I blink and every hyphenated Texas school is invited to the party.

WTF?

I'm okay with the Denver and Seattle additions because they pass they eye test (contain no hyphens), and are both respectable universities academically. I genuinely would have rather added UVU than anyone else though.

The WAC is starting to look more like the SWAC..

I realize schools aren't clamoring to join the WAC, but I don't think I realized it was THIS bad.

Seattle maybe, but Denver doesn't make any sense to me. Not sure how I feel about the hypen teams from the republic of Texas, but if it convinces the Montanas to join the party I'm all in. To me, Montana is the best option out there for us. I wish N. Texas was interested.

I think both Seattle and Denver have potential in that they have large private school endowments and are in destination cities. I think their profiles have just been elevated and recruiting and subsequently their play will pick up. Didn't Seattle just recently bring back D1 sports or sports in general? If Seattle brings back football I think it was a great move.

Denver should be encouraged to try football.

Do the Texas schools bring football? If not, they bring little by way of potential or finances.

Oh, and I'm total agreement in regards to Montana. I understand why the WAC isn't super attractive to them, but I think they have the potential to vastly increase their school's exposure and revenue if they jump when they become the next Boise St.

ineptimusprime wrote:I blink and every hyphenated Texas school is invited to the party.

WTF?

I'm okay with the Denver and Seattle additions because they pass they eye test (contain no hyphens), and are both respectable universities academically. I genuinely would have rather added UVU than anyone else though.

The WAC is starting to look more like the SWAC..

I realize schools aren't clamoring to join the WAC, but I don't think I realized it was THIS bad.

What happened to the WAC you ask? The simple answer is poor leadership and no clearly defined direction.

The WAC was formed with a fairly decent core group. Some of the programs thrived and jumped on the national scene as members of the WAC. Then the poor leader ship kicked in. The WAC 16 experiment was a failure. The MWC break-offs felt like they were being dragged down by the dead weights of the large conference. It was only by luck and a long-standing relatiomship with the other schools that Wyoming and Colorado State were included.

The real blow to the WAC was when the Texas schools and Tulsa bolted. I feel that if those schools would have stayed, Boise State, Nevada, Fresno State, and Hawaii would still be in the WAC. The WAC would still be a pretty decent conference (it would also not include USU, NMSU, and Idaho). When the Texas schools and Tulsa left the WAC had nowhere to go but to accept the dregs of the college football world. Since USU, NMSU, and Idaho were invited, FSU, UNR, UH, and Boise have been looking to bolt. Noone wants to be associated with the bottom of the barrel.

The sad thing is, if USU had even as much success as Idaho in the last 5 years they would be moving to the MWC. USU and the remaining WAC leftovers are reaping what they have sown with their lousy football over the last decades.

Right now the WAC is inviting a bunch of Texas schools. Will history repeat itself when the Texas schools see an opportunity to bolt? I think it is time for the WAC and its leadership to pull the chord on this pathetic attempt at life support they are on. The WAC brand has taken on the image of the conference teams want to leave.

Wow Yoss, did your cheerios taste a little like urine today?

"The sad thing is, if USU had even as much success as Idaho in the last 5 years"

How successful has Idaho really been the last 5 years? If thats our ceiling... then who can blame them?

Wow. Wow, wow.

You are all criticizing Benson... yet again?

He had a pile o' sh!t start with on this rebuild. All of the premier institutions bolted (USU excluded, of course ). And IMO, Benson has done a pretty respectable job.

Here is what he has done:
1) Benson has added 4 schools in top 40 TV markets.
2) He has added arguably the best institutions available (at the time).
3) Benson has added schools with the most upside.
4) With the addition of UT-Arlington, Benson has balanced out the conference just enough... that the WAC can probably start to grab a few quality FCS schools (with North Texas being a more realistic long-shot).

Let's say that the WAC adds Portland State and Sacramento State next. Portland State--with the remodeled JELD-WEN Field--would be a nice addition (see http://www.droppingtimber.com/wordpress ... ation1.png ).

Portland State and Sacramento State would give the WAC two more universities in top 40 TV markets. If you include Utah State, that would give the WAC 7 members in top 40 markets. By comparison, the MWC has a presence in only two (2) top 40 markets.

From here, the WAC would be at 9/12. Everyone could breath for a moment before the next expansion (to 12/16).

FUTURE WAC WEST (6)
Seattle [no football] / Idaho
Portland State * / Utah State
Sacramento State * / San Jose State

FUTURE WAC EAST (6)
Denver [no football] / New Mexico State
Texas State / UT San Antonio
UT Arlington [no football] / Louisiana Tech

Lot's of upside here! And I could easily see the WAC obtaining a TV contract that would be superior to the MWC.

PS--Get over Montana and Montana State. Why don't we call them WY and WY Jr. just so we have a good comparison. I wouldn't even want them if you go to 12/16. No upside with these schools.

I was going to start this as a new topic, but thanks to the stupid rule that new members have to post 3 replys before being able to start a new topic I'll post this here.

Big Sky Conference dreams big

"Is Big Sky commissioner Doug Fullerton really holding open a door for Utah State and Idaho to join his expanding league?"

http://www.standard.net/topics/sports/2 ... dreams-big

Just thought you guys would be interested in hearing what the Big Sky commissioner had to say last night in Ogden in regards to the WAC and Utah St/Idaho.

WeberBacker wrote:I was going to start this as a new topic, but thanks to the stupid rule that new members have to post 3 replys before being able to start a new topic I'll post this here.

Big Sky Conference dreams big

"Is Big Sky commissioner Doug Fullerton really holding open a door for Utah State and Idaho to join his expanding league?"

http://www.standard.net/topics/sports/2 ... dreams-big

Just thought you guys would be interested in hearing what the Big Sky commissioner had to say last night in Ogden in regards to the WAC and Utah St/Idaho.

Being said tongue-in-cheek.

Dude is desperately trying to hold his league together. But he knows the party is going to end soon. The WAC is 1-3 years away from stealing a couple Big Sky teams. That's why the Big Sky added teams this past year.

WeberBacker wrote:I was going to start this as a new topic, but thanks to the stupid rule that new members have to post 3 replys before being able to start a new topic I'll post this here.

Big Sky Conference dreams big

"Is Big Sky commissioner Doug Fullerton really holding open a door for Utah State and Idaho to join his expanding league?"

http://www.standard.net/topics/sports/2 ... dreams-big

Just thought you guys would be interested in hearing what the Big Sky commissioner had to say last night in Ogden in regards to the WAC and Utah St/Idaho.

