Remove this ad
avatar

grumpdogg

Senior

Posts: 110 Member Since:03/02/11 Junior

#21 [url]

Jul 28 11 10:08 AM

Re: Conference Realignment

FoUTASportscaster wrote:
As much as I bagged on them, I'd rather be in the Sun Belt.


Nah, the WAC has better TV deals than Sunbelt, and as far as public perception goes, the WAC is light-years beyond Sunbelt.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

80sAlum

Alumni

Posts: 293 Member Since:03/17/11 Alumni

#22 [url]

Jul 28 11 12:30 PM

Re: Conference Realignment

I agree. I ask the question, when is the last time that the Sunbelt lost members to better conferences because of their success? I view the Sunbelt as much less than the WAC.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

Posts: 987 Member Since:07/27/11 Maverick

#23 [url]

Jul 28 11 3:48 PM

Re: Conference Realignment

^Idaho, New Mexico State and Utah State all left the SBC for the WAC.

Geography plays a big factor. Most schools are eastern or central. In the FBS, that usually means BCS conferences. In the west, there are more non-BCS schools, and they are more spread out.

grumpdogg wrote:
Nah, the WAC has better TV deals than Sunbelt, and as far as public perception goes, the WAC is light-years beyond Sunbelt.


That is true, for now. That deal was made when Boise, Fresno, Hawaii and Nevada were part of the conference. The price tag for another tv deal is going to be considerably lower. That more than anything is why the WAC wanted UTA, to stay in the fourth largest media market.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

Posts: 987 Member Since:07/27/11 Maverick

#24 [url]

Aug 11 11 11:23 AM

Re: Conference Realignment

Here's the before and after look using the most current rankings. Football and men's basketball are from the Sagarin ratings. The other four are the NCAA's RPI ratings.

Football futureaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaFootball pre-realignment
Mountain West average 75.1, median 73aaaaaaaaaaaaaMWC average 69.1, median 76
C-USA average 96, median 98aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaWAC average 89.6, median 92
Sunbelt average 126.6, median 128.5aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaC-USA average 96, median 98
WAC average 144, median 136aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaSun Belt average 126.6, median 128.5
SLC average 169.25, median 167.5aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaSLC average 174.4, median 172.5

Men's basketball futureaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaapre-realignment
C-USA average 121.5, median 93.5aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaMWC average 95.6, median 81
Mountain West average 111.7, median 105aaaaaaaaaaaC-USA average 121.5, median 93.5
Sun Belt average 234.7, median 212aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaWAC average 156.8, median 180
WAC average 201.7, median 226.5aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaSun Belt average 234.8, median 220
Southland average 256.3, median 254aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaSouthland average 253.9, median 254.5

Baseball futureaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaapre-realignment
C-USA average 67.7, median 63aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaC-USA average 67.7, median 63
Sun Belt average 109, median 93.5aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaSun Belt average 109, median 93.5
Southland average 117.1, median 120aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaSouthland average 112.4, median 114
WAC average 148, median 140aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaMWC average 124.6, median 129
Mountain West average 136, median 150.5aaaaaaaaaaaaWAC average 130.6, median 133

Volleyball futureaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaapre-realignment
MWC average 124.6, median 109aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaMWC average 112.1, median 103
C-USA average 138, median 137.5aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaC-USA average 138, median 137.5
WAC average 153.1, median 149.5aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaWAC average 129.8, median 146
SBC average 178.6, median 188aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaSBC average 177.6, median 177
SLC average 209.9, median 208aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaSLC average 190.8, median 206

women's basketball futureaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaapre-realignment
C-USA average 137.3, median 127.5aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaC-USA average 137.3, median 127.5
Mountain West average 168.3, median 162aaaaaaaaaaMWC average 148.3, median 152
WAC average 209.3, median 195aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaWAC average 172, median 174
Sun Belt average 199.1, median 189aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaSBC average 193, median 186
Southland average 231.1, median 251aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaSLC average 242.1, median 262

Softball futureaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaapre-relignment
C-USA average 84.1, median 44aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaC-USA average 84.1, median 44
Sun Belt average 88.1, median 92aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaSun Belt average 88.1, median 92
MWC average 109.4, median 101aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaMWC average 98.8, median 97.5
WAC average 153.8, median 152aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaWAC average 129.6, median 131
SLC average 156.6, median 170aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaSLC average, 139.6, median 148

Looking at the totals I made for the 6 major revenue sports, it is clear the WAC is no longer what it was, though the same could be said for every conference that had to make a move. That is the nature of realignment. The BCS conferences always pick off the top tier of the next highest level, leaving them to repeattyhe process below them.

