Boise State

emmitt01 · December 29, 2005

I think this discussion has gotten a little off track.
I don't even know what I'm arguing for any more. Yes, you are basically telling me that the only reason that Baylor has better facilities is because they get extra BCS money and UT fans and A&M fans travel well.
But I was at Baylor/NT at baylor a couple years ago and I can tell you that there were I think over 30K at the game and MAYBE 5,000 NT fans. That tells me that they have loyal fan base of much higher than 11K, even to see NT. And yes maybe they would drop down to that if they were in the belt. But isn't that also proving my point? We need to use all of our resources to get out of the belt and into the same conference with other recognizable name teams.
Bottom line is that with all the "success" that NT has had over the last 5 years we are still clinging on for dear life in D1A. Set you priorities straight:
1.) Increased attendance
2.) New Stadium
3.) CUSA membership
That simple.
←

Couple of things. First, ever thought that maybe all of those Baylor fans were there because NT is a recognizable (close) school and because we whooped their asses the year prior? And let's not even get into the fact that we didn't have decades of SWC membership to build our program because then this whole discussion becomes even more slanted towards the "can't make chicken salad with chicken..." side of things.

Also, when has ANYONE said they didn't want to be in CUSA? If you'll reread my post I said they'd host 11,000 in the WAC...sorta like we would. We tried to get into CUSA , they didn't return our phone calls. Until then we can all sit around chanting my new personal mantra until we're blue in the face:

HIGHER EXPECTATIONS! UNACCEPTABLE!!

Stan R · December 29, 2005

So, just to clear things up. Please tell me, emmit, just exactly what you are advocating. Because your mantra is obviously some sort of insult to people with unrealistic expectations so I'd like to hear what your realistic expecations are.

Arkstfan · December 29, 2005

Considering that the Big East is BCS and CUSA is far from it - I'd say going from 4-7 in CUSA to 6-5 in a BCS conference is a HUGE jump. And the point was that jumping to a "better" conference is a jump in two things, money and attendance and I believe this proves my point. You're implying that NT jumping into a better conference = getting slaughtered by better competition. What USF illustrates is that teams very quickly start recruiting to that next level because - duh they ARE at the next level. A CUSA membership would do a similar thing for NT and I'd argue that in some ways WAC could do the same. But I'm really not arguing WAC I'm really arguing CUSA.
←

In the Big East they joined with UConn who has been in I-A just as long as they have. They joined Cincinnati (who they split with in CUSA), they joined Louisville (who they split with in CUSA). They joined Pitt (whom they had defeated their first year in I-A), Rutgers (who played their first bowl game in 30 years a couple days ago), and Syracuse who won one game this year and probably would have been winless had that one game not been against Buffalo. Outside West Virginia which school in the Big East that was in the league last year am I supposed to be impressed with compared to last year's CUSA? Where's the huge jump?

emmitt01 · December 29, 2005

So, just to clear things up. Please tell me, emmit, just exactly what you are advocating. Because your mantra is obviously some sort of insult to people with unrealistic expectations so I'd like to hear what your realistic expecations are.
←

Since you asked I'll answer.

1)Win the belt far more often than not while we're in it.

2)Win the OOC games we're supposed to win and some that we're not.

3)Get away from "body bag" games.

4)Find fans who are willing to be as ultra active with their wallets and their attendance as they are with their keyboards.

5)Realize that ALL SPORTS must be supported in a big big way if we want to ever sniff CUSA or any other league.

6)Decent promotions for athletic events.

7)Leave the pipe dreams at the front door.

8)Realization that all of the bitching, pissing and moaning on this message board plus a quarter will get you some m&m's out of a vending machine.

9)Run from any invite to the WAC like the invitation were written on anthrax infested paper.

10)Subservience from all mankind.

(I'm willing to negotiate on #10)

Stan R · December 29, 2005

In the Big East they joined with UConn who has been in I-A just as long as they have. They joined Cincinnati (who they split with in CUSA), they joined Louisville (who they split with in CUSA). They joined Pitt (whom they had defeated their first year in I-A), Rutgers (who played their first bowl game in 30 years a couple days ago), and Syracuse who won one game this year and probably would have been winless had that one game not been against Buffalo. Outside West Virginia which school in the Big East that was in the league last year am I supposed to be impressed with compared to last year's CUSA? Where's the huge jump?
←

All of the schools you mention would beat most CUSA and SunBelt schools by a substantial margin. I think the jump argument is valid, from a recruiting standpoint, a money standpoint and a facilities standpoint, all of which will exponentially improve after this jump.

