Of the three college football venues in the Salt Lake metro, we have three that seem to match the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears very well. We have the Stewart Stadium in Ogden that is too big. Rice Eccles Stadium in Salt Lake City that is too small. And there is LaVell Edwards Stadium in Provo that is just right?
The one too big...
The smallest of the three...Stewart Stadium was built in the 1970s, before the days of ESPN and other around the clock TV outlets. The NCAA, in those days, controlled what games were on TV and recognized that the WAC was the dominant conference in Utah. Only ABC had college football on TV and usually WAC games were shown regionally. Usually, there was a double header on Saturday. A national game and a regional game. Some weeks, there was not even a national game. There was also a limit to the number of games that any team would appear during the season. Therefore, while Arizona and New Mexico were on TV, Ogdenites would actually venture to the mountainside campus and see the Wildcats play. But that was the past. If FBS college football is like AAA in baseball, the FCS is AA. The division formerly known as I-AA has suffered the most from the around-the-clock, nation-wide college football coverage.
Except when coach Mac first arrived in Ogden, I do not remember a sell-out game at Stewart Stadium since homecoming my freshman year. In 2009, WSU's average attendance was a little over a third of the listed stadium capacity of 17,500. It was 6,500. It may have been a little higher, were in not for the snow squall that hit Ogden just in time for the Northern Arizona game. Even on the best of days, however, everyone in attendance could bring a friend and there would still be more than enough seats to spare.
The stadium (west side) is now nearly 40 years old (east side is even older). It it beginning to show it's age. It may be time to replace the aging concrete structure with a smaller, more intimate football stadium. I know that Ron McBride has other items on his to-do list and it is not likely that a new football stadium is in the near future. The Head Coach is thinking about recruiting. He wants an indoor practice facility built before he retires. It will help ensure that whoever follows him will be successful. It will be that success that will win fans back. Whether this can continue in Ogden after Ron McBride retires is something we will have to wait for.
No for where: Anyone else notice that the businesses on the east side of Harrison, west of the Dee Events Center continue to fail? Why not use public domain to condemn these sites and build a new stadium here? This could, and should be a smaller, 10,000 seat, expandable football/soccer stadium. Think a smaller Rio Tinto without the canvas. There should be enough room if the Training Table Site and the other burger stand site were raised. The may also be enough room at the south-east corner of 42nd and Harrison. Another possible location is the current location of Wasatch, Stansbury and LaSalle Halls. These dorms are not in high demand or high use since University Village was finished.
With a place to play soccer, an indoor practice facility can be added to the south side of the Stromberg complex. A new track facility can be build south of University Village. The current stadium location can be used for other new campus buildings or parking lots.
Finally, consider this: A half-empty stadium does not provide much of a home-field advantage.
The one too small
This article in the Deseret News caught my eye. When an organization can raise ticket prices and not see a drop off in demand, that can only mean one thing. The place is too small. Before we are to critical of that, we have to hearken back to the time that it was built.
It was back in the mid-1990s, when Salt Lake City was awarded the Olympic Winter Games for 2002. The old venue was not suitable for the opening and closing ceremonies for the Olympics. Most of the stadium was demolished and the new structure arose from the ashes in about 10 months time. The Ute Football team at that time was in the heart of the Ron McBride era. The Utes were an exciting team to watch in those days, but were not the consistent winners that they have been recently. Therefore, 45,000 permanent seats seemed like a good fit for the program. In the early days of the new Rice Eccles Stadium, it was enough. In fact, it was more than enough.
Since the stadium opened in 1998, the bar has been raised on the Ute program--and fans have responded. There has hardly been a non-sellout game since the Fiesta Bowl season of 2004. Demand has increased even more since the Sugar Bowl season two years ago, and the program seems poised for even bigger things in the coming decade. More and more people want to be part of it. They sense history in the making, and it may be time to strike the iron and add a few more seats to house on the hill.
The question is, how? The stadium is boxed in. You have South Campus drive and the old Nielsen field house on the north side. There are power, water and heating facilities on the east. And now there is the Olympic Legacy Part on the south. Not to mention the Press Box/Luxury Seating on the west. A major expansion does not seem feasible unless is can be incorporated within the footprint of the existing venue. It is a challenge for a really motivated architect.
Just Right?
LaVell Edwards stadium was expanded to it's current size in the early 1980s, when the BYU football program escaped the shadow of Frank Cush's Arizona State program. The seating configuration has been changed a little. There are now chair seats where there were once bench seats, and that cost the stadium capacity a little. But occasionally, there are still a few seats available in Provo on a Saturday afternoon. Likely it will happen on a season like this coming season where expectations are lower and where there are only two bowl teams from last season (Nevada and Wyoming) coming to play.
For many, however, there is not a better setting for a college football game than BYU's stadium. Any expansion could ruin it. Even if there are around 200 - 500 people standing, this stadium is just right. It has the mountains, and it is usually full of people that root hard for their team.
