Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
OT: Summit decides to not add Augustana
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Trod0 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 255
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 12
I Root For: NMSU
Location:
Post: #61
RE: OT: Summit decides to not add Augustana
(06-02-2020 09:27 AM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  You're lucky to have us.
After our probationary period is over while competing in the WAC a few years, we are able to join a conference immediately, as full members. No slots were open in other conferences, so Tarleton decided to be proactive and start the clock on their tranition timetable. Once that's over, the BSC and SLC would be stupid not to open a slot for Dixie and Tarleton if things don't pan out in the WAC.

It’s honestly going to fun to watch you guys try to compete in all sports this coming year. Especially when you guys play the medium sized fish.
06-02-2020 10:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NMSUPistolPete Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,671
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 38
I Root For: NMSU
Location: AZ
Post: #62
RE: OT: Summit decides to not add Augustana
(06-02-2020 07:57 AM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 09:00 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 07:12 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 06:39 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 02:12 PM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  I think there is an opportunity to start up a FCS conference but I think both Dixie State and Tarleton State will need to work behind the scenes to recruit likeminded new members. Otherwise, Dixie State and Tarleton State will need to live the life as an independent or become an associate member of an existing FCS conference. Dixie State and Tarleton State might be in a better situation logistically to be in the Big Sky and Southland respectively. However, I believe if both schools want to exceed their in-state peers in performance in Olympic sports, they're better off developing stronger sports programs by remaining in the WAC; where the recruiting base is larger, upper tier programs are stronger and national recognition is greater.

Because of athletic budgets, athletic facilities, athletic talent and the ability to easily attract coaching and playing talent. The BSC is a football conference that also plays basketball. They have no baseball or men's soccer. Two of the BSC schools play baseball in the WAC. A good portion of their athletic budgets are spent on football. The SLC is a bad basketball league. Over the past five seasons, the SLC has never ranked in the top 25 of conferences by RPI or Net ranking. The baseball is okay,

Great point. The WAC as an Olympic sports conference has more upside than the BSC or SLC. For Olympic sports, I would take NMSU, GCU and CBU over any of school in either the BSC or SLC. UVU with 41,728 students enrolled in 2019, has the largest enrollment of any school in Utah and plenty of room to grow their athletic fee. Seattle is academically better than any school in the SLC, has a healthy basketball budget of about $2.7 million and will move back into the Seattle Center Arena with a capacity of 8,901. I agree with PojoaquePosse that the WAC is an Olympic sports league first, but I think it can also be an FCS league, but it will take work.

How come?

Because of athletic budgets, athletic facilities, athletic talent and the ability to easily attract coaching and playing talent. The BSC is a football conference that also plays basketball. They have no baseball or men's soccer. Two of the BSC schools play baseball in the WAC. A good portion of their athletic budgets are spent on football. The SLC is a bad basketball league. Over the past five seasons, the SLC has never ranked in the top 25 of conferences by RPI or Net ranking. The baseball is okay. They have no men's soccer, because they focus on football. UIW and Houston Baptist have their men soccer teams in the WAC.

We all know how good NMSU is in basketball. They are also pretty good in baseball. NMSU, GCU, CBU and Seattle all have larger basketball budgets than any school in either the SLC or BSC. GCU and CBU have plenty of money, they are in great markets with a lot of talent and their facilities are terrific. These are private schools that don't have to answer to the state on what they spend on athletics. I actually think ACU and UIW could have some interest in the WAC down the road. The private schools do like to stick together.

Total NCAA bids by conference:
Big Sky 55
WAC 37
Southland 29

Last NCAA Tourney WIN:
Big Sky: Montana 2006
WAC: NMSU 1993 (Seriously)
Southland: SFA 2016

Actually these are the facts of the WAC

Total NCAA bids by conference:
WAC: 96 (97 if not for COVID19)
Big Sky: 55
Southland: 29

Last NCAA Tourney WIN:
WAC: Nevada 2007
Big Sky: Montana 2006
Southland: SFA 2016

