-
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!
The landscape changes even further?
- Thread starter SJHornet
- Start date
They should add Houston or UTEP. Houston provides bigger market and is spending $120M to redo their stadium to 40,000. UTEP is a natural choice too. Both city/schools have hosted bowls in their past.
I would agree. Membership in the WAC would be attractive if the conference can retain the spine of its diminishing existence with UNR and Fresno State. As someone wrote on the board elsewhere, the WAC without those two would be similar to the anonymous Sun Belt Conference. The following article is in today's Fresno Bee. Notice the despair of Bulldog fans who care to comment. I don't think, however, the Big Sky has much to worry about as far as replenishing the league with teams. All they have to do is cast a flirtatious look towards the Dakota schools and they will come a running.
WAC weighing options on inviting schools
http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/06/15/1972042/wac-weighing-options-on-inviting.html
and,
Conference Realignment: The WAC Looking At Teams To Replace Boise State
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...e-wac-looking-at-teams-to-replace-boise-state
WAC weighing options on inviting schools
http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/06/15/1972042/wac-weighing-options-on-inviting.html
and,
Conference Realignment: The WAC Looking At Teams To Replace Boise State
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...e-wac-looking-at-teams-to-replace-boise-state
SJHornet
Active member
Bulldog fans need to worry less about what kind of prestige we would bring in and more about their own student-athlete graduation rates and illicit recruiting practices. Fresno fans are so full of themselves they think that the SEC should be looking their way.
If Montana gets a WAC invite and leaves, the Dakota schools won't necessarily replace the void of loosing a perennial powerhouse. The Big Sky's standing in the FCS will drop significantly, and Sac will be left in an average conference.
If Montana gets a WAC invite and leaves, the Dakota schools won't necessarily replace the void of loosing a perennial powerhouse. The Big Sky's standing in the FCS will drop significantly, and Sac will be left in an average conference.
Welcome rat, any relation to Sac Rat who has been glaringly absent from this discussion.
Wasn't the reason the MWC was formed was to rid themselves of the 'lesser' programs such as FSU and UNR when they were all part of the Super WAC? Would almost be egg on their face to extend an invitation now. I still think that Houston and UTEP bring more 'prestige' to the MWC in both locality and academics. Or Tulsa and UNT.
Even if FSU and UNR leave, I still think it is in our best interests to move out of the SKY and go FBS. As Wanless mentioned in the Fargo radio interview, there isn't a team in the Big Sky that any of our fans can drive to within reason. A WAC with SJSU, Cal Poly and UCFE would add the piece missing for convenience and economics. Add UM and MSU and it strenghtens the conference. Of course our business model for FBS has us selling out Hornet Stadium with FSU and UNR visiting, not sure if we could say the same with CP and UCFE. We have had 16,000 for Cal Poly and 21,000 for UCFE in the past, so it is within reason that could grow with an upgrade.
I do not think reconstituting the old Big West with football would gain us anything. That conference has a major public perception issue and most Californian's think of the Big West a bus league with schools that aren't committed to athletics. There is a reason all these football schools left the BW.
WAC of the future if MWC raids more....
Sac State/UCFE
Cal Poly/SJSU
USU/MSU
Idaho/Montana
Hawaii/Portland State
PSU is being mentioned, but their athletic budget is $10.3M, which would need to be doubled to realistically be in contention. The new PGE Park will be awesome, really nice football/soccer venue now with the upgrades. Will Hawaii let it's ego overshadow prudent economics?
What is ironic is that all of these schools were at one time in the same boat as Sac State. New to the world of FBS and growing. Now they think their sh*t doesn't stink.
Wasn't the reason the MWC was formed was to rid themselves of the 'lesser' programs such as FSU and UNR when they were all part of the Super WAC? Would almost be egg on their face to extend an invitation now. I still think that Houston and UTEP bring more 'prestige' to the MWC in both locality and academics. Or Tulsa and UNT.
Even if FSU and UNR leave, I still think it is in our best interests to move out of the SKY and go FBS. As Wanless mentioned in the Fargo radio interview, there isn't a team in the Big Sky that any of our fans can drive to within reason. A WAC with SJSU, Cal Poly and UCFE would add the piece missing for convenience and economics. Add UM and MSU and it strenghtens the conference. Of course our business model for FBS has us selling out Hornet Stadium with FSU and UNR visiting, not sure if we could say the same with CP and UCFE. We have had 16,000 for Cal Poly and 21,000 for UCFE in the past, so it is within reason that could grow with an upgrade.
