(05-17-2022 08:18 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 05:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 01:54 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 01:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 01:02 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The D2 model is dying. There is not enough money for the schools to have sports. His AD sees the light that staying in D2 is not going to work. I could see Angelo State and UTPB moving up to D1 and the 2 New Mexico schools joining the RMAC. That would leave West Texas A&M on an island. Commerce said the exact same thing as this President did, but they did moved up.

I don't think there is enough money at any level save for the P5 for a school to have sports.

Below the P5 level, all sports are largely paid for by soaking the students and the academic "side" for fees and subsidies. That's by far the biggest source of athletic department "revenue".

And the biggest subsidies are at the G5 level, where they are getting CFP money that FCS and below don't get.

So really, IMO none of the models actually work in the sense of being self-sustaining, with FCS and G5 working even worse than D2.

In the end, the ability to operate at any of those levels (D2, FCS, D1 without football, G5) purely comes down to a school's ability, and willingness, to sock its academic "side" with fees and subsidies. The revenue gained from being at the level is always woefully inadequate.

D2 media rights is very slim. The issue is that they need tv for getting noticed. This President is still stuck in the dark ages thinking the Alston case does not affect D2, D3, NAIA and all that. It does. All athletes no matter from P5 all the way down to the NJCAA will get the NIL. The next step for the athletes will sue the NCAA for them to get paid as employees and get unionized. West Texas A&M is not immune from this.

I agree that court rulings apply to D2 as much as D1, but about TV, D2 has never been on TV, so I'm not sure why it would be dying over this now as opposed to any other time in the past.

To me, none of the business models for intercollegiate athletics is operationally sound, save for P5 athletics. All other divisions, from G5 down, are operationally unsound and require huge subsidies in order to survive.

So if you are not P5, it is a "pick your poison" situation, IMO, with D2 being a less lethal one than G5 or FCS.

Yes, D2 did have a tv contract for National College Sports Network as CSTV. In 2008, it was renamed to CBS Sports Network. The channel showed 1AA, D2 and D3 football games from 1982 until 2008. Then they were dropped to 3 or 4 games a year. West Texas A&M, Commerce, Midwestern State, Kingsville and Angelo State were on there, and then UCO, Arkansas Tech, Central Arkansas, and Gulf South Conference games were featured along with some RMAC, MIAA and the Minnesota schools along with the Michigan schools. The money was lost when CBS Sports dropped D2 games from tv. Now, there is less money, and the the key word from the ADs of Tarleton State and West Texas A&M is the D2 NCAA leadership is not doing a good job to try and get money flow into D2 including tv rights and all that.

That's an interesting history lesson on D2 athletics on TV.

But heck, looking things up, it seems that there are TV deals in place right now, or at least more recently than 2008, for D2 athletics. The SIAC just signed a deal with ESPN:

https://thesiac.com/news/2021/6/17/gener...nsion.aspx

And though it didn't last long, there's this from 2016:

https://www.ncaa.org/news/2016/1/5/ncaa-...twork.aspx

I guess when I said D2 "has never been on TV", I meant that in a general sense, not literally. A better way to put it is that IMO, D2 has never had any kind of substantial presence on TV, whether now or in the past D2 on TV has always been very low visibility, so IMO not really a motivation to be in D2, whether today or in 1980.

(05-17-2022 08:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 05:51 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Obviously the leadership at West Texas A&M does not view investing in D1 athletics as essential to a marketing strategy that helps build branding, enrollment and long-term financial stability.

Utah Tech on the other hand is going all-in on D1 athletics. In fact their newly-unveiled "UT" logo combines the number "1" into the letter "U".



According to Utah Tech president Richard Williams, the number "1" in the logo is meant to convey both the university's mission to be "at the forefront of innovation and research" as well as its commitment to compete at the D1 level. This is clearly part of a long-term master plan to elevate the former Dixie State University, which began its four-year transition from D2 to D1 in 2020, to a nationally-recognized institution.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/20...l-soon-be/

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2022/5/16/2...s-revealed

Matt, you may want to interview Williams to learn how his outlook on the role of athletics in promoting a university's reputation and growth compares and contrasts with what Wendler told you. You may also want to look at whether their respective attitudes toward athletics are perhaps correlated with the population growth rates and long-term outlooks of the local markets they serve, with St. George experiencing an influx of new people and wealth while Amarillo is relatively stable. As a subscriber to your newsletter I think that would be a pretty interesting read.

About the bolded, FWIW, I have always thought that a move to D1, at least in recent times, was an effect of growth, not a cause. A school grows to a certain point with lower-level athletics, and at that point, the people who run the school, or the students, or whoever, decide that "we need an athletic program that matches who we are now, a growing, big time school". The school has developed a sense of itself that is bigger-time than where its athletics are at, and so feels it needs an athletics program that matches that institutional identity.

That's what happened at USF and UCF - both had enrollment well over 20,000 and growing fast when they made the decision to have D1 football. It was an effect of their bursting growth, not a cause of it.

I suspect that is true in most places. Dixie State was growing for the five years before it became D1 in 2021.

This of course dovetails with my belief that, save for some obvious exceptions, D1 athletics, especially football doesn't contribute much to a university's reputation and branding and growth.

IMO, there are exceptions to every rule. To me, Idaho was one such exception. Both Idaho and Boise were longtime rivals in FCS. When Boise announced the move to FBS, I believe that Idaho felt pressured to do so as well. Idaho did gain a notoriety in FBS, although not a very good one. Boise wanted to.put as much distance as it could from Idaho, but Idaho wanted to keep up. For whatever reason (although I know that you will instantly claim it was because Idaho *didn't* have the $$'s, although I have seen things to the contrary), Idaho decided to move back down to the Big Sky.

