Yeah, I remember when Oklahoma St was going to "Destroy" Troy last year (according to their fans). Didn't quite work out that way. I'll just give the WAC the "W's." No need to play the game. I guess you are comparing the WAC to the PAC 10, eh? Hmmm. I think some things are more obvious than others.
2006:
Troy finished 8-5. one AA win, 6 belch wins to finish reg season 7-5. bowl win over the amazing RICE. Rice was only non-conf D1A win.
MTSU finished 7-6. one AA win, 6 belch wins to finish reg season 7-5. smoked in bowl vs some directional michigan school. Zero non-conf D1A wins.
Boise finished 13-0. one AA win, 8 wac wins (including actual teams with winning traditions and history), two MWC wins (was the undeniable best non-BCS at the time), and two wins over TOP TEN BCS teams.
You know, I'd take wins over Utah, Wyoming, Oregon State, and Oklahoma over the combined one non-conf win over Rice by the two belt co-champs.
We'll try the WAC #2 that year, Hawaii.
Hawaii finished 11-3. Wins over Purdue, Arizona State, UNLV, and an AA team.
San Jose finished 9-4. Wins over Stanford, SDSU, UNM, and an AA team.
In 2006 there were THREE wac teams that finished with better OOC victories than any sunbelt team.
Of course, 2006 is too old to count? heh.
2007 WAC OOC victories:
Washington
Georgia Tech
Kansas State
Southern Miss
UTEP
Wyoming
UNLV (twice)
Belt 2007 OOC victories:
SMU
Memphis (thrice)
Minnesota
Alabama
Okie State
2005 WAC OOC victories:
Bowling Green
Toledo
SDSU
UNT
UNLV (twice)
UCF
Belt 2005 OOC victories:
Vandy
So to sum this all up, the belch had their best year ever and now think they are awesome. 2005 and 2006 were downright PATHETIC for the belt. PATHETIC. Undeniably the WORST D-1A conference in 2005 and 2006.
Like I said, they had a good 2007 and really cut away some CUSA lead, and perhaps passed the MAC.
It is certainly debatable if these agreements are bad for Tech (time will tell), but it certainly is not good and it will be good for the Sunbelt.
At the end of this year both the WAC and Sunbelt will be looking for bowls to place teams in. Unless the WAC is lucky enough to get another team into the BCS, it will have to come for a conference failing to qualify enough teams. This year there are no open bowl spots.
The chances are very good that the Sunbelt will find a spot in either St. Petersburg or Birmingham. There is a slight chance they will find a third spot in Shreveport.
These are the number of bowl eligible teams from these conferences the past three years and bowl spots in 2008-09.
2007
BE 6-8 (6 Bowl spots)
CUSA 6-12 (7 Bowl spots)
SEC 10-12 (9 Bowl spots, 10 with 2 BCS teams)
WAC 4-9 (3 Bowl Spots)
Troy takes a spot in St. Petersburg.
2006
BE 6-8
CUSA 6-12
SEC 9-12 (Birmingham Open with 2 BCS schools)
WAC 4-9 (3 Bowl Spots)
Middle Tennesse takes a sport in either Birmingham or St. Petersburg. AR State or ULL gets a spot if rule on 6-6 is changed.
2005 (11 game year)
BE 4-8
CUSA 6-12
SEC 6-12 (a maximum of 8 teams could have been eligible under a 12 game schedule, meaning SEC fails to provide teams to Shreveport and Birmingham)
WAC 4-8
ULL fills one of three vacant spots.
That means that under the current bowl structure the Sunbelt would have pick up at least one bowl spot each of the last 3 years.
It is not hard to envision a case where Tech is tied for second (with three teams at 6-2) or in fourth at 5-3 in the WAC, with no bowl opening for Tech. Then Tech is depending on a bowl in Texas to open or better yet a bowl on west coast to open so that the Bulldawgs can be placed in New Mexico to play the Lobo’s on their home turf (where it is debatable if we will have a fan at the game for every mile the game is played away from Ruston).
