(04-27-2021 11:33 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 07:43 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 10:53 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 08:53 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 07:17 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  The scenario you are proposing is years down the road. And even then I don’t see it. How much exposure do you think a Texas only conference gives them nationally?

It seems like for most of these schools, the relevant question is how much exposure a Texas only conference gives them in Texas.

Look no further than the Southwest Conference. This conference was doomed once mass communications arrived and recruits saw there was a world of football outside Texas. Problem was the SWC saw little exposure nationally and eventually collapsed. Southland fits this same model. Because all the schools were so close no one knew the schools existed outside of their Conference. Very little exposure. So, yes schools want national exposure not Texas exposure.

You are seriously claiming that a conference aspiring, in its time, to being among the major conferences in US college sports and the Southland conference are in a sufficiently similar situation that you can directly export experience from one to the other?

Someone might argue that having a broader geographic profile might in some way increase the profile of these schools within Texas, in which case there might be some benefit, but arguing that these need to be recognizable in California or Georgia or Michigan in order to be successful at their level is just being silly.

And even if there was that abstract argument to be made ... the WAC is going to provide that? Really?

Yes, the more these Texas schools play in other states raises their profile much more than if they stayed in their own backyard as the SLC has done for years.

I don't think that's supported factually. No recruit or prospective student is impressed that East Texas State plays road games in Seattle and Sacramento, or in Beaumont and Bandito City, when those road games are at schools they've never heard of, played in front of basically empty stadiums or arenas. Trading road games in backwoods Louisiana towns for road games in the remote corner of Utah and in distant big cities in empty gyms doesn't change anything.

(04-28-2021 09:13 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 11:33 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 07:43 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 10:53 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 08:53 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  It seems like for most of these schools, the relevant question is how much exposure a Texas only conference gives them in Texas.

Look no further than the Southwest Conference. This conference was doomed once mass communications arrived and recruits saw there was a world of football outside Texas. Problem was the SWC saw little exposure nationally and eventually collapsed. Southland fits this same model. Because all the schools were so close no one knew the schools existed outside of their Conference. Very little exposure. So, yes schools want national exposure not Texas exposure.

You are seriously claiming that a conference aspiring, in its time, to being among the major conferences in US college sports and the Southland conference are in a sufficiently similar situation that you can directly export experience from one to the other?

Someone might argue that having a broader geographic profile might in some way increase the profile of these schools within Texas, in which case there might be some benefit, but arguing that these need to be recognizable in California or Georgia or Michigan in order to be successful at their level is just being silly.

And even if there was that abstract argument to be made ... the WAC is going to provide that? Really?

Yes, the more these Texas schools play in other states raises their profile much more than if they stayed in their own backyard as the SLC has done for years.

I don't think that's supported factually. No recruit or prospective student is impressed that East Texas State plays road games in Seattle and Sacramento, or in Beaumont and Bandito City, when those road games are at schools they've never heard of, played in front of basically empty stadiums or arenas. Trading road games in backwoods Louisiana towns for road games in the remote corner of Utah and in distant big cities in empty gyms doesn't change anything.

My thoughts exactly. What added exposure is Dixie State going to get from playing at Tarleton? Not much. I live two hours from Stephenville. I never saw anything in the news or in the newspapers about Tarleton sports, much less their opponents this past season. Not trying to pick on Tarleton. Same could be said for any of the WAC/SLC schools in Texas. There's just no mention of Sub FBS schools in the media here, and the P5s get 80% of that attention. Even when SHSU was playing in the Natty a decade ago you never heard anything about it outside of the internet. Maybe they talked about it in Houston but I don't live there so idk.

The only added exposure is to the people in attendance and if they're in attendance they are either 1. A student or 2. an alumni. Odds are that no one in attendance is going to want to take their talents to go play school at "insert school name".

(04-28-2021 09:13 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 11:33 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 07:43 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 10:53 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 08:53 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  It seems like for most of these schools, the relevant question is how much exposure a Texas only conference gives them in Texas.

Look no further than the Southwest Conference. This conference was doomed once mass communications arrived and recruits saw there was a world of football outside Texas. Problem was the SWC saw little exposure nationally and eventually collapsed. Southland fits this same model. Because all the schools were so close no one knew the schools existed outside of their Conference. Very little exposure. So, yes schools want national exposure not Texas exposure.

You are seriously claiming that a conference aspiring, in its time, to being among the major conferences in US college sports and the Southland conference are in a sufficiently similar situation that you can directly export experience from one to the other?

Someone might argue that having a broader geographic profile might in some way increase the profile of these schools within Texas, in which case there might be some benefit, but arguing that these need to be recognizable in California or Georgia or Michigan in order to be successful at their level is just being silly.