Btw quo, if you are very concerned about not being able to pay enough for your child's college education, why not encourage him/her to go the online route?? It is very cost friendly, unless you go through Liberty. Then, expect to get taken to the cleaners, because I have looked at taking courses there myself, and couldn't get over the price tag.

(05-17-2022 09:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 08:18 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 05:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 01:54 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-16-2022 01:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I don't think there is enough money at any level save for the P5 for a school to have sports.

Below the P5 level, all sports are largely paid for by soaking the students and the academic "side" for fees and subsidies. That's by far the biggest source of athletic department "revenue".

And the biggest subsidies are at the G5 level, where they are getting CFP money that FCS and below don't get.

So really, IMO none of the models actually work in the sense of being self-sustaining, with FCS and G5 working even worse than D2.

In the end, the ability to operate at any of those levels (D2, FCS, D1 without football, G5) purely comes down to a school's ability, and willingness, to sock its academic "side" with fees and subsidies. The revenue gained from being at the level is always woefully inadequate.

D2 media rights is very slim. The issue is that they need tv for getting noticed. This President is still stuck in the dark ages thinking the Alston case does not affect D2, D3, NAIA and all that. It does. All athletes no matter from P5 all the way down to the NJCAA will get the NIL. The next step for the athletes will sue the NCAA for them to get paid as employees and get unionized. West Texas A&M is not immune from this.

I agree that court rulings apply to D2 as much as D1, but about TV, D2 has never been on TV, so I'm not sure why it would be dying over this now as opposed to any other time in the past.

To me, none of the business models for intercollegiate athletics is operationally sound, save for P5 athletics. All other divisions, from G5 down, are operationally unsound and require huge subsidies in order to survive.

So if you are not P5, it is a "pick your poison" situation, IMO, with D2 being a less lethal one than G5 or FCS.

Yes, D2 did have a tv contract for National College Sports Network as CSTV. In 2008, it was renamed to CBS Sports Network. The channel showed 1AA, D2 and D3 football games from 1982 until 2008. Then they were dropped to 3 or 4 games a year. West Texas A&M, Commerce, Midwestern State, Kingsville and Angelo State were on there, and then UCO, Arkansas Tech, Central Arkansas, and Gulf South Conference games were featured along with some RMAC, MIAA and the Minnesota schools along with the Michigan schools. The money was lost when CBS Sports dropped D2 games from tv. Now, there is less money, and the the key word from the ADs of Tarleton State and West Texas A&M is the D2 NCAA leadership is not doing a good job to try and get money flow into D2 including tv rights and all that.

That's an interesting history lesson on D2 athletics on TV.

But heck, looking things up, it seems that there are TV deals in place right now, or at least more recently than 2008, for D2 athletics. The SIAC just signed a deal with ESPN:

https://thesiac.com/news/2021/6/17/gener...nsion.aspx

And though it didn't last long, there's this from 2016:

https://www.ncaa.org/news/2016/1/5/ncaa-...twork.aspx

I guess when I said D2 "has never been on TV", I meant that in a general sense, not literally. A better way to put it is that IMO, D2 has never had any kind of substantial presence on TV, whether now or in the past D2 on TV has always been very low visibility, so IMO not really a motivation to be in D2, whether today or in 1980.

sounds like their conference commissioners aren't doing their job. Get 6 to 10 of the commissioners together and approach a network.

(05-17-2022 10:10 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 08:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 05:51 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Obviously the leadership at West Texas A&M does not view investing in D1 athletics as essential to a marketing strategy that helps build branding, enrollment and long-term financial stability.

Utah Tech on the other hand is going all-in on D1 athletics. In fact their newly-unveiled "UT" logo combines the number "1" into the letter "U".



According to Utah Tech president Richard Williams, the number "1" in the logo is meant to convey both the university's mission to be "at the forefront of innovation and research" as well as its commitment to compete at the D1 level. This is clearly part of a long-term master plan to elevate the former Dixie State University, which began its four-year transition from D2 to D1 in 2020, to a nationally-recognized institution.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/20...l-soon-be/

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2022/5/16/2...s-revealed

Matt, you may want to interview Williams to learn how his outlook on the role of athletics in promoting a university's reputation and growth compares and contrasts with what Wendler told you. You may also want to look at whether their respective attitudes toward athletics are perhaps correlated with the population growth rates and long-term outlooks of the local markets they serve, with St. George experiencing an influx of new people and wealth while Amarillo is relatively stable. As a subscriber to your newsletter I think that would be a pretty interesting read.

About the bolded, FWIW, I have always thought that a move to D1, at least in recent times, was an effect of growth, not a cause. A school grows to a certain point with lower-level athletics, and at that point, the people who run the school, or the students, or whoever, decide that "we need an athletic program that matches who we are now, a growing, big time school". The school has developed a sense of itself that is bigger-time than where its athletics are at, and so feels it needs an athletics program that matches that institutional identity.

That's what happened at USF and UCF - both had enrollment well over 20,000 and growing fast when they made the decision to have D1 football. It was an effect of their bursting growth, not a cause of it.

I suspect that is true in most places. Dixie State was growing for the five years before it became D1 in 2021.

This of course dovetails with my belief that, save for some obvious exceptions, D1 athletics, especially football doesn't contribute much to a university's reputation and branding and growth.

IMO, there are exceptions to every rule. To me, Idaho was one such exception. Both Idaho and Boise were longtime rivals in FCS. When Boise announced the move to FBS, I believe that Idaho felt pressured to do so as well. Idaho did gain a notoriety in FBS, although not a very good one. Boise wanted to.put as much distance as it could from Idaho, but Idaho wanted to keep up. For whatever reason (although I know that you will instantly claim it was because Idaho *didn't* have the $$'s, although I have seen things to the contrary), Idaho decided to move back down to the Big Sky.