As for the WAC itself, and particularly UTA's move into it, I am still not certain. Yes, they are better than the SLC when they were in it. They may get football one day. The WAC went from being the second best non-BCS conference to the second worst (they are still ahead of the MAC schools). Meanwhile, both C-USA and the Sun Belt jumped ahead.C-USA gained in men's basketball, while the WAC once again slipped behind the Sun Belt. The Wac was and still is a worse baseball conference the the Sun Bellt and the Southland, though they are at least better now than the MWC, which was hurt by the TCU loss..

On the women's side, the WAC is better than the Sun Belt in volleyball and basketball, and better than the Southland in all three.

Yes, the WAC is somewhat better than our old home. But the increased travel costs don't make any sense, unless adding football is in the mix.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

UTAMavalum83

Senior

Posts: 142 Member Since:07/13/11 Senior

#25 [url]

Aug 13 11 10:40 AM

Re: Conference Realignment

It's happening again, this time thanks to TAMU. The shifting plates will impact other conferences - and quite likely, the WAC. So where might this leave UTA (particularly when it comes to the possibility of restoring football)?

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Duck

Maverick

Posts: 623 Member Since:03/04/11 Maverick

#26 [url]

Aug 13 11 6:00 PM

Re: Conference Realignment

I recon it can't hurt. Possibly there will be more potential new WAC members shaking loose from the other conferences. In the long run, I think Fo's concerns about travel costs will become paramount and there will be some kind of mass reorganization into more compact groupings, either as separate conferences or as sub-conferences.

The SEC, for example, could find itself morphing into three divisions, which would potentially result in divisional playoffs along the lines of major league baseball. I could imagine the champions of East, West and Atlantic divisions, plus the wildcard entering into a two-step playoff for the SEC championship. Not to be too cynical, but I'm sure whatever horse-by-committee setup they end up with will be whatever maximizes money for the majority involved.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

UTArlingtonMaverick

Posts: 197 Member Since:08/09/11 Grad Student

#27 [url]

Aug 13 11 9:02 PM

Re: Conference Realignment

I respect the Southland for some of the teams it puts up. I think Sam and SFA basketball, for example, can be just as difficult during their up seasons as many in the WAC and also other conferences. So, what I am about to write should not be interpreted as denigrating Southland athletics. For example, we know Southland baseball is tough.

That said, the WAC is a big step up. The primary reason is the collection of universities we are now with. Overall, especially including academic profile, the WAC is far superior to the Southland and also the Belt. All the WAC universities are respected, very good, or even great. These universities are, broadly speaking, our peers. The likes of McNeese, Nichols, Southeast Louisiana, etc. were not. And being associated with them hurt us.

Also, no matter what has gone on, the WAC name has cachet. It doesn't even compare to the Southland. And, could you for even a second imagine billboards and a marketing campaign celebrating our entry into the Belt?! No freakin' way. Non-wonks don't even know what the Belt is or else they equate it to something like the Southland.

Of course, it is great having a couple of Texas universities, too. That's big.

This is a very exciting move. It's going to help recruiting, and we are going to get greater exposure. I can't wait for WAC teams to start visiting. I plan to make a real effort to attend more games.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

Posts: 987 Member Since:07/27/11 Maverick

#28 [url]

Aug 14 11 7:22 PM

Re: Conference Realignment

^Everything that you said has merit yet is esoteric and in some cases irrelevant to putting up a competitive team. Academics plays little when talking about schools. Does anyone ever say Missouri doesn't belong in the Big 12 because they aren't the same academically as their peers? Compare SMU and Marshall in C-USA for that matter.