It is disingenuous to use data that doesn't take into account that many of the current WAC teams were in D2 (or lower) 37 years ago. The WAC was created 58 years ago and has sent a NCAA participant every year. And, in some years multiple bids. Currently the WAC is a one-bid conference much like the Big Sky and the Southland how ever, the WAC's RPI (now NET) ranking has been for the most part better than both the Big Sky and Southland; even with the current group of schools. BTW, when NMSU last won a NCAA tournament game, they were in the Big West.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/con.../ncaa.html
(This post was last modified: 06-02-2020 11:12 AM by NMSUPistolPete.)
06-02-2020 11:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Itinerant Texan Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 325
Joined: Apr 2020
Reputation: 6
I Root For: On Ye Tarleton!
Location: USA
Post: #63
RE: OT: Summit decides to not add Augustana
(06-02-2020 09:38 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  
(05-31-2020 09:37 AM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  
(05-30-2020 10:16 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  
(05-30-2020 09:39 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  So WAC Headquarters is in Denver, Englewood to be exact, and there is not a single Colorado team in the WAC.
Oddity/Anomaly, whatever you wanna call it, it's just weird.
Who could possibly change that? NOCO? MSU-Denver? CSU-Pueblo? CO-Mesa? Maybe UC-CO Springs could take a quantum leap? All I know is somethings gotta give. Would certainly help Hurd & Co. as he goes out to other schools and tries to sell the WAC vision.

Colorado Mesa not interested in leap to Div. I
https://www.gjsentinel.com/sports/cmu/co...f6eda.html

Colorado Mesa is just fine as a Div. II school
https://www.gjsentinel.com/opinion/edito...f6eda.html

MSU Denver reaffirms commitment to NCAA Division II athletics
https://www.msudenver.edu/early-bird/201...vote.shtml

Moving forward, any school, in Colorado or elsewhere, that gets an invitation from the WAC should have football. Period. So scratch Metro, Denver and UC CO Springs. Leaves only Mesa, CSU-Pueblo, or NOCO.

This comment is the reason I jumped in the fray in the first place. I don't agree with it.

Why not? Dixie and Tarleton aren"t sticking around long-term if the WAC can't get a football conference going. Why would they? Again the WAC currently has 3 football playing schools. Add 5 more football schools and you're set. Generally football schools are healthy and stable.
Otherwise, don't pursue football schools, let Tarleton and Dixie bolt, lose Chi State, and probably Seattle, let NMSU keep getting beat up as an independent. The black hole just gets bigger.
Tell you what, if Hurd sold Tarleton and Dixie a bag of goods about starting back football and really have no plans of following through with it, no other school in their right mind would join a super shady WAC with that kind of reputation.
06-02-2020 11:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
LUSportsFan Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 377
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 9
I Root For: Lamar Cardinals
Location:
Post: #64
RE: OT: Summit decides to not add Augustana
(06-02-2020 11:03 AM)NMSUPistolPete Wrote:  
(06-02-2020 07:57 AM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 09:00 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 07:12 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  
(06-01-2020 06:39 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  Because of athletic budgets, athletic facilities, athletic talent and the ability to easily attract coaching and playing talent. The BSC is a football conference that also plays basketball. They have no baseball or men's soccer. Two of the BSC schools play baseball in the WAC. A good portion of their athletic budgets are spent on football. The SLC is a bad basketball league. Over the past five seasons, the SLC has never ranked in the top 25 of conferences by RPI or Net ranking. The baseball is okay,

Great point. The WAC as an Olympic sports conference has more upside than the BSC or SLC. For Olympic sports, I would take NMSU, GCU and CBU over any of school in either the BSC or SLC. UVU with 41,728 students enrolled in 2019, has the largest enrollment of any school in Utah and plenty of room to grow their athletic fee. Seattle is academically better than any school in the SLC, has a healthy basketball budget of about $2.7 million and will move back into the Seattle Center Arena with a capacity of 8,901. I agree with PojoaquePosse that the WAC is an Olympic sports league first, but I think it can also be an FCS league, but it will take work.

How come?

Because of athletic budgets, athletic facilities, athletic talent and the ability to easily attract coaching and playing talent. The BSC is a football conference that also plays basketball. They have no baseball or men's soccer. Two of the BSC schools play baseball in the WAC. A good portion of their athletic budgets are spent on football. The SLC is a bad basketball league. Over the past five seasons, the SLC has never ranked in the top 25 of conferences by RPI or Net ranking. The baseball is okay. They have no men's soccer, because they focus on football. UIW and Houston Baptist have their men soccer teams in the WAC.

