coachacola Posted June 14, 2011 Posted June 14, 2011 I'm hearing that only Seattle U. will get an invite to the WAC today.
Guest CardAmbassador Posted June 15, 2011 Posted June 15, 2011 Jack at BobcatReport.com was the first to confirm now several other sources are saying the same thing. There might be an announcement about an official plan for future football schools too. Not sure if that will be today. Keep your eyes peeled for an official announcement from Seattle around 4 p.m. pacific time.
Guest Crawfish Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 Interesting Blog about the WAC conference meeting. http://espn1420.com/from-the-birds-nest-the-wac-adds-seattle/
Guest CardAmbassador Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 Interesting Blog about the WAC conference meeting. http://espn1420.com/from-the-birds-nest-the-wac-adds-seattle/ It's interesting that the author believe the WAC will be THEE worst football conference in america, you can make a pretty good argument that they might still be better than the Sun Belt in 2012 and will certainly be better than the Sun Belt a few years after 2012. La Tech and Utah State will actually start to look better and get a bit more attention now that Nevada, Fresno and Boise are gone. Then throw in either Texas State of UTSA having a break out year a few years after joining and you still have a better football conference and there is no comparison between the two when it comes to Basketball. I think the WAC's main disadvantage is lack of regional rivals in the West. The East division is looking like the more stable portion of the conference.
coachacola Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 Interesting Blog about the WAC conference meeting. http://espn1420.com/from-the-birds-nest-the-wac-adds-seattle/ That was written by a guy that covers ULL sports so of course it's going to be biased against the WAC.
Guest CardAmbassador Posted June 16, 2011 Posted June 16, 2011 I was reading the WAC board and there was an interesting post about staggering the addition of FCS schools into the WAC. Instead of bringing two FCS teams in at one time which would hurt the WAC in year two of the process by requiring everyone to essentially play two FCS teams the WAC might elect to stagger the additions of FCS teams. It could look like this: 2011-2012 WAC 5 Texas st (1st year of transition) UTSA (1 st yean in FCS) 2012-2013 WAC 5 Texas st (2nd year of transition, wins over TxSt count to bowl eligibility) UTSA (1st year of transition) 2013-2014 WAC 5 Texas St (Full FBS member) UTSA (2nd year of transition, wins over UTSA count to bowl eligibility) Lamar (1st year of transition) 2014-2015 WAC 5 TxST (full member) UTSA (full member) Lamar (2nd year of transition, wins over LU count to bowl eligibility) West coast FCS team ( 1st year of transition) And the process continues. The invitations could be issued at different times or at the same time but the transition process could be staggered to allow for the easiest transition for all parties.
Guest CardAmbassador Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 Very interesting statements by Louisiana Tech, you have to wonder if they and the other eastern teams were for adding us this year but then were blocked by the west. The latest to voice strong opinions about the WAC waiting to add football schools is Louisiana Tech. Tech athletic director Bruce Van De Velde told the Shreveport Times he wasn't happy with the direction the WAC decided to go. "We weren't as enthusiastic (about it) as some of the other schools," Van De Velde said. "We felt they should have added a football-playing school and we encouraged them to do so. We feel they should be looking to add a team in the Central time zone if Louisiana Tech is to remain in the WAC. "The face of the WAC is changing with three teams now in the CST. And we think football should be the priority in adding schools." TO READ MORE: http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/WAC-members-continue-to-complain-about-lack-of-?urn=ncaaf-wp2677#remaining-content
LUSportsFan Posted June 17, 2011 Posted June 17, 2011 I saw the post concerning staggering that CA referred to yesterday. I like the set up as suggested. I still think that the WAC should have concentrated on their greatest need, football. I agree with the comment that CA made either on this board or elsewehere that if Lamar had been located on the West Coast, we would have been in this year. It's all water under the bridge, but ... I also agree with some of the comments by the LaTech supporters questioning the need for Seattle's invitation this year. The only advantage I can see is the Seattle market and that Seattle is located in the Far West. If using basketball performance as a measure, the comments concerning Seattle its basketball performance are suspect. According to the final Sagarin ranking, Seattle at 270 was four places behind Lamar at 266. We all know that Lamar's 2010-2011 season was well below the acceptable standard, but the same could be said for Seattle. The positive for Seattle was that they played in the Final Four in 1958 and a good tournament history through the 60's, but good grief, I was in elementary school through high school during that period and I'm currently retired. Seattle dropped down to NAIA in 1980. It remained there until returning to NCAA III in 2001. It played in NCAA Division II from 2002-2009 when it started its transition back to Division I. Don't have to tell Cardinal fans other than to make a point, but by comparison, Lamar has been NCAA Division I since the early 60's and has gone to the NCAA or NIT tournament 9 times in my adult lifetime.
