CrimsonPhantom
CUSA Curator
Posts: 42,065
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 2401
I Root For: NM State
Location:
|
Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
|
|
05-26-2018 02:06 PM |
|
JRsec
Super Moderator
Posts: 38,335
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 8031
I Root For: SEC
Location:
|
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
(05-26-2018 02:06 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote: https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...xperiment/
That's an interesting piece. That said Texas and Oklahoma bring so much potential value I'm sure there will be plenty of behind the scenes talk to see who can come up with the offer they can't refuse. The piece had it right however in that both of them are more likely to win championships out of the Big 12 than they are by parking in some other conference.
What the article however didn't cover is that since content value is going to be even more important this next go around that Texas and Oklahoma are worth so very much more in either the SEC or Big 10 and to a significant, but lesser extent in the PAC, that movement is not out of the question.
What is perhaps a bit unfair is the association of that potential to the WAC mess.
If Texas, or Oklahoma, or any of the current B12 members head to the SEC or Big 10 they would not be covering any more than 2 time zones, hardly the 4 that was the reason for the prohibitive travel costs of the old WAC. But thanks to the WAC the scheduling arrangements that were used for the WAC (and which produced the insane travel costs) would be much more workable in the more compact footprints of either the SEC or Big 10.
BTW: Slive was asked a year ago, after his retirement but before his death, "how large can conferences grow?" His response was "they could grow as large as they could remain profitable".
(This post was last modified: 05-26-2018 02:35 PM by JRsec.)
|
|
05-26-2018 02:29 PM |
|
templefootballfan
Heisman
Posts: 7,651
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation: 170
I Root For: TU & BGSU & TEX
Location: CLAYMONT DE Temple T
|
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
so wac 16 did work
CFB hierarcy wouldn't let it grow
|
|
05-26-2018 02:31 PM |
|
billybobby777
The REAL BillyBobby
Posts: 11,898
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 502
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
|
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
(05-26-2018 02:31 PM)templefootballfan Wrote: so wac 16 did work
CFB hierarcy wouldn't let it grow
Probably...it’s ironic that a conference with that solid lineup, Utah, BYU, TCU, Air Force, San Diego St etc wasn’t included in the country club but a conference with Rutgers, Temple, Pitt, BC, Syracuse was.... unfair, let’s be honest: The WAC got hosed.
|
|
05-26-2018 04:10 PM |
|
Fighting Muskie
Senior Chief Realignmentologist
Posts: 11,962
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 820
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Biden Cesspool
|
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
16 can work as long as your divisions/pods preserve and protect all of the important rivalries.
|
|
05-26-2018 04:56 PM |
|
Gamecock
All American
Posts: 3,979
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 182
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
|
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
(05-26-2018 04:10 PM)billybobby777 Wrote: (05-26-2018 02:31 PM)templefootballfan Wrote: so wac 16 did work
CFB hierarcy wouldn't let it grow
Probably...it’s ironic that a conference with that solid lineup, Utah, BYU, TCU, Air Force, San Diego St etc wasn’t included in the country club but a conference with Rutgers, Temple, Pitt, BC, Syracuse was.... unfair, let’s be honest: The WAC got hosed.
A large reason for that was Miami
|
|
05-26-2018 05:06 PM |
|
Jjoey52
All American
Posts: 4,035
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation: 236
I Root For: ISU
Location:
|
Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
Don’t see another 16 on the horizon. Best model now is 12 with 8 conference games.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
|
|
05-26-2018 05:12 PM |
|
quo vadis
Legend
Posts: 50,224
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2440
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
|
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
(05-26-2018 04:56 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: 16 can work as long as your divisions/pods preserve and protect all of the important rivalries.
I think Slive is right: A 16 team conference is really two eight-team conferences. It's not cohesive.
That might not be a problem for conferences that by their nature are limbo zones, isles of misfit toys all with eyes on higher prizes, but it can't work for terminal, destination conferences. Those have to have long-term cohesion.
|
|
05-26-2018 05:28 PM |
|
BePcr07
All American
Posts: 4,961
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 362
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
|
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
My preference on conference sizes the FBS has seen:
1) 12
2) 10
3) 16
4) Under 10
5) 11, 13, 15 (if we've seen those)
6) 14
14 is just such a weird number to me. It seems very incomplete.
|
|
05-26-2018 06:14 PM |
|
Gamecock
All American
Posts: 3,979
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 182
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
|
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
(05-26-2018 05:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (05-26-2018 04:56 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: 16 can work as long as your divisions/pods preserve and protect all of the important rivalries.
I think Slive is right: A 16 team conference is really two eight-team conferences. It's not cohesive.
That might not be a problem for conferences that by their nature are limbo zones, isles of misfit toys all with eyes on higher prizes, but it can't work for terminal, destination conferences. Those have to have long-term cohesion.