Yes, keep dreaming Mr. Fullerton. Seems like the things a man says that is fully aware of his conference's position and status. He knows they are a lesser league full of lesser institutions and he's probably sick of the fact that certain members of his conference have been contacted regarding a possible move. He can be 100% serious about an invite to anyone in the WAC to join the Big Sky, but that won't change the fact that it is not an attractive or sensible option.

Joe Utah wrote:

WeberBacker wrote:I was going to start this as a new topic, but thanks to the stupid rule that new members have to post 3 replys before being able to start a new topic I'll post this here.

Big Sky Conference dreams big

"Is Big Sky commissioner Doug Fullerton really holding open a door for Utah State and Idaho to join his expanding league?"

http://www.standard.net/topics/sports/2 ... dreams-big

Just thought you guys would be interested in hearing what the Big Sky commissioner had to say last night in Ogden in regards to the WAC and Utah St/Idaho.

Being said tongue-in-cheek.

Dude is desperately trying to hold his league together. But he knows the party is going to end soon. The WAC is 1-3 years away from stealing a couple Big Sky teams. That's why the Big Sky added teams this past year.

Obviously you're not buying his argument that "the best conferences at our level (FCS) are now in better financial and competive shape than the last quartile in FBS."

I wouldn't argue with you that you could see a couple Sky schools move to the WAC (most likely UM/MSU), but for the WAC's sake it would need to be sooner than later. How long can the WAC hold out with only 7 football playing members? The longer UM turns down the WAC, the more important it becomes for the WAC to look elsewhere. But where is elsewhere?

Joe Utah wrote:Wow. Wow, wow.

You are all criticizing Benson... yet again?

He had a pile o' sh!t start with on this rebuild. All of the premier institutions bolted (USU excluded, of course ). And IMO, Benson has done a pretty respectable job.

Here is what he has done:
1) Benson has added 4 schools in top 40 TV markets.
2) He has added arguably the best institutions available (at the time).
3) Benson has added schools with the most upside.
4) With the addition of UT-Arlington, Benson has balanced out the conference just enough... that the WAC can probably start to grab a few quality FCS schools (with North Texas being a more realistic long-shot).

Let's say that the WAC adds Portland State and Sacramento State next. Portland State--with the remodeled JELD-WEN Field--would be a nice addition (see http://www.droppingtimber.com/wordpress ... ation1.png ).

Portland State and Sacramento State would give the WAC two more universities in top 40 TV markets. If you include Utah State, that would give the WAC 7 members in top 40 markets. By comparison, the MWC has a presence in only two (2) top 40 markets.

From here, the WAC would be at 9/12. Everyone could breath for a moment before the next expansion (to 12/16).

FUTURE WAC WEST (6)
Seattle [no football] / Idaho
Portland State * / Utah State
Sacramento State * / San Jose State

FUTURE WAC EAST (6)
Denver [no football] / New Mexico State
Texas State / UT San Antonio
UT Arlington [no football] / Louisiana Tech

Lot's of upside here! And I could easily see the WAC obtaining a TV contract that would be superior to the MWC.

PS--Get over Montana and Montana State. Why don't we call them WY and WY Jr. just so we have a good comparison. I wouldn't even want them if you go to 12/16. No upside with these schools.

Perfect summary. The schools that have all been added have the size, budget, and market to add tremendous value to the WAC. Imagine a UTSA or a UTA that can now recruit to a name brand conference AND has the budget to be successful. Now throw in a market that will allow not only for the revenue from attendance, but when negotiating future tv contacts will have the population to leverage. Although market size does not guarantee success by any means, it sure as heck beats adding schools in very small markets with small stadiums. The additions that have been made are only the first step of bringing the WAC back after the recent defections. The second step will be adding 2 schools in the west and forming divisions to reduce travel cost.

One thing everyone needs to understand very clearly is the NCAA rules have made it nearly impossible to start up a new FBS playing conference. It just isn't going to happen. So any new FCS schools moving up that want to commit the necessary resources and have the budget to do it have limited options. The MWC and WAC will be the only FBS football conferences out west. The WAC has survived what were, every fan of every school, agrees very difficult losses. It has added schools with very attractive markets that have great potential and money to succeed. What more do you want from Benson?

Lastly, regarding the Big Sky. There really is no reason to discuss whatsoever. The Big Sky has as much leverage for keeping schools from the WAC as the WAC did from the MWC. If schools want to make the move and the WAC wants them, they will. It will be driven by going to a bigger name brand conference with FBS football, period. That doesn't mean their schools can't compete in basketball against the WAC. That's not a shot at any schools, presidents, leadership, etc. That's just reality.

The WAC has rebounded very nicely. Step 1 is complete with step 2 coming after next FCS season. How will it play out on the football field? How will it impact quality basketball programs like USU and NMSU? It remains to be seen and none of us know. I am, however, much more optimistic now than i was 6 months ago. Once the western schools are added next year, i think schools like USU and SJSU will feel a lot better after only seeing the eastern half grow this year.

alum93 wrote:Lastly, regarding the Big Sky. There really is no reason to discuss whatsoever. The Big Sky has as much leverage for keeping schools from the WAC as the WAC did from the MWC. If schools want to make the move and the WAC wants them, they will. It will be driven by going to a bigger name brand conference with FBS football, period. That doesn't mean their schools can't compete in basketball against the WAC. That's not a shot at any schools, presidents, leadership, etc. That's just reality.

At least in Montana's case it hasn't been a question of whether the "WAC wants them" but a question of whether they "want to make the move." And so far the answer had been no. So either the timing just isn't right for UM to move, or Fullerton is correct in thinking that the top tier FCS conferences are in a better position than the lower tier FBS conferences.

And as a fan of Big Sky football, I would say that an invite to Sac St and/or Portland St would be an embarrassing and desperate looking move for the WAC.

WeberBacker wrote:

alum93 wrote:Lastly, regarding the Big Sky. There really is no reason to discuss whatsoever. The Big Sky has as much leverage for keeping schools from the WAC as the WAC did from the MWC. If schools want to make the move and the WAC wants them, they will. It will be driven by going to a bigger name brand conference with FBS football, period. That doesn't mean their schools can't compete in basketball against the WAC. That's not a shot at any schools, presidents, leadership, etc. That's just reality.

