Interesting CUSA article

doesn't mention us since it is written by a Marshall writer. It is about the vision that the ECU AD has for CUSA.

http://www.dailymail.com/Sports/MUSports/200805190089

a couple of interesting notes:

1-ECU would rather play regional rivals than far strung conference members with no regional interest, tv games or money games.

2- a conference that operates two 9 team divisions that only play each other for conference championships.

3-This is driven because of only 1 NCAA credit in BB the last two years. Men's BB might be our ticket into CUSA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tech XXIX

doesn't mention us since it is written by a Marshall writer. It is about the vision that the ECU AD has for CUSA.

http://www.dailymail.com/Sports/MUSports/200805190089

a couple of interesting notes:

1-ECU would rather play regional rivals than far strung conference members with no regional interest, tv games or money games.

2- a conference that operates two 9 team divisions that only play each other for conference championships.

3-This is driven because of only 1 NCAA credit in BB the last two years. Men's BB might be our ticket into CUSA.

---

Men's basketball was, is and will be the key because Conference USA was is and will be primarily a men's basketball conference.

Obviously football matters but the way to get their attention is to show a committment to Men's Basketball along with an improving Football program.

We should stay where we are, the WAC is by far a superior conference. If the CUSA adds W. Kentucky, S. Alabama, and Middle Tennessee I still don't see how that would improve the conference.

We cannot stay in the WAC and survive.

We can survive in the WAC, and it is the best ticket at this time. What we can not survive is the additude of our fans. We shoulc be able to fill seats no matter if the away team brings fans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soonerdawg

We cannot stay in the WAC and survive.

---

Long term...you are absolutely correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CARTEK

Long term...you are absolutely correct.

---

Yes, especially as Boise is itching to get into the MWC. They don't make a secret of it either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogdog

We shoulc be able to fill seats no matter if the away team brings fans.

---

No way the casual Tech fan will come out for Idaho, Utah St, NMSU, etc. Not gonna happen. We need regional competition to get the average fan remotely intrested.

RD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogdog

We can survive in the WAC, and it is the best ticket at this time. What we can not survive is the additude of our fans. We shoulc be able to fill seats no matter if the away team brings fans.

---

It's going to take alot more than ticket sales to survive in the wac.

I think looking at the ECU scheduling model as one to follow is a good idea. They have 2-1 with regional rivals that produce large crowds. I think that we should be playing UL-L and UL-M. We must schedule Memphis, SO. Miss, Tulane and Texas CUSA schools even if it is a 2-1 deal in thier favor. These are regional games that offset the Idaho's, New Mexico St., Utah St. and San Jose St games in the WAC.

Fresno, Boise, and Hawaii tradiionally draw pretty good (20,000 +) the other schools don't and it doesn't matter how good we are.

I also think that we need to make sure that men's basketball has all the resources it needs to start getting to the tournament. That will be the key. This whole article was written because the ECU AD had to find ways to offset a drop in NCAA money. 1 bid leauges do not survive long with the travel cost of today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tech XXIX

I think looking at the ECU scheduling model as one to follow is a good idea. They have 2-1 with regional rivals that produce large crowds. I think that we should be playing UL-L and UL-M. We must schedule Memphis, SO. Miss, Tulane and Texas CUSA schools even if it is a 2-1 deal in thier favor. These are regional games that offset the Idaho's, New Mexico St., Utah St. and San Jose St games in the WAC.

Fresno, Boise, and Hawaii tradiionally draw pretty good (20,000 +) the other schools don't and it doesn't matter how good we are.

---

I don't think ULL would draw a big crowd. I know it didn't in the past. If both schools were good that could change.

ULM and Tech would probably draw a big crowd at least initially. Interest would eventually begin to wain somewhat unless they were in the same conference.

I think other WAC games could draw a fairly big crowd, not as big as Fresno, Boise, and Hawaii; assuming that Tech was having a good season and in contention for the WAC title.

I imagine its hard to get Memphis, SO Miss, Tulane, and Texas CUSA schools to schedule us. They have a fairly packed conference schedule and probably want to either play a high-named team (either for money or possible recognition) or a rather weaker team (assuming that's not us) for an easy win.

