As I mentioned last in this blog, Utah is below the national average in citizens per FBS programs, but above the national average in total per-capita college football programs. The time may soon be right for Utah Valley University (UVU) to begin playing football. The Orem-based, relatively new University has been denied the request to add football twice by the Regents. Perhaps the reason is cost.
Where are the Wolverines going to play football? It's not like you can walk over to Wal-Mart and purchase a football stadium. It's not like they could partner with a minor league team that wants to play on Sunday like the baseball team did. If UVU wants a football team, there will need to be a creative way to deal with the cost.
Before we get more into cost, there is a matter of stadium location. That should be easy. West of the arena formerly known as the McKay Events Center there is a parking lot. West of that is a vacant field. The one north of the parking lot entrance. Perfect location. Plenty of parking. There are soccer fields there now, but the stadium can be built wide enough for soccer, lacrosse and rugby.
Now to deal with the cost. At the high end, but similar to what UVU could build is Aggie Stadium at the University of California-Davis. Aggie Stadium was completed just three seasons ago, holds a little over 10,000 and cost around 30 million to build. It was built to be easily expandable to a little over 30,000 should the Aggie program decide to move up to the FBS. (Smart move, as Cal-Davis seems to be the leading contender to replace Boise State in the WAC.) Now comes the part of raising 30,000,000. This figure represents a high number, as this was a government project in California.
A lower-cost, more moderate model for what could happen at UVU is Eastern Washington's Woodward field. But that has been a work in progress as long as I have been a work in progress. This would not be as cheap for UVU as it was for EWU. There is not a natural berm to build the grandstands upon. Due to the proximity of UVU to Utah lake, digging down is probably not an option as the water table is relatively high in that area. And the cost is in 1967 dollars. It could be significantly higher if adjusted for inflation.
30,000,000 is not an easy sum of money to raise. It is about 100 dollars per Utah County resident. Utah County has a young population; this would become a significant tax burden if put solely on the backs of the taxpayers. And it is not like there are many UVU alumni are looking for a funeral memorial right now. UVU was founded in 1941 and only became a 4-year college in 1993. UVU alumni are only beginning to rise above middle management, and will soon be sending kids on missions. Not exactly the best time in life to beg alumni for large donations. The Wolverines are about a generation away from really benefiting from generous alumni. Relative to a brother institution like Weber State, UVU is still in the "Car Wash" stage of fund raising.
In addition to the stadium costs, there is the cost of scholarships and equipment. The scholarship money has to be a perpetual fund, and not run out. This means a fund large enough where only the interest is spent, not the principle. It could take a substantial commitment as high as 50 million to get football going at the Valley. Of course, UVU could take the same route that Boise State and Wyoming have and raise student fees. That is never a popular decision.
One may say that UVU could play at LaVell Edwards Stadium, (BYU) but this could not be a permanent nor a long-term solution. The stadium is too large (64,000) for an FCS program, and the Wolverines and the Great West Conference will have to schedule around the Cougars. This would include not playing a home game on the first Saturday in October. Another potential temporary stadium, in spite of being a few miles north, is Rio Tinto Stadium. But again, you would have to schedule around the main tenant; Real Salt Lake. And finally, there is the option of playing at the baseball park, if you do not mind the mud at one end of the field. (In this link, you are looking at what would be the south end-zone). In this case, the football field would need to be oriented with the north end-zone toward right field and the south end-zone toward the 3rd-base dugout. Other, probably poor options, would be a local high school, or the junior high that UVU's track and field team uses.
It would be up to business concerns in Utah Valley to pony up for a much of the cost, as Brent Brown did for the baseball stadium. It's a tough call in this economy, but when the economy improves, there may be some Orem business person looking to help Provo's little sister escape her big shadow. Then will be the time to strike. So, people of Orem, if you want football at UVU, pass around the hat and let's get this stadium built.
It is a different story in Saint George. Currently, Dixie State College of Utah is beginning their fourth year as a provisional Division II program. Meaning the audition is almost complete. Becoming an FCS program is probably not in the cards in the next year or two. But if an opening in the Big Sky conference were to come available in the next three to five years, the Raging Red may jump at the opportunity. With four fellow Pacific West Conference members in Hawaii, this move could represent a cost-savings venture for the athletic department. Imagine trading two trips to Hawaii for every program every season for one trip to Portland. Yeah, that will save a few Benjamins.
This could also become the opening for Southern Utah University to join the Big Sky Conference. DSCU and SUU could be travel partners. Both have a similar student body size, but DSCU is in the larger city and closer to the airport. There would not need to be a major investment in new facilities in Saint George, they are already pretty good.
DSCU is a more attractive program for the Big Sky Conference than SUU as Saint George is now larger than Flagstaff, Pocatello, Bozeman, Cheney, or Missoula. And Washington County, Utah is catching up to Weber County, Utah at a very fast rate. (The Ogden metro is Weber, Davis and Morgan counties, the St. George metro is only Washington County.) Saint George has been the fastest growing city in the United States. Stay tuned for this one, by 2015, DSCU could join the Big Sky Conference and eventually represent the third largest city in the conference; behind Portland and Sacramento. (Right now, it could be the fourth largest) There are more differences than city size, however. When DSCU visited Ogden in 2008 to play Weber State, the game was a joke. At a competitive level, DSCU has a long, long way to go. They would experience a struggle similar to Northern Colorado's trouble.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Utah and another FBS program.
It has been said that Utah can not support another Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) program until the population grows a little bit more. Those critics have a point. This is my first look at population, and it has changed my mind about Weber State and their possibility of moving to the WAC. I have crunched the numbers and here is what I found.
There are 3 FBS programs in the state of Utah. According to 2007 census estimates, the population in Utah was nearly 2.8 million. That is about 928,000 persons per FBS program. That is well below the national average of 1,973,000 persons per FBS program. Even if Utah State drops out of the FBS to the FCS, Utah would still be a little below the national average.
Keep in mind, however, that this number is skewed a little bit by New Jersey and Massachusetts which only have one FBS program in their entire state. This would explain why the Big 10 is so interested in Rutgers and why the ACC has passed up West Virginia for Boston College.
In spite of having 7 FBS programs already, California has room for others. The Golden State already has 5,200,000 residents per FBS school. This is part of the reason why Cal-Davis, Sacramento State and Cal-Poly are frequently mentioned as FBS potential programs and WAC targets. California has room for more than twice as many FBS programs than it currently has. No wonder it is a recruiting hot bed for programs from other states.
Population, however, is not the only indicator of college football success, just an indicator of how much money a program can bring it's conference. For example, how many FBS programs can you name in the Five Burroughs of New York City? There are not any. The closest FBS program to the Big Apple? The US Military Academy (Army) just up the Hudson from New York City in West Point. The other two FBS programs in New York (Syracuse and Buffalo) are up state. The University of Connecticut is actually closer to most New Yorkers than other programs. Perhaps the citizens of New York have better things to do on a Saturday afternoon, or perhaps everyone from New York is from somewhere else and has not attached themselves to one of the FCS programs in the city. Perhaps New Yorkers only care about the NFL teams in (near) the City. One of the FCS programs in the five Burroughs, Hofstra, recently dropped football. That leaves only Fordham (Bronx), Columbia (Manhattan) and Wagner (Staten Island) playing football, all in the lower subdivision. Let's note that the East is filled with smaller universities that provide plenty of tradition for their students without big sports programs.
There are other factors that determine success as well. For example, Arizona has about 3,298,000 people per FBS program. However, the Arizona schools are not the most successful on the field nor at the gate. While Idaho boasts only 722,000 per FBS program, look at what Boise State has done lately? Arizona has a relatively old population and fewer high school students per capita compared to Idaho. Boise State, like BYU and Utah, has successfully raided California for recruits. Also keep in mind that while Boise State has been incredibly successful in the past decade, the University of Idaho has struggled since moving up from the FCS with only 2 winning seasons.
Tradition is another predictor of success. Texas A&M and Texas are not near the biggest cities in Texas, both are at least an hour drive away. But the tradition brings the fans and the money to these schools.
The state with the highest population that does not have an FBS program is New Hampshire. And the lowest populated state that has a university that competes at the FBS level is Wyoming. The Cowboy state is not only small in population, but also sparsely populated as well. North and South Dakota, Alaska, and Montana; other Western States with slightly larger populations and similar population densities do not have universities that sponsor an FBS football program. There is not state lower that 1.2 million residents per FBS program that sees a measure of consistent success with every program. That means winning seasons, conference championships and full stadiums. The smallest one can argue for is Oklahoma. Mississippi, some will argue, is the smallest, but when was the last time you saw either SEC program from Mississippi win a conference championship? (1963 for Ole Miss, 1941 for Mississippi State, 2003 for Southern Miss) West Virginia is another state that people would argue has been successful even though they have a smaller population that Utah. True, Marshall was successful at first, but that success has faded since Bob Pruett retired. West Virginia has been consistent, however.
