|
|
arkstfan:
I have read your view that the WAC would only allow one eastern team to join Tech if Tech remains in the league. If that were not true.... if the WAC would allow ASU, UNT and ULL to join, would that be interesting to ASU, or would ASU prefer to stay in the SunBelt?
Michael,Originally Posted by rphdawg
The athletic council meets thursday at 3:30 or 4pm to interview the DC position. The reason it is taken so long I heard is that we may have to hire the Neinas kid from Temple in order to get his dad pushing tech toward CUSA. I may be wrong on this but that is what I have heard. If we don't get him, kaufman will be hired.
Like I said....Thursday night or Friday morning we should know more about Tech athletics.[/quote:35833a563c]
Sounds like the DC decision should be made AFTER TCU leaves. Don't want to hire this guy and then get screwed, unless he is the best available candidate. I have no idea if he is.
I think we look pretty silly to the rest of the world when we engage in speculation about maybe hiring a certain assistant coach will help us get into CUSA.
Tech athletics looks pretty silly anyway. We need to use all our clout now.
That is why the decision has been delayed...to see where we stand with CUSA before we make our decision. We still might not have a DC after this meeting is over unless Oakes got a bad feeling from the meeting on Monday/Tuesday.
I don't know what priority those schools have in ranking potential members. That's just who I've heard they are willing to accept. Remember the ACC had six schools willing to take Miami, Syracuse and BC in the initial expansion and ended up compromising with just Va.Tech and Miami but could not initially get seven votes for either Syracuse or BC (even though both had six). After taking a break, they came back around and BC grabbed the seven votes needed. Everyone except Duke, UNC, and Virginia were willing to take BC, Syracuse, and Miami. Virginia swung the compromise required to get Miami in by pairing Miami with Va.Tech. Once Va.Tech was safely in the league was able to pick between BC and Syracuse.
I would suspect a somewhat similar dynamic exists in CUSA. There are number of schools willing to consider a variety of schools to fill TCU's slot if it becomes vacant and then a small number of swing votes are out there that have to be accomodated or appeased to reach nine votes.
As to ASU, ULL and UNT to the WAC. I would never say never. From what I hear today. The WAC will not extend an offer to any Belt schools east of Denton. Now if the WAC were to lose one school and feared losing La.Tech (ie. keeping Tech is the only thing keeping them from losing the auto bid and NCAA money) then they might change gears and look at ASU, ULL and maybe someone like MTSU to get to 12 (MTSU would depend on who is left and the geography. If UTEP left they might be in play, if UTEP sticks that would be unlikely).
I know the preference of the three is to not join the WAC. The eastern bowl problem would still exist unless the Sun Belt just totally gives up and the WAC was able replace the Belt in New Orleans. Even divisional, travel is still going to be bad because there are so few baseball teams (ULL and ASU play but UNT does not) and other sports outside football and basketball don't interlock well.
I know that at ASU the numbers they have indicate the WAC is not good a investment. The current TV money is expected to drop in the WAC while the Sun Belt's is expected to be up slightly (WAC will still be more) but the increased overhead is expected to chew up the difference in revenue. From a travel pairing stand point the Eastern WAC isn't bad NMSU-UTEP, and then either UNT-ULL, ASU-Tech or UNT-ASU and Tech-ULL. By contrast the western WAC is bad. There are no easy pairings due to the distance between schools. The Sun Belt while less attractive offers a number of pairings that involve 2 flights (outbound/inbound) instead of three flights (outbound, switch, inbound). You can play FIU/FAU with one round trip flight, same for Troy State/USA, WKU/MTSU, UNO/ULL, ASU/UALR.
The WAC positive in men's basketball follows a Thursday/Saturday rotation. A Wednesday/Saturday (ala SEC) would force teams to return home after each game.
I think the bottom line is that if all three were offered, they would initially be opposed but would come as a unit if one or two felt it were the better option.
"You can play FIU/FAU with one round trip flight, same for Troy State/USA, WKU/MTSU, UNO/ULL, ASU/UALR. "
so are you saying that the sunbelt would be set up like this:
west:
unt
tech
asu
ull
ualr (no football)
uno (no football)
east:
mtsu
troy st.
fla int.
fla atl.
usa (no football)
wku (no 1-A football)
that means no ulm. i could go for that. that means we would play everybody in football, but in other sports we would play most of the games against texas, arkansas, and louisiana schools.
it sure would be nice to have a 9th football team, like having wku move up to 1-A. I wonder if ulm staying as fotball only would be an option.