Arkstfan · December 29, 2005

The real debate is that NT needs to move to another conference sometime in the near future to assert itself as a legitimate program. I know it may be a few years before the entire athletics department gets itself inline for the upgrade, but it HAS to happen.
The reason that so many of us vote for CUSA now (like a lot of us did back about 2 years ago) is that CUSA is a stronger conference, it has teams closer to NT, and it gives us all of the other benefits of joining a better conference without the travel costs of the WAC.
In other words- we could play better programs without killing 1/2 the budget by flying to Hawaii. I don't think anyone here wants us to join the WAC. We'd just as soon join the MWC first.
←

The logic is wrong.

When you assert yourself as being legitimate (or in the weird world of CUSA you offer a TV market they would like to be in) other leagues call.

There are four reasons schools are picked in expansion.

1. Program merit. (Marshall to CUSA)

2. Perception that the program may have something offer (see UCF in CUSA).

3. Politics (Va.Tech to ACC, Texas Tech and Baylor to Big 12)

4. Desperation (Idaho to WAC)

But it all goes back to the conference wanting or needing to expand.

Stan R · December 29, 2005

Since you asked I'll answer.
1)Win the belt far more often than not while we're in it.
2)Win the OOC games we're supposed to win and some that we're not.
3)Get away from "body bag" games.
4)Find fans who are willing to be as ultra active with their wallets and their attendance as they are with their keyboards.
5)Realize that ALL SPORTS must be supported in a big big way if we want to ever sniff CUSA or any other league.
6)Decent promotions for athletic events.
7)Leave the pipe dreams at the front door.
8)Realization that all of the bitching, pissing and moaning on this message board plus a quarter will get you some m&m's out of a vending machine.
9)Run from any invite to the WAC like the invitation were written on anthrax infested paper.
10)Subservience from all mankind.
(I'm willing to negotiate on #10)
←

Well since I'm really bored on a Thursday afternoon, I'll respond to some of these:

2.) Well that leaves a lot open for interpretation - what are we "supposed to win"?

7.) What are the pipe dreams?

8.) Or it could get you a full time position in UNT administration as a spy! And medical benefits!

basically, I'd love to hear from you what is realistic in who we should expect to win?

emmitt01 · December 29, 2005

Well since I'm really bored on a Thursday afternoon, I'll respond to some of these:
2.) Well that leaves a lot open for interpretation - what are we "supposed to win"?
7.) What are the pipe dreams?
8.) Or it could get you a full time position in UNT administration as a spy! And medical benefits!
basically, I'd love to hear from you what is realistic in who we should expect to win?
←

Before I make these assertions as to who we should beat let me say I'm assuming that we will have found a man capable to being serviceable under center, Jamario will be healthy, and we will have a good to pretty good O-line. If these things don't happen then all bets are off.

SMU- From an emotional standpoint, the opportunity to make a statement, their at our house, and the fact that I am not particularly impressed with them (though they are improving) I see this as a 'should win.'

La Tech- We're at home, we should be more talented and they didn't strike me as a juggernaut even though they drilled us.

Now, let me say that I don't expect to beat Tulsa. That game would fall into the 'winning some that we're not expected to win' category for me. They are a pretty damn good program...or if they're not they're at least the champion of the league we're all wetting ourselves over.

And as to the pipe dreams...just wait until about a month after we play UT (or just after national signing day). They shouldn't be hard to spot.

Stan R · December 29, 2005

Ok, fair enough. So you think it is realistic to go 2-0 in OOC next season. At home. Okie dokie. I would be satisfied with winning either of them. So what happens if we drop them both? And go .500 in Sun Belt play? Sky falling now?

emmitt01 · December 29, 2005

Ok, fair enough. So you think it is realistic to go 2-0 in OOC next season. At home. Okie dokie. I would be satisfied with winning either of them. So what happens if we drop them both? And go .500 in Sun Belt play? Sky falling now?
←

In a word, yes. We have too much of a geographical advantage when it comes to recruiting and too much to lose.

SilverEagle · December 29, 2005

In a word, yes. We have too much of a geographical advantage when it comes to recruiting and too much to lose.
←

....and we had better do something to help people forget about our recent losses to FAU, and our almost loss to FIU. After the loss to FAU at home two seasons ago, I started taking cautionary glances skyward every time I stepped into Fouts.

BaylorGuy314 · December 29, 2005

Ok, this is long, but stay with me here.