At least in Montana's case it hasn't been a question of whether the "WAC wants them" but a question of whether they "want to make the move." And so far the answer had been no. So either the timing just isn't right for UM to move, or Fullerton is correct in thinking that the top tier FCS conferences are in a better position than the lower tier FBS conferences.

And as a lifelong fan of Big Sky football, I would say that an invite to Sac St and/or Portland St would be an embarrassing and desperate looking move for the WAC.

You got to go for upside. Portland State and Sacramento State have tons of it. Oregon could easily support a third FBS team. The newly remodeled JELD-WEN field is terrific. The school is in the heart of Portland. And it has a huge student enrollment. Same for Sacramento State. IMO, these schools just need something to get excited about. The WAC would provide these schools with this.

As far as the Montana brothers are concerned... they have peaked. What you see is what you get. They can't do any better. Ever.

Joe Utah wrote:Wow. Wow, wow.

PS--Get over Montana and Montana State. Why don't we call them WY and WY Jr. just so we have a good comparison. I wouldn't even want them if you go to 12/16. No upside with these schools.

So you are criticizing Montana and Montana State because they are Wyoming and Wyoming Junior. So, if Wyoming wanted to join the WAC, we should turn them down in favor of Portland State?

In my view, Montana is equivalent to Wyoming. The only differences are:

1) Wyoming just happens to be in the MWC and Montana isn't.
2) Montana looks like they might be willing to join the WAC and we now know that Wyoming isn't.

One of the major reasons why USU lined up behing the "project" was the hope that Wyoming and Colorado State would also join the WAC. If you were to ask most USU fans which schools would be in their dream conference, Wyoming would probably be among the first six selected by maybe 90% of them.

If you were to ask me which 12th school I'd like to see join USU in the MWC, it would be Montana. It certainly wouldn't be Portland State.

If Montana is Wyoming, what is Texas Arlington? Well, they are probably Texas Pan American. A school 1,000 miles away that no one at USU knows anything about.

What's the best choice for the eleventh and twelfth schools in the WAC? Wyoming or Texas Pan American?

Yossarian wrote:When the Texas schools and Tulsa left the WAC had nowhere to go but to accept the dregs of the college football world. Since USU, NMSU, and Idaho were invited, FSU, UNR, UH, and Boise have been looking to bolt. Noone wants to be associated with the bottom of the barrel.

If Noone University is willing to be assocaited with the bottom of the barrel, let's sign them up, along with Portland State, to get to 12!

Joe Utah wrote:

WeberBacker wrote:

alum93 wrote:Lastly, regarding the Big Sky. There really is no reason to discuss whatsoever. The Big Sky has as much leverage for keeping schools from the WAC as the WAC did from the MWC. If schools want to make the move and the WAC wants them, they will. It will be driven by going to a bigger name brand conference with FBS football, period. That doesn't mean their schools can't compete in basketball against the WAC. That's not a shot at any schools, presidents, leadership, etc. That's just reality.

At least in Montana's case it hasn't been a question of whether the "WAC wants them" but a question of whether they "want to make the move." And so far the answer had been no. So either the timing just isn't right for UM to move, or Fullerton is correct in thinking that the top tier FCS conferences are in a better position than the lower tier FBS conferences.

And as a lifelong fan of Big Sky football, I would say that an invite to Sac St and/or Portland St would be an embarrassing and desperate looking move for the WAC.

You got to go for upside. Portland State and Sacramento State have tons of it. Oregon could easily support a third FBS team. The newly remodeled JELD-WEN field is terrific. The school is in the heart of Portland. And it has a huge student enrollment. Same for Sacramento State. IMO, these schools just need something to get excited about. The WAC would provide these schools with this.

As far as the Montana brothers are concerned... they have peaked. What you see is what you get. They can't do any better. Ever.

You can't be serious about Sac St/PSU being better additions than UM/MSU? If you truly believe this you either don't know much about Big Sky football or are attempting to downplay UM's worth because you are bitter that they have rebuffed the WAC's invites.

Joe Utah wrote:Wow. Wow, wow.

You are all criticizing Benson... yet again?

He had a pile o' sh!t start with on this rebuild. All of the premier institutions bolted (USU excluded, of course ). And IMO, Benson has done a pretty respectable job.

Here is what he has done:
1) Benson has added 4 schools in top 40 TV markets.
2) He has added arguably the best institutions available (at the time).
3) Benson has added schools with the most upside.
4) With the addition of UT-Arlington, Benson has balanced out the conference just enough... that the WAC can probably start to grab a few quality FCS schools (with North Texas being a more realistic long-shot).

Let's say that the WAC adds Portland State and Sacramento State next. Portland State--with the remodeled JELD-WEN Field--would be a nice addition (see http://www.droppingtimber.com/wordpress ... ation1.png ).

Portland State and Sacramento State would give the WAC two more universities in top 40 TV markets. If you include Utah State, that would give the WAC 7 members in top 40 markets. By comparison, the MWC has a presence in only two (2) top 40 markets.

From here, the WAC would be at 9/12. Everyone could breath for a moment before the next expansion (to 12/16).

FUTURE WAC WEST (6)
Seattle [no football] / Idaho
Portland State * / Utah State
Sacramento State * / San Jose State

FUTURE WAC EAST (6)
Denver [no football] / New Mexico State
Texas State / UT San Antonio
UT Arlington [no football] / Louisiana Tech

Lot's of upside here! And I could easily see the WAC obtaining a TV contract that would be superior to the MWC.

PS--Get over Montana and Montana State. Why don't we call them WY and WY Jr. just so we have a good comparison. I wouldn't even want them if you go to 12/16. No upside with these schools.

Joe, I thunk you are buying too much into the fallacy of the large market. The WAC 16 tried this. San Jose, San Diego and Las Vegas are huge markets with and they have no interest in the local university, not to mention the complete lack of interest nationally.


The thing that really garners viwership of college football fans is the event itself. It is the tradition, the pageantry, and throngs of screaming fans. It is banners of the home team in every shop window in town. It is people tailgating for hours, if not days before the game. This is the story the TV execs want to show on the air. It doesn't matter the market size. This is why TV execs pay top dollar to broadcast games from Relatively small markets like Tuscaloosa, AL, Gainesville, FL, Lincoln, NE, and more recently Boise, ID.

People want to see a packed stadium on TV. The execs want to make everyone believe that that stadium is the place to be. The want to show shots from around town of people wearing the teams colors and waiving the banners. This is interesting TV. For the people to get this excited and back the local team to this degree, the team must win.