My opinion, however, is that BYU has a big problem on it's hands. For the first 20 years of the 65,000 seat stadium, the cream of the crop of college football would visit Provo. There were visits from Texas, Penn State, USC and Notre Dame. Between now and 2015, only two BCS programs will come to Provo, unless the MWC gets to join the club. Those programs are Washington this season and Oregon State in 2012. The highest profile non-conference program visiting BYU in the near future is Boise Sate in 2013. That could become a conference game, if you believe the grapevine. In 2010, the best team that will visit, based on their 2009 final ranking, is the Wyoming Cowboys.
The problem is that while Rice Eccles is a smaller stadium, it provides more revenue than LaVell Edwards. The home of the Utes has more luxury boxes. Rice Eccles is in the heart of a big city, and there is more for traveling fans to see and do. Going to Provo is about as exciting as visiting Aunt Martha on a Sunday afternoon. The justification for spending the money to expand this stadium was to attract a high-caliber opponent to Provo. It worked for about twenty years. It does not seem to be working any longer.
Granted, part of that comes from the caliber of team BYU has become. People do not want to schedule an automatic loss. BYU has one of the best home records in all of college football. Bronco Mendenhall makes defending the home turf one of his primary goals. BYU was 4-2 at home in 2009, and these were their first home losses since going 3-3 at home in 2005.
There needs to be some changes made to make LaVell Edwards Stadium a more attractive place for opponents to visit. A bullet train to Moab may be a nice idea, but not feasible. There has to be a way to squeeze more revenue out a college football Saturday without destroying what makes a visit to Provo worth the trip and unique. Don't destroy the view.
Every now and then, someone comes up with a new idea to expand LaVell Edwards Stadium, or to put a roof on it or something like that. True, the University should be forward thinking. There may be more chair seats, and if it can be done feasibly, the bowl could be finished. But this would only add about 5,000 to 6,000 seats. An expansion like this would need to be paired with something else that would add enough revenue to pay for the project.
One idea could be to expand and curve the press-box/luxury suite facility around to the north and south sides of the stadium, much like you see at Lambeu Field in Green Bay. Not around the entire stadium, just the west half of it. BYU could rebuild the south side and north side of the stadium to look a little more like Kyle Field. A deck on the east side of the stadium could destroy the famous view. That would have to be done carefully. You would not see BYU's stadium grow more than 75,000 to 80,000 strong, but if done correctly, BYU fans can again see the best in college football come to town.
FYI Attendance figures:
Big Sky Conference:
Average Stadium Size: 16,260
Average 2009 Attendance: 10,217
League Leader: Montana 24,417/25,203
WAC
Average Stadium Size: 31,949
Average 2009 Attendance: 22,749
League Leader: Hawaii 36,725/50,000
Mountain West
Average Stadium Size: 46,523
Average 2009 Attendance: 33,202
League Leader: BYU: 64,236/64,035
Sources:
http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/stats/football_records/Attendance/2009.pdf
January 2011 update.
Since first writing this blog article, a lot has happened. Utah will soon become part of the PAC-12 and a stadium expansion is likely in the works. It is in the stadium master plan from the beginning, but was considered to ostentatious at the time in the wake of the Olympic bidding scandal, and, as mentioned, the Ron McBride program didn't justify a bigger stadium. A 70,000+ Rice Eccles Stadium is likely in the near future. There old blue prints will be be dusted off and updated. Expect to see the bowl completed with the south stands looking like the north. There will be new locker rooms as well as the current locker rooms are under the south stands. And you may even see a deck or something on the east side that can fit inside the footprint of the existing stadium.
BYU had an awful season first half of their season, but still draws over 50,000 even when the weather is bad and shooting Bambi is legal. The attendance only dipped for the season finale against the pathetic New Mexico Lobos. They are leaving the Mtn West, becoming independent and inked a deal with ESPN that is lucrative enough to attract Texas, Notre Dame and Georgia Tech. When funds permit, there may be something more than just cosmetic changes to LaVell Edwards Stadium. Part of the experience in Provo is the incredible view of the mountains and no stadium expansion would be worth putting that sacrifice on the table.
Weber State has been given the middle finger by the conference with their schedule. They had a home game during General Conference and the first weekend of the Deer Hunt. Their attendance has suffered. Plans toward an indoor practice facility progress, and once ground is broken, Ron McBride can retire. But thanks to some generous donors there is a stadium upgrade in the near future. The grass field will be replaced with turf and there will be an upgrade to the track as well.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Expansion Update
According to Wrubbell at KSL, here is the latest on the conference expansion rumors. I've also been following the chatter at other sites.
My Take:
Big 10--
Notre Dame--will not happen. Too many teams that ND plays every season for this to happen.
Rutgers--No
Missouri/Nebraska--No
Syracuse--No
Pittsburgh--?Maybe?
Big XII--No Expansion
SEC--Probably not, but really, look at adding Florida State and Miami. It's a good move and a good fit.
ACC--No...unless the SEC takes Florida State and Miami.
