CSNbbs

Full Version: View from the BOTTOM - Q&A with WW
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Not particularly fond of the title of this article03-banghead

ESPNFootballBlog.
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation

View from the bottom: Q&A with Wright Waters

May, 14, 2010 May 1411:00AM

By Graham Watson

Expansion has been a hot topic for the last several months and everyone is focused on power players such as the Big Ten and Big 12. But what about the teams at the bottom? Sun Belt commissioner Wright Waters is keeping a close watch on expansion, but has little fear of losing any of his 12 teams, which gives him a unique opportunity to sit back and watch everything unfold.

Waters took some time to visit with me this week and give me his candid thoughts on expansion and what it could mean to college football. The interview is broken up into two parts and the second will be posted later this afternoon.

Sun Belt commissioner Wright Waters isn't worried about losing teams to expansion.When the conference commissioners all met a couple weeks ago, did Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany say anything about a timetable for expansion?

Wright Waters: No. The only thing Jim said is, ‘This is not a one-year decision. This is a 100-year decision. We’re not bringing somebody into the league for one year or five years or 10 years. We’re bringing them in for 100 years.’ So, I think he’ll be slow and deliberate. I think that he will say to whoever those teams are to take as much time as they need to say goodbye before they come here.

Well, what are your thoughts about expansion?

WW: You can take five people off the street and they’ll have different opinions and one of them might be right. At the end of the day there are really only two or two-and-a-half conferences that are in charge of their own fate and that’s the SEC and the Big Ten. The SEC’s not going to raid the Big Ten and the Big Ten’s not going to raid the SEC. And maybe the Pac-10. Nobody’s going to raid the Pac-10. But the Pac-10 has so few options just because of the number of schools that are out there. But beyond that, we’re all just dominoes waiting our turn. And the only thing you can do is think of all the different scenarios and how you would react. Kind of do it in your mind and try to stay in enhancement mode and not get into survival mode because once you get into survival mode you start making bad decisions.

What’s an example of a bad decision?

WW: Like taking institutions that don’t help you athletically or don’t fit geographically, but you keep the doors open and then you’ve got to live with those people forever and ever.

When you look at non-AQ conferences, everyone’s talking about the Mountain West being a player in this, maybe the WAC because they have some more prominent teams, but as you keep going down the line, it seems like some of your teams, at least from what I’ve been reading, could have Conference USA knocking on their door or one of the other conferences to fill in the gaps. What do you think of that?

WW: You don’t know because first of all what happens to Conference USA? If you fall below the continuity of membership requirements (eight teams) you have no league because you have no automatic qualifiers. So, the thing institutions have to be prepared to do is not look at what conference’s were last year, but what conference’s are going to be five years from now. Could the Big 12 lose their AQ? Maybe. Could the Big East lose their AQ? Maybe. You’ve got to look at the makeup of what new conferences will be not what the makeup of old conferences were.

I assume every conference has a backup plan or a list of backup schools that you profile to fit into your membership. Does the Sun Belt have something like that?

WW: Yes and no. Again, it depends on whether you’re in enhancement mode or survival mode. We’re a 12-team league right now. We are absolutely in enhancement mode. We are in a mode where we’re thinking, ‘How do we improve the quality of the 12 schools we have?’ There’s no advantage to us right now to expand. If we expand all we do is increase the division of resources. So, right now we’re not engaged in that. Do I know what’s around me? Yeah. I keep up with those things. But if 16 becomes the new norm and that becomes a qualification to compete then yeah, we’ve got to get out of enhancement mode and get into survival mode.
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_...ght-waters


View from the bottom: Q&A with Wright Waters
May, 14, 2010 May 1411:00AM ETEmail Print Share By Graham Watson

Expansion has been a hot topic for the last several months and everyone is focused on power players such as the Big Ten and Big 12. But what about the teams at the bottom? Sun Belt commissioner Wright Waters is keeping a close watch on expansion, but has little fear of losing any of his 12 teams, which gives him a unique opportunity to sit back and watch everything unfold.

Waters took some time to visit with me this week and give me his candid thoughts on expansion and what it could mean to college football. The interview is broken up into two parts and the second will be posted later this afternoon.

