*Rumored Lamar to FBS discussion*

[D301Bhoys]

Last year when all the conference realignment madness happened, I distinctly recall the impression that the current 10-team Big XII (sigh) isn't publicly interested in expanding. Oklahoma and Texas aren't interested in the championship game which every other league now enjoys. Texas can probably afford that attitude, I'm not sure anyone else in the Big XII can; but they're joined at the Longhorns' hips now.

 

Methinks Houston would jump to the Big East (the last BCS league with any interest in expansion for now) as a partner to mis-placed TCU. I want to say that a major outlet described the advantages of UH, UCF and ECU as realistic targets for the BE. The Big East's problem is basketball. It's entirely too large and adding more basketball teams would be problematic.

 

Like others, UH may want into an enlarged Big XII, but I'm skeptical. If anything happens to the Big XII, my guess is that it dissolves or Texas leaves for either independence or a 16 team league.

 

With regard to Lamar and the WAC, I stumbled across this article today:

 

"Reviewing the Past and Predicting the Future"

 

It does not talk about Lamar, but about the health of the WAC. It's opinion and speculation without a doubt, but at least something to read and discuss.

[Guest CardAmbassador]

I don't think that the WAC will fold as this writer suggest. I believe there are several ways in which it might fold but I think Benson is smart enough to steer the WAC away from those decisions.

 

Here is my assessment on what will happen over the next few years with the WAC. They will be forced to add one non-football school this year to remain solvent for the 2012 year. They will then play the waiting game, playing Big Sky schools off of each other in attempts to persuade a few Big Sky schools to jump to the WAC, they can likely get one, and possibly another from the west. Those western additions will have to be offset with eastern additions (likely Lamar, but it could be any number of different schools) This configuration of schools will likely last for a few years but at the first sign of C-USA reloading with schools in the East after a Big East expansion or if the MWC decides to grab Utah State you will then see a split. There will be a western WAC and an eastern WAC that will become completely separate conferences, likely with a scheduling alliance to help each other out in the early years.

 

Now if Big East Expansion is too disruptive, adding more than one new school, then the WAC might fold. I don't think that will happen because the Big East is already so large, they really only need one more football school. That school could be Nova or it could be one of several C-USA schools.

 

The MWC has no financial incentive for expanding currently either. Utah State and SJSU don't bring much to the table.

 

I will likely be wrong about alot of this but I don't envision a world with out the WAC because none of those schools want to move back down to FCS. Idaho and NMSU will cling to that conference for dear life.

[Guest NorthoftheBorder]

With regard to Lamar and the WAC, I stumbled across this article today:

 

"Reviewing the Past and Predicting the Future"

 

It does not talk about Lamar, but about the health of the WAC. It's opinion and speculation without a doubt, but at least something to read and discuss.

 

It is a sad truth of modern college football, a program simply can't afford to be below the poverty line.

 

This is the most telling quote from the aforementioned article. It is my sentiments exactly and why LU has to move up the food chain or face extinction again.

[BigRedTrack]

I know it has to be out there, but does anyone know:

 

How many BCS athletic depts. make a profit?

 

How many WAC & SBC athletic depts. make a profit?

 

How many FCS schools make a profit?

 

How many FBS schools make a profit?

 

To quote Ted Turner from several years ago: "If you want or expect your college athletic department to make a profit, you better get your players to sell heroin to high school kids."

 

Of course I don't agree, but found it funny that he said that when one of his cable TV networks were negotiating college TV contracts.

[Guest CardAmbassador]

I know it has to be out there, but does anyone know:

 

How many BCS athletic depts. make a profit?

 

How many WAC & SBC athletic depts. make a profit?

 

How many FCS schools make a profit?

 

How many FBS schools make a profit?

 

To quote Ted Turner from several years ago: "If you want or expect your college athletic department to make a profit, you better get your players to sell heroin to high school kids."

 

Of course I don't agree, but found it funny that he said that when one of his cable TV networks were negotiating college TV contracts.

 

Here are some links you should check out.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ncaa-finances.htm

 

http://www.ope.ed.gov/athletics/index.aspx

[D301Bhoys]

Not very many. It's something like 8-12. I know Georgia routinely runs in the black.

[D301Bhoys]

Thing is, the poverty line, as it were, is between BCS leagues and everyone else.

[Guest CardAmbassador]

Not very many. It's something like 8-12. I know Georgia routinely runs in the black.

 

Neither Appalachian State or Montana make money according to the USAToday link I posted. so that rules out any FCS teams making money in my mind. I saw a report where only 20 athletic departments in all of NCAA make money. It was mostly the SEC, Some Big XII, Big 10 and a few PAC-10. And when I say make money I mean they don't rely on student fees or state/institutional support. At the FCS level it's almost all funded by Student Fees and Institutional support.

