Why UNT didn't go WAC

MeanGreen61 · November 3, 2006

Interesting comments by Arkstfan in this thread about UNT & the WAC. Initially UNT was ready to bolt the Sun Belt for the WAC.

http://middletennessee.rivals.com/showmsg....id=1142&style=2

...No one with any awareness of how the game of college athletics business is played would ever even ask for "documentation" because they would understand that expansion happens like this. Conference has a meeting or teleconference and authorizes commissioner to contact schools. Commissioner contacts schools and lets them know they have a home in the league IF they agree to join. Invitations are NEVER issued until it is a known fact that the prospective team will accept.

I've got some pretty decent contacts around the Sun Belt. UNT was set to bolt to the WAC until the president at Louisiana Lafayette sent him copies of University of Louisiana System financial data on Louisiana Tech showing that travel expenses for La.Tech were significantly higher than the WAC had claimed and they noted that those expenses were based on La.Tech having short trips to Tulsa, Dallas, and Houston.

If you are interested the scenario actually went like this.

UTEP bolts. WAC board authorizes Benson to look at UNT, ULL, and Idaho in that order with the knowledge that Idaho was going to be a close vote that might not pass.

Benson contacts North Texas. UNT requests info then receives contradictory info from UL System and informs Benson they are not interested in pursuing the situation. Benson tells UNT they have until X date to change their mind because they are contacting ULL and if ULL accepts first, UNT will be left behind.

Benson contacts ULL president who immediately states he is not interested (unlike UNT's leadership he had been president when ULL was in the Big West and was quite familar with the burden of playing out west).

Benson informs the WAC board of the situation. Idaho comes up short in a straw vote. La.Tech reminds the league they had been promised that a central time zone team would be admitted. Board authorizes Benson to contact Middle Tennessee and Arkansas State to gauge interest with no committment to expand.

Benson contacts UNT again and informs them he has been authorized to contact the other two schools and again says if one caves UNT is left in the cold. UNT replies they will accept a WAC invitation on the condition that the WAC will find three additional central time zone institutions to join making a 2 division set that has 5 central time zone schools plus NMSU. Benson contacts ASU and MTSU who both say they are not interested in joining a nine team WAC. Benson takes the UNT proposition to the membership. The idea is rejected. The WAC votes to officially invite Idaho...

...Basically every media outlet west of the Mississippi River was on the story and many like you couldn't believe UNT turned it down. The reason is simple. MONEY.

Believe it or not but North Texas was absolutely offered a chance to join the WAC, and while you may live in a dream world where bills don't have to be paid, UNT does. Every dollar spent on travel is a dollar unavailable for facility improvements or salaries. To join UNT would have skyrocketed its expenses and for three years while paying the entry fee would have seen conference revenue be the same or less than it is now. If the state auditors didn't shut them down in that time frame they would then move to a point where they were still wouldn't be as well off financially as in the Belt but the bleeding would be less severe...

Edited November 3, 2006 by MeanGreen61

untwillrise · November 3, 2006

In no way is the WAC worth it to us!

El Paso Eagle · November 3, 2006

For those people not attached to NT- The WAC is perceived as a step up from the Sun Belt (at least at this time)

FirefightnRick · November 4, 2006

Thank you ULL, thank you Dr. Pohl and thank you RV.

Rick

NDT · November 4, 2006

I think most of this information has been well known for a long time. What I have never understood is why the WAC Presidents did not go for the counter offer and take UNT, ASU, ULL, and MTSU. That would have killed Sun Belt football and opened up some media markets (albeit mostly small ones) which I believe would have been to the WAC's advantage.

CaribbeanGreen · November 4, 2006

..and what i don't understand is the recent article posted here with travel costs that showed LaTech had lower overall costs than NT. That just didn't seem right to me, and would totally piss all over the reasoning for turning down the offer... I believe TheTastyGreek posted the link and had the same questions, which went unanswered in the other thread... does anyone have that link or some numbers?

NDT · November 4, 2006

The only way you can produce those numbers is to compare the cost for 12 conference opponents (i.e. UNT) vs. the cost for 8 conference opponents (i.e. La Tech). La Tech has an opportunity to save money in non conference non revenue sports by scheduling lesser or closer opponents. The best way to compare is to add up all conference travel expenses by sport and then divide it by the number of teams in the conference participating in those sports and add the numbers.

