(06-02-2020 01:34 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  I think it was a good move for Tarleton State and Dixie State to join the WAC. Rome wasn't built in a day. Tarleton State and Dixie State will have to struggle football wise in the interim. Tarleton State has a very good basketball coach and a motivated AD. And, Dixie State is located in a fast growing area of the country. By the time their D1 probation is up, they will have athletic programs comparable to the Southland and Big Sky respectively. As I have said, being in the WAC for Olympic sports could be better than joining the small budget regional conferences in their respective area. Everyone can see GCU has the money to be a major player in D1 basketball. And, NMSU has a long lived tradition of winning. These schools will pull up the Texan and Trailblazers in performance; much like Gonzaga has done for the WCC. It will be hard to win the WAC but I suspect Tarleton State will draw better talent than the Southland schools because of it. Prospective recruits want to go to Seattle, Riverside, Phoenix, Salt Lake City metro, Chicago, and Las Vegas. And ultimately, Tarleton State and Dixie State will garner better OOC wins because of being in the WAC. As for football, if the WAC FCS football doesn't come to pass in the immediate future, Tarleton State could possibly join the MVC Football conference as an associate member. MVC Football is currently a 11 team conference. And maybe Dixie State could join the Big Sky as an associate member in football; making the BSC 14 football members. Also, keep in mind, the WAC doesn't really need to start a FCS football conference for Dixie State and Tarleton State. Those two schools could start their own football-only conference much like the Missouri Valley Football Conference; which operates independent of the Missouri Valley Conference. The WAC could add one or two more football playing schools from Texas and the West Coast; And if those WAC schools could talk Cal Poly, UC Davis, and UC San Diego to join them, a new FCS conference could be formed.

Good analysis. One of the things that saddens me is that football appears to be taking away from basketball at Lamar. Prior to football, the basketball expenses were running around $2.3M per OPE Equity in Athletics. We would have been outspent by several WAC schools at that level.
The gap is increasing. Basketball expenses are now down to $1.384M, and Lamar is #3 in men's basketball spending in the SLC. SFA is at $2.1M. Non-football TAMUCC is near $2M.

Formatting is messed up, but here's a look at Lamar vs Tarleton State and Dixie State. Tarleton State is left column; Lamar is middle; Dixie State is right. Thought it might provide a comparison of the up and comers vs an established DI FCS program.

For references, Lamar is in the FCS top 25 publics in the most recent USAToday DI Finances database. (Privates aren't in the USAToday database.) I could have picked anyone. I'm just more familiar with Lamar's numbers.
Lamar was at #2 in total SLC athletic expenses last year. UIW was first. Sam Houston State was 3rd per OPE. They are #1 in the SLC per USAToday. Several Big Sky programs are higher than both. For reference, Lamar would be in the upper middle (#6) of the Big Sky for expenses per USAToday.

Here are the page links if anyone wants to play with them.

Link - OPE Equity in Athletics top page
Link - USAToday DI Finances database

(Columns: Tarleton State ---- Lamar ----- Dixie State)
Expenses - Men's Teams
Basketball $864,953 $1,384,151 $837,366
Football $1,861,415 $4,300,112 $1,623,102
Total Expenses of all Sports, Except Football and Basketball, Combined $745,205 $2,543,639 $1,301,313
Total Expenses Men's Teams $3,471,573 $8,227,902 $3,761,781
Expenses - Women's Teams
Basketball $676,109 $1,247,747 $599,976
Football
Total Expenses of all Sports, Except Football and Basketball, Combined $1,708,273 $3,778,764 $1,897,934
Total Expenses Women's Teams $2,384,382 $5,026,511 $2,497,910