With that said we should close this tread because 8 page on the sunbelt is too much and none of this matters until Tech is Bowl Eligible. I don't enjoy reviewing past records of teams from the Big East, CUSA, and Sunbelt.
As for the I-bowl, why they fill the need to sign a contract with the Sunbelt for their third place team is complete stupidity, not like other bowls are jumping at that opportunity. I am guessing that if you want the third sunbelt team, they will not have much competition. Why not leave it open in case Tech, CUSA, or a team from another conference is available considering at that point the I-bowl is getting their pick of any remaining 6-6 teams.
Last edited by CaseyDawg; 07-24-2008 at 03:22 PM.
Guy all of this is just hot air. The Sunbelt plays a mini SEC schedule every year. Look at our OOC strength of schedule and look at yours. It's much easier to win when you don't have to play the SEC every friggin year two or three times a year. Yes our OOC victories from 2005 and back were poor. I have maintained that we have greatly improved over the last two years. I don't know why you are so beligerent in your argument that the WAC is better at the top as of right now. You have no head to head games and no common opponenets and you can't really use wins over BCS teams when you consider who we have to play. We play teams on the level of Oklahoma for almost all of our BCS opponents by playing the SEC every other month (it seems like we play them that often anyway). Also, I never said 2006 was too old to count. You must have misunderstood my post. Your arrognat attitude toward Central Michigan is exactly why you guys aren't making any friends and exactly why you are going to find a lot fo doors closed to you one day. THe WAC has had good wins, the Sunbelt OOC schedule has been more difficult by playing mostly the SEC. You speak of your wins over teams in your own conference with "history" when you know full well that the SUnbelt has no history. All that matters when making comparissons like this is: common opponents and head to head. The rest is just hot air.
I've only maintained that the Sunbelt (AS OF THE LAST TWO YEARS) has become competitive enough to hang with the WAC (except for FIU and UNT because they both stink right now). I admit it's just speculation, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why it's perceived as some grand insult to say that the top of the Sunbelt could hang with the top of the WAC. I guess it's just too insulting to even consider it. I know a few people in our athlectic department read these posts and are posters on some of these boards. Hopefully, they'll remember the "Elite" attitude and arrogance coming from some of these "Fans" on this board. I guess asking for a person to show a little respect and admit that it's "possible" that Troy and a couple of other teams could paly Boise and Hawaii without losing by much...I mean, it's just impossible! NO WAY YOU CAN HANG WITH THE MIGHTY WAC!
Of course, 2006 is too old to count? heh.
No, we can coun it if you want.
2007 WAC OOC victories:
Washington
Georgia Tech
Kansas State
Southern Miss
UTEP
Wyoming
UNLV (twice)
Belt 2007 OOC victories:
SMU
Memphis (thrice)
Minnesota
Alabama
Okie State
Looks about even to me.
2005 WAC OOC victories:
Bowling Green
Toledo
SDSU
UNT
UNLV (twice)
UCF
Belt 2005 OOC victories:
Vandy
Yep, Vnady was 4-0 in the SEC with Jay Cutler at the helm when MT beat them. I would say that win was equal to any team you listed as a WAC OOC victory for 2005.
So to sum this all up, the belch had their best year ever and now think they are awesome. 2005 and 2006 were downright PATHETIC for the belt. PATHETIC. Undeniably the WORST D-1A conference in 2005 and 2006.
How so? How were we PATHETIC? When looking at the OOC wins YOU listed, it looks about even to me. I guess logic isn't your strong suit. Just keep acting on those emotions and throw logic out the window. Based on your own "eveidence" of OOC wins, the WAC wasn't any more impressive either of those years. Look at who the Sunbelt had to play in 2005 and the OOC SOS and then tell me why we had one OOC win.
Like I said, they had a good 2007 and really cut away some CUSA lead, and perhaps passed the MAC.
That's your opinion. I know other more knowledgeable people that disagree. The only mid major with seperation from the others at this point is the MWC. You just think you're too good for the Sunbelt and you are too arrogant and narcissitic to admit it. I guess you get off on belittling others to make yourself feel better.