How close are fla international and florida atlantic to playing 1-A football?
Is South Alabama planning on adding football?
The Sun Belt would have to drop Denver, maybe the Wac could add them as a non football member.
I still like the MAC better because it's better now and I think we will eventually be in CUSA (someday!), so we dont need anything long term. However, the sunbelt wouldnt be horrible and someday we could help it pass the MAC in quality.
Wow! How far we have fallen.
Trying to convince ourselves that the Belch will be a D-1A conference in 2006.
Well, I am not trying to convince myself of ANYTHING like that. This is a ridiculous thread. We will not go back to the Belch. WE have taken a "nobody knows situation" and turned it into everything is gloom and doom.
Just hold the horses for a little while. CUSA is very much still on the table. If it isn't, staying in the WAC just long enough to get in is the next option. Independant is higher on the option list than the Sun Belt. I know that some of you think it isn't, but if you listen to arguments about WHY you think it isn't, you would understand that it is a better option for the future of this program than the last alternative.
8O JAY come back! Don't go in there. Walk toward the light! You can make it! :wink:
ULM is football only in the Belt and their association is a series of renewed 2 year contracts. I'm not sure if their membership is rolled annually or biennally. So their membership is either through 2004 or 2005 depending on which way the league handles it.
FAU and FIU will transition in 2004 and 2005 and be full I-A members in 2006.
Denver is expected to join the Mid-Con.
Western Kentucky is expected to announce a move to I-A either at the conclusion of the 2004 season or 2005 meaning they will transition in 2005 and 2006 or 2006 and 2007. Once a program begins transition they count as I-A opponents.
South Alabama failed to sell enough season tickets to get their football effort off the ground and should not be expected to add football.
Very correct. At this time the TCU situation is an unknown. About all one can say safely is that if the MWC elects to not expand is that the WAC will offer UNT and it is 99% certain they will reject that offer and the WAC can use a straight face to say it tried to "accomodate" Tech. If MWC does expand and does take TCU then Tech may very well be in play if Temple turns down the offer (and I expect they will). Get out very far from that and things are pretty fluid.WE have taken a "nobody knows situation" and turned it into everything is gloom and doom.
That's a budget question. Tech loses the three closest opponents so travel costs will increase and the tv situation looks gloomy nationwide. Right now the projections are that the next realignment frenzy will start around 2008 for moves in either 2009 or 2010. If Tech can bear the costs for that period than holding on is certainly an option.CUSA is very much still on the table. If it isn't, staying in the WAC just long enough to get in is the next option.
Uh right. Basketball needs a home. WAC rules require playing football in the conference so that's not an option. Sun Belt rules require members to play any sport they sponsor in the conference so the Belt isn't an option. That leaves realistically the Mid-Con and Southland as homes for basketball. As to football, independence assures virtually zero chances of a bowl. Also after 2005 you have to have 5 I-A home games. Finding schools willing to travel to Ruston in late October and in November when they are involved in conference play is going to be nearly impossible. Other than some folks at Monroe who would enjoy it, I don't believe anyone else would consider Tech moving to independence a smart move.Independant is higher on the option list than the Sun Belt.
TYLERTECHSAS WROTE: I do disagree in that the "new" WAC will have to be and will be a viable option (add UNT and ULL if needed I guess). IMHO, the Sunbelt is not, at least for what I envision for my beloved University. I know you do not want this either.