Big East--Probably not, but push for the Villanova/Georgtown promotion from FCS. It would be a good defensive move for the Big East to survive as a football conference. As a football power; lose either West Virginia, Pittsburgh or Syracuse too the ACC or Big 10, the football reputation is toast. But they could follow the MWC model at strengthening the conference for the future. That is why East Carolina and Southern Mississippi creep up in expansion chatter.
PAC-10--Looking to have a championship game without expansion. Probably a good move, but potentially risky. I'll explain in a later blog.
Mountain West--Boise State is in. IMHO--Fresno State is too if a twelfth team can be added. 12th team should be either Houston, Nevada or Tulsa.
WAC--IMHO--the WAC should not risk losing it's recruiting presence on it's eastern flank and raid the Sun Belt Conference before looking to promoting FCS schools. Look for North Texas along with either Louisiana Monroe or Louisiana Lafayette to be invited as replacements for Boise State, Fresno State and/or Nevada. Even if New Mexico State and Louisiana Tech add little to the strength of the conference, at least they will be more likely to be on the newspaper pages/web pages in Dallas and Houston than Montana or Montana State.
My Take:
Big 10--
Notre Dame--will not happen. Too many teams that ND plays every season for this to happen.
Rutgers--No
Missouri/Nebraska--No
Syracuse--No
Pittsburgh--?Maybe?
Big XII--No Expansion
SEC--Probably not, but really, look at adding Florida State and Miami. It's a good move and a good fit.
ACC--No...unless the SEC takes Florida State and Miami.
Big East--Probably not, but push for the Villanova/Georgtown promotion from FCS. It would be a good defensive move for the Big East to survive as a football conference. As a football power; lose either West Virginia, Pittsburgh or Syracuse too the ACC or Big 10, the football reputation is toast. But they could follow the MWC model at strengthening the conference for the future. That is why East Carolina and Southern Mississippi creep up in expansion chatter.
PAC-10--Looking to have a championship game without expansion. Probably a good move, but potentially risky. I'll explain in a later blog.
Mountain West--Boise State is in. IMHO--Fresno State is too if a twelfth team can be added. 12th team should be either Houston, Nevada or Tulsa.
WAC--IMHO--the WAC should not risk losing it's recruiting presence on it's eastern flank and raid the Sun Belt Conference before looking to promoting FCS schools. Look for North Texas along with either Louisiana Monroe or Louisiana Lafayette to be invited as replacements for Boise State, Fresno State and/or Nevada. Even if New Mexico State and Louisiana Tech add little to the strength of the conference, at least they will be more likely to be on the newspaper pages/web pages in Dallas and Houston than Montana or Montana State.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Conference Expansion Challenge...Rivalries.
In my last post, I mentioned geography and travel costs as a challenge to conference expansion. In review, the three things that killed the 16-member WAC were the travel costs, geography and the loss of some old time rivalries. Let's begin with a review of how the 16-team WAC worked. The conference broke into four quadrants:
Quadrant 1:
Fresno State
Hawaii
San Jose State
San Diego State
Quadrant 2:
Brigham Young
New Mexico
UTEP
Utah
Quadrant 3:
Air Force
Colorado State
UNLV
Wyoming
Quadrant 4:
TCU
Tulsa
SMU
Rice
In a four-year cycle, Quadrant 1 and Quadrant 3 formed the Pacific division while Quadrant 2 and Quadrant 4 formed the Mountain Division. The result, lower attendance. The quadrants were arranged to keep the biggest rivalries together. But the lesser rivalries were forgotten. Wyoming, Colorado State and Hawaii were not able to keep long time rivals against BYU and Utah. Regular games against San Jose state just did not fit the bill. Rice fans just could not get excited about BYU and Utah, no the other hand.
How do you not make the same mistake with Big 10 expansion? SEC expansion or others? It may be impossible to avoid a complete loss of rivalry. What makes a big rivalry? There are three things that are really needed: Proximity, Reciprocity and Success of both teams.
Even when conference rivals are in the same division, a rivalry can lose steam. One such example, Nebraska and Colorado. In the 1990s, close to the time where both teams won National Championships, it was one of the most intense rivalries in college football. Now-a-days, where Nebraska success has lost and beginning to find again it's old form and Colorado's success is no what it used to be, the rivalry has lost a lot of steam.
It's not the super-big, named rivalries that suffer with conference alignments. For example, even though Colorado State and Colorado have not been in the same conference in decades, the rivalry has found a way to continue. BYU and UTEP, on the other hand, have not found a way to renew their rivalry since the Cougars jumped out of the WAC. BYU/Hawaii play about every ten years now. The teams learn to hate each other, the fans learn to disdain each other, but not enough for the rivalry to survive being in a different conference.
The reasons vary, but the bottom line is that a football team only has three or four non-conference games every season, and getting together every year for teams not in the same conference is not logistically possible. The rivalry has to be a priority for both schools. Sooner or later, fans will adjust and become interested in the new conference members and new rivalries will blossom. Who could have thought back in the old 16-member WAC that TCU and BYU would ever develop a rivalry?
