• 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!

Re-alignment and consolidation

heyoh22

heyoh22

Active member
Seems like it is the topic of the moment, with the Big 10 talking about adding teams, and the Pac-10 and Big 12 having a meeting last week in Phoenix to discuss joint opportunities.

The Boards are full of comments and conjecture.....TV contracts are due for renewal for several large conferences.

In our part of the world, looks like Boise State will go to Mountain West; Utah is supposed to be heading to Pac-10; Montana is looking to go the WAC or Mountain West........and Weber is mentioned going into the WAC.

Has anyone heard a substantiated report for any of the schools?
 
Certainly there is a lot of talk happening right now. The WAC could lose up to four members in the next couple of weeks (Boise, Nevada, and Fresno to the Mtn. West and La Tech to Conference USA), I doubt that happens, but there have been rumors floating around about these schools possible departures. Montana, is virtually assured a spot in the WAC, as is, I'm guessing Cal Poly, but the other two are open. The most logical would be MSU and Weber, but according to our administration thats not something the school is looking at right now (THIS IS THE TIME TO MAKE THE MOVE, but they, administration, aren't concerned with moving conferences). Utah would like to leave, but who is going with them??? PAC-10 only take instate rivals. BYU wouldn't be a good PAC-10 member they wont play on Sunday. I don't want to hear the research argument...the Y, as much as I hate it, is a better school than WAZZU and OREGON State, not to mention ASU.
This is what I think will happen...if anything happens...Boise State will become a Mtn. West member, Montana will be invited to the WAC, don't know if they will accept, and a couple Great West members will be invited to the Sky (SUU is my guess).
Getting out of the Sky would be a good thing for Weber. It would improve our fan base...competition, recreate stronger rivalries Idaho and USU, which would get more of our students involved, which in the long run would inhance our future alumni groups and donations.
 
Weber is not physically ready to jump to the bowl subdivision. It would take a huge facilities upgrade that just wont be happening anytime soon. Montana is the only BSC program that is ready in football. However they may not want to jump at this point either. They would be just like Idaho has been for the past several years, a doormat. If they were going to make that move they probably would have kept their coach. There may be a day when Weber is ready for that move, just not now.

If some of the things you are talking about start to happen, the WAC is in serious trouble. There are not that many quality programs to be had. If they tried to run a split football conference, they would get absolutely no respect. The BSC is not likely to look at SUU, its an airplane, train, bus, and donkey ride to get there. When you do get there, its about one fifth the size of the smallest school in the Sky. UVU does not want football and they are millitant about it. They also run a third rate athletic program, overall. The BSC is most likely to look elsewhere to fill any future openings. There really isn't much for the SKY to pick from either. They might just stay at 8 for a while. It would sure help scheduling. It would mean a couple more non-conference basketball games and one more in football. The same number of teams would make it to post season every year, so where is the harm.
 
While i do agree that Weber is not completely ready for a jump to an FBS conference, I do think that the facilities (minus the majority of Stewart Stadium and an indoor practice facility) are in line with what USU has. However with Utah and potentially BYU moving up to bigger and better this will make them more attractive to different kind of recruit allowing Weber to potential get local athletes that would have other wise chosen the bigger schools in state. If this is the case then the time to act is now, Weber needs to capitalize on this and from what i have herd from a current football recruit is the Coaches told him that Weber is looking for a spot in the WAC. While I don't think that it is likely it dose sound like there is going to a huge shake up in the NCAA world and about anything could happen.
 
We have better facilities than Idaho in every aspect including football. Minus football we'd be a shoe in. If the administration started a rumor that we could be joining the WAC it would spike attendance which would be the main requirement for us to move up. Football is really the only thing that decides realignment.

As for bball I believe our season average was higher than Boise's single highest game attended. Our only challenge in bball would be USU, none of the others are consistently better than our bball program.

Football we just need attendance. Our stadium is fit for the WAC. Take a look around. Even USU only holds 25k and Idaho just 16k. You need a 15k average to even be FBS and Idaho doesn't do that and USU rarely does.
 
