(12-31-2020 08:01 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 03:01 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 05:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 02:55 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 02:38 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  Does ESPN care where Boise parks their Olys if they get their FB product? My guess is "no".

Most likely correct, however, unless ESPN is paying Boise State for those Olympic sports rights then Boise doesn't really have a motivation to put them somewhere they deem inferior.

ESPN currently has no rights to Boise sports of any kind, and if Boise joined the AAC as a "football only" member---Boise olympic sports would still not be part of the ESPN package. The WAC has a ESPN+ deal...so that could potentially come into play I suppose.

Correct, but that is a recent development. More to the point, if Boise State changes leagues then it is likely ESPN is paying the bill to make it happen.

Not likely they end up as a full member of the AAC, but ESPN money would be involved in ensuring the Olympic sports have a home somewhere...whether that is through subsidy or inducement.

If Disney wanted Boise State in the AAC bad enough then they might induce a basketball league to take them for Olympic sports. I know the board disagrees, but I still think the WCC might be workable. If ESPN pays them a little extra to add Boise State(just to facilitate a move of football to the AAC) and maybe one more Western school then I think that is something the WCC would have to consider. Especially if that school was San Diego State.

The WCC isn’t going to take a public school. They are a full fledged private religious conference and they like it that way.
The Big West is set with UCSD and CSUB in the conference. I doubt they want to deal with Boise again.
The Big Sky and the WAC are the only option Boise has. If they don’t like either one of them, they need to just shut up and enjoy the conference they are in.

They've actually had public members before, but it's been a few decades. In fact, San Jose State was a founding member in 1952. They left in 69. Fresno State left in 57. UCSB left in 69. Nevada left in 79. UNLV left in 75. Seattle, a Jesuit school, left in 1980

The WCC is in an interesting position. There were rumors of Gonzaga leaving a while back and joining the Mountain West. Obviously, that was averted and was probably posturing on the part of the Zags to get a better deal. Nonetheless, it revealed a crack in the league structure.

Now, it's possible most of the membership doesn't want to fool with the discomfort of growing pains, but it's also possible they see the potential that is front of them.

ESPN has lost the Mountain West which means 2 things. 1) They have some content for that time zone in the PAC 12, but it's relatively expensive compared to the WCC. 2) ESPN will likely try to get a chunk of the MWC again in the future, but there are some pieces more desirable than others.

The WCC is a good league and has proven to be pretty good content for ESPN especially since BYU joined up. Gonzaga is the brand everyone recognizes, but BYU and St. Mary's tend to produce quality teams.

In my opinion, the league is perfectly positioned for a growth spurt. What do they gain? Greater notoriety in their own sphere, but adding a few more stalwart programs could really give them some attention back East beyond just everyone tuning in for Gonzaga. Boise State basketball has been getting better and they're a recognizable brand. San Diego State would be in the same category...assuming there's a way to get them into the AAC as well for a football deal. What if Seattle could be talked into going back?

The WCC is in a position to become a more recognizable force in basketball.

(12-31-2020 02:58 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I don't see any reason BYU would join the current iteration of the AAC.

They are independent primarily because Utah, their chief rival, is in a Power 5 conference. They can't afford to join a league with a lesser reputation and so until a Power league comes calling, they look better by remaining independent.

That move has thus far paid off as it seems the P5 has recognized them as a Power opponent for the purpose of non-conference scheduling.

We'll see what happens if the Big 12 implodes, but BYU has no motivation.

I agree. None the less, they are one of the few indy/G5 teams that would clearly add value to the AAC. However, if the playoff goes to 8 and the top G5 champ gets an auto-bid----maybe that changes the calculus for BYU. Maybe the AAC looks like a good idea to BYU at that point. In my mind, thats just one more reason to keep your powder dry if your the AAC and not add anyone unless its an obvious value adding choice like Boise, BYU, or Army.

As Ive said before, scheduling inconveniences are temporary. Adding a member who turns out to be an embarrassing dead weight around the neck of the conference is forever.

(12-31-2020 01:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 01:38 PM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:20 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 12:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Not to mention their addition makes the AAC just look more and more like reheated CUSA leftovers from 2011. That’s not a good look for an AAC that’s pushing a P6 narrative. That’s just one more reason the UConn replacement has to be a value adding choice like Boise, BYU, or Army. It can’t be a “let’s get the old CUSA band back together” pick. Part of UConns value was they were part of what made the AAC different and unique from CUSA. Thus, that aspect of the UConn contribution must be considered when replacing UConn.

