Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
NMSUPistolPete Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,126
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 51
I Root For: NMSU
Location: AZ
Post: #2061
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
(01-25-2021 11:29 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  Is San Angelo that much harder to get to than Abilene? They could make decent travel partners.

Right now, it appears Tarleton State would be Abilene Christian's travel partner. With potentially seven Texas schools in the WAC, someone will need to travel alone.

East Division
Abilene Christian / Tarleton State
Sam Houston State / Stephen F. Austin
Lamar / UT Rio Grande Valley
Seventh member... West Texas A&M? Angelo State? Texas A&M Commerce?

West Division
New Mexico State / Grand Canyon
Dixie State / Southern Utah
Utah Valley / California Baptist
Seattle U.

OR

West Division
California Baptist / Grand Canyon
Dixie State / Southern Utah
Utah Valley / Seattle U
New Mexico State
01-26-2021 12:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SDHornet Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 659
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 14
I Root For: Sac State
Location:
Post: #2062
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
(01-25-2021 09:02 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  
(01-25-2021 06:33 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  
(01-25-2021 04:19 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  
(01-25-2021 04:16 PM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  
(01-25-2021 04:08 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  If it’s a D2 school in Texas, it wouldn’t effect NMSU too much.

Understood. I'm just tired of D2's. Let's throw our weight around and get another D1.

For sure I can understand that. However, look at the quality of the 4 D2’s we got. Not exactly USC-Upstate, NJIT, and Houston Baptist.

If it's a quality D2 add then it would be better then a middling D1. WAC has the leeway to be a little more picky with their last add. But it sounds like WT checks most, it not all, of the boxes the WAC desires.

What D1's would consider the WAC? And how do they stack up against the D2's in consideration? Seems like a pretty straight forward analysis that the WAC could easily decide on.

Indeed they do, because of quality D2 moveups. Lone Star D2's are not your average bear, and WTAMU is the pick of the litter after Tarleton left. Really can't go wrong with option 2 or 3, either.

No, it's because the WAC pulled off the SLC raid and added current D1 members. Had that not happened, there wouldn't be talk about another D2 add anytime soon.
01-26-2021 12:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OhioBoilermaker Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 32
Joined: Jan 2021
Reputation: 4
I Root For: Purdue, NMSU
Location:
Post: #2063
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
Ooof. Some of those travel partners are rough. At least SLC to LA is a fairly easy flight. Remind me why we don’t want McNeese? Would make a good partner for Lamar.
01-26-2021 02:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NMSUPistolPete Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,126
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 51
I Root For: NMSU
Location: AZ
Post: #2064
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
(01-26-2021 02:43 AM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  Ooof. Some of those travel partners are rough. At least SLC to LA is a fairly easy flight. Remind me why we don’t want McNeese? Would make a good partner for Lamar.

We lose Chicago State from the East Division next year; and now we have travel outliers within the State of Texas as well? So, now the distance between Lamar and UTRGV is too great to be travel partners? You realize a fight from Beaumont/Houston to McAllen Texas is only an hour in half.
(This post was last modified: 01-26-2021 04:26 AM by NMSUPistolPete.)
01-26-2021 04:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OhioBoilermaker Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 32
Joined: Jan 2021
Reputation: 4
I Root For: Purdue, NMSU
Location:
Post: #2065
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
(01-26-2021 04:00 AM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  
(01-26-2021 02:43 AM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  Ooof. Some of those travel partners are rough. At least SLC to LA is a fairly easy flight. Remind me why we don’t want McNeese? Would make a good partner for Lamar.

We lose Chicago State from the East Division next year; and now we have travel outliers within the State of Texas as well? So, now the distance between Lamar and UTRGV is too great to be travel partners? You realize a fight from Beaumont/Houston to McAllen Texas is only an hour in half.

Yes, the travel situation is bad. Yes, the travel partners that you propose would be better. The situation would still not be good. Having to fly between three sets of travel partners is far from ideal.
01-26-2021 11:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SDHornet Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 659
Joined: Jan 2017
Reputation: 14
I Root For: Sac State
Location:
Post: #2066
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
(01-26-2021 11:26 AM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  
(01-26-2021 04:00 AM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  
(01-26-2021 02:43 AM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  Ooof. Some of those travel partners are rough. At least SLC to LA is a fairly easy flight. Remind me why we don’t want McNeese? Would make a good partner for Lamar.

We lose Chicago State from the East Division next year; and now we have travel outliers within the State of Texas as well? So, now the distance between Lamar and UTRGV is too great to be travel partners? You realize a fight from Beaumont/Houston to McAllen Texas is only an hour in half.