First of all, Boise State has passed North Texas, not because of their facilities, conference affiliation, or recruiting. It is their location that has allowed them to expand and build better facilities, allow them to negotiate with conferences for affiliations, and increase their recruiting. Why? It’s because there is absolutely nothing in Idaho. Boise State is located in the state’s largest city and therefore has the most media attention and the most dedicated following. The University of Idaho will always play second fiddle to Boise State, even if they have more athletic success. In 1999, Boise State had a breakout season and this attracted the attention of every one of Idaho’s residents. Seemingly overnight, people became a Broncos fan, and given a choice which school to latch onto, they chose BSU. Attendance grew, allowing for the expansion of facilities and better recruiting. Better attendance and recruiting made Boise State football a better sell which has increased fan bases, recruiting, and the like. It became a domino effect.

Unfortunately, for North Texas, that same domino effect never happened. Why? Because bigger and more established “dominos” such as Texas, A&M, Tech, etc. were continuing to grow their fan bases and continuing to have success. This severely limited the amount by which NT could grow a following and fan base, whereas Boise St. had little restriction.

North Texas would most benefit from having a couple of years of success in a time frame that Texas, A&M, TCU, and even SMU, have poor success. This would garner North Texas more media attention and grow the fan base to an audience that is looking for someone to follow. Unfortunately, that hasn’t happened yet. It’s the same reason why TCU, even when they are 10-1, struggle to get 35,000 fans to a game in a major metropolitan area. They are playing excellent ball in the shadow of Texas and Tech. If Texas and Tech were both 5-6 or 4-7 this year, everything else remaining constant, a lot of casual fans from Texas would support the Horned Frogs.

As for the Baylor comments, well, I’ll address them one by one.

1)They get Big XII money every year regardless of their abysmal football performance. Texas is playing in the national title game this year...and Baylor gets a cut. Gee, what kind of facilities could we build with a free 4million dollar check?

This is absolutely true. However, it is important to consider the fact that Baylor also spends a lot more money to be a member of that same BCS conference. The amount of cash it takes to run a BCS program is not covered by one, two, or even three checks from some other schools making bowl games. It takes a significant amount of cash to run the 16 other sports programs that usually drain money from the pocketbook of the university. Of course, if Baylor dropped many of those other programs, then we could use that extra money on upgrading facilities, but a question then arises about whether the Big 12 would even want a program that does not participate in many of the athletics that the rest of the conference does. This is kind of like the “It costs money to make money” theory. Baylor makes more, even when they do poorly, but it costs them more to run 17 (it might be 18 now, I don’t remember) other programs compared to UNT’s 12. Of course, UNT could add more if they got the $4 million dollar check, but then they wouldn’t be able to upgrade facilities, would they?

This is why almost every improvement done to a Baylor facility in the past 5 or 6 years has been completely funded by donors and not the athletic department.

Really, I could make the same argument about state schools. Much of the alumni donations that Baylor receives actually go to support academic programs, not athletic programs. Since this is the schools lifeblood, you have to do this first, leaving a much smaller pool of donors available from which to get athletic monies. Texas, A&M, and even Tech, can build better facilities because they don’t have to ask for many donations from their alumni for academics. If they need new dorms because the enrollment is growing, they can get more money from the state, where Baylor has to plop down a cold couple of million for them. Need a new parking garage? The state has it covered. Baylor has to pay a million for it.

2)Their fan support isn't outstanding, sorry to ruin the party. Who do they play year in and year out? Texas, Texas Tech, Texas aTm, Oklahoma, Ok State. And who brings in the bodies or who are the people there to see? Texas, Texas Tech, Texas aTm, Oklahoma, Ok State. If Baylor played in the glorious WAC their stadium would host 11,000 per game and their budget would take the serious hit that accompanies it.

This is flawed in so many ways, I don’t know where to begin. First of all, your ideas that Baylor would only draw 11,000 if they played in the WAC is laughable. Baylor drew an announced 34,000 for the North Texas game in 2004 (although I personally believe the attendance was larger). This year, we drew 37,000 for Div. 1AA Samford. Want some more non-Big 12 opponents? We had 31,000 to watch Tulsa in 2002 and 31,000 at both the SMU and Sam Houston State games in 2003. In fact, the lowest attended game we’ve had in the past 10-15 years was 25,000 in 2004 against Missouri where it poured all day and the game started at 9pm. It was also televised, so many of the season ticket holders in the Dallas and Austin areas probably opted out of coming when they realized they could stay dry and at home instead of driving an hour and half to watch in the rain. The fact that Baylor drew that well, in the midst of a 17-74 record from 1997-2004 tells me that we could, at minimum, maintain attendance levels even if the level of competition dropped. Of course, assuming your incorrect scenario was to occur, our budget would take a serious hit. However, we’d cut the amount of athletic programs we offered back to the minimum and continue to ask donors for upgrades as we have for the past decade.

3)Let's think, which is easier to recruit to? A team that gets to play against Big XII competition or a team that plays the belt?