I think I will accept the internal numbers from the State of Louisiana relied on by the ULL President.

MeanGreen61 · November 4, 2006

..and what i don't understand is the recent article posted here with travel costs that showed LaTech had lower overall costs than NT. That just didn't seem right to me, and would totally piss all over the reasoning for turning down the offer... I believe TheTastyGreek posted the link and had the same questions, which went unanswered in the other thread... does anyone have that link or some numbers?
←

Prior to that one of the area newspapers ran a story comparing Tech's possible expenses vs. revenue in the WAC vs. Sun Belt. In the article the conclusion drawn was that WAC membership was more expensive by far than Belt membership but that WAC revenue was just enough to make WAC membership the better deal by a few dollars.

It was the typical half-arse reporting. First the bulk of WAC revenue at the time was from some really good NCAA Tournament dollars, not football generated dollars and who knows how long those units will be there.

Second, the sample year for what it would cost to be in the Sun Belt was a year where La.Tech had traveled to Hawaii, Kansas State, Penn State, Middle Tenn, Auburn, Miami and Monroe.

The sample year for what it costs to be in the WAC was a year where they traveled in football to: Clemson, Penn State, Texas A&M, Rice, SMU, San Jose, and Boise. Remember that was a cheap year for Tech travel because they didn't go to Hawaii (unlike the "Sun Belt" sample) and two of their four conference road trips were to Dallas (261 miles) and Houston (340 miles). With Tulsa in the WAC they had 3 potential trips of 450 miles or less. Today their shortest trip is in excess of 900 miles.

VideoEagle · November 4, 2006

..and what i don't understand is the recent article posted here with travel costs that showed LaTech had lower overall costs than NT. That just didn't seem right to me, and would totally piss all over the reasoning for turning down the offer... I believe TheTastyGreek posted the link and had the same questions, which went unanswered in the other thread... does anyone have that link or some numbers?
←

The guy who runs to La Tech fan board ran the numbers himself and found that La Tech's "official" numbers could not add up. During the two years of transition from the old WAC to the new, La Tech was going to get lots of extra money. The schools leaving did not actually pay anything - they just did not get their shares of the conference revenue. And the next year the schools coming in did not actually pay anything - they, too, gave up the conference revenue. Now, all the schools are sharing the same pie of money.

VideoEagle · November 4, 2006

I just looked at ArkstateFans thread on the Middle board and he points out Dwaynes analysis as well.

La Tech wants to do ANYTHING to avoid a return to the Sunbelt. But if they don't get invited to CUSA, it is going to be very, very difficult for them to sustain the cost of being WACy.

Edited November 4, 2006 by VideoEagle

ntmeangreen11 · November 4, 2006

Aren't all WAC member going to get a big chunk of money if Boise goes to the BCS game for being in the top 12?

Arkstfan · November 4, 2006

Aren't all WAC member going to get a big chunk of money if Boise goes to the BCS game for being in the top 12?
←

There is a pool of $10 million if a non automatic qualifier league makes the BCS field, that pool is divided among the five non-auto leagues. Reportedly the WAC's share would be around $3 million the Belt's share I've heard would be somewhere between $600,000 and $300,000.

Now of that $3 million, Boise will have to purchase something on the order of 20,000 tickets at around $100 per (of course ticket brokers will probably make up the difference keeping them from having to eat any of them) but they will also have to arrive at the game site either 7 or 8 days in advance and the band has to be sent and depending on the game has to arrive one to three days before the game. I found an article that said Florida State spent $1.6 million on a trip to play in the Orange Bowl. If Boise is more frugal and can get by on half that there will be about $2.2 million to divide among the league, almost $245,000 per team if divided equally.

The funny part of that is that Idaho, NMSU, and USU had to forego $250,000 each in league revenue last year, this year and next year. If Boise makes it then they will likely tell the league to withhold $500,000 in revenue this year so that none is withheld next year, meaning that Tech won't get the $125,000 windfall next year of those schools foregoing league revenue.