BYU and Army have no need to join so you either have to meet Boise's demands or find someone else. There are very few schools who would fit in as a full member and meet the requirements your talking about.

Agree. To my knowledge both the AAC and Boise are good with a football only membership provided Boise can find a suitable home for their Olympic sports. I think Boise will find one early in 2021 when the Covid crises eases. They will continue talks with the Big West and WCC—but I don’t think those discussions will bear fruit. My sense is during the next few months the WAC’s planned expansion will succeed and will provide the WAC with the strength and stability required to make it a viable home for Boise Olympic sports.

If that does not occur—then I suspect the AAC continues to stand pat at 11. There is simply nobody beyond the AAC’s short list of candidates that adds enough value to be a viable #12 at this time. Over the next 10 years, that could change as some team with potential might develop—-but as of this second, nobody other than BYU, Boise, or Army (also possibly Air Force) makes sense for football.

Or Boise could become a full member and only play Olympic sports within their division except for a championship game. They could then fill out their remaining schedule with regional opponents. Or the AAC could go to 14 teams and add SDSU and BYU as well, as long as ESPN would pony up enough $ to make each schools return the same or more than before.

I dont think there is much desire for that. However, IF we HAD to add someone in the next few months---I'd prefer your solution to adding someone who is not on the short list. lol...but Im not so sure the AAC presidents agree with me if forced to add someone in the next few months. Covid has made a mess of a lot of athletic department budgets. A "football only" Boise membership means a negligible change in travel budgets...anything else has a lot more moving parts. School administrators tend to be a very risk adverse bunch.

This is true, but I think Aresco could convince them if BYU, BSU and SDSU were viable "on the table" options.

(12-31-2020 08:01 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The WCC isn’t going to take a public school. They are a full fledged private religious conference and they like it that way.
The Big West is set with UCSD and CSUB in the conference. I doubt they want to deal with Boise again.
The Big Sky and the WAC are the only option Boise has. If they don’t like either one of them, they need to just shut up and enjoy the conference they are in.

Yup.

WAC is currently at 9 full members (includes Tarleton and DSU transitioned) the TX4 + SUU puts them at 14. Drops to 13 when Chi State finally wises up to what they need to do with athletics. Why does the WAC want another non-FB member if their goal is to be an FCS conference? The WAC will want as few non-FB members as possible to continue to sell themselves to potential FB members.

Big Sky is similar. Why add Boise when SUU leaving makes it a 10/12 membership lineup?

I don't think either league should be chomping at the bit to take in Boise's Olys, so Boise may have to come with a pretty strong incentive. They may be better off trying to bribe their way back into the BW.

(12-31-2020 10:42 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 08:01 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The WCC isn’t going to take a public school. They are a full fledged private religious conference and they like it that way.
The Big West is set with UCSD and CSUB in the conference. I doubt they want to deal with Boise again.
The Big Sky and the WAC are the only option Boise has. If they don’t like either one of them, they need to just shut up and enjoy the conference they are in.

Yup.

WAC is currently at 9 full members (includes Tarleton and DSU transitioned) the TX4 + SUU puts them at 14. Drops to 13 when Chi State finally wises up to what they need to do with athletics. Why does the WAC want another non-FB member if their goal is to be an FCS conference? The WAC will want as few non-FB members as possible to continue to sell themselves to potential FB members.

Big Sky is similar. Why add Boise when SUU leaving makes it a 10/12 membership lineup?

I don't think either league should be chomping at the bit to take in Boise's Olys, so Boise may have to come with a pretty strong incentive. They may be better off trying to bribe their way back into the BW.

I dont agree. Of all conferences, the WAC will be the most likely to understand that there is strength in numbers. Secondly---and perhaps most importantly---of all the schools in the WAC---Boise would be by far the most known "name" in the conference. It might not be the best olympic program in the conference (it may be---thats not really the point)---but it will be the best known name in that conference and most all the other members will want that name associated with their conference. Its worth noting that one of the big reasons the Texas 4 are interested is because they see it as a superior basketball conference. Boise would add to that.

(12-31-2020 10:42 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 08:01 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The WCC isn’t going to take a public school. They are a full fledged private religious conference and they like it that way.
The Big West is set with UCSD and CSUB in the conference. I doubt they want to deal with Boise again.
The Big Sky and the WAC are the only option Boise has. If they don’t like either one of them, they need to just shut up and enjoy the conference they are in.

Yup.