Guest Crawfish Posted June 19, 2011 Posted June 19, 2011 http://www.presnapread.com/survival-is-wacs-leading-goal/#more-22545 The above is the a link to another WAC article. I think it would have to copy and paste it into the address line. Another interesting read, this guy has nothing to do with any SBC team. Personal comment; joining the WAC may sound good, but it is gamble that may backfire. The WAC is on life supports. Some of the La Tech people are calling the new WAC "the WeAC." Now flame away! (I know most of you support the WAC, but I am not certain it is a good alternative.)
LUSportsFan Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 I have to admit that I'm not as enthralled with the thought of WAC membership as I was several months ago. I see a conference that is struggling to stay afloat, but each school is individually grabbing on to its own piece of flotsam from the wreckage of conference realignment. The situation is even more dire than the one stated in the linked article. As we all know, there will be seven football programs remaining in the WAC; not eight as stated in the article. It seems like the WAC is taking an Alfred E. Neuman attitude of "What, me worry?" I'd like for Lamar to move up to FBS and I think there is still time for the WAC to stabilize, but what I have seen in recent months gives little assurance that the conference is headed in that direction.
TexGator Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 I think the conference is quietly trying, now that the public is starting to laugh aloud at them, to create some back-door deals where they can become a 12/14 league. They have 2 major markets as basketball anchors (even if they don't play football)- which gives them great options for the conference tournament (Pepsi Center and KeyArena are great venues for a basketball tournament) and now they can go after FCS schools that are willing to move up- hopefully, Lamar will be one of the ones called. If Lamar gets the call and makes the jump, it sets them up to be a player in a larger move later (stealing away some members of the WAC & Sun Belt to create a more regional conference that gives the western WAC schools a heart attack because they're back to square-one???). But, to make a 2nd move, Lamar needs to start making a move toward being a target for the WAC, since the Sun Belt says their phones don't work, so to speak.
coachacola Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 I'm still leaning towards the WAC but I'm not near as excited about it as I was this spring. What I don't like is that if La Tech were to leave then Lamar would be the eastern-most school in the WAC without any true rivals. At least in the SLC, games against SHSU, McNeese and SFA will draw well. I do think basketball would be a lot more exciting in the WAC, with schools like Utah State and New Mexico State. Dr. Simmons doesn't have an easy choice to make. I guess a lot depends on what happens this next year and what Lamar's big donors have to say.
LUSportsFan Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 I'm still leaning towards the WAC also. A few things really concern me about the way the process has progressed, though. I am especially concerned when I see on the other boards the attitude that "we have plenty of time and we can wait it out". My question is DOES ALL THAT TIME REALLY EXIST? I posted something similar on the BobcatReport.com site. If anyone knows the answer, chime in. 1. For the WAC 2014 waiver date to be back to eight members for football, what is the specific criteria? (a) Does the WAC have to have a minimum of 8 fully qualified FBS members by that date or (b) do they only have to tender invitations and receive acceptances from enough to meet the eight member requirement. If the answer is (a), then if candidates are currently FCS, the critical date would actually need to be early enough to include the FCS to FBS move up qualification period. 2. What are the exit notification requirements for the potential candidates: Based on TxState and UTSA it's two academic years or pay a $250,000.00 penalty. What is it for the conferences of other candidates. If the penalty is an onerous amount, it seems like the timing for this component would be important or the cost might outweigh the benefit. (I don't see $250,000 as too onerous, but I'm not the one paying it either.) 3. The one that nags me over and over is what plans are in place if someone else leaves the conference. If the questions are answered and the possible implications are known, each of these on its own would be manageable, but taken together, I don't get nearly as good a feeling about the possibility of moving to the WAC as I did several months ago.
