Are we better off in the sunbelt rather than the WAC

[Dawgmatic]

I know that my being new here won't help much, but putting aside our hatred for the sunbelt and our belief that we're above the belt; would we be better off in the sunbelt than in a Bronco-less WAC?

Without Boise we're looking at a distinctly different conference that doesn't pull in a multi million dollar bowl payday and probably doesn't appeal as much to the tv networks. We're still looking at extreme travel, especially in sports like baseball, softball, and basketball.

So...are we better off in the sunbelt if C-USA doesn't come calling? I think we are. It seams that Tech fans love to belittle the sunbelt by calling it "the belch", "the scumbelt", etc. but is the WAC without Boise much better from a competitive standpoint?. I'm sure there will be plenty to say I'm way off, but I'd be interested to hear the discussion.

At the end of the day I just want to see us in the conference that allows us to put the most dollars toward the growth of the program while fielding competitive teams across sport and gender.

You really aren't a bulldog are you? Probably a little chickenhawk. The answer is not just NO but HELL NO. It sickens me to think of it.

[Dawgpix]

At the end of the day I just want to see us in the conference that allows us to put the most dollars toward the growth of the program while fielding competitive teams across sport and gender.

At the end of the day you need to get in your car and go to work at Johnny's.

[DONW]

We'd be much better off to go independent in football and put our other sports in a conference such as the Missouri Valley, or join the MAC.

[SixWings]

PIT!

just move it, mods. There's really no point to this thread. Odds are the OP is a NLU troll, anyway.

[revf]

Clearly a troll

[T_Won]

Wait a minute, I think it is a legitemate question and people who don't follow Tech as closesly as most of us do, need to be informed on the difference between the WAC and the Sun Belt.

Among the 5 non-Automatic Qualifying BCS conferences, the WAC ranks #2 and the Sun Belt ranks #5. That includes the WAC with Boise State. Finishing #2 gives the WAC alot more money ($3.2 Million) than the Sun Belt ($1.5 Million)from the BCS system ($17 Million is divided among those conference based on how well the conferences performed that year). On top of that, Boise and Hawaii have actually participated in BCS Bowl games which provided each WAC team with an additional $500K per school in those 3 years that they went to the games. The Sun Belt got about $100K from each of Boise and Hawaii's BCS appearances.

Now the travel costs are higher in the WAC than the SBC. 2 years ago, Tech spent $2.5 Million in travel. The average SBC team spent about $1.1 Million in travel 2 years ago (the last audits available).

So the WAC brings in about 3.7 Million in a good year and 3.2 Million (divided by 9 schools) in a bad year just from football. The SBC brings in about 1.6 Million (divided by 10 schools) in a good year and 1.5 Million in a bad year.

So Tech makes more money being in the WAC.

But your point is what do we do when Boise leaves after 2011. The WAC will probably fall from #2 to #3 (behind the MWC and CUSA). Therefore less revenue, but still more than the SBC. Also, there is talk that ESPN will reduce the WAC's television contract down to the level that the SBC is already at... so that's a wash. However, the WAC's revenue will be split among 8 members and the Sun Belt revenue will be split among 10 members (11 if Tech joined, and 12 in a couple of years when South Alabama starts playing football).

Bottom line is that it hasn't gotten to the point where it would benefit Tech monetarily to join the Sun Belt yet. But the difference in revenue is tightening... because the WAC is losing it's best football member and the Sun Belt is not. The Sun Belt is a more stable conference than the WAC because the MWC could eventually add Fresno State and Nevada or Hawaii if they want to expand in the future. If that happens, the WAC will cease to exist. Another point is that if Tech joined the Sun Belt, the Sun Belt would probably become the #3 Non-AQ BCS conference ahead of the WAC, which would make Sun Belt revenue surpass WAC revenue.

You have a valid question and I think what it boils down to is that Tech does not want to be in the same conference as ULM and therefore, we will stay in the WAC until the WAC no longer exists or an invitation to CUSA or another conference comes along.

[champion110]

Wait a minute, I think it is a legitemate question and people who don't follow Tech as closesly as most of us do, need to be informed on the difference between the WAC and the Sun Belt.

Among the 5 non-Automatic Qualifying BCS conferences, the WAC ranks #2 and the Sun Belt ranks #5. That includes the WAC with Boise State. Finishing #2 gives the WAC alot more money ($3.2 Million) than the Sun Belt ($1.5 Million)from the BCS system ($17 Million is divided among those conference based on how well the conferences performed that year). On top of that, Boise and Hawaii have actually participated in BCS Bowl games which provided each WAC team with an additional $500K per school in those 3 years that they went to the games. The Sun Belt got about $100K from each of Boise and Hawaii's BCS appearances.

Now the travel costs are higher in the WAC than the SBC. 2 years ago, Tech spent $2.5 Million in travel. The average SBC team spent about $1.1 Million in travel 2 years ago (the last audits available).

So the WAC brings in about 3.7 Million in a good year and 3.2 Million (divided by 9 schools) in a bad year just from football. The SBC brings in about 1.6 Million (divided by 10 schools) in a good year and 1.5 Million in a bad year.