We all know how good NMSU is in basketball. They are also pretty good in baseball. NMSU, GCU, CBU and Seattle all have larger basketball budgets than any school in either the SLC or BSC. GCU and CBU have plenty of money, they are in great markets with a lot of talent and their facilities are terrific. These are private schools that don't have to answer to the state on what they spend on athletics. I actually think ACU and UIW could have some interest in the WAC down the road. The private schools do like to stick together.

Total NCAA bids by conference:
Big Sky 55
WAC 37
Southland 29

Last NCAA Tourney WIN:
Big Sky: Montana 2006
WAC: NMSU 1993 (Seriously)
Southland: SFA 2016

Actually these are the facts of the WAC

Total NCAA bids by conference:
WAC: 96 (97 if not for COVID19)
Big Sky: 55
Southland: 29

Last NCAA Tourney WIN:
WAC: Nevada 2007
Big Sky: Montana 2006
Southland: SFA 2016

It is disingenuous to use data that doesn't take into account that many of the current WAC teams were in D2 (or lower) 37 years ago. The WAC was created 58 years ago and has sent a NCAA participant every year. And, in some years multiple bids. Currently the WAC is a one-bid conference much like the Big Sky and the Southland how ever, the WAC's RPI (now NET) ranking has been for the most part better than both the Big Sky and Southland; even with the current group of schools. BTW, when NMSU last won a NCAA tournament game, they were in the Big West.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/con.../ncaa.html

Not sure about the sources for the above, but the Southland is a little short. Sorry for the formatting, but here's an extract from the SLC's 2019-20 media guide. It is broken out by current members and former members if one is comparing that number. If I added correctly, I came up with 24 appearances when just looking at current members. Former members had 18 appearances while in the SLC. The total should be 42. The Southland has never had a multi-bid in basketball as far as I can recall, but there should be at least one appearance for every year there has been an autobid.

Current members had 9 tournament wins while former members accounted for 4 tournament wins. Lamar, SFA, and Louisiana Tech had Sweet 16 appearances as SLC members.

All-Time Records App. W L Pct.
Lamar 6 5 6 .454
Northwestern State 3 2 3 .400
Stephen F. Austin 5 2 5 .286
McNeese 2 0 2 .000
Nicholls 2 0 2 .000
Sam Houston State 2 0 2 .000
Abilene Christian 1 0 1 .000
New Orleans 1 0 1 .000
Southeastern Louisiana 1 0 1 .000
Texas A&M-Corpus Christi 1 0 1 .000


Former Members App. W L Pct.
Louisiana Tech 3 3 3 .500
Texas-San Antonio 3 1 3 .250
Louisiana-Monroe 6 0 6 .000
Texas State 2 0 2 .000
North Texas 1 0 1 .000
Trinity 1 0 1 .000
Texas-Arlington 1 0 1 .000
Louisiana-Lafayette 1 0 1 .000

Back to the WAC --->
(This post was last modified: 06-02-2020 11:49 AM by LUSportsFan.)
06-02-2020 11:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NMSUPistolPete Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,671
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 38
I Root For: NMSU
Location: AZ
Post: #65
RE: OT: Summit decides to not add Augustana
(06-02-2020 08:28 AM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  I very much prefer Tarleton in the WAC. What a fun and exciting basketball league its shaping up to be. But to say the WAC is head and shoulders above the BSC and SLC is just bad facts.
For Tarleton, it all comes down to Football. If the WAC starts bringing in non-football playing schools, its off to the SLC we go.

To be honest, I think Hurd would have preferred continuing bringing in non-football playing D2 schools from large metro cities. However, once Metro State backed off entering the WAC and few others met that criteria, it forced Hurd to broaden the WAC invite criteria moving forward. The D2 schools most ready to make the jump to D1 are now football playing schools. With those invites, I think Hurd realized he was opening up a new can of worms; starting up football or at least finding a football home for the new members. As I have said, if Tarleton State and Dixie State want to start up a FCS conference associated to the WAC (or not), they will need to actively recruit likeminded D2 schools ready for the jump to D1 who also want an FCS landing spot. The Patriot League currently has 7 football members. So, it is possible the WAC could form a FCS conference with 5 more football schools. Finding those schools is the problem.
06-02-2020 11:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bobcat2013 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,065
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 64
I Root For: Texas State
Location:
Post: #66
RE: OT: Summit decides to not add Augustana
(06-02-2020 11:29 AM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  
(06-02-2020 09:38 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  
(05-31-2020 09:37 AM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  
(05-30-2020 10:16 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  
(05-30-2020 09:39 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  So WAC Headquarters is in Denver, Englewood to be exact, and there is not a single Colorado team in the WAC.
Oddity/Anomaly, whatever you wanna call it, it's just weird.
Who could possibly change that? NOCO? MSU-Denver? CSU-Pueblo? CO-Mesa? Maybe UC-CO Springs could take a quantum leap? All I know is somethings gotta give. Would certainly help Hurd & Co. as he goes out to other schools and tries to sell the WAC vision.

