The Case For And Against The Wac

Got5onIt · June 21, 2010

Denton->Fresno 1,500+ miles.
Denton->Hawaii ~4,000 miles.

Now, FAU is a statistical out lier at 1,300 miles, but the next longest is MTSU @ ~700 miles, Jonesboro is 450, ULM ios 320, Lafayette is 430, etc.

The extra money in the wac won't cover those travel costs, much less make up for the fact 99% of our fans won't be able to travel.

The new stadium and a new conference with well known schools like Hawaii & Fresno St. could be huge for increasing our fanbase. Renewing our rivalry with NMSU has to be a positive.

Let's say attendance jumps because of this...at what point would it be worth it?

UNTflyer · June 21, 2010

Since CUSA is NOT going to be raided anytime soon, it is more like playing lemming than chicken. With chicken, you can win if they other guy flinches. With lemming, we just go wacy and jump off a cliff.

But maybe suicide is the "perception" some want to convey!

It's suicide if you really think the WAC is worse than the Sun Belt. Even if CUSA doesn't come through with an offer, the WAC is so much better than Sun Belt. The WAC has 4 automatic bowls, and three of them are against MWC teams.

Even without Boise, WAC revenues will be better than Sun Belt. The WAC gets almost $8 million while the Sun Belt gets $1.5 million. Take away the Boise State BCS payout, it still means the WAC rakes in $3.5 million, more than twice as much as the Belt.

Got5onIt · June 21, 2010

But this is the new perception of the WAC with Boise leaving. I don't think joining a conference that has lost its identity that has been recently based almost solely on one team is the way to go right now. I also wouldn't want to join the WAC until I know what the new TV contract looks like as it will most likely be less than the $4.5 million it is today.

How has the WAC's identity been solely based on Boise??? Boise's been good for the last 3-4 years. Fresno was taking down powerhouses way before them. Hawaii was always solid (as long as June was there). I think you guys are blowing this way out of proportion. Boise has just recently been the big fish in the pond.....

VideoEagle · June 21, 2010

The new stadium and a new conference with well known schools like Hawaii & Fresno St. could be huge for increasing our fanbase. Renewing our rivalry with NMSU has to be a positive.
Let's say attendance jumps because of this...at what point would it be worth it?

Why would adding Fresno or NMSU make ANY increase in our fan base? It didn't make a huge increase when we were playing them before? Now, Hawai'i is a wild card, but then didn't draw well when they played at TCU, or Tulsa, or SMU or for that matter now at La Tech.

Cerebus · June 21, 2010

The new stadium and a new conference with well known schools like Hawaii & Fresno St. could be huge for increasing our fanbase. Renewing our rivalry with NMSU has to be a positive.
Let's say attendance jumps because of this...at what point would it be worth it?

Probably at the point it jumps enough to make up for the extra cost to send all the non revenue sports to hawaii, fresno, moscow, san jose, etc.

In other words, not too realistic of a chance. At least that is what the administration thought the last time we were floated a WAC offer, and I don't see what has changed.

Lets not forget, Hawaii has ended the last two season at 6-7 and 7-7, and Fresno has won 7 & 6 regular season games in the same time period.

No one extra is going to be drawn in for those teams, they will come in for the possible BCS busting teams, but those happen every blue moon.

VideoEagle · June 21, 2010

It's suicide if you really think the WAC is worse than the Sun Belt. Even if CUSA doesn't come through with an offer, the WAC is so much better than Sun Belt. The WAC has 4 automatic bowls, and three of them are against Even without Boise, WAC revenues will be better than Sun Belt. The WAC gets almost $8 million while the Sun Belt gets $1.5 million. Take away the Boise State BCS payout, it still means the WAC rakes in $3.5 million, more than twice as much as the Belt.

Actually, no. The Honolulu paper writes that the Wac's new TV contract is going to be about half what it is now, so around $2 million, split 8 ways. As for BCS pay out, Arkstatefan did some calculations that the SBC is roughly the same now as a Boise-less Wac. Because of NT's record of the past few years, if we were to jump to the Wac, their BCS rating would drop significantly and all the other non-AQ conferences would go up while the Wac dropped to the bottom of the pool.

So, no it is not more than twice as much as the Belt. It is more like $150,000 more than the Belt. Add a home game while staying in the Belt and we are ahead.

Edited June 21, 2010 by VideoEagle

Cerebus · June 21, 2010

It's suicide if you really think the WAC is worse than the Sun Belt. Even if CUSA doesn't come through with an offer, the WAC is so much better than Sun Belt. The WAC has 4 automatic bowls, and three of them are against MWC teams.

Even without Boise, WAC revenues will be better than Sun Belt. The WAC gets almost $8 million while the Sun Belt gets $1.5 million. Take away the Boise State BCS payout, it still means the WAC rakes in $3.5 million, more than twice as much as the Belt.

They are going to lose Boise's home bowl, and Hawaii always sucks up their home bowl if they are eligible. The SBC now has two bowl tie ins.

