P12 - MWC

[McPeachy]

I counter you statement with this..."When has ANYTHING in the past 20 + years made ANY sense whatsoever...so far?"

I just honestly believe we'll be playing the Benedict 5 as conference mates again in a few years one way or another. Didn't say how.

I agree Wyokie, the move to add another G5 conference, will never net more $$ than what they will be paying out in fees and the settlement. Especially and particularly when it collapses in < 7 years.

And to think, these are business leaders making these decisions!! On second thought, maybe they aren't business leaders, but just your typical wasteful government employees, that are fine spending other peoples money.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

I counter you statement with this..."When has ANYTHING in the past 20 + years made ANY sense whatsoever...so far?"

I just honestly believe we'll be playing the Benedict 5 as conference mates again in a few years one way or another. Didn't say how.

You could be right. Who knows where this goes. I think the only relative clarity is at the top. They'll be able to afford to adjust to the new costs.

The biggest question marks is all of G6 and the bottom of the P4. Reality is that there are teams at the P4 level who may not be able to sustain that financially. They will be losing money plus getting their teeth kicked in because they can't afford to keep up with the big dogs.

Will 2 more levels develop in the G6/bottom of P4 or will they all merge into a single group? It's going to be interesting and certainly unpredictable at this point.

 

[Douglaspoke]

As a Wyoming fan, I want to win a conference that includes Arizona State, Arizona, Utah, BYU, and CSU. Something that we did in the past!!!

 

[OrediggerPoke]

Luke sure seems excited about the $7m per team - what a dolt.

It's appears to be nearly double what the MWC schools stand to receive. The sad thing is that the MWC would have received roughly that $7 million amount had it stayed together and there would have been no need for the Benedict 5 to pay the exit fees. It ends up being a net loss for everyone for really only the benefit of Washington State and Oregon State and Texas State (or whatever 8th football member they find).

 

[McPeachy]

It's appears to be nearly double what the MWC schools stand to receive. The sad thing is that the MWC would have received roughly that $7 million amount had it stayed together and there would have been no need for the Benedict 5 to pay the exit fees. It ends up being a net loss for everyone for really only the benefit of Washington State and Oregon State and Texas State (or whatever 8th football member they find).

Exactly my point. They just spent more in exit fees than they will increase in media dollars (over the current MWC deal). A very poor business decision, but I guess they think that highly of themselves to do it anyway.

 

[PorkerPoke]

Exactly my point. They just spent more in exit fees than they will increase in media dollars (over the current MWC deal). A very poor business decision, but I guess they think that highly of themselves to do it anyway.

Exactly.

As long as the MWC doesn’t give the pee12 a windfall of spending money, the media deal may sound really great but there are a lot of other expenses to absorb starting a new conference.

Someone (Paul Finebaum) who is basically a voice of the SEC stated it this way. “Paul Finebaum has criticized the recent additions to the Pac-12, referring to the conference as a "collection of rejects and misfits." He believes that the Pac-12's attempts to regain relevance are not impressive and doubts any significant changes will occur within the major college football conferences soon.

Simple pee12 traitor math:

$7 million x 6 years = $42 million (media)
$3 million x 6 years = $18 million (exit fees)
Net after 6 years is $24 million or $4 million per year.

Simple MWC math for Wyoming:

$4 million x 6 years = $24 million (media)
Add $14-18 million in exit/poaching fee collection is $38-42 million or up to $7 million per year equivalent.

They are thinking the pee12 logo is valuable on name only and they think it means they are going to be automatically added as a direct participant in the CFP. Finebaum addressed that ideology very tactfully.

 

[Bear Claw]

Exactly.

As long as the MWC doesn’t give the pee12 a windfall of spending money, the media deal may sound really great but there are a lot of other expenses to absorb starting a new conference.

Someone (Paul Finebaum) who is basically a voice of the SEC stated it this way. “Paul Finebaum has criticized the recent additions to the Pac-12, referring to the conference as a "collection of rejects and misfits." He believes that the Pac-12's attempts to regain relevance are not impressive and doubts any significant changes will occur within the major college football conferences soon.

Simple pee12 traitor math:

$7 million x 6 years = $42 million (media)
$3 million x 6 years = $18 million (exit fees)
Net after 6 years is $24 million or $4 million per year.

