ejmpalle Wrote:Now, sdbronco, it's your turn to answer the question I asked. I apologize for lumping you into the BeefZerkie group. It's been quite a while since I've read the MWC board to see if you've been posting.

What exactly is the question that you are asking? Please boil it down for me because it seemed to be more statement than question (I'm not being sarcastic).

I also asked a few very succinct questions.

Quote:Under what circumstances do you think that teams should be able to or want to change conference affiliation? The norm seems to be: Whenever it benifits that institution. That seems to be consistant with what USU, as well as every other team in the WAC has done in the past.

A better question might be: Is there a benifit to changing conferences for some of the teams in the WAC, and if so, What is it (are they) and what can be done to remedy it within the WAC?

sdbronco Wrote:Under what circumstances do you think that teams should be able to or want to change conference affiliation? The norm seems to be: Whenever it benifits that institution. That seems to be consistant with what USU, as well as every other team in the WAC has done in the past.

A better question might be: Is there a benifit to changing conferences for some of the teams in the WAC, and if so, What is it (are they) and what can be done to remedy it within the WAC?

I think teams should have to sign on the dotted line for conference membership, first of all, and there should be fees in place for a breech in contract before the expiration date of that contract. So teams should be able to move on at any time. But, of course, there should be a penalty in place for a breech of contract.

There are only a couple of teams that wouldn't seem to benefit immediately from leaving the WAC for the MWC. The reason I say this is because the MWC has a more lucrative tv contract, all though I'm not quite sure if the MWC will see all of that money if their tv deals don't go through. That is the ONLY reason, IMO, unless you believe that your particular school would benefit in ticket sales from Wyoming/CSU/Air Force/New Mexico etc vs WAC teams. Utah St just might benefit. The reason for that would be that I think many Utah St fans think the MWC is the Queen Mary because of the perception given by the SLC media.

Other than increased conference revenue from tv contracts, I can't see any other reason for moving to another conference without an autobid.

Now, here's my question. Hopefully I can put this more clearly. If the WAC promises to be the best conference without an autobid (let's assume that no other conference is going to get one any time soon), how committed should WAC teams be to the WAC? Should they take on TCU's model which is ride the wave, whichever direction it takes you? Or should you invest now for the future and endure growing pains in the mean time?

ejmpalle Wrote:

sdbronco Wrote:Under what circumstances do you think that teams should be able to or want to change conference affiliation? The norm seems to be: Whenever it benifits that institution. That seems to be consistant with what USU, as well as every other team in the WAC has done in the past.

A better question might be: Is there a benifit to changing conferences for some of the teams in the WAC, and if so, What is it (are they) and what can be done to remedy it within the WAC?

I think teams should have to sign on the dotted line for conference membership, first of all, and there should be fees in place for a breech in contract before the expiration date of that contract. So teams should be able to move on at any time. But, of course, there should be a penalty in place for a breech of contract.

There are only a couple of teams that wouldn't seem to benefit immediately from leaving the WAC for the MWC. The reason I say this is because the MWC has a more lucrative tv contract, all though I'm not quite sure if the MWC will see all of that money if their tv deals don't go through. That is the ONLY reason, IMO, unless you believe that your particular school would benefit in ticket sales from Wyoming/CSU/Air Force/New Mexico etc vs WAC teams. Utah St just might benefit. The reason for that would be that I think many Utah St fans think the MWC is the Queen Mary because of the perception given by the SLC media.

Other than increased conference revenue from tv contracts, I can't see any other reason for moving to another conference without an autobid.?

First of all, the MWC currently, in and of itself, is of no help to BSU without an autobid. BSU has built it's program by getting national exposure larger than what the MWC can now provide and using that esposure to improve recruiting, build a fan base etc. Although OLN (versus) is a national media outlet it is not where college football fans go to find the best game that is on. It's an afterthought at best.

Second, TV revenue isn't that important, although TV exposure would be. Even 1 mill a year is only about 1/20th of the athletic budget at BSU. BSU has increased it's budget by an average of over a million and a half a year since coming into the WAC. That doesn't include the donations for all of the facilities improvements. Not being as noticible on TV would hurt more than it would help.