And even if there was that abstract argument to be made ... the WAC is going to provide that? Really?

Yes, the more these Texas schools play in other states raises their profile much more than if they stayed in their own backyard as the SLC has done for years.

I don't think that's supported factually. No recruit or prospective student is impressed that East Texas State plays road games in Seattle and Sacramento, or in Beaumont and Bandito City, when those road games are at schools they've never heard of, played in front of basically empty stadiums or arenas. Trading road games in backwoods Louisiana towns for road games in the remote corner of Utah and in distant big cities in empty gyms doesn't change anything.

So, in your opinion if I have a product and I keep my product in my small area only it is going to do as well as taking it to multiple states and getting some exposure. Sorry I don't buy into to that line of reasoning.

(04-28-2021 09:48 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(04-28-2021 09:13 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 11:33 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 07:43 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 10:53 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  Look no further than the Southwest Conference. This conference was doomed once mass communications arrived and recruits saw there was a world of football outside Texas. Problem was the SWC saw little exposure nationally and eventually collapsed. Southland fits this same model. Because all the schools were so close no one knew the schools existed outside of their Conference. Very little exposure. So, yes schools want national exposure not Texas exposure.

You are seriously claiming that a conference aspiring, in its time, to being among the major conferences in US college sports and the Southland conference are in a sufficiently similar situation that you can directly export experience from one to the other?

Someone might argue that having a broader geographic profile might in some way increase the profile of these schools within Texas, in which case there might be some benefit, but arguing that these need to be recognizable in California or Georgia or Michigan in order to be successful at their level is just being silly.

And even if there was that abstract argument to be made ... the WAC is going to provide that? Really?

Yes, the more these Texas schools play in other states raises their profile much more than if they stayed in their own backyard as the SLC has done for years.

I don't think that's supported factually. No recruit or prospective student is impressed that East Texas State plays road games in Seattle and Sacramento, or in Beaumont and Bandito City, when those road games are at schools they've never heard of, played in front of basically empty stadiums or arenas. Trading road games in backwoods Louisiana towns for road games in the remote corner of Utah and in distant big cities in empty gyms doesn't change anything.

My thoughts exactly. What added exposure is Dixie State going to get from playing at Tarleton? Not much. I live two hours from Stephenville. I never saw anything in the news or in the newspapers about Tarleton sports, much less their opponents this past season. Not trying to pick on Tarleton. Same could be said for any of the WAC/SLC schools in Texas. There's just no mention of Sub FBS schools in the media here, and the P5s get 80% of that attention. Even when SHSU was playing in the Natty a decade ago you never heard anything about it outside of the internet. Maybe they talked about it in Houston but I don't live there so idk.

The only added exposure is to the people in attendance and if they're in attendance they are either 1. A student or 2. an alumni. Odds are that no one in attendance is going to want to take their talents to go play school at "insert school name".

This. its a start and its about more than just recruits. I don't buy into that either. Tarleton has had athletes from NY and California. Recruits take their best offer and sometimes it was not their intended target.

(04-28-2021 10:01 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(04-28-2021 09:48 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(04-28-2021 09:13 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 11:33 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 07:43 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  You are seriously claiming that a conference aspiring, in its time, to being among the major conferences in US college sports and the Southland conference are in a sufficiently similar situation that you can directly export experience from one to the other?

Someone might argue that having a broader geographic profile might in some way increase the profile of these schools within Texas, in which case there might be some benefit, but arguing that these need to be recognizable in California or Georgia or Michigan in order to be successful at their level is just being silly.

And even if there was that abstract argument to be made ... the WAC is going to provide that? Really?

Yes, the more these Texas schools play in other states raises their profile much more than if they stayed in their own backyard as the SLC has done for years.

I don't think that's supported factually. No recruit or prospective student is impressed that East Texas State plays road games in Seattle and Sacramento, or in Beaumont and Bandito City, when those road games are at schools they've never heard of, played in front of basically empty stadiums or arenas. Trading road games in backwoods Louisiana towns for road games in the remote corner of Utah and in distant big cities in empty gyms doesn't change anything.

My thoughts exactly. What added exposure is Dixie State going to get from playing at Tarleton? Not much. I live two hours from Stephenville. I never saw anything in the news or in the newspapers about Tarleton sports, much less their opponents this past season. Not trying to pick on Tarleton. Same could be said for any of the WAC/SLC schools in Texas. There's just no mention of Sub FBS schools in the media here, and the P5s get 80% of that attention. Even when SHSU was playing in the Natty a decade ago you never heard anything about it outside of the internet. Maybe they talked about it in Houston but I don't live there so idk.