Simple MWC math for Wyoming:

$4 million x 6 years = $24 million (media)
Add $14-18 million in exit/poaching fee collection is $38-42 million or up to $7 million per year equivalent.

They are thinking the pee12 logo is valuable on name only and they think it means they are going to be automatically added as a direct participant in the CFP. Finebaum addressed that ideology very tactfully.

I love your math!

 

[TheRealUW]

Exactly.

As long as the MWC doesn’t give the pee12 a windfall of spending money, the media deal may sound really great but there are a lot of other expenses to absorb starting a new conference.

Someone (Paul Finebaum) who is basically a voice of the SEC stated it this way. “Paul Finebaum has criticized the recent additions to the Pac-12, referring to the conference as a "collection of rejects and misfits." He believes that the Pac-12's attempts to regain relevance are not impressive and doubts any significant changes will occur within the major college football conferences soon.

Simple pee12 traitor math:

$7 million x 6 years = $42 million (media)
$3 million x 6 years = $18 million (exit fees)
Net after 6 years is $24 million or $4 million per year.

Simple MWC math for Wyoming:

$4 million x 6 years = $24 million (media)
Add $14-18 million in exit/poaching fee collection is $38-42 million or up to $7 million per year equivalent.

They are thinking the pee12 logo is valuable on name only and they think it means they are going to be automatically added as a direct participant in the CFP. Finebaum addressed that ideology very tactfully.

That's great for the next 6 years, but then what? The MWC conference has an OK short-term outlook, but the long-term outlook for teams in the MWC is tedious at best.

The PAC played the long game and it looks like they will come out ahead in the long term. Not to mention they will be in a better position to negotiate when the next round of conference realignment takes place. Six years might sound like a long time, but it will be here before we know it.

The MWC is slowly being diluted. First we lost Utah, BYU, and TCU. Even with adding Bose State and Fresno State, we were still a weaker conference overall. I hated Utah and BYU anyways, and TCU was always kind of the weird member that didn’t really fit in, so I convinced myself the changes were for the better. But now we are losing Boise State, SDSU, Fresno State, CSU, and USU and replacing them with Northern Illinois and UTEP? I just can’t find a way to put a positive spin on this.

 

[307bball]

That's great for the next 6 years, but then what? The MWC conference has an OK short-term outlook, but the long-term outlook for teams in the MWC is tedious at best.

The PAC played the long game and it looks like they will come out ahead in the long term. Not to mention they will be in a better position to negotiate when the next round of conference realignment takes place. Six years might sound like a long time, but it will be here before we know it.

The MWC is slowly being diluted. First we lost Utah, BYU, and TCU. Even with adding Bose State and Fresno State, we were still a weaker conference overall. I hated Utah and BYU anyways, and TCU was always kind of the weird member that didn’t really fit in, so I convinced myself the changes were for the better. But now we are losing Boise State, SDSU, Fresno State, CSU, and USU and replacing them with Northern Illinois and UTEP? I just can’t find a way to put a positive spin on this.

It pencils out today for sure.....but the longer you play this out...it's bleak. These Universities have been around for a long time and will be around for a long time. Whatever is happening right now will set things up for 10, 15, 20 years from now. You can't make the entire step to wildly fail or succeed in any 1 to 5 year period but you can make your situation better each year. Look at BSU for what comes from incremental success for 10+ years. We need to find that pathway.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

It pencils out today for sure.....but the longer you play this out...it's bleak. These Universities have been around for a long time and will be around for a long time. Whatever is happening right now will set things up for 10, 15, 20 years from now. You can't make the entire step to wildly fail or succeed in any 1 to 5 year period but you can make your situation better each year. Look at BSU for what comes from incremental success for 10+ years. We need to find that pathway.

The bsu path is dead. This is over. Hard to grasp but it is what it is. The next phase is unknown but abundantly clear. The top level (Ohio State, Alabama, Michigan, TX, TAMU, etc.) and everything below. How things shake out below that top level is uncertain and anyone's guess.

 

[307bball]

The bsu path is dead. This is over. Hard to grasp but it is what it is. The next phase is unknown but abundantly clear. The top level (Ohio State, Alabama, Michigan, TX, TAMU, etc.) and everything below. How things shake out below that top level is uncertain and anyone's guess.