We must schedule Memphis, SO. Miss, Tulane and Texas CUSA schools even if it is a 2-1 deal in thier favor.

Gimme some of what you are drinking!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tech XXIX

I also think that we need to make sure that men's basketball has all the resources it needs to start getting to the tournament. That will be the key. This whole article was written because the ECU AD had to find ways to offset a drop in NCAA money. 1 bid leauges do not survive long with the travel cost of today.

---

This I do agree with. While basketball is not my favorite sport, I do think this is one where we can make a big impact quickly. I didn't attend a game last year but am very excited about this year based upon the talent coming in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tech XXIX

We must schedule Memphis, SO. Miss, Tulane and Texas CUSA schools even if it is a 2-1 deal in thier favor.

---

Screw the 2-1 with those schools. If we can draw an SEC miss st for 1-1, we should be able to do the same with any non-BCS schools.

This quote makes a lot of sense.

Quote:

---

A school can make up the revenue for maybe one game with TV receipts, but the damage done long-term in establishing and keeping a fan base can be catastrophic for schools and conferences trying to build below the BCS core conferences.

---

Regional rivalries is something that Tech hasn't had since joining D-1A. An occasional NLU or ULL game doesn't count, in my opinion. Consistent rivalries are important for fans and for revenue. The old E-WAC was a step in the right direction, but we need a regional conference. The good parts of the WAC will eventually be consumed by the MWC. We need to be gone before that happens.

This quote is harder to believe because of the money they bring in, but I see his point...and it's why I think Arkansas might be interested in a move back to the Big 12.

Quote:

---

I have come to the conclusion that 12-team conferences do not work well for long term," Holland wrote. "The power conferences can survive the disadvantages but I believe that in the long term they will suffer some damage to rivalries, etc., as well.

---

Overall, he makes a lot of sense, but the most important thing is WHO do they add. At the end of the article, the writer notes that just because a team doesn't have tons of "value" now doesn't mean that they would not have value in CUSA. Tech is a perfect example of that. Playing games in Boise, Honolulu, and Fresno isn't exactly travel-friendly for fans.

The day we start scheduling 2 for 1's with CUSA schools is the day we need to dissolve the program.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MoonPieBlue

I don't think ULL would draw a big crowd. I know it didn't in the past. If both schools were good that could change.

---

USL has always been our biggest Ruston draw outside of the juco -

You can bank 20,000+ easy for any game in Ruston - and that's with NO EFFORT -

Need them as a recurring OOC opponent - Lafayette is a good trip for our average fans who ONLY get to go to one away game a year right now - NONE inconference -

I posted this on February 20th under another discussion about the next AD (Before it was DD) but it kind of reiterates what the article was mentioning:


I really don't see the advantage of loading the eastern side of the WAC with teams that are just moving up. It does not promote the best perception. At the same time, I do think that many schools and conferences across the country are starting to look into the crystal football to see what combinations are out there in the future. Maybe for others, they are not as excited about Boise, Nevada, and Fresno but for I and an average of 20k fans this season, we do want to see how we match up with these teams. And that beats the average of what our UL brethern are experiencing with closer teams.

I hope that our next AD will be able to position us as an attactive and interesting program that is able to associate with a group of schools that is not scoffed at by virtually every other quality conference in the country.

My preference of association of Eastern/Central schools would be the likes of USM, Troy, FAU, Tulsa, SMU, Houston, Rice, UNT, I guess Tulane and maybe a few others. I do not want ULM and to a lesser extent ULL because I still do like our seperation but am not opposed to OOC scheduling.

The rumblings I see on message boards are that the Big East is thinking about a 2010-11 expansion and I think it will bring another domino effect. I think there is also a possibility that parts of the Sunbelt and Conference USA will be looking into new combinations because some of those teams are not making it attendance wise.

As always, I like the WAC but we have to be ready for the next wave.