Sun Belt commissioner Wright Waters isn't worried about losing teams to expansion.When the conference commissioners all met a couple weeks ago, did Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany say anything about a timetable for expansion?

Wright Waters: No. The only thing Jim said is, ‘This is not a one-year decision. This is a 100-year decision. We’re not bringing somebody into the league for one year or five years or 10 years. We’re bringing them in for 100 years.’ So, I think he’ll be slow and deliberate. I think that he will say to whoever those teams are to take as much time as they need to say goodbye before they come here.

Well, what are your thoughts about expansion?

WW: You can take five people off the street and they’ll have different opinions and one of them might be right. At the end of the day there are really only two or two-and-a-half conferences that are in charge of their own fate and that’s the SEC and the Big Ten. The SEC’s not going to raid the Big Ten and the Big Ten’s not going to raid the SEC. And maybe the Pac-10. Nobody’s going to raid the Pac-10. But the Pac-10 has so few options just because of the number of schools that are out there. But beyond that, we’re all just dominoes waiting our turn. And the only thing you can do is think of all the different scenarios and how you would react. Kind of do it in your mind and try to stay in enhancement mode and not get into survival mode because once you get into survival mode you start making bad decisions.

What’s an example of a bad decision?

WW: Like taking institutions that don’t help you athletically or don’t fit geographically, but you keep the doors open and then you’ve got to live with those people forever and ever.

When you look at non-AQ conferences, everyone’s talking about the Mountain West being a player in this, maybe the WAC because they have some more prominent teams, but as you keep going down the line, it seems like some of your teams, at least from what I’ve been reading, could have Conference USA knocking on their door or one of the other conferences to fill in the gaps. What do you think of that?

WW: You don’t know because first of all what happens to Conference USA? If you fall below the continuity of membership requirements (eight teams) you have no league because you have no automatic qualifiers. So, the thing institutions have to be prepared to do is not look at what conference’s were last year, but what conference’s are going to be five years from now. Could the Big 12 lose their AQ? Maybe. Could the Big East lose their AQ? Maybe. You’ve got to look at the makeup of what new conferences will be not what the makeup of old conferences were.

I assume every conference has a backup plan or a list of backup schools that you profile to fit into your membership. Does the Sun Belt have something like that?

WW: Yes and no. Again, it depends on whether you’re in enhancement mode or survival mode. We’re a 12-team league right now. We are absolutely in enhancement mode. We are in a mode where we’re thinking, ‘How do we improve the quality of the 12 schools we have?’ There’s no advantage to us right now to expand. If we expand all we do is increase the division of resources. So, right now we’re not engaged in that. Do I know what’s around me? Yeah. I keep up with those things. But if 16 becomes the new norm and that becomes a qualification to compete then yeah, we’ve got to get out of enhancement mode and get into survival mode
Damn, You beat me MG!
(05-14-2010 10:39 AM)OwlFamily Wrote: [ -> ]Damn, You beat me MG!

I had no idea it was a race04-jawdrop
LOL

Well I merged em so they wouldnt be Dupes.
Pissant title. Watson is doing her best to hammer that "bottomness" in, isn't she ?
(05-14-2010 10:50 AM)KAjunRaider Wrote: [ -> ]Pissant title. Watson is doing her best to hammer that "bottomness" in, isn't she ?

Yup. She drives me crazy with all of the pessimism. Even in the world of non-AQ, if you aren't one of the big boys, you're nothing. Good job, Graham.
Since I think it sums up what has been a semi-consensus it is obviously brilliant thinking 03-wink

My analysis.

1. There may not be "trickle up" this time. If you look at the major realignments post-76 you had the 1989-91 (speaking only to the elite conferences, this one rippled around for some time) phase which arguably had trickle up as the Big East formed and Fresno escaped the Big West and some I-AA's escaped to I-A. Then there was the 1995 phase when there was no upward migration just the trickle down as half of the SWC got knocked out of the club. Then you had the 2004-05 phase that was trickle up as three C-USA moved into the Big East and a down with Temple departing.

Right now the Big East and potentially the Big XII (depending on how wide-spread this is) are poised to trickle down as teams get called into richer leagues and the survivors are unable to offer membership in the elite club to new members. It could be both an up and down if some Big East exit the club and some new to Big XII schools enter.

