Could ISU save the WAC?

[Red Hill]

According to this, http://mobile.twitter.com/TonyAggieville" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;[*] , the Big Sky is prepared to rescue the U of I and USU. However, they are probably too stupid to take it and so with 6 of our other conference mates turning down an invite to the WAC, I say we seriously consider it. Holt Arena isn’t any worse than the Kibbie Dome and they even extended an invite to EWU. The move up would better reflect our advancements on the academic side too. Either way I’ll be happy but I think this might be a great opportunity for ISU. They clearly need us more than we need them though.

 

[Skippy]

I think there were two main reasons why more successful programs like Montana and Montana State declined WAC invitations: 1) the Montana study showed the school would have to raise an additional $5 million a year in order to compete at the FBS level and 2) the WAC is a sinking ship. They have lost all their bowl ties but one -- and that's the Humanitarian Bowl in Boise, and you have to ask yourself how long that bowl is going to stay afloat with BSU moving to the MWAC. Their television revenues are going to shrink dramatically with the departure of BSU, Nevada and Fresno. Their remaining 7 football programs offer little to no box office interest. And USU, one of the few (only?) attractive schools still trapped in the WAC is looking desperately to get out at the first opportunity.

None of this is to suggest that circumstances won't change in the near future, and the Montanas (or Sac or Portland) may change their minds and consider moving up. ISU should certainly be doing some long-term thinking about "what ifs," but the dome and the lack of outside revenue streams both make moving up to the FBS highly problematic.

 

[biobengal]

IMO, Montana's administration is waiting to see how this all the conference shuffling shakes out. In fact, they shouldn't be in any hurry, the BSC is stable while they remain. If Montana jumps to FBS things could get interesting. I wouldn't even bet a small amount of money on Montana and Montana State remaining in the BSC for ten years. Like Skippy says, ISU needs to keep their eye on the horizon, this past summer has shown us things can move very fast.

Does anyone have any insight into what guys like Tingey and Kramer think about the Dome? Do they see it as the past, current and future home of all Bengal student athletes? I no longer see a basketball facility as ISU's top priority. Given the bond failure and lack of interest in renovation ISU needs to guage public support for a new outdoor facility.

 

[Skippy]

I claim no insight into what the administration is thinking about the dome, but whatever it is I suspect it's highly colored by this reality -- the university still owes millions of dollars on the Performing Arts Center, and any major capital campaign would have to be undertaken in that context.

How much would a new outdoor stadium cost? Well, Boise State is estimating the cost at adding 5,000 seats to Bronco Stadium at $33 million to $40 million. So, to build an FBS stadium seating 20,000 fans, even assuming some economy of scale, you're probably looking at minimum, $80 million on the conservative side. ISU did raise about $100 million during its Centennial Capital Campaign, so $80 M is not unheard of it, but that was for several projects with several different stakeholders and vested interests. I can't remember ISU ever raising more than $1 million or so for any one athletic-related facility, although I could certainly be wrong about that. (Local legend has it that the Stephens' family's large donation to the Performing Arts Center was originally intended for a new basketball arena, that might be one notable exception.)

You could look at other funding schemes, such as student fees, but that would be an extremely politically difficult sell to the students in these days of ever-escalating fees during difficult economic times. There are probably other creative ways out there to finance such an endeavor if there was truly a will to do it. ISU should certainly be doing some long-term planning for what happens when the Dome simply outlives its usefulness. Will that be in 10 years? 20 years?

One perhaps instructive model is what has happened with the Kibbie Dome in Moscow. I think most U of I fans would agree that starting from scratch and building an open air stadium befitting an FBS program is preferrable, but because the Vandals haven't been able to raise the kind of money needed to do that, they've "piecemealed" upgrades to the Kibbie Dome in order to keep the football program afloat. Time will tell if that was best approach, but one has to ask what ISU can learn from the Vandals' experiences. Even if there is no plan to move up to FBS, eventually a long-term plan has to be put in place to replace or upgrade the Dome.

 

[SLCBengal]

From Brian Murphy of the Idaho Statesman:

On the day that the rebuilding Western Athletic Conference added Seattle University as its ninth member beginning in 2012, Big Sky commissioner Doug Fullerton disputed the popular opinion that members of his league are not ready to move to the WAC.

Fullerton said the WAC has had contact with at least six Big Sky schools during its recent expansion effort — Montana, Montana State, Cal Poly, UC Davis, Sacramento State and Portland State. Idaho State is also a member of the Big Sky.

"It's not that we're not ready to move. We've got schools that are ready to move if they get a good proposal. They could move and make it very easily. Not being ready to move is not correct," Fullerton said.

"We're in a better place than the WAC is."

Fullerton said WAC members Idaho and Utah State would be ideal members of his league and said he is exploring creative ways to lure the two schools. Idaho was a member of the Big Sky from its 1963 inception until 1996.

