Post number 1 and post number 1801. I wonder if this thread has as many posts as all of the previous threads on the board. Amazing!

Bump!

(01-17-2021 09:40 AM)KingSean Wrote:  So what was the argument about why the WAC couldn't be a FBS conference. It be just another Sun Belt or CUSA league

That’s essentially my position. Better to strive to become a multi bid FCS conference and an outstanding mid major basketball conference than attempt FBS football to be another CUSA/MAC/whatever. Going the FBS route might be doable but that doesn’t make it desirable. Others may disagree and I’m ok with that.

(01-17-2021 09:13 AM)OscarWildeCat Wrote:  

(01-16-2021 03:03 PM)CW Fishman Wrote:  There has been a lot of talk on here about why the "Texas 4" left the SLC and also the possibility of the WAC being a FBS conference. With that in mind, I did some research on the athletic budgets of SLC schools and a sampling of non P-5 schools to provide some insight on what we are talking about money wise. This is based on 2018 numbers:

Interesting. Here is a different take looking at the 2019 w/l record for schools at or below NMSU’s budget.

1. La Monroe 15.6 million, 5-7
2. La Tech 24.9 million, 10-3
3. S Miss 24.6 million, 7-6
4. Bowling Green 26 million, 3-9
5. Ball State 27.6 million, 5-7
6. New Mexico State 28 million, 2-10

The public schools moving from the Southland spend around 19 million each. Adding the number of scholarships necessary for FBS alone will push the total total to somehere in the middle of this group. Southern Utah spends less than the Southland schools but at or above LA.Monroe. ACU is a private school and it’s not included in the database but think the budget is between Southern Utah and the Southland public’s.

In short, it appears feasible for the WAC offer FBS funded at a minimum level

Despite having a budget comparable to the schools you listed, NMSU's problem is being located in a region of the country where there is sparse FBS talent on the recruiting landscape. NMSU can't win without recruiting outside is State borders; which means a bigger recruiting budget than most G5 programs. The former Southland schools shouldn't have that problem if they beef up their respective budgets. There a lot of FBS talent (in Texas... and Utah) a stones throw from these new WAC schools.

(01-17-2021 09:40 AM)KingSean Wrote:  So what was the argument about why the WAC couldn't be a FBS conference. It be just another Sun Belt or CUSA league

The WAC won't have a problem fielding FBS caliber programs. The problem will be building the facilities and generating the fans support to make the move possible.

NMSU, as an Indy, plays 5 home games and 7 road games every year. We play 2-3 body bag games every year. That is not conducive to a winning season. But let’s assume the WAC starts FBS football. Someone has to win conference games. Sure there are OOC games, but I think NMSU would drop to 1-2 body bag games a year which is what they did in the former FBS WAC. They would probably have 6 home and 6 away games. They could afford to schedule an FCS team every year. Bottom line, I wouldn’t expect NMSU to go 2-10 in an FBS WAC. I also wouldn’t expect 10-2 but something in the middle is very realistic.

Using NMSU as a comparison for the new teams to move up to FBS is not a good comparison. And budgets should not necessarily be measured against other FBS teams or conferences. Budgets should be compared to the other WAC teams. Just my 2 cents.

(01-17-2021 10:54 AM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  The WAC won't have a problem fielding FBS caliber programs. The problem will be building the facilities and generating the fans support to make the move possible.

I agree. Multiple WAC schools have the potential to recruit and field FBS-caliber talent. The problem is going to be finding seven who can invest the money and draw the fan support to make the move up to FBS. That's a huge challenge and even if it can be surmounted the issue of flight risk will still be there.

I think the upcoming WAC football study will lay out all the hurdles and conclude that the conference's strategy should be to continue sponsoring football at the FCS level unless and until there are significant shifts in the national collegiate athletics landscape. At the same time it will point out that individual members who want to position themselves early for those potential future changes have the option of transitioning to FBS independent status.

(01-17-2021 06:32 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(01-17-2021 10:54 AM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  The WAC won't have a problem fielding FBS caliber programs. The problem will be building the facilities and generating the fans support to make the move possible.

I agree. Multiple WAC schools have the potential to recruit and field FBS-caliber talent. The problem is going to be finding seven who can invest the money and draw the fan support to make the move up to FBS. That's a huge challenge and even if it can be surmounted the issue of flight risk will still be there.

I think the upcoming WAC football study will lay out all the hurdles and conclude that the conference's strategy should be to continue sponsoring football at the FCS level unless and until there are significant shifts in the national collegiate athletics landscape. At the same time it will point out that individual members who want to position themselves early for those potential future changes have the option of transitioning to FBS independent status.