I say it is not the so much the size of the market, it is the quality of the product and the magnitude of the entertainment value it produces.

You guys are really funny, the ship is sinking and you guys have no idea what is going on. BCS is making their own subdivision and you guys will have the opportunity to play in the FCS. I think you will like what you see when you do it is fun to watch a game your team wins. Weber has a great football and basketball team. I can't ask for anything more than that as a fan.

P.S., please take Portland State and Sacramento State off our hands, they are at the bottom of our conference and we would be glad to get rid of them.

WeberBacker wrote:I was going to start this as a new topic, but thanks to the stupid rule that new members have to post 3 replys before being able to start a new topic I'll post this here.

Big Sky Conference dreams big

"Is Big Sky commissioner Doug Fullerton really holding open a door for Utah State and Idaho to join his expanding league?"

http://www.standard.net/topics/sports/2 ... dreams-big

Just thought you guys would be interested in hearing what the Big Sky commissioner had to say last night in Ogden in regards to the WAC and Utah St/Idaho.

I want USU to join the MWC. Since this obvoiusly isn't going to happen immediately, I'm thinking about the options. The obvoius option is to rebuild the WAC, but that's not going too well. UTSA (which didn't play football last year) and Texas San Marcos (renamed Texas State) were willing to join. Both of those schools hold less interest for me than the least interesting Big Sky school (North Dakota or Eastern Washington). So far, no other schools has been willing to join, and my guess is that the WAC would accept any current Big Sky school that could reasonably pitch an ability to move to FBS.

So, with that in mind, here are the differences between the new WAC and the current Big Sky from my USU perspective.

1) The WAC is FBS and the Big Sky is FCS. Advantage WAC. But figure out how to bring the Big Sky to FBS level and that difference goes away.
2) The WAC has non-football schools and all Big Sky schools have football teams. Advantage Big Sky.
3) The Big Sky is stable. No one has left for a decade, and no one seems willing to leave. The WAC is a mess. Advantage Big Sky.
4) The Big Sky has probably seven schools closer to USU than the nearest WAC football school (Idaho). Advantage Big Sky.
5) Both are poor basketball conferences. Advantage, neither.
6) The WAC has schools in major metropolitan areas. The Big Sky has fewer. Advantage WAC.

So, there are only two things that the WAC has that the Big Sky doesn't. Bring the Big Sky to the FBS level, and one of those is eliminated.

The WAC will have major metropolitan markets, and that will do almost nothing for USU. A slight increase in a television deal that is close to $0 will yield additional revenue that is sufficiently close to zero to be meaningless.

I'll repeat my desire to see USU in the MWC. Absent that, I'd prefer to see USU in a FBS Big Sky than the new WAC. That may be heresy coming from an Aggie. USU fans may say, "But Montana and Montana State are ready to join!" First, I'm not so sure that is true, and second, they are already in the Big Sky that I'm now weakly advocating.

So, absent an invitation to the MWC, let's bring Idaho and USU into the Big Sky while moving the entire conference to the FBS level.

dogie wrote:

WeberBacker wrote:I was going to start this as a new topic, but thanks to the stupid rule that new members have to post 3 replys before being able to start a new topic I'll post this here.

Big Sky Conference dreams big

"Is Big Sky commissioner Doug Fullerton really holding open a door for Utah State and Idaho to join his expanding league?"

http://www.standard.net/topics/sports/2 ... dreams-big

Just thought you guys would be interested in hearing what the Big Sky commissioner had to say last night in Ogden in regards to the WAC and Utah St/Idaho.

I want USU to join the MWC. Since this obvoiusly isn't going to happen immediately, I'm thinking about the options. The obvoius option is to rebuild the WAC, but that's not going too well. UTSA (which didn't play football last year) and Texas San Marcos (renamed Texas State) were willing to join. Both of those schools hold less interest for me than the least interesting Big Sky school (North Dakota or Eastern Washington). So far, no other schools has been willing to join, and my guess is that the WAC would accept any current Big Sky school that could reasonably pitch an ability to move to FBS.

So, with that in mind, here are the differences between the new WAC and the current Big Sky from my USU perspective.

1) The WAC is FBS and the Big Sky is FCS. Advantage WAC. But figure out how to bring the Big Sky to FBS level and that difference goes away.
2) The WAC has non-football schools and all Big Sky schools have football teams. Advantage Big Sky.
3) The Big Sky is stable. No one has left for a decade, and no one seems willing to leave. The WAC is a mess. Advantage Big Sky.
4) The Big Sky has probably seven schools closer to USU than the nearest WAC football school (Idaho). Advantage Big Sky.
5) Both are poor basketball conferences. Advantage, neither.
6) The WAC has schools in major metropolitan areas. The Big Sky has fewer. Advantage WAC.

So, there are only two things that the WAC has that the Big Sky doesn't. Bring the Big Sky to the FBS level, and one of those is eliminated.

The WAC will have major metropolitan markets, and that will do almost nothing for USU. A slight increase in a television deal that is close to $0 will yield additional revenue that is sufficiently close to zero to be meaningless.

I'll repeat my desire to see USU in the MWC. Absent that, I'd prefer to see USU in a FBS Big Sky than the new WAC. That may be heresy coming from an Aggie. USU fans may say, "But Montana and Montana State are ready to join!" First, I'm not so sure that is true, and second, they are already in the Big Sky that I'm now weakly advocating.

So, absent an invitation to the MWC, let's bring Idaho and USU into the Big Sky while moving the entire conference to the FBS level.

i like your attitude and ideas. but usu will be in the mwc long before we can get the big sky to fbs. big sky just needs to get rid of north dakota and hope everyone else stays.

i would love to see wsu in the fbs. wsu athletics' stand on conference realignment is we are getting our self in a position to be able to move up but not in those exact words. we have had a lot of facility upgrades in the past few yrs. but we do not have the football attendance to move up before any financials are even worth discussing.

