Catattack wrote:Seems like the state of Montana has plenty of advertisers since they can support the broadcasting of basically every Bobcat and Grizzly game.
And when advertising goes up ten fold are the Montana businesses (currently advertising during UM and MSU games) going to be able to keep advertising? Trust me, right now, the games are only broadcasted in Montana, when games are broadcasted in ten other states the cost of advertising will go up.
Is a company more inclined to advertise during a game that could potentially reach 960 thousand people or a game that has the potential to reach 1.93 million (most of whom have more disposable income)? It's up to the WAC to decide, but when it comes down to votes, Sac State already has three, SJSU (sister institution), Fresno State (sister institution), and Nevada (travel costs and exposure in a large market). Oh, and I'm sure Hawaii would enjoy a direct flight to Sacramento for travel purposes for all of the trips they have to make.
I agree about the votes. CA WAC schools would most likely vote for a CA FCS school, NM State & La Tech (assuming they stay WAC) most likely vote for a TX FCS school, USU & Idaho probably vote for UM. I would also guess Hawaii and Nevada would probably vote for a CA FCS school as well due to its shorter travel.
Herky wrote:
And when advertising goes up ten fold are the Montana businesses (currently advertising during UM and MSU games) going to be able to keep advertising? Trust me, right now, the games are only broadcasted in Montana, when games are broadcasted in ten other states the cost of advertising will go up.
Is a company more inclined to advertise during a game that could potentially reach 960 thousand people or a game that has the potential to reach 1.93 million (most of whom have more disposable income)? It's up to the WAC to decide, but when it comes down to votes, Sac State already has three, SJSU (sister institution), Fresno State (sister institution), and Nevada (travel costs and exposure in a large market). Oh, and I'm sure Hawaii would enjoy a direct flight to Sacramento for travel purposes for all of the trips they have to make.
I agree about the votes. CA WAC schools would most likely vote for a CA FCS school, NM State & La Tech (assuming they stay WAC) most likely vote for a TX FCS school, USU & Idaho probably vote for UM. I would also guess Hawaii and Nevada would probably vote for a CA FCS school as well due to its shorter travel.
Well, if those schools are that short sighted, they get what they deserve.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
AZGrizFan wrote:Well, if those schools are that short sighted, they get what they deserve.
Who else is there for the WAC to invite? No way anyone currently in the FBS moves to the WAC. I would think the school Presidents (or whoever casts the votes) would look to minimize expenses while maximize potential revenue. My guess is that a stronger regional presence in CA would be the best way for the majority of the WAC members to do this.
AZGrizFan wrote:Well, if those schools are that short sighted, they get what they deserve.
Who else is there for the WAC to invite? No way anyone currently in the FBS moves to the WAC. I would think the school Presidents (or whoever casts the votes) would look to minimize expenses while maximize potential revenue. My guess is that a stronger regional presence in CA would be the best way for the majority of the WAC members to do this.
My point is this: If ANY of those teams other than Montana are invited, it so severely weakens the WAC as to make it almost laughable (or MORE laughable than it already is and would be with Montana as the invitee). If they (the schools) are so short-sighted as to not give a shit about their conference strength or reputation, then invite a Sac State or Texas State.
If they care about inviting a team that would be competitive (of course, THAT may be what they're trying to avoid....) then invite Montana.
"Ah fuck. You are right." KYJelly, 11/6/12
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." Barack Obama, 9/25/12
SDHornet wrote:
Who else is there for the WAC to invite? No way anyone currently in the FBS moves to the WAC. I would think the school Presidents (or whoever casts the votes) would look to minimize expenses while maximize potential revenue. My guess is that a stronger regional presence in CA would be the best way for the majority of the WAC members to do this.
My point is this: If ANY of those teams other than Montana are invited, it so severely weakens the WAC as to make it almost laughable (or MORE laughable than it already is and would be with Montana as the invitee). If they (the schools) are so short-sighted as to not give a **** about their conference strength or reputation, then invite a Sac State or Texas State.
If they care about inviting a team that would be competitive (of course, THAT may be what they're trying to avoid....) then invite Montana.
Is anyone in either the WAC or from UM selling this to the WAC Commish?