For the relevant present, Notre Dame has built a lot of rivalries over the years. Many of these will not be possible if they join the Big 10. But it is not Notre Dame who will suffer if the Irish are in the Big 10. It is likely the schools that count on seeing the Irish come to their stadium 2 or 3 times or more every decade. It is schools like USC, Boston College, Air Force, Army and Navy that could suffer at the gate without seeing the Irish on a regular basis. In South Bend, it will only take a consistent winner to keep the turnstile whirling. On the other hand, These games will still happen, but without the regularity that they have now. Even some big-10 type rivalries will suffer with Notre Dame in the Big 10. Northwestern and Notre Dame will likely end up in different divisions. Notre Dame and Northwestern, for example would likely end up in different divisions.
The news is not all bad, Michigan, Michigan State and others local Notre Dame rivals will like seeing the Irish annually. Rivalries like this will likely intensify with more on the line.
On the other side of the coin, however, if a university relies on a team like Notre Dame coming to town to sell a few extra tickets, something is definitely wrong. BYU is another team that seems to have rivals everywhere they go. It seems that success breeds a following and it breeds contempt as well. Now-a-days, the Utah Utes are also selling a few extra tickets everywhere they go to play. The fans want to see their team knock the big boys off their perch. It is also easier for fans to travel when your team is successful. Again, on the other hand, lack of success certainly leads to fan disinterest and a loss of rivalry.
Quadrant 1:
Fresno State
Hawaii
San Jose State
San Diego State
Quadrant 2:
Brigham Young
New Mexico
UTEP
Utah
Quadrant 3:
Air Force
Colorado State
UNLV
Wyoming
Quadrant 4:
TCU
Tulsa
SMU
Rice
In a four-year cycle, Quadrant 1 and Quadrant 3 formed the Pacific division while Quadrant 2 and Quadrant 4 formed the Mountain Division. The result, lower attendance. The quadrants were arranged to keep the biggest rivalries together. But the lesser rivalries were forgotten. Wyoming, Colorado State and Hawaii were not able to keep long time rivals against BYU and Utah. Regular games against San Jose state just did not fit the bill. Rice fans just could not get excited about BYU and Utah, no the other hand.
How do you not make the same mistake with Big 10 expansion? SEC expansion or others? It may be impossible to avoid a complete loss of rivalry. What makes a big rivalry? There are three things that are really needed: Proximity, Reciprocity and Success of both teams.
Even when conference rivals are in the same division, a rivalry can lose steam. One such example, Nebraska and Colorado. In the 1990s, close to the time where both teams won National Championships, it was one of the most intense rivalries in college football. Now-a-days, where Nebraska success has lost and beginning to find again it's old form and Colorado's success is no what it used to be, the rivalry has lost a lot of steam.
It's not the super-big, named rivalries that suffer with conference alignments. For example, even though Colorado State and Colorado have not been in the same conference in decades, the rivalry has found a way to continue. BYU and UTEP, on the other hand, have not found a way to renew their rivalry since the Cougars jumped out of the WAC. BYU/Hawaii play about every ten years now. The teams learn to hate each other, the fans learn to disdain each other, but not enough for the rivalry to survive being in a different conference.
The reasons vary, but the bottom line is that a football team only has three or four non-conference games every season, and getting together every year for teams not in the same conference is not logistically possible. The rivalry has to be a priority for both schools. Sooner or later, fans will adjust and become interested in the new conference members and new rivalries will blossom. Who could have thought back in the old 16-member WAC that TCU and BYU would ever develop a rivalry?
For the relevant present, Notre Dame has built a lot of rivalries over the years. Many of these will not be possible if they join the Big 10. But it is not Notre Dame who will suffer if the Irish are in the Big 10. It is likely the schools that count on seeing the Irish come to their stadium 2 or 3 times or more every decade. It is schools like USC, Boston College, Air Force, Army and Navy that could suffer at the gate without seeing the Irish on a regular basis. In South Bend, it will only take a consistent winner to keep the turnstile whirling. On the other hand, These games will still happen, but without the regularity that they have now. Even some big-10 type rivalries will suffer with Notre Dame in the Big 10. Northwestern and Notre Dame will likely end up in different divisions. Notre Dame and Northwestern, for example would likely end up in different divisions.
The news is not all bad, Michigan, Michigan State and others local Notre Dame rivals will like seeing the Irish annually. Rivalries like this will likely intensify with more on the line.
On the other side of the coin, however, if a university relies on a team like Notre Dame coming to town to sell a few extra tickets, something is definitely wrong. BYU is another team that seems to have rivals everywhere they go. It seems that success breeds a following and it breeds contempt as well. Now-a-days, the Utah Utes are also selling a few extra tickets everywhere they go to play. The fans want to see their team knock the big boys off their perch. It is also easier for fans to travel when your team is successful. Again, on the other hand, lack of success certainly leads to fan disinterest and a loss of rivalry.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Calm down on the conference expansion rumors.