TexGator Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 I'm still leaning towards the WAC also. A few things really concern me about the way the process has progressed, though. I am especially concerned when I see on the other boards the attitude that "we have plenty of time and we can wait it out". My question is DOES ALL THAT TIME REALLY EXIST? I posted something similar on the BobcatReport.com site. If anyone knows the answer, chime in. 1. For the WAC 2014 waiver date to be back to eight members for football, what is the specific criteria? (a) Does the WAC have to have a minimum of 8 fully qualified FBS members by that date or (b) do they only have to tender invitations and receive acceptances from enough to meet the eight member requirement. If the answer is (a), then if candidates are currently FCS, the critical date would actually need to be early enough to include the FCS to FBS move up qualification period. 2. What are the exit notification requirements for the potential candidates: Based on TxState and UTSA it's two academic years or pay a $250,000.00 penalty. What is it for the conferences of other candidates. If the penalty is an onerous amount, it seems like the timing for this component would be important or the cost might outweigh the benefit. (I don't see $250,000 as too onerous, but I'm not the one paying it either.) 3. The one that nags me over and over is what plans are in place if someone else leaves the conference. If the questions are answered and the possible implications are known, each of these on its own would be manageable, but taken together, I don't get nearly as good a feeling about the possibility of moving to the WAC as I did several months ago. If I were a gambling man (which I am only to the point of an occasional lotto ticket), I'd say: (1) The WAC can spend A year under the minimum 8 who can qualify for postseason play, but has to have their ducks in a row where they WILL be back to 8 for the next year. My rationale- when the WAC expanded to 16 and then lost 8 the following summer, they were allowed a transition year since Rice, TCU, SMU, Tulsa, and San Jose St. were all still new while the conference lost the last of their charter members to the MWC. (2) The terms of exit are probably pretty much the same for any conference the WAC could raid. This is a fee that is usually picked up by some booster or alum who decides to make it happen, so expect (3) If another school leaves the WAC prior to it re-expanding, the conference probably dissolves and a free-for-all occurs with all the members scrambling for the Sun Belt (TxSt, UTSA, LaTech), Big West, Big Sky, and West Coast conferences. Bottom line, Karl Benson is looking sillier by the year- he over-expands a formerly strong conference by taking it instantly from 10 to 16 members, loses half of them to a new league, scrambles and lucks into getting Boise St. raising its profile and now leaving them behind. Speaking of Karl Benson- I just counted it up and he's had 26 different teams in its league since he took over as commish in 1994... and we know that almost all of them have left. What does that say about his leadership and financial acumen in creating a strong conference that people want to be a part of?
jdcurran235 Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 This is a good read about Benson http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/college/os-wac-football-colleges-insider-062020110619,0,2270619.story
TexGator Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 This is a good read about Benson http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/college/os-wac-football-colleges-insider-062020110619,0,2270619.story So, since he didn't lobby the Fiesta Bowl well enough, he went to lobby Congress? Nice.