In general I have no real interest in conference revenue. Unless it is BCS type money it sucks. Further, I have never recieved a check from any conference so I could care less about how much the conference earns as long as BSU's budget keeps growing to make it more competitive. I am much more interested in seeing high quality, competiive football games than I am intereseted in accounting princibles.

Quote:Now, here's my question. Hopefully I can put this more clearly. If the WAC promises to be the best conference without an autobid (let's assume that no other conference is going to get one any time soon), how committed should WAC teams be to the WAC? Should they take on TCU's model which is ride the wave, whichever direction it takes you? Or should you invest now for the future and endure growing pains in the mean time

How can the WAC promise this?

I have a model in mind of what I think would be the ideal conference for BSU. One that would be competitive and would provide teams of local, regional and national interest. My conference may not be the same as yours but I a low level of interest in games vs La Tech, SJSU, UNM, NMSU, UNLV etc.

I have a high level of interest in games vs UNR, BYU, Utah, CSU, UI, OSU, WASU, UO, UW, Wyoming, and USU (all regional) SDSU (personal), Air Force, UH, TCU, Fresno, etc. (National).

The Western US needs a 2nd BCS worthy conference that can in time grow to compete head to head with the PAC10. I don't know how that should or would look but I think that it should be the goal of any aspiring football schools.

I think an exit fee is silly and I know that a single donor in Boise already once offered to pay the entrance fee into the MWC if it were offered, so I don't think it would be much more than a parting gift to our old friends in the WAC.

If there will never be another western BCS conference then why don't we all just go 1AA together and have a playoff?

JMOHO but you asked

Quote: Prove it. What are the exit fees for the PAC-10? Big XII? Big Ten? The Mountain West?

I believe the SEC and the Pac-10 are the only major conferences who don't have an exit fee.

Big XII: 2 Million
Big East: 5 Million
MAC: 200K
CUSA: 500K (Louisville, Cinci, USF were absolved from exit fees, but they must play @ a CUSA school in football and 2 in basketball for the next couple of years)
ACC: Not sure what the status is now that they moved to 12, but USC has to pay an exit fee when they left the conference in 1990.

Interesting and diverse points of view on a potentially painful topic: Who goes and who stays (aka, who's climbing and who's dropping, or who survives and who dies, as it were).

I believe it was Winston Churchill who pointed out that there are no eternal allies, only eternal interests. I think that applies at many levels of life, both individual and collective.

Can we really expect things of others that we don't demand of ourselves? For instance, is it inconsistent of me to expect others to be loyal to me -- say, other conference members -- if, in my personal life, I'm willing to change employers at the drop of a hat? When Karl Malone left the Utah Jazz after something like 18 years, a number of fans condemned him for his lack of loyalty and traitorous, me-first attitude. I wonder how many of them have shown a similar loyalty and long term commitment to their respective jobs.

For me, my attitude was "thanks for all the great memories, and good luck."

To a degree, this comparison with schools wanting to leave the WAC -- ostensibly to better themselves -- and individual actions is a bit of apples/oranges. Perhaps a better comparison would be with a lawyer or doctor who leaves a firm. Normally such departures include a no-complete clause for several years. However, that wouldn't be practical in the case of changing conferences, that is, prohibitting future on-field games for x years.

In saying all of this, I'll readily admit that it's easy, since my conference's ox isn't threatened with being gored. However, if by some miracle, the Big-12 had an opening and invited TCU, my reaction would be "sorry to see you go, but thanks for the times we shared, and good luck -- oh, and here's to hoping that we follow in your shoes (BcS status), one way or another."

Bottom line (IMO): Until we exhibit a similar degree of longstanding loyalty towards others, it seems inconsistent to expect it of others at any level of society. Unfortunately, I doubt that's going to happen any time soon.

WAC_FAN Wrote:

Quote: Prove it. What are the exit fees for the PAC-10? Big XII? Big Ten? The Mountain West?

I believe the SEC and the Pac-10 are the only major conferences who don't have an exit fee.