Yes, the travel situation is bad. Yes, the travel partners that you propose would be better. The situation would still not be good. Having to fly between three sets of travel partners is far from ideal.

Were there any "travel partners" that didn't require flights pre-SLC raid? GCU-CBU? Anyone else?
01-26-2021 11:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
LUSportsFan Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 444
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 13
I Root For: Lamar Cardinals
Location:
Post: #2067
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
(01-26-2021 12:12 AM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  
(01-25-2021 11:29 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  Is San Angelo that much harder to get to than Abilene? They could make decent travel partners.

Right now, it appears Tarleton State would be Abilene Christian's travel partner. With potentially seven Texas schools in the WAC, someone will need to travel alone.

East Division
Abilene Christian / Tarleton State
Sam Houston State / Stephen F. Austin
Lamar / UT Rio Grande Valley
Seventh member... West Texas A&M? Angelo State? Texas A&M Commerce?

West Division
New Mexico State / Grand Canyon
Dixie State / Southern Utah
Utah Valley / California Baptist
Seattle U.

OR

West Division
California Baptist / Grand Canyon
Dixie State / Southern Utah
Utah Valley / Seattle U
New Mexico State

Another alternative would be some combination of the East Texas 3 and UTRGV instead of firm travel partners with the group.
Lamar to Stephen F. Austin - 133 miles
Lamar to Sam Houston State - 122 miles
Sam Houston State to Stephen F. Austin - 97.2 miles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen F Austin to UTRGV - 479 miles
Sam Houston State to UTRGV - 405 miles
Lamar to UTRGV - 423 miles
01-26-2021 11:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OhioBoilermaker Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 32
Joined: Jan 2021
Reputation: 4
I Root For: Purdue, NMSU
Location:
Post: #2068
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
GCU with Bakersfield not CBU, I think. About the same distance as Chicago State-UMKC. I’m guessing teams flew for all of them. Not sure why we didn’t put CBU with CSB. That’s at least a reasonable drive.
01-26-2021 11:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OscarWildeCat Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 189
Joined: Nov 2020
Reputation: 12
I Root For: ACU & UGA
Location:
Post: #2069
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
Tarleton to ACU, 96.2 miles.
01-26-2021 12:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NMSUPistolPete Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,126
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 51
I Root For: NMSU
Location: AZ
Post: #2070
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
(01-26-2021 11:48 AM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  GCU with Bakersfield not CBU, I think. About the same distance as Chicago State-UMKC. I’m guessing teams flew for all of them. Not sure why we didn’t put CBU with CSB. That’s at least a reasonable drive.

You do realize UVU and Seattle U are currently travel partners. And, NMSU used to be paired up with UTRGV as travel partners last year. The WAC schedule is usually a Thursday / Saturday setup with a travel day in between games. A fight from Lamar to UTRGV only takes a couple hours. Other than (Texas) divisional play in the Eastern Division of the WAC, most Thursday/Saturday games in the Western Division and cross divisional games require air travel. No one is busing to Seattle.
01-26-2021 12:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OhioBoilermaker Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 32
Joined: Jan 2021
Reputation: 4
I Root For: Purdue, NMSU
Location:
Post: #2071
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
(01-26-2021 12:25 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  
(01-26-2021 11:48 AM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  GCU with Bakersfield not CBU, I think. About the same distance as Chicago State-UMKC. I’m guessing teams flew for all of them. Not sure why we didn’t put CBU with CSB. That’s at least a reasonable drive.

You do realize UVU and Seattle U are currently travel partners. And, NMSU used to be paired up with UTRGV as travel partners last year. The WAC schedule is usually a Thursday / Saturday setup with a travel day in between games. A fight from Lamar to UTRGV only takes a couple hours. Other than (Texas) divisional play in the Eastern Division of the WAC, most Thursday/Saturday games in the Western Division and cross divisional games require air travel. No one is busing to Seattle.

I don't realize that, because the WAC doesn't currently have travel partners. Under the Friday/Saturday schedule, they're not necessary. I do know that Seattle and UVU were travel partners last year. I've also already made it clear that your proposed travel partners are better than last year's setup, but I think they are far from ideal. So it's unclear to me what point you are trying to make.

Edit: Oh, yes, I agree. Air travel will be required in the west.
(This post was last modified: 01-26-2021 12:57 PM by OhioBoilermaker.)
01-26-2021 12:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CrimsonPhantom Offline
Warden Of The WAC
*

Posts: 15,856
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 1335
I Root For: NM State
Location:
Post: #2072
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
(01-26-2021 12:45 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  
(01-26-2021 12:25 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  
(01-26-2021 11:48 AM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  GCU with Bakersfield not CBU, I think. About the same distance as Chicago State-UMKC. I’m guessing teams flew for all of them. Not sure why we didn’t put CBU with CSB. That’s at least a reasonable drive.