Btw quo, if you are very concerned about not being able to pay enough for your child's college education, why not encourage him/her to go the online route?? It is very cost friendly, unless you go through Liberty. Then, expect to get taken to the cleaners, because I have looked at taking courses there myself, and couldn't get over the price tag.

It would not surprise me at all if there is a "monkey see, monkey do" aspect to some of these moves as well. IMO, that actually fits with my point. E.g., a school has a sense of identity that involves benchmarking against other similar schools, particularly rivals, etc. The rival does something like go D1, and the other school is threatened by that, feels it is being "left behind" or whatever, so springs in to action to do it too.

Lots of irrationality in some of these moves, as evidence by the money that is lost, IMHO.

When entities keep doing the same economically irrational thing, like spending money on G5 and below athletics, usually there is an answer in individual or social psychology.

(05-17-2022 08:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 05:51 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Obviously the leadership at West Texas A&M does not view investing in D1 athletics as essential to a marketing strategy that helps build branding, enrollment and long-term financial stability.

Utah Tech on the other hand is going all-in on D1 athletics. In fact their newly-unveiled "UT" logo combines the number "1" into the letter "U".



According to Utah Tech president Richard Williams, the number "1" in the logo is meant to convey both the university's mission to be "at the forefront of innovation and research" as well as its commitment to compete at the D1 level. This is clearly part of a long-term master plan to elevate the former Dixie State University, which began its four-year transition from D2 to D1 in 2020, to a nationally-recognized institution.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/20...l-soon-be/

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2022/5/16/2...s-revealed

Matt, you may want to interview Williams to learn how his outlook on the role of athletics in promoting a university's reputation and growth compares and contrasts with what Wendler told you. You may also want to look at whether their respective attitudes toward athletics are perhaps correlated with the population growth rates and long-term outlooks of the local markets they serve, with St. George experiencing an influx of new people and wealth while Amarillo is relatively stable. As a subscriber to your newsletter I think that would be a pretty interesting read.

About the bolded, FWIW, I have always thought that a move to D1, at least in recent times, was an effect of growth, not a cause. A school grows to a certain point with lower-level athletics, and at that point, the people who run the school, or the students, or whoever, decide that "we need an athletic program that matches who we are now, a growing, big time school". The school has developed a sense of itself that is bigger-time than where its athletics are at, and so feels it needs an athletics program that matches that institutional identity.

That's what happened at USF and UCF - both had enrollment well over 20,000 and growing fast when they made the decision to have D1 football. It was an effect of their bursting growth, not a cause of it.

I suspect that is true in most places. Dixie State was growing for the five years before it became D1 in 2021.

This of course dovetails with my belief that, save for some obvious exceptions, D1 athletics, especially football doesn't contribute much to a university's reputation and branding and growth.

West Texas was Division I for many years in the MVC. But they haven't really grown and other than Lubbock, the Texas panhandle hasn't really grown. They may have fit Division I well in the 70s.

(05-17-2022 10:26 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 08:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 05:51 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Obviously the leadership at West Texas A&M does not view investing in D1 athletics as essential to a marketing strategy that helps build branding, enrollment and long-term financial stability.

Utah Tech on the other hand is going all-in on D1 athletics. In fact their newly-unveiled "UT" logo combines the number "1" into the letter "U".



According to Utah Tech president Richard Williams, the number "1" in the logo is meant to convey both the university's mission to be "at the forefront of innovation and research" as well as its commitment to compete at the D1 level. This is clearly part of a long-term master plan to elevate the former Dixie State University, which began its four-year transition from D2 to D1 in 2020, to a nationally-recognized institution.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/20...l-soon-be/

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2022/5/16/2...s-revealed

Matt, you may want to interview Williams to learn how his outlook on the role of athletics in promoting a university's reputation and growth compares and contrasts with what Wendler told you. You may also want to look at whether their respective attitudes toward athletics are perhaps correlated with the population growth rates and long-term outlooks of the local markets they serve, with St. George experiencing an influx of new people and wealth while Amarillo is relatively stable. As a subscriber to your newsletter I think that would be a pretty interesting read.

About the bolded, FWIW, I have always thought that a move to D1, at least in recent times, was an effect of growth, not a cause. A school grows to a certain point with lower-level athletics, and at that point, the people who run the school, or the students, or whoever, decide that "we need an athletic program that matches who we are now, a growing, big time school". The school has developed a sense of itself that is bigger-time than where its athletics are at, and so feels it needs an athletics program that matches that institutional identity.

That's what happened at USF and UCF - both had enrollment well over 20,000 and growing fast when they made the decision to have D1 football. It was an effect of their bursting growth, not a cause of it.

I suspect that is true in most places. Dixie State was growing for the five years before it became D1 in 2021.

This of course dovetails with my belief that, save for some obvious exceptions, D1 athletics, especially football doesn't contribute much to a university's reputation and branding and growth.

West Texas was Division I for many years in the MVC. But they haven't really grown and other than Lubbock, the Texas panhandle hasn't really grown. They may have fit Division I well in the 70s.

That's another good point. IIRC, about 30 years ago, supreme court justice Antonin Scalia talked about something in government he called the "one-way ratchet" effect. It referred to how once institutions make a move in a certain direction, it can be very difficult to move back towards the previous state of affairs. Interests get entrenched, there is inertia, etc. In this case, once a school moves to D1, then it develops pride in that such that even if economically the move didn't pay off as anticipated, and logically the thing to do is move "back down" to a lower division, the psychological barriers to doing so can be prohibitive.

