The WAC has sued Nevada and Fresno State to keep them in the WAC through the 2011-12 school year. Karl Benson admits that this is a survival move. It is as much about keeping Hawaii and Louisiana Tech in the conference, which much happen if there is any hope of keeping the WAC a going concern. The membership committee continues to study the possibilities of which schools to invite.
One of my concerns about Montana, which I voiced in this blog nearly a year ago is the lack of local recruits. This is why Texas State is such a strong option, and probably the first option for the WAC. It is so much easier to justify the scholarship that will be given to an athlete if his/her parents are subsidizing the program indirectly through taxes. Look at the roster of any college team in Texas, including the University of Texas and Texas A & M, and the lion share of these athletes are Texans. The lion share of athletes on Montana's roster are from California.
The availability of local recruits gives any school from Texas, California and NAU an advantage as potential WAC schools. It gives everyone else a disadvantage. It is not a killer, but it helps reduce expenses.
Another problem for some programs is not the availability of local athletes, but competition for them. Three potential new WAC programs are competing with PAC-12 schools for recruits. This is a big disadvantage. If you were 18 and had the choice, would you take the chance and try to walk-on to a PAC-12 school or take a scholarship at a WAC school. Remember, you are 18 and believe that you can do anything. Mom and Dad may say one thing, but the mind of an 18-year-old is a little different. Mom and Dad may also believe that a PAC-12 school is more likely to lead to self-reliance and may be willing to pay tuition at a school that they feel is likely to lead to a better job.
The populations of Texas, Arizona and California are large enough that the ego factor is canceled out, somewhat. But no so much in Oregon, Washington and Utah.
There is one way to cancel out this problem, and that is success. If Montana can succeed at the FBS-level right away, they will win recruits.
Local athletes
An advantage to:
Texas State
Lamar
UTSA
Cal Davis
Cal Poly
Sacramento State
Northern Arizona
Disadvantage to:
Montana
Montana State
Competition for local athletes a disadvantage to:
Eastern Washington
Portland State
Weber State
BTW--there are two FCS mascots involved in the Capital One National Mascot of the Year contest. One of them is Monte.
4 comments:
In regard to Montana not having any local talent? The number of total Montana players on roster is over 30, including 9 from Missoula, where the UM is located. This can be compared to the number of Californians which is 25% less (31 to 24). You make valid points, however Montana already has those numbers in place.
Mary, counterpoint conceded. It is good to see that Montana can win over most of it's local talent. It will help ensure success at the FBS level.
However, compare this to Texas State where all but 3 athletes on the football team are from Texas. TSU has a big advantage.
Ben H: Texas also has 25,000,000 people, while Montana has less than1,000,000. Check the # of local boys on non-California WAC teams....you might be surprised where Montana fits into that equation.
Anonymous,
Same formula that BYU used so effectively in the 70s and 80s. Is it possible that the reason California schools struggle so is that the loose their local recruits to out-of-state schools.
Post a Comment