Colorado Mesa not interested in leap to Div. I
https://www.gjsentinel.com/sports/cmu/co...f6eda.html

Colorado Mesa is just fine as a Div. II school
https://www.gjsentinel.com/opinion/edito...f6eda.html

MSU Denver reaffirms commitment to NCAA Division II athletics
https://www.msudenver.edu/early-bird/201...vote.shtml

Moving forward, any school, in Colorado or elsewhere, that gets an invitation from the WAC should have football. Period. So scratch Metro, Denver and UC CO Springs. Leaves only Mesa, CSU-Pueblo, or NOCO.

This comment is the reason I jumped in the fray in the first place. I don't agree with it.

Why not? Dixie and Tarleton aren"t sticking around long-term if the WAC can't get a football conference going. Why would they? Again the WAC currently has 3 football playing schools. Add 5 more football schools and you're set. Generally football schools are healthy and stable.
Otherwise, don't pursue football schools, let Tarleton and Dixie bolt, lose Chi State, and probably Seattle, let NMSU keep getting beat up as an independent. The black hole just gets bigger.
Tell you what, if Hurd sold Tarleton and Dixie a bag of goods about starting back football and really have no plans of following through with it, no other school in their right mind would join a super shady WAC with that kind of reputation.

So regarding back to you saying this is a no lose situation and no harm can be done to Tarleton and Dixie. What if WAC football never happens, those schools bomb, and no other conference wants them? Heck they dont even have to bomb, there just might not be any openings. Conferences dont just add members out of goodwill and extra mouths to feed don't add much benefit.
06-02-2020 12:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Itinerant Texan Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 325
Joined: Apr 2020
Reputation: 6
I Root For: On Ye Tarleton!
Location: USA
Post: #67
RE: OT: Summit decides to not add Augustana
(06-02-2020 12:34 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  
(06-02-2020 11:29 AM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  
(06-02-2020 09:38 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  
(05-31-2020 09:37 AM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  
(05-30-2020 10:16 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  Colorado Mesa not interested in leap to Div. I
https://www.gjsentinel.com/sports/cmu/co...f6eda.html

Colorado Mesa is just fine as a Div. II school
https://www.gjsentinel.com/opinion/edito...f6eda.html

MSU Denver reaffirms commitment to NCAA Division II athletics
https://www.msudenver.edu/early-bird/201...vote.shtml

Moving forward, any school, in Colorado or elsewhere, that gets an invitation from the WAC should have football. Period. So scratch Metro, Denver and UC CO Springs. Leaves only Mesa, CSU-Pueblo, or NOCO.

This comment is the reason I jumped in the fray in the first place. I don't agree with it.

Why not? Dixie and Tarleton aren"t sticking around long-term if the WAC can't get a football conference going. Why would they? Again the WAC currently has 3 football playing schools. Add 5 more football schools and you're set. Generally football schools are healthy and stable.
Otherwise, don't pursue football schools, let Tarleton and Dixie bolt, lose Chi State, and probably Seattle, let NMSU keep getting beat up as an independent. The black hole just gets bigger.
Tell you what, if Hurd sold Tarleton and Dixie a bag of goods about starting back football and really have no plans of following through with it, no other school in their right mind would join a super shady WAC with that kind of reputation.

So regarding back to you saying this is a no lose situation and no harm can be done to Tarleton and Dixie. What if WAC football never happens, those schools bomb, and no other conference wants them? Heck they dont even have to bomb, there just might not be any openings. Conferences dont just add members out of goodwill and extra mouths to feed don't add much benefit.

