The Case For The Wac

MeanGreen61 · June 26, 2010

Hawaii got their ass kicked tho, right? Wasn't the question when has a WAC team beaten a BCS team(in I assume one of the big bowls)?

Mentioned Hawaii because the did make it to the Sugar Bowl in 2007. Yep they got clobbered but are one of two WAC teams that have made it to BCS bowls.

gangrene · June 26, 2010

Again I'm referring to the perception of BCS voters and the teams within the conferences. Hawaii is still a favorite and Fresno, San Jose, Nevada, and even LATech with their new coach are looking like " contenders".

"BCS voters" don't even watch the MWC, so why should anyone believe they hold the BSU-less WAC in high regard?

BCS Voters Can't Be Bothered To Watch Utah Play Football

Utah out of sight, out of mind

wardly · June 26, 2010

If one of the downsides, as well as what makes the SBC the bottom feeder it is portrayed as being, is that it is home to all of the recent 1AA move ups, then why is it that the WAC is more prestigious? They are talking about taking Montana, TSU, and UTSA. Last I checked, those are all 1AAs. So with the logic applied to the Belt, doesn't that make the WAC the bottom rung once they take one of whose schools?

montana has hired consultant to review their athletic program. president stated they are not going anywhere without montana state. interest by fanbase in moving up appears to be lukewarm at best.

VideoEagle · June 26, 2010

montana has hired consultant to review their athletic program. president stated they are not going anywhere without montana state. interest by fanbase in moving up appears to be lukewarm at best.

Commissioner Benson of the Wac spun this as "Montana is out of the Wac footprint." Look at a map and draw a circle around the Wac without including Montana. Try it!

NT80 · June 27, 2010

Commissioner Benson of the Wac spun this as "Montana is out of the Wac footprint." Look at a map and draw a circle around the Wac without including Montana. Try it!

Greendylan · June 27, 2010

Perception certainly does matter, and I have no doubt that the WAC does have a slightly higher national appeal than the Sun Belt. However, I tend to think that most major-conference college football fans regard all the outsiders with a similar degree of apathy.

I just can't embrace this whole "the WAC is a springboard to BCS bowls" logic. Think of it like this: What Sun Belt team truly deserved to be in a BCS bowl but was denied based upon the perceptions of the conference? Some day in the not too distant future a Sun Belt team will end up highly ranked (just like teams occasionally have in the MAC, WAC, CUSA, and MWC), and when they do it won't be either because of or despite the conference. It will be because they made a huge financial commitment to athletics, have solid enough facilities to recruit premium talent, and made smart hiring decisions. Furthermore, because of the financial investment, they won't be playing two to three money games per year.

oldschoollefty · June 27, 2010

Check that map out. I guess when Utah left the MWC for the PAC Whatever, they had to leave their nickname behind for Utah State. :lol:

MeanGoingGreen · June 27, 2010

Perception certainly does matter, and I have no doubt that the WAC does have a slightly higher national appeal than the Sun Belt. However, I tend to think that most major-conference college football fans regard all the outsiders with a similar degree of apathy.

I just can't embrace this whole "the WAC is a springboard to BCS bowls" logic. Think of it like this: What Sun Belt team truly deserved to be in a BCS bowl but was denied based upon the perceptions of the conference? Some day in the not too distant future a Sun Belt team will end up highly ranked (just like teams occasionally have in the MAC, WAC, CUSA, and MWC), and when they do it won't be either because of or despite the conference. It will be because they made a huge financial commitment to athletics, have solid enough facilities to recruit premium talent, and made smart hiring decisions. Furthermore, because of the financial investment, they won't be playing two to three money games per year.

Actually, I think of the WAC as more of a springboard to either MWC/CUSA. I mean think about it, how many schools move onto these conferences from the WAC compared to the SunBelt?

Imo, the WAC provides an environment to grow and this is where perception helps. Their stable schools (Fresno, Hawaii, Nevada) help get better TV deals and once a school like Boise State steps up, an even better deal comes.

If we have plans to go the CUSA route, we should entertain the WAC idea and for some short term help, entertain the idea of bringing TSUSM along. Then, the whole time, do whatever we can to be ready the next time the Big East sharks the CUSA.

UNTflyer · June 27, 2010

If UNT pulls off an upset victory over a BCS team al la Boise over OU then the Belt as a whole is elevated.

Really? Cause that didn't happen when ULM beat Alabama. And it didn't happen when Arkansas State beat Texas A&M.

eulessismore · June 27, 2010

Perception is everything in the FBS. The WAC has historicly produced contenders and recently BCS busters. when the Belt produces a BCS buster it could easily pass the WAC. Right now perception among voters is that the Belt will not. If UNT pulls off an upset victory over a BCS team al la Boise over OU then the Belt as a whole is elevated.

That was more than a victory over a BCS team, it was a victory over a BCS team in a BCS bowl, to complete an unbeaten season, same as Utah over Alabama.

shaft · June 27, 2010

Neat chart MGG, but I don't know how you can compare the newest football conference to the oldest.

Non-AQ conferences aren't stepping stones to BCS conferences, in the BCS area no team has played up to a BCS conference. Slots have opened up in BCS conferences because they conference is expanding.

Arkstfan · June 27, 2010

2008

Boise finished 9th in the BCS standings and was passed over and there was little outcry because "they play in a weak conference". That has been the mantra each time for the WAC.

The Busters have tended to end up higher in the computers than the human polls because the computers don't deal well with undefeated teams. See undefeated Harvard that made the top 40 a few years ago ranking well ahead of Sun Belt champ UNT. Harvard didn't play a single team that offered scholarships in football but they were top 40.

GrayEagle · June 28, 2010

2008

Boise finished 9th in the BCS standings and was passed over and there was little outcry because "they play in a weak conference". That has been the mantra each time for the WAC.

The Busters have tended to end up higher in the computers than the human polls because the computers don't deal well with undefeated teams. See undefeated Harvard that made the top 40 a few years ago ranking well ahead of Sun Belt champ UNT. Harvard didn't play a single team that offered scholarships in football but they were top 40.

Why wouldn't that have been the mantra the times that they were picked? Did the conference suddenly get better?

Unless there were a large number of crossover games, I don't see how you can compare Division 1-A with Division 1-AA. It seems as though two dozen FCS teams can get their clock cleaned but if Appy State upsets a BCS team then suddenly half of the 1-AA teams are on par with the lower echelon of the FBS.

VideoEagle · June 28, 2010

Unless there were a large number of crossover games, I don't see how you can compare Division 1-A with Division 1-AA. It seems as though two dozen FCS teams can get their clock cleaned but if Appy State upsets a BCS team then suddenly half of the 1-AA teams are on par with the lower echelon of the FBS.

If you read the fine print on Jeff Saragin's rankings, he says you can't compare use his system to compare FBS to FCS teams for EXACTLY that reason. There is not enough crossover for the results to be statistically significant.

Arkstfan · June 28, 2010

If you recall there was a lot of talk before the Fiesta Bowl that Boise wasn't worthy of being on the field with OU.

VideoEagle · June 28, 2010

If you recall there was a lot of talk before the Fiesta Bowl that Boise wasn't worthy of being on the field with OU.

To this day, I know OU fans who are convinced OU lost to BSU because Boise was so weak, OU couldn't get up for them and thus lost. I know that isn't logical, but that is what I'm told repeatedly.