Quote Originally Posted by BigD View Post
First, I think everyone agrees that the SBC is much better than what it used to be so I think things would be much more competitive for a 4 win WAC team in the Sunbelt now.
As for your 3 points... While they may be valid, they are also very arguable.

1. The WAC is miserable without Boise, so I think winning against more local rivals would indeed bring more pride than winning against horrible west coast teams. (Remember, my argument isnt that the SBC would be better than CUSA, its that the SBC is also a choice that should be considered because there is no guarantee that tech gets an invite from CUSA) That isn't what you said, though is it? You said we are scared to play there. And Boise will play in the WAC for another year. And Fresno and Nevada are hardly "horrible west coast teams" who will be there for two more years.
2. I could be wrong about this, but doesn't the WAC only have 3 bowls under contract? 4 Plus, if your winning the conference like you say you would, shouldnt you be in one of those bowls anyway? We bowled in 2008. Maybe your not making AS much from bowls, but you would be saving a TON in travel costs. This math has been posted on this site before. Most years the higher conference payouts outweight the travel savings. That will change in a couple of years, but not until then. And speaking of bowls, before a conference would be interested in you, you have to do something for them too and prove you can bring them bowl money at least somewhat consistently. The first part of this is true, the second is not. On field results aren't a very big part of this stuff.
3. The only national exposure you are getting right now is when your on Boise's Highlight reel. This simply isn't true. Trust me, it would mean alot more to be in the SBC championship game than to be a bottom feeder in the WAC. This is debatable even if we were a bottom feeder in the WAC (which we usually aren't).

You're not really helping yourself here.