Are we better off in the sunbelt rather than the WAC

[bulldog]

I know that my being new here won't help much, but putting aside our hatred for the sunbelt and our belief that we're above the belt; would we be better off in the sunbelt than in a Bronco-less WAC?

Without Boise we're looking at a distinctly different conference that doesn't pull in a multi million dollar bowl payday and probably doesn't appeal as much to the tv networks. We're still looking at extreme travel, especially in sports like baseball, softball, and basketball.

So...are we better off in the sunbelt if C-USA doesn't come calling? I think we are. It seams that Tech fans love to belittle the sunbelt by calling it "the belch", "the scumbelt", etc. but is the WAC without Boise much better from a competitive standpoint?. I'm sure there will be plenty to say I'm way off, but I'd be interested to hear the discussion.

At the end of the day I just want to see us in the conference that allows us to put the most dollars toward the growth of the program while fielding competitive teams across sport and gender.

[RhythmDawg]

It doesn't matter. Perception is everything. The WAC could fall below the belt and it still would be better.

[bad_man]

NO!!!

[SixWings]

Just say no, amigo.

Good luck with red dots.

[aan]

I think we are a great geographic fit in the sun belt conference. But going there would be like suicide for tech, we are above them academically and athletically. My opinion is that if CUSA does not invite us to join and the WAC does not make a move towards improvement, we should go independent for a while.

[qng001]

This thread:

[tigtoo30]

I know that my being new here won't help much, but putting aside our hatred for the sunbelt and our belief that we're above the belt; would we be better off in the sunbelt than in a Bronco-less WAC?

Welcome. The answer is NO! It's a topic that been beaten to death. Sagrain ratings are still be much higher. Payouts are still dramatically higher in the WAC.

Boise was a great WAC member, but Fresno, Nevada, and Hawaii, and even USU and NMSU in some sports are more well known that say an FAU or FIU, and yes even the JUCO down the road. Going to the SB would be death to Tech. People aren't dontaing dollars for this 20M project to go to the Belt.

Onward and UPWARD!

[girldawg]

The answer is YES. . .

Tigtoo, I think you're saying NO, Tech would not be better off in the Belt than the WAC.

[tigtoo30]

Tigtoo, I think you're saying NO, Tech would not be better off in the Belt than the WAC.

Oops. Thanks for the correction. I think I celebrated a little too much last night!

[DellDawg]

Next time maybe you want for find something a little better to talk about in your first thread.

[champion110]

Less prestige
Less money
Fewer bowls
Lowest ranked conference in the country
Alumni pulling their money
Less recruiting ability
Less money to pay coaches
No one giving to athletic facilities
Less National exposure
No separation from in-state universities
No chance for advancement (other conferences go to the WAC to pick before the belt)

SUICIDE for athletics!

Does that answer your question.

[brtransplant]

I know that my being new here won't help much, but putting aside our hatred for the sunbelt and our belief that we're above the belt; would we be better off in the sunbelt than in a Bronco-less WAC?

Without Boise we're looking at a distinctly different conference that doesn't pull in a multi million dollar bowl payday and probably doesn't appeal as much to the tv networks. We're still looking at extreme travel, especially in sports like baseball, softball, and basketball.

So...are we better off in the sunbelt if C-USA doesn't come calling? I think we are. It seams that Tech fans love to belittle the sunbelt by calling it "the belch", "the scumbelt", etc. but is the WAC without Boise much better from a competitive standpoint?. I'm sure there will be plenty to say I'm way off, but I'd be interested to hear the discussion.

At the end of the day I just want to see us in the conference that allows us to put the most dollars toward the growth of the program while fielding competitive teams across sport and gender.

Nice try jackass. Go back to your belch board. We want nothing to do with you or the crappy Belch.

[faninmonroe]

I know that my being new here won't help much, but putting aside our hatred for the sunbelt and our belief that we're above the belt; would we be better off in the sunbelt than in a Bronco-less WAC?

Without Boise we're looking at a distinctly different conference that doesn't pull in a multi million dollar bowl payday and probably doesn't appeal as much to the tv networks. We're still looking at extreme travel, especially in sports like baseball, softball, and basketball.

So...are we better off in the sunbelt if C-USA doesn't come calling? I think we are. It seams that Tech fans love to belittle the sunbelt by calling it "the belch", "the scumbelt", etc. but is the WAC without Boise much better from a competitive standpoint?. I'm sure there will be plenty to say I'm way off, but I'd be interested to hear the discussion.

At the end of the day I just want to see us in the conference that allows us to put the most dollars toward the growth of the program while fielding competitive teams across sport and gender.

for real?

[Tbone1]

That's amazing.
I've never seen so many red dots after just a SINGLE post.

[DAWG DUDE]

I know that my being new here won't help much, but putting aside our hatred for the sunbelt and our belief that we're above the belt; would we be better off in the sunbelt than in a Bronco-less WAC?

Without Boise we're looking at a distinctly different conference that doesn't pull in a multi million dollar bowl payday and probably doesn't appeal as much to the tv networks. We're still looking at extreme travel, especially in sports like baseball, softball, and basketball.

So...are we better off in the sunbelt if C-USA doesn't come calling? I think we are. It seams that Tech fans love to belittle the sunbelt by calling it "the belch", "the scumbelt", etc. but is the WAC without Boise much better from a competitive standpoint?. I'm sure there will be plenty to say I'm way off, but I'd be interested to hear the discussion.

At the end of the day I just want to see us in the conference that allows us to put the most dollars toward the growth of the program while fielding competitive teams across sport and gender.

There are already too many threads about this stuff.