The only added exposure is to the people in attendance and if they're in attendance they are either 1. A student or 2. an alumni. Odds are that no one in attendance is going to want to take their talents to go play school at "insert school name".

This. its a start and its about more than just recruits. I don't buy into that either. Tarleton has had athletes from NY and California. Recruits take their best offer and sometimes it was not their intended target.

I was just talking about prospective regular students not athletic recruits. I've seen Tarleton fans post on the WAC board that one of the desirable things about the WAC is that it will attract out of state students from the WAC region. I dont think that will happen. Ditto for the far flung WAC schools getting students from Texas.

(04-28-2021 09:56 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(04-28-2021 09:13 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  I don't think that's supported factually. No recruit or prospective student is impressed that East Texas State plays road games in Seattle and Sacramento, or in Beaumont and Bandito City, when those road games are at schools they've never heard of, played in front of basically empty stadiums or arenas. Trading road games in backwoods Louisiana towns for road games in the remote corner of Utah and in distant big cities in empty gyms doesn't change anything.

So, in your opinion if I have a product and I keep my product in my small area only it is going to do as well as taking it to multiple states and getting some exposure. Sorry I don't buy into to that line of reasoning.

1. Anyone who's had a low level sales job knows that exposure doesn't mean squat when you don't have demand for the product. Your product is, in this case, out-of-state-tuition-paying spots at mediocre east Texas state universities. If you can't sell that to Bobby Ray in Louisiana, why would you be able to sell it to Bobby in Phoenix or Ray in Utah or Roberto in Los Angeles (who lives 45 minutes away from Cal Baptist) or Bert in Seattle?

2. Again, the assumption that near-zero-attendance college sports are a good way to advertise your university. We're not talking about big-time college football, or the NCAA tournament. We're talking about games that barely get covered in the local newspapers nobody buys anymore.

To make your "product in new markets" analogy more exact: you're selling something like microbrewery beer, a product that everybody already has available locally, competing with some generic industry giants. 9 times out of 10, at least, there's no reason for the store in Phoenix to stock Sam Houston IPA--they already have Tombstone IPA on the shelves, and it's basically the same thing. Shiner Bock (P5, Gonzaga) can get some shelf space--Sam Houston IPA not so much.

The theory is that college sports would drive enrollment, that Eleanor Shellstrop learns of the existence of Sam Houston State because they play at Grand Canyon U. And now that she knows about SHSU, she's motivated to apply there.

The problem is--wait, no. The problem*S* *are*.
1. Target audience is barely aware, or not aware, of the WAC or Southland schools that Sam Houston State is playing.
2. If the target audience is aware of the school (maybe Grand Canyon does a ton of advertising, maybe the school has a well chosen name that googles accidentally--Seattle University, Dixie State) they probably aren't very aware of their athletics.
2. If the target audience does become aware of the existence of SHSU because they play some local university in sports, they have no particular reason to CARE that SHSU exists. There are perfectly good local equivalents to SHSU. And if they don't want to go to school locally, there are tons of other options. If they care about athletics, there are 130 or so FBS schools plus 20 or so elite basketball schools. Sam Houston State doesn't obviously offer anything that Sacramento State or Kennesaw State doesn't offer.

(04-28-2021 01:40 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 11:33 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  Yes, the more these Texas schools play in other states raises their profile much more than if they stayed in their own backyard as the SLC has done for years.

UMKC’s profile wasn’t raised playing at WAC schools. Their support went backyards to the point they moved home games into a 1k seat gym.

The Texas Four are leaving behind schools with smaller budgets, smaller markets and smaller attendance. Southeastern Louisiana University had a basketball budget of $1.1 million in 2018-2019. SELA averaged 722 fans per game that season. GCU had a basketball budget of $5.3 million and average attendance of 7,170 fans per game in the 12th largest TV market in the country. Nicholls State had a basketball budget of $798,687 in 2018-2019 and averaged 358 fans per game. New Mexico State had a budget of $3 million and average attendance of 5,906 per game. The University of New Orleans is in a decent size market, but only had a basketball budget of $1 million and average attendance of 719 fans in 2018-2019. CBU in their second season at the D1 level had a basketball budget of $2.5 million and averaged 3,075 fans in their new arena. CBU is in the 2nd largest TV market in the country. CBU had sellouts of 5,050 against rivals GCU and Seattle.

The Texas Four are going to a better basketball conference with much more upside. UVU, GCU and NMSU have been in the top 100 (RPI & Net) twice in the past in the past five years. Seattle, in the 14th largest TV market, will be moving back into the newly renovated Climate Pledge Arena in the fall. They had a $2.7 million dollar basketball budget and that will grow along with the attendance in the CPA.