BSC and SLC are at 13 members each. Do the math. Plus, most of the Louisiana schools in the SLC are treading water. SLC's equivalent to WAC's Chi State.
(This post was last modified: 06-02-2020 12:47 PM by Itinerant Texan.)
06-02-2020 12:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Trod0 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 255
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 12
I Root For: NMSU
Location:
Post: #68
RE: OT: Summit decides to not add Augustana
(06-02-2020 12:34 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  
(06-02-2020 11:29 AM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  
(06-02-2020 09:38 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  
(05-31-2020 09:37 AM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  
(05-30-2020 10:16 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  Colorado Mesa not interested in leap to Div. I
https://www.gjsentinel.com/sports/cmu/co...f6eda.html

Colorado Mesa is just fine as a Div. II school
https://www.gjsentinel.com/opinion/edito...f6eda.html

MSU Denver reaffirms commitment to NCAA Division II athletics
https://www.msudenver.edu/early-bird/201...vote.shtml

Moving forward, any school, in Colorado or elsewhere, that gets an invitation from the WAC should have football. Period. So scratch Metro, Denver and UC CO Springs. Leaves only Mesa, CSU-Pueblo, or NOCO.

This comment is the reason I jumped in the fray in the first place. I don't agree with it.

Why not? Dixie and Tarleton aren"t sticking around long-term if the WAC can't get a football conference going. Why would they? Again the WAC currently has 3 football playing schools. Add 5 more football schools and you're set. Generally football schools are healthy and stable.
Otherwise, don't pursue football schools, let Tarleton and Dixie bolt, lose Chi State, and probably Seattle, let NMSU keep getting beat up as an independent. The black hole just gets bigger.
Tell you what, if Hurd sold Tarleton and Dixie a bag of goods about starting back football and really have no plans of following through with it, no other school in their right mind would join a super shady WAC with that kind of reputation.

So regarding back to you saying this is a no lose situation and no harm can be done to Tarleton and Dixie. What if WAC football never happens, those schools bomb, and no other conference wants them? Heck they dont even have to bomb, there just might not be any openings. Conferences dont just add members out of goodwill and extra mouths to feed don't add much benefit.

Tarleton might have bitten off more than they can chew by moving up. They’ve put in all their marbles in on basketball hoping they can get their name out there. I’m not sure what changes they made for football moving up. Their other Olympic sports will get wrecked for a few years. I don’t see another conference inviting them unless they dominate the WAC in basketball.
06-02-2020 12:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
LUSportsFan Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 377
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 9
I Root For: Lamar Cardinals
Location:
Post: #69
RE: OT: Summit decides to not add Augustana
(06-02-2020 12:44 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  
(06-02-2020 12:34 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  
(06-02-2020 11:29 AM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  
(06-02-2020 09:38 AM)PojoaquePosse Wrote:  
(05-31-2020 09:37 AM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  Moving forward, any school, in Colorado or elsewhere, that gets an invitation from the WAC should have football. Period. So scratch Metro, Denver and UC CO Springs. Leaves only Mesa, CSU-Pueblo, or NOCO.

This comment is the reason I jumped in the fray in the first place. I don't agree with it.

Why not? Dixie and Tarleton aren"t sticking around long-term if the WAC can't get a football conference going. Why would they? Again the WAC currently has 3 football playing schools. Add 5 more football schools and you're set. Generally football schools are healthy and stable.
Otherwise, don't pursue football schools, let Tarleton and Dixie bolt, lose Chi State, and probably Seattle, let NMSU keep getting beat up as an independent. The black hole just gets bigger.
Tell you what, if Hurd sold Tarleton and Dixie a bag of goods about starting back football and really have no plans of following through with it, no other school in their right mind would join a super shady WAC with that kind of reputation.

So regarding back to you saying this is a no lose situation and no harm can be done to Tarleton and Dixie. What if WAC football never happens, those schools bomb, and no other conference wants them? Heck they dont even have to bomb, there just might not be any openings. Conferences dont just add members out of goodwill and extra mouths to feed don't add much benefit.

BSC and SLC are at 13 members each. Do the math. Plus, most of the Louisiana schools in the SLC are treading water. SLC's equivalent to WAC's Chi State.