You do realize UVU and Seattle U are currently travel partners. And, NMSU used to be paired up with UTRGV as travel partners last year. The WAC schedule is usually a Thursday / Saturday setup with a travel day in between games. A fight from Lamar to UTRGV only takes a couple hours. Other than (Texas) divisional play in the Eastern Division of the WAC, most Thursday/Saturday games in the Western Division and cross divisional games require air travel. No one is busing to Seattle.

I don't realize that, because the WAC doesn't currently have travel partners. Under the Friday/Saturday schedule, they're not necessary. I do know that Seattle and UVU were travel partners last year. I've also already made it clear that your proposed travel partners are better than last year's setup, but I think they are far from ideal. So it's unclear to me what point you are trying to make.

Edit: Oh, yes, I agree. Air travel will be required in the west.

I think travel partners are outdated and irrelevant from a bygone era.
01-26-2021 01:59 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NMSUPistolPete Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,126
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 51
I Root For: NMSU
Location: AZ
Post: #2073
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
(01-26-2021 12:45 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  
(01-26-2021 12:25 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  
(01-26-2021 11:48 AM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  GCU with Bakersfield not CBU, I think. About the same distance as Chicago State-UMKC. I’m guessing teams flew for all of them. Not sure why we didn’t put CBU with CSB. That’s at least a reasonable drive.

You do realize UVU and Seattle U are currently travel partners. And, NMSU used to be paired up with UTRGV as travel partners last year. The WAC schedule is usually a Thursday / Saturday setup with a travel day in between games. A fight from Lamar to UTRGV only takes a couple hours. Other than (Texas) divisional play in the Eastern Division of the WAC, most Thursday/Saturday games in the Western Division and cross divisional games require air travel. No one is busing to Seattle.

I don't realize that, because the WAC doesn't currently have travel partners. Under the Friday/Saturday schedule, they're not necessary. I do know that Seattle and UVU were travel partners last year. I've also already made it clear that your proposed travel partners are better than last year's setup, but I think they are far from ideal. So it's unclear to me what point you are trying to make.

Edit: Oh, yes, I agree. Air travel will be required in the west.

I'm just trying to point out that we shouldn't be trying to simply adding schools to pair with current teams as travel partners because they are closer on a map. McNeese State is closer to Lamar than UTRGV but I don't want McNeese State in the WAC unless they fit the conference's vision for the future. And, Angelo State is close enough to Abilene Christian to be a travel partner. But if West Texas A&M has more upside, we should be focusing on adding them; even if they're more separated from the rest of the Texas school. In a 14 member league, there will be an expected amount of air travel for conference games.

The advantage of have a big conference is that much of a team's schedule is already completed. I suspect in basketball, each team will play their division opponents twice (for 12 games) and possibly play 6 of 7 schools from the other divisions once (for 6 crossover games) to make an 18 game conference schedule. Or possibly play eight crossover games (playing one team from the other division twice) to make a 20 game conference schedule. That still leave 8-10 non-conference games to fill each year.
(This post was last modified: 01-26-2021 03:15 PM by NMSUPistolPete.)
01-26-2021 02:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OhioBoilermaker Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 32
Joined: Jan 2021
Reputation: 4
I Root For: Purdue, NMSU
Location:
Post: #2074
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
(01-26-2021 02:32 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  
(01-26-2021 12:45 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  
(01-26-2021 12:25 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  
(01-26-2021 11:48 AM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  GCU with Bakersfield not CBU, I think. About the same distance as Chicago State-UMKC. I’m guessing teams flew for all of them. Not sure why we didn’t put CBU with CSB. That’s at least a reasonable drive.

You do realize UVU and Seattle U are currently travel partners. And, NMSU used to be paired up with UTRGV as travel partners last year. The WAC schedule is usually a Thursday / Saturday setup with a travel day in between games. A fight from Lamar to UTRGV only takes a couple hours. Other than (Texas) divisional play in the Eastern Division of the WAC, most Thursday/Saturday games in the Western Division and cross divisional games require air travel. No one is busing to Seattle.

I don't realize that, because the WAC doesn't currently have travel partners. Under the Friday/Saturday schedule, they're not necessary. I do know that Seattle and UVU were travel partners last year. I've also already made it clear that your proposed travel partners are better than last year's setup, but I think they are far from ideal. So it's unclear to me what point you are trying to make.