No one is leaving the conference. These schools just had to pay exit fees, entry fees and in the case of DSU and TSU, fees to go D1. Everyone keeps talking budgets and all of a sudden these schools have money to just leave and join leagues over and over? I don’t buy it.

And the WAC will be just over the minimum for FCS and you are speculating some will jump to Indy FBS? So they go Indy, which is difficult and screw the other WAC teams when there aren’t enough for a WAC FCS conference? None of that makes any sense.

Here are my P5/G5 split predictions:

- there are currently a pretty even number of P5 and G5 schools. If a split happens, there is no reason for the P5 to bring the AAC or any other teams with them. More money for the P5. Same for the G5. Why would they want to bring more schools into the fold and eat into their profits?
- the AAC is not a P6 and will not be a part of the P5.
- P5 and G5 will still play OOC and G5 will still get paid to do that.
- FCS and all the current teams will remain FCS.
- the biggest change will be bowl games (P5 v P5 and G5 v G5) and a true tourney for the G5 similar to what FCS does.

(01-17-2021 06:46 PM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  

(01-17-2021 06:32 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(01-17-2021 10:54 AM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  The WAC won't have a problem fielding FBS caliber programs. The problem will be building the facilities and generating the fans support to make the move possible.

I agree. Multiple WAC schools have the potential to recruit and field FBS-caliber talent. The problem is going to be finding seven who can invest the money and draw the fan support to make the move up to FBS. That's a huge challenge and even if it can be surmounted the issue of flight risk will still be there.

I think the upcoming WAC football study will lay out all the hurdles and conclude that the conference's strategy should be to continue sponsoring football at the FCS level unless and until there are significant shifts in the national collegiate athletics landscape. At the same time it will point out that individual members who want to position themselves early for those potential future changes have the option of transitioning to FBS independent status.

No one is leaving the conference. These schools just had to pay exit fees, entry fees and in the case of DSU and TSU, fees to go D1. Everyone keeps talking budgets and all of a sudden these schools have money to just leave and join leagues over and over? I don’t buy it.

And the WAC will be just over the minimum for FCS and you are speculating some will jump to Indy FBS? So they go Indy, which is difficult and screw the other teams when there aren’t enough for an FCS conference? None of that makes any sense.

I totally agree. No current members will leave anytime except, obviously, Chicago.I do believe Southern Utah is here for the long haul.

I don't think anyone will leave to jump to Indy FBS.

There is negligible incentive for a P5-G5 split, I don’t know why you people act like it’s inevitable. The P5 conferences collectively get $330 million from the CFP, plus incentives for making the CFP, while the G5 collectively gets $90 million. If you distributed that $90 million among the 65 P5 schools (including Notre Dame), each school would get less than $1.5 million. For schools that have $100 million+ athletic budgets. The P5 could get more money by going to a 13 game schedule, or a 10 game conference schedule. Plus in the current arrangement, most of the P5 plays 7 home games for 5 away games, and they can already write their own rules via autonomy. The P5 are already making out like bandits. There’s no incentive for the break away.

The WAC doesn’t need to worry about getting to FBS because of the split. If anything, they want to get to FBS to share in that $90 million pot. And, of course, the rise in value of WAC media rights.

(01-16-2021 10:21 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  

(01-16-2021 08:43 PM)Hilldog Wrote:  A timeline for WAC football. Was this WAC football study mentioned on this board, when the study was completed?


http://www.collegiateconsulting.com/news...o-football

The study was probably not released publicly. You don’t hire consultants to develop a strategy and then make it public.

Where did I say the WAC should have made the study public? Nowhere! I asked did anybody mention the WAC football study. Some people have sources, and they post inside info here.

(01-17-2021 07:33 PM)Hilldog Wrote:  

(01-16-2021 10:21 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  

(01-16-2021 08:43 PM)Hilldog Wrote:  A timeline for WAC football. Was this WAC football study mentioned on this board, when the study was completed?


http://www.collegiateconsulting.com/news...o-football

The study was probably not released publicly. You don’t hire consultants to develop a strategy and then make it public.

Where did I say the WAC should have made the study public? Nowhere! I asked did anybody mention the WAC football study. Some people have sources, and they post inside info here.

My bad, I misinterpreted you. As a side note, I think consultants are pretty par for the course these days, for all organizations (don’t get me started).

