(05-26-2018 03:11 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 08:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 08:32 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 07:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 06:59 AM)esayem Wrote:  Fun fact I like to bring up: UNLV was voted into the WAC at the same time as Hawaii and Air Force I believe. They had full WAC schedules for a few years, but couldn't get their facilities upgraded so they were cut loose.

I vaguely remember the WAC split, mainly because it created the play-in game. I also thought it was ridiculous LaTech became a member of the conference. In retrospect, it sort of made sense with Rice next door, but Utah State probably would have been a better addition at the time.

You and everyone else in Louisiana who bothered to notice. Talk about a cultural outlier, maybe there has never been a stranger affiliation in all of FBS.

Another fun fact: LA-Tech's 2018 seniors just graduated with a 4-0 bowl record.

BTW, Rice and LA-Tech are about 300 miles apart, so not sure that qualifies as 'next door', LOL.

It’s odd that LaTech was in the WAC—but strangely it was kind of a back to the future move for them as they had also been in the Big West for a few years in 1990’s.

Yes, although IIRC, with the Big West they weren't full members, football only. In the WAC, they were all in, LOL.

Correct. LaTech, Arkansas State and Northern Illinois were football only members in the Big West in the 90s. '93-'96 I think

UL Lafayette as well.

(05-26-2018 05:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 03:57 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 12:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well, USL dropped football in 1985 and was without it for 18 years, from 1985 - 2003, so they obviously had a lot issues in terms of support.

I mean, to this day they play in a slightly glorified high school stadium.

It was Southeastern Louisiana (SLU) that dropped football before bringing it back in 2003.

That's actually who I meant. The school in Hammond.

I live in Baton Rouge, 30 miles west of Southeastern and 60 miles east of Lafayette, and I can't keep them straight apparently, LOL.

I figured you meant SLU and typed USL. :-) You described them to a tee. The Ragin' Cajuns have been competitive at the FBS level for a long time.

(05-26-2018 09:52 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  LaTech I believe was added to bring regional balance for the Texas schools which exited soon for CUSA 2.0. A way to be fair to SMU, Tulsa and Rice.

When you get into places in the South there isn't a lot of questioning of the administrations that happens when it comes to athletics. Want a $60 million dollar stadium expansion? Done. Want to play in the WAC over the SBC to create brand separation over the in-state schools? Done.

The faculty at LaTech never threatened to discontinue athletics if the program isn't move to a more reasonable geographic conference. In the MAC the faculty would mutiny if the administration tried anything that would cost more money.

The 2001-2004 WAC was far-flung but Louisiana Tech definitely wasn't an outlier.

You had the 4 "south-central" schools in LaTech, Rice, SMU and Tulsa. And 5 "Pacific Coast" schools in Boise State, Fresno St, Hawaii, Nevada and San Jose State. UTEP in the middle. If anything, UTEP was the outlier - the only school in the vast middle between the 2 groups.

Even for the "Olympic Sports", the WAC had mostly logical travel pairings. Hawaii/SJSU was long of course, that's inevitable given Hawaii. But Fresno/Nevada, and the 4 Eastern schools all made sense. Boise/UTEP was the one weird one, but at least there were plenty of airports (DEN, SLC, PHX) that didn't require too much back-tracking if flying commercial and thus connecting. Point being - the miles were necessarily long but the 2001-2004 WAC really wasn't that bad in terms of travel logistics.

Once the Rice, SMU and Tulsa left for C-USA in 2005, then the WAC made less sense for LaTech.

But the 2001 move to the WAC was a good idea for LaTech. They already had a football program better than all the other schools in their region that would from the Sun Belt Football conference. And, as you said, the move provided some further brand separation for LaTech.

(05-27-2018 10:28 AM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 09:52 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  LaTech I believe was added to bring regional balance for the Texas schools which exited soon for CUSA 2.0. A way to be fair to SMU, Tulsa and Rice.

When you get into places in the South there isn't a lot of questioning of the administrations that happens when it comes to athletics. Want a $60 million dollar stadium expansion? Done. Want to play in the WAC over the SBC to create brand separation over the in-state schools? Done.

The faculty at LaTech never threatened to discontinue athletics if the program isn't move to a more reasonable geographic conference. In the MAC the faculty would mutiny if the administration tried anything that would cost more money.

The 2001-2004 WAC was far-flung but Louisiana Tech definitely wasn't an outlier.

You had the 4 "south-central" schools in LaTech, Rice, SMU and Tulsa. And 5 "Pacific Coast" schools in Boise State, Fresno St, Hawaii, Nevada and San Jose State. UTEP in the middle. If anything, UTEP was the outlier - the only school in the vast middle between the 2 groups.

Even for the "Olympic Sports", the WAC had mostly logical travel pairings. Hawaii/SJSU was long of course, that's inevitable given Hawaii. But Fresno/Nevada, and the 4 Eastern schools all made sense. Boise/UTEP was the one weird one, but at least there were plenty of airports (DEN, SLC, PHX) that didn't require too much back-tracking if flying commercial and thus connecting. Point being - the miles were necessarily long but the 2001-2004 WAC really wasn't that bad in terms of travel logistics.