(05-17-2022 05:51 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Utah Tech on the other hand is going all-in on D1 athletics. In fact their newly-unveiled "UT" logo combines the number "1" into the letter "U".

More precisely, Utah Tech is going all-in on rebranding their university, and D-I athletics is one component of the rebrand.

Also -- and relevant to the population level that might financially support D-I football and basketball -- while the St. George area is growing at a fast percentage, in overall population it is still really small compared to the larger population centers in its region.

Washington County population, includes St. George "metro area": 191,226 (2020 census).

Salt Lake City "metro area" population: 1.26 million (2020 census).

Clark County (NV) population, includes Las Vegas "metro area": 2.23 million (2020 census). Included because St. George is much closer to Las Vegas than it is to Salt Lake City.

(05-17-2022 08:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 05:51 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Obviously the leadership at West Texas A&M does not view investing in D1 athletics as essential to a marketing strategy that helps build branding, enrollment and long-term financial stability.

Utah Tech on the other hand is going all-in on D1 athletics. In fact their newly-unveiled "UT" logo combines the number "1" into the letter "U".



According to Utah Tech president Richard Williams, the number "1" in the logo is meant to convey both the university's mission to be "at the forefront of innovation and research" as well as its commitment to compete at the D1 level. This is clearly part of a long-term master plan to elevate the former Dixie State University, which began its four-year transition from D2 to D1 in 2020, to a nationally-recognized institution.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/20...l-soon-be/

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2022/5/16/2...s-revealed

Matt, you may want to interview Williams to learn how his outlook on the role of athletics in promoting a university's reputation and growth compares and contrasts with what Wendler told you. You may also want to look at whether their respective attitudes toward athletics are perhaps correlated with the population growth rates and long-term outlooks of the local markets they serve, with St. George experiencing an influx of new people and wealth while Amarillo is relatively stable. As a subscriber to your newsletter I think that would be a pretty interesting read.

About the bolded, FWIW, I have always thought that a move to D1, at least in recent times, was an effect of growth, not a cause. A school grows to a certain point with lower-level athletics, and at that point, the people who run the school, or the students, or whoever, decide that "we need an athletic program that matches who we are now, a growing, big time school". The school has developed a sense of itself that is bigger-time than where its athletics are at, and so feels it needs an athletics program that matches that institutional identity.

That's what happened at USF and UCF - both had enrollment well over 20,000 and growing fast when they made the decision to have D1 football. It was an effect of their bursting growth, not a cause of it.

I suspect that is true in most places. Dixie State was growing for the five years before it became D1 in 2021.

This of course dovetails with my belief that, save for some obvious exceptions, D1 athletics, especially football doesn't contribute much to a university's reputation and branding and growth.

My own thought about this is similar, and pretty simplistic.

In markets that experience rapid growth over an extended period, community leaders — including university presidents — become less risk averse. They develop a willingness to spend on initiatives with a speculative return because there’s ample money to go around and the benefits of their good choices outweigh the consequences of an occasional bad choice. So long as the growth continues they’re likely to be deemed visionary entrepreneurs and possibly even credited with helping to keep the boom rolling with their investments. Utah Tech’s administrators can afford to be fired up about D1 because they’re in that position right now (although, as poster Billings has wisely pointed out on the MWC board, that will only be true “until St. George runs out of water”).

In markets where growth is stymied or negative, community leaders are more focused on risk avoidance and cost control. Revenue is always in danger of going down and so prudent resource management is a necessity. Investments must have a proven return or they won’t be supported, because the negative consequences of bad choices are magnified. Perhaps West Texas A&M’s administrators are averse to the D1 option in part because they’re operating in that kind of environment.

(05-17-2022 05:51 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Matt, you may want to interview Williams to learn how his outlook on the role of athletics in promoting a university's reputation and growth compares and contrasts with what Wendler told you. You may also want to look at whether their respective attitudes toward athletics are perhaps correlated with the population growth rates and long-term outlooks of the local markets they serve, with St. George experiencing an influx of new people and wealth while Amarillo is relatively stable. As a subscriber to your newsletter I think that would be a pretty interesting read.

I haven't had a chance to to talk to Utah Tech's president, but I have talked with their old AD about this a bit.

For Utah Tech, I think it is fair to talk about their athletic program in the context of trying to rebrand the entire *school*. UTU wants to recruit students not just in Utah, but in Vegas, Arizona, Texas, and California. It wants to be a low-cost option for students seeking a polytechnic university experience, and that mission requires different branding. Hence, the name change...it didn't matter that your name made zero sense outside of Washington Country, Utah....when you were a junior college that mostly only served students near Washington County.

As I understand it, their athletic growth and goals are tied to the school's major growth ambitions, but they're only a part of those goals.

(05-17-2022 10:23 AM)bullet Wrote:  That's an interesting history lesson on D2 athletics on TV.

But heck, looking things up, it seems that there are TV deals in place right now, or at least more recently than 2008, for D2 athletics. The SIAC just signed a deal with ESPN:

https://thesiac.com/news/2021/6/17/gener...nsion.aspx

And though it didn't last long, there's this from 2016:

https://www.ncaa.org/news/2016/1/5/ncaa-...twork.aspx

I guess when I said D2 "has never been on TV", I meant that in a general sense, not literally. A better way to put it is that IMO, D2 has never had any kind of substantial presence on TV, whether now or in the past D2 on TV has always been very low visibility, so IMO not really a motivation to be in D2, whether today or in 1980.

Quote:sounds like their conference commissioners aren't doing their job. Get 6 to 10 of the commissioners together and approach a network.

