Graham Watson and Karl Benson discuss WAC Expansion

[MrTitleist]

Funny article. Worth reading.
http://www.obnug.com/2010/2/26/1327569/ ... nalysis-of

WAC commissioner Karl Benson shared with Graham Watson his thoughts on his beloved conference in an interview that was at times revealing, abrupt, and guarded. He's like the Gary Bettman of NCAA conference commissioners.

Where is the WAC headed? Is expansion an option? How does Boise State fit into the conference's future plans? Join me after the jump for a spin around Karl Benson's comments share your thoughts about the WAC's future.

An interview with Karl Benson

Many thanks to ESPN's Graham Watson for her interview with Benson and to reader givemesomemoore for posting the piece to the FanShots. Let's break down Benson's comments. Shall we?

The question: Have you guys looked at expanding your conference at all?

The answer: "... if I had my druthers, I would rather work with a 10-team league than a nine-team league."

The analysis: Someone give Karl Benson his druthers!

The WAC is a 9-team league as it stands today - or an 8.5-team league depending on how you classify San Jose State. If Benson were to get his wish, we would be talking about WAC expansion. So let's humor him.

Where might the WAC look? In the past, rumors have swirled about the possible additions of Big Sky schools from Division I-AA, rumors that Benson did not dispel when he referenced the Big Sky-to-WAC pipeline in his Graham Watson interview. If you look to the Big Sky, you need look no further than Montana. And if Montana is not your cup of tea, then maybe Montana State, Idaho State, Portland State, or Central Washington. Anyone I'm forgetting?

However, as simple as adding a Big Sky/FCS team might be, there is that pesky problem with the NCAA placing a moratorium on teams changing classifications through August 2011. So what current Division I-A schools might Karl Benson have eyes for? Here's a list:

* North Texas (Sun Belt)
* Louisiana-Lafayette (Sun Belt)
* Louisiana Monroe (Sun Belt)
* Pretty much any Mountain West school he can get
* One of the C-USA teams that left the WAC (Tulsa, UTEP, Rice, SMU)

Assuming the Broncos stay in the WAC and the conference expands by one, which school would you like to see join the WAC?

The question: How do you prepare for (the possibility of Boise State leaving the WAC) and do you have to have pieces in place that can move if Boise State decides to leave?

The answer: "... history has always shown that there’s upward mobility in the West. Whether it was the Big West schools joining the WAC or the Big Sky schools joining the Big West that ultimately joined the WAC. All you have to do is look at the current WAC membership and see where they’ve been. History shows that there’s movement in the West."

The analysis: Benson seems to really like the idea of a Big Sky school joining the WAC. If college football conferences still exist in 2 years in any way similar to how they exist now, I would not be surprised at all if the WAC goes after Montana.

The question: Do you think if the Mountain West loses teams that your teams then become the natural next choices for the Mountain West?

The answer: "Or do the Mountain West teams become the next choices for the WAC?"

The analysis: Graham Watson got served.

The question: How much have you been in contact with Boise State in terms of (their future plans)?

The answer: "... I would hope that if and when an invitation (to Boise State) comes that there would be an evaluation made that’s in the best interest of the university, and there would be recognition that the WAC has provided Boise State very well."

The analysis: Benson obviously feels like he has treated the Broncos very well during their WAC tenure. And in a lot of ways, he's right. The WAC has one of the best non-BCS television contracts, it has gone to bat for the Broncos to set up desirable bowl scenarios, and hires PR firms to help make the conference look better. What more could Benson do?

Boise State is certain to consider all of these factors in any decision to relocate. But in many ways, going from the WAC to another conference is not so much a matter of picking favorites as it is simply growing up. The Broncos have outgrown the WAC. And no amount of Friday night ESPN primetime games can change that.

The question: What is the next step for this conference to make it more attractive and give it that leg up?

The answer: "... I think the bottom line is that we need more top 50 teams from top to bottom and we need to eliminate the teams that are in the 90 to 120 range ..."