I think an extremely stable conference like the SEC or Big Ten could go 16 without any major issues
(This post was last modified: 05-26-2018 06:48 PM by Gamecock.)
|
|
05-26-2018 06:47 PM |
|
Steve1981
Heisman
Posts: 5,452
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 269
I Root For: UMass
Location: North Quabbin Region
|
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
True democracy from our senators.
Quote:McConnell, a Republican Senator from Kentucky since 1985, put the situation in perspective during the meetings: "The basic message is, if David wants to slay Goliath, he better do it during the basketball season. College football has no place for Cinderella stories. College football has no room for the underdog."
|
|
05-26-2018 06:53 PM |
|
Attackcoog
Moderator
Posts: 44,884
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2886
I Root For: Houston
Location:
|
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
(05-26-2018 02:29 PM)JRsec Wrote: (05-26-2018 02:06 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote: https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...xperiment/
That's an interesting piece. That said Texas and Oklahoma bring so much potential value I'm sure there will be plenty of behind the scenes talk to see who can come up with the offer they can't refuse. The piece had it right however in that both of them are more likely to win championships out of the Big 12 than they are by parking in some other conference.
What the article however didn't cover is that since content value is going to be even more important this next go around that Texas and Oklahoma are worth so very much more in either the SEC or Big 10 and to a significant, but lesser extent in the PAC, that movement is not out of the question.
What is perhaps a bit unfair is the association of that potential to the WAC mess.
If Texas, or Oklahoma, or any of the current B12 members head to the SEC or Big 10 they would not be covering any more than 2 time zones, hardly the 4 that was the reason for the prohibitive travel costs of the old WAC. But thanks to the WAC the scheduling arrangements that were used for the WAC (and which produced the insane travel costs) would be much more workable in the more compact footprints of either the SEC or Big 10.
BTW: Slive was asked a year ago, after his retirement but before his death, "how large can conferences grow?" His response was "they could grow as large as they could remain profitable".
Its interesting that the article harps on the fact that the "money just wasnt there". Then, almost as a throw away line---they reveal at the end of the article that the WAC doubled its paycheck when they went from 10 to 16 teams. That means every existing team in the WAC actually got a raise. I find that fact kind of intriguing. It sounds to me that the key is building two 8 team divisions that function as a nationwide conference for revenue sports (football and basketball)---but largely function as 2 separate conferences for all non-revenue sports (meeting only for championship games when necessary).
(This post was last modified: 05-27-2018 01:13 AM by Attackcoog.)
|
|
05-26-2018 07:02 PM |
|
MissouriStateBears
All American
Posts: 3,625
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 88
I Root For: Missouri State
Location:
|
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
The 16 team model can work. You just got to have the divisions right. SEC is pretty close to do it, Big Ten as well. PAC-16 would be close for the most part, the Arizona and Mountain schools would like to be with California but its close enough to work out. CUSA could work as 16 team conference how its set up now.
|
|
05-26-2018 08:02 PM |
|
Wedge
Hall of Famer
Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
|
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
Almost everything about the expansion of the WAC to 16 schools was weird and ill-advised. There might not be any "lesson" to be learned from such a weird situation, but if there is one it would be that none of today's G5 conferences can get to a P5 revenue level by just expanding. 16 teams didn't work for the WAC then, and it wouldn't work for the AAC or MWC or any other G5 conference today, as Craig Thompson said in that article.
|
|
05-26-2018 08:03 PM |
|
MissouriStateBears
All American
Posts: 3,625
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 88
I Root For: Missouri State
Location:
|
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
(05-26-2018 04:10 PM)billybobby777 Wrote: (05-26-2018 02:31 PM)templefootballfan Wrote: so wac 16 did work
CFB hierarcy wouldn't let it grow
Probably...it’s ironic that a conference with that solid lineup, Utah, BYU, TCU, Air Force, San Diego St etc wasn’t included in the country club but a conference with Rutgers, Temple, Pitt, BC, Syracuse was.... unfair, let’s be honest: The WAC got hosed.
Syracuse had went to 7 bowls in 8 years prior to the WAC-16 forming. Pitt was a national power in the early 80s. Boston College was having success in the early 90s. The Big East/Eastern Indepedents was major college football then and ahead of the WAC.
|
|
05-26-2018 08:06 PM |
|
JRsec
Super Moderator
Posts: 38,335
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 8031
I Root For: SEC
Location:
|
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
(05-26-2018 08:03 PM)Wedge Wrote: Almost everything about the expansion of the WAC to 16 schools was weird and ill-advised. There might not be any "lesson" to be learned from such a weird situation, but if there is one it would be that none of today's G5 conferences can get to a P5 revenue level by just expanding. 16 teams didn't work for the WAC then, and it wouldn't work for the AAC or MWC or any other G5 conference today, as Craig Thompson said in that article.