[Guest CardAmbassador]

BTW, UT had the highest budget by far at $143 million. I haven't seen anyone within $10 million of them yet. Several of the SEC teams aren't even over $100 million. The school that already controls most of the Higher Ed dollars in the state of Texas also controls most of the AD dollars too. No surprise there.

[Guest CardAmbassador]

From Jack at BobcatReport.com:

I have learned that the WAC presidents will be asked to pick TWO potential members and not just the one we've heard previously. There's also more candidates than Seattle U, UVU, and CS-Bakersfield remaining. I was told "up to ten". Who are they? I doubt anyone's going to tell me much this late in the game but I have my eyes and ears open.

 

Utah State president Stan Albrecht is the head of the WAC Board of Directors. He's tough, shrewd, and not about to let his school share a conference with an open enrollment academic institution like UVU. It's been reported that Benson has already asked Valley about hosting championships, but this is not Benson's decision to make. Expect Albrecht to squash UVU very early on.

 

Any school wishing for inclusion will need a 3/4th majority vote, meaning four out of five presidents must vote in favor of any potential addition. Trauth, Romo, and whomever calls shots for DU have no vote but will be in attendance. Recommendations have been made by each AD to their president and I think they'll try and get this part over and done with quickly.

 

Here is the thread at bobcatreport.com - http://bobcatreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1407&p=17654#p17654

 

there is some good additional stuff over there so check it out.

Not a fan of adding two this year when you only need one. Seems kind of stupid to me.

[TexGator]

I agree that adding 2 non-football schools is tough for a conference that is trying to stay football-viable. As the article in the Mercury news suggests, having fewer than 8 football members makes scheduling tough for the teams. If you want to be considered a legit FBS team, you don't want to have to play more than 1 FCS school.

[D301Bhoys]

Not sure if this has been posted yet or not. Just crossed my screen this morning:

 

WAC Meetings starting soon!

 

@CA: Most FBS programs utilize student fees and institutional support in order to have football. The entire MAC operates this way.

 

And, the ADs which run in the black use "student athletic fees" as well. I'm not aware of any BCS program that doesn't but I've not looked into it carefully. I can tell you for a fact that Georgia, one of the consistently profitable ADs, does have a student athletic fee; but does not redirect institutional funds to support athletics (it's actually the other way around).

 

It is highly unlikely LU will ever run a self-supporting athletic department. It's amazingly rare.

[ScreamingDeane]

playing in the SLC with only bus travel, having limited coaching salaries and smaller buildings, LU athletics could support itself if they win. If the mens basketball program would bring in decent schools non conference and just compete for the SLC every year that program would be a money generator. Other schools in the SLC can consistantly win and still have terrible attendance, that isnt the case at Lamar.The Montagne Center would be rocking if we were rolling that conference.

[Guest CardAmbassador]

Not sure if this has been posted yet or not. Just crossed my screen this morning:

 

WAC Meetings starting soon!

 

@CA: Most FBS programs utilize student fees and institutional support in order to have football. The entire MAC operates this way.

 

And, the ADs which run in the black use "student athletic fees" as well. I'm not aware of any BCS program that doesn't but I've not looked into it carefully. I can tell you for a fact that Georgia, one of the consistently profitable ADs, does have a student athletic fee; but does not redirect institutional funds to support athletics (it's actually the other way around).

 

It is highly unlikely LU will ever run a self-supporting athletic department. It's amazingly rare.

 

WAC meetings start the 13th, if you are interested in finding out what goes on at them your best source for getting inside info will be BobcatReport.com. One of their writers, Jack, is scarily good at getting very detailed inside information.

 

And yes, I understand that many AD's use student fees, that's why I say very few schools are legitimately in the black and very few are self supporting.

 

There are several BCS programs that do not use student fees, they're usually the ones that actually turn a profit like UT. Georgia has student fees according to the USAToday link I posted, they pulled in $3 million dollars from students, (3.5% of their budget)

 

You are correct, it's not unlikely that Lamar will run a self supporting athletic program, it's impossible. Only the top of the top universities can do it. (top 20 or so athletic universities)

 

@ ScreamingDean, go back and look at the link I posted, look at how much institutional support Appy State and Montana receive. Lamar could sell out the Montagne every game and Provost Umphrey Stadium every game, we would still need institutional support. That's because we have to fund 14 sports, all with athletes who are expensive and coaches, who are very expensive. Then you have facilities to maintain for all of those sports and travel budgets for all of those sports. This is the reason very few universities can have self supporting athletic teams.

[SJSUfreightdog]

Forgive me if this has been posted, but here is what Jon Wilner at the SJ Merc posted a few days ago:

 

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2011/06/09/wac-football-expansion-vote-to-come-tuesday/

 

 

At the end, you see where he predicts the conference will be 9/12. I agree and I posted this long term scenario on the Scout WAC board:

 

Good point. I agree. But reading the tea leaves, I think this is Benson's wish list:

 

Football

SJSU

Cal Poly(or UC Davis) football-only

Idaho

USU

NMSU

Texas St.