WAC is currently at 9 full members (includes Tarleton and DSU transitioned) the TX4 + SUU puts them at 14. Drops to 13 when Chi State finally wises up to what they need to do with athletics. Why does the WAC want another non-FB member if their goal is to be an FCS conference? The WAC will want as few non-FB members as possible to continue to sell themselves to potential FB members.

Big Sky is similar. Why add Boise when SUU leaving makes it a 10/12 membership lineup?

I don't think either league should be chomping at the bit to take in Boise's Olys, so Boise may have to come with a pretty strong incentive. They may be better off trying to bribe their way back into the BW.

I've been thinking the same thing. The WAC would have welcomed Boise State's Olympic sports with open arms not long ago, but now that the WAC appears to be on the cusp of reemerging as an FCS football conference that option may be gone -- especially if the latest Katfans.com tweet posted in the WAC expansion thread is correct and West Texas A&M is an emerging potential candidate to backfill for Chicago State as the 14th (and presumably final) new conference member.

Considering that Boise State's 2011 departure from the WAC to the MWC was the beginning of the end of the WAC as an FBS football conference there's a certain ironic justice to it all.

(12-31-2020 11:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 10:42 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 08:01 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The WCC isn’t going to take a public school. They are a full fledged private religious conference and they like it that way.
The Big West is set with UCSD and CSUB in the conference. I doubt they want to deal with Boise again.
The Big Sky and the WAC are the only option Boise has. If they don’t like either one of them, they need to just shut up and enjoy the conference they are in.

Yup.

WAC is currently at 9 full members (includes Tarleton and DSU transitioned) the TX4 + SUU puts them at 14. Drops to 13 when Chi State finally wises up to what they need to do with athletics. Why does the WAC want another non-FB member if their goal is to be an FCS conference? The WAC will want as few non-FB members as possible to continue to sell themselves to potential FB members.

Big Sky is similar. Why add Boise when SUU leaving makes it a 10/12 membership lineup?

I don't think either league should be chomping at the bit to take in Boise's Olys, so Boise may have to come with a pretty strong incentive. They may be better off trying to bribe their way back into the BW.

I dont agree. Of all conferences, the WAC will be the most likely to understand that there is strength in numbers. Secondly---and perhaps most importantly---of all the schools in the WAC---Boise would be by far the most known "name" in the conference. It might not be the best olympic program in the conference (it may be---thats not really the point)---but it will be the best known name in that conference and most all the other members will want that name associated with their conference. Its worth noting that one of the big reasons the Texas 4 are interested is because they see it as a superior basketball conference. Boise would add to that.

If that was the case and Boise was that far on tilt about getting FB into the AAC, then the move would have happened already.

The TX4 move to the WAC is all about FB, nothing more. No one joins a league that takes on more travel that includes joining up with Chi State with a mindset being that it's best for hoops.

(12-31-2020 11:28 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 10:42 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 08:01 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The WCC isn’t going to take a public school. They are a full fledged private religious conference and they like it that way.
The Big West is set with UCSD and CSUB in the conference. I doubt they want to deal with Boise again.
The Big Sky and the WAC are the only option Boise has. If they don’t like either one of them, they need to just shut up and enjoy the conference they are in.

Yup.

WAC is currently at 9 full members (includes Tarleton and DSU transitioned) the TX4 + SUU puts them at 14. Drops to 13 when Chi State finally wises up to what they need to do with athletics. Why does the WAC want another non-FB member if their goal is to be an FCS conference? The WAC will want as few non-FB members as possible to continue to sell themselves to potential FB members.

Big Sky is similar. Why add Boise when SUU leaving makes it a 10/12 membership lineup?

I don't think either league should be chomping at the bit to take in Boise's Olys, so Boise may have to come with a pretty strong incentive. They may be better off trying to bribe their way back into the BW.

I've been thinking the same thing. The WAC would have welcomed Boise State's Olympic sports with open arms not long ago, but now that the WAC appears to be on the cusp of reemerging as an FCS football conference that option may be gone -- especially if the latest Katfans.com tweet posted in the WAC expansion thread is correct and West Texas A&M is an emerging potential candidate to backfill for Chicago State as the 14th (and presumably final) new conference member.

Considering that Boise State's 2011 departure from the WAC to the MWC was the beginning of the end of the WAC as an FBS football conference there's a certain ironic justice to it all.

Yep, saw that info too. The TX4 will now be a voting block in the WAC, no way they allow moves to happen (once they have voting power) that hurt a potential TX add.