At least they left us a good rule for moving to 16. Rotating half divisions solve a lot of scheduling issues and would work if the conference footprint is reasonably compact.
|
|
05-26-2018 08:17 PM |
|
templefootballfan
Heisman
Posts: 7,651
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation: 170
I Root For: TU & BGSU & TEX
Location: CLAYMONT DE Temple T
|
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
2 divisions is 2 cash flows, Olympic sports can remain under 1 umberlla
sch don't have to be round robin sch for money
catalist for splitt was staying with BYU, fans they brought was money
airport 5 & Tulsa, SDST, SJST would be north div
BYU should have played Fla St for title, Fla got beat, next up was BYU
bowl explosion happened right as conf splitt
mich president with no foresight didn' help
rotating div was the prombem
|
|
05-26-2018 08:54 PM |
|
arkstfan
Sorry folks
Posts: 25,918
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 1003
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
|
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
(05-26-2018 07:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: (05-26-2018 02:29 PM)JRsec Wrote: (05-26-2018 02:06 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote: https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...xperiment/
That's an interesting piece. That said Texas and Oklahoma bring so much potential value I'm sure there will be plenty of behind the scenes talk to see who can come up with the offer they can't refuse. The piece had it right however in that both of them are more likely to win championships out of the Big 12 than they are by parking in some other conference.
What the article however didn't cover is that since content value is going to be even more important this next go around that Texas and Oklahoma are worth so very much more in either the SEC or Big 10 and to a significant, but lesser extent in the PAC, that movement is not out of the question.
What is perhaps a bit unfair is the association of that potential to the WAC mess.
If Texas, or Oklahoma, or any of the current B12 members head to the SEC or Big 10 they would not be covering any more than 2 time zones, hardly the 4 that was the reason for the prohibitive travel costs of the old WAC. But thanks to the WAC the scheduling arrangements that were used for the WAC (and which produced the insane travel costs) would be much more workable in the more compact footprints of either the SEC or Big 10.
BTW: Slive was asked a year ago, after his retirement but before his death, "how large can conferences grow?" His response was "they could grow as large as they could remain profitable".
Its interesting that the article harps on the fact that the "money just wasnt there". Then, almost as a throw away line---they reveal at the end of the article that the WAC doubled its paycheck when they went from 10 to 16 teams. That means every existing team in the actually WAC got raise. I find that fact kind of intriguing. It sounds to me that the key is building two 8 team divisions that function as a nationwide conference for revenue sports (football and basketball)---but largely function as 2 separate conferences for all non-revenue sports (meeting only for championship games when necessary).
That's not the whole story on money.
When the CFA died, the WAC lost money. The expansion to 16 doubled the post-CFA money but the per team distribution was still not what they were getting. The MWC contract produced more per team than the WAC16 deal.
As long as you iron things out so teams get to keep the games they consider essential there really is no upper limit as long as the money is there.
|
|
05-26-2018 11:22 PM |
|
esayem
Hark The Sound!
Posts: 16,741
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 1269
I Root For: Olde Ironclad
Location: Tobacco Road
|
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
Two different conferences is right. The WAC was in a tough position to please all of its schools because there was no obvious division alignment. At the time you had this set-up:
Mountain
BYU
Utah
Wyoming
Colorado State
Air Force
New Mexico
UTEP
Pacific
Hawaii
SDSU
Fresno State
Additions: UNLV, SJSU, TCU, SMU, Rice, Tulsa
In retrospect, the WAC could have added UNLV and TCU and survived. Although, in the mid/late 90's I don't know if TCU had separated themselves from the other Texas schools and Tulsa to be a clear-cut favorite, or did the SWC schools vow to stick together?
BYU
Utah
Wyoming
Colorado State
Air Force
TCU*
UTEP
New Mexico
UNLV*
Fresno State
SDSU
Hawaii
I think there would have been enough cross-division games to ensure every school was happy.
|
|
05-27-2018 07:48 AM |
|
Steve1981
Heisman
Posts: 5,452
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 269
I Root For: UMass
Location: North Quabbin Region
|
RE: Here's why the WAC, the first and only 16-team FBS league, failed 20 years ago
(05-26-2018 08:02 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote: The 16 team model can work. You just got to have the divisions right. SEC is pretty close to do it, Big Ten as well. PAC-16 would be close for the most part, the Arizona and Mountain schools would like to be with California but its close enough to work out. CUSA could work as 16 team conference how its set up now.
Personally think that would be a recipe for the eastern teams to split off. CUSA gets very little for being a 14 team conference. Rules change and at some point there is a risk that conference USA will continue to change.
|
|
05-27-2018 10:11 AM |
|