Continual improvement over a long period of time is what is needed. That is possible. The specifics of what Boise State has built didn't happen in three to five years.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

.The specifics of what Boise State has built didn't happen in three to five years.

That can't be replicated in today's world.

 

[PorkerPoke]

The bsu path is dead. This is over. Hard to grasp but it is what it is. The next phase is unknown but abundantly clear. The top level (Ohio State, Alabama, Michigan, TX, TAMU, etc.) and everything below. How things shake out below that top level is uncertain and anyone's guess.

Spot on IMO.

What is happening now for the G6 teams is only good until the major powers and the media redefine it. The process is happening right now and the unknown is the future.

What we are now in a contest for is to be included in the highest level below the big dogs. Any idea that we can posture our way into inclusion with the big dogs is simply a wet dream.

Who knows - maybe the big dogs dispose of the perceived weak teams and suddenly the Texas Techs, Arizonas and Stanfords are the premier teams of the also rans. We have to be amongst the best of the rest to avoid being relegated to having to go FCS or only able to play MAC, Sun Belt and CUSA leftovers.

We can speculate all we want about the future of which we don’t know yet and the best thing we can do is be an effective player in the realm we are in.

 

[307bball]

That can't be replicated in today's world.

I'm not talking about making a playoff or being on Ohio State's level (which BSU is not btw). Just curious... Does it make a sound when a point whistles past you or are you truly completely unaware?

The path to mattering is a prolonged period of success and continual improvement. This is true independent of conference, AQ status or media market size. You'll notice I made no claim that the particulars of what BSU accomplished are available to UW...I merely pointed out that is what they did.

 

[TheRealUW]

I'm not talking about making a playoff or being on Ohio State's level (which BSU is not btw). Just curious... Does it make a sound when a point whistles past you or are you truly completely unaware?

The path to mattering is a prolonged period of success and continual improvement. This is true independent of conference, AQ status or media market size. You'll notice I made no claim that the particulars of what BSU accomplished are available to UW...I merely pointed out that is what they did.

We talk a lot about Boise State (me included) as an example of a small market school that built upon a string of successes allowing them to build a national brand and "move up" as much as is possible in the college football world that exists today.

Do we know, or have any educated guesses, as to how they did it? Did they have unusually high support for the football/athletic program in the administrative department? Did they pay their coaches top of the league salaries? Was the state of Idaho helping fund the Boise State athletics department at a high level? Did they figure out a formula to find an unusually high amount of talented athletes that were being overlooked?

 

[ragtimejoe1]

I'm not talking about making a playoff or being on Ohio State's level (which BSU is not btw). Just curious... Does it make a sound when a point whistles past you or are you truly completely unaware?

The path to mattering is a prolonged period of success and continual improvement. This is true independent of conference, AQ status or media market size. You'll notice I made no claim that the particulars of what BSU accomplished are available to UW...I merely pointed out that is what they did.

Speaking of points whistling by...

You do realize that sustained success is now centered on willingness to pay players a lot of money every year and that teams like WYO won't do that, right? In other words, bsu-like path is dead unless you're willing to spend, which we won't and can't.

Our hope is to align with others who also can't spend. Perhaps sustained "success" is possible in that group. The path to sustained success beyond that group is dead. The success in that group ends with that group. There is no way to build off of success in that group unless it is accompanied by increased payments to players. I don't think selling out the WAR every game for 10 years and winning the new MWC championship every year followed by a meaningless bowl game will increase revenue enough to pay the premium to build a bsu-like roster.

We'll be just fine in the new MWC but beyond that? Sustained success in the new MWC ends there unless you spend and we won't.

 

[307bball]

We talk a lot about Boise State (me included) as an example of a small market school that built upon a string of successes allowing them to build a national brand and "move up" as much as is possible in the college football world that exists today.

Do we know, or have any educated guesses, as to how they did it? Did they have unusually high support for the football/athletic program in the administrative department? Did they pay their coaches top of the league salaries? Was the state of Idaho helping fund the Boise State athletics department at a high level? Did they figure out a formula to find an unusually high amount of talented athletes that were being overlooked?