Well, this is just plain self explanatory and really is unrelated to the argument. If you recruit at the same level as your conference opponents, then you should have relatively equal success as them. Baylor hasn’t recruited at the same level as most B12 schools. TCU has, as an example, recruited better than most CUSA and MWC schools. As you upgrade conferences, you upgrade your ability to sell your school to recruits. If Baylor were in the Sun Belt, it would naturally be a much harder sell.

I think the recipe for success when switching conference affiliations is that it has to happen when the “joinee” has its highest level of talent. Idaho and New Mexico State, as examples, were not going to walk into a better conference and make noise when they were at arguably their lowest talent level in years. Central Florida, on the other hand, made their move when they were at their highest talent level. You need to jump when you are at your peak if you want to get the most air. If you jump when your in a trough, you ain’t gonna achieve very much.

There is no reason North Texas can’t be as good as Boise State. It’s going to be tougher, especially given geography, but it’s doable. It just has to happen at a time when North Texas is at its peak if you want to avoid making a switch only to go 2-9, 3-8, or even 0-12. It would also help if other teams, such as TCU, Texas, A&M, and others were down so the most attention is gained. From there, everything goes on autopilot.

Edited December 29, 2005 by BaylorGuy314

UNTFan23 · December 30, 2005

If they need new dorms because the enrollment is growing, they can get more money from the state, where Baylor has to plop down a cold couple of million for them. Need a new parking garage? The state has it covered. Baylor has to pay a million for it.

I wish the state paid for such things. Sadly, if you need a new dorm, you bond it out and the students that live on campus pay for it over a period of time. Similar situation with parking on campus. Those persons (students, faculty, staff) that use the on-campus parking all pay for the "right" park on campus and parking improvements (new lots, garages, etc). The state all considers these things "auxilary" expenses, thus the state does not expend tax payer money on it.

Even now if you need a new academic building, you'll be extremely lucky if you can get the state to pay for a majority of the expeses, no matter how much you need it. [Public] Universities are having to rely more and more on student tuition and alumni donations to fund academic facility expansion.

Arkstfan · December 30, 2005

Idaho has 1.4 million people and Boise is the big thing in the area. That area and surronding counties is around 560,000. Their average attendance in football this year was roughly 5% of that population. UNT's attendance this year was roughly 3% of Denton County.

Boise clinched a winning record in game 8 of 12. UNT clinched a losing season in game 8.

You look at the numbers and Denton County alone has sufficent population to support UNT athletics. Yeah UNT has greater competition (2 local I-A programs, NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, plus the non-local I-A programs) and yet is drawing a fair crowd despite clinching a losing season early this year and despite not having ever opened league play above .500.

Someone may have mentioned this once or twice, but a few non-conference wins could do wonders for the program.

WIAggie · December 30, 2005

Ark State Fan - you are greatness! Wait until we start consistently getting beat by our SBC brethren - oh wait, FAU is well on their way.
Look at what the great WAC did for NMSU - 0-12!

That's Because SBC FB is a-kin to I-AA FB, both AD Boston & Coach Mumme said as much.

and that's why NMSU went 0-12, thanks to the Sun Belt...it won't be till year 3, before NMSU as a winning season...when coach mumme is done weeding out the Sun Belt Players on the roster....we'er hope some will leave to join Coach Samuels at SE MO

UNTFan23 · December 30, 2005

That's Because SBC FB is a-kin to I-AA FB, both AD Boston & Coach Mumme said as much.
and that's why NMSU went 0-12, thanks to the Sun Belt...it won't be till year 3, before NMSU as a winning season...when coach mumme is done weeding out the Sun Belt Players on the roster....we'er hope some will leave to join Coach Samuels at SE MO
←

I love the part where you blame your performance in the WAC on the Sun Belt. Too bad it doesn't really work (see Tulsa and UCF in CUSA).

NT80 · December 30, 2005

and that's why NMSU went 0-12, thanks to the Sun Belt...it won't be till year 3, before NMSU as a winning season...when coach mumme is done weeding out the Sun Belt Players on the roster....we'er hope some will leave to join Coach Samuels at SE MO
←

NMSU plays football? Not what I saw this season! Just stick to your best sport of ...?....?....?....??

Arkstfan · December 30, 2005

That's Because SBC FB is a-kin to I-AA FB, both AD Boston & Coach Mumme said as much.
and that's why NMSU went 0-12, thanks to the Sun Belt...it won't be till year 3, before NMSU as a winning season...when coach mumme is done weeding out the Sun Belt Players on the roster....we'er hope some will leave to join Coach Samuels at SE MO
←

Mumme totally scrapped the NMSU offense and installed a pass happy attack with players recruited to run a basically option attack. Last year O'Leary totally scrapped the scheme UCF had they went 0 for 2004 including being whipped by Buffalo. The issue isn't what conference the players were recruited for the issue was what scheme they were recruited for.