There are two reasons I don't like this move. The first is travel costs. Our current budget is about 8 million. There will need to be roughly 1 to 2 million more just to cover that and leave everything else the same. The other factor in costs is that the student fee is tied to semester hours. For example, if gas prices continue to rise long term like they have the last decade or so, the department will have to funnel more money to that, at the expense of other things. Meanwhile,, if credit hours don't continue to rise, the money will do the same. There is a very real chance, that as the student population levels out in the next 10 - 20 years, the athletic department will have some very tough choices on their hands.

Second, there is little chance for rivalries in the WAC. Yes, UTSA and TSU-SM made the trip, but can anyone relate to Idaho? Seattle? Denver, San Jose or New Mexico? We had real opportunities with SFA. And had we gone to the SUn Belt instead, the entire western division minus Arkansas-Little Rock would have been old conference mates. Natural rivalries for schools like us have to be either geographically close or schools we have played often for a long time.

Duck wrote:
I recon it can't hurt. Possibly there will be more potential new WAC members shaking loose from the other conferences. In the long run, I think Fo's concerns about travel costs will become paramount and there will be some kind of mass reorganization into more compact groupings, either as separate conferences or as sub-conferences.

The SEC, for example, could find itself morphing into three divisions, which would potentially result in divisional playoffs along the lines of major league baseball. I could imagine the champions of East, West and Atlantic divisions, plus the wildcard entering into a two-step playoff for the SEC championship. Not to be too cynical, but I'm sure whatever horse-by-committee setup they end up with will be whatever maximizes money for the majority involved.


I was all ready to believe you this time, since I didn't last time, and other than the Pac-16, you were right. However, this time the SEC appears to be the sane one. They will not send A&M an invite. For them, it may be a blessing. Prior to joining the SEC, Arkansas won a share of the SWC championship 13 time in football and 22 times in men's basketball. The have zero football championships and 2 basketball (0 touney's).

Historically speaking, 12 team conferences have always been the most stable, for several reasons. I don't think the SEC, perhaps the most stable conference ever, needs to consider any changes. Were I the Big 12, TCU would have to get a serious look, as would a team like Houston. Arkansas would be better off in the Big 12 with their old rivals, but money, not winning and tradition rule the day.

From viewtopic.php?f=6&t=64
Duck wrote:
Thanks Fo. Great Stuff!!! Your additions have certainly enriched this forum. I wonder how the WAC will compare in Men's and Women's tennis? IMO those are the best opportunities we will have to win any conference crowns the first couple of years, unless Golf, Baseball or Softball exceed my expectations.


I can't do tennis, because there is no RPI ranking on the NCAA page, only top 25. Tulsa was the only school among the five conference I was profiling to be a top womens team, while none made the men's.

I expect baseball to be an immediate contender. The rest, not so much.

It is apparent to me, after looking at these rankings and teams available, the WAC was looking at markets primarily and football programs second. Seattle, Denver and UTA offer nothing fantasic, except top media markets.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

Posts: 987 Member Since:07/27/11 Maverick

#29 [url]

Aug 15 11 12:28 PM

Re: Conference Realignment

Continuing on the A&M snub topic, I think that there won't be much of an end to the realignment until every BCS conference gets 12 teams. That has been the impotence for the last several rounds of realignment. SEC in 1990, Big 12 in 1996, ACC is 2005, PAC - 12 and Big 10 for the 2011 season. That just leaves the Big East and the Big 12. The Big East is perhaps the one to watch here. With 17 members, they are about to undergo changes one way or another. 9 football, 8 non-football is likely to split.

Football
Cincinatti
Connecticutt
Louisville
Pittsburgh
Rutgers
South Florida
Syracuse
TCU
West Virginia

Basketball
De Paul
Georgetown
Marquette
Notre Dame
Providence
Saint John’s
Seton Hall
Villanova

So of the six BCS conferences, the SEC, ACC, Big 10(12) and the Pac-12 each have 12 teams. The Big 12(10) did and the Big East was just struggling to stay alive.

Now obviously Notre Dame is its own entity, but the others have a lot of differences with the football schools. With the Big 10 at 12, I doubt they would want to add Notre Dame. The Big 12 may, especially just for football, but then the Big East would get a little upset I am sure.