I'm sure Boise's past shenanigans regarding conference hopping aren't lost on anyone. You have to assume they would have their Oly's bail if they were ever offered full membership in the AAC. If you are the WAC, why make accommodations and potentially block up an open Oly spot for a better long term membership option. That's a hard bargain.

(12-31-2020 11:44 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 11:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 10:42 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 08:01 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The WCC isn’t going to take a public school. They are a full fledged private religious conference and they like it that way.
The Big West is set with UCSD and CSUB in the conference. I doubt they want to deal with Boise again.
The Big Sky and the WAC are the only option Boise has. If they don’t like either one of them, they need to just shut up and enjoy the conference they are in.

Yup.

WAC is currently at 9 full members (includes Tarleton and DSU transitioned) the TX4 + SUU puts them at 14. Drops to 13 when Chi State finally wises up to what they need to do with athletics. Why does the WAC want another non-FB member if their goal is to be an FCS conference? The WAC will want as few non-FB members as possible to continue to sell themselves to potential FB members.

Big Sky is similar. Why add Boise when SUU leaving makes it a 10/12 membership lineup?

I don't think either league should be chomping at the bit to take in Boise's Olys, so Boise may have to come with a pretty strong incentive. They may be better off trying to bribe their way back into the BW.

I dont agree. Of all conferences, the WAC will be the most likely to understand that there is strength in numbers. Secondly---and perhaps most importantly---of all the schools in the WAC---Boise would be by far the most known "name" in the conference. It might not be the best olympic program in the conference (it may be---thats not really the point)---but it will be the best known name in that conference and most all the other members will want that name associated with their conference. Its worth noting that one of the big reasons the Texas 4 are interested is because they see it as a superior basketball conference. Boise would add to that.

If that was the case and Boise was that far on tilt about getting FB into the AAC, then the move would have happened already.

The TX4 move to the WAC is all about FB, nothing more. No one joins a league that takes on more travel that includes joining up with Chi State with a mindset being that it's best for hoops.

lol...Its worth noting the WAC doesnt even HAVE a football league right now and would need a waiver to start one without another team above and beyond the current expansion. This is not a completed deal. So when you toss out the "it would have already been done line"---its just uninformed. Boise isnt going to make that kind of huge move until they KNOW the expansion is signed and delivered. Furthermore, the WAC is still choice #3. Boise is going to wait until they are certain the WCC and Big West arent more interested in talking expansion after the Covid crisis has passed.

As for the Texas4 interest in basketball......I didnt say THE reason for the move was an improved basketball conference---I said "ONE of the big reasons" being used for the move is an improved basketball conference.

(12-31-2020 11:28 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 10:42 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 08:01 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The WCC isn’t going to take a public school. They are a full fledged private religious conference and they like it that way.
The Big West is set with UCSD and CSUB in the conference. I doubt they want to deal with Boise again.
The Big Sky and the WAC are the only option Boise has. If they don’t like either one of them, they need to just shut up and enjoy the conference they are in.

Yup.

WAC is currently at 9 full members (includes Tarleton and DSU transitioned) the TX4 + SUU puts them at 14. Drops to 13 when Chi State finally wises up to what they need to do with athletics. Why does the WAC want another non-FB member if their goal is to be an FCS conference? The WAC will want as few non-FB members as possible to continue to sell themselves to potential FB members.

Big Sky is similar. Why add Boise when SUU leaving makes it a 10/12 membership lineup?

I don't think either league should be chomping at the bit to take in Boise's Olys, so Boise may have to come with a pretty strong incentive. They may be better off trying to bribe their way back into the BW.

I've been thinking the same thing. The WAC would have welcomed Boise State's Olympic sports with open arms not long ago, but now that the WAC appears to be on the cusp of reemerging as an FCS football conference that option may be gone -- especially if the latest Katfans.com tweet posted in the WAC expansion thread is correct and West Texas A&M is an emerging potential candidate to backfill for Chicago State as the 14th (and presumably final) new conference member.

Considering that Boise State's 2011 departure from the WAC to the MWC was the beginning of the end of the WAC as an FBS football conference there's a certain ironic justice to it all.

And Mongoose - since you saw my thread on the MWC Board - Boise's departure from the Big West to the WAC signaled the end of the Big West as an FBS conference. Ironic justice indeed

(12-31-2020 11:44 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 11:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 10:42 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 08:01 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The WCC isn’t going to take a public school. They are a full fledged private religious conference and they like it that way.
The Big West is set with UCSD and CSUB in the conference. I doubt they want to deal with Boise again.
The Big Sky and the WAC are the only option Boise has. If they don’t like either one of them, they need to just shut up and enjoy the conference they are in.