I think some D-II football is still on TV, or at least major streaming services. The RMAC, I'm pretty sure, has had games on ESPN+, the postseason finals are on ESPN+, and a few local programs do linear deals, even now. I think you can stream MOST D-II football games, even if you have to watch with the school.

But nobody has earned any meaningful TV revenue from this since the deregulation of college sports broadcasts...and they didn't when CBS Sports, or American Sports Network, or whoever, picked up the games.

If any D-II league wanted a deal with FloSports, they could get one in a month. But they shouldn't expect meaningful revenue. Just like they wouldn't expect meaningful TV revenue from the WAC or Southland or NEC.

That's not why you sponsor D-II (or FCS) sports. You can't examine how "healthy" it is by just the revenues directly generated from tickets, sponsorships or media rights deals. It isn't how anybody, including West Texas, defines success.

Thanks for responding Matt.

St. George is probably the most livable small city in the Nevada/Arizona/Southern Utah desert region. A number of parks and even a couple lakes. It's a place I might consider retiring to (probably not; too small for me and although a lot of beach, not enough ocean).

Ceder City is less than two hours away on an 80mph freeway (yup, 80mph speed limit), but isn't much to look at. Utah Tech definitely has the better locale than Southern Utah. I totally get why they'd want to be in the same conference.

(05-18-2022 12:27 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  St. George is probably the most livable small city in the Nevada/Arizona/Southern Utah desert region. A number of parks and even a couple lakes. It's a place I might consider retiring to (probably not; too small for me and although a lot of beach, not enough ocean).

Ceder City is less than two hours away on an 80mph freeway (yup, 80mph speed limit), but isn't much to look at. Utah Tech definitely has the better locale than Southern Utah. I totally get why they'd want to be in the same conference.

St George is about 45 minutes from Cedar City.

The closest notable town from what I remember driving through St George is Mesquite, NV. If you’re going to Phoenix from St George, you oddly go Arizona -> Vegas -> Arizona. There are also some dangerous windy roads in NW Arizona where tipped over trucks are not uncommon.

(05-18-2022 12:39 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(05-18-2022 12:27 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  St. George is probably the most livable small city in the Nevada/Arizona/Southern Utah desert region. A number of parks and even a couple lakes. It's a place I might consider retiring to (probably not; too small for me and although a lot of beach, not enough ocean).

Ceder City is less than two hours away on an 80mph freeway (yup, 80mph speed limit), but isn't much to look at. Utah Tech definitely has the better locale than Southern Utah. I totally get why they'd want to be in the same conference.

St George is about 45 minutes from Cedar City.

The closest notable town from what I remember driving through St George is Mesquite, NV. If you’re going to Phoenix from St George, you oddly go Arizona -> Vegas -> Arizona. There are also some dangerous windy roads in NW Arizona where tipped over trucks are not uncommon.

The classic PS3/Xbox 360 video game Fallout: New Vegas had a dlc called Honest Hearts that had some references to St. George, Utah if I recall, which would make sense, considering how far it is from St. George to Las Vegas and more importantly, from Zion National Park to St. George, because the dlc was supposed to take place in Zion National Park. I loved that dlc, and took my time going through it, unlike a lot of the other dlcs. All of the Fallout games are supposed to be based in the cities that they are named after, and the Obsidian development team actually did take quite a few photos of actual Las Vegas, Nevada. From the looks of it, I'd say that they took quite a few photos of Zion National Park too!!

(05-17-2022 03:43 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 05:51 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Matt, you may want to interview Williams to learn how his outlook on the role of athletics in promoting a university's reputation and growth compares and contrasts with what Wendler told you. You may also want to look at whether their respective attitudes toward athletics are perhaps correlated with the population growth rates and long-term outlooks of the local markets they serve, with St. George experiencing an influx of new people and wealth while Amarillo is relatively stable. As a subscriber to your newsletter I think that would be a pretty interesting read.

I haven't had a chance to to talk to Utah Tech's president, but I have talked with their old AD about this a bit.

For Utah Tech, I think it is fair to talk about their athletic program in the context of trying to rebrand the entire *school*. UTU wants to recruit students not just in Utah, but in Vegas, Arizona, Texas, and California. It wants to be a low-cost option for students seeking a polytechnic university experience, and that mission requires different branding. Hence, the name change...it didn't matter that your name made zero sense outside of Washington Country, Utah....when you were a junior college that mostly only served students near Washington County.

As I understand it, their athletic growth and goals are tied to the school's major growth ambitions, but they're only a part of those goals.

(05-17-2022 10:23 AM)bullet Wrote:  That's an interesting history lesson on D2 athletics on TV.

But heck, looking things up, it seems that there are TV deals in place right now, or at least more recently than 2008, for D2 athletics. The SIAC just signed a deal with ESPN:

https://thesiac.com/news/2021/6/17/gener...nsion.aspx

And though it didn't last long, there's this from 2016:

https://www.ncaa.org/news/2016/1/5/ncaa-...twork.aspx

I guess when I said D2 "has never been on TV", I meant that in a general sense, not literally. A better way to put it is that IMO, D2 has never had any kind of substantial presence on TV, whether now or in the past D2 on TV has always been very low visibility, so IMO not really a motivation to be in D2, whether today or in 1980.

Quote:sounds like their conference commissioners aren't doing their job. Get 6 to 10 of the commissioners together and approach a network.

I think some D-II football is still on TV, or at least major streaming services. The RMAC, I'm pretty sure, has had games on ESPN+, the postseason finals are on ESPN+, and a few local programs do linear deals, even now. I think you can stream MOST D-II football games, even if you have to watch with the school.