TCU and South Florida are the outliers. They are a long distance from the nearest team. That is why TCU would make a good Big 12 team. South Florida has little options but to stay where they are or leave a BCS conference.

Were I the Big 12, TCU and Houston are in, giving them 12. The Big East is up in the air. TCU wouldn’t cause much in the way of ripples. The Big East could still stay alive with 8 teams, but C-USA would add another. C-USA would likely look for another west team to keep their championship game. Then you would see a ripple in the Sun Belt or WAC. In my mind, C-USA is now the best non-BCS conference. They would have no problem replacing Houston, if they were to move.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

UTAMavalum83

Senior

Posts: 142 Member Since:07/13/11 Senior

#30 [url]

Aug 15 11 8:49 PM

Re: Conference Realignment

FoUTASportscaster wrote:
^Everything that you said has merit yet is esoteric and in some cases irrelevant to putting up a competitive team. Academics plays little when talking about schools. It is becomging more and more of a factor. Does anyone ever say Missouri doesn't belong in the Big 12 because they aren't the same academically as their peers? Some in the Big 10 said that about them a year ago.Compare SMU and Marshall in C-USA for that matter.

There are two reasons I don't like this move. The first is travel costs. Our current budget is about 8 million. There will need to be roughly 1 to 2 million more just to cover that and leave everything else the same. The other factor in costs is that the student fee is tied to semester hours. For example, if gas prices continue to rise long term like they have the last decade or so, the department will have to funnel more money to that, at the expense of other things. Meanwhile,, if credit hours don't continue to rise, the money will do the same. There is a very real chance, that as the student population levels out in the next 10 - 20 years, the athletic department will have some very tough choices on their hands.

Second, there is little chance for rivalries in the WAC. Yes, UTSA and TSU-SM made the trip, but can anyone relate to Idaho? Seattle? Denver, San Jose or New Mexico? We had real opportunities with SFA. And had we gone to the SUn Belt instead, The Sun Belt didn't invite us.the entire western division minus Arkansas-Little Rock would have been old conference mates. Natural rivalries for schools like us have to be either geographically close or schools we have played often for a long time.It's been a long time since we've played most of the Sun Belt schools with any frequency.

Duck wrote:
I recon it can't hurt. Possibly there will be more potential new WAC members shaking loose from the other conferences. In the long run, I think Fo's concerns about travel costs will become paramount and there will be some kind of mass reorganization into more compact groupings, either as separate conferences or as sub-conferences.

The SEC, for example, could find itself morphing into three divisions, which would potentially result in divisional playoffs along the lines of major league baseball. I could imagine the champions of East, West and Atlantic divisions, plus the wildcard entering into a two-step playoff for the SEC championship. Not to be too cynical, but I'm sure whatever horse-by-committee setup they end up with will be whatever maximizes money for the majority involved.


I was all ready to believe you this time, since I didn't last time, and other than the Pac-16, you were right. However, this time the SEC appears to be the sane one. They will not send A&M an invite. For them, it may be a blessing. Prior to joining the SEC, Arkansas won a share of the SWC championship 13 time in football and 22 times in men's basketball. The have zero football championships and 2 basketball (0 touney's). All they're doing is covering themslves to prevent a lawsuit.

Historically speaking, 12 team conferences have always been the most stable, for several reasons. I don't think the SEC, perhaps the most stable conference ever, needs to consider any changes. Were I the Big 12, TCU would have to get a serious look, as would a team like Houston. Arkansas would be better off in the Big 12 with their old rivals, but money, not winning and tradition rule the day.

From viewtopic.php?f=6&t=64
Duck wrote:
Thanks Fo. Great Stuff!!! Your additions have certainly enriched this forum. I wonder how the WAC will compare in Men's and Women's tennis? IMO those are the best opportunities we will have to win any conference crowns the first couple of years, unless Golf, Baseball or Softball exceed my expectations.


I can't do tennis, because there is no RPI ranking on the NCAA page, only top 25. Tulsa was the only school among the five conference I was profiling to be a top womens team, while none made the men's.