WAC payout will go way down as soon as BSU leaves. It's inflated because of their TV draw and BCS payout. The WAC president has already released a statement telling the remaining conference teams to anticipate a large drop.

Look, you can rest assured the leadership here will do what makes financial sense. Financial sense is what led us not to take the last invite, I don't see what has changed that will a difference this time.

Flying the non revenue teams all over the planet isn't going to be any cheaper this time, unless the WAC has been able to summon a magical dragon flying force, in which case all bets are off.

VideoEagle · June 21, 2010

Flying the non revenue teams all over the planet isn't going to be any cheaper this time, unless the WAC has been able to summon a magical dragon flying force, in which case all bets are off.

Now, if they can conjure dragons, I think we should consider going Wacy!

GrandGreen · June 21, 2010

Remember, this is also in a sense a game of chicken. If CUSA is seriously looking at us, and they think we are considering a WAC invite, they may step up their efforts to get us on board.

CUSA has very few options to expand in the southwest. I dismiss any and all talk about UTSA and Texas State as ridiculous. Dreams of grabbing a homeless Big 12 team are dead. There is the possibility their eastern division is about to get raided.

Hey that is working well for La Tech. This is one of the most far out reasons for courting the WAC I've heard, that it will make us more attractive to CUSA. I guess no one at CUSA realizes that NT really wants in their conference. Comparing this to A&M and the SEC is ridiculous. Someone has to believe a bluff for it to work.

If CUSA loses Eastern Teams, I am afraid NT will be far down the list of replacements because they will want replacements out of the Eastern Division's locale not Texas. Unfortunately, although geography is one of NT's biggest assets; it works against them as it relates to CUSA. CUSA already has 4 Texas teams and that is more than enough for out of state members. Texas schools don't want anymore in-state recruiting and fan competition with another state school and are unlikely to offer any NT support. Unfortunately, NT's recent football record has given them an easy out even though NT has to rate high in other factors.

Got5onIt · June 21, 2010

They are going to lose Boise's home bowl, and Hawaii always sucks up their home bowl if they are eligible. The SBC now has two bowl tie ins.

WAC payout will go way down as soon as BSU leaves. It's inflated because of their TV draw and BCS payout. The WAC president has already released a statement telling the remaining conference teams to anticipate a large drop.

Look, you can rest assured the leadership here will do what makes financial sense. Financial sense is what led us not to take the last invite, I don't see what has changed that will a difference this time.

Flying the non revenue teams all over the planet isn't going to be any cheaper this time, unless the WAC has been able to summon a magical dragon flying force, in which case all bets are off.

Money talks. I think NT has to bring in stAte if they want to go WACky. Otherwise, it has to be a no. i wonder what the studies show what revenue could be generated if the WAC went to twelve and created a title game?

Also, why would Cusa want to add another Texas school?????

Edited June 21, 2010 by Got5onIt

UNTflyer · June 21, 2010

They are going to lose Boise's home bowl, and Hawaii always sucks up their home bowl if they are eligible. The SBC now has two bowl tie ins.

WAC payout will go way down as soon as BSU leaves. It's inflated because of their TV draw and BCS payout. The WAC president has already released a statement telling the remaining conference teams to anticipate a large drop.

Look, you can rest assured the leadership here will do what makes financial sense. Financial sense is what led us not to take the last invite, I don't see what has changed that will a difference this time.

Flying the non revenue teams all over the planet isn't going to be any cheaper this time, unless the WAC has been able to summon a magical dragon flying force, in which case all bets are off.

There's nothing certain about the Humanitarian bowl, except that it CAN'T go with Boise since MWC is maxed out on automatic bowl tie-ins. I'm betting the Humanitarian bowl stays with the WAC and it moves to a better location. Hey, think we can get it played at the new stadium???

While revenue will drop, it will still be higher than the SBC payout.

And what has changed since last time is the fact we have a athletic fee that can be raised 10% each year with a simple majority vote of the BOR.

Got5onIt · June 21, 2010

There's nothing certain about the Humanitarian bowl, except that it CAN'T go with Boise since MWC is maxed out on automatic bowl tie-ins. I'm betting the Humanitarian bowl stays with the WAC and it moves to a better location. Hey, think we can get it played at the new stadium???

While revenue will drop, it will still be higher than the SBC payout.

And what has changed since last time is the fact we have a athletic fee that can be raised 10% each year with a simple majority vote of the BOR.

Interesting to hear the Boise Bowl can't go to the MWC. What is the maximum number of auto bids per conference? A Bowl game in Denton would be great!!!!!!

Travis · June 21, 2010

Bring LA TECH to the SBC. Problem solved!

UNTflyer · June 21, 2010

Interesting to hear the Boise Bowl can't go to the MWC. What is the maximum number of auto bids per conference? A Bowl game in Denton would be great!!!!!!

And the Humanitarian Bowl?

Boise's bowl game, started in 1997, could be in trouble. The Mountain West has five bowl contracts through 2013 - the maximum the league is allowed. Four of those games are played in Mountain West stadiums and the fifth (Independence in Shreveport, La.) made a strong financial commitment to the league.