As for UMKC, they wanted out of the Summit and thought the WAC would be easier to win in. That didn't work out so well. UMKC needs to make a commitment to basketball. They don't play football or baseball and they moved back to their home gym to save money on basketball. They are a school that wants to be D1 but does not want to commit the resources to being competitive at the D1 level.

(04-28-2021 01:27 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(04-28-2021 01:40 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 11:33 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  Yes, the more these Texas schools play in other states raises their profile much more than if they stayed in their own backyard as the SLC has done for years.

UMKC’s profile wasn’t raised playing at WAC schools. Their support went backyards to the point they moved home games into a 1k seat gym.

The Texas Four are leaving behind schools with smaller budgets, smaller markets and smaller attendance. Southeastern Louisiana University had a basketball budget of $1.1 million in 2018-2019. SELA averaged 722 fans per game that season. GCU had a basketball budget of $5.3 million and average attendance of 7,170 fans per game in the 12th largest TV market in the country. Nicholls State had a basketball budget of $798,687 in 2018-2019 and averaged 358 fans per game. New Mexico State had a budget of $3 million and average attendance of 5,906 per game. The University of New Orleans is in a decent size market, but only had a basketball budget of $1 million and average attendance of 719 fans in 2018-2019. CBU in their second season at the D1 level had a basketball budget of $2.5 million and averaged 3,075 fans in their new arena. CBU is in the 2nd largest TV market in the country. CBU had sellouts of 5,050 against rivals GCU and Seattle.

The Texas Four are going to a better basketball conference with much more upside. UVU, GCU and NMSU have been in the top 100 (RPI & Net) twice in the past in the past five years. Seattle, in the 14th largest TV market, will be moving back into the newly renovated Climate Pledge Arena in the fall. They had a $2.7 million dollar basketball budget and that will grow along with the attendance in the CPA.

That's where raising the profile comes from -- a better basketball league. They aren't raising their profile because of WAC locations.

(04-28-2021 01:27 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(04-28-2021 01:40 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 11:33 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  Yes, the more these Texas schools play in other states raises their profile much more than if they stayed in their own backyard as the SLC has done for years.

UMKC’s profile wasn’t raised playing at WAC schools. Their support went backyards to the point they moved home games into a 1k seat gym.

The Texas Four are leaving behind schools with smaller budgets, smaller markets and smaller attendance. Southeastern Louisiana University had a basketball budget of $1.1 million in 2018-2019. SELA averaged 722 fans per game that season. GCU had a basketball budget of $5.3 million and average attendance of 7,170 fans per game in the 12th largest TV market in the country. Nicholls State had a basketball budget of $798,687 in 2018-2019 and averaged 358 fans per game. New Mexico State had a budget of $3 million and average attendance of 5,906 per game. The University of New Orleans is in a decent size market, but only had a basketball budget of $1 million and average attendance of 719 fans in 2018-2019. CBU in their second season at the D1 level had a basketball budget of $2.5 million and averaged 3,075 fans in their new arena. CBU is in the 2nd largest TV market in the country. CBU had sellouts of 5,050 against rivals GCU and Seattle.

The Texas Four are going to a better basketball conference with much more upside. UVU, GCU and NMSU have been in the top 100 (RPI & Net) twice in the past in the past five years. Seattle, in the 14th largest TV market, will be moving back into the newly renovated Climate Pledge Arena in the fall. They had a $2.7 million dollar basketball budget and that will grow along with the attendance in the CPA.

As for UMKC, they wanted out of the Summit and thought the WAC would be easier to win in. That didn't work out so well. UMKC needs to make a commitment to basketball. They don't play football or baseball and they moved back to their home gym to save money on basketball. They are a school that wants to be D1 but does not want to commit the resources to being competitive at the D1 level.

So some will increase their profile in the WAC even though outside of GCU and CBU that hasn't been the case for WAC schools in the past?

UMKC averaged 1,334 per game in 2016-17, their last with all games at Municipal Auditorium. That was their 4th season in the WAC. UMKC averaged 1,235 per game in 2012-13 during the last season in the Summit. So their attendance actually improved in the WAC. They only play on campus to save money. Nobody attends their games anyway.

(04-27-2021 05:41 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 08:56 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Frog, I agree that San Antonio is a great tourist town. But it is close enough to Austin that anybody who cares about college football there goes for the Texas Longhorns. The WAC adding UIW isn’t going to change that fact. People from Stephenville may prefer to go to San Antonio than Amarillo but at least the people in Amarillo support their team and take ownership of it and are more likely to go to a game. And have no pro sports competing with it for fan support. They have had crowds of more than 20,000 for a non FBS game. The same can’t be said about UIW. I’m not saying that a WTAMU vs SFA game would attract that many, but neither would a UIW game. I’m betting that WTAMU would have a much higher season attendance than UIW. And how many conference championships has UIW had in any sport?