You lost to Utah State and Idaho this year, two teams that tied for last place in the Sun Belt last season.

Blame the Sun Belt for your woes.

From 1971 to 1982 you were in the MoValley and posted one season over .500. From 1983 to 2000 you were in a western league and posted two winning seasons and six seasons with 1 win or no wins. Five seasons in the Belt you posted 1 winning season. The one winning season you had a 3 point win over ULL under a first year head coach and a 6 point win (in OT as I recall) over ASU under a first year head coach. Throw in a 13 point over ULM who had fired their coach three games into the season. You beat a 2-10 UTEP that had one I-A win, a 3pt win over Rice. Your most "impressive" win was over 7-7 New Mexico who had beaten I-AA Weber State by 14.

If the Sun Belt were to blame for anything at NMSU, it was giving you a false sense of success in 2002 when you racked up three of your seven wins in close games over schools that had coaching turmoil and a fourth win over an atrocious UTEP team that went 6-30 from 2001 to 2003. Your failures have been your own without regard to your conference affiliation.

UNTLifer · December 30, 2005

5)Realize that ALL SPORTS must be supported in a big big way if we want to ever sniff CUSA or any other league.

Using your rationale above, how in the world did SMU, Houston and Rice get invited to CUSA???

This is absolutely true. However, it is important to consider the fact that Baylor also spends a lot more money to be a member of that same BCS conference. The amount of cash it takes to run a BCS program is not covered by one, two, or even three checks from some other schools making bowl games. It takes a significant amount of cash to run the 16 other sports programs that usually drain money from the pocketbook of the university. Of course, if Baylor dropped many of those other programs, then we could use that extra money on upgrading facilities, but a question then arises about whether the Big 12 would even want a program that does not participate in many of the athletics that the rest of the conference does. This is kind of like the “It costs money to make money” theory. Baylor makes more, even when they do poorly, but it costs them more to run 17 (it might be 18 now, I don’t remember) other programs compared to UNT’s 12. Of course, UNT could add more if they got the $4 million dollar check, but then they wouldn’t be able to upgrade facilities, would they?
This is why almost every improvement done to a Baylor facility in the past 5 or 6 years has been completely funded by donors and not the athletic department.

The amount of sports funded in mandated to be Division 1A, so your arguement is not entirely true. Now, maybe the Big 12 states that you must have certain sports such as baseball, etc...

Every improvement done to any athletic facility at any university in Texas must be done with private donations not state money.

TIgreen01 · December 30, 2005

2)Their fan support isn't outstanding, sorry to ruin the party. Who do they play year in and year out? Texas, Texas Tech, Texas aTm, Oklahoma, Ok State. And who brings in the bodies or who are the people there to see? Texas, Texas Tech, Texas aTm, Oklahoma, Ok State. If Baylor played in the glorious WAC their stadium would host 11,000 per game and their budget would take the serious hit that accompanies it.
This is flawed in so many ways, I don’t know where to begin. First of all, your ideas that Baylor would only draw 11,000 if they played in the WAC is laughable. Baylor drew an announced 34,000 for the North Texas game in 2004 (although I personally believe the attendance was larger). This year, we drew 37,000 for Div. 1AA Samford. Want some more non-Big 12 opponents? We had 31,000 to watch Tulsa in 2002 and 31,000 at both the SMU and Sam Houston State games in 2003. In fact, the lowest attended game we’ve had in the past 10-15 years was 25,000 in 2004 against Missouri where it poured all day and the game started at 9pm. It was also televised, so many of the season ticket holders in the Dallas and Austin areas probably opted out of coming when they realized they could stay dry and at home instead of driving an hour and half to watch in the rain. The fact that Baylor drew that well, in the midst of a 17-74 record from 1997-2004 tells me that we could, at minimum, maintain attendance levels even if the level of competition dropped. Of course, assuming your incorrect scenario was to occur, our budget would take a serious hit. However, we’d cut the amount of athletic programs we offered back to the minimum and continue to ask donors for upgrades as we have for the past decade.
3)Let's think, which is easier to recruit to? A team that gets to play against Big XII competition or a team that plays the belt?
If Baylor were in the Sun Belt, it would naturally be a much harder sell.
←

Mostly good post, but you defeat your entire argument for #2 with your explanation for #3. Selling recruits and selling fans aren't going to be too far off. Also, in your argument for #2 you completely ignore the fact that BU was a member of the SWC throughout its glory days....which is where you built up a fan base large enough to put 30k in the stands during the last 10 years....not to mention that (according to your logic) it's easier to sell the Big 12. Putting up stats for the 1 or 2 home games you had against teams not in the Big 12 is also mostly a bogus number. How many season ticket holders does BU have? Think those people really buy season tix so that they can see tamu, ut, tech and ou and just get stuck with the other game b/c it's in the package?? Yep, I think they do.