The only reason that I said a 2-1 with CUSA schools is that right now, we can't them to agree to a 1-1 deal. They can bring in a money game vs 1-AA team to fill that spot. This will start the relationship with CUSA, Tech and both teams fans and expose those schools to the good things happening at Tech. I know that if played any CUSA school within 5 hours, we would bring 3-5,000 fans. Show them that OOC and then the invitation would be ours. This is what the schools are looking for.

The 1-1 with Miss. St. is the exception to our scheduling history. What was the last CUSA school to come play in Ruston that was not in the WAC with us? UAB 10 years ago?

And again I want to stress the fact that the reason that the ECU AD even thought about two 9 school divisions is because of the drop in NCAA basketball units. Get men's basketball everything that they need to get to the tournament the next 3 years! That is the real key to CUSA!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tech XXIX

The only reason that I said a 2-1 with CUSA schools is that right now, we can't them to agree to a 1-1 deal.

---

Do you know if we have even ASKED?!?!

If we turned down a 1-1 with BAYLOR because they weren't paying enough, do you seriously think that we asked the CUSA teams??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DocMarvin362

Do you know if we have even ASKED?!?!

If we turned down a 1-1 with BAYLOR because they weren't paying enough, do you seriously think that we asked the CUSA teams??

---

That is a quality point. We probably didn't try and that should be the first thing we do.

The WAC is not good for our Long Term future.

We need to be in C-USA because of both Geographical and Economic factors.

Our current travel costs are killing the Athletic Dept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tbone1

Our current travel costs are killing the Athletic Dept.

---

Not again!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tbone1

Our current travel costs are killing the Athletic Dept.

---

Most people believe this; however, the facts and $$$ prove that this belief is wrong.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that the financial stress that the current oil market is putting on the U.S. is going to have a extremly negative effect on our ability to remain in the WAC long term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tbone1

Our current travel costs are killing the Athletic Dept.

---

This topic has been beat worse than a dead horse. In a nut shell our travel cost are comparable and below most CUSA schools. Do a search of other threads to find the specific numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGTech98

This topic has been beat worse than a dead horse. In a nut shell our travel cost are comparable and below most CUSA schools. Do a search of other threads to find the specific numbers.

---

I'll save everyone the trouble of searching....

The updated Tech-ULL comparison for 2006-2007....conference revenues vs team travel
Tech--$1,558,017 WAC revenues vs $1,734,943 team travel...a net -176,926
ULL--$804,780 SBC revenues vs $1,152,820 team travel...a net -348,040

Once again...advantage to Tech in the WAC by $171,114

For the three years that direct comparisons are possible (2004-2005 through 2006-2007) due to the report format, here are the figures....

Tech...$4,008,672 WAC revenue vs $4,520,719 team travel....difference -$512,047

ULL...$1,929,571 Sun Belt revenue vs $3,328,183 team travel....difference -$1,398,612

Three straight years Tech has been on the plus side of this comparison by a total $886,565 or an average of $295,522 per year.

Yeah but that's sunbelt, I wonder what CUSA travel and revenue comparison would be.

I would rather pick CUSA because:

1) Regional opponents that I can drive to see when we play them, and regional rivalries with the likes of SMU, USM, and Tulane (awesome imo)
2) Boise is not going to stay in the WAC, they are gonna jump to the MWC, and that is a huge blow to the WAC
3) CUSA could get us in a more regional bowl against better competition, with the ACC defection the WAC bowls aren't as attractive anymore
4) Better non-football sport competition
5) Playing games all over Texas would help our Texas recruiting big time, not to mention LA and MS recruits

We would lose:

1) Recruiting pitch of Hawaii trip every other year
2) Being in a better ranking football conference (but NOT if Boise leaves, and they openly admit they want in the MWC)

That being said, just say no to the belch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken_Horndawgs

2) Being in a better ranking football conference (but NOT if Boise leaves, and they openly admit they want in the MWC)

---

Is "they" the BSU message board fans, or Boise administration? Doesn't the MWC have something to say about the matter? I'm just not convinced that Boise is going anywhere too soon (but I don't have any inside info or anything).