Let's be realistic. Other than Notre Dame joining the Big 10, don't take a lot of stock in the big and wild conference expansion rumors. The Big 10 may have enough pull to attract Nebraska or Missouri out of the Big XII, but on the other hand, the Big XII has the pull to get Iowa and maybe Indiana out of the Big 10. There are four power conferences which will not loose anyone, because they have the power to counter each-other. The Big 10, Big XII, SEC and PAC-10 will, at worst, these four keep all of their current members.
I'm sure this is what the Big XII commissioner meant when he said the conference would protect it's assets. It may be a hint at a Pac-Man strategy to keep the conference in tact as it is. PAC-10 comes after Colorado, the Big XII goes after Arizona State. The SEC goes after Texas, the Big XII goes after LSU. Therefore, I do not take a lot of stock in these types of rumors.
What conferences are under real threat of the expansion of others? The Big East, Mountain West, WAC, Conference USA, MAC and Sun Belt. These conferences do not have the ability to ward off expansion threats because they are not strong enough. Some are stronger than others. The ACC, for example, my lose Florida State and Miami to the SEC, but will raid the Big East. The conference pecking order is as follows:
1. Big 10, SEC, Big XII and Pac-10
2. ACC and Mountain West
3. Big East and WAC
4. C-USA
5. MAC and Sun Belt
6. FCS Conferences.
For example, The Pac-10 takes Utah from the MWC, who takes Boise State out of the WAC, who takes North Texas from the Sun Belt.
Next Point. We already know that a 16 team conference will not work. We also know that traveling too far for conference games will not work either. These were two of the three things that killed the 16-member WAC. The other was the loss of traditional rivals. The Big 10 may add Rutgers, and make a lot of money, but it would lose a lot of that revenue in travel costs. You would have to think that this is not likely to happen. When a conference expands, it has to take these things into consideration: Don't get too large, don't rack up travel costs, and kill traditional rivals. Therefore, forget about Rutgers to the Big 10.
A fourteen team conference will work, if you can find a way to keep travel costs down and keep traditional rivals together.
Who are the real targets for each conference considering these parameters? In order, they are:
Real Big 10 expansion targets: Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Louisville.
Big XII expansion targets: TCU, Houston, Utah, Brigham Young, Tulsa and Memphis.
SEC expansion targets: Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech and North Carolina.
PAC-10 expansion targets: Utah, BYU, San Diego State, Fresno State, Hawaii and Boise State.
ACC expansion targets: West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Louisville, Cincinnati, Syracuse and Rutgers.
Mountain West expansion targets: Boise State, Fresno State, Houston, Tulsa, UTEP and Hawaii. FCS promotion possibility: Cal Poly
Big East expansion targets: East Carolina, Central Florida, Southern Mississippi, Army and Navy. FCS promotion possibilities: Villanova and Georgetown (Big East basketball members).
WAC expansion targets: UTEP, North Texas, Louisiana Lafayette and Louisiana Monroe. FCS promotion possibilities: Montana, Montana State, Cal Poly, San Diego, Sacramento State, Cal Davis and Portland State.
C-USA and Sun Belt could merge. FCS promotion possibilities: Appalachian State, Georgia Southern, SF Austin, Texas State and Texas A&M San Marcos.
I'm sure this is what the Big XII commissioner meant when he said the conference would protect it's assets. It may be a hint at a Pac-Man strategy to keep the conference in tact as it is. PAC-10 comes after Colorado, the Big XII goes after Arizona State. The SEC goes after Texas, the Big XII goes after LSU. Therefore, I do not take a lot of stock in these types of rumors.
What conferences are under real threat of the expansion of others? The Big East, Mountain West, WAC, Conference USA, MAC and Sun Belt. These conferences do not have the ability to ward off expansion threats because they are not strong enough. Some are stronger than others. The ACC, for example, my lose Florida State and Miami to the SEC, but will raid the Big East. The conference pecking order is as follows:
1. Big 10, SEC, Big XII and Pac-10
2. ACC and Mountain West
3. Big East and WAC
4. C-USA
5. MAC and Sun Belt
6. FCS Conferences.
For example, The Pac-10 takes Utah from the MWC, who takes Boise State out of the WAC, who takes North Texas from the Sun Belt.
Next Point. We already know that a 16 team conference will not work. We also know that traveling too far for conference games will not work either. These were two of the three things that killed the 16-member WAC. The other was the loss of traditional rivals. The Big 10 may add Rutgers, and make a lot of money, but it would lose a lot of that revenue in travel costs. You would have to think that this is not likely to happen. When a conference expands, it has to take these things into consideration: Don't get too large, don't rack up travel costs, and kill traditional rivals. Therefore, forget about Rutgers to the Big 10.
A fourteen team conference will work, if you can find a way to keep travel costs down and keep traditional rivals together.
Who are the real targets for each conference considering these parameters? In order, they are:
Real Big 10 expansion targets: Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Louisville.