Since the Big 12(10) are staying together it looks like Utah will be invited to the Pac 10 tomorrow and then the MWC can decided to stay at 9, or go back to 10. Candidates Houston, Fresno St., Nevada probably in that order. If a miracle happens and they go to 12 that would be ideal for me.
Another problem for the MWC schools is that Utah leaving could stop the BCS AQ.
The Big 12 wants to stay at 10(I hate it) BYU would bring a lot to the table and was rumored to be going along with Air Force, this sounds like it's off the table with the new TV deal projections of 20 per school for UT/OU/A&M and 14-17 mill for the other 7. Louisville, Memphis would also be prime targets if they wanted to get that title game back.
If all this shit only nets 1 school getting to move up and play with big boys while killing the MWCs chance of bringing 10 more into the fold it just proves 200% more of a reason why this BCS FBS set up is the most fucked up thing I've ever seen. BCS(Vince McMahon) FBS = WWE
Whoever was talking about UC Davis having no chance because they dropped 4 sports, think again. They still have 23, 5 more than Fresno St. and close to 30,000 students, which would rank #1 or #2 in the WAC SJSU might be close.
Fresno St. Alum wrote:Whoever was talking about UC Davis having no chance because they dropped 4 sports, think again. They still have 23, 5 more than Fresno St. and close to 30,000 students, which would rank #1 or #2 in the WAC SJSU might be close.
Also the 4 sports they dropped are sports that the WAC does not offer.
Fresno St. Alum wrote:Whoever was talking about UC Davis having no chance because they dropped 4 sports, think again. They still have 23, 5 more than Fresno St. and close to 30,000 students, which would rank #1 or #2 in the WAC SJSU might be close.
Also the 4 sports they dropped are sports that the WAC does not offer.
The cutting of the 4 sports only helps them; and IMO they should have cut more sports. The only thing holding them back (besides their incompetent admin) is their undersized stadium, 10.8k just won’t get it done.
Fresno St. Alum wrote:Whoever was talking about UC Davis having no chance because they dropped 4 sports, think again. They still have 23, 5 more than Fresno St. and close to 30,000 students, which would rank #1 or #2 in the WAC SJSU might be close.
Also the 4 sports they dropped are sports that the WAC does not offer.
The point is that they cannot justify the added expense of moving up when they just cut four (4) sports programs due to funding. Even if presented with an invite, I do not beleive they would accept as it would spur protests that would rival those in the 60's. They just raised student fees 32% and are planning to raise them again next semester, it's a long shot at best. FYI, none of the planned increases are for athletics and they are planning to cut a total of 9 sports teams over the next few years, there's 5 more programs to go.
Sac State passed an increase to pump more money into athletics. Wanless has also said that they can afford the additional $5 million a year, it's not a problem.
If it looks like a cow, smells like a cow, and moo's like a cow, it's a UC Davis coed.
Fresno St. Alum wrote:Since the Big 12(10) are staying together it looks like Utah will be invited to the Pac 10 tomorrow and then the MWC can decided to stay at 9, or go back to 10. Candidates Houston, Fresno St., Nevada probably in that order. If a miracle happens and they go to 12 that would be ideal for me.
Another problem for the MWC schools is that Utah leaving could stop the BCS AQ.
The Big 12 wants to stay at 10(I hate it) BYU would bring a lot to the table and was rumored to be going along with Air Force, this sounds like it's off the table with the new TV deal projections of 20 per school for UT/OU/A&M and 14-17 mill for the other 7. Louisville, Memphis would also be prime targets if they wanted to get that title game back.
If all this **** only nets 1 school getting to move up and play with big boys while killing the MWCs chance of bringing 10 more into the fold it just proves 200% more of a reason why this BCS FBS set up is the most **** up thing I've ever seen. BCS(Vince McMahon) FBS = WWE
I understand the frustration however I am relieved that the Pac 20 wasn’t able to come to fruition. Assuming the MWC doesn’t get a BCS bid, a mega conference with that line up would have made every western football conference virtually irrelevant as far as the casual fan is concerned. If the MWC does go to 12 and takes Nevada and Fresno State, the WAC will be completely dead and any positives associated with moving to the WAC would be thrown out the window.
SloStang wrote:
Also the 4 sports they dropped are sports that the WAC does not offer.