The analysis: Without a doubt, this is the biggest problem plaguing the WAC as a football conference. Benson makes a good point later on in his answer that the MWC has risen to prominence because it has fielded three Top 25 teams in the past two seasons. The WAC has Boise State and then nobody.

When Benson says "more top 50 teams," he might as well be saying "the Broncos and really anyone else at all, I'm not picky." The WAC is as top-heavy as top-heavy can be. For example:

Sagarin ratings

* 5. Boise State
* 59. Fresno State
* 70. Nevada
* 85. Idaho
* 89. Louisiana Tech
* 100. Utah State
* 105. Hawaii
* 138. San Jose State
* 153. New Mexico State

Oddly enough, Montana comes in at No. 57.

Sadly enough, the WAC has more teams at 120-and-up than it does in the top 50.
Your turn

Should the WAC expand to 10 teams? What school would you like to see join the conference? Is competitiveness the WAC's biggest need? Share your thoughts in the comments.

[fromolwyoming]

Last time the WAC expanded, 5 of the core schools split off and formed (with the addition of 3 at first, than a 4th later) an upstart conference that has since shaken the BCS to it's core. However, adding one team is different than throwing in 4 at once. And I really don't think that an MWC school would go back to that mess.

As for Montana, are they REALLY ready for a step up to Division 1-A? Are any of the other Big Sky members?

As for an already established Div. 1A team, another LA school makes some sense, as it would be a travel partner and in-state rival for LaTech. But that doesn't really help overall. Suffice it to say, the WAC is already ridiculously spread out as is, why throw in another long trip?

[MrTitleist]

Athletically, Montana is ready. They've outgrown the Big Sky. Financially.. we need some work. The football stadium itself is fine, Montana averages more in attendance than most WAC teams. Seriously, look it up. I believe the stadium holds more than a few WAC stadiums as well. However, UM needs some SERIOUS upgrades in the home and visitor locker room, as well as academic study areas. The Adams Center would be a bit small for basketball.. holds around 8400 or so. Plus UM would have to add some sports to get to the required 16. No other Big Sky team is close to moving up except maybe Montana State. Montana State is currently working on expanding its football stadium to 25,000.. but this is over the next 7 years. They are financially better off than most of the Big Sky. Portland State would like to move up, but they do not have the facilities to do it. Sacramento State would like to move up as well, but like PSU, a crappy commuter school. This leaves Weber State.. they have a long ways to go.

If the WAC wants credibility, the LA schools or UNT aren't what they're looking for. Adding Sun Belt teams isn't the answer.

[Wyokie]

The WAC will just do something stupid after the MWC makes a smart move.

BTW, isn't there a state law in Montana that requires Montana and Montana State to be in the same conference at all times? Basically, if Montana wants to move up they have to drag Montana State along with them?

If I was running the MWC, I just add Boise, Fresno, and either Nevada or Hawaii and just kill off the WAC. I really do believe the MWC will get automatic spot in the BCS eventually but it would require us to go to 12 teams. I agree 16 was super dumb!

[MrTitleist]

The MWC was formed to get away from Hawaii (among other things).. they were left off the "cool kids" list for a reason.

I cannot speak to the MT/MT State scenario, though, I have heard of it.

[MrTitleist]

And other WAC teams that could be in the fold: Cal Poly, UC-Davis, Sacramento State. UC-Davis certainly has the financial backing, and the facilities, and I believe they already have the required amount of sports.. but attendance will be a problem, however, their current FB stadium could easily be expanded to accommodate stadium requirements.

[fromolwyoming]

The WAC will just do something stupid after the MWC makes a smart move.

BTW, isn't there a state law in Montana that requires Montana and Montana State to be in the same conference at all times? Basically, if Montana wants to move up they have to drag Montana State along with them?

If I was running the MWC, I just add Boise, Fresno, and either Nevada or Hawaii and just kill off the WAC. I really do believe the MWC will get automatic spot in the BCS eventually but it would require us to go to 12 teams. I agree 16 was super dumb!