I was at the Big Sky Commissioner's address last night in Ogden. He didn't say anything disparaging about the WAC or about USU. He made an argument about where college football is headed and it made a lot of sense. Texas has a budget of 183M, whereas USU has a budget of 19M, and from what I read on USA Today, USU has been in the red the last few years and that was with a healthy WAC that had multiple football post-season opportunities. What happens now? The WAC doesn't have a lot of post-season opportunities. No media deal and with the teams joining there isn't going to be a good one when one happens (Texans could care less about Texas State or UTSA...ever heard of Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU? Houston, SMU, Rice and UTEP are the next most important level and there is no hope for them to ever catch up the the big boys. Finally you get North Texas who is seen as the poor orphan of the bunch, but is far more respected than Texas State; a school that isn't even successful in FCS; next you UTSA who has NEVER played a down of football in its history...they won't even come close to winning a game this year, unless it is against DII or another FCS Independent. Denver, Seattle, and UT-Arlington are like the poor little Dutch boy trying to hold back a Tsunami). Right now the WAC has one bowl game, and it might even lose that one, while the Big Sky will have 3 or 4 post-season opportunities and a chance to win an actual National Championship.

We know we can't play with the BCS schools, but can you? Are you willing to mortgage your academics and athletics in a vain attempt to try to keep up with the Haves (BCS schools)? Hey, I hate it as much as all of you, but the truth of the matter is that FBS football is getting pulled apart. There's gonna come a time when the haves break apart just like they did 40 years ago, and the remaing DI schools (yes FCS is DI) will be left to work out a new arrangement.

I've got my fingers crossed for you guys though. I"m hoping the MW realizes how much they need the Aggies.

On a side note...Please don't think that SAC and PSU would be good additions to the WAC. As a basketball school, you should be more interested in their basketball arenas. HELL, they are embarrassing. I've been to larger LDS Stake Centers!!

dogie wrote: So you are criticizing Montana and Montana State because they are Wyoming and Wyoming Junior. So, if Wyoming wanted to join the WAC, we should turn them down in favor of Portland State?

In my view, Montana is equivalent to Wyoming. The only differences are:

1) Wyoming just happens to be in the MWC and Montana isn't.
2) Montana looks like they might be willing to join the WAC and we now know that Wyoming isn't.

One of the major reasons why USU lined up behing the "project" was the hope that Wyoming and Colorado State would also join the WAC. If you were to ask most USU fans which schools would be in their dream conference, Wyoming would probably be among the first six selected by maybe 90% of them.

No, the WAC was shooting for SDSU and UNLV.

dogie wrote: If you were to ask me which 12th school I'd like to see join USU in the MWC, it would be Montana. It certainly wouldn't be Portland State.

If Montana is Wyoming, what is Texas Arlington? Well, they are probably Texas Pan American. A school 1,000 miles away that no one at USU knows anything about.

What's the best choice for the eleventh and twelfth schools in the WAC? Wyoming or Texas Pan American?

My point is this: I don't like Montana, Montana State, or Wyoming. They are all small state universities in states with small populations. Advertisers don't pay for WY. And they won't pay for UM or MSU.

I think the MWC is a mess sans Utah, BYU, and TCU (from a TV revenue perspective). They have one legitimate school in a top 40 TV market (SDSU). And the MWC has a presence in only 2 top 40 TV markets if you say CSU and AF are part of the Denver metro area. Not very impressive.

When you add in Hawaii (a huge geographic outlier), you have a MWC that is kind of a mess. But we all jump up and down dying for an MWC invite. My question is simply this: What conference would have more upside 10 years out?

WeberBacker wrote: You can't be serious about Sac St/PSU being better additions than UM/MSU? If you truly believe this you either don't know much about Big Sky football or are attempting to downplay UM's worth because you are bitter that they have rebuffed the WAC's invites.

In the short term, you are correct. UM/MSU are better adds. Again, I am talking long-term. Ten years out, PSU and Sac State look much more appealing.

Yossarian wrote: Joe, I thunk you are buying too much into the fallacy of the large market. The WAC 16 tried this. San Jose, San Diego and Las Vegas are huge markets with and they have no interest in the local university, not to mention the complete lack of interest nationally...

...I say it is not the so much the size of the market, it is the quality of the product and the magnitude of the entertainment value it produces.

The 16 team WAC didn't work for lots of reasons.
1) BYU and Utah didn't like the quadrant setup. In fact, no one really liked the quads. Face it... 16 schools is too many.
2) Most of the "large-market" schools didn't add much to the 16 team WAC. For example, Rice, Tulsa, TCU (at the time, et. al. don't bring TV sets. These universities are small, private institutions. You don't add TV eyeballs when you have a Rice (5,000 students) vs. Tulsa (4,500 students).
Today, Benson's smallest adds are Denver and Seattle (both schools with 11-12 k students). The Texas schools are huge (30k students). Same goes for PSU and Sac State (25-30 k students). These are all large schools with lots of alumni.
You are comparing apples to oranges, IMHO.
3) The large market teams didn't do a whole heck-of-a-lot for the conference. UNLV has always been a dog. SDSU is usually a dog. Only BYU did much in the 16 team WAC.

dogie wrote: I'll repeat my desire to see USU in the MWC. Absent that, I'd prefer to see USU in a FBS Big Sky than the new WAC. That may be heresy coming from an Aggie. USU fans may say, "But Montana and Montana State are ready to join!" First, I'm not so sure that is true, and second, they are already in the Big Sky that I'm now weakly advocating.

So, absent an invitation to the MWC, let's bring Idaho and USU into the Big Sky while moving the entire conference to the FBS level.

Hoping for the MWC is a dangerous wish (in all likelihood). And moving to the Big Sky is just plain crazy.

Even if the BCS schools create a new division 1 level, you don't want to be in the third tier.
___________________________________________________

My point is this... the MWC looks pretty amazing to USU fans (right now). And UM/MSU look like potential saviors to the WAC (viewing things with 2011 goggles). But IMHO, both options are fools-gold.

If BENSON adds PSU and Sac State (say playing by 2015 at latest), I think the WAC has way more upside than the MWC (assuming UM and MSU are not part of the equation). Yes, I am basing my opinion on potential or upside. But UM/MSU have peaked. They can't get any better. PSU and Sac State can. And if they do... they are far, far more valuable to the WAC.

Look at things 10 years out!

Joe Utah is correct on all counts.

While i'm not that much interested as a fan in UTA as i am Weber State, It simply is not the way it works anymore. Like any market economy, the have nots are looking at Texas and wondering why the cannot get a piece of that. The college competive landscape will not allow Texas to fail (college athletics is not a free market) but it will allow UT San Antonio to go from nothing to something.

And like Joe Utah, if i were a betting man, I think UT SA will pass up everyone in the WAC at some point and leave. They have the conditions for it.

Joe Utah wrote:Wow. Wow, wow.