Yup.

WAC is currently at 9 full members (includes Tarleton and DSU transitioned) the TX4 + SUU puts them at 14. Drops to 13 when Chi State finally wises up to what they need to do with athletics. Why does the WAC want another non-FB member if their goal is to be an FCS conference? The WAC will want as few non-FB members as possible to continue to sell themselves to potential FB members.

Big Sky is similar. Why add Boise when SUU leaving makes it a 10/12 membership lineup?

I don't think either league should be chomping at the bit to take in Boise's Olys, so Boise may have to come with a pretty strong incentive. They may be better off trying to bribe their way back into the BW.

I dont agree. Of all conferences, the WAC will be the most likely to understand that there is strength in numbers. Secondly---and perhaps most importantly---of all the schools in the WAC---Boise would be by far the most known "name" in the conference. It might not be the best olympic program in the conference (it may be---thats not really the point)---but it will be the best known name in that conference and most all the other members will want that name associated with their conference. Its worth noting that one of the big reasons the Texas 4 are interested is because they see it as a superior basketball conference. Boise would add to that.

If that was the case and Boise was that far on tilt about getting FB into the AAC, then the move would have happened already.

Not necessarily. Boise seems to explore every available option before making a decision, which can be very time consuming.

However, it does seem surprising that they've as yet been unable to seal the AAC deal by switching BB/olympics to a western conference, given that the Big Sky would probably take them in.

Maybe the AAC deal only makes fiscal sense to them if their BB program can generate $1-2 million/year, which wouldn't be possible in the Big Sky(?)

Does anyone know how much revenue a BB/olympic school can earn in the WAC? Is it mostly about the revenue, or does it have more to do with the quality of the competition or access to recruiting territory?

(12-31-2020 11:49 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 11:28 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 10:42 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 08:01 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The WCC isn’t going to take a public school. They are a full fledged private religious conference and they like it that way.
The Big West is set with UCSD and CSUB in the conference. I doubt they want to deal with Boise again.
The Big Sky and the WAC are the only option Boise has. If they don’t like either one of them, they need to just shut up and enjoy the conference they are in.

Yup.

WAC is currently at 9 full members (includes Tarleton and DSU transitioned) the TX4 + SUU puts them at 14. Drops to 13 when Chi State finally wises up to what they need to do with athletics. Why does the WAC want another non-FB member if their goal is to be an FCS conference? The WAC will want as few non-FB members as possible to continue to sell themselves to potential FB members.

Big Sky is similar. Why add Boise when SUU leaving makes it a 10/12 membership lineup?

I don't think either league should be chomping at the bit to take in Boise's Olys, so Boise may have to come with a pretty strong incentive. They may be better off trying to bribe their way back into the BW.

I've been thinking the same thing. The WAC would have welcomed Boise State's Olympic sports with open arms not long ago, but now that the WAC appears to be on the cusp of reemerging as an FCS football conference that option may be gone -- especially if the latest Katfans.com tweet posted in the WAC expansion thread is correct and West Texas A&M is an emerging potential candidate to backfill for Chicago State as the 14th (and presumably final) new conference member.

Considering that Boise State's 2011 departure from the WAC to the MWC was the beginning of the end of the WAC as an FBS football conference there's a certain ironic justice to it all.

Yep, saw that info too. The TX4 will now be a voting block in the WAC, no way they allow moves to happen (once they have voting power) that hurt a potential TX add.

I'm sure Boise's past shenanigans regarding conference hopping aren't lost on anyone. You have to assume they would have their Oly's bail if they were ever offered full membership in the AAC. If you are the WAC, why make accommodations and potentially block up an open Oly spot for a better long term membership option. That's a hard bargain.

Boise was not even a football playing member of the WAC when football collapsed in 2013. Boise left in 2011---and there were no Texas teams in the conference when they left. In fact, it was the exit of Boise and other schools like Hawaii, Nevada, and Fresno that actually allowed those Texas schools the opportunity to move up to FBS. By the way, the Texas 4 (along with anyone else who could fog a mirror) was asked to join the WAC as an FBS school in the 2011-2012 period and refused. So---Boise is no more accountable for the collapse of WAC football than they are.

(01-01-2021 12:42 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol...Its worth noting the WAC doesnt even HAVE a football league right now and would need a waiver to start one without another team above and beyond the current expansion. This is not a completed deal. So when you toss out the "it would have already been done line"---its just uninformed. Boise isnt going to make that kind of huge move until they KNOW the expansion is signed and delivered. Furthermore, the WAC is still choice #3. Boise is going to wait until they are certain the WCC and Big West arent more interested in talking expansion after the Covid crisis has passed.