The Belt will probably take the $300,000 or so it gets and use it as seed money for another bowl tie meaning no extra revenue.

badgerwolf · November 4, 2006

The Belt will probably take the $300,000 or so it gets and use it as seed money for another bowl tie meaning no extra revenue.
←

That ties in with comments from the November 'Ask The Commissioner' should the SBC not be able to get an at-large bowl team this year:

Now, if this doesn’t work this year, then I think we are right back where we were in 2000 when we created the R-L Carriers New Orleans Bowl. We will look for a resort destination, where fans, teams and alumni can come and enjoy a winter vacation while watching their team play.

November 4, 2006

I think that UNT handled the situation perfectley.

We were willing to move up if the price was right. The price wasn't right and we said no.

We sttod firm even when the WAC said first come, first served.

We proposed a 12 team conference with five of the teams being in the central time zone. That's what it had to be even though it meant shutting out Idaho. The WAC said no and that ended it. Case closed.

Our only other option would have been to include Utah State in the east but I'm sure that was considered and the cost was too great. You can't deny that a league with North Texas, ULL, Louisiana Tech, Arkansas State, NMSU and Utah State for an east division to go with the other six WAC teams wouldn't be a stronger conference but that's now water over the dam. With the addition of Troy, ULM, FAU, FIU and now WKU, there's no turning back.

GoMeanGreen1999 · November 4, 2006

I would much rather be in the WAC than the Belt. Believe it or not, but I am sure recruits if given the Belt or the WAC chose the WAC more than they chose the Belt, but I could be wrong. I know it is not much of a jump up from the Belt, but at least they are more respected nationally than the Belt is.

rcade · November 5, 2006

I would much rather be in the WAC than the Belt. Believe it or not, but I am sure recruits if given the Belt or the WAC chose the WAC more than they chose the Belt, but I could be wrong. I know it is not much of a jump up from the Belt, but at least they are more respected nationally than the Belt is.
←

The WAC's national rep is entirely based on past conference makeup.

Look at the WAC today: Boise State, Hawaii, San Jose State, Idaho, Nevada, Louisiana Tech, Fresno State, Utah State, New Mexico State. Is that really enough of a conference to justify joining a Mountain and Pacific timezone conference, with all of the travel costs and road games that start so late?

The Sun Belt's a much better fit regionally and it puts us in the football-crazed South. I think it's a healthier place to be long-term, and expect the league to be better than the WAC in 5-10 years.

LoveMG · November 5, 2006

another poor decision from nt. we should be in the wac.

GoMeanGreen1999 · November 5, 2006

another poor decision from nt. we should be in the wac.
←

Yea, I am going to have to agree with LoveMG on this one.

MeanGreenBuzz · November 5, 2006

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. One of the biggest problems this program has is money and there is no way we could offset the travel costs of the WAC. It would just have been a money sink hole.

UNTflyer · November 5, 2006

Play in California and Hawaii? Makes it nearly impossible for fans to go to road games. We can make the games in Tulsa, Ruston, Jonesboro...

Why not C-USA? Four Texas teams to play in a conference that made 6 bowl appearances last season.

foutsrouts · November 5, 2006

Play in California and Hawaii? Makes it nearly impossible for fans to go to road games. We can make the games in Tulsa, Ruston, Jonesboro...
Why not C-USA? Four Texas teams to play in a conference that made 6 bowl appearances last season.
←

I would prefer USA, but how many of our fans actually DO go to our regional conference road games? Not many based on my last couple of trips. Besides, we could try and schedule regional opponents (not Akrons) for our non-conference road games, and an occasional trip to Hawaii would be nice for recruiting and for those of us that can sneak away for a NT football week in the islands. If USA starts to look doubtful and we do reconsider the WAC, I would definitely want it as a football only membership. Not to easy for us to fund the other sports plus baseball in the WAC.

HerdOn · November 5, 2006

The Sun Belt's a much better fit regionally
←

I really don't understand the mentality on 99% of the SunBelt and MAC schools. "We must stay together so we can be a regional conf" Well as a former MAC member, I know they didn't even go to Away games. Bowling Green and Toledo are 16 miles apart. And neither bring more then 400 ppl in any given year. Kent and Akron are 21 miles apart and its the same.