What about Utah State? If the Aggies drop to the FCS, the ratio in Utah would be closer to the national average. If not for the boost in attendance provided by recent visits by BYU, Boise State and Utah, USU would likely already have been demoted to the FCS. With Utah moving to the PAC-10 and Boise State moving to the MWC, it is possible that these visits will be rare in the future. BYU and Utah will focus on keeping the Holy War rivalry alive and both will put playing Utah State at a lower priority. BSU has little incentive in scheduling the Aggies once they are not in the same conference. It does not help that Logan is an hour and a half drive from Salt Lake City. Many of the USU alumni, however, live in Salt Lake County. Perhaps some success on the field would make the drive to Logan worth the trip. One of the most difficult tickets to come by in Utah is a ticket to the Spectrum to see Stew's Crew play basketball.
Utah State is not alone. Idaho and Wyoming are in similar peril. Idaho is not in a sparse population center, but their football stadium is small. For Wyoming, the visits from the Utah schools, BYU and Utah, bring the fans out in Laramie. This is likely because of the high concentration of Latter-Day Saints in Wyoming. Utah will be making their last trip to Laramie this fall. Chances are that Boise State will not provide the same type of rivalry that Utah has for Wyoming.
The news isn't all bad for Weber State or Utah State fans. There are four states that have a lower per-capita FBS ratio than Utah. That number will be five once the University of South Alabama completes their FBS transition. If WSU did get promoted, Utah would still be well ahead of Wyoming and nearly even with Idaho. When considering total college football programs as all levels (FBS, FCS, DII and DIII), Utah is real close to the national average. It may be best for the entire state for Weber State to stand pat for now. Utah, arguably can support more college programs than average because the population is younger, and therefore there are more high school kids to recruit from. Utah also boasts the fastest population growth rate in the United States. Utah is growing at rate of about 60,000 per year. The time for Weber State may be in 15 to 20 years in the future. It may be time for football at Utah Valley or for Dixie State to consider promotion to the FCS from Division II, but those subjects will be addressed later.
The conclusion, Utah does not need Weber State as another FBS program at this time, when considering population. It could probably succeed, because there is more than just the number of TV sets that determine success. It also does not make sense for Weber State to make the move when Utah State is struggling. It is likely that both would fail. When Utah State can succeed, and bring fans to the gate consistently without BYU, Boise State and Utah on the regular schedule, then it will be safe for Weber State to move up. It will not be long before Utah can support 4 FBS programs. If 1.2 million is the minimum level of success, Utah only needs a population of 4.8 million. At the rate Utah is growing, it will not be long.
****
Top 10 states with the largest ratio of citizens per FBS program.
New Jersey (1-Rutgers) 8,707,000
Massechusetts (1-Boston College) 6,594,000
New York (3-Army, Buffalo, Syracuse) 6,513,000
Missouri (1-University of Missouri) 5,998,000
Wisconsin (1-University of Wisconsin) 5,655,000
California (7-California, UCLA, Fresno State, Stanford, USC, San Diego State, San Jose State) 5,280,000
Minnesota (1-University of Minnesota) 5,226,000
Georgia (2-University of Georgia, Georgia Tech) 4,915,000
Illinois (3-University of Illinois, Northwestern, Northern Illinois) 4,303,000
Pennsylvania (3-Penn State, Pittsburgh, Temple) 4,202,000
(Note, Wisconsin and Minnesota have no FCS football programs)
Bottom 10 states with the smallest ratio of citizens per FBS program (Less than 1.1 million per program):
Wyoming (1-University of Wyoming) 544,000
Idaho (2-Boise State, University of Idaho) 772,000
Louisiana (5-Louisiana State, Tulane, Louisiana Tech, Louisiana Lafayette, Louisiana Monroe) 898,000
West Virginia (2-Marshall, University of West Virginia) 910,000
Utah (3-BYU, University of Utah, Utah State) 928,000
Mississippi (3-Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Southern Mississippi) 984,000
New Mexico (2-University of New Mexico, New Mexico State) 1,004,000
Alabama (4-University of Alabama, Auburn, Troy, Alabama Birmingham) 1,177,000
Oklahoma (3-University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Tulsa) 1,229,000
Hawaii (1-University of Hawaii) 1,295,000
Note: The University of South Alabama will be promoted to the FBS in 2012, putting Alabama behind Utah.
States with no FBS college football programs:
Alaska (698,000)
Delaware (885,000)
Maine (1,318,000)
Montana (974,000)
New Hampshire (1,325,000)
North Dakota (647,000)
Rhode Island (1, 054,000)
South Dakota (812,000)
Vermont (621,000)
Note: The state of Alaska has no college football teams at all. This will likely not happen until Alaska has the population to justify an Alaska Anchorage FBS football program. The highest level that teams from Vermont and Maine compete at is Division III.
Based upon population, these struggling programs that could move from the FBS down to the FCS:
Wyoming
Idaho
Utah State
New Mexico State
Tulane
Based upon population, these programs are legitimate candidate schools that could move up from the FCS to the FBS. By State:
New Jersey:
Monmouth
Massachusetts:
University of Massachusetts
Holy Cross
New York:
Albany
Colgate
Fordham
Marist
Stony Brook
Wagner
Missouri:
Missouri State
Southeast Missouri State
California:
Cal-Davis
Cal Poly
Sacramento State
University of San Diego
(Note: All four are frequently mentioned as WAC invitees)
Georgia:
Georgia Southern (Recent FCS champion)
Pennsylvania:
Bucknell
Duquesne
Layfayette
Lehigh
Robert Morris
Saint Francis
Villanova (Note: Villanova is the defending FCS champion and competes in the Big East in Basketball)
Illinois:
Eastern Illinois
Western Illinois
Southern Illinois
Illinois State
Others:
Florida:
Jacksonville
Florida A & M
Bethune Cookman
Virginia:
Richmond (Recent FCS champion)
Old Dominion
William and Mary
Texas:
Texas State San Marcos
Stephen F. Austin
Lamar
Texas Southern
Texas San Antonio
Washington:
Eastern Washington
Washington DC:
Georgetown (Competes in the Big East in Basketball--based on the population for Maryland and Virginia.)
States without FCS programs:
New Hampshire:
University of New Hampshire
Rhode Island:
University of Rhode Island
Teams mentioned for promotion, based on population should that should stay in the FCS:
Montana
Weber State/Southern Utah
Portland State
Any FCS program in Tennessee
Any FCS program in Mississippi
Any FCS program in Louisiana
Any FCS program in Arkansas
Any FCS program in Alabama
There are 3 FBS programs in the state of Utah. According to 2007 census estimates, the population in Utah was nearly 2.8 million. That is about 928,000 persons per FBS program. That is well below the national average of 1,973,000 persons per FBS program. Even if Utah State drops out of the FBS to the FCS, Utah would still be a little below the national average.
Keep in mind, however, that this number is skewed a little bit by New Jersey and Massachusetts which only have one FBS program in their entire state. This would explain why the Big 10 is so interested in Rutgers and why the ACC has passed up West Virginia for Boston College.
In spite of having 7 FBS programs already, California has room for others. The Golden State already has 5,200,000 residents per FBS school. This is part of the reason why Cal-Davis, Sacramento State and Cal-Poly are frequently mentioned as FBS potential programs and WAC targets. California has room for more than twice as many FBS programs than it currently has. No wonder it is a recruiting hot bed for programs from other states.
Population, however, is not the only indicator of college football success, just an indicator of how much money a program can bring it's conference. For example, how many FBS programs can you name in the Five Burroughs of New York City? There are not any. The closest FBS program to the Big Apple? The US Military Academy (Army) just up the Hudson from New York City in West Point. The other two FBS programs in New York (Syracuse and Buffalo) are up state. The University of Connecticut is actually closer to most New Yorkers than other programs. Perhaps the citizens of New York have better things to do on a Saturday afternoon, or perhaps everyone from New York is from somewhere else and has not attached themselves to one of the FCS programs in the city. Perhaps New Yorkers only care about the NFL teams in (near) the City. One of the FCS programs in the five Burroughs, Hofstra, recently dropped football. That leaves only Fordham (Bronx), Columbia (Manhattan) and Wagner (Staten Island) playing football, all in the lower subdivision. Let's note that the East is filled with smaller universities that provide plenty of tradition for their students without big sports programs.
There are other factors that determine success as well. For example, Arizona has about 3,298,000 people per FBS program. However, the Arizona schools are not the most successful on the field nor at the gate. While Idaho boasts only 722,000 per FBS program, look at what Boise State has done lately? Arizona has a relatively old population and fewer high school students per capita compared to Idaho. Boise State, like BYU and Utah, has successfully raided California for recruits. Also keep in mind that while Boise State has been incredibly successful in the past decade, the University of Idaho has struggled since moving up from the FCS with only 2 winning seasons.
