Who Replaces Boise State in the WAC?

[frinq]

Hmm. I see what you mean. Athletic budgets: Sac State 15 million, PSU 9 million. Looks hopeless, doesn't it. I didn't realise Sac State ran such a large budget.

[Mike Johnson]

Just showing the full financial reporting for the four Big Sky schools with the largest total revenues:

Portland State does pretty well compared to CSU-Sacramento in terms of football and men's basketball. CSU-Sacramento, on the other had, reported over 6 million in unallocated revenues, which generally donations, student fees, and state appropriations.

• Expenses * * * * * * Montana State * * * * CSU-Sacramento * * * Montana * * * Portland State
  Football* * * * * * * * * $5,209,096 * * * * $2,526,780 * * * $4,282,323 * * * $3,064,257
  Men's BB * * * * * * * * $1,420,633 * * * * * $767,829 * * * $1,469,005 * * * $1,027,834
  Women's BB * * * * * * $1,041,047 * * * * * $689,109 * * * $1,236,462 * * * $840,465
  Men's Other * * * * * * $1,048,330 * * * * $1,320,009 * * * $596,747 * * * $484,099
  Women's Other * * * * $2,207,239 * * * * $3,197,955 * * * $2,087,068 * * * $2,409,965
  Unallocated * * * * * * $3,412,102 * * * * $5,559,085 * * * $4,072,572 * * * $2,486,137
  Total * * * * * * * * * $14,338,447 * * * $14,060,767 * * * $13,744,177 * * * $10,312,757
  
  Revenues
  Football* * * * * * * * $5,617,165 * * * * $2,316,920 * * * $4,689,503 * * * $3,064,257
  Men's BB * * * * * * * $1,140,984 * * * * * $996,203 * * * $649,493 * * * $1,027,834
  Women's BB * * * * * * $581,909 * * * * * $877,259 * * * $529,517 * * * $840,465
  Men's Other * * * * * * $751,793 * * * * $1,521,936 * * * $17,751 * * * $484,099
  Women's Other * * * $1,625,261 * * * * $2,051,346 * * * $50,143 * * * $2,432,986
  Unallocated * * * * * $4,772,302 * * * * $6,297,103 * * * $7,874,930 * * * $2,463,116
  Total * * * * * * * * $14,489,414 * * * $14,060,767 * * * $13,811,337 * * * $10,312,757

[Green Cookie Monster]

Ok, you still only have a $9.8M budget.

[Green Cookie Monster]

%$(*&^

[GrizFan5]

Looking at the above Football Revenues for MSU, note that MSU's Ticket Sales were $1,560,551 and Guarantees were $864,000 in the '09/'08 fiscal year. Looks like the MSU figure is pretty misleading. I wonder what got included in the number in the above post.

[Mike Johnson]

It came from equity in athletics for the 2008-09 year (the most recent data). I must say I was surprised by Montana State's reported football revenues as well. Revenues for a sport include ticket sales, TV or radio money, pay to play, donations earmarked for a sport. Numbers could be wrong; they are reported by the institution to the US Department of Education and I have no idea how much, if any, checking is done. I have seen incorrect data at times, but most of the time, the numbers either are very close to what other sources say or way off. There usually isn't much middle ground.

[Catattack]

We had a kick ass bake sale and lemonade stand.

[SDHornet]

... CSU-Sacramento, on the other had, reported over 6 million in unallocated revenues, which generally donations, student fees, and state appropriations.

Great list MJ. I'll point out that I don't think these "revenues" include the student athletic fee increase the Sac State President added last year.

[Mike Johnson]

... CSU-Sacramento, on the other had, reported over 6 million in unallocated revenues, which generally donations, student fees, and state appropriations.

Great list MJ. I'll point out that I don't think these "revenues" include the student athletic fee increase the Sac State President added last year.

The data was from 2008-09, the most recent data in the Equity in Athletics, so a fee increase starting in the fall of 2009 would not be included.

[frinq]

Interesting. A president can simply announce a student fee for "athletics"? I wonder how many schools have that fee?

[Green Cookie Monster]

Interesting. A president can simply announce a student fee for "athletics"? I wonder how many schools have that fee?

Prez. at San Diego State also instituted an athletics fee. The one at Sac State has provisions for cost-of-living, so it adjusts, and as we know, COL rarely goes down.

[SDHornet]

Interesting. A president can simply announce a student fee for "athletics"? I wonder how many schools have that fee?

Prez. at San Diego State also instituted an athletics fee. The one at Sac State has provisions for cost-of-living, so it adjusts, and as we know, COL rarely goes down.