Guest CardAmbassador Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 http://www.presnapread.com/survival-is-wacs-leading-goal/#more-22545 The above is the a link to another WAC article. I think it would have to copy and paste it into the address line. Another interesting read, this guy has nothing to do with any SBC team. Personal comment; joining the WAC may sound good, but it is gamble that may backfire. The WAC is on life supports. Some of the La Tech people are calling the new WAC "the WeAC." Now flame away! (I know most of you support the WAC, but I am not certain it is a good alternative.) I don't feel like any of us flame. I am open to hearing differing opinions, but very few I have heard seem to be fully thought out. When you say you don't support a move to the WAC what do you support? Staying in the Southland? Looking for a way into the Sun Belt? From the article you posted: And all the while, Benson will keep looking for a ninth team with potential. A team that isn’t much now but may, like a Boise State, turn into a team that eventually defines this conference, saving its life for another day. That’s really all the WAC can hope to do. Now, if a Louisiana Tech heads to Conference USA, or an Idaho or Utah State head to the Big Sky, or San Jose State joins the Great West, or New Mexico State joins the Southland – if that happens, we can get the WAC’s tombstone ready. Do you really see any of this happening? I was fine with this article until this last paragraph. All of these scenarios are very unlikely. The only one with even a remote possibility would be La Tech to C-USA and they would have to be raided pretty hard for that to happen. Who is going to raid C-USA for more than one team? Big East? Nope. So none of these WAC doomsday scenarios hold any weight. If you see one that does feel free to point it out. The thing the WAC needs to worry about at this point is the Sun Belt grabbing La Tech, that's the one straw that will break the camels back. But that is a risk we have to be willing to take if we want to get ahead in college athletics. Why don't I outline why I think we should move and then you do the same for why we shouldn't: 1.) The Southland is not moving forward, or standing still, it is moving backwards. Two of the largest schools in the conference just left, most of the schools in Louisiana are barely funding their Athletic departments, hence we finished far ahead of all of them except McNeese in the commissioners cup. SHSU is looking around at its options for leaving now too, and I believe UTA will be doing so in the coming years as well. The schools that will replace any departures will not be nearly as successful or competitive, even ACU would struggle in the Southland. 2.) The WAC is weak now but will get stronger in the coming seasons. This is actually a good thing for Lamar. If Lamar joined the WAC of 2 years ago we would have been crushed, if this new WAC is truly the worst football conference at the FBS level then it's actually the perfect fit for Lamar since we will need time to get competitive. As we improve I believe the entire conference will improve. La Tech will likely be the strongest competition for the next few years and then you will see the conference as a whole move up as the SOS ratings begin to rise up a bit. 3.) The exposure for the amount of money we are spending is incomparable to what we currently get. Even in the low levels of FBS football you get much more exposure for anything you do. We would only be raising our budget by a few million dollars but would three or four times as much exposure as we were original getting. These are just a few reasons I believe the reward is greater than the risk. I'll admit last year during football season I was against moving up so soon, but this is a very rare opportunity Lamar has and we have to seize it while it is here. I would like to know some of your reasons for not wanting to go to the WAC.
Guest Crawfish Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 I don't feel like any of us flame. I am open to hearing differing opinions, but very few I have heard seem to be fully thought out. When you say you don't support a move to the WAC what do you support? Staying in the Southland? Looking for a way into the Sun Belt? I disagree that my opinions are not well thought out; as a matter of fact I have been following conference realignment for many years. This was long before the Cardinals were ever mentioned as a candidate for the WAC. I also never said that I do not support this move, but I do have serious concerns about moving to a conference that seems to be on life supports. I mainly posted the blogs I have read. Do you really see any of this happening? I was fine with this article until this last paragraph. All of these scenarios are very unlikely. The only one with even a remote possibility would be La Tech to C-USA and they would have to be raided pretty hard for that to happen. Who is going to raid C-USA for more than one team? Big East? Nope. So none of these WAC doomsday scenarios