FUTURE WAC WEST (6)
Seattle [no football] / Idaho
Portland State * / Utah State
Sacramento State * / San Jose State

FUTURE WAC EAST (6)
Denver [no football] / New Mexico State
Texas State / UT San Antonio
UT Arlington [no football] / Louisiana Tech

Well for the first time in my life i read something an the first thought i had was "Well the Aggies will dominate in football..."

Harcher wrote:

Joe Utah wrote:Wow. Wow, wow.

FUTURE WAC WEST (6)
Seattle [no football] / Idaho
Portland State * / Utah State
Sacramento State * / San Jose State

FUTURE WAC EAST (6)
Denver [no football] / New Mexico State
Texas State / UT San Antonio
UT Arlington [no football] / Louisiana Tech

Well for the first time in my life i read something an the first thought i had was "Well the Aggies will dominate in football..."

Harcher - I guarantee that every other football playing school on that list is thinking the exact same thing. This certainly an underwhelming bunch. I wish I could share your optimism about USUs ability to dominate. The memories of past years are still too fresh in my mind.

What is USU's record against LaTech and SJSU since joining the WAC?

Yoss,
You are right. Those others are thinking same. The homer Aggie in me came out. But this begs the question of what is best for USU football: dominate a lesser league or move up and be the bottom feeder trying to climb up...

Boy, Joe Utah, you are thinking very long term. It would likely take a decade or more for some of these programs (Texas St/UTSA/Sac St/Portland St) to even begin to be considered successful on a national or even regional level, and that's assuming that they ever could. You have much more patience than I would have. And much more faith, too.

Yossarian wrote:

ineptimusprime wrote:I blink and every hyphenated Texas school is invited to the party.

WTF?

I'm okay with the Denver and Seattle additions because they pass they eye test (contain no hyphens), and are both respectable universities academically. I genuinely would have rather added UVU than anyone else though.

The WAC is starting to look more like the SWAC..

I realize schools aren't clamoring to join the WAC, but I don't think I realized it was THIS bad.

What happened to the WAC you ask? The simple answer is poor leadership and no clearly defined direction.

The WAC was formed with a fairly decent core group. Some of the programs thrived and jumped on the national scene as members of the WAC. Then the poor leader ship kicked in. The WAC 16 experiment was a failure. The MWC break-offs felt like they were being dragged down by the dead weights of the large conference. It was only by luck and a long-standing relatiomship with the other schools that Wyoming and Colorado State were included.

The real blow to the WAC was when the Texas schools and Tulsa bolted. I feel that if those schools would have stayed, Boise State, Nevada, Fresno State, and Hawaii would still be in the WAC. The WAC would still be a pretty decent conference (it would also not include USU, NMSU, and Idaho). When the Texas schools and Tulsa left the WAC had nowhere to go but to accept the dregs of the college football world. Since USU, NMSU, and Idaho were invited, FSU, UNR, UH, and Boise have been looking to bolt. Noone wants to be associated with the bottom of the barrel.

The sad thing is, if USU had even as much success as Idaho in the last 5 years they would be moving to the MWC. USU and the remaining WAC leftovers are reaping what they have sown with their lousy football over the last decades.

Right now the WAC is inviting a bunch of Texas schools. Will history repeat itself when the Texas schools see an opportunity to bolt? I think it is time for the WAC and its leadership to pull the chord on this pathetic attempt at life support they are on. The WAC brand has taken on the image of the conference teams want to leave.

You have no idea what you are talking about. It's a laughable statement that "CSU got into the MWC because of luck". CSU's president "Airport Al", began the talks of breaking off from the WAC at the Denver Airport with the other "Gang of 5" members. The five years before the MWC schools broke off, CSU's football record was 10-2, 8-4, 7-5, 11-2, 8-4. CSU won the WAC title in 94, 95, and 97. Basically the MWC took the best football programs (besides UNLV) and left the deadweight in the WAC. Look at the record books in the 90's and you will see that the WAC left behinds were all football dregs in those times. It's all about football success in conference realignment.

History repeated itself in 2010. In the last 5 years the strongest WAC football members(BSU, UNR, UH, FSU) were the teams who left for the MWC. WAC football has been nothing but a farm system for the MWC and it will be raided again. That's why I sincerely hope that it's USU who dominates WAC football going forward so that you guys join us in the MWC in the next few years.

Joe Utah wrote:Wow. Wow, wow.

You are all criticizing Benson... yet again?

He had a pile o' sh!t start with on this rebuild. All of the premier institutions bolted (USU excluded, of course ). And IMO, Benson has done a pretty respectable job.

Here is what he has done:
1) Benson has added 4 schools in top 40 TV markets.
2) He has added arguably the best institutions available (at the time).
3) Benson has added schools with the most upside.
4) With the addition of UT-Arlington, Benson has balanced out the conference just enough... that the WAC can probably start to grab a few quality FCS schools (with North Texas being a more realistic long-shot).

Let's say that the WAC adds Portland State and Sacramento State next. Portland State--with the remodeled JELD-WEN Field--would be a nice addition (see http://www.droppingtimber.com/wordpress ... ation1.png ).

Portland State and Sacramento State would give the WAC two more universities in top 40 TV markets. If you include Utah State, that would give the WAC 7 members in top 40 markets. By comparison, the MWC has a presence in only two (2) top 40 markets.

From here, the WAC would be at 9/12. Everyone could breath for a moment before the next expansion (to 12/16).

FUTURE WAC WEST (6)
Seattle [no football] / Idaho
Portland State * / Utah State
Sacramento State * / San Jose State

FUTURE WAC EAST (6)
Denver [no football] / New Mexico State
Texas State / UT San Antonio
UT Arlington [no football] / Louisiana Tech

Lot's of upside here! And I could easily see the WAC obtaining a TV contract that would be superior to the MWC.