As for the Texas4 interest in basketball......I didnt say THE reason for the move was an improved basketball conference---I said "ONE of the big reasons" being used for the move is an improved basketball conference.

You're right, It's not that complicated. The TX4 isn't making this move unless the FB side of things will be buttoned up by the time they arrive. If they move and that is not sorted out then that is on them. Regardless, a non auto-bid WAC FCS champ more than likely gets an at-large berth anyways so it's really not much of a risk imo. Between the Southland and Big Sky, the FCS WAC FB members will have no problem cobbling together FCS opponents for OOC games.

And if Boise had an Oly home lined up they would have bolted as well. If you are Boise and you are chasing NY6 access/larger FB profile/more exposure then the FB move to the AAC (assuming they even have a FB only invite) and dumping Olys into whatever conference will take you is a no brainer move.

(01-01-2021 12:50 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 11:44 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  If that was the case and Boise was that far on tilt about getting FB into the AAC, then the move would have happened already.

Not necessarily. Boise seems to explore every available option before making a decision, which can be very time consuming.

However, it does seem surprising that they've as yet been unable to seal the AAC deal by switching BB/olympics to a western conference, given that the Big Sky would probably take them in.

Maybe the AAC deal only makes fiscal sense to them if their BB program can generate $1-2 million/year, which wouldn't be possible in the Big Sky(?)

Does anyone know how much revenue a BB/olympic school can earn in the WAC? Is it mostly about the revenue, or does it have more to do with the quality of the competition or access to recruiting territory?

Agreed, but it's not like Boise hasn't done this before. My guess is the WCC is probably the only conference that has the potential for them to hit that revenue goal.

(01-01-2021 01:08 AM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(01-01-2021 12:50 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 11:44 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  If that was the case and Boise was that far on tilt about getting FB into the AAC, then the move would have happened already.

Not necessarily. Boise seems to explore every available option before making a decision, which can be very time consuming.

However, it does seem surprising that they've as yet been unable to seal the AAC deal by switching BB/olympics to a western conference, given that the Big Sky would probably take them in.

Maybe the AAC deal only makes fiscal sense to them if their BB program can generate $1-2 million/year, which wouldn't be possible in the Big Sky(?)

Does anyone know how much revenue a BB/olympic school can earn in the WAC? Is it mostly about the revenue, or does it have more to do with the quality of the competition or access to recruiting territory?

Agreed, but it's not like Boise hasn't done this before. My guess is the WCC is probably the only conference that has the potential for them to hit that revenue goal.

Makes sense. If the AAC payments to Wichita are in the $2 million+ range, as rumored, then the WCC might be the only western non-FBS conference that can pay much more than $1 million per school.

If the revenues from the WAC are closer to the $500 K range, or even lower, and if the Big Sky revenues are closer to the $200 K range, then a refusal to make the jump to the AAC for FB simply because they would lose a few hundred thousand income would seem puzzling, unless the loss of the BB revenue, itself, is enough to make the switch to the AAC less than worthwhile.

If Boise were to make the switch for FB, their conference revenues would be about the MWC average for all-sports members, and their travel costs would increase somewhat. So perhaps they simply can't afford to do without the BB revenue (?).

(01-01-2021 01:26 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(01-01-2021 01:08 AM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(01-01-2021 12:50 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 11:44 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  If that was the case and Boise was that far on tilt about getting FB into the AAC, then the move would have happened already.

Not necessarily. Boise seems to explore every available option before making a decision, which can be very time consuming.

However, it does seem surprising that they've as yet been unable to seal the AAC deal by switching BB/olympics to a western conference, given that the Big Sky would probably take them in.

Maybe the AAC deal only makes fiscal sense to them if their BB program can generate $1-2 million/year, which wouldn't be possible in the Big Sky(?)

Does anyone know how much revenue a BB/olympic school can earn in the WAC? Is it mostly about the revenue, or does it have more to do with the quality of the competition or access to recruiting territory?

Agreed, but it's not like Boise hasn't done this before. My guess is the WCC is probably the only conference that has the potential for them to hit that revenue goal.

Makes sense. If the AAC payments to Wichita are in the $2 million+ range, as rumored, then the WCC might be the only western non-FBS conference that can pay much more than $1 million per school.