There are a lot of things that need to happen before a 14th team joins the WAC, but one is not football attendance of UIW or WTAMU. If a team joins, it will not happen before 2022-2023. UIW's advantage is being full D1 and being located in San Antonio, and a very nice section of San Antonio (Alamo Heights). They are five miles from the airport and five miles from the Alamo Dome, which could become be helpful in the far-fetched idea that they become FBS. UIW needs to upgrade their basketball facility and basketball offers the most potential revenue for the WAC at this point in time.

WTAMU is D2 and in Canyon, Texas. If they joined the WAC in 2022-2023, they would not be full D1 until 2026-2027. As an FCS school, if they draw 20,000 per game, who does that help? The WAC re-started football for additional membership, to survive. There is no real TV revenue from football, and attendance is good for the school, but overall the attendance is really not that important unless your ultimate goal is to go FBS.

The WAC needs markets and a TV contract that will give them exposure for basketball. San Antonio is a perfect market to be in if UIW can upgrade their basketball program. There is no D1 competition in the city, other than UTSA and they averaged 1,120 fans per game in 2019-2020. An opportunity is there if UIW can expand and improve their basketball facilities, which should improve recruiting.

C-USA went for markets and not the best programs out there. Arkansas State would have made it to CUSA instead of North Texas. What happened to CUSA's tv contract? It went down because they added teams that sucked instead of the best schools out there. AAC and MWC added schools that have better performance on the field or court except for a few like San Jose State, Tulsa and Tulane, but, they do get better tv media deals and all that. Adding a UIW will not help bring tv media deals and all that. West Texas A&M outshines them on the field and on the court. Even in baseball that they are better. Colorado Mesa is hot in two of their three sports and Central Oklahoma is better than UIW in baseball. I am sorry, UIW to the WAC is a joke. Nobody will watch them, and it will bring tv media deals downward.

Same old WAC, trying to kill itself again. Silly old WAC.

(04-29-2021 05:51 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 05:41 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 08:56 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Frog, I agree that San Antonio is a great tourist town. But it is close enough to Austin that anybody who cares about college football there goes for the Texas Longhorns. The WAC adding UIW isn’t going to change that fact. People from Stephenville may prefer to go to San Antonio than Amarillo but at least the people in Amarillo support their team and take ownership of it and are more likely to go to a game. And have no pro sports competing with it for fan support. They have had crowds of more than 20,000 for a non FBS game. The same can’t be said about UIW. I’m not saying that a WTAMU vs SFA game would attract that many, but neither would a UIW game. I’m betting that WTAMU would have a much higher season attendance than UIW. And how many conference championships has UIW had in any sport?

There are a lot of things that need to happen before a 14th team joins the WAC, but one is not football attendance of UIW or WTAMU. If a team joins, it will not happen before 2022-2023. UIW's advantage is being full D1 and being located in San Antonio, and a very nice section of San Antonio (Alamo Heights). They are five miles from the airport and five miles from the Alamo Dome, which could become be helpful in the far-fetched idea that they become FBS. UIW needs to upgrade their basketball facility and basketball offers the most potential revenue for the WAC at this point in time.

WTAMU is D2 and in Canyon, Texas. If they joined the WAC in 2022-2023, they would not be full D1 until 2026-2027. As an FCS school, if they draw 20,000 per game, who does that help? The WAC re-started football for additional membership, to survive. There is no real TV revenue from football, and attendance is good for the school, but overall the attendance is really not that important unless your ultimate goal is to go FBS.

The WAC needs markets and a TV contract that will give them exposure for basketball. San Antonio is a perfect market to be in if UIW can upgrade their basketball program. There is no D1 competition in the city, other than UTSA and they averaged 1,120 fans per game in 2019-2020. An opportunity is there if UIW can expand and improve their basketball facilities, which should improve recruiting.

C-USA went for markets and not the best programs out there. Arkansas State would have made it to CUSA instead of North Texas. What happened to CUSA's tv contract? It went down because they added teams that sucked instead of the best schools out there. AAC and MWC added schools that have better performance on the field or court except for a few like San Jose State, Tulsa and Tulane, but, they do get better tv media deals and all that. Adding a UIW will not help bring tv media deals and all that. West Texas A&M outshines them on the field and on the court. Even in baseball that they are better. Colorado Mesa is hot in two of their three sports and Central Oklahoma is better than UIW in baseball. I am sorry, UIW to the WAC is a joke. Nobody will watch them, and it will bring tv media deals downward.

Wow.... I actually agree with you lol.