Edit: Oh, yes, I agree. Air travel will be required in the west.

I'm just trying to point out that we shouldn't be trying to simply adding schools to pair with current teams as travel partners because they are closer on a map. McNeese State is closer to Lamar than UTRGV but I don't won't McNeese State in the WAC unless they fit the conference's vision for the future. And, Angelo State is close enough to Abilene Christian to be a travel partner. But if West Texas A&M has more upside, we should be focusing on adding them; even if they're more separated from the rest of the Texas school. In a 14 member league, there will be an expected amount of air travel for conference games.

The advantage of have a big conference is that much of a team's schedule is already completed. I suspect in basketball, each team will play their division opponents twice (for 12 games) and possibly play 6 of 7 schools from the other divisions once (for 6 crossover games) to make an 18 game conference schedule. Or possibly play eight crossover games (playing one team from the other division twice) to make a 20 game conference schedule. That still leave 8-10 non-conference games to fill each year.

Ah, I agree with you - if WTAMU has the most upside, we should focus on them. But my original question was why we have ruled out McNeese. Because they are broke? They clearly have some upside - proximity, existing D1 member, new market (for whatever that's worth) etc.
01-26-2021 03:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DoubleRSU Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,580
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation: 58
I Root For: SU, WAC, NAU
Location:
Post: #2075
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
(01-26-2021 03:05 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  
(01-26-2021 02:32 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  
(01-26-2021 12:45 PM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  
(01-26-2021 12:25 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  
(01-26-2021 11:48 AM)OhioBoilermaker Wrote:  GCU with Bakersfield not CBU, I think. About the same distance as Chicago State-UMKC. I’m guessing teams flew for all of them. Not sure why we didn’t put CBU with CSB. That’s at least a reasonable drive.

You do realize UVU and Seattle U are currently travel partners. And, NMSU used to be paired up with UTRGV as travel partners last year. The WAC schedule is usually a Thursday / Saturday setup with a travel day in between games. A fight from Lamar to UTRGV only takes a couple hours. Other than (Texas) divisional play in the Eastern Division of the WAC, most Thursday/Saturday games in the Western Division and cross divisional games require air travel. No one is busing to Seattle.

I don't realize that, because the WAC doesn't currently have travel partners. Under the Friday/Saturday schedule, they're not necessary. I do know that Seattle and UVU were travel partners last year. I've also already made it clear that your proposed travel partners are better than last year's setup, but I think they are far from ideal. So it's unclear to me what point you are trying to make.

Edit: Oh, yes, I agree. Air travel will be required in the west.

I'm just trying to point out that we shouldn't be trying to simply adding schools to pair with current teams as travel partners because they are closer on a map. McNeese State is closer to Lamar than UTRGV but I don't won't McNeese State in the WAC unless they fit the conference's vision for the future. And, Angelo State is close enough to Abilene Christian to be a travel partner. But if West Texas A&M has more upside, we should be focusing on adding them; even if they're more separated from the rest of the Texas school. In a 14 member league, there will be an expected amount of air travel for conference games.

The advantage of have a big conference is that much of a team's schedule is already completed. I suspect in basketball, each team will play their division opponents twice (for 12 games) and possibly play 6 of 7 schools from the other divisions once (for 6 crossover games) to make an 18 game conference schedule. Or possibly play eight crossover games (playing one team from the other division twice) to make a 20 game conference schedule. That still leave 8-10 non-conference games to fill each year.

Ah, I agree with you - if WTAMU has the most upside, we should focus on them. But my original question was why we have ruled out McNeese. Because they are broke? They clearly have some upside - proximity, existing D1 member, new market (for whatever that's worth) etc.

Why go further east? Even though they’re relatively close to Texas, why add another state and a far flung stigma back to the conference? That’s what everyone brought up when Hawaii and LaTech were here.
01-26-2021 03:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,345
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 199
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location:
Post: #2076
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
For anyone complaining about McNeese, citing footprint, you do realize they are 62 miles (68 min drive) from Lamar. That’s not an add that blows up the footprint.
01-26-2021 05:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NMSUPistolPete Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,126
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 51
I Root For: NMSU
Location: AZ
Post: #2077
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
(01-26-2021 05:28 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  For anyone complaining about McNeese, citing footprint, you do realize they are 62 miles (68 min drive) from Lamar. That’s not an add that blows up the footprint.

