-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts, upgrade to remove ads and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your BigSkyFans.com experience today!
Mountain West invites Fresno and Nevada, WAC implications?
- Thread starter SJHornet
- Start date
footballnow
Active member
StungAlum said:
The only way to make a fair comparison would be to line up all the schools being considered (us, PSU, UM, MSU, TX State, UTSA, "the farm extension, and cal poly) and create a ranking matrix across all the criteria. Plus the WAC can skew it and weight certain categories higher than others. If they want to stay valid and keep somewhat of a decent TV contract payout, the WAC damn well better prioritize market size.
This is going to get political real fast. No doubt if LA Tech is going to stay, they and NM State will pull for a Texas school. SJSU and Hawaii will pull for a CA school, and Idaho and USU will no doubt pull for the Montana's. And how many schools is the WAC looking to add?
This is going to get political real fast. No doubt if LA Tech is going to stay, they and NM State will pull for a Texas school. SJSU and Hawaii will pull for a CA school, and Idaho and USU will no doubt pull for the Montana's. And how many schools is the WAC looking to add?
Green Laser
Active member
footballnow said:
StungAlum
Active member
SDHornet said:
From what Benson is saying and has said in the past, market is the biggest issue. Unless the WAC wants both Montucky schools, they arent getting UM. LA Tech doesnt have much clout in decision making due to the fact that LA Tech told Benson they want out of the WAC and will accept an offer should they be presented with one.
The Texas schools have both said that the WAC is a stepping stone, they don't plan on being there long. So, I think that will also be taken into consideration. UTSA hasnt even fielded a team so they're an automatic FAIL in the "recent success" category.
For now, we know SJSU, Idaho, and USU arent going anywhere because no one wants them right now and probably never will. USU is the only school that was even considered for a new conference but they shot themselves in the foot by declining. That being said, I think they are going to heavily consider schools that are going to be in it for the long run, not just 3-5 seasons then bolt.
The overall athletic department is going to be taken into consideration, not just football. That has been said time and again by Benson and other AD's in the WAC. Although football is the driving force behind all of this, the WAC knows that all of the sports a school brings with it is important and can help strengthen the conference.
I beleive that one of the three CA schools previously mentioned will get the nod, however, can some of those schools build up their facilities in time for the 2012-2013 season? Thats less than a year and a half from the time the WAC plans to invite a school. It's pretty much probably going to boil down to who has the facilities now and their market. I truly beleive all of the other criteria is there just to make it look like they weighed various schools different ways, it will make their selection sound as if they are making the best decision possible when in reality, they knew who they wanted a year prior.
Attendance isnt going to be great this season unless the Hornets really make an impact in the BSC, winning the conference would greatly enhance Sac States chances IMO.
StungAlum
Active member
footballnow said:
Montucky has a 97% acceptance rate, I don't think their academics are all that great, I'm sure they have some really great programs, but a 97% acceptance rate :shock: . However, it is better than Weber, they have an open enrollment policy meaning if you apply, you get in.
I bet Montucky has some pretty good sports sponsorship, they'd probably rate at at least a 4 on your scale.
No, I'm not trying to make Montucky look good, I'm just keeping it real.
footballnow
Active member
aggiemba said:
Go milk yourself aggiema! You wouldn't know cause you went to ucfe.
Isn't there some hay waiting for you somewhere?
Kadeezy said:
:lol:
StungAlum
Active member
Here are my ratings based on the criteria going to be used to select universities to join the WAC, only the universities mentioned previously by Benson are here.
There is no comparison being made here, just my rankings based on the data provided and the consideration that all program/universities being considered are FCS.
Any university with 20 or more sponsored sports gets a 10, it goes down from there.
The ratings are based on a 1-10 scale where 10 is the highest score and 1 is the lowest.
Sacramento State
-Academics - 7 (Academics are going to be scored on the GSR or Graduation Success Rate overall for athletes)
-Attendance - 6 (Came in at 32nd in avg. att. last season with 9,935)
-Budgets - 9 (right up there with the remaining programs in the WAC)
-Location/transportation - 9
-Market size - 10 (Largest untapped FBS market out there)
-Recent program success - 5 (Making strides but havent been in the top three)
-Sports sponsorship - 10
-Enrollment - 8 (24k)
Average Score: 8
Farm Extension
-Academics - 9
-Attendance - 6 (Came in just behind Sac State)
-Budgets - 6 (lower then Montucky and reduced it even more this year by $1.79 million)
-Location/transportation - 8 (Not in Sac but close)
-Market size - 8 (Again, they're in Yolo, not Sac)
-Recent program success - 5 (They are in a downward spiral and expected to do worse this season than last)
-Sports sponsorship - 10
-Enrollment - 10 (30k)
Average Score: 7.7
Montucky
-Academics - 7
-Attendance - 10
-Budgets - 6 (Athletic budget is over $2 million less than Sac States')
-Location/transportation - 2
-Market size - 1
-Recent program success - 10
-Sports sponsorship - 4 (doesnt meet the FBS minimum, only sponsors 14)
-Enrollment - 6 (15k)
Average Score: 5.7
Portland State
-Academics - 7
-Attendance - 4
-Budgets - 8
-Location/transportation - 10
-Market size - 9 (Seond largest untapped market)
-Recent program success - 3 (Like UCFE, they're in a downward spiral)
-Sports sponsorship - 3 (Only sponsors 13 sports)
-Enrollment - 8 (24k)
Average Score: 6.5
UTSA
-Academics - 7
-Attendance - 0 (Havent fielded a team)
-Budgets - 5
-Location/transportation - 7
-Market size - 7
-Recent program success - 0 (Havent fielded a team)
-Sports sponsorship - 5 (Only sponsors 15, that includes football)
-Enrollment - 10 (28k)
Average Score: 5.1
Texas State (Texas Light)
-Academics - 7
-Attendance - 8 (averaged around 12k last season)
-Budgets - 6
-Location/transportation - 6
-Market size - 5
-Recent program success - 7
-Sports sponsorship - 4 (Only sponsors 14 sports)
-Enrollment - 10 (30k)
Average Score: 6.6
Cal Poly
-Academics - 8
-Attendance - 6 (About the same as UCFE)
-Budgets - 7
-Location/transportation - 3
-Market size - 3
-Recent program success - 5
-Sports sponsorship - 10
-Enrollment - 6 (19k)
Average Score: 6
I edited this post to include sports sponsorship where I gave institutions with 20 or more sports a ten (10) and those with fewer got less depending on how far away from the FBS minimum they were/are.