UTSA

Lamar

LA Tech

 

Basketball(shown with travel partners)

 

West East

SJSU/Bakersfield Denver/NMSU

Seattle/Idaho Texas St./UTSA

USU/UVU Lamar/LA Tech

 

 

 

I can see why Benson seems to like UVU. It makes for a nice, tidy group of travel partners for a conference whose members are concerned about travel costs. Guess we'll know more in a week or two, eh?

 

 

Thoughts?

[LUFAN]

I hope you are right SJSU... I hate the SLC and hope that once we get out of this conference people will see how horribly bad it is.. I am a big fan of most of the WAC teams and have followed many of them. I sure hope it works out for both parties!

[Guest PNG1992]

Forgive me if this has been posted, but here is what Jon Wilner at the SJ Merc posted a few days ago:

 

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2011/06/09/wac-football-expansion-vote-to-come-tuesday/

 

 

At the end, you see where he predicts the conference will be 9/12. I agree and I posted this long term scenario on the Scout WAC board:

 

Good point. I agree. But reading the tea leaves, I think this is Benson's wish list:

 

Football

SJSU

Cal Poly(or UC Davis) football-only

Idaho

USU

NMSU

Texas St.

UTSA

Lamar

LA Tech

 

Basketball(shown with travel partners)

 

West East

SJSU/Bakersfield Denver/NMSU

Seattle/Idaho Texas St./UTSA

USU/UVU Lamar/LA Tech

 

 

 

I can see why Benson seems to like UVU. It makes for a nice, tidy group of travel partners for a conference whose members are concerned about travel costs. Guess we'll know more in a week or two, eh?

 

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Thanks for joining and posting SJSU and I do hope you're right.

[SJSUfreightdog]

Forgive me if this has been posted, but here is what Jon Wilner at the SJ Merc posted a few days ago:

 

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2011/06/09/wac-football-expansion-vote-to-come-tuesday/

 

 

At the end, you see where he predicts the conference will be 9/12. I agree and I posted this long term scenario on the Scout WAC board:

 

Good point. I agree. But reading the tea leaves, I think this is Benson's wish list:

 

Football

SJSU

Cal Poly(or UC Davis) football-only

Idaho

USU

NMSU

Texas St.

UTSA

Lamar

LA Tech

 

Basketball(shown with travel partners)

 

West East

SJSU/Bakersfield Denver/NMSU

Seattle/Idaho Texas St./UTSA

USU/UVU Lamar/LA Tech

 

 

 

I can see why Benson seems to like UVU. It makes for a nice, tidy group of travel partners for a conference whose members are concerned about travel costs. Guess we'll know more in a week or two, eh?

 

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Thanks for joining and posting SJSU and I do hope you're right.

 

Thanks.

 

9 is ideal for football scheduling and 12 for basketball allows for cost saving divisioal play.

 

When I look to the east for a football team, who makes more sense than Lamar? Look at football attendance, basketball attendence and athletic budget and ask yourself: who else in the central time zone makes more sense?

 

Out west, UC Davis would, theoretically, be the no brainer slam dunk choice. Their academics rate above UT-Austin and they are in a NFL-sized market that has no NFL team or FBS college team. Yet, they don't seem overly excited about upgrading to FBS. Cal Poly, on the other hand, has two wealthy alunmi that are very much supportive of a move to FBS. Money talks. That is why I think Cal Poly will be in over UC Davis. Thoughts?

 

BTW, I think the Montana twins are content being big fish in a small pond. Don't count on them.

[Guest CardAmbassador]

SJSU Wrote:

I can see why Benson seems to like UVU. It makes for a nice, tidy group of travel partners for a conference whose members are concerned about travel costs. Guess we'll know more in a week or two, eh?

 

It does address travel partners but I'm not in favor of them joining. They are in a metro but it's Salt Lake, It's like adding Austin Community College, they're never going to mean anything to that market, their enrollment looks nice on paper but I think they are a bad addition. I like Cal Poly, I hope they get in. That would be a great add for the WAC. I don't care for Seattle either, basketball schools are not going to save an FBS conference. Seattle will reduce payout to each school and do little if anything to add notoriety. I am not buying the Seattle argument. I understand that it makes sense from a stability stand point though, that is likely the only reason they are being considered.

 

I would like to see 10/12 as the eventual make up of the WAC, I don't know who the other basketball school would be, there has to be a public west coast university that the WAC could get. Having 9 conference games a year would be nice because then you only have to worry about scheduling 3 more games for a full schedule. Each WAC school could schedule one Major AQ conference school and then one FCS program and one home and home series with a FBS program, that is a very easy schedule to make. This would make the WAC a strong football conference again over time.