Tradition is another predictor of success. Texas A&M and Texas are not near the biggest cities in Texas, both are at least an hour drive away. But the tradition brings the fans and the money to these schools.
The state with the highest population that does not have an FBS program is New Hampshire. And the lowest populated state that has a university that competes at the FBS level is Wyoming. The Cowboy state is not only small in population, but also sparsely populated as well. North and South Dakota, Alaska, and Montana; other Western States with slightly larger populations and similar population densities do not have universities that sponsor an FBS football program. There is not state lower that 1.2 million residents per FBS program that sees a measure of consistent success with every program. That means winning seasons, conference championships and full stadiums. The smallest one can argue for is Oklahoma. Mississippi, some will argue, is the smallest, but when was the last time you saw either SEC program from Mississippi win a conference championship? (1963 for Ole Miss, 1941 for Mississippi State, 2003 for Southern Miss) West Virginia is another state that people would argue has been successful even though they have a smaller population that Utah. True, Marshall was successful at first, but that success has faded since Bob Pruett retired. West Virginia has been consistent, however.
What about Utah State? If the Aggies drop to the FCS, the ratio in Utah would be closer to the national average. If not for the boost in attendance provided by recent visits by BYU, Boise State and Utah, USU would likely already have been demoted to the FCS. With Utah moving to the PAC-10 and Boise State moving to the MWC, it is possible that these visits will be rare in the future. BYU and Utah will focus on keeping the Holy War rivalry alive and both will put playing Utah State at a lower priority. BSU has little incentive in scheduling the Aggies once they are not in the same conference. It does not help that Logan is an hour and a half drive from Salt Lake City. Many of the USU alumni, however, live in Salt Lake County. Perhaps some success on the field would make the drive to Logan worth the trip. One of the most difficult tickets to come by in Utah is a ticket to the Spectrum to see Stew's Crew play basketball.
Utah State is not alone. Idaho and Wyoming are in similar peril. Idaho is not in a sparse population center, but their football stadium is small. For Wyoming, the visits from the Utah schools, BYU and Utah, bring the fans out in Laramie. This is likely because of the high concentration of Latter-Day Saints in Wyoming. Utah will be making their last trip to Laramie this fall. Chances are that Boise State will not provide the same type of rivalry that Utah has for Wyoming.
The news isn't all bad for Weber State or Utah State fans. There are four states that have a lower per-capita FBS ratio than Utah. That number will be five once the University of South Alabama completes their FBS transition. If WSU did get promoted, Utah would still be well ahead of Wyoming and nearly even with Idaho. When considering total college football programs as all levels (FBS, FCS, DII and DIII), Utah is real close to the national average. It may be best for the entire state for Weber State to stand pat for now. Utah, arguably can support more college programs than average because the population is younger, and therefore there are more high school kids to recruit from. Utah also boasts the fastest population growth rate in the United States. Utah is growing at rate of about 60,000 per year. The time for Weber State may be in 15 to 20 years in the future. It may be time for football at Utah Valley or for Dixie State to consider promotion to the FCS from Division II, but those subjects will be addressed later.
The conclusion, Utah does not need Weber State as another FBS program at this time, when considering population. It could probably succeed, because there is more than just the number of TV sets that determine success. It also does not make sense for Weber State to make the move when Utah State is struggling. It is likely that both would fail. When Utah State can succeed, and bring fans to the gate consistently without BYU, Boise State and Utah on the regular schedule, then it will be safe for Weber State to move up. It will not be long before Utah can support 4 FBS programs. If 1.2 million is the minimum level of success, Utah only needs a population of 4.8 million. At the rate Utah is growing, it will not be long.
****
Top 10 states with the largest ratio of citizens per FBS program.
New Jersey (1-Rutgers) 8,707,000
Massechusetts (1-Boston College) 6,594,000
New York (3-Army, Buffalo, Syracuse) 6,513,000
Missouri (1-University of Missouri) 5,998,000
Wisconsin (1-University of Wisconsin) 5,655,000
California (7-California, UCLA, Fresno State, Stanford, USC, San Diego State, San Jose State) 5,280,000
Minnesota (1-University of Minnesota) 5,226,000
Georgia (2-University of Georgia, Georgia Tech) 4,915,000
Illinois (3-University of Illinois, Northwestern, Northern Illinois) 4,303,000
Pennsylvania (3-Penn State, Pittsburgh, Temple) 4,202,000
(Note, Wisconsin and Minnesota have no FCS football programs)
Bottom 10 states with the smallest ratio of citizens per FBS program (Less than 1.1 million per program):
Wyoming (1-University of Wyoming) 544,000
Idaho (2-Boise State, University of Idaho) 772,000
Louisiana (5-Louisiana State, Tulane, Louisiana Tech, Louisiana Lafayette, Louisiana Monroe) 898,000
West Virginia (2-Marshall, University of West Virginia) 910,000
Utah (3-BYU, University of Utah, Utah State) 928,000
Mississippi (3-Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Southern Mississippi) 984,000
New Mexico (2-University of New Mexico, New Mexico State) 1,004,000
Alabama (4-University of Alabama, Auburn, Troy, Alabama Birmingham) 1,177,000
Oklahoma (3-University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Tulsa) 1,229,000
Hawaii (1-University of Hawaii) 1,295,000
Note: The University of South Alabama will be promoted to the FBS in 2012, putting Alabama behind Utah.
States with no FBS college football programs:
Alaska (698,000)
Delaware (885,000)
Maine (1,318,000)
Montana (974,000)
New Hampshire (1,325,000)
North Dakota (647,000)
Rhode Island (1, 054,000)
South Dakota (812,000)
Vermont (621,000)
Note: The state of Alaska has no college football teams at all. This will likely not happen until Alaska has the population to justify an Alaska Anchorage FBS football program. The highest level that teams from Vermont and Maine compete at is Division III.
Based upon population, these struggling programs that could move from the FBS down to the FCS:
Wyoming
Idaho
Utah State
New Mexico State
Tulane
Based upon population, these programs are legitimate candidate schools that could move up from the FCS to the FBS. By State:
New Jersey:
Monmouth
Massachusetts:
University of Massachusetts
Holy Cross
New York:
Albany
Colgate
Fordham
Marist
Stony Brook
Wagner
Missouri:
Missouri State
Southeast Missouri State
California:
Cal-Davis
Cal Poly
Sacramento State
University of San Diego
(Note: All four are frequently mentioned as WAC invitees)
Georgia:
Georgia Southern (Recent FCS champion)
Pennsylvania:
Bucknell
Duquesne
Layfayette
Lehigh
Robert Morris
Saint Francis
Villanova (Note: Villanova is the defending FCS champion and competes in the Big East in Basketball)
Illinois:
Eastern Illinois
Western Illinois
Southern Illinois
Illinois State
Others:
Florida:
Jacksonville
Florida A & M
Bethune Cookman
Virginia:
Richmond (Recent FCS champion)
Old Dominion
William and Mary
Texas:
Texas State San Marcos
Stephen F. Austin
Lamar
Texas Southern
Texas San Antonio
Washington:
Eastern Washington
Washington DC:
Georgetown (Competes in the Big East in Basketball--based on the population for Maryland and Virginia.)
States without FCS programs:
New Hampshire:
University of New Hampshire
Rhode Island:
University of Rhode Island
Teams mentioned for promotion, based on population should that should stay in the FCS:
Montana
Weber State/Southern Utah
Portland State
Any FCS program in Tennessee
Any FCS program in Mississippi
Any FCS program in Louisiana
Any FCS program in Arkansas
Any FCS program in Alabama
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Mountain West and WAC expansion part II.
Yesterday, I mention that the MWC is focused on automatic qualification to the BCS. They have to be able to knock off the Big East. If that happens, look for Big East schools to jump ship to the ACC or SEC, if those conferences will accept them. The MWC, rumor has it, will get the remaining 3 pre-expansion WAC schools, Fresno State, Hawaii and UTEP. Here is how the prospective divisions will work.
Mountain (East) Division:
Air Force
Colorado State
New Mexico
UTEP
TCU
Wyoming
West Division:
Boise State
BYU
Fresno State
Hawaii
UNLV
San Diego State
Championship game for football could alternate between San Diego and Fort Worth or the contender with higher BCS rating going into the game gets to host the game.
WAC suggestion...12 for football, because it works well for the MAC, and 14 for basketball. First, trade with the Sun Belt, North Texas for Louisiana Tech. Then add four FCS schools to simplify travel. Those four would be Weber State to partner with Utah State. Eastern Washington to partner with Idaho. Add Cal-Davis and Sacramento State to travel together. If Fresno State leaves, add Cal-Poly. If Hawaii leaves, or Nevada, add Portland State. For basketball only add Denver and Seattle.