PS--Get over Montana and Montana State. Why don't we call them WY and WY Jr. just so we have a good comparison. I wouldn't even want them if you go to 12/16. No upside with these schools.

good grief !! if this in not the most blue sky preposterous post on this thread,, all this "up-side",, more like upside down,, just a couple of examples of new members "up-side",, no doubt that the Texas demo is among the richest in the country,, and that makes it even worst,, Benson is overjoyed about UTA "might" reconsider the possibilty of reinstating football,, even in the face of an internal study that indicates UTA is not viable as a D-1 program, for heavens sakes,, Odessa Permian High School draws more on a friday night than Texas State and UT-SA,, maybe even COMBINED! what does that tell you when Arlington can't survive in the DWF region,, and don't even start about all that prestige the WAC brings, the conference is on a death watch and everybody knows it,, it's become a pitiful joke,, and the statements from Benson, this last one on RPI is a doozy,, the WAC's Benson now resembles Disney's "Mr Toad's Wild Ride", where will it end ?,, sorry Joe,, you'e whisling past the grave,, we were shot dead in the aftermath of the "project",, we're done, but many don't know it, at some time we're going to look down and notice a large bullet hole in our chest,,,

the Big Sky is a viable alternative, they are in a conference that is respected, not like the clown operation we now endure,, in basketball both BS and WAC have only one automatic entry to the dance,, with conference plaly and each school beating each other will not give the WAC another automatic,, as hard as it is to swallow,, i'd bolt to the BS, and with it play teams that we are competive with and have more of a history with us than the Texas duo,,, how many are going to attend a game in november in rainy or snowy Romney against UTSA ??

I will say that I think Benson has done the best anyone could in terms of adding schools. NO ONE worth a darn wants to join the WAC. I really don't see how he could feasibly have added anyone better than the four he did. And, if I understand the situation properly, with the auto-bid and certification as a FBS conference on the line, he couldn't just "wait and see."

With that said, his remarks to the media about the four teams are indicative either of delusion or incompetence. And his handling of the whole Project situation and the aftermath was awful. BUT, in the area of adding teams, he did as good a job as anyone could have.*

*Although, inviting North Texas 736 times and getting turned down 736 times was kind of embarrassing.

oregonaggie1 wrote:

Joe Utah wrote:Wow. Wow, wow.

You are all criticizing Benson... yet again?

He had a pile o' sh!t start with on this rebuild. All of the premier institutions bolted (USU excluded, of course ). And IMO, Benson has done a pretty respectable job.

Here is what he has done:
1) Benson has added 4 schools in top 40 TV markets.
2) He has added arguably the best institutions available (at the time).
3) Benson has added schools with the most upside.
4) With the addition of UT-Arlington, Benson has balanced out the conference just enough... that the WAC can probably start to grab a few quality FCS schools (with North Texas being a more realistic long-shot).

Let's say that the WAC adds Portland State and Sacramento State next. Portland State--with the remodeled JELD-WEN Field--would be a nice addition (see http://www.droppingtimber.com/wordpress ... ation1.png ).

Portland State and Sacramento State would give the WAC two more universities in top 40 TV markets. If you include Utah State, that would give the WAC 7 members in top 40 markets. By comparison, the MWC has a presence in only two (2) top 40 markets.

From here, the WAC would be at 9/12. Everyone could breath for a moment before the next expansion (to 12/16).

FUTURE WAC WEST (6)
Seattle [no football] / Idaho
Portland State * / Utah State
Sacramento State * / San Jose State

FUTURE WAC EAST (6)
Denver [no football] / New Mexico State
Texas State / UT San Antonio
UT Arlington [no football] / Louisiana Tech

Lot's of upside here! And I could easily see the WAC obtaining a TV contract that would be superior to the MWC.

PS--Get over Montana and Montana State. Why don't we call them WY and WY Jr. just so we have a good comparison. I wouldn't even want them if you go to 12/16. No upside with these schools.

good grief !! if this in not the most blue sky preposterous post on this thread,, all this "up-side",, more like upside down,, just a couple of examples of new members "up-side",, no doubt that the Texas demo is among the richest in the country,, and that makes it even worst,, Benson is overjoyed about UTA "might" reconsider the possibilty of reinstating football,, even in the face of an internal study that indicates UTA is not viable as a D-1 program, for heavens sakes,, Odessa Permian High School draws more on a friday night than Texas State and UT-SA,, maybe even COMBINED! what does that tell you when Arlington can't survive in the DWF region,, and don't even start about all that prestige the WAC brings, the conference is on a death watch and everybody knows it,, it's become a pitiful joke,, and the statements from Benson, this last one on RPI is a doozy,, the WAC's Benson now resembles Disney's "Mr Toad's Wild Ride", where will it end ?,, sorry Joe,, you'e whisling past the grave,, we were shot dead in the aftermath of the "project",, we're done, but many don't know it, at some time we're going to look down and notice a large bullet hole in our chest,,,

the Big Sky is a viable alternative, they are in a conference that is respected, not like the clown operation we now endure,, in basketball both BS and WAC have only one automatic entry to the dance,, with conference plaly and each school beating each other will not give the WAC another automatic,, as hard as it is to swallow,, i'd bolt to the BS, and with it play teams that we are competive with and have more of a history with us than the Texas duo,,, how many are going to attend a game in november in rainy or snowy Romney against UTSA ??

I figured it out. oregonaggie is a Doug Fullerton sock puppet! USU to the BSC ain't happening Mr. Fullerton. The BSC is not respected by anyone who doesn't already sit at the kiddie table. Nobody in Logan is interested, but keep on eye on the Montanas for us, ok? Mr. Fullerton, to nearly quote Mr. Twain..."The rumors of [our] demise have been greatly exaggerated."

Joe Utah wrote:

dogie wrote: So you are criticizing Montana and Montana State because they are Wyoming and Wyoming Junior. So, if Wyoming wanted to join the WAC, we should turn them down in favor of Portland State?

In my view, Montana is equivalent to Wyoming. The only differences are:

1) Wyoming just happens to be in the MWC and Montana isn't.
2) Montana looks like they might be willing to join the WAC and we now know that Wyoming isn't.

One of the major reasons why USU lined up behing the "project" was the hope that Wyoming and Colorado State would also join the WAC. If you were to ask most USU fans which schools would be in their dream conference, Wyoming would probably be among the first six selected by maybe 90% of them.

No, the WAC was shooting for SDSU and UNLV.

dogie wrote: If you were to ask me which 12th school I'd like to see join USU in the MWC, it would be Montana. It certainly wouldn't be Portland State.

If Montana is Wyoming, what is Texas Arlington? Well, they are probably Texas Pan American. A school 1,000 miles away that no one at USU knows anything about.

What's the best choice for the eleventh and twelfth schools in the WAC? Wyoming or Texas Pan American?

My point is this: I don't like Montana, Montana State, or Wyoming. They are all small state universities in states with small populations. Advertisers don't pay for WY. And they won't pay for UM or MSU.