Except for that last sentence. Yes no one will watch them, but you imply that people will watch WTAMU. That probably isnt the case, same for most of the WAC schools though. The WAC media deal really cant go downward.

(04-29-2021 06:37 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(04-29-2021 05:51 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 05:41 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 08:56 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Frog, I agree that San Antonio is a great tourist town. But it is close enough to Austin that anybody who cares about college football there goes for the Texas Longhorns. The WAC adding UIW isn’t going to change that fact. People from Stephenville may prefer to go to San Antonio than Amarillo but at least the people in Amarillo support their team and take ownership of it and are more likely to go to a game. And have no pro sports competing with it for fan support. They have had crowds of more than 20,000 for a non FBS game. The same can’t be said about UIW. I’m not saying that a WTAMU vs SFA game would attract that many, but neither would a UIW game. I’m betting that WTAMU would have a much higher season attendance than UIW. And how many conference championships has UIW had in any sport?

There are a lot of things that need to happen before a 14th team joins the WAC, but one is not football attendance of UIW or WTAMU. If a team joins, it will not happen before 2022-2023. UIW's advantage is being full D1 and being located in San Antonio, and a very nice section of San Antonio (Alamo Heights). They are five miles from the airport and five miles from the Alamo Dome, which could become be helpful in the far-fetched idea that they become FBS. UIW needs to upgrade their basketball facility and basketball offers the most potential revenue for the WAC at this point in time.

WTAMU is D2 and in Canyon, Texas. If they joined the WAC in 2022-2023, they would not be full D1 until 2026-2027. As an FCS school, if they draw 20,000 per game, who does that help? The WAC re-started football for additional membership, to survive. There is no real TV revenue from football, and attendance is good for the school, but overall the attendance is really not that important unless your ultimate goal is to go FBS.

The WAC needs markets and a TV contract that will give them exposure for basketball. San Antonio is a perfect market to be in if UIW can upgrade their basketball program. There is no D1 competition in the city, other than UTSA and they averaged 1,120 fans per game in 2019-2020. An opportunity is there if UIW can expand and improve their basketball facilities, which should improve recruiting.

C-USA went for markets and not the best programs out there. Arkansas State would have made it to CUSA instead of North Texas. What happened to CUSA's tv contract? It went down because they added teams that sucked instead of the best schools out there. AAC and MWC added schools that have better performance on the field or court except for a few like San Jose State, Tulsa and Tulane, but, they do get better tv media deals and all that. Adding a UIW will not help bring tv media deals and all that. West Texas A&M outshines them on the field and on the court. Even in baseball that they are better. Colorado Mesa is hot in two of their three sports and Central Oklahoma is better than UIW in baseball. I am sorry, UIW to the WAC is a joke. Nobody will watch them, and it will bring tv media deals downward.

Wow.... I actually agree with you lol.

Except for that last sentence. Yes no one will watch them, but you imply that people will watch WTAMU. That probably isnt the case, same for most of the WAC schools though. The WAC media deal really cant go downward.

West Texas A&M gets better fan support than UIW. The three schools I mentioned did upgrade their facilities since UIW joined the Southland while UIW did nothing.

I've tried to catch up with this thread and whew there are some pretty big misconceptions flying around here.

I'll just say this...the idea that UIW's bid is "dead in the water" because we haven't had news come out right after a site visit is 100% not true. In fact, I can't even completely verify that all of the site visits have already happened (I had different people give me different dates, but everybody agreed that COVID had dramatically slowed this process).

This isn't a league looking to add a new flagship school. It's picking from a position of strength between two to four institutions that will likely be near the bottom of the conference standings in many sports. They don't have to pick tomorrow. They're in a position of relative strength.

That doesn't mean UIW will get the bid. I know at least one Texas4 President who is still *really* against it. But I know it isn't dead.

(04-28-2021 09:48 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(04-28-2021 09:13 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 11:33 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 07:43 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 10:53 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  Look no further than the Southwest Conference. This conference was doomed once mass communications arrived and recruits saw there was a world of football outside Texas. Problem was the SWC saw little exposure nationally and eventually collapsed. Southland fits this same model. Because all the schools were so close no one knew the schools existed outside of their Conference. Very little exposure. So, yes schools want national exposure not Texas exposure.

You are seriously claiming that a conference aspiring, in its time, to being among the major conferences in US college sports and the Southland conference are in a sufficiently similar situation that you can directly export experience from one to the other?

Someone might argue that having a broader geographic profile might in some way increase the profile of these schools within Texas, in which case there might be some benefit, but arguing that these need to be recognizable in California or Georgia or Michigan in order to be successful at their level is just being silly.

And even if there was that abstract argument to be made ... the WAC is going to provide that? Really?