Actually, on the MWC Board, there has been talk of adding another Texas school, with the most agreed upon one being Houston, rather than Hawaii.

[Wyokie]

The WAC will just do something stupid after the MWC makes a smart move.

BTW, isn't there a state law in Montana that requires Montana and Montana State to be in the same conference at all times? Basically, if Montana wants to move up they have to drag Montana State along with them?

If I was running the MWC, I just add Boise, Fresno, and either Nevada or Hawaii and just kill off the WAC. I really do believe the MWC will get automatic spot in the BCS eventually but it would require us to go to 12 teams. I agree 16 was super dumb!

Actually, on the MWC Board, there has been talk of adding another Texas school, with the most agreed upon one being Houston, rather than Hawaii.

Not surprised. Had UTEP became a power in football with Mike Price, I think the MWC would've invited them. Ironically, the WAC invited Houston to join back in 1994 to start play in 1996 and UH turned themdown saying a 16-team league won't work. In hindsight, we should've listened.

Speaking of Hawaii, a MAJOR tsunami is heading straight for the islands. ETA is in 1 hour. 6-7 foot waves expected.

[Wyokie]

The MWC was formed to get away from Hawaii (among other things).. they were left off the "cool kids" list for a reason.

The reason why the MWC won't take Hawaii now is because UH refused to revamp travel subsidies. That issue is why the WAC-16 mess got started in the first place!!!! I've studied the entire mess from the very beginning in 1994 with the Big 8 inviting 4 Texas schools to join (rumors were that the Big 8 wanted BYU and Arkansas instead of Baylor & Texas Tech but politics got in the way) to the bitter end in 1999.

[MrTitleist]

Exactly. MWC schools don't want to travel to the islands. Kinda the reason why you don't see many MWC schools racing out to schedule them either.

[Wyokie]

Exactly. MWC schools don't want to travel to the islands. Kinda the reason why you don't see many MWC schools racing out to schedule them either.

They just don't want to pay for it. And yet WAC schools like NMSU, USU, and Louisiana Tech who do have to pay 100% in travel to Honolulu and they have smaller budgets than most of the MWC does and yet those guys aren't bitching about it so.....

[MrTitleist]

They can't bitch about it.. they have no choice. I'm sure LA Tech would prefer not to have to travel half way across the US, plus half way across the Pacific to play any sports.

[McPeachy]

Athletically, Montana is ready.

Not to argue...but the only reason Montana is ready athletically, at this point, (and I really am not sure that they are) is the whole drop down athlete situation. Take those kids out of the equation, and no way they could compete. Moving to D1 eliminates that pipeline...and as such probably eliminates further discussion on this topic.

I had a good friend who coached the Griz, and he told me on many occasions, if it weren't for the transfers, and Montana being one of the primary commidating schools for transfers, they wouldn't be able to compete. Financially, they may never...and that (as you mentioned) is the other important piece.

[MrTitleist]

I think we've only got 2-3 transfers on the roster right now.. I believe a secondary player, QB (Roper from Oregon, who isn't starting), and maybe one other. Montana's been good about not going after transfers, but schools like Portland State are VERY reliant on them. Sacramento State is as well.

[McPeachy]

I think we've only got 2-3 transfers on the roster right now.. I believe a secondary player, QB (Roper from Oregon, who isn't starting), and maybe one other. Montana's been good about not going after transfers, but schools like Portland State are VERY reliant on them. Sacramento State is as well.

That must be the lowest level ever Mr. T. Back just a few years ago, the number was 9 starters, and 16 total on the roster, that were former FR or SO or JR from D1 teams. I would be interested to see how many on the roster now were first committed (whether they played or redshirted...either one) to a D1 team, that ended up pulling a Cory Orth.

[MrTitleist]

That I couldn't tell. I personally am not a fan of transfers.. not really how to build continuity, mostly just a rental. I was happy to see the NCAA put in a rule that seniors couldn't transfer.. Randy Moss was a great example of a senior transfer.