Big XII expansion targets: TCU, Houston, Utah, Brigham Young, Tulsa and Memphis.
SEC expansion targets: Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech and North Carolina.
PAC-10 expansion targets: Utah, BYU, San Diego State, Fresno State, Hawaii and Boise State.
ACC expansion targets: West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Louisville, Cincinnati, Syracuse and Rutgers.
Mountain West expansion targets: Boise State, Fresno State, Houston, Tulsa, UTEP and Hawaii. FCS promotion possibility: Cal Poly
Big East expansion targets: East Carolina, Central Florida, Southern Mississippi, Army and Navy. FCS promotion possibilities: Villanova and Georgetown (Big East basketball members).
WAC expansion targets: UTEP, North Texas, Louisiana Lafayette and Louisiana Monroe. FCS promotion possibilities: Montana, Montana State, Cal Poly, San Diego, Sacramento State, Cal Davis and Portland State.
C-USA and Sun Belt could merge. FCS promotion possibilities: Appalachian State, Georgia Southern, SF Austin, Texas State and Texas A&M San Marcos.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Another Reason Why the PAC-10 Would Be Foolish to Pass on BYU.
It has been said that BYU would be good for the PAC-10 because of the number of Latter-Day Saints in the PAC-10 footprint. Some say that BYU could have a Notre-Dame effect on the PAC-10. The LDS Church does not build temples in areas where there are few active Latter-Day Saints. Look at how close the current PAC-10 schools are to LDS temples.
Arizona State, Tempe, Arizona. Closest LDS Temple, Mesa, Arizona. Distance: 4 Miles
University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. Closest LDS Temple, Mesa, Arizona. Distance: 116 Miles
UCLA, Westwood, Los Angeles, Closest LDS Temple, Los Angeles, California. Distance: 2 Miles
USC, Los Angeles, Closest LDS Temple, Los Angeles, California. Distance: 13 Miles
Stanford, Palo Alto, California. Closest LDS Temple, Oakland, California. Distance: 33 Miles via CA 84
University of California, Berkley. Closest LDS Temple, Oakland, California. Distance: 7 Miles
University of Oregon, Eugene. Closest LDS Temple, Portland, Oregon. Distance: 104 Miles
Oregon State University, Corvalis. Closest LDS Temple, Portland, Oregon. Distance: 77 Miles
University of Washington, Seattle. Closest LDS Temple, Bellevue, Washington: Distance: 12 Miles
Washington State University, Pullman. Closest LDS Temple, Spokane, Washington: Distance 87 Miles
Average: 50.6 Miles: 6 Temples, 10 Schools. UCLA is closer to their nearest temple than the University of Utah is to Temple Square (2 miles).
Take at look at the Mountain West Conference for Comparison, excluding BYU or Utah.
Air Force, Colorado Springs. Closest LDS Temple: Denver: Distance 49 Miles
Colorado State University. Closest LDS Temple: Denver: Distance 85 Miles
University of Wyoming. Closest LDS Temple: Denver: Distance 165 Miles
Texas Christian University. Closest LDS Temple: Dallas: Distance 42 Miles
University of New Mexico. Closest LDS Temple: Albuquerque: Distance: 11 Miles
UNLV. Closest LDS Temple: Las Vegas: Distance 12 Miles
San Diego State. Closest LDS Temple: San Diego: Distance 16 Miles
Average: 54 Miles, 5 temples, 7 Schools
Arizona State, Tempe, Arizona. Closest LDS Temple, Mesa, Arizona. Distance: 4 Miles
University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. Closest LDS Temple, Mesa, Arizona. Distance: 116 Miles
UCLA, Westwood, Los Angeles, Closest LDS Temple, Los Angeles, California. Distance: 2 Miles
USC, Los Angeles, Closest LDS Temple, Los Angeles, California. Distance: 13 Miles
Stanford, Palo Alto, California. Closest LDS Temple, Oakland, California. Distance: 33 Miles via CA 84
University of California, Berkley. Closest LDS Temple, Oakland, California. Distance: 7 Miles
University of Oregon, Eugene. Closest LDS Temple, Portland, Oregon. Distance: 104 Miles
Oregon State University, Corvalis. Closest LDS Temple, Portland, Oregon. Distance: 77 Miles
University of Washington, Seattle. Closest LDS Temple, Bellevue, Washington: Distance: 12 Miles
Washington State University, Pullman. Closest LDS Temple, Spokane, Washington: Distance 87 Miles
Average: 50.6 Miles: 6 Temples, 10 Schools. UCLA is closer to their nearest temple than the University of Utah is to Temple Square (2 miles).
Take at look at the Mountain West Conference for Comparison, excluding BYU or Utah.