Yes, the more these Texas schools play in other states raises their profile much more than if they stayed in their own backyard as the SLC has done for years.

I don't think that's supported factually. No recruit or prospective student is impressed that East Texas State plays road games in Seattle and Sacramento, or in Beaumont and Bandito City, when those road games are at schools they've never heard of, played in front of basically empty stadiums or arenas. Trading road games in backwoods Louisiana towns for road games in the remote corner of Utah and in distant big cities in empty gyms doesn't change anything.

My thoughts exactly. What added exposure is Dixie State going to get from playing at Tarleton? Not much. I live two hours from Stephenville. I never saw anything in the news or in the newspapers about Tarleton sports, much less their opponents this past season. Not trying to pick on Tarleton. Same could be said for any of the WAC/SLC schools in Texas. There's just no mention of Sub FBS schools in the media here, and the P5s get 80% of that attention. Even when SHSU was playing in the Natty a decade ago you never heard anything about it outside of the internet. Maybe they talked about it in Houston but I don't live there so idk.

The only added exposure is to the people in attendance and if they're in attendance they are either 1. A student or 2. an alumni. Odds are that no one in attendance is going to want to take their talents to go play school at "insert school name".

There are additional attendance groups, particularly with the big spectator sports. 3) Faculty/Staff and 4) Townies looking for their sports fix. I never attended Cornell, nor did anyone else in my immediate family, but I regularly went to football and basketball games and know plenty of other folks in the same basket as me.

(04-29-2021 06:52 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-29-2021 06:37 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(04-29-2021 05:51 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 05:41 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 08:56 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Frog, I agree that San Antonio is a great tourist town. But it is close enough to Austin that anybody who cares about college football there goes for the Texas Longhorns. The WAC adding UIW isn’t going to change that fact. People from Stephenville may prefer to go to San Antonio than Amarillo but at least the people in Amarillo support their team and take ownership of it and are more likely to go to a game. And have no pro sports competing with it for fan support. They have had crowds of more than 20,000 for a non FBS game. The same can’t be said about UIW. I’m not saying that a WTAMU vs SFA game would attract that many, but neither would a UIW game. I’m betting that WTAMU would have a much higher season attendance than UIW. And how many conference championships has UIW had in any sport?

There are a lot of things that need to happen before a 14th team joins the WAC, but one is not football attendance of UIW or WTAMU. If a team joins, it will not happen before 2022-2023. UIW's advantage is being full D1 and being located in San Antonio, and a very nice section of San Antonio (Alamo Heights). They are five miles from the airport and five miles from the Alamo Dome, which could become be helpful in the far-fetched idea that they become FBS. UIW needs to upgrade their basketball facility and basketball offers the most potential revenue for the WAC at this point in time.

WTAMU is D2 and in Canyon, Texas. If they joined the WAC in 2022-2023, they would not be full D1 until 2026-2027. As an FCS school, if they draw 20,000 per game, who does that help? The WAC re-started football for additional membership, to survive. There is no real TV revenue from football, and attendance is good for the school, but overall the attendance is really not that important unless your ultimate goal is to go FBS.

The WAC needs markets and a TV contract that will give them exposure for basketball. San Antonio is a perfect market to be in if UIW can upgrade their basketball program. There is no D1 competition in the city, other than UTSA and they averaged 1,120 fans per game in 2019-2020. An opportunity is there if UIW can expand and improve their basketball facilities, which should improve recruiting.

C-USA went for markets and not the best programs out there. Arkansas State would have made it to CUSA instead of North Texas. What happened to CUSA's tv contract? It went down because they added teams that sucked instead of the best schools out there. AAC and MWC added schools that have better performance on the field or court except for a few like San Jose State, Tulsa and Tulane, but, they do get better tv media deals and all that. Adding a UIW will not help bring tv media deals and all that. West Texas A&M outshines them on the field and on the court. Even in baseball that they are better. Colorado Mesa is hot in two of their three sports and Central Oklahoma is better than UIW in baseball. I am sorry, UIW to the WAC is a joke. Nobody will watch them, and it will bring tv media deals downward.

Wow.... I actually agree with you lol.

Except for that last sentence. Yes no one will watch them, but you imply that people will watch WTAMU. That probably isnt the case, same for most of the WAC schools though. The WAC media deal really cant go downward.

West Texas A&M gets better fan support than UIW. The three schools I mentioned did upgrade their facilities since UIW joined the Southland while UIW did nothing.

Maybe so, but facilities don't make a TV deal. Besides, UCO and Mesa both average around the same attendance as UIW so thats a wash. WTAMU averaged 7k which is great, but does 4k more in attendance mean anything to ESPN? No.