2. If there is no upward trickle, MWC and CUSA may not have any spots to offer MAC, Sun Belt, WAC schools unless its balance schedule disruptions created by adding trickle down schools. If there is upward trickle, CUSA or MWC may no longer be in position to survive.

3. There is certainly monitoring of activities of potential members with a risk/reward assessment. Sometimes you get lucky and there is low hanging fruit you can pick off the tree without doing any work. That was the Troy situation, they moved to I-A already and were sitting nicely within the footprint, that was an easy decision, walk over to the tree and pluck them right off. FIU/FAU weren't as far along and well removed from the football footprint. That was likely a harder struggle. WKU and soon USA, simple, no work required operation of league bylaws handles it. If the WAC changes cause La.Tech to rethink, its simple, they are FBS and sit comfortably within the footprint, NMSU not so easy because of geography. After that it gets more problematic because you have to assess whether a reclassifying school has a solid plan and can devote appropriate resources, and whether they fit geographically and culturally as a partner.

4. Enhancement vs. Survival. Today there is no FBS school wanting in or school with declared intent to go FBS that you can look at easily declare adding them makes us better in football or basketball. If we are looking to keep our numbers up and survive or fit in to a larger conference model for the FBS, many of the schools we have no interest in today look very appealing.
(05-14-2010 11:22 AM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]Since I think it sums up what has been a semi-consensus it is obviously brilliant thinking 03-wink

My analysis.

1. There may not be "trickle up" this time. If you look at the major realignments post-76 you had the 1989-91 (speaking only to the elite conferences, this one rippled around for some time) phase which arguably had trickle up as the Big East formed and Fresno escaped the Big West and some I-AA's escaped to I-A. Then there was the 1995 phase when there was no upward migration just the trickle down as half of the SWC got knocked out of the club. Then you had the 2004-05 phase that was trickle up as three C-USA moved into the Big East and a down with Temple departing.

Right now the Big East and potentially the Big XII (depending on how wide-spread this is) are poised to trickle down as teams get called into richer leagues and the survivors are unable to offer membership in the elite club to new members. It could be both an up and down if some Big East exit the club and some new to Big XII schools enter.

2. If there is no upward trickle, MWC and CUSA may not have any spots to offer MAC, Sun Belt, WAC schools unless its balance schedule disruptions created by adding trickle down schools. If there is upward trickle, CUSA or MWC may no longer be in position to survive.

3. There is certainly monitoring of activities of potential members with a risk/reward assessment. Sometimes you get lucky and there is low hanging fruit you can pick off the tree without doing any work. That was the Troy situation, they moved to I-A already and were sitting nicely within the footprint, that was an easy decision, walk over to the tree and pluck them right off. FIU/FAU weren't as far along and well removed from the football footprint. That was likely a harder struggle. WKU and soon USA, simple, no work required operation of league bylaws handles it. If the WAC changes cause La.Tech to rethink, its simple, they are FBS and sit comfortably within the footprint, NMSU not so easy because of geography. After that it gets more problematic because you have to assess whether a reclassifying school has a solid plan and can devote appropriate resources, and whether they fit geographically and culturally as a partner.

4. Enhancement vs. Survival. Today there is no FBS school wanting in or school with declared intent to go FBS that you can look at easily declare adding them makes us better in football or basketball. If we are looking to keep our numbers up and survive or fit in to a larger conference model for the FBS, many of the schools we have no interest in today look very appealing.

Glad to see that analogy hasn't been put to rest yet. 03-melodramatic
It's a compliment to Troy which naturally explains the continued offense. :)
(05-14-2010 01:37 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]It's a compliment to Troy which naturally explains the continued offense. :)

That reference will NEVER be considered a compliment by Trojan faithful. We remember the original context of that quote and it still stings!
(05-14-2010 01:44 PM)troyw Wrote: [ -> ]That reference will NEVER be considered a compliment by Trojan faithful. We remember the original context of that quote and it still stings!

03-lmfao We won't forget it either......you can count on us.
[Image: dusting_of_snow_on_rotting_pumpkin.jpg]


(05-14-2010 01:57 PM)Fanof49ASU Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-14-2010 01:44 PM)troyw Wrote: [ -> ]That reference will NEVER be considered a compliment by Trojan faithful. We remember the original context of that quote and it still stings!