Air Force, Colorado Springs. Closest LDS Temple: Denver: Distance 49 Miles
Colorado State University. Closest LDS Temple: Denver: Distance 85 Miles
University of Wyoming. Closest LDS Temple: Denver: Distance 165 Miles
Texas Christian University. Closest LDS Temple: Dallas: Distance 42 Miles
University of New Mexico. Closest LDS Temple: Albuquerque: Distance: 11 Miles
UNLV. Closest LDS Temple: Las Vegas: Distance 12 Miles
San Diego State. Closest LDS Temple: San Diego: Distance 16 Miles
Average: 54 Miles, 5 temples, 7 Schools
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Who should join the Big Sky Conference?
This is not a new topic for The Swagger, but here is a different twist. Five schools that are a good fit for the Big Sky conference now, and five that would be a good fit if they were to sponsor football...
Football Sponsoring Schools...Geographically and academically, these five schools seem to be the best fit in the Big Sky Conference. Four of the five are currently Division II schools. Southern Utah, therefore, has the easiest path. I have already blogged about this. These five football schools, most of who are Division 2 programs, are the best options for Big Sky Expansion
1. Central Washington (Ellensburg, Washington)
2. Western Washington (Bellingham, Washington)
3. Dixie State (Saint George, Utah)
4. Southern Utah (Cedar City, Utah)
5. Adams State (Grand Junction, Colorado)
Five good fits if they only sponsored football:
1. Gonzaga (Spokane, Washington) If you know your history, you know that Gonzaga was a charter member of the Big Sky Conference. If they bring back football, they should be welcomed back to the BSC.
2. Seattle University (Seattle, Washington) You know what a foothold in the Emerald City could do for the BSC.
3. Denver University (Denver, Colorado) See #2 above.
4. Utah Valley (Orem, Utah) They are close enough to the other University in the Utah Valley to share a stadium. If the goal for the Wolverines is to play Football Bowl Subdivision football, that might include a stop in the Big Sky Conference on the way there.
5. BYU-Idaho (Rexburg, Idaho) Let's face it, there are many LDS people in the Big Sky Conference footprint. Rexburg is right in the middle of things, too. They are located half-way between Idaho State and Montana State. If they had sports at the little y, they would be competing in the Big Sky Conference. Only a neanderthal would say no.
Football Sponsoring Schools...Geographically and academically, these five schools seem to be the best fit in the Big Sky Conference. Four of the five are currently Division II schools. Southern Utah, therefore, has the easiest path. I have already blogged about this. These five football schools, most of who are Division 2 programs, are the best options for Big Sky Expansion
1. Central Washington (Ellensburg, Washington)
2. Western Washington (Bellingham, Washington)
3. Dixie State (Saint George, Utah)
4. Southern Utah (Cedar City, Utah)
5. Adams State (Grand Junction, Colorado)
Five good fits if they only sponsored football:
1. Gonzaga (Spokane, Washington) If you know your history, you know that Gonzaga was a charter member of the Big Sky Conference. If they bring back football, they should be welcomed back to the BSC.
2. Seattle University (Seattle, Washington) You know what a foothold in the Emerald City could do for the BSC.
3. Denver University (Denver, Colorado) See #2 above.
4. Utah Valley (Orem, Utah) They are close enough to the other University in the Utah Valley to share a stadium. If the goal for the Wolverines is to play Football Bowl Subdivision football, that might include a stop in the Big Sky Conference on the way there.
5. BYU-Idaho (Rexburg, Idaho) Let's face it, there are many LDS people in the Big Sky Conference footprint. Rexburg is right in the middle of things, too. They are located half-way between Idaho State and Montana State. If they had sports at the little y, they would be competing in the Big Sky Conference. Only a neanderthal would say no.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Baseball in the Big Sky?
It's not the latitude, but the altitude that makes weather unpredictable in the West. The PAC-10 has Baseball, so do the MWC and the WAC. But the Big Sky conference does not. Many people say it is because of the weather in conference country, but the real problems are the facilities, cost, fan support and level of available talent.
Competing in the NCAA
The Sacramento State Hornets are not the only Big Sky Conference team that currently competes in the NCAA DI level in Baseball, but have a tradition. In baseball, the Hornets are an associate member of the WAC. They have their own on-campus facility. But Raley Field would be a nice place for a Conference Championship.
Northern Colorado--The Bears have an on-campus facility as well. They play baseball in the Great West Conference.
Current Baseball Clubs
These schools have baseball clubs that are non-scholarship sports. Some have respectable places to play, while others do not.
Weber State has a baseball club that many are hoping will become a baseball team. The Wildcats also share a facility with the Ogden Raptors of the Pioneer League. Lindquist Field is a few miles from the WSU campus at the corner of 24th and Lincoln downtown. The facility is considered by some to have the best view in all of baseball, with a view of Ben Lomond Peak, Mount Ogden and other Wasatch peaks behind the spire of the LDS Temple. Very nice for a Rookie League/College club baseball stadium.
Montana--Shares Ogren Park with the Missoula Osprey also of the Pioneer League. Ogren Park may be the third nicest field in the Pioneer League, behind Linquist Field in Ogden and Dehler Park in Billings. This is just over the river from campus, therefore it is convenient.