Once the Rice, SMU and Tulsa left for C-USA in 2005, then the WAC made less sense for LaTech.

But the 2001 move to the WAC was a good idea for LaTech. They already had a football program better than all the other schools in their region that would from the Sun Belt Football conference. And, as you said, the move provided some further brand separation for LaTech.

Plus after 2005, WAC 4.0 was a pretty good conference as Boise, Fresno and Hawaii regularly made the top 25 and played in decent bowls including 3 BCS Bowls (Boise 06, 09, Hawaii 07) Nevada at that time was pretty good too. So Louisiana Tech was playing in a very decent conference with several above average teams.

(05-26-2018 10:11 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 10:08 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 07:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  BTW, Rice and LA-Tech are about 300 miles apart, so not sure that qualifies as 'next door', LOL.

You’re right! I suppose it would have been better to say SMU, a much closer opponent.

Anybody know how LaTech was able to separate themselves from USL (as they were known then), who was actually FBS first, and arguably more established?

The separation push was to separate from ULM, a joke of a school and program playing in the SBC.

ULM didn't get into the SBC until La Tech left for the WAC, and even then it was only as a football affiliate for the first few years.

(05-27-2018 11:17 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 10:28 AM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 09:52 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  LaTech I believe was added to bring regional balance for the Texas schools which exited soon for CUSA 2.0. A way to be fair to SMU, Tulsa and Rice.

When you get into places in the South there isn't a lot of questioning of the administrations that happens when it comes to athletics. Want a $60 million dollar stadium expansion? Done. Want to play in the WAC over the SBC to create brand separation over the in-state schools? Done.

The faculty at LaTech never threatened to discontinue athletics if the program isn't move to a more reasonable geographic conference. In the MAC the faculty would mutiny if the administration tried anything that would cost more money.

The 2001-2004 WAC was far-flung but Louisiana Tech definitely wasn't an outlier.

You had the 4 "south-central" schools in LaTech, Rice, SMU and Tulsa. And 5 "Pacific Coast" schools in Boise State, Fresno St, Hawaii, Nevada and San Jose State. UTEP in the middle. If anything, UTEP was the outlier - the only school in the vast middle between the 2 groups.

Even for the "Olympic Sports", the WAC had mostly logical travel pairings. Hawaii/SJSU was long of course, that's inevitable given Hawaii. But Fresno/Nevada, and the 4 Eastern schools all made sense. Boise/UTEP was the one weird one, but at least there were plenty of airports (DEN, SLC, PHX) that didn't require too much back-tracking if flying commercial and thus connecting. Point being - the miles were necessarily long but the 2001-2004 WAC really wasn't that bad in terms of travel logistics.

Once the Rice, SMU and Tulsa left for C-USA in 2005, then the WAC made less sense for LaTech.

But the 2001 move to the WAC was a good idea for LaTech. They already had a football program better than all the other schools in their region that would from the Sun Belt Football conference. And, as you said, the move provided some further brand separation for LaTech.

Plus after 2005, WAC 4.0 was a pretty good conference as Boise, Fresno and Hawaii regularly made the top 25 and played in decent bowls including 3 BCS Bowls (Boise 06, 09, Hawaii 07) Nevada at that time was pretty good too. So Louisiana Tech was playing in a very decent conference with several above average teams.

So if the WAC starting in 2005 was Version 4.0, when do you consider WAC 2.0 to have begun? After the Arizonas left or when the expansion to 16 occurred?

(05-28-2018 09:26 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 11:17 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 10:28 AM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 09:52 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  LaTech I believe was added to bring regional balance for the Texas schools which exited soon for CUSA 2.0. A way to be fair to SMU, Tulsa and Rice.

When you get into places in the South there isn't a lot of questioning of the administrations that happens when it comes to athletics. Want a $60 million dollar stadium expansion? Done. Want to play in the WAC over the SBC to create brand separation over the in-state schools? Done.

The faculty at LaTech never threatened to discontinue athletics if the program isn't move to a more reasonable geographic conference. In the MAC the faculty would mutiny if the administration tried anything that would cost more money.

The 2001-2004 WAC was far-flung but Louisiana Tech definitely wasn't an outlier.

You had the 4 "south-central" schools in LaTech, Rice, SMU and Tulsa. And 5 "Pacific Coast" schools in Boise State, Fresno St, Hawaii, Nevada and San Jose State. UTEP in the middle. If anything, UTEP was the outlier - the only school in the vast middle between the 2 groups.

Even for the "Olympic Sports", the WAC had mostly logical travel pairings. Hawaii/SJSU was long of course, that's inevitable given Hawaii. But Fresno/Nevada, and the 4 Eastern schools all made sense. Boise/UTEP was the one weird one, but at least there were plenty of airports (DEN, SLC, PHX) that didn't require too much back-tracking if flying commercial and thus connecting. Point being - the miles were necessarily long but the 2001-2004 WAC really wasn't that bad in terms of travel logistics.