(01-17-2021 07:23 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  There is negligible incentive for a P5-G5 split, I don’t know why you people act like it’s inevitable. The P5 conferences collectively get $330 million from the CFP, plus incentives for making the CFP, while the G5 collectively gets $90 million. If you distributed that $90 million among the 65 P5 schools (including Notre Dame), each school would get less than $1.5 million. For schools that have $100 million+ athletic budgets. The P5 could get more money by going to a 13 game schedule, or a 10 game conference schedule. Plus in the current arrangement, most of the P5 plays 7 home games for 5 away games, and they can already write their own rules via autonomy. The P5 are already making out like bandits. There’s no incentive for the break away.

The WAC doesn’t need to worry about getting to FBS because of the split. If anything, they want to get to FBS to share in that $90 million pot. And, of course, the rise in value of WAC media rights.

Bingo.
The money is there in the CFP payouts and the money games. There is "prestige" in the FBS status, even if you are on the low end.

If there wasn't schools wouldn't continuely move on. I've said it before, despite their success neither Sam or SFA were on the Sun Belts or CUSAs expansion list.

However if they move to the WAC and become FBS, that changes the conversation. Likewise, UTArlington and Little Rock are non football members in the Sun Belt but you don't hear them for expansion here.

If FBS wac starts, they may be able to peel away one of these schools

(01-17-2021 07:12 PM)Todor Wrote:  

(01-17-2021 06:46 PM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  

(01-17-2021 06:32 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(01-17-2021 10:54 AM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  The WAC won't have a problem fielding FBS caliber programs. The problem will be building the facilities and generating the fans support to make the move possible.

I agree. Multiple WAC schools have the potential to recruit and field FBS-caliber talent. The problem is going to be finding seven who can invest the money and draw the fan support to make the move up to FBS. That's a huge challenge and even if it can be surmounted the issue of flight risk will still be there.

I think the upcoming WAC football study will lay out all the hurdles and conclude that the conference's strategy should be to continue sponsoring football at the FCS level unless and until there are significant shifts in the national collegiate athletics landscape. At the same time it will point out that individual members who want to position themselves early for those potential future changes have the option of transitioning to FBS independent status.

No one is leaving the conference. These schools just had to pay exit fees, entry fees and in the case of DSU and TSU, fees to go D1. Everyone keeps talking budgets and all of a sudden these schools have money to just leave and join leagues over and over? I don’t buy it.

And the WAC will be just over the minimum for FCS and you are speculating some will jump to Indy FBS? So they go Indy, which is difficult and screw the other teams when there aren’t enough for an FCS conference? None of that makes any sense.

I totally agree. No current members will leave anytime except, obviously, Chicago.I do believe Southern Utah is here for the long haul.

I don't think anyone will leave to jump to Indy FBS.

I should have been clearer in my post. I’m talking a 5 to 10 year time horizon for the flight risk issue to emerge. I fully agree none of the schools who just joined are “all of a sudden” going to jump to FBS independence. And if any choose to start down that road in the next few years I doubt the number will be large enough to put the WAC FCS conference at risk of losing its auto bid.

We know that as part of the expansion agreement the WAC has committed to conduct a study of the FBS option in the upcoming year. That wouldn’t have been part of the deal if there weren’t interest in moving up to FBS among the newcomers. My point is that despite that interest, the study findings are likely to discourage the idea of the whole conference moving up to FBS. Instead I expect the study to conclude the WAC should strive to be a top FCS conference, while also pointing out the FBS independence option as a viable (though not necessarily desirable) alternative for any member that isn’t satisfied with FCS and feels it can marshal the resources and support needed to attain the same status as NMSU.

Right, the critical question for WAC to FBS is if we can get access to the $90 million (and if it will grow larger when the G5 becomes the G6). If not, a FBS WAC would look a lot like NMSU, in that members would have to play a lot of buy games.

(01-17-2021 10:16 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  Right, the critical question for WAC to FBS is if we can get access to the $90 million (and if it will grow larger when the G5 becomes the G6). If not, a FBS WAC would look a lot like NMSU, in that members would have to play a lot of buy games.

That 90 million is not going to grow. Viewership has fallen over the past 5 years. I dont know if the g5 get a say in any of this but they definitely dont want another conference to split up the smaller pie with.

(01-17-2021 10:34 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(01-17-2021 10:16 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  Right, the critical question for WAC to FBS is if we can get access to the $90 million (and if it will grow larger when the G5 becomes the G6). If not, a FBS WAC would look a lot like NMSU, in that members would have to play a lot of buy games.

That 90 million is not going to grow. Viewership has fallen over the past 5 years. I dont know if the g5 get a say in any of this but they definitely dont want another conference to split up the smaller pie with.

It feasibly could during contract renegotiations in 2024 or whatever. Especially if they go to 8 teams and add 4 more games.