Okay, I re-edited the ratings to include enrollment. Anything 28k and above got a 10, anything between 20k-28k got an 8, and anything between 15k-19k got a 6.
There is no comparison being made here, just my rankings based on the data provided and the consideration that all program/universities being considered are FCS.
Any university with 20 or more sponsored sports gets a 10, it goes down from there.
The ratings are based on a 1-10 scale where 10 is the highest score and 1 is the lowest.
Sacramento State
-Academics - 7 (Academics are going to be scored on the GSR or Graduation Success Rate overall for athletes)
-Attendance - 6 (Came in at 32nd in avg. att. last season with 9,935)
-Budgets - 9 (right up there with the remaining programs in the WAC)
-Location/transportation - 9
-Market size - 10 (Largest untapped FBS market out there)
-Recent program success - 5 (Making strides but havent been in the top three)
-Sports sponsorship - 10
-Enrollment - 8 (24k)
Average Score: 8
Farm Extension
-Academics - 9
-Attendance - 6 (Came in just behind Sac State)
-Budgets - 6 (lower then Montucky and reduced it even more this year by $1.79 million)
-Location/transportation - 8 (Not in Sac but close)
-Market size - 8 (Again, they're in Yolo, not Sac)
-Recent program success - 5 (They are in a downward spiral and expected to do worse this season than last)
-Sports sponsorship - 10
-Enrollment - 10 (30k)
Average Score: 7.7
Montucky
-Academics - 7
-Attendance - 10
-Budgets - 6 (Athletic budget is over $2 million less than Sac States')
-Location/transportation - 2
-Market size - 1
-Recent program success - 10
-Sports sponsorship - 4 (doesnt meet the FBS minimum, only sponsors 14)
-Enrollment - 6 (15k)
Average Score: 5.7
Portland State
-Academics - 7
-Attendance - 4
-Budgets - 8
-Location/transportation - 10
-Market size - 9 (Seond largest untapped market)
-Recent program success - 3 (Like UCFE, they're in a downward spiral)
-Sports sponsorship - 3 (Only sponsors 13 sports)
-Enrollment - 8 (24k)
Average Score: 6.5
UTSA
-Academics - 7
-Attendance - 0 (Havent fielded a team)
-Budgets - 5
-Location/transportation - 7
-Market size - 7
-Recent program success - 0 (Havent fielded a team)
-Sports sponsorship - 5 (Only sponsors 15, that includes football)
-Enrollment - 10 (28k)
Average Score: 5.1
Texas State (Texas Light)
-Academics - 7
-Attendance - 8 (averaged around 12k last season)
-Budgets - 6
-Location/transportation - 6
-Market size - 5
-Recent program success - 7
-Sports sponsorship - 4 (Only sponsors 14 sports)
-Enrollment - 10 (30k)
Average Score: 6.6
Cal Poly
-Academics - 8
-Attendance - 6 (About the same as UCFE)
-Budgets - 7
-Location/transportation - 3
-Market size - 3
-Recent program success - 5
-Sports sponsorship - 10
-Enrollment - 6 (19k)
Average Score: 6
I edited this post to include sports sponsorship where I gave institutions with 20 or more sports a ten (10) and those with fewer got less depending on how far away from the FBS minimum they were/are.
Okay, I re-edited the ratings to include enrollment. Anything 28k and above got a 10, anything between 20k-28k got an 8, and anything between 15k-19k got a 6.
Green Laser
Active member
StungAlum said:
Well done SA! Sports Sponsorship, davis 23/ Sac and Poly 20/ Montana min for FCS 14 (FBS min is 16). Not sure about Portland pretty sure its under 16. I have no idea about rhe Texas schools, I doubt they field too many teams. I also think we should be at least equal to or a little better than Portland for location and transportation. I think that one of the Texas schools (maybe North Texas) is located in the Dallas area, If that is the case they should move up in in market and location.
Green Laser
Active member
One other thing they were looking at was enrollment. At close to 30,000 Sac davis and Portland would be near the top while Montana at 13,000 would be near the bottom. :lol:
Green Laser
Active member
Ok but just don't count barnyard animals on campus as enrollment or we are screwed! :lol:
