Interesting Analysis Over On The Beltboard Of All The Expansion

VideoEagle · June 29, 2010

An interesting analysis over on the Beltboard of realignment expectations verse actual results. Certainly some well informed food for thought.

Here's the link.

UNTLifer · June 29, 2010

Success is much less about who you affiliate with and much more about what you do with the resources you can generate. Neither New Mexico State nor Utah State has won more than four football games in a season since joining the WAC. Idaho won 8 last year after winning a combined 9 in the first four WAC seasons. Hiring the right coach, making the right facility investments, and getting local support is the real key.

:clapping: :thumbsup:

cdizzle86 · June 29, 2010

Hire The Right Coach = to be determined (hard to get a proven coach in the Sun Belt)

Better Facilities = check

More Local Support = trying (hard to get more fan support when we play no namers)

I think it's arguable that being successful in these area is more of a result of being in a better conference.

Edited June 29, 2010 by cdizzle86

Daddy Dumpsalot · June 29, 2010

"Hiring the right coach, making the right facility investments, and getting local support is the real key."

It has done a lot for us so far. The article sounds like a pep talk for schools desperate to leave 10 time champ of the worst D-1 conference. I don't blame them for trying for the positive PR, but unfortunately the conference speaks for itself.

UNTFan23 · June 29, 2010

I think it's arguable that being successful in these area is more of a result of being in a better conference.

And it's arguable whether we'd be more successful in the WAC, which is where the USU/NMSU examples comes from. Did you not read the one para that UNTLifer quoted?!

To say we'd be more successful in the WAC is a fallacy. To say we'd have more people clamoring to come see us because we are in the WAC is also a fallacy.

cdizzle86 · June 29, 2010

And it's arguable whether we'd be more successful in the WAC, which is where the USU/NMSU examples comes from. Did you not read the one para that UNTLifer quoted?!

To say we'd be more successful in the WAC is a fallacy. To say we'd have more people clamoring to come see us because we are in the WAC is also a fallacy.

Well, sounds like they didn't hire the right coach.

Arkstfan · June 29, 2010

"Hiring the right coach, making the right facility investments, and getting local support is the real key."

It has done a lot for us so far. The article sounds like a pep talk for schools desperate to leave 10 time champ of the worst D-1 conference. I don't blame them for trying for the positive PR, but unfortunately the conference speaks for itself.

You've hired the right coach? What's his name and when does he start?

How many games you played in a modern football facility that wasn't a road game.

Call it a pep talk if you want, doesn't make it any less correct.

UNTFan23 · June 29, 2010

Well, sounds like they didn't hire the right coach.

That may very well be the case. However, people need to disassociate WAC = Success/Increased Attendance for North Texas. USU/NMSU being in the WAC hasn't brought those programs the level of progress some seem to think will happen just because of their conference affiliation.

Arkstfan · June 29, 2010

And it's arguable whether we'd be more successful in the WAC, which is where the USU/NMSU examples comes from. Did you not read the one para that UNTLifer quoted?!

To say we'd be more successful in the WAC is a fallacy. To say we'd have more people clamoring to come see us because we are in the WAC is also a fallacy.

Fresno joined the WAC in 1992. They were ranked once in the Big West and twice in the WAC (first was the first season when they were playing with inferior Big West talent) and the last in 2004. Haven't won the WAC since 1999.

Louisiana Tech joined in 2001. Won the league in 2001 with kids recruited playing against Sun Belt teams. Haven't finished closer than three games out since 2005. Nine seasons in the WAC and have posted a winning record 3 times, losing record 5 times and .500 once.

Hawaii has been ranked three times, twice under June Jones once under Bob Wagner who finally got fired after consecutive losing seasons. Jones was the winningest coach since moving Division I and since joining the WAC have never played fewer than 7 home games and quite a few times have played as many as NINE.

SJSU joined in 1996, in 14 seasons in the WAC have posted 2 winning records and one .500

I don't see that it has been a cure-all.

VideoEagle · June 29, 2010

Hire The Right Coach = to be determined (hard to get a proven coach in the Sun Belt)
Better Facilities = check
More Local Support = trying (hard to get more fan support when we play no namers)

I think it's arguable that being successful in these area is more of a result of being in a better conference.

FAU got Howard Schnellenberger and they are in the Belt. Troy got Larry Blakeney and they are in the Belt. I think we would all agree the Big XII is a better conference than the Belt and Colorado got Dan Hawkins. Based on actual examples it appears conference affiliation is NOT what determines getting the right coach.

Attendance hasn't changed significantly at either USU or NMSU since they went Wacy. But it did improve at Idaho. Even playing in the Big XII, Baylor rarely sells out their stadium. Attendance at UNT has gone up from our 4 years of Bowl games with a MUCH poorer record. We are still playing the same teams. Again, actual real world examples show that who you are playing only affects you add on attendance, not the base fans who come out because they want to see the home team.

Arkstfan · June 29, 2010

What proven coach did Boise get?

Chris Petersen

1987–1988 UC-Davis (FR coach)

1989–1991 UC Davis (WR coach)

1992 Pittsburgh (QB coach)

1993–1994 Portland State (QB coach)

1995–2000 Oregon (WR coach)

2001–2005 Boise State (OC)

2006–present head coach

Never a head coach at any level and never a coordinator any place except Boise prior to being hired.

Before that, Dan Hawkins

Division II position coach, Division II offensive coordinator, Division III head coach, assistant at Boise promoted when Koetter got hired away.

Koetter High school head coach, several FBS OC jobs before being hired as head coach at Boise.

cdizzle86 · June 29, 2010

You all bring up great points. Now lets take a look at some of those schools. All had a few great seasons, so lets play where are they now.

FAU - still in the Belt

Troy - still in the Belt

Boise - just jumped to MWC

Colorado - just jumped to PAC 10

Do you see a trend with belt schools and the others? You can state true facts all you want, but that won't get you anywhere.

See Al Gore and 2000 election.

VideoEagle · June 29, 2010

You all bring up great points. Now lets take a look at some of those schools. All had a few great seasons, so lets play where are they now.

FAU - still in the Belt
Troy - still in the Belt
Boise - just jumped to MWC
Colorado - just jumped to PAC 10

Do you see a trend with belt schools and the others? You can state true facts all you want, but that won't get you anywhere.

See Al Gore and 2000 election.

Sorry, but you lost me here. Is you point that all can be successful no matter the conference? Or is it just the the Sun Belt is some how a terrible conference but teams can be successful while in it?

cdizzle86 · June 29, 2010

Point is that there is a ceiling to how successful a school can be in the Sun Belt. It's a dead end.

cdizzle86 · June 29, 2010

Point is that there is a ceiling to how successful a school can be in the Sun Belt. It's a dead end.

VideoEagle · June 29, 2010

Point is that there is a ceiling to how successful a school can be in the Sun Belt. It's a dead end.

Understood now. That makes sense. I don't completely agree, but it does make sense.

I guess it all comes down to what you call a dead end. The Mac has provided dozens of players to the NFL and allowed all their athletes access to an education. Some of their schools have good attendance and then there is Eastern Michigan. They have had extremely low conference turn over in decades. They have had a few teams break the Top 20. They are stable without big surges up then down in their conference dollars for their member institutions.

The WAC has had 14 teams leave in 11 years. There are newspaper articles about how there three top remaining programs are all in financial trouble - Hawaii, Fresno and Nevada. Their TV money is about to be halved. Both Hawaii and Fresno have at least explored the option of going independent in football rather than stay in the WAC.

Which conference is "dead end" and which is a place for a university that wants a stable athletic department?

Edited June 29, 2010 by VideoEagle

cdizzle86 · June 29, 2010

I agree that the WAC should reconfigure the conference in order to be more finically stable, but they could help themselves by creating an east and west division.

Arkstfan · June 29, 2010

You all bring up great points. Now lets take a look at some of those schools. All had a few great seasons, so lets play where are they now.

FAU - still in the Belt
Troy - still in the Belt
Boise - just jumped to MWC
Colorado - just jumped to PAC 10

Do you see a trend with belt schools and the others? You can state true facts all you want, but that won't get you anywhere.

See Al Gore and 2000 election.

When did FAU or Troy have a great season? 8-5 became great when? That's FAU's best. Troy has had several 8 win and a 9 but I'd love to see the last time a non-AQ was ranked with 9 wins.

Colorado hasn't posted a winning season since 2005 but they are the dominant program in the largest TV market west of Dallas, they got there by default.

Boise has won two BCS games and only advanced to the MWC, the 7th richest conference in the country with no AQ bid.

UNTLifer · June 29, 2010

You all bring up great points. Now lets take a look at some of those schools. All had a few great seasons, so lets play where are they now.

FAU - still in the Belt
Troy - still in the Belt
Boise - just jumped to MWC
Colorado - just jumped to PAC 10

Do you see a trend with belt schools and the others? You can state true facts all you want, but that won't get you anywhere.

See Al Gore and 2000 election.

Sorry, but this point doesn't hold water.

New Mexico State: once in Sun Belt now in the WAC

Utah State: once in the Sun Belt now in the WAC

Idaho: once in the Sun Belt now in the WAC

Why did they get chosen to go to the WAC? Because they fit the footprint of the WAC.

FAU: new program, Schellenberger failed at OU, close to finishing his career, gets to call all the shots and build a program from the ground up.

Troy: Blakney has been there for 17 years. I would think if he wanted to leave he could and has probably had many opportunities. Why don't they move up? Academics for one. Troy's are a mess and many conferences determine their membership on things other than a good football program. Also, they are in a nonexistent media market.

Boise State: great institutional and community support led them to building a successful program. They became BcS busters and moved up to the MWC because they fit the MWC's footprint and have a pretty good overall program.

Colorado: Has always recruited California well and didn't like being in the Big XII North where schools are treated like a step child as opposed to the Big XII South. The same reason Nebraska jumped ship and Missouri wanted to. Plus, they bring the Denver market to the PAC 10.

Now to NT. I'm not against us moving up the "food chain," but the WAC is not the place for us to go. It is in survival mode right now, lost its money maker in BSU which will decrease their take from the BcS and from their television agreement. The Sun Belt, while not the best conference, is better than the WAC in its current state. Also, the revised WAC that some would like to see before we make the jump gains us what? We would still be in a conference division with potentially ULL, Ark. State, NMSU, USU and La. Tech. That is just a form of the current or past SBC with La. Tech thrown in. We need to finish the stadium project, get baseball off the ground, see Dodge start to turn it around this year after a couple of good recruiting classes and filling his staff with college experienced assistants and continue to build support from the students, alumni, Denton citizens and the surrounding communities.

Arkstfan · June 29, 2010

Understood now. That makes sense. I don't completely agree, but it does make sense.

I guess it all comes down to what you call a dead end. The Mac has provided dozens of players to the NFL and allowed all their athletes access to an education. Some of their schools have good attendance and then there is Eastern Michigan. They have had extremely low conference turn over in decades. They have had a few teams break the Top 20. They are stable without big surges up then down in their conference dollars for their member institutions.

The WAC has had 14 teams leave in 11 years. There are newspaper articles about how there three top remaining programs are all in financial trouble - Hawaii, Fresno and Nevada. Their TV money is about to be halved. Both Hawaii and Fresno have at least explored the option of going independent in football rather than stay in the WAC.

Which conference is "dead end" and which is a place for a university that wants a stable athletic department?

Along those same lines. The Southern Conference has produced 21 BCS schools including winners of the last four BCS championships and another three FBS schools. The Missouri Valley has produced 10 BCS schools and another five FBS schools.

The day finally arrived when those leagues were "tapped out" they eventually lost so much quality they function at a far lower level than they did at their peak.