hold any weight. If you see one that does feel free to point it out. The thing the WAC needs to worry about at this point is the Sun Belt grabbing La Tech, that's the one straw that will break the camels back. But that is a risk we have to be willing to take if we want to get ahead in college athletics. I think it is a distinct possibility, and apparently quite a few bloggers do as well. I do see some scenarios where La. Tech might join the SBC, one of those being if ULM drops back. With ULM losing like 7 or 8 scholarships in football for APR violations and having lost scholarships and post season opportunities for men’s basketball; combined with having the lowest budget in FBS, I think it could happen. The WAC is weak now but will get stronger in the coming seasons. This is actually a good thing for Lamar. If Lamar joined the WAC of 2 years ago we would have been crushed, if this new WAC is truly the worst football conference at the FBS level then it's actually the perfect fit for Lamar since we will need time to get competitive. As we improve I believe the entire conference will improve. La Tech will likely be the strongest competition for the next few years and then you will see the conference as a whole move up as the SOS ratings begin to rise up a bit. I am not sure if I agree they will get stronger. I have seen several well funded schools move up from (what was) 1AA to 1A, and there is typically a pretty sharp learning curve. It will take some time for these former FCS schools (and one starting from scratch) to become competitive in FBS. Combine this with the fact that the WAC will have only one bowl in Boise I just do not see it getting any stronger for 10 years or more. This conference is basically starting from scratch. BTW, in football SOS only helps if you win some of the games. Bloodbath games to finance your program do nothing to add fans to the school. In addition, I am concerned that a quick move up before the Cardinals can establish a winning tradition could stunt the growth of the fan base. Many fans in SE Texas do not know the difference between the Southland and the WAC. If Lamar would win a few conference titles in FCS or go the playoffs a few years, then a fan base might be established. Whatever happens, I will support Lamar, but I hope they do not just jump because the opportunity arises. I would have to believe that Dr. Simmons would consider all of the possibilities before he makes a decision. Typically, this type of move is supported by a feasibility study by someone like the Carr group. If the Cardinals do move up, I would like to see the Cardinals back in the SBC with some previous rivals. Travel would be easier and there would be no trips for softball to play in Seattle, Moscow, Idaho or (possibly) Bakersfield, California.
Guest CardAmbassador Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 I disagree that my opinions are not well thought out; as a matter of fact I have been following conference realignment for many years. This was long before the Cardinals were ever mentioned as a candidate for the WAC. I also never said that I do not support this move, but I do have serious concerns about moving to a conference that seems to be on life supports. I mainly posted the blogs I have read. I didn't mean to imply that your opinions in particular were not well thought out. Only that the dissenting opinion of joining the WAC has been very quiet. I think it is a distinct possibility, and apparently quite a few bloggers do as well. I do see some scenarios where La. Tech might join the SBC, one of those being if ULM drops back. With ULM losing like 7 or 8 scholarships in football for APR violations and having lost scholarships and post season opportunities for men’s basketball; combined with having the lowest budget in FBS, I think it could happen. I disagree that any of the scenarios are likely other than La Tech going to the Sun Belt, and that is still very unlikely. But please read the last paragraph of that article again. He mentions WAC schools dropping down to the FCS and La Tech going to C-USA. I see all of those things with almost a 0% likelihood of happening. As for ULM dropping down, they probably should, but no one wants to be seen as moving backwards. It's certainly not going to happen this year because they need to announce before July 1st and they have been completely silent to date. I am not sure if I agree they will get stronger. I have seen several well funded schools move up from (what was) 1AA to 1A, and there is typically a pretty sharp learning curve. It will take some time for these former FCS schools (and one starting from scratch) to become competitive in FBS. Combine this with the fact that the WAC will have only one bowl in Boise I just do not see it getting any stronger for 10 years or more. This conference is basically starting from scratch. BTW, in football SOS only helps if you win some of the games. Bloodbath games to finance your program do nothing to add fans to the school. But as you have noted the WAC is weak currently. TxSt