Big XII: 2 Million
Big East: 5 Million
MAC: 200K
CUSA: 500K (Louisville, Cinci, USF were absolved from exit fees, but they must play @ a CUSA school in football and 2 in basketball for the next couple of years)
ACC: Not sure what the status is now that they moved to 12, but USC has to pay an exit fee when they left the conference in 1990.

The MWC also has no exit fees. I'm particularly intrigued by the Big East's $5 million fee because that seems like a graphic statement of weakness, not strength. If an organization is really worth anything, it seems to me that people will want to belong and not leave, such as August National. When I see such heavily penalties and deterents, it reminds me of East Block countries such as East Germany and North Korea, who covered up their weakness with false displays of strength and force, the geopolitical equivalents of the Big East's financial penalty.

SPCoug Wrote:I believe it was Winston Churchill who pointed out that there are no eternal allies, only eternal interests.

That's deep!

You make some good points SPCoug. With the Big East, they have a lot to lose when they lose teams. They have their BCS status to worry about.

...and it's all about money anyway.

Most conferences have:

- Entrance Fees.

- Clauses where new schools can't partake in the new conferences "booty" for a specified period of time.

- Exit Fees.


...so if you really want to join a conference...you'll pay the entrance fee, you'll accept the "booty" clause...and you'll accept the "exit fee" clause.

It all depends on how bad you want to join a certain conference.

I think most schools would have "no" problems paying and agreeing to anything if they had a chance of entering a BCS conference.

...and I don't think they'd consider the "exit fee" a sign of weakness.

ejmpalle Wrote:Where I take issue with conference break-ups is when the break-up is at the expense of a school or schools left behind.

But isn't it the responsibility of the schools who could be left behind to keep themselves also attractive so that circumstances like this don't happen?

You bring up USU's history prior to the WAC inception, which NMSU has very similar history to (mates with ASU, UofA,UNM...). Was it their fault they bailed w/o asking for us to come along? NO! At the time, our athletic department showed little enthusiasm with keeping up with the Jones'; which is required to survive in this business.

So, they got tired of, for lack of a better term, coat tail riding, and moved on to better pastures. Had we made the commitment then, made ourselves very attractive then, we would probably be in a much different, more stable conference now.

To be a bride you gotta look like a bride, not a brides maid.

Sorry for the rant.

DAgg Wrote:But isn't it the responsibility of the schools who could be left behind to keep themselves also attractive so that circumstances like this don't happen?

An excellent observation, again, with many applications at all levels of society. I can name two major US corporations, both of which disappeared in the 1980s, which made that mistake and got left behind, big time. Ironically, both were being courted for attractive mergers and looked like they had it "made." The problem was that both managements took the attitude of "our knight in shining armor has arrived to save us" and sat back and waiting for their mergers to be consummated. Unfortunately, problems arose, which delayed completion, during which both firms lost their former attractiveness. The acquiring firms rethought their offers, cancelled them and went elsewhere for partners. The two brides-to-have-been eventually went bankrupt, due to dropping the ball.

The MWC may never invite a WAC team to join. However, it behooves every interested school to make itself as attractive as possible. At best, the invite will come. At worst, it will be well positioned to carry on in the WAC.

DAgg Wrote:But isn't it the responsibility of the schools who could be left behind to keep themselves also attractive so that circumstances like this don't happen?

This thread wasn't intended to get into who's contributing to the whole and who's not. The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of schools that are making significant contributions to the WAC. Every new school to the WAC is currently paying entrance fees for the betterment of the WAC. And many of those schools are upgrading facilities, if not building brand new facilities. Secondly, many of the new schools have brought different sports that are extremely competitive. Idaho won the women't cross country championship, New Mexico St won's the men's golf, SJSU won the women's golf, Utah St won the men's cross country, Hawaii won volleyball, Fresno St won baseball, Nevada won men's basketball, Boise St won football, La Tech won women's outdoor track and field.... http://www.wacsports.com/view_article.asp?id=3718

Everyone is contributing significantly. Now if you want to argue who's contributing more to the conference monetarily, then I think I could make an arguement for, at least, Nevada and Utah St more than just about any other school. But the ironic part of all of this is that Nevada and Utah St aren't part of all of the talks and perceptions as to who really contributes. Where I take issue with many of the posts is in this thread is when comments like those of DAgg are made.