Edited December 30, 2005 by TIgreen01

buff64 · December 30, 2005

Ok, this is long, but stay with me here.
First of all, Boise State has passed North Texas, not because of their facilities, conference affiliation, or recruiting. It is their location that has allowed them to expand and build better facilities, allow them to negotiate with conferences for affiliations, and increase their recruiting. Why? It’s because there is absolutely nothing in Idaho. Boise State is located in the state’s largest city and therefore has the most media attention and the most dedicated following. The University of Idaho will always play second fiddle to Boise State, even if they have more athletic success. In 1999, Boise State had a breakout season and this attracted the attention of every one of Idaho’s residents. Seemingly overnight, people became a Broncos fan, and given a choice which school to latch onto, they chose BSU. Attendance grew, allowing for the expansion of facilities and better recruiting. Better attendance and recruiting made Boise State football a better sell which has increased fan bases, recruiting, and the like. It became a domino effect.
Unfortunately, for North Texas, that same domino effect never happened. Why? Because bigger and more established “dominos” such as Texas, A&M, Tech, etc. were continuing to grow their fan bases and continuing to have success. This severely limited the amount by which NT could grow a following and fan base, whereas Boise St. had little restriction.
North Texas would most benefit from having a couple of years of success in a time frame that Texas, A&M, TCU, and even SMU, have poor success. This would garner North Texas more media attention and grow the fan base to an audience that is looking for someone to follow. Unfortunately, that hasn’t happened yet. It’s the same reason why TCU, even when they are 10-1, struggle to get 35,000 fans to a game in a major metropolitan area. They are playing excellent ball in the shadow of Texas and Tech. If Texas and Tech were both 5-6 or 4-7 this year, everything else remaining constant, a lot of casual fans from Texas would support the Horned Frogs.
As for the Baylor comments, well, I’ll address them one by one.
1)They get Big XII money every year regardless of their abysmal football performance. Texas is playing in the national title game this year...and Baylor gets a cut. Gee, what kind of facilities could we build with a free 4million dollar check?
This is absolutely true. However, it is important to consider the fact that Baylor also spends a lot more money to be a member of that same BCS conference. The amount of cash it takes to run a BCS program is not covered by one, two, or even three checks from some other schools making bowl games. It takes a significant amount of cash to run the 16 other sports programs that usually drain money from the pocketbook of the university. Of course, if Baylor dropped many of those other programs, then we could use that extra money on upgrading facilities, but a question then arises about whether the Big 12 would even want a program that does not participate in many of the athletics that the rest of the conference does. This is kind of like the “It costs money to make money” theory. Baylor makes more, even when they do poorly, but it costs them more to run 17 (it might be 18 now, I don’t remember) other programs compared to UNT’s 12. Of course, UNT could add more if they got the $4 million dollar check, but then they wouldn’t be able to upgrade facilities, would they?
This is why almost every improvement done to a Baylor facility in the past 5 or 6 years has been completely funded by donors and not the athletic department.
Really, I could make the same argument about state schools. Much of the alumni donations that Baylor receives actually go to support academic programs, not athletic programs. Since this is the schools lifeblood, you have to do this first, leaving a much smaller pool of donors available from which to get athletic monies. Texas, A&M, and even Tech, can build better facilities because they don’t have to ask for many donations from their alumni for academics. If they need new dorms because the enrollment is growing, they can get more money from the state, where Baylor has to plop down a cold couple of million for them. Need a new parking garage? The state has it covered. Baylor has to pay a million for it.
2)Their fan support isn't outstanding, sorry to ruin the party. Who do they play year in and year out? Texas, Texas Tech, Texas aTm, Oklahoma, Ok State. And who brings in the bodies or who are the people there to see? Texas, Texas Tech, Texas aTm, Oklahoma, Ok State. If Baylor played in the glorious WAC their stadium would host 11,000 per game and their budget would take the serious hit that accompanies it.
This is flawed in so many ways, I don’t know where to begin. First of all, your ideas that Baylor would only draw 11,000 if they played in the WAC is laughable. Baylor drew an announced 34,000 for the North Texas game in 2004 (although I personally believe the attendance was larger). This year, we drew 37,000 for Div. 1AA Samford. Want some more non-Big 12 opponents? We had 31,000 to watch Tulsa in 2002 and 31,000 at both the SMU and Sam Houston State games in 2003. In fact, the lowest attended game we’ve had in the past 10-15 years was 25,000 in 2004 against Missouri where it poured all day and the game started at 9pm. It was also televised, so many of the season ticket holders in the Dallas and Austin areas probably opted out of coming when they realized they could stay dry and at home instead of driving an hour and half to watch in the rain. The fact that Baylor drew that well, in the midst of a 17-74 record from 1997-2004 tells me that we could, at minimum, maintain attendance levels even if the level of competition dropped. Of course, assuming your incorrect scenario was to occur, our budget would take a serious hit. However, we’d cut the amount of athletic programs we offered back to the minimum and continue to ask donors for upgrades as we have for the past decade.
3)Let's think, which is easier to recruit to? A team that gets to play against Big XII competition or a team that plays the belt?
Well, this is just plain self explanatory and really is unrelated to the argument. If you recruit at the same level as your conference opponents, then you should have relatively equal success as them. Baylor hasn’t recruited at the same level as most B12 schools. TCU has, as an example, recruited better than most CUSA and MWC schools. As you upgrade conferences, you upgrade your ability to sell your school to recruits. If Baylor were in the Sun Belt, it would naturally be a much harder sell.
I think the recipe for success when switching conference affiliations is that it has to happen when the “joinee” has its highest level of talent. Idaho and New Mexico State, as examples, were not going to walk into a better conference and make noise when they were at arguably their lowest talent level in years. Central Florida, on the other hand, made their move when they were at their highest talent level. You need to jump when you are at your peak if you want to get the most air. If you jump when your in a trough, you ain’t gonna achieve very much.
There is no reason North Texas can’t be as good as Boise State. It’s going to be tougher, especially given geography, but it’s doable. It just has to happen at a time when North Texas is at its peak if you want to avoid making a switch only to go 2-9, 3-8, or even 0-12. It would also help if other teams, such as TCU, Texas, A&M, and others were down so the most attention is gained. From there, everything goes on autopilot.
←