But nobody has earned any meaningful TV revenue from this since the deregulation of college sports broadcasts...and they didn't when CBS Sports, or American Sports Network, or whoever, picked up the games.

If any D-II league wanted a deal with FloSports, they could get one in a month. But they shouldn't expect meaningful revenue. Just like they wouldn't expect meaningful TV revenue from the WAC or Southland or NEC.

That's not why you sponsor D-II (or FCS) sports. You can't examine how "healthy" it is by just the revenues directly generated from tickets, sponsorships or media rights deals. It isn't how anybody, including West Texas, defines success.

It is mainly streaming services anymore, and not many people are streaming sports yet.

(05-17-2022 03:43 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 05:51 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Matt, you may want to interview Williams to learn how his outlook on the role of athletics in promoting a university's reputation and growth compares and contrasts with what Wendler told you. You may also want to look at whether their respective attitudes toward athletics are perhaps correlated with the population growth rates and long-term outlooks of the local markets they serve, with St. George experiencing an influx of new people and wealth while Amarillo is relatively stable. As a subscriber to your newsletter I think that would be a pretty interesting read.

I haven't had a chance to to talk to Utah Tech's president, but I have talked with their old AD about this a bit.

For Utah Tech, I think it is fair to talk about their athletic program in the context of trying to rebrand the entire *school*. UTU wants to recruit students not just in Utah, but in Vegas, Arizona, Texas, and California. It wants to be a low-cost option for students seeking a polytechnic university experience, and that mission requires different branding. Hence, the name change...it didn't matter that your name made zero sense outside of Washington Country, Utah....when you were a junior college that mostly only served students near Washington County.

As I understand it, their athletic growth and goals are tied to the school's major growth ambitions, but they're only a part of those goals.

(05-17-2022 10:23 AM)bullet Wrote:  That's an interesting history lesson on D2 athletics on TV.

But heck, looking things up, it seems that there are TV deals in place right now, or at least more recently than 2008, for D2 athletics. The SIAC just signed a deal with ESPN:

https://thesiac.com/news/2021/6/17/gener...nsion.aspx

And though it didn't last long, there's this from 2016:

https://www.ncaa.org/news/2016/1/5/ncaa-...twork.aspx

I guess when I said D2 "has never been on TV", I meant that in a general sense, not literally. A better way to put it is that IMO, D2 has never had any kind of substantial presence on TV, whether now or in the past D2 on TV has always been very low visibility, so IMO not really a motivation to be in D2, whether today or in 1980.

Quote:sounds like their conference commissioners aren't doing their job. Get 6 to 10 of the commissioners together and approach a network.

I think some D-II football is still on TV, or at least major streaming services. The RMAC, I'm pretty sure, has had games on ESPN+, the postseason finals are on ESPN+, and a few local programs do linear deals, even now. I think you can stream MOST D-II football games, even if you have to watch with the school.

But nobody has earned any meaningful TV revenue from this since the deregulation of college sports broadcasts...and they didn't when CBS Sports, or American Sports Network, or whoever, picked up the games.

If any D-II league wanted a deal with FloSports, they could get one in a month. But they shouldn't expect meaningful revenue. Just like they wouldn't expect meaningful TV revenue from the WAC or Southland or NEC.

That's not why you sponsor D-II (or FCS) sports. You can't examine how "healthy" it is by just the revenues directly generated from tickets, sponsorships or media rights deals. It isn't how anybody, including West Texas, defines success.

About the bolded, I agree, but then again how do you define "success" at those levels. Or heck the G5 level, where those revenues you mention don't come close to covering the costs of athletics either.

What seems to happen is that admins issue a lot of rhetoric about "front porch" effects of having D2/FCS/G5 athletics, the alleged marketing and visibility benefits that improve enrollment, "engage" alumni with the university, etc. But often without hard data to back those claims up.

(05-18-2022 08:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 03:43 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 05:51 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Matt, you may want to interview Williams to learn how his outlook on the role of athletics in promoting a university's reputation and growth compares and contrasts with what Wendler told you. You may also want to look at whether their respective attitudes toward athletics are perhaps correlated with the population growth rates and long-term outlooks of the local markets they serve, with St. George experiencing an influx of new people and wealth while Amarillo is relatively stable. As a subscriber to your newsletter I think that would be a pretty interesting read.

I haven't had a chance to to talk to Utah Tech's president, but I have talked with their old AD about this a bit.

For Utah Tech, I think it is fair to talk about their athletic program in the context of trying to rebrand the entire *school*. UTU wants to recruit students not just in Utah, but in Vegas, Arizona, Texas, and California. It wants to be a low-cost option for students seeking a polytechnic university experience, and that mission requires different branding. Hence, the name change...it didn't matter that your name made zero sense outside of Washington Country, Utah....when you were a junior college that mostly only served students near Washington County.

As I understand it, their athletic growth and goals are tied to the school's major growth ambitions, but they're only a part of those goals.

(05-17-2022 10:23 AM)bullet Wrote:  That's an interesting history lesson on D2 athletics on TV.

But heck, looking things up, it seems that there are TV deals in place right now, or at least more recently than 2008, for D2 athletics. The SIAC just signed a deal with ESPN:

https://thesiac.com/news/2021/6/17/gener...nsion.aspx

And though it didn't last long, there's this from 2016:

https://www.ncaa.org/news/2016/1/5/ncaa-...twork.aspx

I guess when I said D2 "has never been on TV", I meant that in a general sense, not literally. A better way to put it is that IMO, D2 has never had any kind of substantial presence on TV, whether now or in the past D2 on TV has always been very low visibility, so IMO not really a motivation to be in D2, whether today or in 1980.

