNT.

I think Charlotte is the most baffling. The other 5 were pretty good adds.

Charlotte is also very baffling. The old misguided worship of "markets", I guess.

But UNT didn't even have that, as SMU already covers that "market".

Charlotte with their tiny stadium in a pro market was baffling. I guess ODU skipping 2019 was a serious black mark against them. UNT was a defensive move so they didn't have to share the market and UNT has been around a long time, has a good budget and decent fan support relative to the other additions.

(10-30-2021 07:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 08:34 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 04:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 04:23 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  I am surprised the AAC didn't pick La. Tech instead of UNT. Nothing against UNT, except it's market duplication.

I am not surprised the AAC did not invite LA-Tech.

I am baffled as to why we decided to expand with everyone we chose save Rice, and of the other five that baffle me, UNT is far and away the most baffling, for exactly the reason you mention.

I suspect it was for a really dumb reason - the idea that we needed to "block" the MW from entering the DFW area via UNT.

I think Charlotte is the most baffling. The other 5 were pretty good adds.

Charlotte is also very baffling. The old misguided worship of "markets", I guess.

But UNT didn't even have that, as SMU already covers that "market".

I think the move served two purposes. It blocked the MWC from getting into Texas and provided insurance if SMU were to leave the league. I think if I had to rate the adds I'd go:

1. UTSA
2. UAB
3. Rice
4. FAU
5. UNT
6. Charlotte

The league probably would've been fine adding four but I think they're anticipating losing two more teams in the not so distant future.

(10-30-2021 09:08 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-30-2021 07:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 08:34 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 04:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 04:23 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  I am surprised the AAC didn't pick La. Tech instead of UNT. Nothing against UNT, except it's market duplication.

I am not surprised the AAC did not invite LA-Tech.

I am baffled as to why we decided to expand with everyone we chose save Rice, and of the other five that baffle me, UNT is far and away the most baffling, for exactly the reason you mention.

I suspect it was for a really dumb reason - the idea that we needed to "block" the MW from entering the DFW area via UNT.

I think Charlotte is the most baffling. The other 5 were pretty good adds.

Charlotte is also very baffling. The old misguided worship of "markets", I guess.

But UNT didn't even have that, as SMU already covers that "market".

Charlotte with their tiny stadium in a pro market was baffling. I guess ODU skipping 2019 was a serious black mark against them. UNT was a defensive move so they didn't have to share the market and UNT has been around a long time, has a good budget and decent fan support relative to the other additions.

IMO, the MW suckered the AAC in to "defending" against a threat that didn't exist, LOL.

I’ll say it again here … in 2030 when the $7M disproportionate cash runs out, and Memphis and SMU are gone, we’ll keep the light on for you USF and ECU.

(10-30-2021 10:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-30-2021 09:08 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-30-2021 07:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 08:34 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 04:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I am not surprised the AAC did not invite LA-Tech.

I am baffled as to why we decided to expand with everyone we chose save Rice, and of the other five that baffle me, UNT is far and away the most baffling, for exactly the reason you mention.

I suspect it was for a really dumb reason - the idea that we needed to "block" the MW from entering the DFW area via UNT.

I think Charlotte is the most baffling. The other 5 were pretty good adds.

Charlotte is also very baffling. The old misguided worship of "markets", I guess.

But UNT didn't even have that, as SMU already covers that "market".

Charlotte with their tiny stadium in a pro market was baffling. I guess ODU skipping 2019 was a serious black mark against them. UNT was a defensive move so they didn't have to share the market and UNT has been around a long time, has a good budget and decent fan support relative to the other additions.

IMO, the MW suckered the AAC in to "defending" against a threat that didn't exist, LOL.

Seems that way. We could still get Texas St. and UTEP if we wanted and be in Texas.

(10-30-2021 05:57 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(10-30-2021 10:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, the MW suckered the AAC in to "defending" against a threat that didn't exist, LOL.

Seems that way. We could still get Texas St. and UTEP if we wanted and be in Texas.

Texas State has struggled to find football talent in talent rich Texas. Everything is in place to be successful. We just need a coaching staff with the ability to recruit and develop talent. Then I think we would be a good addition to the MWC.

(10-30-2021 05:57 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(10-30-2021 10:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-30-2021 09:08 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-30-2021 07:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-29-2021 08:34 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  I think Charlotte is the most baffling. The other 5 were pretty good adds.

Charlotte is also very baffling. The old misguided worship of "markets", I guess.

But UNT didn't even have that, as SMU already covers that "market".

Charlotte with their tiny stadium in a pro market was baffling. I guess ODU skipping 2019 was a serious black mark against them. UNT was a defensive move so they didn't have to share the market and UNT has been around a long time, has a good budget and decent fan support relative to the other additions.

IMO, the MW suckered the AAC in to "defending" against a threat that didn't exist, LOL.

Seems that way. We could still get Texas St. and UTEP if we wanted and be in Texas.

Yeah, i don't know why you really would, save for SMU, but if you did, Texas State would be as good as UNT or UTSA.

(10-30-2021 06:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-30-2021 05:57 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(10-30-2021 10:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-30-2021 09:08 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-30-2021 07:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Charlotte is also very baffling. The old misguided worship of "markets", I guess.

But UNT didn't even have that, as SMU already covers that "market".

Charlotte with their tiny stadium in a pro market was baffling. I guess ODU skipping 2019 was a serious black mark against them. UNT was a defensive move so they didn't have to share the market and UNT has been around a long time, has a good budget and decent fan support relative to the other additions.

IMO, the MW suckered the AAC in to "defending" against a threat that didn't exist, LOL.

Seems that way. We could still get Texas St. and UTEP if we wanted and be in Texas.

Yeah, i don't know why you really would, save for SMU, but if you did, Texas State would be as good as UNT or UTSA.

We wouldn't unless Texas St. was getting 10 or 11 wins every year for a while. But I'm saying after all that. There's still one left plus UTEP if necessary.

(10-30-2021 08:00 AM)LaTechBanjo Wrote:  

(10-30-2021 06:22 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  Louisiana Tech left the Sun Belt rather than be a part of Sun Belts football at the beginning. Some of us haven't forgot that.

To join a conference with Rice, SMU, Tulsa, and UTEP.

Why wouldn’t we do that?

People keep bringing this up like it’s some slight.

That wasn’t the problem

The problem was declaring you wouldn’t join BEFORE WAC was looking for members and daring the league to expel you if you didn’t join. Hell Boise was willing to join.

Then when the women’s tournament was moved to Bowling Green because league bylaws barred departing schools from hosting championships university leadership trashed the league as petty and vindictive for enforcing a bylaw Tech had voted for.

No one faulted Tech for joining WAC, people faulted Tech for the conduct related to the departure.