I do not think reconstituting the old Big West with football would gain us anything. That conference has a major public perception issue and most Californian's think of the Big West a bus league with schools that aren't committed to athletics. There is a reason all these football schools left the BW.
WAC of the future if MWC raids more....
Sac State/UCFE
Cal Poly/SJSU
USU/MSU
Idaho/Montana
Hawaii/Portland State
PSU is being mentioned, but their athletic budget is $10.3M, which would need to be doubled to realistically be in contention. The new PGE Park will be awesome, really nice football/soccer venue now with the upgrades. Will Hawaii let it's ego overshadow prudent economics?
What is ironic is that all of these schools were at one time in the same boat as Sac State. New to the world of FBS and growing. Now they think their sh*t doesn't stink.
StungAlum
Active member
Green Cookie Monster said:
I agree with almost all of your post, the part I dont agree with is saying that UTEP would bring prestige with it. That place is a dump, it accepts 99% of people who apply and is directly across the river from Juarez Mexico. I considered going there as I am originally from Texas, but decided to stay out west. But that's really not saying much I guess, UNR admits over 91% of its applicants, USU is over 95%, and one of the BSC schools being mentioned as a possibility has a 96% acceptance rate (Montana).
OldHornet
Active member
Regardless of the outcome - these discussions are very interesting.
The biggest problem the WAC has in football is a credibility issue - both in it's quality of the on the field and it's ability to market it's product. Ultimately any expansion (if it happens) will need to address those issues. How would the candidates help?
1. UTEP - If I were the WAC commish this is the play I would try to make. They have facilities, fans and a fairly strong legacy in several sports. I would try to make the case that being in a western conference would increase their financials and fan support. I know it's a stretch but if you're trying to improve the product and marketability this is the type of move you need to make (or at least try).
2.A/B - Sac - I would detail all of the points that have been made but the economics clealy make this a positive move for several WAC schools. Reduced travel costs for most schools, bus for SJSU, NEV, FSU and usually cheaper to fly into a metro area (important for sports outside of football). The biggest question will be how the "potential" of SAC can increase the viability of the WAC.
2.A/B - UCD and PSU - very similar pro's to SAC. I think PSU is a very serious candidate - PSU has a major leg up in facilities.
3. Montana - I think the Griz fans are a lot like the FSU fans, they're living in their own world. Does anyone outside of Montana care about Montana football? Of course not so then the question is does the state of Montana add enough value to improve the conference? Facilities and fan support are good so they may provide one of the best short term options. But long term I don't think they can improve much beyond their current status - especially financially. The population of Montana is roughly half of the population of the Sacto Metro. Montana is also currently charging ticket prices that are on par with other FBS schools so how do they generate more funds without playing body bag games. If they start to produce losing records will they still fill that stadium? Potential from a dollas perspective they the most to lose by going to the FBS.
4. UNT - On the plus side they offer a new football stadium. When you look at the WAC, outside of Fresno, the facilities are nothing special - UNT would upgrade that. On the down side I'm not sure what value they bring, I would put them in them along side Idaho or NMSU from a football perspective. But at least NMSU has a solid basketball program. UNT averages about 18k per game in football, the population of Denton is only 118k and it's 225 miles from a metro (Dallas). The biggest question for the WAC is can they improve their status? I would say no when - do people in TX care about being in the WAC vs the Sun Belt?
The biggest problem the WAC has in football is a credibility issue - both in it's quality of the on the field and it's ability to market it's product. Ultimately any expansion (if it happens) will need to address those issues. How would the candidates help?
1. UTEP - If I were the WAC commish this is the play I would try to make. They have facilities, fans and a fairly strong legacy in several sports. I would try to make the case that being in a western conference would increase their financials and fan support. I know it's a stretch but if you're trying to improve the product and marketability this is the type of move you need to make (or at least try).
2.A/B - Sac - I would detail all of the points that have been made but the economics clealy make this a positive move for several WAC schools. Reduced travel costs for most schools, bus for SJSU, NEV, FSU and usually cheaper to fly into a metro area (important for sports outside of football). The biggest question will be how the "potential" of SAC can increase the viability of the WAC.