The Prez at SDSU also supports the athletic department with a "one time only" infusion of cash from the general fund once every year. Let's just say there are many professors who are thrilled by this. Definitely not a sustainable solution.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

I don't know if this article was posted previously but I don't remember seeing it.

http://www.ktvb.com/community/blogs/sco ... 66694.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Fresno St. Alum]

The WAC will not expand this year. So the earliest a new member could join is 2012. This is bad news for WAC members but good news for UTSA and anyone else needing time to position themselves for an FBS move up.

DENVER - WAC commissioner Karl Benson announced today that the WAC will delay any expansion of its membership until July 1, 2012 at the earliest. This means that for the 2011-12 season, the WAC will operate as an eight-team league that consists of Fresno State, Hawai'i, Idaho, Louisiana Tech, Nevada, New Mexico State, San Jose State and Utah State.

"The WAC and its eight member schools remain well positioned for the future," said Benson. "Over the past few weeks, the WAC's Board of Directors and athletics directors have explored several membership options. We believe it is in the best interest of the WAC to operate as an eight-team league for the 2011-12 season. We will now take several months to 'drill down' on the various membership options before making any decisions that would impact the 2012-13 season."

"Throughout its history and since its inception in 1962, the WAC has operated very successfully as an 8-team, 9-team and 10-team league. Each of those models have their advantages and all will be looked at very closely. Also, a 12-team league that would allow the WAC to split into divisions and conduct a football championship game will be evaluated."

"The future for the WAC is very bright, and we will continue to provide our student-athletes with the opportunities to compete on both the regional and national stages in all of our sports."

[Silenoz]

I don't get it. LA Tech wants out bad. The only replacements the WAC is gonna get is FCS, and they're gonna need a couple years for the transition. So if LA Tech bails after this season, what the f#ck are they gonna do for those years in-between members? Pray that UNT wants in for some reason?

[dbackjon]

I don't get it. LA Tech wants out bad. The only replacements the WAC is gonna get is FCS, and they're gonna need a couple years for the transition. So if LA Tech bails after this season, what the f#ck are they gonna do for those years in-between members? Pray that UNT wants in for some reason?

Pray that the Big 12 gets raided again, raids the MWC, and merges with the remnants

[Fresno St. Alum]

I don't get it. LA Tech wants out bad. The only replacements the WAC is gonna get is FCS, and they're gonna need a couple years for the transition. So if LA Tech bails after this season, what the f#ck are they gonna do for those years in-between members? Pray that UNT wants in for some reason?

Say La Tech agrees to rejoin the Sun Belt next summer. The earliest they'd play a SBC schedule is 2012. So if La Tech announces they're leaving from July 1 2010-June 30 2011, or not at all, the WAC is safe. If they say they're going to the SBC tomorrow then the WAC is in trouble.

[AZGrizFan]

WAC is setting themselves up for a Montana offer, once the moratorium expires and Montana has completed their "study".

[Silenoz]

I don't get it. LA Tech wants out bad. The only replacements the WAC is gonna get is FCS, and they're gonna need a couple years for the transition. So if LA Tech bails after this season, what the f#ck are they gonna do for those years in-between members? Pray that UNT wants in for some reason?

Say La Tech agrees to rejoin the Sun Belt next summer. The earliest they'd play a SBC schedule is 2012. So if La Tech announces they're leaving from July 1 2010-June 30 2011, or not at all, the WAC is safe. If they say they're going to the SBC tomorrow then the WAC is in trouble.

Ok, then next year the WAC counters by offering UM or Texas State. That school starts it's first year of transition in 2012. They join the WAC in 2014. What does the WAC do in the interim?

[SouthDakotaGrizzly]

Ok, then next year the WAC counters by offering UM or Texas State. That school starts it's first year of transition in 2012. They join the WAC in 2014. What does the WAC do in the interim?

Exactly what dbackjon said above: hope and pray that the Big 12 raids the MWC, necessitating a merger between the WAC and MWC and basically reinstating the "old" WAC (from before the MWC days, but obviously with a few different teams). This is probably the best case scenario for UM or Texas St. because they'd suddenly have the prospect of moving from FCS to a potential BCS conference, assuming the merged WAC/MWC could finally achieve that status.

[Silenoz]

Ok, then next year the WAC counters by offering UM or Texas State. That school starts it's first year of transition in 2012. They join the WAC in 2014. What does the WAC do in the interim?

Exactly what dbackjon said above: hope and pray that the Big 12 raids the MWC, necessitating a merger between the WAC and MWC and basically reinstating the "old" WAC (from before the MWC days, but obviously with a few different teams). This is probably the best case scenario for UM or Texas St. because they'd suddenly have the prospect of moving from FCS to a potential BCS conference, assuming the merged WAC/MWC could finally achieve that status.

The only explanation that makes sense to me is what some have said already; an FCS school or two has basically accepted an invite behind closed doors. Over the next year they are going to prepare for the transition, whether that means facilities, student fees, whatever. They get the official invite next summer, which allows them to start the transition in 2012 when the moratorium is lifted. And they assume LA Tech doesn't announce they're leaving until 2013.