and UTSA will enter and likely win a few games their first year. They're playing NMSU, SJSU and others that have struggled recently at the FBS level. Both schools have also entered FBS in much the same way USF have, very few schools making the transition to FBS have the resources that UTSA and TxSt do, IMO they were the perfect candidates for a move up. There is a very real possibility of a Bowl game being created in San Antonio for the WAC in the years down the road. In addition, I am concerned that a quick move up before the Cardinals can establish a winning tradition could stunt the growth of the fan base. Many fans in SE Texas do not know the difference between the Southland and the WAC. If Lamar would win a few conference titles in FCS or go the playoffs a few years, then a fan base might be established. Whatever happens, I will support Lamar, but I hope they do not just jump because the opportunity arises. I would have to believe that Dr. Simmons would consider all of the possibilities before he makes a decision. Typically, this type of move is supported by a feasibility study by someone like the Carr group. If the Cardinals do move up, I would like to see the Cardinals back in the SBC with some previous rivals. Travel would be easier and there would be no trips for softball to play in Seattle, Moscow, Idaho or (possibly) Bakersfield, California. Most of this are concerns I can agree with. It just risk that we will have to take if we do move up. But I am concerned about what would happen to the fan base if we moved up and couldn't compete in say 3 or 4 years. But I think at first a move to the WAC would actually increase attendance at games. I think most people know that FBS > FCS. Many people I talk to have a hard time believing Lamar is DI because our in conference foes are all unknowns. I would get more excited about playing any of the proposed WAC schools than I would about TAMU-CC or Nicholls or UCA. I also would like to be in the Sun Belt because it would likely be better for us, but I don't see it happening, if the Sun Belt didn't want TxSt and UTSA schools with much larger enrollments and resources why are they going to want us? I'll support whatever decision Dr. Simmons decides, I have a feeling because of connections that I have made that he wants FBS on a certain time table and he is willing to go to the WAC if that is the only option.
Guest Crawfish Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 " also would like to be in the Sun Belt because it would likely be better for us, but I don't see it happening, if the Sun Belt didn't want TxSt and UTSA schools with much larger enrollments and resources why are they going to want us?" Let me just play the devil's advocate here just for the sake of this debate. Reasons why the Belt might take Lamar over TxST or UTSA: The Cardinals were former members of the Belt and they departed on good terms. (in retrospect, if they had stayed and then offered football, they would have automatically been offered football membership like USA, but hindsight is 20/20) Lamar fits the geographic footprint of the belt better than the schools mentioned above. Right now the SBC does not want to take any FCS schools because they want to allow time for USA and WKU to become competitive, thereby not taking a huge RPI hit. Considering the Belt has been getting more Bowl bids each year, they want to keep them momentum going. Last year was the worst season for Belt football in 5-6 years, and they still placed 3 teams. With the resources these 2 programs are investing, and the quality of coaching staffs that they have hired, I do not think they will be on the bottom for long. At that point, I believe the Belt would consider well funded FCS programs for expansion. One thing that is a big issue in the Belt is Facilities. For example, we know about the new stadium that UNT has built, but most all of the other schools are also updating failities. Check out each schools websites for details, but all Belt schools (except ULM) are expanding athletic budgets and improving facilities. If Lamar made a similar commitment I think it would help their chances. I also believe that the SBC athletic budgets will be in the 20 million range in 2-3 years. Some of the schools are already there, and other are in the process of fund-raising. For example, UL Lafayette has started an athletic fund called the RCAF which is separate from the academic endowment that can only be used for athletics. I also think that spring sports, particularly men and women’s basketball and baseball are important factors in the SBC; more so than the WAC. By this I mean that the main thing the WAC is looking for is to help football survive. By contrast, the SBC would look at all programs.Baseball at Lamar is already decent and men's basketball should be improving, so I think these would be attractive. Bottom line for me is that if Lamar is well funded, has a strategic plan for athletics, and has been competitive in spring sports, they would have a chance for an invite to the SBC.