In the days of the dinosaurs the college football world looked a lot like this

Upper Tier

Eastern Independents

Big 10

SEC

SWC

Big 8

Pac-10

Middle tier

ACC (remember until the BCS their champ had no bowl guarantee and non-New Year games weren't unheard of for the champ)

WAC

Bottom tier

Yankee

Southern

Southland

MAC

Missouri Valley

Big West

Today if you look at dollars and cents with the move to bigger leagues and reforming things have shuffled and you have:

Upper Tier

SEC

Big 10

Pac-10

ACC

Middle Tier

Big East

MWC

Lower tier

MAC

CUSA

Sun Belt

WAC

Edited June 30, 2010 by Arkstfan

cdizzle86 · June 30, 2010

The bottom line is that here in about 5 years, there's going to be a playoff system in place. This may be the last realignment until then. So we need to evaluate our conference affiliation really closely. And that means not just about what's going on today, but also for the future. So the WAC may not be as financially stable as the Sun Belt, but personally I believe they more potential for the future. Why? If you win in the WAC, you get the respect you deserve and people notice. Period. I cannot say the same for the Sun Belt. If somehow we can make it work financially, then I say we do it. Even if we come out a little more behind then what we are now.

Prior to the last year or so, North Texas has never been a university that takes chances when it comes to athletics. We always look at others (Cincinnati, Louisville, Boise) who pass us by and say to ourselves, "that coulda been us." I don't want that to happen to us again. Finally we have started showing our commitment to athletics by increasing the athletic fee, passing the new stadium, and hiring a high risk coach that may or may not prove to be successful. The point is, we are starting to finally take some risks.

I was not a North Texas fan when the Big West was around, nor do I care. I will refuse to put my head in the sand just because of the past. Whether you like it or not, change is happening. We either jump on the bandwagon and rock the boat, or we get left in the dust.

foutsrouts · June 30, 2010

The bottom line is that here in about 5 years, there's going to be a playoff system in place. This may be the last realignment until then. So we need to evaluate our conference affiliation really closely. And that means not just about what's going on today, but also for the future. So the WAC may not be as financially stable as the Sun Belt, but personally I believe they more potential for the future. Why? If you win in the WAC, you get the respect you deserve and people notice. Period. I cannot say the same for the Sun Belt. If somehow we can make it work financially, then I say we do it. Even if we come out a little more behind then what we are now.

Prior to the last year or so, North Texas has never been a university that takes chances when it comes to athletics. We always look at others (Cincinnati, Louisville, Boise) who pass us by and say to ourselves, "that coulda been us." I don't want that to happen to us again. Finally we have started showing our commitment to athletics by increasing the athletic fee, passing the new stadium, and hiring a high risk coach that may or may not prove to be successful. The point is, we are starting to finally take some risks.

I was not a North Texas fan when the Big West was around, nor do I care. I will refuse to put my head in the sand just because of the past. Whether you like it or not, change is happening. We either jump on the bandwagon and rock the boat, or we get left in the dust.

Correct. There comes a time in the life cycle of everything when it's time to roll the dice. Now is our time. Unless of course we want our future to consist of that wonderful regional low travel cost conference of San Marcos, San Antonio, Beaumont, Huntsville, Arlington, Nacogdoches, and a couple of FUs for good measure. Haven't I heard of a similar conference like that somewhere before?

VideoEagle · June 30, 2010

Correct. There comes a time in the life cycle of everything when it's time to roll the dice.

Yeah, roll the dice and bet everything on it coming up 13.

foutsrouts · June 30, 2010

Yeah, roll the dice and bet everything on it coming up 13.

Better than not rolling the dice and having it come up the equivalent of 1AA....again.

UNTFan23 · June 30, 2010

Correct. There comes a time in the life cycle of everything when it's time to roll the dice.

What is it about the WAC that makes some people feel there is a reward to go with the risk? I think those that get all enamored with the WAC need to consider the following statement:

Past Performance Does Not Guarantee Future Results.

There is nothing that says that just because Boise was a BCS buster will make any other school in the WAC one as well. Boise was a BCS buster cause they swept through the WAC and then took whatever non-conference opponent they faced to task and beat them. No other school in the WAC is even close to that level of dominance. If the top WAC schools (Hawaii, Nevada, & Fresno) are saddled with budget concerns, how are they going get themselves to the level Boise was at in the next couple years?