[Fresno St. Alum]

Say La Tech agrees to rejoin the Sun Belt next summer. The earliest they'd play a SBC schedule is 2012. So if La Tech announces they're leaving from July 1 2010-June 30 2011, or not at all, the WAC is safe. If they say they're going to the SBC tomorrow then the WAC is in trouble.

Ok, then next year the WAC counters by offering UM or Texas State. That school starts it's first year of transition in 2012. They join the WAC in 2014. What does the WAC do in the interim?

Look at WKU. Once they were moving to FBS. They played an "Indy" FBS schedule for 2 years even though there were many SBC opponents. Now they are Sun Belt. Summer 2011. Say Montana is invited to the WAC. 2011 is year 1 of the transition. Playing their last year in the Sky. 2012, year 2 of the transition FBS indy/ scheduling alliance with the WAC. 2013 full WAC member. Note Basketball would be a full WAC member in 2012.

Basketball: no affect if Montana is added and La Tech leaves
Football: A 1 year waiver could be asked for by the WAC for bowl tie ins while Montana is in the last year of its transition. It will likely be granted since Montana would be playing all the WAC/FBS members in 2012.

[Silenoz]

Ok, then next year the WAC counters by offering UM or Texas State. That school starts it's first year of transition in 2012. They join the WAC in 2014. What does the WAC do in the interim?

Look at WKU. Once they were moving to FBS. They played an "Indy" FBS schedule for 2 years even though there were many SBC opponents. Now they are Sun Belt. Summer 2011. Say Montana is invited to the WAC. 2011 is year 1 of the transition. Playing their last year in the Sky. 2012, year 2 of the transition FBS indy/ scheduling alliance with the WAC. 2013 full WAC member. Note Basketball would be a full WAC member in 2012.

Basketball: no affect if Montana is added and La Tech leaves
Football: A 1 year waiver could be asked for by the WAC for bowl tie ins while Montana is in the last year of its transition. It will likely be granted since Montana would be playing all the WAC/FBS members in 2012.

I didn't realize that we could play our normal Big Sky/FCS schedule and have that count towards our transitional 2 years. Has anyone ever done that?

[AZGrizFan]

Ok, then next year the WAC counters by offering UM or Texas State. That school starts it's first year of transition in 2012. They join the WAC in 2014. What does the WAC do in the interim?

Exactly what dbackjon said above: hope and pray that the Big 12 raids the MWC, necessitating a merger between the WAC and MWC and basically reinstating the "old" WAC (from before the MWC days, but obviously with a few different teams). This is probably the best case scenario for UM or Texas St. because they'd suddenly have the prospect of moving from FCS to a potential BCS conference, assuming the merged WAC/MWC could finally achieve that status.

If the MWC is raided and the remnants of the MWC merge with the WAC, why would they need to expand even further?

[Fresno St. Alum]

Look at WKU. Once they were moving to FBS. They played an "Indy" FBS schedule for 2 years even though there were many SBC opponents. Now they are Sun Belt. Summer 2011. Say Montana is invited to the WAC. 2011 is year 1 of the transition. Playing their last year in the Sky. 2012, year 2 of the transition FBS indy/ scheduling alliance with the WAC. 2013 full WAC member. Note Basketball would be a full WAC member in 2012.

Basketball: no affect if Montana is added and La Tech leaves
Football: A 1 year waiver could be asked for by the WAC for bowl tie ins while Montana is in the last year of its transition. It will likely be granted since Montana would be playing all the WAC/FBS members in 2012.

I didn't realize that we could play our normal Big Sky/FCS schedule and have that count towards our transitional 2 years. Has anyone ever done that?

Good question. For WKU they last played in the gateway in 2006, was fbs Indy in 2007, 2008 even though they played lots of SBC schools. Then became a full member in 2009. Remember there was no rush for them or USA to join until everything was complete since the SBC had 8 fb members. It's been a while since Troy, ULM, UNT, UCF, Arkansas St., UConn moved up and not sure how they all went about it. I don't know what the rules were for some of them, it was so long ago. FIU, FAU, USA went from start up to FCS Indy since they knew FBS was their landing spot.

Think of Montana like this. In the spring of 2011 Montana will have its Big Sky schedule, probably full schedule set. Next June the WAC invites them. They say okay we're in, we start the process of moving to FBS. They play that last Big Sky schedule, then in 2012 schedule mostly FBS opponents including most if not every WAC member as an "Indy" technically WAC since they invited them.

Nebraska, Utah, Boise St. are playing out their last year as a lame duck before moving on. Colorado is trying to move in 2011 instead of 2012 to prevent 2 lame duck years.