It bothers me that many of you take on the perception that the big football schools, namely Fresno St and Boise St, are the only teams contributing, considering the above. Secondly, I find it very ironic how bcs conferences have schools that contribute virtually nothing to the goals of the conference in football, yet you never hear of the SEC wanting to rid itself of Vanderbilt, the ACC of Duke, the Big East of Rutgers, the Big 12 of Baylor or the Big 10 of Northwestern, yet many of you wish to become a bcs conference. Well if you want to become a bcs conference, you'd better start realizing what each member of the conference is contributing and start showing some loyalty to those schools as Texas does to Baylor, Georgia to Vanderbilt, West Virginia to Rutgers, etc, etc.

I envy the bcs conferences not so much for their money, but for their stability. I envy the fact that they don't dread having the likes of the Vanderbilts as members of their conference. They seem to be educated enough to appreciate each member for their strengths. And more than anything else, they take pride in being a member of those conferences, despite who's at the bottom of the football standings.

Further, I think it's really funny how we have MWC fans coming into this thread and giving their two cents on investing in a conference's future. When looking for the worst examples of building on a conference's future, I look the MWC's way. It's like taking marital advice from Ted Bundy.

For the MWC fans that think they're so intelligent on the subject, had you made the right choices before and after the WAC break-up you'd probably all ready be a stronger football conference than the Big East. BUT you chose not to go down that road. The last place I'm going to look for advice on building a conference's future is in the MWC!

For those fans that wish their team would leave the WAC, well, you may get your wish if you wish hard enough. And in the mean time, if that is your attitude, thanks for nothing!

DAgg Wrote:

ejmpalle Wrote:Where I take issue with conference break-ups is when the break-up is at the expense of a school or schools left behind.

But isn't it the responsibility of the schools who could be left behind to keep themselves also attractive so that circumstances like this don't happen?

You bring up USU's history prior to the WAC inception, which NMSU has very similar history to (mates with ASU, UofA,UNM...). Was it their fault they bailed w/o asking for us to come along? NO! At the time, our athletic department showed little enthusiasm with keeping up with the Jones'; which is required to survive in this business.

So, they got tired of, for lack of a better term, coat tail riding, and moved on to better pastures. Had we made the commitment then, made ourselves very attractive then, we would probably be in a much different, more stable conference now.

To be a bride you gotta look like a bride, not a brides maid.

Sorry for the rant.

This is going to be my only word on this subject for various reasons. USU did have a long history with BYU, Utah, and Wyoming and to a much lesser extent UNM. I'm not one that wants to go into the exit fees etc., but this is to set the record straight.

I just want to recount what happened with USU. The WAC was formed and the main thing working against the Ags, at least publicly, was that they were from a more rural area and weren't really close to an airport. However Wyoming, and then CSU both were admitted even though they had the same issues. Wyoming's President it was reported was good friends with the President's from Arizona and UNM, which was why they filled the final spot. Wyoming did have a good football decade in the 1950's while USU struggled, but they had a losing record to the 4 other major Skyline teams. (USU, BYU, Utah, and CSU.) In 1967 CSU was added due to a deal made with Wyoming and the Southern WAC schools. (However USU was a far superior football and basketball program to CSU during that period.)

Anyways at the time USU was attractive. In the 1960's-70's when USU was independent and asking for admission the football team won 66% of thier games and the basketball team also was performing well. (An elite 8 appearance as well as several NCAA appearances.) They also built Romney Stadium and the Spectrum during that time to improve their facilities. The bottom line is that they were actually quite active improving themselves. Football didn't fall until the 80's and basketball remained competitive except in the late 80's early 90's.

It was a great deal of backroom politics that led to the "snub" because USU was outperforming many other WAC schools at the time. I agree that this is all water under the bridge which too many fans have held on to too long, but that is the story of what happened and why so many of the older alumni are upset.

Quote:This thread wasn't intended to get into who's contributing to the whole and who's not.

Hmmm... this was the subject line of the thread:

Quote:How committed should WAC fans and its teams be to the WAC?

