If the MWC wanted to go to 16 by adding Rice, UTEP, UTSA, and North Texas, I'd be for it. Trying to go along as a package with only UTEP makes no sense. And stop screaming "academics." Realignment has nothing to do with academics, only money. No one cares about Rice's academic pedigree but the AAU, certainly not Fox, ESPN, NBC, or CBS.

I have some problems with the conclusions of that study. I fully believe that schools that are on their way up gain prestige by association. For schools with established academic reputations, I'm not so sure it matters. Emory hasn't needed D1 membership to gain ground.

As for Rice and the G5, if it works in reverse - which I don't think it does and the article isn't claiming - Rice is screwed any which way, aren't they?

And, does university reputation correlate to university revenue?

(03-18-2015 02:35 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 02:22 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  I am not at all confused. Your confusion stems from your belief that academics matters to those who decide conference affiliation in D1. It might be emotionally relevant.

(03-18-2015 02:17 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 01:49 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  The topic at hand is MWC affiliation.

(03-18-2015 01:42 PM)At Ease Wrote:  Academic prestige may have little correlation to athletic revenue, but it certainly is a factor for the university's revenue as a whole.

If that was a point of confusion for you then you have my sympathies.

We seem to have come full circle to again asking what you mean with "academics is irrelevant" [reminder-- in the context of MWC affiliation]

If your point is just that academics won't change athletic revenue, then I would agree that it won't, but that hardly makes it an irrelevant factor in these types of decisions.

There is pretty clear evidence in Boise St./PAC10 and this link about how academics do matter in these processes. The degree to which they influence these processes may be minimal compared to other factors, but calling them irrelevant or minimizing them as an emotional matter is demonstrably false. A school that has academic prestige as its principle value, and has seen that prestige slipping by some metrics of late, may be even less likely to treat that as an irrelevant factor.

https://ed.stanford.edu/news/ncaa-confer...iowa-study

Thanks for the clarifications to my original question.

(03-18-2015 02:43 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  The myth of C-USA being "geographically compact" is a myth. Only 3/13 of Rice's conference-mates are in reasonable driving distance. If the MWC expands, we could lose one of the 3 drivable schools as I described above.

3>0

If we lose one to the MWC, then 2>0.

In the 70's, 80's, 90's and 00's, I used to drive to Fort Worth, Dallas, and/or Waco to see Rice play in conference on the road. Now that list has dwindled to Denton. if we go MWC, it will dwindle to nothingness.

I think we all agree on the need to increase attendance and interest. I don't think this hypothetical move would do either. When we played in Reno and Albuquerque, I heard nothing of state flagship universities, and I would expect that to continue if we moved.

Are you driving from Houston? Then why drive to Denton but not San Antonio?

(03-18-2015 02:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 02:43 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  The myth of C-USA being "geographically compact" is a myth. Only 3/13 of Rice's conference-mates are in reasonable driving distance. If the MWC expands, we could lose one of the 3 drivable schools as I described above.

3>0

If we lose one to the MWC, then 2>0.

In the 70's, 80's, 90's and 00's, I used to drive to Fort Worth, Dallas, and/or Waco to see Rice play in conference on the road. Now that list has dwindled to Denton. if we go MWC, it will dwindle to nothingness.

I think we all agree on the need to increase attendance and interest. I don't think this hypothetical move would do either. When we played in Reno and Albuquerque, I heard nothing of state flagship universities, and I would expect that to continue if we moved.

(03-18-2015 02:43 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 01:22 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Assumed based on travel costs

We left the WAC for CUSA for a reason, and while there may have been other factors involved (sticking with SMU and Tulsa, joining Tulane) at the time, given when the move did occur, my assumption is that cost played a big part.

I'm open to being shown otherwise, but it remains the most logical reason for the switch.

I don't see the MWC being a better deal for Rice (financially) than the WAC, by and large.