03-lmfao We won't forget it either......you can count on us.
(05-14-2010 01:44 PM)troyw Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-14-2010 01:37 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]It's a compliment to Troy which naturally explains the continued offense. :)

That reference will NEVER be considered a compliment by Trojan faithful. We remember the original context of that quote and it still stings!

Yeah it was a real insult.

We were not totally sure we wanted expand at that point.

If we were going to expand we knew Troy was going to accept (after all Troy was pursuing membership very hard) and given the circumstance of the day, Troy was low hanging fruit. Low hanging fruit is easy to pick with no thought nor effort. When you have no pressing need to expand why would you just grab what was available when with some effort and work you might be able to get something better? Why grab the easy choice merely because it is easy?

In the end, we looked over the options and added Troy BECAUSE WE WANTED TO, not because it was the easy option.

Troy wanted to join and start in 2002. The presidents took the time to wait and see what Troy had to offer as a full member rather than grabbing the next school in the region to move up. One of the constant beefs on this board is that people perceive us doing exactly what we refused to do when Troy got its notice from the NCAA that its reclassification was approved.

My thought is this.

Any Troy fan who finds that offensive needs to make sure they say nothing negative about Texas State or UTSA joining. If it offends you to think the league should take its time and make sure it is getting the best it can get, you cannot honestly turn around and demand a higher standard be applied to TSU and UTSA.
(05-14-2010 02:41 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-14-2010 01:44 PM)troyw Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-14-2010 01:37 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]It's a compliment to Troy which naturally explains the continued offense. :)

That reference will NEVER be considered a compliment by Trojan faithful. We remember the original context of that quote and it still stings!

Yeah it was a real insult.

We were not totally sure we wanted expand at that point.

If we were going to expand we knew Troy was going to accept (after all Troy was pursuing membership very hard) and given the circumstance of the day, Troy was low hanging fruit. Low hanging fruit is easy to pick with no thought nor effort. When you have no pressing need to expand why would you just grab what was available when with some effort and work you might be able to get something better? Why grab the easy choice merely because it is easy?

In the end, we looked over the options and added Troy BECAUSE WE WANTED TO, not because it was the easy option.

Troy wanted to join and start in 2002. The presidents took the time to wait and see what Troy had to offer as a full member rather than grabbing the next school in the region to move up. One of the constant beefs on this board is that people perceive us doing exactly what we refused to do when Troy got its notice from the NCAA that its reclassification was approved.

My thought is this.

Any Troy fan who finds that offensive needs to make sure they say nothing negative about Texas State or UTSA joining. If it offends you to think the league should take its time and make sure it is getting the best it can get, you cannot honestly turn around and demand a higher standard be applied to TSU and UTSA.

So, you're speaking for Wright Waters and therefore interpreting what HE meant by the phrase "low hanging fruit"? Until WW says otherwise, it was meant as a knock on us, not simply a fancy way of saying "we are buying our time"!
I remember the quote, I remember the time.

What I cannot do is prevent someone hellbent to be pissed off from being pissed off.

Get your bucket and carry your grudge with you. Expect me to remind you of it if you ever speak against automatically adding whomever moves up to FBS in the neighborhood.
(05-14-2010 03:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]I remember the quote, I remember the time.

What I cannot do is prevent someone hellbent to be pissed off from being pissed off.

Get your bucket and carry your grudge with you. Expect me to remind you of it if you ever speak against automatically adding whomever moves up to FBS in the neighborhood.

No one is pissed - except maybe the guy who feels the need to sugar coat.
If you think I'm sugar coating maybe you ought to take a leak and lower the level.
(05-14-2010 03:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]If you think I'm sugar coating maybe you ought to take a leak and lower the level.

Look, let's don't get personal. I have said my piece and so have you...game over?
Look I think I've been around long enough that folks know I shoot my opinion and strive to always provide the "business" view of the league rather than a fan's viewpoint.

I viewed those comments from a business viewpoint and agreed 100% with them at the time, which is the only place a person's comment can exist, within the framework of what was known at the time.

I've laid out my reasoning and no need to go further.
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's