The major reason Boise State has such outstanding facilities is that they were given the venues used for the winter olympics several years ago,after the games concluded.

BaylorGuy314 · December 30, 2005

The amount of sports funded in mandated to be Division 1A, so your arguement is not entirely true. Now, maybe the Big 12 states that you must have certain sports such as baseball, etc...
←

This is correct, and I'll be honest in that I do not know the requirements. However, I did notice that BU has 17 sports programs and UNT has 12.

Every improvement done to any athletic facility at any university in Texas must be done with private donations not state money.
←

That's also correct, but that's not my point.

Let's use a hypothetical:

Texas has 10,000 alums who want to donate $100 mil to the university.

Last I checked (about a year ago), Texas reimburses state universities an average of 50% for their expenses.

So, let's say Texas wants to build a $75 million science facility. The state will cover roughly half that ($37.5 mil), but the rest has to be done with bonds and donations ($37.5). Assuming that it's done with donations, that $100 million that the donors have has now gone down to $62.5 million to be used for other things. They can put it into a $20 million upgrade for their baseball stadium (they are doing this now, actually) and still have $42.5 million for other athletics.

Now take the same thing at BU and assume there are 10,000 alums who want to donate $100 million to the university.

If BU wants to build a $75 million science facility, they have to bond out the whole thing or get donations. Assuming that we use donations again, those same donors only have $25 million to be used elsewhere. Now if BU wants to go upgrade their stadium by $20 million (just a hypothetical, remember), then the donors only have $5 mil left for other athletics.

It's really not a big deal, I'm just point out the difference. Donors is the key word. It's why UH has struggled. They have tons of people go through, but very few ever give back.

Mostly good post, but you defeat your entire argument for #2 with your explanation for #3. Selling recruits and selling fans aren't going to be too far off. Also, in your argument for #2 you completely ignore the fact that BU was a member of the SWC throughout its glory days....which is where you built up a fan base large enough to put 30k in the stands during the last 10 years....not to mention that (according to your logic) it's easier to sell the Big 12.
←

I did mean recruiting is harder to sell, not attendance. I would agree that there is some correlation between selling recruits and fans, but I don't think it's the big problem. The big problem is you have to sell UNT to schools instead of UT, A&M, Tech, TCU, SMU, BU, UTEP, OU, OSU, etc, etc. Boise State, on the other hand, had to fight off...Idaho? Maybe Wyoming?

True, I did ignore the SWC days and that played a big part of building a fan base. Baylor's been playing football since the 1890s. I don't know when UNT started playing, but I'm assuming it was significantly later than that. That works huge in BU's favor, most definitely. It's also a big reason why SMU, Rice, UH, and numerous others are already in CUSA and UNT is not.