Guest CardAmbassador Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 Lamar fits the geographic footprint of the belt better than the schools mentioned above.[/qyote] I would consider any school in Texas with in their foot print, didn't the SBC have Denver until the WAC invite? Right now the SBC does not want to take any FCS schools because they want to allow time for USA and WKU to become competitive, thereby not taking a huge RPI hit. Considering the Belt has been getting more Bowl bids each year, they want to keep them momentum going. Last year was the worst season for Belt football in 5-6 years, and they still placed 3 teams. With the resources these 2 programs are investing, and the quality of coaching staffs that they have hired, I do not think they will be on the bottom for long. At that point, I believe the Belt would consider well funded FCS programs for expansion. Possibly but at that point they don't really need to invite more FCS move ups at that point, they could hold still at 10 which is what they will have when USA joins. )ne thing that is a big issue in the Belt is Facilities. For example, we know about the new stadium that UNT has built, but most all of the other schools are also updating failities. Check out each schools websites for details, but all Belt schools (except ULM) are expanding athletic budgets and improving facilities. If Lamar made a similar commitment I think it would help their chances. I would hate for Lamar to spend all that money and then not get invited. Some WAC posters were saying the same thing. They didn't want LU to join until we had announced stadium expansion plans. I think if we were invited anywhere in FBS we would expand our stadium soon after. I also think that spring sports, particularly men and women’s basketball and baseball are important factors in the SBC; more so than the WAC. By this I mean that the main thing the WAC is looking for is to help football survive. By contrast, the SBC would look at all programs.Baseball at Lamar is already decent and men's basketball should be improving, so I think these would be attractive. Bottom line for me is that if Lamar is well funded, has a strategic plan for athletics, and has been competitive in spring sports, they would have a chance for an invite to the SBC. I believe you. On this, and it may happen, I just like our chances better for a WAC invite. The Sun Belt would be good because we could reunite with former rivals and spend far less on travel than in the WAC. Are they even going to expand in the next five year? I don't know.
Guest bigredfan2 Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 This came up on my Facebook status. Lamar U should join an FBS conference - Go Big Red Lamar and SHSU to join the WAC next month? 9. For your movie tip of the week, my wife and I rented "No Strings Attached." Review: We were sorry there's No Money Refunded. Just awful. Also went to see "Bridesmaids." Just between us — and don't spread it around — it's pretty funny. Loved the airplane scene. 10. One crazy prediction: Sam Houston State and Lamar will join the football-hungry WAC in the next month http://www.statesman.com/sports/9-things-and-1-crazy-prediction-for-this-1564107.html?page=2
coachacola Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 This came up on my Facebook status. Lamar U should join an FBS conference - Go Big Red Lamar and SHSU to join the WAC next month? 9. For your movie tip of the week, my wife and I rented "No Strings Attached." Review: We were sorry there's No Money Refunded. Just awful. Also went to see "Bridesmaids." Just between us — and don't spread it around — it's pretty funny. Loved the airplane scene. 10. One crazy prediction: Sam Houston State and Lamar will join the football-hungry WAC in the next month http://www.statesman.com/sports/9-things-and-1-crazy-prediction-for-this-1564107.html?page=2 I saw that too and started another thread on it. I think Kirk Bohls is just like the rest of us, he checks out the different message boards and repeats what he reads! :cheer:
Guest CardAmbassador Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 This came up on my Facebook status. Lamar U should join an FBS conference - Go Big Red Lamar and SHSU to join the WAC next month? 9. For your movie tip of the week, my wife and I rented "No Strings Attached." Review: We were sorry there's No Money Refunded. Just awful. Also went to see "Bridesmaids." Just between us — and don't spread it around — it's pretty funny. Loved the airplane scene. 10. One crazy prediction: Sam Houston State and Lamar will join the football-hungry WAC in the next month http://www.statesman.com/sports/9-things-and-1-crazy-prediction-for-this-1564107.html?page=2 I saw that too and started another thread on it. I think Kirk Bohls is just like the rest of us, he checks out the different message boards and repeats what he reads! :cheer: See I'm inclined to believe that is the case coach, but, who on any message board is predicting Lamar and SHSU to the WAC next month? Thats the only thing that doesn't line up. If he said I expect Lamar and SHSU to join the WAC next spring I would have agreed with you. He could just be giving everyone's leg a big pull like you suggested, its fun to think he knows something.
austin badbyrd Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 With Bohls it is hit or miss. He is well connected though so he might know somwething with the hint he dropped.
.png.88e0b900f1aa353dc4be09303a3550aa.png)
Recommended Posts