All great questions. Boise state was dominant competitively long before they were anywhere close to being considered as good as they are today. I think their average win total since '99 is 11 or something absurd. Now...the first 10 years of that were toiling in the WAC but that success just kept building. Whatever they did...what came out the other side was a domination of their "weaker" conference for a very long time. Is it unrealistic for Wyoming to dominate the new MWC? If it is...that's fine...we can be a solid team in a conference that is mostly dominated by UNLV and AFA most likely. That outcome is eerily similar to what has happened since Bohl dragged us to respectability....I don't think that is the ceiling. That is the starting place.

 

[307bball]

Speaking of points whistling by...

You do realize that sustained success is now centered on willingness to pay players a lot of money every year and that teams like WYO won't do that, right? In other words, bsu-like path is dead unless you're willing to spend, which we won't and can't.

Our hope is to align with others who also can't spend. Perhaps sustained "success" is possible in that group. The path to sustained success beyond that group is dead. The success in that group ends with that group. There is no way to build off of success in that group unless it is accompanied by increased payments to players. I don't think selling out the WAR every game for 10 years and winning the new MWC championship every year followed by a meaningless bowl game will increase revenue enough to pay the premium to build a bsu-like roster.

We'll be just fine in the new MWC but beyond that? Sustained success in the new MWC ends there unless you spend and we won't.

As usual, once we get some definition, there is an incredible amount of overlap here. It would be nice if you didn't pop off on a tangent that we will never be Michigan and instead cut to this type of clarification.

We have been below the juggernauts for a very long time...this did not happen instantly when NIL $$ became legal. All of your points about paying players apply to a large bucket of teams...that bucket includes teams like CSU and USU I'm pretty sure. Our goal should be to be the top of whatever strata that we fit into. Right now we are not, and have not been the top of that level for a very long time. It is more important for Wyoming to do that because there is nothing else there from a selling point perspective. What is the pitch? Come to Laramie, enjoy the brutal isolated winters while competing for ... 4th place?? That changes dramatically if the selling point changes to "Not everybody is good enough to win...but if you are, there could be a place for you at UW!" Trying to understand why media deals don't favor us or why nobody wants us in thier conference is great...but that is so not controllable. They don't want us and they don't want to pay us. They didn't want BSU back in 2000 either...but at a certain point they could not ignore them because they were taking everybody in their own conference out behind the woodshed and showing up every other year in big time spots. That's the path. We have to become the BSU of the next 20 year period. I understand the specifics of what they accomplished are the product of a specific set of circumstances that are not replicable but, if UW is successful, that is what folks in Fort Collins and Logan will be saying 20 years from now about what UW has accomplished.

 

[PAPoke]

We talk a lot about Boise State (me included) as an example of a small market school that built upon a string of successes allowing them to build a national brand and "move up" as much as is possible in the college football world that exists today.

Do we know, or have any educated guesses, as to how they did it? Did they have unusually high support for the football/athletic program in the administrative department? Did they pay their coaches top of the league salaries? Was the state of Idaho helping fund the Boise State athletics department at a high level? Did they figure out a formula to find an unusually high amount of talented athletes that were being overlooked?

I have some opinions -

Boise made itself interesting in ways Wyoming never could (or probably would).

Boise leaned heavily into a unique brand (blue turf, giant-killer image), hired bold, visionary leaders, developed under-the-radar talent, and capitalized on key moments (such as the Oklahoma Fiesta Bowl win). They made themselves a national curiosity and then a winning culture.

Imagine if Wyoming had a gold field? At least people would be talking about us.

Gene Bleymaier (their AD) pushed for the blue turf and invested in building football as the identity of the school. Chris Petersen and Dirk Koetter modernized the program when the moment came. Wyoming has mostly hired safe, regional coaches. Boise swung bigger and smarter when it mattered.

All of that would not have mattered had they not beaten Oklahoma the way they did. That game and that play are easily in the top 10 moments in college football history.

That single game probably did more for Boise’s national brand than 10 years of steady success would have. It made kids want to play there, made ESPN want to cover them, and made fans across the country take notice.

Before enrolling at UW, the only thing I knew about the school was that it was the lowest-rated team in the old NCAA football games. There used to be a whole viral trend about taking Wyoming to the BCS championship game.