East:
Eastern Washington
Idaho
North Texas
New Mexico State
Utah State
Weber State
Denver (Basketball)
West:
Cal-Davis
Cal-Poly
Nevada
Portland State
Sacramento State
San Jose State
Seattle (Basketball)
14 teams for basketball in two divisions translates to 21 regular season conference games and a 3-round, 8-team tournament. You would have to finish over .500 or in the top four of the division to make the tournament.
Mountain (East) Division:
Air Force
Colorado State
New Mexico
UTEP
TCU
Wyoming
West Division:
Boise State
BYU
Fresno State
Hawaii
UNLV
San Diego State
Championship game for football could alternate between San Diego and Fort Worth or the contender with higher BCS rating going into the game gets to host the game.
WAC suggestion...12 for football, because it works well for the MAC, and 14 for basketball. First, trade with the Sun Belt, North Texas for Louisiana Tech. Then add four FCS schools to simplify travel. Those four would be Weber State to partner with Utah State. Eastern Washington to partner with Idaho. Add Cal-Davis and Sacramento State to travel together. If Fresno State leaves, add Cal-Poly. If Hawaii leaves, or Nevada, add Portland State. For basketball only add Denver and Seattle.
East:
Eastern Washington
Idaho
North Texas
New Mexico State
Utah State
Weber State
Denver (Basketball)
West:
Cal-Davis
Cal-Poly
Nevada
Portland State
Sacramento State
San Jose State
Seattle (Basketball)
14 teams for basketball in two divisions translates to 21 regular season conference games and a 3-round, 8-team tournament. You would have to finish over .500 or in the top four of the division to make the tournament.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Expansion Strategy for MWC and WAC.
First for the MWC. After reading through the papers; both Salt Lake papers, Boise, Las Vegas, Reno and Sacramento; over the weekend, I believe that I can divine what strategy the other two Western FBS conferences will deploy when it comes to conference expansion. Although, as we have learned, it is hard to see two weeks into the future in this business.
First, the MWC. They have turned their focus to gaining AQ status in the BCS. The MWC is fourth in 3 of the 4 categories, which is ratings, attendance and top ten finishes. The problem is the MWC is 6th is average rankings. Just barely ahead of the Big East, and far behind the Big 10. The bottom feeders, namely New Mexico, UNLV and San Diego State need to step up a bit in the next two years. And Colorado State needs to end their free fall. The chances of the MWC getting AQ status rest in the hands of these schools. I am not expecting that the Aztecs get to the Rose Bowl this year, but winning at least two non-conference games will be big.
Now, if the MWC gains AQ status, that should mean a new contract with CBS, which should mean 6 to 8 games every season on the Tiffany Network. If the MWC can increase their TV revenue from about 12 million to 50 million, which is still about a third of the PAC-12, then they can add three more schools. The goal, at least the three with the inside track, are the remaining three schools from the classic pre-expansion WAC-10: Fresno State, Hawaii and UTEP. The money that being an AQ conference would bring would more than pay for traveling to Hawaii, even for the non-revenue sports.
Craig Thompson said that he was contacted by 8-10 schools about MWC membership. My guess is that those ten were: Fresno State, Hawaii, Nevada, Idaho, San Jose State, Utah State, UTEP, Tulsa, SMU and Houston. Although, I am not certain about the last one. These would all be good additions to the MWC. The reason the MWC was formed in the first place was the loss of tradition. Adding the last three of the pre-expansion WAC would complete that quest.
As I said before, unless the WAC can add North Texas without losing Louisiana Tech, the old conference will compete with just 8 members for 2011. This is a problem with scheduling. With a 12-game football schedule, a school will need 5 non-conference games to complete the schedule. And Hawaii will need six. This means most WAC schools will have two FCS teams on the schedule. In fact, Utah State already does with Southern Utah and Weber State on the schedule. If the 9th member of the WAC is an FCS school, which seems likely, then this is the fate of the conference for 2011.
In 2012, an FCS school would not be an official member of the WAC, but needs to have at least 6 games against FBS competition. Therefore, the scheduling aspect is taken care of. A current FCS school would be a full member of the conference for football in 2013, provided they meet the attendance requirement. But a current FCS could become a conference member for basketball and other sports in 2011-2012.
Karl Benson says that he would like 9 for football and 10 for basketball. Of all of the FCS schools in the WAC footprint, Weber State is the one that is best poised to make the move at this time. Thanks to success on the basketball court recently, and aggressive scheduling of FBS teams, WSU seems to have money to upgrade. WSU has also benefited from some successful and generous alumni who are beating the recession. They have added softball, and baseball is around the corner. That means that WSU has 15 sponsored sports. Only one more needs to be added for the required 16. There are also facilities being upgraded, such as the Dee Events Center and Stewart Stadium. And there is an indoor practice facility in the works.
For basketball, there are three non-football candidates. Denver, Seattle and Utah Valley. Denver would have the inside track, and would actually save travel expense by making the move now. Of course, the WAC needs to have a plan for two more defections. In three to five years, maybe Montana, or one of the California schools would be ready.
First, the MWC. They have turned their focus to gaining AQ status in the BCS. The MWC is fourth in 3 of the 4 categories, which is ratings, attendance and top ten finishes. The problem is the MWC is 6th is average rankings. Just barely ahead of the Big East, and far behind the Big 10. The bottom feeders, namely New Mexico, UNLV and San Diego State need to step up a bit in the next two years. And Colorado State needs to end their free fall. The chances of the MWC getting AQ status rest in the hands of these schools. I am not expecting that the Aztecs get to the Rose Bowl this year, but winning at least two non-conference games will be big.
Now, if the MWC gains AQ status, that should mean a new contract with CBS, which should mean 6 to 8 games every season on the Tiffany Network. If the MWC can increase their TV revenue from about 12 million to 50 million, which is still about a third of the PAC-12, then they can add three more schools. The goal, at least the three with the inside track, are the remaining three schools from the classic pre-expansion WAC-10: Fresno State, Hawaii and UTEP. The money that being an AQ conference would bring would more than pay for traveling to Hawaii, even for the non-revenue sports.
Craig Thompson said that he was contacted by 8-10 schools about MWC membership. My guess is that those ten were: Fresno State, Hawaii, Nevada, Idaho, San Jose State, Utah State, UTEP, Tulsa, SMU and Houston. Although, I am not certain about the last one. These would all be good additions to the MWC. The reason the MWC was formed in the first place was the loss of tradition. Adding the last three of the pre-expansion WAC would complete that quest.
As I said before, unless the WAC can add North Texas without losing Louisiana Tech, the old conference will compete with just 8 members for 2011. This is a problem with scheduling. With a 12-game football schedule, a school will need 5 non-conference games to complete the schedule. And Hawaii will need six. This means most WAC schools will have two FCS teams on the schedule. In fact, Utah State already does with Southern Utah and Weber State on the schedule. If the 9th member of the WAC is an FCS school, which seems likely, then this is the fate of the conference for 2011.
In 2012, an FCS school would not be an official member of the WAC, but needs to have at least 6 games against FBS competition. Therefore, the scheduling aspect is taken care of. A current FCS school would be a full member of the conference for football in 2013, provided they meet the attendance requirement. But a current FCS could become a conference member for basketball and other sports in 2011-2012.
Karl Benson says that he would like 9 for football and 10 for basketball. Of all of the FCS schools in the WAC footprint, Weber State is the one that is best poised to make the move at this time. Thanks to success on the basketball court recently, and aggressive scheduling of FBS teams, WSU seems to have money to upgrade. WSU has also benefited from some successful and generous alumni who are beating the recession. They have added softball, and baseball is around the corner. That means that WSU has 15 sponsored sports. Only one more needs to be added for the required 16. There are also facilities being upgraded, such as the Dee Events Center and Stewart Stadium. And there is an indoor practice facility in the works.
For basketball, there are three non-football candidates. Denver, Seattle and Utah Valley. Denver would have the inside track, and would actually save travel expense by making the move now. Of course, the WAC needs to have a plan for two more defections. In three to five years, maybe Montana, or one of the California schools would be ready.
Friday, June 18, 2010
The WAC must play at least one season with eight members unless
I have reviewed the rules for moving to the FBS. Unless Montana, UC Davis, Sac State or anyone else that is currently a FCS member was able to apply for transition by June 1, the soonest that an FBS school can join the WAC for football is 2012. June 1, 2010 was the deadline for application to begin the two-year transition process for the 2011 season. For football in 2011, the WAC will only have eight members, therefore expect the WAC board of governors to take their sweet time on naming a new member.