Probably what you are getting at, but I could see either adding a member to set up for divisional play. Currently, the SLC is at 11 for football and 13 for all members. The BSC is at 13 for both. The SLC had expanded to 11 and 14 before ORU moved back to The Summit. The SLC did have divisions for a few years in the non-football sports.
(This post was last modified: 06-02-2020 01:04 PM by LUSportsFan.)
06-02-2020 01:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NMSUPistolPete Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,671
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 38
I Root For: NMSU
Location: AZ
Post: #70
RE: OT: Summit decides to not add Augustana
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.
(This post was last modified: 06-02-2020 01:38 PM by NMSUPistolPete.)
06-02-2020 01:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
LUSportsFan Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 377
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 9
I Root For: Lamar Cardinals
Location:
Post: #71
RE: OT: Summit decides to not add Augustana
(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
(This post was last modified: 06-02-2020 02:43 PM by LUSportsFan.)
06-02-2020 02:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,003
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 80
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #72
RE: OT: Summit decides to not add Augustana
(06-02-2020 07:57 AM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  Total NCAA bids by conference:
Big Sky 55
WAC 37
Southland 29

Last NCAA Tourney WIN:
Big Sky: Montana 2006
WAC: NMSU 1993 (Seriously)
Southland: SFA 2016

You are not getting it or just don't want to get it. When I said that for "Olympic Sports" I would take NMSU, GCU and CBU over any of the schools BSC schools and SLC schools, I was not talking about their history. I was talking about their upside. CBU is not eligible for an NCAA Tournament and GCU became eligible in 2017-2018. There is no history for these schools. There is no school in either conference that compares to GCU:

GCU 2018-2019
$5.3 million basketball budget.
Basketball Attendance: 7,170 per game (capacity 7,000)
11th largest TV Market in the Nation
Net Ranking: 96

GCU hosted the fourth-largest soccer crowd of the 2018 NCAA Division I men's soccer season when it opened the season by defeating Wisconsin 2–1 in front of 6,648 fans. The stadium has a capacity of 6,000. The 2018 GCU team won the WAC Men's Soccer Championship and went to the NCAA Tournament. GCU had two players drafted in the 3rd round of the MLS draft in 2018.

A record baseball attendance of 4,562 was set on February 15, 2019 during a 9–1 win over Wichita State. The Stadium has a capacity of 4,000 fans. GCU won the regular season WAC baseball championship in 2018, their third in four years. They had five players selected in the 2019 MLB draft and four in the 2018 MLB draft.

In 2018-2019, the WAC had three schools ranked in the top 100 in basketball (NMSU at 40, UVU at 90, GCU at 96) Montana was the highest ranked at 124 in the BSC and ACU was highest ranked in the SLC at 154. Conference ranking was the WAC at 16, BSC at 26 and the SLC at 29 out of 32 D1 conferences. Montana had nine of the 15 players on their basketball roster from California. Three were from the Seattle area and three from Montana. CBU is in the 2nd largest market in the country. They have very good talent in their neighborhood. Montana has to travel to California to find it. Can you see the advantage that a school like CBU would have over Montana?
06-02-2020 02:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Itinerant Texan Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 325
Joined: Apr 2020
Reputation: 6
I Root For: On Ye Tarleton!
Location: USA
Post: #73
RE: OT: Summit decides to not add Augustana
(06-02-2020 02:40 PM)LUSportsFan Wrote:  
(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

Those are D2 vs D1 expenses. Apples vs. Oranges. I get what you're saying, but Tarleton is fully aware its D1 budget will have to significantly increase, across the board. So again, they introduced a new athletic fee that will double its budget in the near term, and incrementally increase with enrollment.
Back when Tarleton was hell bent on the SLC over the WAC (2018), they did a feasability study of both conferences' financials. A very thorough study. Anything you evervwanted to know about your WAC/SLC schools 2016/2017 athletic budget can be found here:
http://www.collegiateconsulting.com/news...eton-state
Compared with current expense data, you see Tarleton is already pushing the needle in the right direction while still at the D2 level.
(This post was last modified: 06-02-2020 03:14 PM by Itinerant Texan.)
06-02-2020 02:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Itinerant Texan Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 325
Joined: Apr 2020
Reputation: 6
I Root For: On Ye Tarleton!
Location: USA
Post: #74
RE: OT: Summit decides to not add Augustana
(06-02-2020 02:46 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  
(06-02-2020 07:57 AM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  Total NCAA bids by conference:
Big Sky 55
WAC 37
Southland 29