I would rather play in Texas, Florida and Missippi all 3 good recriting beds. With actual fans in the seats. Rather then playing in Ohio Michigan conf infront of 6K and over half of the fans are yours.

Why would you not want to join the WAC and go to California. Another hotbed of recruiting. Play in Hawaii and New Mexico.

And go to Fresno and play infront of 35-40K and Boise and play infront of 30-32K or Hawaii and play infront of 35-37K. Its called exposer.

You join the WAC then in OOC you sign schools close to you, make your OOC schedule look like this: IAA team (Sam Houston, Texas State, McNesse) 1 BCS school (Okie State, Texas Tech, Baylor, Kansas, Kansas St, Miss. St, Ole Miss) 1 Med Non BCS school (MTSU, ULL, Troy) 1 Hard Non BCS team (Tulsa, SMiss, Houston).

And Make your schedule look something like this:

Texas State

Miss St

ULL

Tulsa

NMSU

USU

Idaho

Fresno St

Boise St

Hawaii

LA Tech

Nevada

Id be ashamed of my admin., if I let other schools make conference decisions for me.

Arkstfan · November 5, 2006

How many WAC titles does La.Tech have?

One. They won it their first year in the WAC and unless they played a ton of freshmen they won it with kids recruited to play a schedule loaded with southern independents (ie. the core of the Sun Belt). Since then recruiting to the World Athletic Conference they have slowly started sliding downward.

La.Tech is according to the standings, the sixth best team in the WAC, UNT the sixth best in the Sun Belt. The talent they have been able to recruit allowed UNT more points than any other opponent. The second quarter point out-put was almost UNT's best GAME scoring effort of the year.

Per Sagarin, La.Tech has dropped 15 points from that championship year, with SMU, Rice and Tulsa gone, how much worse is their recruiting going to become?

I know its not much of an issue for UNT fans but the talent Tech recruited for the Sun Belt basketball produced a team that was 5 points stronger in the WAC than last year's all WAC recruited team.

The numbers tell the tale. The move to the WAC is slowly killing La.Tech and only those deluded by the glitter of a prettier uniform patch sit around and wish their administration had agreed to join them in slow motion athletic suicide.

Edited November 5, 2006 by Arkstfan

Arkstfan · November 5, 2006

I really don't understand the mentality on 99% of the SunBelt and MAC schools. "We must stay together so we can be a regional conf"
Why would you not want to join the WAC and go to California. Another hotbed of recruiting. Play in Hawaii and New Mexico.
And go to Fresno and play infront of 35-40K and Boise and play infront of 30-32K or Hawaii and play infront of 35-37K. Its called exposer.
←

If the only conference option you have results in greater expense than revenue you are spending your dollars on charter companies and travel agents rather than on things that give you a chance to be successful (ie. facility improvements and evaluating more players).

Yeah California is a recruiting hot bed but you are picking after the Pac-10, the MWC, and the rest of the WAC for players. Honestly from what I've seen of UNT recruiting the past few years games in California and Florida wouldn't help much because I've not seen UNT in on a number of Sun Belt guys who are big contributors in beating UNT. If you aren't chasing guys in your own neighborhood that can play, what in the hell would make anyone think exposure in any other recruiting hot bed would have any value?

What good does exposure in front of 30,000 Fresno FANS or Boise FANS do? The kids watching those games aren't going to sign with the team playing against them if the home team offers. The people in the stands aren't going to buy a ticket to watch the opponent play in their home stadium unless their team is the one playing them. They aren't going to be buying licensed merchandise of the opponent and won't watch them on TV if it conflicts with their team on TV or in person.

But the WAC has Boise. Big deal. What happens if Boise collapses? It can happen ask one win Fresno. What if the MWC invites Boise who has openly lobbied for MWC admission? Ask La.Tech how great it was when SMU, Tulsa, Rice and UTEP left them stranded.

Even with the TV dollars, conferences tend to align for the best regionalism and generally have no more than one out-of-region team and that team usually brings something very special to the table.

the green rokemi · November 5, 2006

The Sun Belt's a much better fit regionally
←

Is it? We have 2 Florida schools, a Tennesee school and soon a Kentucky school...looking back I think we would have been better possibly in an Eastern division of the WAC that included the LA Sunbelt schools especially if UTEP had stayed