Montana State--The club team plays at a park in Belgrade, Montana. This is just a few miles west of Bozeman. If the BSC sponsors baseball, the team could play in the Worthington Arena. Many of the seats in the old dome will move and it can be configured for baseball.
Eastern Washington--I do not know where the Eagles play baseball, but was able to find out that EWU played DI baseball until the early 1990s. There must still be some baseball facilities on or near campus.
Idaho State..There is a vacant PL stadium in Pocatello that the club Bengals call home.
Northern Arizona call the Flagstaff Recreation Center home for their baseball club. They could play in the Walkup Skydome if the seats on one side would move completely out of the way.
No Baseball at all.
Portland State...the Lucky Beavers of Portland will have a new home, at least are working on plans for a new home in 2011. The Vikings can share the park. Think that it would not work? The Utah Utes and the Salt Lake Bees share Spring Mobile Ballpark. PSU recently dropped baseball as well and still have some alumni in the Majors.
It seems like it would be easy for four of five of the Big Sky schools to pick up baseball. Why is there no NCAA baseball in the Big Sky Conference?
1. Cost. Club baseball does not have any paid coaches and no scholarships. Many of the players pay their own way. These costs have to be picked up by the school to compete in the NCAA. The clubs are also not tied to a conference, so they can play a more travel friendly schedule. Many schools that sponsor an NCAA team, also have a club team.
2, Title IX. The 20 or so baseball scholarships have to be balanced by women's sports. Most schools use softball to balance football. Gymnastics seems a logical balance for baseball?
3. Minor League Baseball. Let's face it. If you are really good at baseball, you do not stop in college. MiLB also takes away fans from the gate. The good players that want the college experience over starting in Rookie League ball will try to pick a school that is a perennial player in Omaha.
4. Season. Baseball is a summer sport. School is out during the summer. The CWS takes place in June. You can play baseball in 40 degree weather, but who would want to watch it?
Competing in the NCAA
The Sacramento State Hornets are not the only Big Sky Conference team that currently competes in the NCAA DI level in Baseball, but have a tradition. In baseball, the Hornets are an associate member of the WAC. They have their own on-campus facility. But Raley Field would be a nice place for a Conference Championship.
Northern Colorado--The Bears have an on-campus facility as well. They play baseball in the Great West Conference.
Current Baseball Clubs
These schools have baseball clubs that are non-scholarship sports. Some have respectable places to play, while others do not.
Weber State has a baseball club that many are hoping will become a baseball team. The Wildcats also share a facility with the Ogden Raptors of the Pioneer League. Lindquist Field is a few miles from the WSU campus at the corner of 24th and Lincoln downtown. The facility is considered by some to have the best view in all of baseball, with a view of Ben Lomond Peak, Mount Ogden and other Wasatch peaks behind the spire of the LDS Temple. Very nice for a Rookie League/College club baseball stadium.
Montana--Shares Ogren Park with the Missoula Osprey also of the Pioneer League. Ogren Park may be the third nicest field in the Pioneer League, behind Linquist Field in Ogden and Dehler Park in Billings. This is just over the river from campus, therefore it is convenient.
Montana State--The club team plays at a park in Belgrade, Montana. This is just a few miles west of Bozeman. If the BSC sponsors baseball, the team could play in the Worthington Arena. Many of the seats in the old dome will move and it can be configured for baseball.
Eastern Washington--I do not know where the Eagles play baseball, but was able to find out that EWU played DI baseball until the early 1990s. There must still be some baseball facilities on or near campus.
Idaho State..There is a vacant PL stadium in Pocatello that the club Bengals call home.
Northern Arizona call the Flagstaff Recreation Center home for their baseball club. They could play in the Walkup Skydome if the seats on one side would move completely out of the way.
No Baseball at all.
Portland State...the Lucky Beavers of Portland will have a new home, at least are working on plans for a new home in 2011. The Vikings can share the park. Think that it would not work? The Utah Utes and the Salt Lake Bees share Spring Mobile Ballpark. PSU recently dropped baseball as well and still have some alumni in the Majors.
It seems like it would be easy for four of five of the Big Sky schools to pick up baseball. Why is there no NCAA baseball in the Big Sky Conference?
1. Cost. Club baseball does not have any paid coaches and no scholarships. Many of the players pay their own way. These costs have to be picked up by the school to compete in the NCAA. The clubs are also not tied to a conference, so they can play a more travel friendly schedule. Many schools that sponsor an NCAA team, also have a club team.
2, Title IX. The 20 or so baseball scholarships have to be balanced by women's sports. Most schools use softball to balance football. Gymnastics seems a logical balance for baseball?
3. Minor League Baseball. Let's face it. If you are really good at baseball, you do not stop in college. MiLB also takes away fans from the gate. The good players that want the college experience over starting in Rookie League ball will try to pick a school that is a perennial player in Omaha.
4. Season. Baseball is a summer sport. School is out during the summer. The CWS takes place in June. You can play baseball in 40 degree weather, but who would want to watch it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)