If the revenues from the WAC are closer to the $500 K range, or even lower, and if the Big Sky revenues are closer to the $200 K range, then a refusal to make the jump to the AAC for FB simply because they would lose a few hundred thousand income would seem puzzling, unless the loss of the BB revenue, itself, is enough to make the switch to the AAC less than worthwhile.

If Boise were to make the switch for FB, their conference revenues would be about the MWC average for all-sports members, and their travel costs would increase somewhat. So perhaps they simply can't afford to do without the BB revenue (?).

I agree. FB drives the bus. The idea that Boise is sweating a few hundred K over "the right" Oly sports home if they have a FB invite from the AAC in hand is ridiculous. Boise can also choose to cut budget in the Oly sports once it becomes obvious (if it isn't already) that the AAC has no interest in their Oly sports.

(01-01-2021 01:32 AM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(01-01-2021 01:26 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(01-01-2021 01:08 AM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(01-01-2021 12:50 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 11:44 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  If that was the case and Boise was that far on tilt about getting FB into the AAC, then the move would have happened already.

Not necessarily. Boise seems to explore every available option before making a decision, which can be very time consuming.

However, it does seem surprising that they've as yet been unable to seal the AAC deal by switching BB/olympics to a western conference, given that the Big Sky would probably take them in.

Maybe the AAC deal only makes fiscal sense to them if their BB program can generate $1-2 million/year, which wouldn't be possible in the Big Sky(?)

Does anyone know how much revenue a BB/olympic school can earn in the WAC? Is it mostly about the revenue, or does it have more to do with the quality of the competition or access to recruiting territory?

Agreed, but it's not like Boise hasn't done this before. My guess is the WCC is probably the only conference that has the potential for them to hit that revenue goal.

Makes sense. If the AAC payments to Wichita are in the $2 million+ range, as rumored, then the WCC might be the only western non-FBS conference that can pay much more than $1 million per school.

If the revenues from the WAC are closer to the $500 K range, or even lower, and if the Big Sky revenues are closer to the $200 K range, then a refusal to make the jump to the AAC for FB simply because they would lose a few hundred thousand income would seem puzzling, unless the loss of the BB revenue, itself, is enough to make the switch to the AAC less than worthwhile.

If Boise were to make the switch for FB, their conference revenues would be about the MWC average for all-sports members, and their travel costs would increase somewhat. So perhaps they simply can't afford to do without the BB revenue (?).

I agree. FB drives the bus. The idea that Boise is sweating a few hundred K over "the right" Oly sports home if they have a FB invite from the AAC in hand is ridiculous. Boise can also choose to cut budget in the Oly sports once it becomes obvious (if it isn't already) that the AAC has no interest in their Oly sports.

They already cut baseball and swimming & diving.

(12-31-2020 03:29 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  In my opinion, the league is perfectly positioned for a growth spurt. What do they gain? Greater notoriety in their own sphere, but adding a few more stalwart programs could really give them some attention back East beyond just everyone tuning in for Gonzaga. Boise State basketball has been getting better and they're a recognizable brand. San Diego State would be in the same category...assuming there's a way to get them into the AAC as well for a football deal. What if Seattle could be talked into going back?

The WCC is in a position to become a more recognizable force in basketball.

Boise State is a football brand, not a basketball brand. Boise State brings nothing to the WCC. In November of 2018, they lost at home to Idaho State in basketball, 72-70. They paid Idaho State $90,000 to drive down to Boise and take their money and a win. Four days earlier, Idaho State lost at Gonzaga, 120-79.

Gonzaga has not played Boise State in basketball in 20 years. They do not have much in common. Gonzaga is private and has a better academic reputation. Gonzaga does not play football. Boise State does not have a men’s soccer or baseball team, a couple of important sports in an Olympic sports league.

Boise State has lost at least one game to each conference in the west over the past two seasons. Gonzaga is great in basketball. Boise State is okay. There are much better candidates in the west than Boise State if the WCC is interested in expansion.

(01-01-2021 03:00 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 03:29 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  In my opinion, the league is perfectly positioned for a growth spurt. What do they gain? Greater notoriety in their own sphere, but adding a few more stalwart programs could really give them some attention back East beyond just everyone tuning in for Gonzaga. Boise State basketball has been getting better and they're a recognizable brand. San Diego State would be in the same category...assuming there's a way to get them into the AAC as well for a football deal. What if Seattle could be talked into going back?

The WCC is in a position to become a more recognizable force in basketball.

Boise State is a football brand, not a basketball brand. Boise State brings nothing to the WCC. In November of 2018, they lost at home to Idaho State in basketball, 72-70. They paid Idaho State $90,000 to drive down to Boise and take their money and a win. Four days earlier, Idaho State lost at Gonzaga, 120-79.