I think the MWC is a mess sans Utah, BYU, and TCU (from a TV revenue perspective). They have one legitimate school in a top 40 TV market (SDSU). And the MWC has a presence in only 2 top 40 TV markets if you say CSU and AF are part of the Denver metro area. Not very impressive.

When you add in Hawaii (a huge geographic outlier), you have a MWC that is kind of a mess. But we all jump up and down dying for an MWC invite. My question is simply this: What conference would have more upside 10 years out?

WeberBacker wrote: You can't be serious about Sac St/PSU being better additions than UM/MSU? If you truly believe this you either don't know much about Big Sky football or are attempting to downplay UM's worth because you are bitter that they have rebuffed the WAC's invites.

In the short term, you are correct. UM/MSU are better adds. Again, I am talking long-term. Ten years out, PSU and Sac State look much more appealing.

Yossarian wrote: Joe, I thunk you are buying too much into the fallacy of the large market. The WAC 16 tried this. San Jose, San Diego and Las Vegas are huge markets with and they have no interest in the local university, not to mention the complete lack of interest nationally...

...I say it is not the so much the size of the market, it is the quality of the product and the magnitude of the entertainment value it produces.

The 16 team WAC didn't work for lots of reasons.
1) BYU and Utah didn't like the quadrant setup. In fact, no one really liked the quads. Face it... 16 schools is too many.
2) Most of the "large-market" schools didn't add much to the 16 team WAC. For example, Rice, Tulsa, TCU (at the time, et. al. don't bring TV sets. These universities are small, private institutions. You don't add TV eyeballs when you have a Rice (5,000 students) vs. Tulsa (4,500 students).
Today, Benson's smallest adds are Denver and Seattle (both schools with 11-12 k students). The Texas schools are huge (30k students). Same goes for PSU and Sac State (25-30 k students). These are all large schools with lots of alumni.
You are comparing apples to oranges, IMHO.
3) The large market teams didn't do a whole heck-of-a-lot for the conference. UNLV has always been a dog. SDSU is usually a dog. Only BYU did much in the 16 team WAC.

dogie wrote: I'll repeat my desire to see USU in the MWC. Absent that, I'd prefer to see USU in a FBS Big Sky than the new WAC. That may be heresy coming from an Aggie. USU fans may say, "But Montana and Montana State are ready to join!" First, I'm not so sure that is true, and second, they are already in the Big Sky that I'm now weakly advocating.

So, absent an invitation to the MWC, let's bring Idaho and USU into the Big Sky while moving the entire conference to the FBS level.

Hoping for the MWC is a dangerous wish (in all likelihood). And moving to the Big Sky is just plain crazy.

Even if the BCS schools create a new division 1 level, you don't want to be in the third tier.
___________________________________________________

My point is this... the MWC looks pretty amazing to USU fans (right now). And UM/MSU look like potential saviors to the WAC (viewing things with 2011 goggles). But IMHO, both options are fools-gold.

If BENSON adds PSU and Sac State (say playing by 2015 at latest), I think the WAC has way more upside than the MWC (assuming UM and MSU are not part of the equation). Yes, I am basing my opinion on potential or upside. But UM/MSU have peaked. They can't get any better. PSU and Sac State can. And if they do... they are far, far more valuable to the WAC.

Look at things 10 years out!

+100

I also contend the new WAC is starting to look remarkably appealing. Today, yes, I'd prefer to be in the MWC, but look 12 years back and would that still be the case? For many of you, yes, but I'm not so sure. At that time, today's MWC represented the left overs from the WAC and some BSC hand-ups. It literally is no better than last year's WAC, which only had marketability created by ESPN's continual pumping and exposure of BJC (this western TV darling spot has now been given to BYU, I question the donks' long-term ability to maintain their level).

What kind of TV deal did we have in last year's WAC? Now our former WAC brothers are mired in obscurity on The Mtn. It might sound crazy, but I believe the WAC might be preferable to the MWC based on sheer marketability and money sooner than many expect. Look at CUSA. None of those schools has any interest in jumping to today's MWC. Why? They make more money where are now. The new WAC can (and is positioning itself to) do the same in the West. Believe me, the MWC knows they need better markets AND a presence in TX. Some of them are already eyeing UTSA. We are ahead of them in this regard. This rebuilt WAC will be better than many realize.

A correction. CUSA is making the same or slightly less TV money than MWC is per school even though the MWC TV contract is old and CUSA has a new deal. The MWC will see a big TV package jump when they renegotiate in a few years just like CUSA did this year. The MWC markets of Vegas, San Diego, The Rocky Front Range (yes Airforce, Wyo and CSU have significant penetration on that market), Albuquerque, Fresno (central Valley), Reno, and Hawaii are fine. In fact you could argue that Air Force has a national appeal to some extent. I do agree we will try to add a Texas school before to long.

CUSA gets 15.5 Million a year divided by 12 teams for a breakout of about 1.3 million per team on their new deal
MWC gets $12 million per year divided by 9 teams for a payout of $1.33 million per team (hawaii is keeping Local revenue and not taking conference revenue) btw for 2011 the MWC is dividing $12 million in TV revenue among 8 teams for a total of $1.5 million per team.

http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2010/0 ... v_contract

CUSA signed a deal with CBS sports and FOX sports. They dumped ESPN just like the MWC did. That is also who holds the MWC TV deal. CBS sports gets first dibs on CUSA games so the best CUSA games will be shown on the same TV Channel as the best MWC games, either CBS sports or Versus. Fox regional networks will have second shot at CUSA games CBS does not want while on the MWC second shot goes to the mtn. CUSA second games on Fox will be on regional networks and possibly only available on pay channels or a tier up on the selection for $$ if out of region. Very similar to the mtn on Direct TV. I give Fox and CUSA the edge there on secondary games but all MWC conference games will be telecast while some CUSA game probably will only be on local channels. There are plusses and minuses to each contract.

Chasing the big markets with schools who have no visibility in the market has been tried before. It failed. I hope it works for the WAC this time but it did not the last time. For Example, Oregon and OSU will always command the Portland market. Portland State is a commuter college with few local connections and little visibility. Just the nature of the school will make it very difficult or impossible to be any kind of a player in the Portland TV market. UTA is similar if not worse in the market they are in. This is a very difficult row to hoe the WAC is chasing. My guess is that it is at least a 15 - 20 year project. Montana will always have a bigger fan base than Portland State. Heck they have a bigger fan base and would draw better TV ratings then most of the Sun belt, WAC, and MAC now.