The costs is not what kills us -

Its the travel and TIME assoicated with the travel for all sports except football -

That and the apathy of the fan base of not having regional foes and the ability to travel to atleast SOME away (conference) games -

That's why the WAC is not a permanent long-term solution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken_Horndawgs

4) Better non-football sport competition

---

I have no idea about this one way or the other, but can you be more specific? Surely WAC volleyball is better. Softball seems good in the WAC (although I have no clue where it is in CUSA). Memphis is the only good basketball team lately (and in most scenerios that have us in CUSA, they are leaving). Baseball is better I guess, but we aren't really in a position to seek out tougher conference mates there are we? I have no idea on track, and I don't think we offer most of the sports that the former EWAC schools always win at like diving, swimming, and men's tennis.

You could be right, but I'm just wondering if you have some more details.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dwayne From Minden

The costs is not what kills us -

Its the travel and TIME assoicated with the travel for all sports except football -

That and the apathy of the fan base of not having regional foes and the ability to travel to atleast SOME away (conference) games -

That's why the WAC is not a permanent long-term solution

---

This I can buy - although as a football fan (who actually follows the game somewhat), I'm always disappointed that people can't get more excited about us playing better teams. I guess I understand that someone from North Louisiana would be more likely to know people from SMU or ULL or Southern Miss to talk smack with. And I definitely understand how road trips add to a rivalry (nothing makes you hate a team more than having to deal with their drunken idiot fans).
The best team in Con-USA would be, what, 4th, in the WAC?
But these things change, hopefully we'll get an invitation right as CUSA makes a big upswing in football and b-ball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inudesu

I have no idea about this one way or the other, but can you be more specific? Surely WAC volleyball is better. Softball seems good in the WAC (although I have no clue where it is in CUSA). Memphis is the only good basketball team lately (and in most scenerios that have us in CUSA, they are leaving). Baseball is better I guess, but we aren't really in a position to seek out tougher conference mates there are we? I have no idea on track, and I don't think we offer most of the sports that the former EWAC schools always win at like diving, swimming, and men's tennis.

You could be right, but I'm just wondering if you have some more details.

---

It is a bummer that most scenarios that have us going to CUSA do not include Memphis. I think that would turn out to be great rivilary. Also, I think you would see a 3-4 year reorganization of our athletic department after we join to more closely align with the sports that CUSA supports.

My gut feeling is that Boise eventually leaves, possibly along with one or more of the other frequently mentioned schools (UH, FSU, Nevada). That will pretty much reduce the WAC to Sunbelt status. We need to be gone before then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inudesu

Is "they" the BSU message board fans, or Boise administration?

---

Straight from the President of the University.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dwayne From Minden

The costs is not what kills us -

Its the travel and TIME assoicated with the travel for all sports except football -

That and the apathy of the fan base of not having regional foes and the ability to travel to atleast SOME away (conference) games -

That's why the WAC is not a permanent long-term solution

---

very well stated

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dwayne From Minden

The costs is not what kills us -

Its the travel and TIME assoicated with the travel for all sports except football -

That and the apathy of the fan base of not having regional foes and the ability to travel to atleast SOME away (conference) games -

That's why the WAC is not a permanent long-term solution

---

Most evident with our Baseball team this season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tech XXIX

doesn't mention us since it is written by a Marshall writer. It is about the vision that the ECU AD has for CUSA.

http://www.dailymail.com/Sports/MUSports/200805190089

a couple of interesting notes:

1-ECU would rather play regional rivals than far strung conference members with no regional interest, tv games or money games.

2- a conference that operates two 9 team divisions that only play each other for conference championships.

3-This is driven because of only 1 NCAA credit in BB the last two years. Men's BB might be our ticket into CUSA.