Quote:sounds like their conference commissioners aren't doing their job. Get 6 to 10 of the commissioners together and approach a network.

I think some D-II football is still on TV, or at least major streaming services. The RMAC, I'm pretty sure, has had games on ESPN+, the postseason finals are on ESPN+, and a few local programs do linear deals, even now. I think you can stream MOST D-II football games, even if you have to watch with the school.

But nobody has earned any meaningful TV revenue from this since the deregulation of college sports broadcasts...and they didn't when CBS Sports, or American Sports Network, or whoever, picked up the games.

If any D-II league wanted a deal with FloSports, they could get one in a month. But they shouldn't expect meaningful revenue. Just like they wouldn't expect meaningful TV revenue from the WAC or Southland or NEC.

That's not why you sponsor D-II (or FCS) sports. You can't examine how "healthy" it is by just the revenues directly generated from tickets, sponsorships or media rights deals. It isn't how anybody, including West Texas, defines success.

About the bolded, I agree, but then again how do you define "success" at those levels. Or heck the G5 level, where those revenues you mention don't come close to covering the costs of athletics either.

What seems to happen is that admins issue a lot of rhetoric about "front porch" effects of having D2/FCS/G5 athletics, the alleged marketing and visibility benefits that improve enrollment, "engage" alumni with the university, etc. But often without hard data to back those claims up.

It's also a service to current students (which is also difficult to quantify).

Just like they're paying a fee for a gym that they may or may not use and probably for counseling services on-campus that they may or may not need and for landscaping and a student newspaper, they're paying athletic fees to have some sports to watch/cheer for (if they want to).

The trick (with all that stuff) is knowing how much is "worth it."

(05-18-2022 08:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 03:43 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 05:51 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Matt, you may want to interview Williams to learn how his outlook on the role of athletics in promoting a university's reputation and growth compares and contrasts with what Wendler told you. You may also want to look at whether their respective attitudes toward athletics are perhaps correlated with the population growth rates and long-term outlooks of the local markets they serve, with St. George experiencing an influx of new people and wealth while Amarillo is relatively stable. As a subscriber to your newsletter I think that would be a pretty interesting read.

I haven't had a chance to to talk to Utah Tech's president, but I have talked with their old AD about this a bit.

For Utah Tech, I think it is fair to talk about their athletic program in the context of trying to rebrand the entire *school*. UTU wants to recruit students not just in Utah, but in Vegas, Arizona, Texas, and California. It wants to be a low-cost option for students seeking a polytechnic university experience, and that mission requires different branding. Hence, the name change...it didn't matter that your name made zero sense outside of Washington Country, Utah....when you were a junior college that mostly only served students near Washington County.

As I understand it, their athletic growth and goals are tied to the school's major growth ambitions, but they're only a part of those goals.

(05-17-2022 10:23 AM)bullet Wrote:  That's an interesting history lesson on D2 athletics on TV.

But heck, looking things up, it seems that there are TV deals in place right now, or at least more recently than 2008, for D2 athletics. The SIAC just signed a deal with ESPN:

https://thesiac.com/news/2021/6/17/gener...nsion.aspx

And though it didn't last long, there's this from 2016:

https://www.ncaa.org/news/2016/1/5/ncaa-...twork.aspx

I guess when I said D2 "has never been on TV", I meant that in a general sense, not literally. A better way to put it is that IMO, D2 has never had any kind of substantial presence on TV, whether now or in the past D2 on TV has always been very low visibility, so IMO not really a motivation to be in D2, whether today or in 1980.

Quote:sounds like their conference commissioners aren't doing their job. Get 6 to 10 of the commissioners together and approach a network.

I think some D-II football is still on TV, or at least major streaming services. The RMAC, I'm pretty sure, has had games on ESPN+, the postseason finals are on ESPN+, and a few local programs do linear deals, even now. I think you can stream MOST D-II football games, even if you have to watch with the school.

But nobody has earned any meaningful TV revenue from this since the deregulation of college sports broadcasts...and they didn't when CBS Sports, or American Sports Network, or whoever, picked up the games.

If any D-II league wanted a deal with FloSports, they could get one in a month. But they shouldn't expect meaningful revenue. Just like they wouldn't expect meaningful TV revenue from the WAC or Southland or NEC.

That's not why you sponsor D-II (or FCS) sports. You can't examine how "healthy" it is by just the revenues directly generated from tickets, sponsorships or media rights deals. It isn't how anybody, including West Texas, defines success.

About the bolded, I agree, but then again how do you define "success" at those levels. Or heck the G5 level, where those revenues you mention don't come close to covering the costs of athletics either.

What seems to happen is that admins issue a lot of rhetoric about "front porch" effects of having D2/FCS/G5 athletics, the alleged marketing and visibility benefits that improve enrollment, "engage" alumni with the university, etc. But often without hard data to back those claims up.

Got to thinking about this:

Success at NAIA, D3,D2, and FCS is probably, though not certainly, measured by how many playoff berths the team has claimed in "X" number of years, though there are at least three exceptions to that in FCS. Exception #1 would be the Ivy League. The Ivy League has steadfastly refused to compete in the FCS playoffs ever. So, how do you define success of you're an Ivy League school?? My guess is by conference championships, and/or appearances in the FCS top 25. Exception #2 would be the Pioneer League, but you could grade them like how I graded the Ivies. Exception #3: the SWAC/MEAC (if it survives!!)- a combination of how many FCS playoffs berths made and/or how many Celebration Bowls invited to.

For the G5, I would have to believe going to bowls would be how you determine success. Is ULM thought of as a successful G5 program?? How/Why is App State/Marshall viewed as successful?? However, I am positive that there are other factors that go into how success is measured at a G5 school also. Increased exposure could be another factor that comes into play.