I expect baseball to be an immediate contender. The rest, not so much.

It is apparent to me, after looking at these rankings and teams available, the WAC was looking at markets primarily and football programs second. Seattle, Denver and UTA offer nothing fantasic, except top media markets.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

Posts: 987 Member Since:07/27/11 Maverick

#31 [url]

Sep 22 11 2:43 PM

Re: Conference Realignment

The more I look at it, the more I realize that BYU is not a good fit for the West Coast Conference. Sure, like all the other schools, they are a faith-based institution, but the conference does not offer several sports that they participate, football, softball, mens & womens swimming and diving, mens & womens indoor & outdoor track and field and mens volleyball. The conference also offers two sports that BYU doesn't participate in, women's golf and men's soccer. Seems to me that they are a perfect candidate for the Big 12.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

UTArlingtonMaverick

Posts: 197 Member Since:08/09/11 Grad Student

#32 [url]

Sep 22 11 8:30 PM

QQ

I thought they were the perfect candidate some time ago, but I am not sure they would do it at this very moment. The Big 12 is in such precarious condition.

And, even if things seem to settle down temparily, do they really want to be with Big Daddy UT and the butt-heads at Baylor?

I don't know. I'm not so sure anymore that the situation is really that attractive to BYU.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

Posts: 987 Member Since:07/27/11 Maverick

#33 [url]

Sep 22 11 8:45 PM

Re: Conference Realignment

The Big 12 doled out $140+ million last year. That combined with the Big 12 being a BCS conference and the fact they can keep their network makes it quite attractive.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

grumpdogg

Senior

Posts: 110 Member Since:03/02/11 Junior

#34 [url]

Oct 2 11 9:34 PM

Re: Conference Realignment

FoUTASportscaster wrote:
The more I look at it, the more I realize that BYU is not a good fit for the West Coast Conference. Sure, like all the other schools, they are a faith-based institution, but the conference does not offer several sports that they participate, football, softball, mens & womens swimming and diving, mens & womens indoor & outdoor track and field and mens volleyball. The conference also offers two sports that BYU doesn't participate in, women's golf and men's soccer. Seems to me that they are a perfect candidate for the Big 12.


Isn't BYU only in the WCC for sports other than football anyway? Also, BYU had men's soccer up until 5 or 6 years ago when they pulled their team and entered them in the Premier Development League which is essentially a semi-pro league that allows college players to participate in the summer time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

Posts: 987 Member Since:07/27/11 Maverick

#35 [url]

Oct 3 11 1:34 PM

Re: Conference Realignment

If you look close at my post, you see that almost half of the sports BYU offers does not compete in the WCC. West Coast Conference. Football, softball, mens swimming and diving, womens swimming and diving, mens indoor track, womens indoor track, mens outdoor track and field, womens outdoor track and field and mens volleyball all are played at BYU and not offered as a WCC competition.

Other than mens mens volleyball, as sports would have a home in the Big 12.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

FoUTASportscaster

Maverick

Posts: 987 Member Since:07/27/11 Maverick

#36 [url]

Dec 7 11 7:47 PM

Re: Conference Realignment

So you have to wonder about the stability of the WAC now, since the Big East once again raided C-USA and somehow the MWC, yes the W stands for west. C-USA is now at nine schools, and may consider going back to 12 for the championship game, although that did cost them a BCS berth this year. Nine and 12 are the most stable of conference numbers from a scheduling standpoint, so it will be interesting to see their move.

The MWC has gotten the most screwed out of this process. Their teams, despite not having an auto berth, have as many or more wins in BCS bowls than either the ACC or Big East current members and no conference has a better winning percentage overall. Yet they lost the top three schools and one other.

In an ideal world, the current MWC merges with the current WAC, but I am sure pride will get in the way. The WAC has seven football and 11 total members and the MWC has eight football and seven total members. If Air Force does leave, then that is an even 16, which is still unstable, but not undoable. La Tech must be thinking about C-USA.

Meanwhile, the Sun Belt has 11 schools, ten for football. North Texas has wanted to join C-USA, but surely so would others. I wouldn't rule out a conference folding, at least for football.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help