---

I have been out of the country for a couple of weeks and have not read the board as I usually do, so forgive me if this has been discussed ad nausea, but this is exactly what I have been hearing when I am in the Charleston, WV area about Marshall. This article confirms that the Marshall faithful do not like being in what they call a 'Texas' conference. They miss driving to games, having close geographic rivals, and winning (actually sounds like us).......
When something happens with the Big East (either Memphis, UCF, or ECU jumping) I don't see Marshall staying in CUSA.
DFiH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dwayne From Minden

The costs is not what kills us -

Its the travel and TIME assoicated with the travel for all sports except football -

That and the apathy of the fan base of not having regional foes and the ability to travel to atleast SOME away (conference) games -

That's why the WAC is not a permanent long-term solution

---

I agree with Dwayne, the apathy to playing idaho, San Jose, NMSU etc. is what is causing the lack of fan base growth.
Personally, I never understood why we do not have a regular schedule with Tulane. If we could not persuade them to schedule us after the Katrina thing, we never will. Now that DD has the history with SMU, maybe he can work on them, let's try So Miss & Tulane once again, anyone but NLU & USL.
DFiH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DawgFaninHous

I agree with Dwayne, the apathy to playing idaho, San Jose, NMSU etc. is what is causing the lack of fan base growth.
Personally, I never understood why we do not have a regular schedule with Tulane. If we could not persuade them to schedule us after the Katrina thing, we never will. Now that DD has the history with SMU, maybe he can work on them, let's try So Miss & Tulane once again, anyone but NLU & USL.
DFiH

---

I've been following Tech football since 1989 (since joining 1A), and I've never seen the fan base as high as it is right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DawgFaninHous

I agree with Dwayne, the apathy to playing idaho, San Jose, NMSU etc. is what is causing the lack of fan base growth.
Personally, I never understood why we do not have a regular schedule with Tulane. If we could not persuade them to schedule us after the Katrina thing, we never will. Now that DD has the history with SMU, maybe he can work on them, let's try So Miss & Tulane once again, anyone but NLU & USL.
DFiH

---

Really! I believe that if Tulane, USM, SMU, Houston, and Memphis were on the schedule every year, we would be consistantly averaging 25K+ Tech fans for home games. Travel expense is not the reason we need to be in CUSA, but quality regional rivals to create interest in the programs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hookdown

Really! I believe that if Tulane, USM, SMU, Houston, and Memphis were on the schedule every year, we would be consistantly averaging 25K+ Tech fans for home games. Travel expense is not the reason we need to be in CUSA, but quality regional rivals to create interest in the programs.

---

this is based on past home games with smu and rice? i think not. but you may yet be right because smu will draw more if they make waves with june jones, houston has seemed to be improving, and usm and memphis should be a better draw than smu and rice were in the past.

I was speaking with the parent of a potential player (he is just a sophmore) and one of the things he mentioned as a problem with being in the WAC is that he would have so few chances of seeing his son play at home if he played for Tech. This was just another aspect that I had not really considered. Despite this Tech is still one of their top choices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg419

I was speaking with the parent of a potential player (he is just a sophmore) and one of the things he mentioned as a problem with being in the WAC is that he would have so few chances of seeing his son play at home if he played for Tech. This was just another aspect that I had not really considered. Despite this Tech is still one of their top choices.

---

Did you mean "on the road?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T_Won

I've been following Tech football since 1989 (since joining 1A), and I've never seen the fan base as high as it is right now.

---

T Won,
Not to be argumentative, but to what do you base that statement? Is the season ticket totals greater than ever before? I have not seen or heard a number on that. Are the giving totals greater? I have read that we are not giving enough.

I personally remember the fan base truly charged up prior to the Indy Bowl appearance, the Okla State game in S'port & the Miami game. All three of those games were in S'port and we took advantage of having the locals supporting our cause. The games were also against BCS teams. My point is that they were truly higher than they have been over the last couple of seasons - my opinion.
I just think if we re-join some regional competition (some meaningful teams - Tulane, So. Miss, SMU, etc.) we will see a more 'energized' fan base for Ruston games. More so than playing Idaho, San Jose or even Nevada & Hawaii.
If we went to a Sunbelt school (USL or N Tex) and a CUSA school (So. Miss or SMU) and created a home/home contract with them on alternating years, we can always count on a regional opponent in Ruston that the fans can look to for a 'key/winnable' game each year at home. With DD's decision to play only one 'pay day' game per season, we could possibly have room for two mid-major contracts at home each year.
DFiH

Actually I meant both - so few home games generally (although getting better) and then no real regional road games. Thanks for the correction.l

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

this is based on past home games with smu and rice? i think not. but you may yet be right because smu will draw more if they make waves with june jones, houston has seemed to be improving, and usm and memphis should be a better draw than smu and rice were in the past.