Once the Rice, SMU and Tulsa left for C-USA in 2005, then the WAC made less sense for LaTech.

But the 2001 move to the WAC was a good idea for LaTech. They already had a football program better than all the other schools in their region that would from the Sun Belt Football conference. And, as you said, the move provided some further brand separation for LaTech.

Plus after 2005, WAC 4.0 was a pretty good conference as Boise, Fresno and Hawaii regularly made the top 25 and played in decent bowls including 3 BCS Bowls (Boise 06, 09, Hawaii 07) Nevada at that time was pretty good too. So Louisiana Tech was playing in a very decent conference with several above average teams.

So if the WAC starting in 2005 was Version 4.0, when do you consider WAC 2.0 to have begun? After the Arizonas left or when the expansion to 16 occurred?

WAC 1.0 1963-1996*
WAC 2.0 (WAC 16) 1996-1999
WAC 3.0 1999-2005 (added Boise, Nevada, La Tech; lost TCU.
WAC 4.0 2005-2012 (adds were NMSU, Idaho, Utah St subtracting UTEP/SMU/Rice/Tulsa

*If you count AZ & AZ St leaving in 1978, I guess 4.0 would be 5.0

(05-27-2018 07:25 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 03:11 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Correct. LaTech, Arkansas State and Northern Illinois were football only members in the Big West in the 90s. '93-'96 I think

UL Lafayette as well.

Big West Co-Champs, '93 and '94. Beat nationally ranked Texas A&M in '96.

Did not get a CUSA invite. President pulls plug on program by eliminating recruiting funding, slashes athletic budget, denies boosters the formation of an athletic foundation to help. President then proceeds to deny all monetary donations for athletics while raising over 100 mill for university endowment over the next few years.

President then forces hire of Jerry Baldwin for head coach entirely for political purposes to help wife of university official to get the minority vote who was running for governor later. Football program is on life support.

Fast forward 15 years or so, president has retired, Ragin Cajun Athletic Foundation was formed. Hundreds of millions of dollars in facility construction. Tripling of athletic budget. 5 Bowl games. 7 figure head coach salary. New upper deck to begin construction next year.

We've been to Hell and back, and we ain't going back there again.

Had The original WAC added just 2 schools for the 1996 season to get to hold a CCG, and those 2 schools were TCU and UNLV, I think that league would of eventually been a BCS conference.
WAC Mountain: Wyoming, Colorado St, Air Force, New Mecico, UTEP, TCU
WAC Pacific: Utah, BYU, San Diego St, Fresno St, Hawaii, UNLV.

Nice hoops league too as UNLV was still good and Tubbs lead TCU was pretty good then. Utah and New Mexico were ranked and in the tourney all through the 90’s. UTEP still had Haskins and Fresno had Tark and was getting great recruits/transfers. BYU would make the tournament enough to make it a 4/5 bid league yearly.

(05-31-2018 08:47 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Had The original WAC added just 2 schools for the 1996 season to get to hold a CCG, and those 2 schools were TCU and UNLV, I think that league would of eventually been a BCS conference.
WAC Mountain: Wyoming, Colorado St, Air Force, New Mecico, UTEP, TCU
WAC Pacific: Utah, BYU, San Diego St, Fresno St, Hawaii, UNLV.

Nice hoops league too as UNLV was still good and Tubbs lead TCU was pretty good then. Utah and New Mexico were ranked and in the tourney all through the 90’s. UTEP still had Haskins and Fresno had Tark and was getting great recruits/transfers. BYU would make the tournament enough to make it a 4/5 bid league yearly.

So you think that the only reason the WAC wasn't a BCS conference with those 12 schools is because it also had Rice, SMU, Tulsa, and SJSU at the time?

(05-31-2018 09:50 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(05-31-2018 08:47 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Had The original WAC added just 2 schools for the 1996 season to get to hold a CCG, and those 2 schools were TCU and UNLV, I think that league would of eventually been a BCS conference.
WAC Mountain: Wyoming, Colorado St, Air Force, New Mecico, UTEP, TCU
WAC Pacific: Utah, BYU, San Diego St, Fresno St, Hawaii, UNLV.

Nice hoops league too as UNLV was still good and Tubbs lead TCU was pretty good then. Utah and New Mexico were ranked and in the tourney all through the 90’s. UTEP still had Haskins and Fresno had Tark and was getting great recruits/transfers. BYU would make the tournament enough to make it a 4/5 bid league yearly.

So you think that the only reason the WAC wasn't a BCS conference with those 12 schools is because it also had Rice, SMU, Tulsa, and SJSU at the time?

NO. I think the WAC 16 had too many schools. They could have held together at 16 and eventually made it into the BCS IMHO, but 16 is just too big.