The reason Rice left the WAC for C-USA is no longer relevant. Current MWC is better than 2005 WAC, and current C-USA is worse than 2005 C-USA. If the C-USA that Rice joined still existed, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The myth of C-USA being "geographically compact" is a myth. Only 3/13 of Rice's conference-mates are in reasonable driving distance. If the MWC expands, we could lose one of the 3 drivable schools as I described above.

Travel costs are about 8% of the athletic budget. It's a factor but not an overriding one. And, I don't think fans are very good at estimating the difference between going to San Diego and going to Murfreesboro (which, incidentally, could become a divisional destination in C-USA). Even if travel costs are higher, it's entirely possible that an increase in conference revenue could more than cover the difference.

Frankly I'm not wild about either of these options. But this is the situation Rice has put itself in.

Understand where you are coming from. But the use of the word "options" (or the "decisions" we need to make as At Ease posted above) is also not very relevant to this thread.

It is really more of a hypothetical conundrum, as there (to my knowledge) is no real option to consider or decision to made.

(03-18-2015 03:00 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Are you driving from Houston? Then why drive to Denton but not San Antonio?

No. I have lived in the Fort Worth Dallas area since graduation in 1968.

But if I did live in Houston, I would be more likely to drive to Denton or SA than to Reno or Boise.

Based on 2014 data compiled by Forbes:



MWC revenues don't exactly get us to "Tier One." Maybe our arguing, persuading, lobbying, advocating, negotiating, hoping, praying, dreaming, etc. would be more effectively directed elsewhere.

(03-18-2015 04:21 PM)Caelligh Wrote:  Based on 2014 data compiled by Forbes:



MWC revenues don't exactly get us to "Tier One." Maybe our arguing, persuading, lobbying, advocating, negotiating, hoping, praying, dreaming, etc. would be more effectively directed elsewhere.

And MWC is splitting it between 11 full member teams vs. 14 in CUSA.

(03-18-2015 02:55 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  3>0

If we lose one to the MWC, then 2>0.

Right, everybody recognizes that the MWC would not be drivable. But the difference between 2 or 3 drivable schools and 0 might not be enough to override all of the other factors.

The actual decision -- if there is a decision to be made -- will rest on a bunch of numbers that we can only speculate on.

(03-18-2015 04:28 PM)WIowl Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 04:21 PM)Caelligh Wrote:  Based on 2014 data compiled by Forbes:



MWC revenues don't exactly get us to "Tier One." Maybe our arguing, persuading, lobbying, advocating, negotiating, hoping, praying, dreaming, etc. would be more effectively directed elsewhere.

And MWC is splitting it between 11 full member teams vs. 14 in CUSA.

You know very well that football is the majority, but doing it your way, 11 vs 12, thats about 35/11=3.2 million vs 22/14=1.6 million. Another 1.6 million gross revenue is nice but not world-changing.

(03-18-2015 04:42 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 04:28 PM)WIowl Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 04:21 PM)Caelligh Wrote:  Based on 2014 data compiled by Forbes:



MWC revenues don't exactly get us to "Tier One." Maybe our arguing, persuading, lobbying, advocating, negotiating, hoping, praying, dreaming, etc. would be more effectively directed elsewhere.

And MWC is splitting it between 11 full member teams vs. 14 in CUSA.

You know very well that football is the majority, but doing it your way, 11 vs 12, thats about 35/11=3.2 million vs 22/14=1.6 million. Another 1.6 million gross revenue is nice but not world-changing.

Hawaii subsidizes MWC teams to travel to the island and does not take a full share.

(03-18-2015 04:42 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 04:28 PM)WIowl Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 04:21 PM)Caelligh Wrote:  Based on 2014 data compiled by Forbes:



MWC revenues don't exactly get us to "Tier One." Maybe our arguing, persuading, lobbying, advocating, negotiating, hoping, praying, dreaming, etc. would be more effectively directed elsewhere.

And MWC is splitting it between 11 full member teams vs. 14 in CUSA.

You know very well that football is the majority, but doing it your way, 11 vs 12, thats about 35/11=3.2 million vs 22/14=1.6 million. Another 1.6 million gross revenue is nice but not world-changing.