If UM leaves...football we would have a legitimate chance to win the conf every year, everyone would; bball would just be that much easier to keep winning titles. There are no possible schools coming in that would challenge us in basketball.

Great West; DII's??? This wouldn't even include Davis n Poly as htey are Big West in bball.
 
another possibility....

if byu n utah were to join the BCS conferences they would be recruiting higher caliber than current. i would think that would have an affect on us getting more instate recruits especially if one day we saw us and usu in the wac because the wac and big 12 or pac 10 wouldn't be going after the same players.

would be a great rivalry to with usu but they would be against us joining as they are so close to us and it would hurt their recruiting just as we wouldn't want uvu to get an FCS program right now.


If Mac was 10 yrs younger I would believe that moving up would be more realistic especially if there is going to be a huge change with all the conferences in 2011.
 
Since 1-AA football is largely a money loser (Montana is a rare exception), I can see the Big Sky morphing into a basketball-only league over the next several years. Schools that are willing to be bold and take the plunge to the FBS ranks (and I believe Montana will be one of them) will have to find a willing conference, and be willing to make the investment to move up. That means adding sports, both men's and women's, adding scholarships (from 63 to 85 in football, and a commensurate number in women's in order remain compliant with Title IX), increasing coaching salaries and upgrading facilities. Conservatively, any program looking to move from FCS to FBS is looking at a $5 million or more annual investment.

I can see Weber going either way on this. If they got an acceptable conference offer (the WAC with Utah State still in it, for example), I could see the Wildcats moving up in order to save their football program. I think the Big Sky will eventually fall apart as a football league, as FBS leagues pick off its best programs, and everybody else dumps football in order to save money.
 
Bengal visitor -

I fear your prediction regarding Big Sky Conference football will come true. Football is consistently successful and profitable @ the UofM, on and off @ MSU/WSU/EWU and an afterthought at other Big Sky Conference universities.

The state of Arizona has made financial cuts to education funding a tradition and do so early and often even in the best of times. Recent economic problems for the state have intensified the lack of money available.

If Proposition 100 fails today then over 10% of current education funding is lost to go along with the cut-backs that have already occurred. Times are tough and I can see the state board of regents telling their red-headed stepchild to the north of ASU/UofA (NAU) "tough shit" regarding funding for your athletic department. Times tough and while I work hard to be optimistic, the reality of the situation is grim.

Here's a link that does a better job at explaining the consequences for education in Arizona:

http://www4.nau.edu/insidenau/bumps/2010/5_17_10/SolutionsJointStatementProp100.pdf


Re: U of M leaving for bigger and better things...I have a few thoughts, both good and bad, but I'll leave that to another time.
 
FCS (or 1-AA, if you will) football is largely a heavily subsidized endeavor at probably 90 percent of the schools where it's played. Most "revenue" at FCS schools comes from state support and student fees. This sets up these schools for heavy political pressure during difficult economic times, like all of us are experiencing now, and in particular states like Arizona and California.

I did just a quick scan of the web yesterday and found some interesting numbers from the Indianapolis Star NCAA Financial Reports Data Base. Granted, these numbers are from the 2004-2005 fiscal year, so they are somewhat outdated, but I think they give a pretty good picture of how FCS (1-AA) football is financed at most institutions. Here are some examples from a broad spectrum of FCS members:

Southern Illinois University--Institutional and student fee support: $6.5 million. Football ticket sales: $373 K. Private contributions: $1.3 M. Conference revenue sharing: $851 K. Total budget: $11.2 M. (Just over half funded by taxes and student fees).

James Madison University--Institutional and student fee support: $17.9 M (all student fees). Football ticket sales: $354 K. Private contributions: $1 M. Conference revenue sharing: $832,000 K. Total budget: $21.5 M. (about $18 M of which comes from student fees).

Appalachian State--Institutional and student fee support: $4.8 M. Football ticket sales: $400 K. Private contributions: $845 K. Total budget: $7.6 M ($4.8 M from institutional support and student fees).

Cal Poly SLO--Institutional and student fee support: $9.3 M. Football ticket sales: $137K. Private contributions: $480 K. Total budget: $11.4 M. ($9.3 M provided by institutional and student support).