Their was a reason why the Texas Four left the SLC. I'm not sure what these Texas schools think about McNeese State, but the WAC really doesn't want to recreate the SLC or LSC in the eastern division. The eastern schools have an opportunity to cherry pick the school with the most upside moving into the future. Like with the additions of GCU, CBU, Tarleton State, and Dixie State, there might be D2 schools who might have more potential than long lived FSC schools who haven't made major investments in athletics for years.
(This post was last modified: Yesterday 04:11 AM by NMSUPistolPete.)
01-26-2021 05:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CW Fishman Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 444
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 28
I Root For: Ragin Cajuns
Location:
Post: #2078
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
(01-26-2021 05:28 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  For anyone complaining about McNeese, citing footprint, you do realize they are 62 miles (68 min drive) from Lamar. That’s not an add that blows up the footprint.


One of the reasons the "Texas 4" left the SLC is because the Louisiana schools do not have the same financial commitment to athletics. McNeese is a perfect example of this. (These are 2018 budget numbers)

McNeese budget: $11,975,415
Lamar Budget: $18,308,056
SFA Budget: $17,486,183
SHSU budget: $19,102,055

So why would they want to allow the WAC become a new SLC?
01-26-2021 05:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
LUSportsFan Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 444
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 13
I Root For: Lamar Cardinals
Location:
Post: #2079
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
(01-26-2021 05:49 PM)CW Fishman Wrote:  
(01-26-2021 05:28 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  For anyone complaining about McNeese, citing footprint, you do realize they are 62 miles (68 min drive) from Lamar. That’s not an add that blows up the footprint.


One of the reasons the "Texas 4" left the SLC is because the Louisiana schools do not have the same financial commitment to athletics. McNeese is a perfect example of this. (These are 2018 budget numbers)

McNeese budget: $11,975,415
Lamar Budget: $18,308,056
SFA Budget: $17,486,183
SHSU budget: $19,102,055

So why would they want to allow the WAC become a new SLC?

Two big differences comparing the Texas schools vs McNeese are institutional support and athletic fees. It appears that McNeese has decent fan/donor support.

Link - Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics

When looking at facilities, it does appear that McNeese has done very well with what support they do get if the hurricanes would give Lake Charles a break.

- New basketball arena. (badly damaged by one of last year's hurricanes)
- Improvements to baseball field.
- 53,800+ sqft Athletic Complex built about 10 years ago.
- New softball field playing surface

I noticed LSU-Alexandria has an $18.00 per semester hour up to 12 hours or max of $216, but it appears most universities in Louisiana have no or very low athletic fees. Is that due to regulation or more the result of accepted practices in the state?

Link - LSU-Alexandria Fees
(This post was last modified: 01-26-2021 06:35 PM by LUSportsFan.)
01-26-2021 06:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CW Fishman Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 444
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 28
I Root For: Ragin Cajuns
Location:
Post: #2080
RE: WAC Expansion/FCS - for real (Official Discussion Thread)
(01-26-2021 06:32 PM)LUSportsFan Wrote:  
(01-26-2021 05:49 PM)CW Fishman Wrote:  
(01-26-2021 05:28 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  For anyone complaining about McNeese, citing footprint, you do realize they are 62 miles (68 min drive) from Lamar. That’s not an add that blows up the footprint.


One of the reasons the "Texas 4" left the SLC is because the Louisiana schools do not have the same financial commitment to athletics. McNeese is a perfect example of this. (These are 2018 budget numbers)

McNeese budget: $11,975,415
Lamar Budget: $18,308,056
SFA Budget: $17,486,183
SHSU budget: $19,102,055

So why would they want to allow the WAC become a new SLC?

Two big differences comparing the Texas schools vs McNeese are institutional support and athletic fees. It appears that McNeese has decent fan/donor support.

Link - Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics

When looking at facilities, it does appear that McNeese has done very well with what support they do get if the hurricanes would give Lake Charles a break.

- New basketball arena. (badly damaged by one of last year's hurricanes)
- Improvements to baseball field.
- 53,800+ sqft Athletic Complex built about 10 years ago.
- New softball field playing surface

I noticed LSU-Alexandria has an $18.00 per semester hour up to 12 hours or max of $216, but it appears most universities in Louisiana have no or very low athletic fees. Is that due to regulation or more the result of accepted practices in the state?

Link - LSU-Alexandria Fees

Some athletic fees are allowed, but they seem to require a vote by the student body. The tuitions in Louisiana are very low so most schools make up for that with fees which I understand can exceed the tuition; so additional fees are a hard sell. I am only telling you what I have heard.
01-26-2021 06:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: chargeradio, 4 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2021 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2021 MyBB Group.