"If down the road something happens that those guys understand and realize they can't catch the big guys and there's something else we can do that makes sense and bring some efficiencies back to the budgets of those schools ... Utah State and Idaho are the right kind of schools," Fullerton said.

Idaho and Utah State have not expressed an interest in moving to the Big Sky.

He added: "If there was a creative way that I could allow them to continue their FBS-ness and get this all put together, that's the direction I would take."

Read more: IdahoStatesman.com: Big Sky Commish: "We're In A Better Place Than The WAC Is"

 

[biobengal]

No doubt, $80 million is a considerable amount and would have little if any change of happening. However, ISU wouldn't need more than half that amount to build a stadium rivaling some of the best in the conference. Consider the following sources:

$34 Million for 15,000 seats at Prairie View A&M:

The football stadium, which would be built south of Blackshear Stadium, is expected to cost about $34 million. The stadium would have a seating capacity of 15,000 and be expandable to 30,000, a FieldTurf playing surface, club seating, 12 luxury suites and enhanced tailgating and parking areas

Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/fb/fbc/7121984.html#ixzz1PN2X5F2I" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


$60 Million for 25-35,000 seats at Tulane:

A 25,000- to 35,000-seat on-campus football stadium is in the works, and if the funds are secured, the facility will be built on the existing football practice field, according to a source close to the athletic department as well as longtime Tulane supporter Scott Slatten.

http://www.nola.com/tulane/index.ssf/2010/04/tulane_considers_on-campus_foo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


$40 Million for a very impressive 14,000 seats:

The stadium design includes 14,000 seats, but it can be expanded to include 40,000 seats. The stadium will cost about $40 million to build and it's scheduled to open in fall 2013.

http://www.wcnc.com/home/UNCC-reviews-football-stadium-design-plans-103703594.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Skippy]

Good job at finding those numbers, Bio, I was struggling to find comparables so I took a guess using BSU's expansion estimates. (And I have to ask just what is costing BSU so much money to add just 5,000 seats? MSU is doing it for $10 M). It's been several years since "Bengal Village" and the original facilities master plan emerged. It would be interesting to see if the long-term vision has changed any. Next time I get a chance, I'll ask Jeff.

 

[SLCBengal]

(And I have to ask just what is costing BSU so much money to add just 5,000 seats? MSU is doing it for $10 M).

spazdog1 probably has the answer for us (as may Cub and BoiseBengal)... I believe the amount BSU is using includes the cost of removing and relocating the track to its new location (i.e. building a new track facility). I readily admit I'm guessing though...

 

[FormerISUSID]

Just a point of order, that "local legend" is not a legend at all... it is an absolute fact.

FormerISUSID

 

[BengalSapper]

ISU needs to focus on one thing rebuilding. If ISU was 6-5 and was selling out the dome I would be all for ISU talking about the WAC. The only time the dome has come close to selling out in the last five years is for the Highland Pocatello game. ISU needs to be content with the BSC and quick trying to be BSU. I would rather WIN the FCS national championship than the humanitarian bowl. If ISU is going to build a new stadium it needs to be a dome so it can be used year round. If we build a new open air stadium for $40-$80 million and we use it for 5-6 games a year that is not a good investment. Let’s build a multi use stadium that can seat 20,000 can be used for multiple sports concerts ect.

 

[Red Hill]

I wouldn't be surprised if Vailas goes after this. He's been very aggresive in movin ISU forward as an institution. The medical school may never work out but the new research complex will be huge for the university and the community. I know that he's very competitive and he has said that he wants a conference championship in football more than just about anything.

 

[biobengal]

ISU needs to focus on one thing rebuilding. If ISU was 6-5 and was selling out the dome I would be all for ISU talking about the WAC. The only time the dome has come close to selling out in the last five years is for the Highland Pocatello game. ISU needs to be content with the BSC and quit trying to be BSU. I would rather WIN the FCS national championship than the humanitarian bowl. If ISU is going to build a new stadium it needs to be a dome so it can be used year round. If we build a new open air stadium for $40-$80 million and we use it for 5-6 games a year that is not a good investment. Let’s build a multi use stadium that can seat 20,000 can be used for multiple sports concerts ect.

I disagree with 90% of this....

No doubt, ISU needs to focus on rebuilding their football program (and basketball too), that doesn't mean ISU shouldn't be surveying the landscape for potential changes across the NCAA and within the Big Sky Conference. Instead, you suggest ISU should stop trying to be BSU and become content with the Big Sky. Excusing the latter (BSU trying to be ISU, which is a fabrication), ISU has been content in the BSC under Bowen and into the present day. I would suggest this contentment has placed ISU in its present state.

A new dome? :rofl:

 

[biobengal]

Just a point of order, that "local legend" is not a legend at all... it is an absolute fact.

FormerISUSID

Sad.

But... look what the Performing Arts Center has done for the community.