The WAC got screwed. The MWC is a wash in football, but a step down in academics. The PAC-10 improves a little. The only real winner in the is Utah and whoever will become reciprocated as BYU's biggest rival.
Yes, I wrote that!
The unless is unless they raid the Sun Belt Conference. Go Mean Green?
I will begin working on the 2010 college football preview edition, soon.
The WAC got screwed. The MWC is a wash in football, but a step down in academics. The PAC-10 improves a little. The only real winner in the is Utah and whoever will become reciprocated as BYU's biggest rival.
Yes, I wrote that!
The unless is unless they raid the Sun Belt Conference. Go Mean Green?
I will begin working on the 2010 college football preview edition, soon.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
One Last Domino to Fall
After spending every break I could get away with at work to sort through all of the rumors and speculation on the internet, I believe the WAC has narrowed their search down to four candidates for expansion:
1. Montana
2. Cal-Davis
3. Portland State
4. Weber State
The WAC, however, could take all four and go to 12.
1. Montana
2. Cal-Davis
3. Portland State
4. Weber State
The WAC, however, could take all four and go to 12.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Time for the MWC to make a move again.
Depending on what could happen with the TV contract, it is time for the MWC to make a move again. My opinion is to bring in Houston and Fresno State. This will make for a find 12-team conference, and with Houston on board the market should be big enough to put at least the conference championship game on the Tiffany Network.
The WAC will likely loose at least two more and at worst 3 more depending on the PAC-10 and MWC moves. If the MWC takes Houston, certainly La Tech will take their place in C-USA. The WAC does not have good options when it comes to growing the conference, but it can reduce the costs of it's members. They should go to 12. If they loose three move, they need to add six, here is who they should add:
1 and 2. Cal Davis and Sacramento State as travel partners.
3. Cal Poly as a travel partner for San Jose State or Nevada.
4. Weber State as a travel partner for Utah State.
5. Eastern Washington as a travel partner for Idaho.
6. Cal Irvine as a partner for Hawaii
Divisions, assuming Fresno State and La Tech are gone.
East.
Eastern Washington
New Mexico State
Utah State
Idaho
Weber State
Nevada
West
Cal Davis
Cal Irvine
Cal Poly
Hawaii
Sacramento State
San Jose State
The WAC will likely loose at least two more and at worst 3 more depending on the PAC-10 and MWC moves. If the MWC takes Houston, certainly La Tech will take their place in C-USA. The WAC does not have good options when it comes to growing the conference, but it can reduce the costs of it's members. They should go to 12. If they loose three move, they need to add six, here is who they should add:
1 and 2. Cal Davis and Sacramento State as travel partners.
3. Cal Poly as a travel partner for San Jose State or Nevada.
4. Weber State as a travel partner for Utah State.
5. Eastern Washington as a travel partner for Idaho.
6. Cal Irvine as a partner for Hawaii
Divisions, assuming Fresno State and La Tech are gone.
East.
Eastern Washington
New Mexico State
Utah State
Idaho
Weber State
Nevada
West
Cal Davis
Cal Irvine
Cal Poly
Hawaii
Sacramento State
San Jose State
Monday, June 14, 2010
Why Utah may not be in the PAC-12 and why Weber State will be in the WAC.
1. Why Utah will not be in the PAC-12. The PAC-10 has stated that it is comfortable at 11 teams for now. Utah may be in the PAC-12 eventually, but not in the near future. The reason is that Utah does not "own" the entire state. Agruably, the roughly 2.5 million on the Wasatch front are split down the middle. About 45 percent Utah, and 45 percent BYU. The other 10% are split between Utah State, other in-state colleges and schools from out of state. If Utah owned the Salt Lake market, it would be a slam dunk, but alas, they do not.
Now, if Utah does go to the PAC-12, then the MWC should immediately get Houston, Fresno State and someone else to keep their BCS hopes alive.
2. Reading through the blogosphere about the replacement for Boise State, I found that Weber State seems to be 2nd on a lot of lists for replacing Boise State in the WAC. Montana is the first name to come to mind, but there are several reasons why this will not happen. First, Montana is the big fish in a small pond. They like that in Montana. Move downstream to to ocean, and they are still the same size fish. Missoula is a long way from anywhere, and only has about 100,000 people. They could pair with Idaho for travel, but Moscow to Missoula is about 4 to 5 hours, depending on the weather. Finally, Montana will want to come up from the FCS with their brother Montana State, who is not ready. Bozeman is less than half the size of Missoula and much more isolated.
Cal-Davis is the school that is beginning to creep to the top of the list. The Mustangs are in the Sacramento area, and while Sacrament State has aging or undersized facilities, Cal-Davis does not. Their facilities are modern and accommodating. This would provide the WAC with another Central Valley foothold should Fresno State bolt.
If the WAC is looking to simply travel in the conference, Weber State would be an excellent choice. A visiting basketball, tennis, softball or whatever team can stay in the Ogden Marriott with a discounted rate, play Weber State on Thursday night and play Utah State on Saturday--or visa versa. Weber State's football stadium needs a facelift, but the other athletic facilities on campus are up to date, including the 12,000 seat Dee Events Center. The Ogden/Cleafield market, which includes Weber, Davis, Morgan and the south part of Box Elder Counties is home to nearly 600,000.
Sure Ogden is a subset of Salt Lake and locals stars will chose either Utah or BYU for recruiting first, but arguably Utah State is in the same boat. And it is the same in Montana. Believe me, if a kid from Missoula has a choice between Washington and staying home, he will go to Washington.
Finally, the WAC is not going to replace Boise State. They will simply expand back to 9 or to 10 or to 12. Cal Davis should be one of those schools. Weber State would be as good of a choice as any. So would Eastern Washington. Weber State has the facilities that Portland State and Sacramento State do not.
I have blogged before that more people need to attend Weber State Football games. Usually, they are entertaining. But with a chance to be in the same conference as Utah State, and with an improved football stadium, the fans should come. Here are my ten suggestions.
1. Build a new outdoor track facility south of University Villiage. (Which is south of the Dee Events Center.)
2. Remove the track and lower the field about 4 feet.
3. "Bowl off" the south end of the stadium, but leave the north end open. The view out the north end is part of what makes going to a Weber State game a nice experience.
4. Improve the restroom and concession facilities.
5. More chair seats. Perhaps the entire west side of the stadium.
6. Put an awning over the east side of the stadium. Protect some of the fans from the weather.
7. Make the new field wide enough for soccer, rugby and lacrosse as well as football. Weber State does not have a lot of flat space on campus and really needs a multi-use facility and not a one-use facility.
8. Build a parking terrace on either the south end or the west side of the stadium.
9. Build an indoor practice facility where the current soccer field is now.
10. New locker rooms.
And finally, scheduling BYU or Utah in Ogden won't hurt either. But the stadium face-lift will need to come first.
I know there are a lot of people who will scoff at the idea of Weber State being in the WAC. However, the WAC does not have a lot of better choices, perhaps only one. Everyone else is either too isolated or does not have the facilities to fit in as well as Weber State does. BTW--Weber State plays baseball at Lindquist field, downtown Ogden, which reportedly has the best view in baseball.
Now, if Utah does go to the PAC-12, then the MWC should immediately get Houston, Fresno State and someone else to keep their BCS hopes alive.
2. Reading through the blogosphere about the replacement for Boise State, I found that Weber State seems to be 2nd on a lot of lists for replacing Boise State in the WAC. Montana is the first name to come to mind, but there are several reasons why this will not happen. First, Montana is the big fish in a small pond. They like that in Montana. Move downstream to to ocean, and they are still the same size fish. Missoula is a long way from anywhere, and only has about 100,000 people. They could pair with Idaho for travel, but Moscow to Missoula is about 4 to 5 hours, depending on the weather. Finally, Montana will want to come up from the FCS with their brother Montana State, who is not ready. Bozeman is less than half the size of Missoula and much more isolated.
Cal-Davis is the school that is beginning to creep to the top of the list. The Mustangs are in the Sacramento area, and while Sacrament State has aging or undersized facilities, Cal-Davis does not. Their facilities are modern and accommodating. This would provide the WAC with another Central Valley foothold should Fresno State bolt.
If the WAC is looking to simply travel in the conference, Weber State would be an excellent choice. A visiting basketball, tennis, softball or whatever team can stay in the Ogden Marriott with a discounted rate, play Weber State on Thursday night and play Utah State on Saturday--or visa versa. Weber State's football stadium needs a facelift, but the other athletic facilities on campus are up to date, including the 12,000 seat Dee Events Center. The Ogden/Cleafield market, which includes Weber, Davis, Morgan and the south part of Box Elder Counties is home to nearly 600,000.