Sac State--Institutional and student fee support: $8.9 M. Football ticket sales: $38 K. Private contributions: $150 K. NCAA/conference revenue sharing: $670 K. Total budget: $11.2 M ($8.9 M from institutional and student support).

Montana State--Institutional and student fee support: $6 M. Football ticket sales: $870 K. Private contributions: $900 K. NCAA/Conference revenue sharing: $433 K. Total budget: $10.5 M ($6 M from institutional and student fee support).

Clearly, FCS (1-aa) football programs are heavily subsidized and are surviving largely due to the good graces of state taxpayers and students. Montana is an exception because the Griz sell a lot of tickets, and generate a lot of private giving. But even the Griz get a large share of their budget from state funds and student fees.

The big advantages to "moving up" to FBS (D-1) football, if you can find the right fit in a conference, are: Conference and NCAA revenue sharing streams are typically larger, because of bowl, NCAA tournament and television contracts; private giving tends to be higher at schools that have a higher football profile; and hopefully you'll sell more tickets by playing a more attractive schedule.

But there are no guarantees. The University of Idaho has struggled mightily, but because of BCS bowl revenues from the WAC, they have started to invest more in their athletic facilities, and because their football program has been more competitive, they are starting to sell more tickets and generate more private donations. Their ticket revenue stream is somewhat capped, of course, by the fact they play in a 16,000-seat stadium. And if Boise State leaves the WAC, the conference revenue sharing stream will likely take a big hit as well.
 
The Arizona vote on raising sales tax by 1% for three years passed yesterday, preliminary percentages were 64% in favor, 36% opposed.
It was sold as 75% of revenue generated from the new tax would go to school (K-12 and state universities). There is great concern in the high school athletics that districts will stop travel or do away with athletics entirely (some districts have announced such plans.)
Additionally, state high school tournaments are going to be scaled back to reduce expenses.
The effect on the universities in AZ should stop staff reductions and layoffs that were planned if the vote was a No.
I think that athletics will be under scrutiny for revenue produced, and having to cover those that are mandated by TitleIX will put more pressure on AD's to contain or reduce costs.
 
I think flexibility is going to be the key. The Comissioner and many influencial people in the Big Sky love football too much to let it go. However, the league may be forced to drop football as a core sport---no longer requiring schools to have football to be in the league. They may have to drop other core sports as well, which can create a branding/recognition issues. However, I think that might be the best solution. Here is what that type of flexibility could create:

1. Weber stays FCS/Big Sky in football, but goes WAC for the rest of the sports. There are already too many FBS football programs along the wasatch front, and Weber is best suited for FCS. It allows the focus to be on what WSU in known for such has hoops, track/field, cross country, and soccer.
2. Big Sky could invite Denver to replace WSU in non-football sports.
3. If PSU, SAC, or NAU were forced to drop football, the could remain in the Big Sky, keeping the conference in tact.
4. Cal Poly, North Dakota, South Dakota would make good football only members.
5. Montana could take all sports to WAC, but I think that's a mistake. They have created the ultimate FCS experience for their fans, players, and boosters.
 
"Flexible" is something the Big Sky has not been to this point. The Montana president was quoted in his "exit interview" with the league this week that in his view, the Big Sky needs to continue to require all member schools to offer all the "core sports," otherwise the league will lose its distinct culture.

Most Big Sky schools are at the "minimum" number of sports to remain Division I right now, so it will be very difficult for them to drop any. The conference presidents have rejected "football" only applicants in the past, so they would have to make a big philosophical change to embrace such members now.

But you're right, with changing times and circumstances, the league may have to start thinking outside the box.
 
Now that the Utah is in the Pac-10 will we ever see the Utes step foot in the Dee Event Center? When was the last time a Pac-10 team played WSU at Weber? What will happen down the road, how many games will we have to play at Utah to get them to come back, if ever?
 
That was my first question about Utah too. Hopefully the money makes sense for Utah to continue to schedule home-at-home series. Every other year they get a close, in-state school that draws a touch better crowd; and they don't have to pay out a gurantee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top