My point is none of these schools move the needle for ESPN to get the WAC a linear TV deal.

(04-29-2021 07:32 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(04-29-2021 06:52 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-29-2021 06:37 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(04-29-2021 05:51 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-27-2021 05:41 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  There are a lot of things that need to happen before a 14th team joins the WAC, but one is not football attendance of UIW or WTAMU. If a team joins, it will not happen before 2022-2023. UIW's advantage is being full D1 and being located in San Antonio, and a very nice section of San Antonio (Alamo Heights). They are five miles from the airport and five miles from the Alamo Dome, which could become be helpful in the far-fetched idea that they become FBS. UIW needs to upgrade their basketball facility and basketball offers the most potential revenue for the WAC at this point in time.

WTAMU is D2 and in Canyon, Texas. If they joined the WAC in 2022-2023, they would not be full D1 until 2026-2027. As an FCS school, if they draw 20,000 per game, who does that help? The WAC re-started football for additional membership, to survive. There is no real TV revenue from football, and attendance is good for the school, but overall the attendance is really not that important unless your ultimate goal is to go FBS.

The WAC needs markets and a TV contract that will give them exposure for basketball. San Antonio is a perfect market to be in if UIW can upgrade their basketball program. There is no D1 competition in the city, other than UTSA and they averaged 1,120 fans per game in 2019-2020. An opportunity is there if UIW can expand and improve their basketball facilities, which should improve recruiting.

C-USA went for markets and not the best programs out there. Arkansas State would have made it to CUSA instead of North Texas. What happened to CUSA's tv contract? It went down because they added teams that sucked instead of the best schools out there. AAC and MWC added schools that have better performance on the field or court except for a few like San Jose State, Tulsa and Tulane, but, they do get better tv media deals and all that. Adding a UIW will not help bring tv media deals and all that. West Texas A&M outshines them on the field and on the court. Even in baseball that they are better. Colorado Mesa is hot in two of their three sports and Central Oklahoma is better than UIW in baseball. I am sorry, UIW to the WAC is a joke. Nobody will watch them, and it will bring tv media deals downward.

Wow.... I actually agree with you lol.

Except for that last sentence. Yes no one will watch them, but you imply that people will watch WTAMU. That probably isnt the case, same for most of the WAC schools though. The WAC media deal really cant go downward.

West Texas A&M gets better fan support than UIW. The three schools I mentioned did upgrade their facilities since UIW joined the Southland while UIW did nothing.

Maybe so, but facilities don't make a TV deal. Besides, UCO and Mesa both average around the same attendance as UIW so thats a wash. WTAMU averaged 7k which is great, but does 4k more in attendance mean anything to ESPN? No.

My point is none of these schools move the needle for ESPN to get the WAC a linear TV deal.

Does any FCS conference have a linear TV deal with ESPN?

(04-29-2021 07:39 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  Does any FCS conference have a linear TV deal with ESPN?

I would assume ESPN reserves the right to pull any ESPN 3 or + game to ESPN/2/U but that does not really happen.

(04-29-2021 07:39 AM)SMUstang Wrote:  

(04-29-2021 07:32 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(04-29-2021 06:52 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-29-2021 06:37 AM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(04-29-2021 05:51 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  C-USA went for markets and not the best programs out there. Arkansas State would have made it to CUSA instead of North Texas. What happened to CUSA's tv contract? It went down because they added teams that sucked instead of the best schools out there. AAC and MWC added schools that have better performance on the field or court except for a few like San Jose State, Tulsa and Tulane, but, they do get better tv media deals and all that. Adding a UIW will not help bring tv media deals and all that. West Texas A&M outshines them on the field and on the court. Even in baseball that they are better. Colorado Mesa is hot in two of their three sports and Central Oklahoma is better than UIW in baseball. I am sorry, UIW to the WAC is a joke. Nobody will watch them, and it will bring tv media deals downward.

Wow.... I actually agree with you lol.

Except for that last sentence. Yes no one will watch them, but you imply that people will watch WTAMU. That probably isnt the case, same for most of the WAC schools though. The WAC media deal really cant go downward.

West Texas A&M gets better fan support than UIW. The three schools I mentioned did upgrade their facilities since UIW joined the Southland while UIW did nothing.

Maybe so, but facilities don't make a TV deal. Besides, UCO and Mesa both average around the same attendance as UIW so thats a wash. WTAMU averaged 7k which is great, but does 4k more in attendance mean anything to ESPN? No.

My point is none of these schools move the needle for ESPN to get the WAC a linear TV deal.

Does any FCS conference have a linear TV deal with ESPN?

I believe that the SWAC does.

https://swac.org/news/2019/6/20/swac-ann...edule.aspx