Sure Ogden is a subset of Salt Lake and locals stars will chose either Utah or BYU for recruiting first, but arguably Utah State is in the same boat. And it is the same in Montana. Believe me, if a kid from Missoula has a choice between Washington and staying home, he will go to Washington.
Finally, the WAC is not going to replace Boise State. They will simply expand back to 9 or to 10 or to 12. Cal Davis should be one of those schools. Weber State would be as good of a choice as any. So would Eastern Washington. Weber State has the facilities that Portland State and Sacramento State do not.
I have blogged before that more people need to attend Weber State Football games. Usually, they are entertaining. But with a chance to be in the same conference as Utah State, and with an improved football stadium, the fans should come. Here are my ten suggestions.
1. Build a new outdoor track facility south of University Villiage. (Which is south of the Dee Events Center.)
2. Remove the track and lower the field about 4 feet.
3. "Bowl off" the south end of the stadium, but leave the north end open. The view out the north end is part of what makes going to a Weber State game a nice experience.
4. Improve the restroom and concession facilities.
5. More chair seats. Perhaps the entire west side of the stadium.
6. Put an awning over the east side of the stadium. Protect some of the fans from the weather.
7. Make the new field wide enough for soccer, rugby and lacrosse as well as football. Weber State does not have a lot of flat space on campus and really needs a multi-use facility and not a one-use facility.
8. Build a parking terrace on either the south end or the west side of the stadium.
9. Build an indoor practice facility where the current soccer field is now.
10. New locker rooms.
And finally, scheduling BYU or Utah in Ogden won't hurt either. But the stadium face-lift will need to come first.
I know there are a lot of people who will scoff at the idea of Weber State being in the WAC. However, the WAC does not have a lot of better choices, perhaps only one. Everyone else is either too isolated or does not have the facilities to fit in as well as Weber State does. BTW--Weber State plays baseball at Lindquist field, downtown Ogden, which reportedly has the best view in baseball.
Friday, June 11, 2010
MWC still waiting
Right now, the MWC is still waiting for the PAC-10 and Big-10 to finish their expansion moves before proceeding. If Missouri is still on the outside, the MWC can go to 14; the limit of their size, according to commissioner Craig Thompson who says that 16 is too big.
How will a 14 team conference work for football? It's not that hard with a 12 game schedule. There are two ways to do this. I have blogged about it before, but here are the options.
1. Work on a six-year cycle. On four of the six years, and it will be different for each conference member which years they will be, a conference team will play eight conference games. The other two years, a the team will play nine. There will be six games against the other teams in the division. The other two or three games will be against teams from the other division. One year out of the six, a team will play 5 home conference games and 4 road conference games and in another season out of the six, there will be 4 home games and 5 road games. The schedule will balance in the six-year cycle.
2. Work on a six year cycle, but play nine conference games every season. Six of those games will be against teams in the division. Three will be against teams from the other division. Each team will play one team from the other division every season for six years, and and to others from the other division and rotate over the six-year cycle.
For example, if the MWC adds Missouri, Kansas, K-State and Iowa State, here is how the divisions will shake up.
Mountain Division:
Air Force
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Missouri
New Mexico
TCU
West Division
Boise State
Brigham Young
Colorado State
UNLV
Utah
San Diego State
Wyoming
In Scenario 1, using Boise State as an example, their inter-division schedule would be:
2011: @ Air Force, Iowa State
2012: @ Kansas, Kansas State
2013: @ Missouri, New Mexico, @ TCU
2014: Air Force, @Iowa State
2015: Kansas, @ Kansas State
2016: Missouri, @New Mexico, TCU
The scheduling in scenario 1 would be a little bit more difficult to work out and would be a little bit more difficult for conference members to schedule non-conference games, as some years teams would have 3 games to schedule and some years they would have 4.
In Scenario 2, Boise State Plays TCU every year in the six-year cycle. Here is how the pairings would match up, attempting to keep some long-time rivals together:
Boise State--TCU
BYU--Air Force
Colorado State--Kansas State
UNLV--Iowa State
Utah--New Mexico
San Diego State--Missouri
Wyoming--Kansas
And then, using Boise State as an example, their inter-conference schedule would be
2011: Air Force, @Iowa State, TCU
2012: Iowa State, @Kansas, @TCU
2013: Kansas, @Kansas State, TCU
2014: Kansas State, @Missouri, @TCU
2015: Missouri, @New Mexico, TCU
2014: New Mexico, @Air Force, @TCU
Scenario 2 is a little bit easier as teams only have 3 non-conference games to schedule and that would be consistent.
Air Force would need an NCAA exemption similar to Hawaii where they and their opponents would be allowed to play 13 regular season games. Air Force is still obligated to play their sister academies every season. This scenario would leave them with only one non-conference game to schedule.
How will a 14 team conference work for football? It's not that hard with a 12 game schedule. There are two ways to do this. I have blogged about it before, but here are the options.
1. Work on a six-year cycle. On four of the six years, and it will be different for each conference member which years they will be, a conference team will play eight conference games. The other two years, a the team will play nine. There will be six games against the other teams in the division. The other two or three games will be against teams from the other division. One year out of the six, a team will play 5 home conference games and 4 road conference games and in another season out of the six, there will be 4 home games and 5 road games. The schedule will balance in the six-year cycle.
2. Work on a six year cycle, but play nine conference games every season. Six of those games will be against teams in the division. Three will be against teams from the other division. Each team will play one team from the other division every season for six years, and and to others from the other division and rotate over the six-year cycle.
For example, if the MWC adds Missouri, Kansas, K-State and Iowa State, here is how the divisions will shake up.
Mountain Division:
Air Force
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Missouri
New Mexico
TCU
West Division
Boise State
Brigham Young
Colorado State
UNLV
Utah
San Diego State
Wyoming
In Scenario 1, using Boise State as an example, their inter-division schedule would be:
2011: @ Air Force, Iowa State
2012: @ Kansas, Kansas State
2013: @ Missouri, New Mexico, @ TCU
2014: Air Force, @Iowa State
2015: Kansas, @ Kansas State
2016: Missouri, @New Mexico, TCU
The scheduling in scenario 1 would be a little bit more difficult to work out and would be a little bit more difficult for conference members to schedule non-conference games, as some years teams would have 3 games to schedule and some years they would have 4.
In Scenario 2, Boise State Plays TCU every year in the six-year cycle. Here is how the pairings would match up, attempting to keep some long-time rivals together:
Boise State--TCU
BYU--Air Force
Colorado State--Kansas State
UNLV--Iowa State
Utah--New Mexico
San Diego State--Missouri
Wyoming--Kansas
And then, using Boise State as an example, their inter-conference schedule would be
2011: Air Force, @Iowa State, TCU
2012: Iowa State, @Kansas, @TCU
2013: Kansas, @Kansas State, TCU
2014: Kansas State, @Missouri, @TCU
2015: Missouri, @New Mexico, TCU
2014: New Mexico, @Air Force, @TCU
Scenario 2 is a little bit easier as teams only have 3 non-conference games to schedule and that would be consistent.
Air Force would need an NCAA exemption similar to Hawaii where they and their opponents would be allowed to play 13 regular season games. Air Force is still obligated to play their sister academies every season. This scenario would leave them with only one non-conference game to schedule.
Welcoming the Smurfs to the Mountain West
I offer my congratulations to they who play on the blue turf to the Mountain West Conference. I am sure that the Broncos not only find playing Utah, BYU and TCU more of a challenge than playing Fresno State, Hawaii and Nevada; they will also find UNLV, San Diego State and Wyoming more of a challenge than San Jose State, New Mexico and Utah State.
As "The Swagger" is one of the few Big Sky blogs in the Webosphere, it is becoming more clear how, or if this will effect the Big Sky Conference. Well, the Big Sky should be prepared for the best and the worst. The WAC is down to 8, and one of the reasons, again, is travel. What happens to the WAC will depend on how the PAC-16 and Mountain West realignments shake out.
Montana &?
If the PAC-10 adds, as expected, Texas, Texas A & M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, then the MWC could add the remaining 4 Big 12 programs and the WAC will suffer no more losses. The WAC, if I read the tea leaves correctly, will add Montana and a "team from California" and become a 10-school conference. The team from California is unknown at this point, but is likely to be Cal Poly. The Mustangs will have to add at least 5,000 seats to their stadium, but otherwise would be the best move the WAC could make. Cal Poly is the only division I football school on the Central Coast of California. The WAC could also add UT-San Antonio, who will call the Alamodome home. But the move will not provide access to the Alamo Bowl.
Other options for the WAC, that make sense, include San Diego University, Cal Davis, Sacramento State and Portland State. Weber State has an outside shot at WAC membership, but is really at least 5 years away from making that step. Montana State is a little closer, but also only an outside chance.