 

[qb]

Boise State's plans include removal of track and a pretty big football complex building with all kinds of new facilities.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/08/28/1318526/field-of-dreams.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[BengalSapper]

ISU will never be part of the WAC with 12000 seat dome. The FBS will not allow it. I hope ISU does something about the dome soon because it is nearing the end of its life.

 

[spazdog1]

(And I have to ask just what is costing BSU so much money to add just 5,000 seats? MSU is doing it for $10 M).

spazdog1 probably has the answer for us (as may Cub and BoiseBengal)... I believe the amount BSU is using includes the cost of removing and relocating the track to its new location (i.e. building a new track facility). I readily admit I'm guessing though...

Below is a link to the expansion plan to Bronco Stadium...

http://news.boisestate.edu/update/2010/08/30/view-renderings-of-proposed-bronco-stadium-expansion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I was fortunate enough to be invited to the initial public announcement of the project. Here's what I remember, have read or pieced together...

Actually, the final version is a compilation of several construction phases. The first phase is the removal of the track and the installation of the track at Dona Larsen Park which is the old East Jr. High School located just a few blocks from Bronco Stadium. At Dona Larsen Park, there will be a full sized grass field that the Broncos will use as a practice facility when prepping to play in stadiums with natural turf. The field at Dona Larsen will be used for high school games on Friday evenings, leaving Bronco available for visiting teams to practice on the Blue. Once the track is removed, the field level will be dropped several feet to accommodate three or four rows of seats on the east and west sides of the stadium. That is the first phase.

The next phase includes the construction of the new football complex which includes locker rooms, meeting rooms, film reviewing rooms, coaches' offices, etc. The current Varsity Center facility was built in the late 60's or early 70's when Boise State was DII. As Dr. Kustra put it (paraphrasing here), "the locker room was equipped with two toilets, because of the possibility that one might not be enough." BSU has the smallest FBS Top 25 stadium (and the smallest athletic budget of any Top 25 teams) and an upgrade is required if the Broncos have any chance of bringing in Top 25 BCS caliber teams. The north endzone bleachers will be removed for the construction of the complex. Once the complex is completed, the lower part of the endzone will filled with additional seating.

The next phase will be completing the horseshoe in the north endzone bringing the seating level to the same level as the existing areas of the stadium. I believe that capacity at that point will be at about 50K.

Finally, a skybox facility similar to the new pressbox will be installed on the east side of the stadium. There is apparently a waiting list for the suites which will consist of 12 to 16 seats each. There will be a open seating area as well. The new pressbox addition completed 3 years ago holds an additional 3000 seats, and that's what is expected in the new skybox area, bringing the capacity to 53K. The east side skybox area is not included in the rendering that I listed with this post.

Here's the unbelievable part of the expansion plan... no one knows the actual cost. Since it's dependent upon gifts and other fundraising campaigns, the timeline for construction and completion will be determined with success of the getting the funding. Thus, I've heard construction costs of anywhere from +$50 million to well over $100 million. Again, depending upon the success and timeliness of raising the funds. Keep in mind the current economic climate as you ponder this. The entire project could take 10 years. With that said, it's my understanding that the first phase begins after the upcoming football season. Funding for that phase is at or near the goal.

This is my take on the project. Hopefully, it won't take 10 years, but who knows.

 

[Vandals_n_Bengals]

Neither USU or U of I need the Big Sky. The WAC is not going anywhere. It's the Big Sky that is in trouble, hence Fullerton's ranting. Montana's AD has stated the FCS in to a viable future, and the only reason they have not moved up to join the WAC is that they are waiting until Montana State is ready to make the move as well. I would not be surprised if you see UM, MSU, Sac State, and UC Davis move to the WAC before 2015. It's a much better fit, and despite the costs of such a move, the rewards for making the move outweigh them. As an FCS school, playing in Tennessee does not bring the same benefits in terms of exposure and recruitment that playing as an FBS school does.

 

[Skippy]

I'd say right now both the Big Sky and the WAC are at "tipping points." The WAC is desperate to put together enough football schools to stay afloat. And they have to be attractive enough that they can generate significant television and bowl revenue. They are a far cry from that right now, and I don't think adding half the Big Sky is going to change that.

On the other hand, I get the sense that the fan base of the Montana schools -- in particular, the Griz -- are getting tired of the Big Sky and are ready for a new challenge. If both Montana schools go, you could see other BSC schools take the plunge, too. But there has to be some advantage to moving up, and the WAC, as it is now constituted, with only one, tenuous bowl tie-in and greatly diminished television revenues, doesn't offer much of a draw. I'd guess the Montana schools will hang on for something a bit more attractive -- say the Mountain West, who could be looking for new members if the realignment merry-go-round starts spinning again in a few years (Boise State to the Big 12???).

Montana's internal study last year estimated it would take about $5 million a year in extra revenues for the Griz to move up to FBS. The WAC would have to guarantee at least a substantial part of that $5 million in extra revenues to make the move attractive to Big Sky schools. I'm not sure where that would come from right now.