The point is that they cannot justify the added expense of moving up when they just cut four (4) sports programs due to funding. Even if presented with an invite, I do not beleive they would accept as it would spur protests that would rival those in the 60's. They just raised student fees 32% and are planning to raise them again next semester, it's a long shot at best. FYI, none of the planned increases are for athletics and they are planning to cut a total of 9 sports teams over the next few years, there's 5 more programs to go.
Sac State passed an increase to pump more money into athletics. Wanless has also said that they can afford the additional $5 million a year, it's not a problem.
I agree about the ucd funding situation. I can’t see the academic heads over there standing idly by while athletics gets funded for an FBS move.
President Gonzales passed an increase, not Sac State students. (Which I am ok with as it needed to be done.)
Herky wrote:
And when advertising goes up ten fold are the Montana businesses (currently advertising during UM and MSU games) going to be able to keep advertising? Trust me, right now, the games are only broadcasted in Montana, when games are broadcasted in ten other states the cost of advertising will go up.
Is a company more inclined to advertise during a game that could potentially reach 960 thousand people or a game that has the potential to reach 1.93 million (most of whom have more disposable income)? It's up to the WAC to decide, but when it comes down to votes, Sac State already has three, SJSU (sister institution), Fresno State (sister institution), and Nevada (travel costs and exposure in a large market). Oh, and I'm sure Hawaii would enjoy a direct flight to Sacramento for travel purposes for all of the trips they have to make.
I agree about the votes. CA WAC schools would most likely vote for a CA FCS school, NM State & La Tech (assuming they stay WAC) most likely vote for a TX FCS school, USU & Idaho probably vote for UM. I would also guess Hawaii and Nevada would probably vote for a CA FCS school as well due to its shorter travel.
You might think that's the obvious move for them, but I'm not so sure I'd go with that. NMSU at least (and possibly LA Tech) just might go for Sac on the basis of having played in a conference with a Superior California team in the past (UOP). For hoops, pairing a Sac trip with one to Fresno or Reno just might be the way to go. (Sac/Fresno or Sac/Reno would be fairly likely pairings.)
SuperHornet's Athletics Hall of Fame includes Jacksonville State kicker Ashley Martin, the first girl to score in a Division I football game. She kicked 3 PATs in a 2001 game for J-State.
SDHornet wrote:
I agree about the votes. CA WAC schools would most likely vote for a CA FCS school, NM State & La Tech (assuming they stay WAC) most likely vote for a TX FCS school, USU & Idaho probably vote for UM. I would also guess Hawaii and Nevada would probably vote for a CA FCS school as well due to its shorter travel.
You might think that's the obvious move for them, but I'm not so sure I'd go with that. NMSU at least (and possibly LA Tech) just might go for Sac on the basis of having played in a conference with a Superior California team in the past (UOP). For hoops, pairing a Sac trip with one to Fresno or Reno just might be the way to go. (Sac/Fresno or Sac/Reno would be fairly likely pairings.)
If it looks like a cow, smells like a cow, and moo's like a cow, it's a UC Davis coed.
I don't think that they are off topic, they directly relate to the discussion IMO.
I do, however, think that the link regarding the UC only strengthens my point about Davis.
The Sac State budget info was produced on April 30th, thats more than a month before Gonzo and Wanless said that making the move to FBS was not a problem (last week). That means, after that was produced the president and AD said that the university could afford it. The ABA made recomendations, that's what they do, it really means nothing.
SD, I know that. I was just tired of having to point that out every time it was mentioned, and I agree, he did the right thing.
If it looks like a cow, smells like a cow, and moo's like a cow, it's a UC Davis coed.
SDHornet wrote:
Who else is there for the WAC to invite? No way anyone currently in the FBS moves to the WAC. I would think the school Presidents (or whoever casts the votes) would look to minimize expenses while maximize potential revenue. My guess is that a stronger regional presence in CA would be the best way for the majority of the WAC members to do this.
My point is this: If ANY of those teams other than Montana are invited, it so severely weakens the WAC as to make it almost laughable (or MORE laughable than it already is and would be with Montana as the invitee). If they (the schools) are so short-sighted as to not give a shit about their conference strength or reputation, then invite a Sac State or Texas State.
If they care about inviting a team that would be competitive (of course, THAT may be what they're trying to avoid....) then invite Montana.
Add Texas St and Montana. Then I have an excuse to meet Griz Goddess.
Jerry freakin Springer 