For the Big Sky, the aftershocks of this conference expansion will be felt in the Big Sky. At least one, and probably two schools will leave. The bigger problem is still economics. Northern Arizona is not out of the woods, yet. And there are rumblings of Idaho State dropping football as well.
The worst case scenario for the Big Sky is the loss of four or five schools to FBS promotion and the loss of two schools who decide that they can not longer afford football. The remaining programs in the Big Sky would likely join another conference.
Big Sky Schools and Attractiveness to FBS conferences:
1. Montana. Pros: good academics, supported by the community, modern facilities, nearby natural wonders, tradition. Cons: Travel--isolated, potential loss of fan interest if success of Boise State can not be duplicated.
2. Sacramento State. Pros: Major league community (NBA Kings), facilities and easy travel, tradition (baseball), competes in many sports most FCS schools do not. Cons: In the shadow of other programs in California.
3. Portland State. Pros: Major league community (NBA and MLS), recent facility upgrade. Cons: In the shadow of PAC-10 programs, lack of tradition.
4. Montana State. Pros: Community support, growing community, nearby natural wonders. Cons: Isolated, altitude, small community, weather.
5. Weber State. Pros: Major league community (NBA and MLS), good facilities, easy travel, strong academics, nearby natural wonders and tradition. Cons: community support is lacking, in the shadow of Mountain West programs.
6. Eastern Washington. Pros: growing community, good academic reputation. Cons: Isolated, outside of football, competes with another nearby DI school for fan support and local recruits.
7. Northern Colorado. Pros: growing community, academics, nearby natural wonders. Cons: Crowded community with several other division I colleges nearby. Recent DII promotee.
8. Northern Arizona. Pros: facilities, nearby natural wonders. Cons: smaller community, altitude, isolated.
9. Idaho State. Pros: nearby natural wonders. Cons: smaller community, isolated, aging facilities.
As "The Swagger" is one of the few Big Sky blogs in the Webosphere, it is becoming more clear how, or if this will effect the Big Sky Conference. Well, the Big Sky should be prepared for the best and the worst. The WAC is down to 8, and one of the reasons, again, is travel. What happens to the WAC will depend on how the PAC-16 and Mountain West realignments shake out.
Montana &?
If the PAC-10 adds, as expected, Texas, Texas A & M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, then the MWC could add the remaining 4 Big 12 programs and the WAC will suffer no more losses. The WAC, if I read the tea leaves correctly, will add Montana and a "team from California" and become a 10-school conference. The team from California is unknown at this point, but is likely to be Cal Poly. The Mustangs will have to add at least 5,000 seats to their stadium, but otherwise would be the best move the WAC could make. Cal Poly is the only division I football school on the Central Coast of California. The WAC could also add UT-San Antonio, who will call the Alamodome home. But the move will not provide access to the Alamo Bowl.
Other options for the WAC, that make sense, include San Diego University, Cal Davis, Sacramento State and Portland State. Weber State has an outside shot at WAC membership, but is really at least 5 years away from making that step. Montana State is a little closer, but also only an outside chance.
For the Big Sky, the aftershocks of this conference expansion will be felt in the Big Sky. At least one, and probably two schools will leave. The bigger problem is still economics. Northern Arizona is not out of the woods, yet. And there are rumblings of Idaho State dropping football as well.
The worst case scenario for the Big Sky is the loss of four or five schools to FBS promotion and the loss of two schools who decide that they can not longer afford football. The remaining programs in the Big Sky would likely join another conference.
Big Sky Schools and Attractiveness to FBS conferences:
1. Montana. Pros: good academics, supported by the community, modern facilities, nearby natural wonders, tradition. Cons: Travel--isolated, potential loss of fan interest if success of Boise State can not be duplicated.
2. Sacramento State. Pros: Major league community (NBA Kings), facilities and easy travel, tradition (baseball), competes in many sports most FCS schools do not. Cons: In the shadow of other programs in California.
3. Portland State. Pros: Major league community (NBA and MLS), recent facility upgrade. Cons: In the shadow of PAC-10 programs, lack of tradition.
4. Montana State. Pros: Community support, growing community, nearby natural wonders. Cons: Isolated, altitude, small community, weather.
5. Weber State. Pros: Major league community (NBA and MLS), good facilities, easy travel, strong academics, nearby natural wonders and tradition. Cons: community support is lacking, in the shadow of Mountain West programs.
6. Eastern Washington. Pros: growing community, good academic reputation. Cons: Isolated, outside of football, competes with another nearby DI school for fan support and local recruits.
7. Northern Colorado. Pros: growing community, academics, nearby natural wonders. Cons: Crowded community with several other division I colleges nearby. Recent DII promotee.
8. Northern Arizona. Pros: facilities, nearby natural wonders. Cons: smaller community, altitude, isolated.
9. Idaho State. Pros: nearby natural wonders. Cons: smaller community, isolated, aging facilities.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Why the PAC-16 is Bad
The PAC-16 is a bad idea. It looks like they are about to make the same mistakes that killed the old WAC. Why did the old WAC not work?
1. Loss of traditional rivalries. The PAC-16 will be created in a manner that will protect the big rivals. But other minor rivals would be lost. For example, if the Big-10 does not add Nebraska, and the PAC-16 includes Colorado, there is one rival that will be lost. How about Arizona/USC? Nebraska/Oklahoma? Oklahoma State/Kansas? All "Dust in the Wind." (A favorite Kansas song!)
2. Travel--Just try getting from Lubbock, Texas to Pullman, Washington.
3. Fan interest. USC vs Texas...that will work. Oregon State vs Baylor? It will take some time to warm up to it.
New Big XII, who in the MWC will be left out? That depends on who in the Big XII is left in. If Colorado is not taken by the PAC-16, then you would not be smart to leave Wyoming out of the picture. It's a natural rivalry that was once a big thing. If Missouri and Nebraska are taken by the Big 10, and you are left with Colorado, Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State, then you simply merge with the MWC and add Boise State for 14. This is a good number if you have 12 college football games and 32 college basketball games to work with.
1. Loss of traditional rivalries. The PAC-16 will be created in a manner that will protect the big rivals. But other minor rivals would be lost. For example, if the Big-10 does not add Nebraska, and the PAC-16 includes Colorado, there is one rival that will be lost. How about Arizona/USC? Nebraska/Oklahoma? Oklahoma State/Kansas? All "Dust in the Wind." (A favorite Kansas song!)
2. Travel--Just try getting from Lubbock, Texas to Pullman, Washington.
3. Fan interest. USC vs Texas...that will work. Oregon State vs Baylor? It will take some time to warm up to it.
New Big XII, who in the MWC will be left out? That depends on who in the Big XII is left in. If Colorado is not taken by the PAC-16, then you would not be smart to leave Wyoming out of the picture. It's a natural rivalry that was once a big thing. If Missouri and Nebraska are taken by the Big 10, and you are left with Colorado, Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State, then you simply merge with the MWC and add Boise State for 14. This is a good number if you have 12 college football games and 32 college basketball games to work with.
Friday, June 4, 2010
This one catches me by surprise...
This is the wildest conference expansion scenario, yet. Look at this Deseret Morning News Article:
This will be the PAC-16---if this goes through
Pacific Divsion:
Califronia
Oregon
Oregon State
Stanford
UCLA
USC
Washington
Washington State
Border Division:
Arizona
Arizona State
Colorado
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas A & M
Texas Tech
Sorry, BYU and Utah fans, you will be left out. But the news is not all bad...keep reading.
So, what does the Mountain West do? Wait for the Big 10 to make a move. If a 16 team conference will work for the PAC-10, it will work for the Big 10 and SEC as well. But, in the long run, if Kansas and Kansas State are left without a conference, as this scenario seems to indicate, why not invite them to the Mountain West? Kansans would feel like this is a step down, but it would be a great addition to the Mountain West to have Jayhawk basketball, would it not? Wouldn't Kansas basketball fit well in a conference that supports such traditional basketball powers such as BYU, Utah, New Mexico and UNLV?
What about Iowa State? What about Baylor? I would have to think that if the Big 10 follows suit, that Nebraska, Missouri and Iowa State would join that conference along with Pittsburgh and Notre Dame. It would be a better move for the Big 10 to take Iowa State, for geography sake, than to take Rutgers or Kentucky or Louisville.
That would leave Baylor to join old rivals SMU and Rice in Conference USA.
Possible Mountain West with 14, to include Kansas and Kansas State, along with Boise State, Fresno State and Nevada. (Add Hawaii and UTEP for 16).
West Division
Boise State
Brigham Young
Fresno State
Nevada
San Diego State
Utah
UNLV
(Hawaii, if 16)
East Division
Air Force
Colorado State
Kansas
Kansas State
New Mexico
TCU
Wyoming
(UTEP, or Houston or Tulsa if 16).