---

No...based on a number of factors, including how much we seem to dislike USM, Tulane, and Memphis. Also, the games are fairly easy travel for Ruston (including north LA) folks and students. Past games with Houston were pretty one-sided for UH and it is time for some serious payback on our part. I think we match up pretty evenly (or very soon will) with them. SMU again, because of all the alumni living in the DFW area and having June as coach will make things interesting. Tulane is, well, Tulane. Nuff said. If we are competing with these teams for conference championships, it raises the interest level and the stakes even more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hookdown

Past games with Houston were pretty one-sided for UH and it is time for some serious payback on our part. I think we match up pretty evenly (or very soon will) with them. SMU again, because of all the alumni living in the DFW area and having June as coach will make things interesting. Tulane is, well, Tulane.

---

Houston does not want any part of Louisiana Tech. Tech won the last two meetings by a total of 51-14. 1995 in Houston's Robertson Stadium, Tech 19 - Houston 7 (and it wasn't that close) and 1994 in Ruston, Tech 32 - Houston 7. Then Houston coach Kim Helton said the Cougars would never play in Ruston again because we ran the score up. :laugh:

SMU is 1-3 vs Tech, Tulsa is 2-7 vs Tech, Rice was 2-2 vs Tech when in the WAC, and UTEP is 2-6-1 vs Tech. Tulane has already shown that they don't want to play us, but they will schedule UL-M. These schools know that Tech will beat them regularly. Contrary to what some BB&Bers think, CUSA schools are NOT chomping at the bit for LA/TX/AR recruits and fans to see more of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DogsWin

Houston does not want any part of Louisiana Tech. Tech won the last two meetings by a total of 51-14. 1995 in Houston's Robertson Stadium, Tech 19 - Houston 7 (and it wasn't that close) and 1994 in Ruston, Tech 32 - Houston 7. Then Houston coach Kim Helton said the Cougars would never play in Ruston again because we ran the score up. :laugh:

SMU is 1-3 vs Tech, Tulsa is 2-7 vs Tech, Rice was 2-2 vs Tech when in the WAC, and UTEP is 2-6-1 vs Tech. Tulane has already shown that they don't want to play us, but they will schedule UL-M. These schools know that Tech will beat them regularly. Contrary to what some BB&Bers think, CUSA schools are NOT chomping at the bit for LA/TX/AR recruits and fans to see more of this.

---

Unfortunately, that was a LONG time ago...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hookdown

No...based on a number of factors, including how much we seem to dislike USM, Tulane, and Memphis. Also, the games are fairly easy travel for Ruston (including north LA) folks and students. Past games with Houston were pretty one-sided for UH and it is time for some serious payback on our part. I think we match up pretty evenly (or very soon will) with them. SMU again, because of all the alumni living in the DFW area and having June as coach will make things interesting. Tulane is, well, Tulane. Nuff said. If we are competing with these teams for conference championships, it raises the interest level and the stakes even more.

---

I think his point, though, is that we were in a conference with some of these regional schools that are supposed to boost attendence and it didn't really blow anyone away. I don't know the numbers, and I bet we did better for SMU and Rice and Tulsa than SJSU and USU, but it wasn't awesome (except maybe that first one with SMU at Indy).

I know the arguments for "regional rivalries" and I agree with most of them. Drivable road games would be great. Talking smack to co-workers and relatives would be great. More than a couple of dozen visting fans would be great. I'm for all of that.

The problem for me is when we act like being in a more regional conference will solve all our problems (not that you're doing this). We've played almost all the teams that get thrown out there as potential rivalries - and while attendence might have been better than average, you can't just throw (even) these teams out there and expect big numbers and a great north Louisiana following to develop.

Right now I think being in CUSA would help most at the bottom of the deck. Better to play a bad Rice than a bad NMSU, about the same to play a ECU as whoever from the WAC, etc. But at the top end, I'd much rather see Tech beat good teams like Hawaii, Boise, or Fresno than below average teams like Memphis, SMU, Tulane, or USM.