2.A/B - UCD and PSU - very similar pro's to SAC. I think PSU is a very serious candidate - PSU has a major leg up in facilities.
3. Montana - I think the Griz fans are a lot like the FSU fans, they're living in their own world. Does anyone outside of Montana care about Montana football? Of course not so then the question is does the state of Montana add enough value to improve the conference? Facilities and fan support are good so they may provide one of the best short term options. But long term I don't think they can improve much beyond their current status - especially financially. The population of Montana is roughly half of the population of the Sacto Metro. Montana is also currently charging ticket prices that are on par with other FBS schools so how do they generate more funds without playing body bag games. If they start to produce losing records will they still fill that stadium? Potential from a dollas perspective they the most to lose by going to the FBS.
4. UNT - On the plus side they offer a new football stadium. When you look at the WAC, outside of Fresno, the facilities are nothing special - UNT would upgrade that. On the down side I'm not sure what value they bring, I would put them in them along side Idaho or NMSU from a football perspective. But at least NMSU has a solid basketball program. UNT averages about 18k per game in football, the population of Denton is only 118k and it's 225 miles from a metro (Dallas). The biggest question for the WAC is can they improve their status? I would say no when - do people in TX care about being in the WAC vs the Sun Belt?
Another Sac State fan leaving Cal Poly out of the WAC expansion talk. I know that Cal Poly is interested in the WAC and the WAC is interested in Cal Poly. Does that mean an invite for Cal Poly? Maybe, maybe not, but they are definately in the conversation.OldHornet said:
Key quotes that I think are the most applicable to this situation:
If this hold true, I think it's safe to say the option for the WAC of inviting a current FBS team from Texas is out of the question. It also makes note that if a CUSA spot opens up, La Tech would jump at the chance if given an invite which would open up another WAC spot.
If this holds true the chances of Fresno State and Nevada (two vital components involved with the viability of a Sac State move up) getting an invite to the MWC are gone. I don't know about anyone else but I am starting to see the stars align for a Sac State WAC invite. If Sac State can get an invite this summer, it will give Wanless and Gonzales 2 years to rally the alumni and Sacramento community to garner support and funds to hit the ground running when the NCAA's moratorium ends after the 2011 season.
If this hold true, I think it's safe to say the option for the WAC of inviting a current FBS team from Texas is out of the question. It also makes note that if a CUSA spot opens up, La Tech would jump at the chance if given an invite which would open up another WAC spot.
If this holds true the chances of Fresno State and Nevada (two vital components involved with the viability of a Sac State move up) getting an invite to the MWC are gone. I don't know about anyone else but I am starting to see the stars align for a Sac State WAC invite. If Sac State can get an invite this summer, it will give Wanless and Gonzales 2 years to rally the alumni and Sacramento community to garner support and funds to hit the ground running when the NCAA's moratorium ends after the 2011 season.
SloStang said:
The MWC's Thompson has gone on record as stating the MWC won't be taking anymore WAC teams - at least for the time being. The MWC was fully anticipating losing Utah last month - they needed Boise St just to stay even if not a bit higher in BCS rankings: if both had stayed that would have been a huge bonus.
If the MWC does take another school, it would likely be Houston. It's also possible that the Big East could take Houston and TCU, which would really mess with the MWC, but then the MWC would want to keep Texas schools and likely add SMU to replace TCU and possibly UTEP. UTEP doesn't add much value: either from recruiting or television or money. As an alternate, the Big East could also be taking the two strongest eastern FCS teams, UCF and Memphis, which would send Houston scurrying toward the MWC as it's best option.
The MWC wants a weak WAC: it needs to be able to schedule down in the FBS on the west coast, but it doesn't want to emaciate the WAC so it doesn't survive. Pulling Fresno State out would threaten whether SJSU even keeps football. Since the WAC will likely lose La Tech and possibly even NMSU (which could replace UTEP in CUSA), it's in the MWC's best interest to keep Fresno State as part of the WAC.