The Humanitarian Bowl has new four-year deals with the WAC and Mid-American Conference but prefers to remain tied to Boise State.

"I don't know how we're going to be able to look at that and how it's going to be addressed but it is something that continues to be of interest," Thompson said.

The Humanitarian has four-year deals with the WAC and Mid-American Conference. The WAC, though, has four bowl contracts and without Boise State might not be able to fulfill them all.

"That issue hasn't been addressed," Benson said.

Read more: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/06/20/1238314/breaking-down-boise-states-big.html#ixzz0rVlJH3E2

TXST_CAT · June 21, 2010

Bobcat fan here and I can't help but notice the chatter about the WAC. We are having similar conversation on Bobcatfans and the WAC fan forum is doing the same. I think this is a great opportunity for both TXST and UNT. Some of us feel if the WAC adds three Texas teams it will push the Belt East and split the Texas mid majors between CUSA and the WAC. This could spark conference rivalry much like the WAC and MWC. Let's face it, CUSA will not add another Texas team unless the current Texas members bail. So why not start a WAC East that can rival CUSA for ESPN money and Fans.

Cerebus · June 21, 2010

While revenue will drop, it will still be higher than the SBC payout.

And so will travel costs.

And what has changed since last time is the fact we have a athletic fee that can be raised 10% each year with a simple majority vote of the BOR.

And we should throw that money at travel instead of building facilities and the athletic endowment?

Let's not forget our decisions will be drive by the exact same thing that drives UT, MONEY. If it makes economic sense to be in the WAC, we will be. I don't think it does. But only time will tell.

UNTFan23 · June 21, 2010

The WAC has 4 automatic bowls, and three of them are against MWC teams.

The WAC has 3 automatic bowls and is an alternate for the Poinsettia Bowl if the Pac-10 (now the PAC-12) can't get 6 teams bowl eligible. The WAC has sent 1 team to that bowl in the 5 years the bowl has existed. I don't think we should count on that bowl as a dependable 4th bid for the WAC.

Cerebus · June 21, 2010

Some of us feel if the WAC adds three Texas teams it will push the Belt East and split the Texas mid majors between CUSA and the WAC. This could spark conference rivalry much like the WAC and MWC.

If the WAC could add three Texas teams, teams that would be able to play in the next couple of years, that would probably swing economics into their favor.

However, I don't see three ready Texas teams willing to do that.

gangrene · June 21, 2010

Some of us feel if the WAC adds three Texas teams it will push the Belt East and split the Texas mid majors between CUSA and the WAC.

And what three "mid major" Texas teams would the WAC be able to add? I don't think Houston, Rice, UTEP, SMU or TCU are willing to move to the WAC.

Side Show Joe · June 21, 2010

I've heard many arguements for and against the WAC, but in the end, I still say if we can't get in C-USA, lets go to the WAC. Yes, the teams are far away. Yes, it will cost more to travel. Yes, most of our fans will not go to away games. Yes, half of the teams in the WAC are really bad. Yes, we will play half our games late at night. And I have desided I'm OK with that, because...

..., at the end of the season, the WAC champion has almost always finishes ranked in the polls. I have never seen a Sun Belt champion ranked. Ever. Not us, not Troy, not anybody.

So, I don't care how bad anything is in the WAC. The fact that the WAC offers an oportunity to be ranked, negates any other arguement for me. I didn't think we have that oportunity in the Sun Belt. It's time to go.

MeanGreen61 · June 21, 2010

FWIW

WAC finished at the Sagarin #11 rated basketball conference and the Belt was #20. WAC is not considered as a "mid-major" ala Sun Belt, but as a major basketball conference.

Average attendance

WAC 5,070

SBC 2,451

Edited June 21, 2010 by MeanGreen61

CMJ · June 21, 2010

FWIW
WAC finished at the Sagarin #11 rated basketball conference and the Belt was #20. WAC is not considered as a "mid-major" ala Sun Belt, but as a major basketball conference.

Average attendance

WAC 5,070
SBC 2,451

No, the WAC is considered a mid major. The only "major" basketball conferences are the Big 6 and the A-10 & maybe CUSA.

(and even with those last two - they're often refered to as middies)

Mean Green 93-98 · June 21, 2010

No, the WAC is considered a mid major. The only "major" basketball conferences are the Big 6 and the A-10 & maybe CUSA.

(and even with those last two - they're often refered to as middies)

However, some sources do not even consider the Sun Belt a mid-major conference.

Travis · June 21, 2010

However, some sources do not even consider the Sun Belt a mid-major conference.

Yes they do. i have never heard otherwise.

UNTflyer · June 21, 2010

The WAC has 3 automatic bowls and is an alternate for the Poinsettia Bowl if the Pac-10 (now the PAC-12) can't get 6 teams bowl eligible. The WAC has sent 1 team to that bowl in the 5 years the bowl has existed. I don't think we should count on that bowl as a dependable 4th bid for the WAC.

Actually for 2011-12 seasons, the WAC is an automatic bid.