Gravy estimated that travel costs are 8% of the budget. Unsure of our athletic department budget, but, IIRC, our shortfall is $15 million.

Eight percent of the shortfall is 1.2 million. Estimating increases in travel costs to MWC to be 50% (plausible guess given Hawaii, Fresno etc, but a guess only) and noting cost of living differential in California and Hawaii, that comes to $600,000 increase in travel cost. The numbers would shift up because shortfall is not the entire budget

I would take the move for the same reason because it is better to play flagship state schools and Air Force than directional states.

(03-18-2015 12:41 PM)WIowl Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 11:47 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  If the MWC can achieve a status a half-step above C-USA, and can leverage substantially better TV revenue thereby, then joining them makes sense.

ETA: those are some big ifs, and C-USA could react to a UTEP departure by adding Sunbelt schools with good fan support, not to mention every members' travel expenses would decrease.

In addition to revenue, it is also academics and exposure and MWC has a significant advantage with both. Flagship state schools vs. Latech, UTSA, Middle Tenn....The basketball championship was shown on CBS, NOT CBSSports, not Fox1. MWC has football on ESPN, CUSA is on channels no one is watching.

Speaking of revenue, NCAA Units: CUSA 7 over the last 5 years, MWC has 16 units (each unit is worth ~250,000 per year).

(03-18-2015 06:10 PM)75src Wrote:  I would take the move for the same reason because it is better to play flagship state schools and Air Force than directional states.

Not that it would have any real effect, but this gives us a solid reason to avoid joining the ACC (North Carolina) or SEC (South Carolina).

:-)

Not significantly better, by the measure that matters the most.

(03-18-2015 06:10 PM)75src Wrote:  I would take the move for the same reason because it is better to play flagship state schools and Air Force than directional states.

(03-18-2015 12:41 PM)WIowl Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 11:47 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  If the MWC can achieve a status a half-step above C-USA, and can leverage substantially better TV revenue thereby, then joining them makes sense.

ETA: those are some big ifs, and C-USA could react to a UTEP departure by adding Sunbelt schools with good fan support, not to mention every members' travel expenses would decrease.

In addition to revenue, it is also academics and exposure and MWC has a significant advantage with both. Flagship state schools vs. Latech, UTSA, Middle Tenn....The basketball championship was shown on CBS, NOT CBSSports, not Fox1. MWC has football on ESPN, CUSA is on channels no one is watching.

Speaking of revenue, NCAA Units: CUSA 7 over the last 5 years, MWC has 16 units (each unit is worth ~250,000 per year).

I was hoping to find a directional like North North Carolina St. Quick, which state is Western Carolina University from?

(03-18-2015 04:42 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 04:28 PM)WIowl Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 04:21 PM)Caelligh Wrote:  Based on 2014 data compiled by Forbes:



MWC revenues don't exactly get us to "Tier One." Maybe our arguing, persuading, lobbying, advocating, negotiating, hoping, praying, dreaming, etc. would be more effectively directed elsewhere.

And MWC is splitting it between 11 full member teams vs. 14 in CUSA.

You know very well that football is the majority, but doing it your way, 11 vs 12, thats about 35/11=3.2 million vs 22/14=1.6 million. Another 1.6 million gross revenue is nice but not world-changing.

Given how bad our finances are and have been, I think we would be all over that ,extra 1.6 million.

Sure it isn't SEC money, but it's not peanuts

(03-18-2015 06:42 PM)RiceBull Wrote:  I was hoping to find a directional like North North Carolina St. Quick, which state is Western Carolina University from?

How about Northeastern Oklahoma A&M college?

Come to think of it, if we don't want to be associated with hyphenated's, then why would we follow UTEP to a conference that has UNLV?

(03-18-2015 06:54 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Come to think of it, if we don't want to be associated with hyphenated's, then why would we follow UTEP to a conference that has UNLV?

Nothing wrong with hyphens. Texas is the University of Texas -Austin after all.it's more the general perception of directional schools (and states with directions in the name don't count)

The equation would be different if it was University of Northern Nevada - <insert city here >