 

When I look to the east for a football team, who makes more sense than Lamar? Look at football attendance, basketball attendence and athletic budget and ask yourself: who else in the central time zone makes more sense?

 

I agree, we make the most sense at the current time, that's why I feel pretty confident that if the WAC expands to 9/12 or 10/12 as planned, LU will get an invite. If UTA starts football very soon then we might be in trouble. It doesn't look like UTA will make a move this year so I feel confident about Lamar being in the WAC at some point.

 

BTW, I think the Montana twins are content being big fish in a small pond. Don't count on them.

 

I agree, If Lamar were in a similar situation (State flagship, in a good FCS conference, already nationally known in football, best fan support at the FCS level) then I would want to stay in FCS too.

 

It's not that I don't like FCS, it's that I don't like the Southland.

[SJSUfreightdog]

It does address travel partners but I'm not in favor of them joining. They are in a metro but it's Salt Lake, It's like adding Austin Community College, they're never going to mean anything to that market, their enrollment looks nice on paper but I think they are a bad addition. I like Cal Poly, I hope they get in. That would be a great add for the WAC. I don't care for Seattle either, basketball schools are going to save an FBS conference. Seattle will reduce payout to each school and do little if anything to add notoriety. I am not buying the Seattle argument. I understand that it makes sense from a stability stand point though, that is likely the only reason they are being considered.

 

By the way, what I laid out above not what I WANT to happen; it's what I THINK will happen. Ideally, I would rather have UC Davis than UVU for numerous reasons. 1) 10/12 league 2) Davis would grealty elevate the academic profile of the WAC. 3) Davis is in a NFL-sized media market that has neither an NFL team or a FBS football team. I think it is a mistake to look at their FCS attendance numbers and assume that is what they would draw as an FBS member. 4) As an SJSU grad....the more California teams the better. B)

[LUSportsFan]

I agree that UC Davis would be preferable to UVU. I think they and Cal Poly have potential. I think West Coast teams should be added. I can understand the desire of the existing members to add some of the California teams. I think the optimal direction would be to add teams that participate in football as well as other sports.

 

The UC Davis stadium is small for FCS standards, but their official website makes the point that it can be expanded to 30,000. That indicates to me that they are thinking in the future. The Sacramento/Davis area is great; at least it was when I lived there many years ago. UC Davis would be a great add for San Jose State since it would be around a two hour drive. Cal Poly would be a good add also. It's a little north of where my daughter's in-laws live, Santa Barbara so we might have another excuse to travel to California.

 

Just hold a slot open for Lamar. :) I hope that Lamar is added at the same time as West Coast teams in order to provide balance on the Eastern side of the conference. I just hope some other university does not beat us to it. I think it would be exciting to build new rivalries with the current WAC members including renewing an old one with Louisiana Tech as well as continuing current rivalries with TxState-SM and UTSA.

[Guest 76]

Hi cards fans.Why, just skip the WAC,and call con-USA. I think Lamar could really do well in all sports and with Coach Knight on board it could happen. IF the right folks are called. this would put Lamar in a great place.

[Guest CardAmbassador]

Hi cards fans.Why, just skip the WAC,and call con-USA. I think Lamar could really do well in all sports and with Coach Knight on board it could happen. IF the right folks are called. this would put Lamar in a great place.

 

Lamar would love to join the C-USA, but it's not going to happen. You have to remember that Lamar doesn't chose it's conference, it's the other way around. A conference must formally invite you to join it. Lamar brings nothing of value to C-USA at this time or for the foreseeable future.

[Guest 76]

I know basketball season is still a ways off, but Lamar has a secret weapon and it is Pat Knight. Dont for get his father Bob Knight. These guys can move mountains ,lots of umph! CON-USA Will take notice of Lamar and the Knight family.

[TexGator]

I know basketball season is still a ways off, but Lamar has a secret weapon and it is Pat Knight. Dont for get his father Bob Knight. These guys can move mountains ,lots of umph! CON-USA Will take notice of Lamar and the Knight family.

 

I 50% agree with you- Robert Montgomery Knight moves mountains... Patrick- not so much.

 

The country noticed that he didn't win once his dad's players were gone. He has to build his own brand before conferences would look at LU because of who the basketball coach is. Heck, Steve Fisher coached Michigan to three title games (I mean A title game... forgot the other two didn't happen thanks to NCAA sanctions) and couldn't get SDSU into the Pac-10.

 

Can Knight do it? Of course. The question is whether it will happen. I'm not looking at the world through cardinal-colored glasses; it will be tough, but hopefully he's learned enough coaching to gain his footing and show the world he was just over his head taking over a high-profile program following, not just a legend, but someone he shared DNA with.