I ruffled some feathers when I said a month or so ago that we didn't bring enough to the CUSA table to be included there if TCU bolted (which they will) and that we were not the TOP dog on the CUSA expansion list. If we were considered as such, we'd already be paying our WAC exit fee and scooting east. As for ULL and NT coming aboard in the Western WAC, I doubt they will bolt the SB. Both are beginning huge expansions to their facilities and are headed up. SMU does not want NT and NT & ULL have a pact to stick together. I was in Lafayette this past weekend and was amazed at the projects they have going. A new indoor practice facility and track will break ground soon, a new weight room and implements, new locker rooms, an expanded administration/coaches office building, a new outdoor track/soccerl facility, a university/Hilton hotel project accross from BB/FB, 3 new scoreboards/signs. They also have another huge project going on down the street from their old basketball arena and have spent a fortune already on the iron fence for that. Add this to their baseball expansion and the ongoing football fixes going on and they show more potential than we do right now. (Biting my tongue as I say .... they have a plan and we don't) Their enthusiasm is unparalleled (for them) and their promotions/ marketing guy is setting all of this up and positioning them to be more than the also-ran they have been for the past 10-15 years. This guy has 12-14 projects going on -- all at the same time -- and no one in S. LA is telling him no. All of this stuff may be a small contributor to the ESPN guy talking about the SB being a winner in the conference shakeouts... already knowing that NTSU & ULL aren't going anywhere. Will the SB make it? Who knows. Water Bug seems to know how to line up and then keep his chickens in his roost. Will we be there in a year or so? Hopefully, not. But if we are, the picture will be a different one than what they were known for even last year and if we are with them, we need to make our mark IN EVERY sport so that the next time an opportunity arises to bolt, we are not left in our tracks.
Another advantage I see them with is the new Governor. Her husband is a ULL VP and DEFINITELY has POWER. If he flexes that power, and he will, the rest of the UL system could be in for eight interesting years. If nothing else, a Jindal win was our shot for the near term to hold them in check. Now? WHO KNOWS!
Nevertheless, whatever the outcome, having Blanco as Governor will not favor us dramatically -- especially in her second term when she will not care about hacking off anyone north of Bunkie. We will get token lip service only and remedial increases in funding. Also, Dan will have to stay in line with Ms. Blanco or he will be collecting a retirement check.
Hide and watch and blame whatever happens in THAT arena on those who did not go out and vote or did not like the prospects of a dark-skinned governor.... which was a factor here in N. LA.
AS for the SB, don't count them out. I gave Blanco the 1-2-3 count a week before the election and look what happened. ANYTHING is possible. Good or BAD!!!
Good points, arkstfan. I do disagree on the option of staying in the WAC and going Indy points that you made, however many on here will agree with you. I have made these arguments about indy over and over and really don't want to get into it again at this point. I will say that I really do not think that the Belt will survive for football and that the conference moving around will be happening for a couple of more years. So, the key is to hang on for the next shuffle. In the meantime, you make yourself as appealing as possible.
If I were UNT or ASU, I would heavily consider the WAC if offered. I don't think there will be an offer if Tech doesn't stay, but it would not be a wise move to stay in the Belt at this time. Even if others disagree, I really don't believe that the Belt will survive in football. As for bball, it is a decent league.
Just my opinion. It may not be perfect, but it seems to be just as viable as anyone elses at this time. :-)
If Tech doesn't stay the WAC will not even contemplate adding a central time zone team.
I'll have to take some time to see your past comments on independent, because I'm open-minded but have a hard time picturing it being viable under the new rules.
As to the WAC, I can see Tech possibly waiting it out. It's an internal assessment of a gamble. Will realignment hit when expected? Will it impact to a level that opens doors to Tech? Can Tech afford the increased costs while waiting? Does waiting in the WAC provide benefits that waiting in the Belt do not? There are plenty of factors to be weighed and that's why schools hire presidents and athletic directors, to have people skilled in the areas of athletics and in higher education budgeting to make those evaluations.
Right now we are in the midst of a national building boom and it is no different in the Sun Belt. ASU has added video, a new football field house with suites for donors, a new soccer field, new track, a new sports medicine facility, and renovation of the old field house into offices, computer labs and study halls. Troy State and MTSU have just undertaken major renovations nearly equivalent to building new stadiums. ULL as mentioned before has its own building boom underway. North Texas is building a new facility. FAU is preparing to build a new stadium, and on and on it goes.
I asked ASU's president about the WAC and he went through that list and said we couldn't have afforded those things if we were still in a western conference. When I asked about UNT and the WAC he said that they were looking at the numbers and couldn't afford it and added that he and Dr Authement remembered what it was like going west and wouldn't repeat that mistake because it hurt the program so much. I know UNT, ULL and ASU are in constant contact and have agreed to turn down the WAC, but I just don't know how the equation changes if all three are offered.
I know folks make a big deal out of the new criteria for I-A but too many people inside athletics (not just at ASU) point out the loopholes on how attendance is counted and tell me that no one who wants to be I-A will fail.
Did Dewey appoint his whole cabinet,..... BEFORE morning???
DEWEY WINS! ! ! Truman who?
Let's keep our shirts on a lil' longer.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