If your team/school/fan base is truly commited to the WAC (by measurable strengths) then your team/shool/fan base will bring a lot to the table.

You can't commit to a conference without bringing something to the table that makes the conference better. As the lower tier teams start bringing more to the table, the upper tier teams will commit more to staying. What is the incentive of staying in the confernce versus jumping ship? If there is no incentive because the lower tier teams continue to drag the conference down, the upper teams will not have a solid commitment.

My point touches the heart of the question.

erdaggie, you missed my point when I mentioned NMSU's history. We both got snubbed once. Fine. But I bet if you brought more to the table, you would have had an invite... same argument for my NewMags. When BSU and Nevada were invited into the WAC, BYU nor Utah, nor UNM (for my NewMags) had control in the decision.

Nevada and BSU have been D1A for a short period and have kicked our collective butts in making strides upward in the D1A football world while we keep complaining about being snubbed. Put a continual top 25 team on the field and I bet you will start seeing some love from the MWC.

DAgg Wrote:erdaggie, you missed my point when I mentioned NMSU's history. We both got snubbed once. Fine. But I bet if you brought more to the table, you would have had an invite... same argument for my NewMags. When BSU and Nevada were invited into the WAC, BYU nor Utah, nor UNM (for my NewMags) had control in the decision.

Nevada and BSU have been D1A for a short period and have kicked our collective butts in making strides upward in the D1A football world while we keep complaining about being snubbed. Put a continual top 25 team on the field and I bet you will start seeing some love from the MWC.

I agree. I'm one who thinks that to many fans have held a grudge far too long. All I'm saying is that BYU/Utah plotted against USU. That is fairly widely accepted, even amongst their own fans. The main reason USU was shut out was market (same as the other two) and that they didn't want USU to compete for the same recruits.

But as you said it is ancient history.

That's why your athletic department has to get your programs in a healthy position such that the collective have's will wish they didn't exclude you.

I'm not replying to any post in particular; here are a few thoughts on the thread in general:

First, it should be noted that neither the Big West nor the Sun Belt was particularly sad to see USU leave. The Big West wanted to become an all-California conference to reduce travel costs, and obviously USU was a horrendous geographic fit for the Sun Belt. (Indeed, neither USU nor the Sun Belt wanted a long-term marriage. At the time that USU joined the SBC, they didn't have enough I-A members to meet the NCAA requirements. The plan was that USU would join the SBC long enough for some of their other members to make the jump to I-A, and USU would look for a long-term home in a western conference. It was a win-win for both sides; the SBC wasn't at all unhappy when USU left.) I don't think one can necessarily say that USU lacked "loyalty" to either conference when they didn't really want us there to begin with.

Second, generally speaking, I don't think that any school has any moral imperative to be "loyal" to a particular conference. I don't fault Miami or BC for accepting an invitation to the ACC, nor would I fault any WAC school for accepting an invitation to the PAC-10. I think each school is more than justified in serving their own self-interest in this area.

However, I do think that the Big East and the WAC are classic examples of the so-called "prisoner's dilemma." Both conferences are fairly attractive in their current incarnation, if less than 100% desirable. However, if any member of either conference were to defect, it could be devastating for those that are left behind. Given the circumstances, I think that the high exit fees for the Big East are prudent, and I think it would be prudent for the WAC to enact a similar provision.

StanfordAggie Wrote:However, I do think that the Big East and the WAC are classic examples of the so-called "prisoner's dilemma." Both conferences are fairly attractive in their current incarnation, if less than 100% desirable. However, if any member of either conference were to defect, it could be devastating for those that are left behind.

I am DoubleAggie because I work for NMSU while I graduated from Texas A&M.
When I graduated, TAMU was a member of the SouthWest Conference.
You remember that one don't you?

Seven decades of proud history.
National Championships.
Presence in media markets of Houston and Dallas.
Countless rivalries.
Huge regional appeal.

Yes the same SouthWest Conference that is now only a memory.
So these manuverings can end
a conference, even one that is a huge success.

I don't really see much happening to the WAC in the near term anyway.

Fortunately, in another ten days, this board will be filled with
tales of game results and not of conference reorg.