Putting up stats for the 1 or 2 home games you had against teams not in the Big 12 is also mostly a bogus number. How many season ticket holders does BU have? Think those people really buy season tix so that they can see tamu, ut, tech and ou and just get stuck with the other game b/c it's in the package?? Yep, I think they do.
←

Baylor only sold about 12-13k season tix in 2004, which is absolutely pathetic. Of course, it was much higher when we were having winning seasons 10 years ago. But if we can pull 31,000 for Sam Houston or 37,000 for Samford, I have a strong feeling that it wouldn't drop down to the teens just because the conference opponents were different. Even if you cut the season tickets down to 1/4, we would still pull in close to low to mid 20s on average, and that's assuming we are losing games, not winning. The low teens is simply unrealistic.

Edited December 30, 2005 by BaylorGuy314

TIgreen01 · December 30, 2005

This is correct, and I'll be honest in that I do not know the requirements. However, I did notice that BU has 17 sports programs and UNT has 12.
That's also correct, but that's not my point.
Let's use a hypothetical:
Texas has 10,000 alums who want to donate $100 mil to the university.
Last I checked (about a year ago), Texas reimburses state universities an average of 50% for their expenses.
So, let's say Texas wants to build a $75 million science facility. The state will cover roughly half that ($37.5 mil), but the rest has to be done with bonds and donations ($37.5). Assuming that it's done with donations, that $100 million that the donors have has now gone down to $62.5 million to be used for other things. They can put it into a $20 million upgrade for their baseball stadium (they are doing this now, actually) and still have $42.5 million for other athletics.
Now take the same thing at BU and assume there are 10,000 alums who want to donate $100 million to the university.
If BU wants to build a $75 million science facility, they have to bond out the whole thing or get donations. Assuming that we use donations again, those same donors only have $25 million to be used elsewhere. Now if BU wants to go upgrade their stadium by $20 million (just a hypothetical, remember), then the donors only have $5 mil left for other athletics.
It's really not a big deal, I'm just point out the difference. Donors is the key word. It's why UH has struggled. They have tons of people go through, but very few ever give back.
I did mean recruiting is harder to sell, not attendance. I would agree that there is some correlation between selling recruits and fans, but I don't think it's the big problem. The big problem is you have to sell UNT to schools instead of UT, A&M, Tech, TCU, SMU, BU, UTEP, OU, OSU, etc, etc. Boise State, on the other hand, had to fight off...Idaho? Maybe Wyoming?
True, I did ignore the SWC days and that played a big part of building a fan base. Baylor's been playing football since the 1890s. I don't know when UNT started playing, but I'm assuming it was significantly later than that. That works huge in BU's favor, most definitely. It's also a big reason why SMU, Rice, UH, and numerous others are already in CUSA and UNT is not.
Baylor only sold about 12-13k season tix in 2004, which is absolutely pathetic. Of course, it was much higher when we were having winning seasons 10 years ago. But if we can pull 31,000 for Sam Houston or 37,000 for Samford, I have a strong feeling that it wouldn't drop down to the teens just because the conference opponents were different. Even if you cut the season tickets down to 1/4, we would still pull in close to low to mid 20s on average, and that's assuming we are losing games, not winning. The low teens is simply unrealistic.
←

Ok...didn't mean to jump on Baylor so hard (my wife and sister are alums so I'm pretty familiar--er, get the "sic'em bears" call beat into my head---and I'm sure you know, that grows tiresome )

I am surprised to hear 37k for Samford....I guess the only thing I could come back with would be to question when that game was in the season.....of course you know, home openers tend to draw much larger crowds. Hypothetically, if BU were to setup a game like that in late Oct./early Nov....and if they had a losing record going into a game like that, what kind of attendance do you honestly think they'd draw? That's really where playing Sun Belt/Big West/WAC schools hurts the attendance--late in the season.

Edited December 30, 2005 by TIgreen01

UNTLifer · December 30, 2005

This is correct, and I'll be honest in that I do not know the requirements. However, I did notice that BU has 17 sports programs and UNT has 12.
←

North Texas sponsors the NCAA mandated 16 sports:

Football

Men's Basketball

Women's Basketball

Men's Cross Country

Women's Cross Country

Men's Golf

Women's Golf

Women's Soccer

Softball

Women's Swimming

Women's Tennis

Men's Indoor Track

Women's Indoor Track

Men's Outdoor Track

Women's Outdoor Track

Volleyball

We will also be adding Baseball in the very near future, so an additional women's sport will also be added to remain Title IX compliant.

Arkstfan · December 31, 2005

The major reason Boise State has such outstanding facilities is that they were given the venues used for the winter olympics several years ago,after the games concluded.
←

Uhh you mean Utah and Utah State, right?