Last NCAA Tourney WIN:
Big Sky: Montana 2006
WAC: NMSU 1993 (Seriously)
Southland: SFA 2016

You are not getting it or just don't want to get it. When I said that for "Olympic Sports" I would take NMSU, GCU and CBU over any of the schools BSC schools and SLC schools, I was not talking about their history. I was talking about their upside. CBU is not eligible for an NCAA Tournament and GCU became eligible in 2017-2018. There is no history for these schools. There is no school in either conference that compares to GCU:

GCU 2018-2019
$5.3 million basketball budget.
Basketball Attendance: 7,170 per game (capacity 7,000)
11th largest TV Market in the Nation
Net Ranking: 96

GCU hosted the fourth-largest soccer crowd of the 2018 NCAA Division I men's soccer season when it opened the season by defeating Wisconsin 2–1 in front of 6,648 fans. The stadium has a capacity of 6,000. The 2018 GCU team won the WAC Men's Soccer Championship and went to the NCAA Tournament. GCU had two players drafted in the 3rd round of the MLS draft in 2018.

A record baseball attendance of 4,562 was set on February 15, 2019 during a 9–1 win over Wichita State. The Stadium has a capacity of 4,000 fans. GCU won the regular season WAC baseball championship in 2018, their third in four years. They had five players selected in the 2019 MLB draft and four in the 2018 MLB draft.

In 2018-2019, the WAC had three schools ranked in the top 100 in basketball (NMSU at 40, UVU at 90, GCU at 96) Montana was the highest ranked at 124 in the BSC and ACU was highest ranked in the SLC at 154. Conference ranking was the WAC at 16, BSC at 26 and the SLC at 29 out of 32 D1 conferences. Montana had nine of the 15 players on their basketball roster from California. Three were from the Seattle area and three from Montana. CBU is in the 2nd largest market in the country. They have very good talent in their neighborhood. Montana has to travel to California to find it. Can you see the advantage that a school like CBU would have over Montana?

Yep, that's what operating as a for-profit for two decades will do for you.
06-02-2020 03:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Itinerant Texan Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 325
Joined: Apr 2020
Reputation: 6
I Root For: On Ye Tarleton!
Location: USA
Post: #75
RE: OT: Summit decides to not add Augustana
(06-02-2020 02:40 PM)LUSportsFan Wrote:  
(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

What I love most about that database is SFA spent $4million on football, Tarleton spent less than half of that and still walked into their place and thumped 'em.
06-02-2020 03:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
LUSportsFan Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 377
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 9
I Root For: Lamar Cardinals
Location:
Post: #76
RE: OT: Summit decides to not add Augustana
(06-02-2020 02:52 PM)Itinerant Texan Wrote:  
(06-02-2020 02:40 PM)LUSportsFan Wrote:  ...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

Those are D2 vs D1 expenses. Apples vs. Oranges. I get what you're saying, but Tarleton is fully aware its D1 budget will have to significantly increase, across the board. So again, they introduced a new athletic fee that will double its budget in the near term, and incrementally increase with enrollment.
Back when Tarleton was hell bent on the SLC over the WAC (2018), they did a feasability study of both conferences' financials. A very thorough study. Anything you evervwanted to know about your WAC/SLC schools 2016/2017 athletic budget can be found here:
http://www.collegiateconsulting.com/news...eton-state
Compared with current expense data, you see Tarleton is already pushing the needle in the right direction while still at the D2 level.

I agree the comparison is looking at Apples and Oranges for several reasons including competing in separate divisions, a different sports mix, even possible differences in cost of living for different areas. I should have noted that caveat. I wish there was a little more granularity in the summary report for sports other than basketball and football. That would facilitate a better approach to a pro forma look. The data is available in a downloadable file, but there are so many columns that it is a pain to clean up to the point that it is not worth the effort. II just thought the comparison might be a quick "back of the envelope" look at those same D1 vs D2 expenses. I fully expect both Tarleton State and Dixie State know what they are doing and are moving up with their "eyes wide open".

Thanks for the link to the feasiblility study. I read it close to the day that it was released. There is some very good information in the report.
(This post was last modified: 06-03-2020 11:11 AM by LUSportsFan.)
06-02-2020 06:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.