(05-18-2022 08:50 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  For the G5, I would have to believe going to bowls would be how you determine success. Is ULM thought of as a successful G5 program?? How/Why is App State/Marshall viewed as successful??

I don't think you can use bowls, because until fairly recently bowls didn't always go to the best teams.

Three of the best Tech teams I can remember didn't play in a bowl (at least).

I'd take those three teams against just about any of our bowl teams (certainly against any three).

I'll refrain from answering your first question but the answer to the second is winning.

(05-18-2022 08:54 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(05-18-2022 08:50 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  For the G5, I would have to believe going to bowls would be how you determine success. Is ULM thought of as a successful G5 program?? How/Why is App State/Marshall viewed as successful??

I don't think you can use bowls, because until fairly recently bowls didn't always go to the best teams.

Three of the best Tech teams I can remember didn't play in a bowl (at least).

I'd take those three teams against just about any of our bowl teams (certainly against any three).

I'll refrain from answering your first question but the answer to the second is winning.

Which is why I added this to my post above:

(05-18-2022 08:50 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  However, I am positive that there are other factors that go into how success is measured at a G5 school also. Increased exposure could be another factor that comes into play.

Winning is another factor. I would also believe that median and average attendance would be other factors. What is the school's attendance now compared to when it was FCS/D2/etc??
Engagement/involvement of donors would be another. Are donors more likely to donate now than in the past?? Are they willing to donate more money now than in the past??

(05-18-2022 08:50 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(05-18-2022 08:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 03:43 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 05:51 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Matt, you may want to interview Williams to learn how his outlook on the role of athletics in promoting a university's reputation and growth compares and contrasts with what Wendler told you. You may also want to look at whether their respective attitudes toward athletics are perhaps correlated with the population growth rates and long-term outlooks of the local markets they serve, with St. George experiencing an influx of new people and wealth while Amarillo is relatively stable. As a subscriber to your newsletter I think that would be a pretty interesting read.

I haven't had a chance to to talk to Utah Tech's president, but I have talked with their old AD about this a bit.

For Utah Tech, I think it is fair to talk about their athletic program in the context of trying to rebrand the entire *school*. UTU wants to recruit students not just in Utah, but in Vegas, Arizona, Texas, and California. It wants to be a low-cost option for students seeking a polytechnic university experience, and that mission requires different branding. Hence, the name change...it didn't matter that your name made zero sense outside of Washington Country, Utah....when you were a junior college that mostly only served students near Washington County.

As I understand it, their athletic growth and goals are tied to the school's major growth ambitions, but they're only a part of those goals.

(05-17-2022 10:23 AM)bullet Wrote:  That's an interesting history lesson on D2 athletics on TV.

But heck, looking things up, it seems that there are TV deals in place right now, or at least more recently than 2008, for D2 athletics. The SIAC just signed a deal with ESPN:

https://thesiac.com/news/2021/6/17/gener...nsion.aspx

And though it didn't last long, there's this from 2016:

https://www.ncaa.org/news/2016/1/5/ncaa-...twork.aspx

I guess when I said D2 "has never been on TV", I meant that in a general sense, not literally. A better way to put it is that IMO, D2 has never had any kind of substantial presence on TV, whether now or in the past D2 on TV has always been very low visibility, so IMO not really a motivation to be in D2, whether today or in 1980.

Quote:sounds like their conference commissioners aren't doing their job. Get 6 to 10 of the commissioners together and approach a network.

I think some D-II football is still on TV, or at least major streaming services. The RMAC, I'm pretty sure, has had games on ESPN+, the postseason finals are on ESPN+, and a few local programs do linear deals, even now. I think you can stream MOST D-II football games, even if you have to watch with the school.

But nobody has earned any meaningful TV revenue from this since the deregulation of college sports broadcasts...and they didn't when CBS Sports, or American Sports Network, or whoever, picked up the games.

If any D-II league wanted a deal with FloSports, they could get one in a month. But they shouldn't expect meaningful revenue. Just like they wouldn't expect meaningful TV revenue from the WAC or Southland or NEC.

That's not why you sponsor D-II (or FCS) sports. You can't examine how "healthy" it is by just the revenues directly generated from tickets, sponsorships or media rights deals. It isn't how anybody, including West Texas, defines success.

About the bolded, I agree, but then again how do you define "success" at those levels. Or heck the G5 level, where those revenues you mention don't come close to covering the costs of athletics either.

What seems to happen is that admins issue a lot of rhetoric about "front porch" effects of having D2/FCS/G5 athletics, the alleged marketing and visibility benefits that improve enrollment, "engage" alumni with the university, etc. But often without hard data to back those claims up.

Got to thinking about this:

Success at NAIA, D3,D2, and FCS is probably, though not certainly, measured by how many playoff berths the team has claimed in "X" number of years, though there are at least three exceptions to that in FCS. Exception #1 would be the Ivy League. The Ivy League has steadfastly refused to compete in the FCS playoffs ever. So, how do you define success of you're an Ivy League school?? My guess is by conference championships, and/or appearances in the FCS top 25. Exception #2 would be the Pioneer League, but you could grade them like how I graded the Ivies. Exception #3: the SWAC/MEAC (if it survives!!)- a combination of how many FCS playoffs berths made and/or how many Celebration Bowls invited to.

For the G5, I would have to believe going to bowls would be how you determine success. Is ULM thought of as a successful G5 program?? How/Why is App State/Marshall viewed as successful?? However, I am positive that there are other factors that go into how success is measured at a G5 school also. Increased exposure could be another factor that comes into play.

San Diego has won FCS playoff games.