Here's what I think is the WAC's longer-term plan:
Current Members:
Fresno St
Nevada
SJSU
Hawaii
Idaho
Utah St
NMSU
La Tech --- soon gone to Sunbelt or CUSA
needs two more by 2012:
adds Sac St
adds Portland St
(back to 9)
NMSU - possibly gone to CUSA within five years
add Montana (after 2 sports and Title IX issues addressed)
add Montana St (after stadium expansion)
(up to 10)
Both Wanless and WAC Comm Benson have talked about a 12 team WAC eventually with a championship game. The two natural teams that need to be ready later this decade are:
UCDavis -
Cal Poly
Both have stadium issues
(up to 12)
By that time, Fresno State might get it's MWC invite, and possibly Nevada. Utah State might get in the MWC if BYU gets in the Big12.
At that time, the final two backup schools would be North Dakota and North Dakota St (and maybe for football only). We actually have money (state coffers are overflowing with oil money - we're the new Alaska) and a passionate fan base.
2015 WAC
Pacific Division
Hawaii-Cal Poly
SJSU- Fresno
Sac St - UCDavis
Mountain Division
Idaho - Portland St
Montana St - Montana
Utah St - Nevada
Couple of comments:
UTEP won't ever go to the WAC: it will not join a conference that NMSU is in (it considers itself above NMSU) and since it came from the WAC, moving back - especially with Boise gone and Idaho in - would cause a major commotion in El Paso. Conference jumping is about moving up in the pecking order, not down.
Hawaii had been talked about as possibly joining the Big West and being an independent in football - but Hawaii has been having major trouble scheduling non-conference games (in the 90's it was easy for them, not now with the expensive plane rides) so they likely need the WAC for games
One of Sac St's major advantages is enrollment. With 30,000 students, an extra $100 athletic fee raises $3 mill. For Montana, a $100 fee raises $1.4 mill. Montana's students voted down an smaller increase: the chance a larger increase like $250 would pass is small. Schools like USF and UCF were able to parlay student fees from huge enrollment to higher external revenue sources from business community and elevate to much bigger conferences.
WAC fans bitched and bitched when Idaho came aboard: nothing new. The WAC fans - especially Hawaii and Fresno - just have to get used to being the clear low-rung FBS football conference in the west.
New DI football programs in large cities aren't bothering with the FCS level: why should Sac St? UTSA is moving directly to FBS with just the minimum two years in FCS. Ga State has the same type plan. Same with Charlotte. They are following the same paths made by USF, UCF, FAU, and FIU.
UTEP won't ever go to the WAC: it will not join a conference that NMSU is in (it considers itself above NMSU) and since it came from the WAC, moving back - especially with Boise gone and Idaho in - would cause a major commotion in El Paso. Conference jumping is about moving up in the pecking order, not down.
Hawaii had been talked about as possibly joining the Big West and being an independent in football - but Hawaii has been having major trouble scheduling non-conference games (in the 90's it was easy for them, not now with the expensive plane rides) so they likely need the WAC for games
One of Sac St's major advantages is enrollment. With 30,000 students, an extra $100 athletic fee raises $3 mill. For Montana, a $100 fee raises $1.4 mill. Montana's students voted down an smaller increase: the chance a larger increase like $250 would pass is small. Schools like USF and UCF were able to parlay student fees from huge enrollment to higher external revenue sources from business community and elevate to much bigger conferences.
WAC fans bitched and bitched when Idaho came aboard: nothing new. The WAC fans - especially Hawaii and Fresno - just have to get used to being the clear low-rung FBS football conference in the west.
New DI football programs in large cities aren't bothering with the FCS level: why should Sac St? UTSA is moving directly to FBS with just the minimum two years in FCS. Ga State has the same type plan. Same with Charlotte. They are following the same paths made by USF, UCF, FAU, and FIU.
superhornet
Active member
aggiemba said:
:roll:
aggiemba said:
If UC-Davis had an FBS-ready stadium, I would agree that UC-Davis would be the front-runner.
BUT UC-Davis has no money raised for such an expansion. Your own AD has stated the WAC move isn't happening. Aggie athletics just dropped 3 sports: an FBS move would mean more would be dropped. What more evidence do you want that a UC-Davis more isn't happening this round? Do you think UC-Davis would play their games in Sac State's stadium to meet FBS requirements?
UCDavis football will be at the FBS level someday, but my money is on Sac State to be there first.