However, I doubt that the MWC will go to 16 as the memory of the old 16-school WAC will come to mind. This MWC, with 14, would be a BCS-worthy conference and likely be a 5/6-bid NCAA tournament conference as well. You could just expand to 12 and leave out Fresno and Nevada and put New Mexico in the West division and still have a conference that will be in the BCS every season and have at least 5 in the NCAA tourney.
Other conferences: SEC would likely add Miami, Florida State, Georgia Tech and Louisville to go to 16. The ACC, after loosing three would be at 9 and would likely take all of the remaining Big East Football Schools (That would be 6) to go to 15 and then add a school from C-USA to round it out at 16. The Big East would fold and once again become a basketball-only conference. The WAC and C-USA will raid the Sun-Belt Conference to survive and that conference would fold as well.
This will be the PAC-16---if this goes through
Pacific Divsion:
Califronia
Oregon
Oregon State
Stanford
UCLA
USC
Washington
Washington State
Border Division:
Arizona
Arizona State
Colorado
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas A & M
Texas Tech
Sorry, BYU and Utah fans, you will be left out. But the news is not all bad...keep reading.
So, what does the Mountain West do? Wait for the Big 10 to make a move. If a 16 team conference will work for the PAC-10, it will work for the Big 10 and SEC as well. But, in the long run, if Kansas and Kansas State are left without a conference, as this scenario seems to indicate, why not invite them to the Mountain West? Kansans would feel like this is a step down, but it would be a great addition to the Mountain West to have Jayhawk basketball, would it not? Wouldn't Kansas basketball fit well in a conference that supports such traditional basketball powers such as BYU, Utah, New Mexico and UNLV?
What about Iowa State? What about Baylor? I would have to think that if the Big 10 follows suit, that Nebraska, Missouri and Iowa State would join that conference along with Pittsburgh and Notre Dame. It would be a better move for the Big 10 to take Iowa State, for geography sake, than to take Rutgers or Kentucky or Louisville.
That would leave Baylor to join old rivals SMU and Rice in Conference USA.
Possible Mountain West with 14, to include Kansas and Kansas State, along with Boise State, Fresno State and Nevada. (Add Hawaii and UTEP for 16).
West Division
Boise State
Brigham Young
Fresno State
Nevada
San Diego State
Utah
UNLV
(Hawaii, if 16)
East Division
Air Force
Colorado State
Kansas
Kansas State
New Mexico
TCU
Wyoming
(UTEP, or Houston or Tulsa if 16).
However, I doubt that the MWC will go to 16 as the memory of the old 16-school WAC will come to mind. This MWC, with 14, would be a BCS-worthy conference and likely be a 5/6-bid NCAA tournament conference as well. You could just expand to 12 and leave out Fresno and Nevada and put New Mexico in the West division and still have a conference that will be in the BCS every season and have at least 5 in the NCAA tourney.
Other conferences: SEC would likely add Miami, Florida State, Georgia Tech and Louisville to go to 16. The ACC, after loosing three would be at 9 and would likely take all of the remaining Big East Football Schools (That would be 6) to go to 15 and then add a school from C-USA to round it out at 16. The Big East would fold and once again become a basketball-only conference. The WAC and C-USA will raid the Sun-Belt Conference to survive and that conference would fold as well.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
It will be Utah and ...
Wrubell on his blog on KSL reports that press from Boise has been invited to the MWC presidents meeting in Jackson Hole, Wyoming this weekend. This seems to be confirmation that BSU will be invited to join the Mountain West Conference. No word on if anyone else has been asked to come as well. This is almost a sure sign that Boise State will be invited to join and that then MWC will be the first conference to announce expansion.
There are all sorts of speculation and rumor. It is hard to separate fact from wishing in all of this. But here is what looks to be truth.
The PAC-10 is exploring asking for a rule change to have a conference championship with 10 schools. The University of Colorado has flat out denied getting contact from the PAC-10, therefore this does not seem likely. Utah will not be an 11th school in the PAC-10. They will come in with someone, and if the PAC-10 presidents can not accept a religious school, then San Diego State seems to be the logical partner. I have to consider the possibility that the PAC-10 presidents may decide against expansion at this time.
The other rumor that I put in a category as more than just a rumor is UTEP to the MWC. Now, imagine if the MWC invites Boise State, Fresno State and UTEP. This would mean that the only old-WAC school not in the Mountain West would be Hawaii. I have found out that Hawaii has BYU and UNLV on the schedule in the future. There are going to be 50,000 angry Hawaiians crammed into Aloha Stadium to help Hawaii prove that they did not deserve to be left in the WAC. Hawaii can prove this, however, by getting 50,000 angry Hawaiians into Aloha Stadium every Saturday and not just when BYU comes to town.
Now back to UTEP. The argument for the Miners is that they have good facilities and are well supported by their fans even though they have had little success on the field. They also have a bowl. It's a benefit for UTEP as well, as they are a fringe school in Conference USA and their rivalries with MWC schools are more deeply seeded; especially New Mexico and BYU.
I would put UTEP ahead of Nevada on the list of potential schools as El Paso is about twice the size of Reno. But I would only bring in UTEP if they brought the Sun Bowl into the MWC picture as well. The Sun Bowl has a longer tradition that the Las Vegas Bowl, has a higher payout and would be an excellent place for the top non-BCS MWC football program to play every year. They would either get a 3rd pick from the PAC-10 or a third pick form the Big XII as an opponent.
Now, what does the WAC do? They do not have a lot of options for replacements for Boise State, Fresno State and possibly Nevada. They will not be able to rebuild the conference just by raiding the Sun Belt Conference for replacements. One interesting thing that I came across is that UT-San Antonio is planning to begin playing football in 2011. The Alamodome has no football tenant, and has pushed for this to happen for years. If I were the WAC, I would be all over this. Help them sell tickets. Why would you let a market like San Antonio begin playing college football at the FCS level? This should be a no-brainier for the WAC.
Here is a list of replacements for the WAC--
From the Sun Belt Conference:
North Texas
Louisiana Layfeyette
Louisiana Monroe
FCS Programs:
UT San Antonio
Montana
Texas State-San Marcos
Stephen F. Austin
Sacramento State
Portland State
Montana State
Cal Poly
Cal Davis
San Diego University
There are all sorts of speculation and rumor. It is hard to separate fact from wishing in all of this. But here is what looks to be truth.
The PAC-10 is exploring asking for a rule change to have a conference championship with 10 schools. The University of Colorado has flat out denied getting contact from the PAC-10, therefore this does not seem likely. Utah will not be an 11th school in the PAC-10. They will come in with someone, and if the PAC-10 presidents can not accept a religious school, then San Diego State seems to be the logical partner. I have to consider the possibility that the PAC-10 presidents may decide against expansion at this time.
The other rumor that I put in a category as more than just a rumor is UTEP to the MWC. Now, imagine if the MWC invites Boise State, Fresno State and UTEP. This would mean that the only old-WAC school not in the Mountain West would be Hawaii. I have found out that Hawaii has BYU and UNLV on the schedule in the future. There are going to be 50,000 angry Hawaiians crammed into Aloha Stadium to help Hawaii prove that they did not deserve to be left in the WAC. Hawaii can prove this, however, by getting 50,000 angry Hawaiians into Aloha Stadium every Saturday and not just when BYU comes to town.
Now back to UTEP. The argument for the Miners is that they have good facilities and are well supported by their fans even though they have had little success on the field. They also have a bowl. It's a benefit for UTEP as well, as they are a fringe school in Conference USA and their rivalries with MWC schools are more deeply seeded; especially New Mexico and BYU.
I would put UTEP ahead of Nevada on the list of potential schools as El Paso is about twice the size of Reno. But I would only bring in UTEP if they brought the Sun Bowl into the MWC picture as well. The Sun Bowl has a longer tradition that the Las Vegas Bowl, has a higher payout and would be an excellent place for the top non-BCS MWC football program to play every year. They would either get a 3rd pick from the PAC-10 or a third pick form the Big XII as an opponent.
Now, what does the WAC do? They do not have a lot of options for replacements for Boise State, Fresno State and possibly Nevada. They will not be able to rebuild the conference just by raiding the Sun Belt Conference for replacements. One interesting thing that I came across is that UT-San Antonio is planning to begin playing football in 2011. The Alamodome has no football tenant, and has pushed for this to happen for years. If I were the WAC, I would be all over this. Help them sell tickets. Why would you let a market like San Antonio begin playing college football at the FCS level? This should be a no-brainier for the WAC.
Here is a list of replacements for the WAC--
From the Sun Belt Conference:
North Texas
Louisiana Layfeyette
Louisiana Monroe
FCS Programs:
UT San Antonio
Montana
Texas State-San Marcos
Stephen F. Austin
Sacramento State
Portland State
Montana State
Cal Poly
Cal Davis
San Diego University
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)