Gonzaga has not played Boise State in basketball in 20 years. They do not have much in common. Gonzaga is private and has a better academic reputation. Gonzaga does not play football. Boise State does not have a men’s soccer or baseball team, a couple of important sports in an Olympic sports league.

Boise State has lost at least one game to each conference in the west over the past two seasons. Gonzaga is great in basketball. Boise State is okay. There are much better candidates in the west than Boise State if the WCC is interested in expansion.

Boise would probably be the third or 4th best program in the WCC if they joined. Zags, BYU, and St Marys would all be considered better. In fact, I suspect Boise would be in the top 3 depending on the year. Boise is 6-1 this year including a win over a 9-2 BYU team. Boise has won 20 games a year every season but one since 2012. Boise would be a solid upper tier addition to the WCC. So, the Boise program would be a nice addition for the WCC---the problem is--as others have mentioned---Boise isnt really a great institutional fit.

That said, the idea of adding solid quality upper tier depth to the WCC while subtracting quality basketball depth from the MW might have a certain amount of appeal to WCC members who remember that the MW made a run at poaching Zags just a couple of years ago. That failed poaching attempt ended up costing every member (other than Zags) money. Those other members basically had to give Gonzaga a "special deal" that awarded Zags a larger cut of conference revenue. Its not impossible that those same schools might enjoy sticking it to the MW. My guess is that Boise will not get a WCC invite---but there are reasons to think its not completely out of the question Boise might find a home there.

https://apnews.com/article/275680042f9e4...4fbca0ff10

(01-01-2021 03:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-01-2021 03:00 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(12-31-2020 03:29 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  In my opinion, the league is perfectly positioned for a growth spurt. What do they gain? Greater notoriety in their own sphere, but adding a few more stalwart programs could really give them some attention back East beyond just everyone tuning in for Gonzaga. Boise State basketball has been getting better and they're a recognizable brand. San Diego State would be in the same category...assuming there's a way to get them into the AAC as well for a football deal. What if Seattle could be talked into going back?

The WCC is in a position to become a more recognizable force in basketball.

Boise State is a football brand, not a basketball brand. Boise State brings nothing to the WCC. In November of 2018, they lost at home to Idaho State in basketball, 72-70. They paid Idaho State $90,000 to drive down to Boise and take their money and a win. Four days earlier, Idaho State lost at Gonzaga, 120-79.

Gonzaga has not played Boise State in basketball in 20 years. They do not have much in common. Gonzaga is private and has a better academic reputation. Gonzaga does not play football. Boise State does not have a men’s soccer or baseball team, a couple of important sports in an Olympic sports league.

Boise State has lost at least one game to each conference in the west over the past two seasons. Gonzaga is great in basketball. Boise State is okay. There are much better candidates in the west than Boise State if the WCC is interested in expansion.

Boise would probably be the third or 4th best program in the WCC if they joined. Zags, BYU, and St Marys would all be considered better. In fact, I suspect Boise would be in the top 3 depending on the year. Boise is 6-1 this year including a win over a 9-2 BYU team. Boise has won 20 games a year every season but one since 2012. Boise would be a solid upper tier addition to the WCC. So, the Boise program would be a nice addition for the WCC---the problem is--as others have mentioned---Boise isnt really a great institutional fit.

That said, the idea of adding solid quality upper tier depth to the WCC while subtracting quality basketball depth from the MW might have a certain amount of appeal to WCC members who remember that the MW made a run at poaching Zags just a couple of years ago. That failed poaching attempt ended up costing every member (other than Zags) money. Those other members basically had to give Gonzaga a "special deal" that awarded Zags a larger cut of conference revenue. Its not impossible that those same schools might enjoy sticking it to the MW. My guess is that Boise will not get a WCC invite---but there are reasons to think its not completely out of the question Boise might find a home there.

https://apnews.com/article/275680042f9e4...4fbca0ff10

True. The WCC is currently #9 in the Massey Composite, just ahead of the MWC (#10), and not too far behind the (#6) PAC-12.

#6 PAC
#7 AAC
#8 A-10
#9 WCC
#10 MWC

If Boise were to move to the WCC - as unlikely as it might be - the WCC would be able to establish itself as the #2 western BB conference and to become more competitive with the PAC., which would in turn help to give the WCC's viewership a boost.

Regardless, the addition of one or two good basketball schools could give them the WCC an opportunity to compete for the #8 spot with the A-10.