(01-17-2021 10:34 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(01-17-2021 10:16 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  Right, the critical question for WAC to FBS is if we can get access to the $90 million (and if it will grow larger when the G5 becomes the G6). If not, a FBS WAC would look a lot like NMSU, in that members would have to play a lot of buy games.

That 90 million is not going to grow. Viewership has fallen over the past 5 years. I dont know if the g5 get a say in any of this but they definitely dont want another conference to split up the smaller pie with.

I hear you and also as a dual fan of an AAC team I get it but with the WAC also holding a FBS charter I don’t see the other group of 5 conferences as having much of a choice once the renegotiations begin. I’m a thousand percent any rebuttals would be handled in court. I don’t believe the conference presidents, AD’s and team of lawyers would be so flippant about the issue of the conference moving to the FBS if the hurdles were so substantial.

This is also the reason I doubt the flight risk of the new members. I believe they joined completely with the intent to ride the WAC to the ranks of FBS. If there’s any movement after that it would be strictly because some other conference offers some sort of financial incentive that is obtainable in our current conference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(01-17-2021 07:23 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  There is negligible incentive for a P5-G5 split, I don’t know why you people act like it’s inevitable. The P5 conferences collectively get $330 million from the CFP, plus incentives for making the CFP, while the G5 collectively gets $90 million. If you distributed that $90 million among the 65 P5 schools (including Notre Dame), each school would get less than $1.5 million. For schools that have $100 million+ athletic budgets. The P5 could get more money by going to a 13 game schedule, or a 10 game conference schedule. Plus in the current arrangement, most of the P5 plays 7 home games for 5 away games, and they can already write their own rules via autonomy. The P5 are already making out like bandits. There’s no incentive for the break away.

The WAC doesn’t need to worry about getting to FBS because of the split. If anything, they want to get to FBS to share in that $90 million pot. And, of course, the rise in value of WAC media rights.

Here is something I got from an article on the CFP playoff revenue for the 2018 season: “According to a source close to the Sun Belt, the conference will receive $17.2 million for the 2018 football season, which is the third-highest figure among the Group of Five conferences. The Mountain West will receive the highest amount with $20.4 million, followed by the American Athletic Conference with $18.8 million.

The Sun Belt’s share is about $2 million higher than Conference USA ($15.6 million) and more than $3 million higher than the Mid-American Conference ($14 million).”

These amounts are split among the teams in each conference. It came out to $86 million distributed. Each Sun Belt school got $1.72 million, each CUSA school about $1.1 million. I just don’t see these G5 conferences sharing their playoff money with the WAC. Each power conference gets $66 million. Who is giving up money for the WAC?

(01-17-2021 11:45 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-17-2021 07:23 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  There is negligible incentive for a P5-G5 split, I don’t know why you people act like it’s inevitable. The P5 conferences collectively get $330 million from the CFP, plus incentives for making the CFP, while the G5 collectively gets $90 million. If you distributed that $90 million among the 65 P5 schools (including Notre Dame), each school would get less than $1.5 million. For schools that have $100 million+ athletic budgets. The P5 could get more money by going to a 13 game schedule, or a 10 game conference schedule. Plus in the current arrangement, most of the P5 plays 7 home games for 5 away games, and they can already write their own rules via autonomy. The P5 are already making out like bandits. There’s no incentive for the break away.

The WAC doesn’t need to worry about getting to FBS because of the split. If anything, they want to get to FBS to share in that $90 million pot. And, of course, the rise in value of WAC media rights.

Here is something I got from an article on the CFP playoff revenue for the 2018 season: “According to a source close to the Sun Belt, the conference will receive $17.2 million for the 2018 football season, which is the third-highest figure among the Group of Five conferences. The Mountain West will receive the highest amount with $20.4 million, followed by the American Athletic Conference with $18.8 million.

The Sun Belt’s share is about $2 million higher than Conference USA ($15.6 million) and more than $3 million higher than the Mid-American Conference ($14 million).”

These amounts are split among the teams in each conference. It came out to $86 million distributed. Each Sun Belt school got $1.72 million, each CUSA school about $1.1 million. I just don’t see these G5 conferences sharing their playoff money with the WAC. Each power conference gets $66 million. Who is giving up money for the WAC?

They don’t have a choice. As was mentioned, the WAC has an FBS charter. Period. They would get a piece of the FBS pie.

The Sunbelt has done a great job of moving up the FBS ranks. I think they’ve surpassed CUSA and are on par with the MWC. The WAC should look to them as inspiration.

Btw, payouts like this would eliminate the need for at least one body bag game for NMSU and would go a long ways towards the WAC football schools boosting their budgets for FBS.