So Tech makes more money being in the WAC.

But your point is what do we do when Boise leaves after 2011. The WAC will probably fall from #2 to #3 (behind the MWC and CUSA). Therefore less revenue, but still more than the SBC. Also, there is talk that ESPN will reduce the WAC's television contract down to the level that the SBC is already at... so that's a wash. However, the WAC's revenue will be split among 8 members and the Sun Belt revenue will be split among 10 members (11 if Tech joined, and 12 in a couple of years when South Alabama starts playing football).

Bottom line is that it hasn't gotten to the point where it would benefit Tech monetarily to join the Sun Belt yet. But the difference in revenue is tightening... because the WAC is losing it's best football member and the Sun Belt is not. The Sun Belt is a more stable conference than the WAC because the MWC could eventually add Fresno State and Nevada or Hawaii if they want to expand in the future. If that happens, the WAC will cease to exist. Another point is that if Tech joined the Sun Belt, the Sun Belt would probably become the #3 Non-AQ BCS conference ahead of the WAC, which would make Sun Belt revenue surpass WAC revenue.

You have a valid question and I think what it boils down to is that Tech does not want to be in the same conference as ULM and therefore, we will stay in the WAC until the WAC no longer exists or an invitation to CUSA or another conference comes along.

You did a good job of showing the monetary difference, but there is more. Perception is everything right now and the belt just doesn't measure up. Also, our recruiting would suffer and our supporters would decrease. That goes toward recruiting. We might could be at the top of the belt for a while, but that would take a hit soon with recruiting and budget - the budget of private donations and ticket sales.

Also, I will add that it is not just ulm. It is more than half the belt that I would not want to be associated with and, I think, most Tech supporters feel the same.

It comes down to either stepping down and giving up or keep striving upward.

[T_Won]

You did a good job of showing the monetary difference, but there is more. Perception is everything right now and the belt just doesn't measure up. Also, our recruiting would suffer and our supporters would decrease. That goes toward recruiting. We might could be at the top of the belt for a while, but that would take a hit soon with recruiting and budget - the budget of private donations and ticket sales.

Also, I will add that it is not just ulm. It is more than half the belt that I would not want to be associated with and, I think, most Tech supporters feel the same.

It comes down to either stepping down and giving up or keep striving upward.

I'm not sure our support would decrease. I've been following the program for about 20 years and last year was the first year that I saw a clear increase in attendance. If support took a hit, I don't think it would be devastating.... maybe 500 people or so. Most Tech supporters are very loyal to the school and they would stick with us during a "down time." The key would be to dominate the conference in football, win bowl games, and do well in the OOC schedule... and keep the CUSA dream alive. We did very well OOC before the WAC and I think we would continue to do well. The WAC didn't have a dramatic effect on our level of play... I don't think.

Tech would never step down intentionally. This would only happen if there were no other options or if the SBC was a better option. Right now, the SBC is not a better option than the WAC and no officials at Tech are discussing the SBC that I'm aware of.

The only thing the SBC offers is stability. Nobody is ready to raid the SBC for schools, but we have seen 5 teams leave the WAC since we joined in 2001. Fresno, Nevada, and Hawaii are very attractive teams if a Western conference is looking to expand. The only thing I worry about is finding ourselves without a conference at some point. I would rather be in the SBC than be Independent.

[JAB]

Wait a minute, I think it is a legitemate question and people who don't follow Tech as closesly as most of us do, need to be informed on the difference between the WAC and the Sun Belt......

Thank you for posting this.
The reason most jump and yell "HELL NO!" is because we (the die hards) have seen the facts over and over again. We wanted our athletics to be ran as a business and joining the sunbelt would be a BAD business decision. Is the sunbelt good for some schools? YES! It's a good fit for many schools. But it's not a good fit for TECH.

When your "die hards" and "big money" people say "NO!".... it's a bad idea. You can't not listen to those than have stuck by you on the 3-10 seasons, stuck by you when you had no direction, and stuck by you as your programs fell to the lowest points in the history of the programs.

Now, in the future the Tech faithful may change their minds on this issue. But looking in that direction NOW will hurt more than help.

[Tbone1]

I think its pretty clear that the Sun Belt is several notches inferior to the WAC.
The WAC is more competitive across the board.
The WAC has a better TV deal.
The WAC has more/better bowl tie ins.
The WAC is nationally recognized and easier to recruit to than the Sun Belt.

But there is one aspect of the Sun Belt that I wish I could integrate into the WAC. And that's the regional matchups that the Sun Belt offers.
Really, that is the only downfall I have with the WAC.

[WWDog]

All you have to do to answer the question is to look at what people from the belt post about TECH and the belt. They all try to malign TECH for not being in the belt. They question TECH's travel expenses in the WAC and wonder how TECH will survive with those expenses. They continually question why TECH isn't in the belt through any reasoning they can use or even fabricate.

Why is that so? Because TECH is trying to better itself and those in the belt realize that the WAC is good for TECH and has made it better and will continue to make TECH better.
Simple answer, the WAC is better for TECH as long as the belt continues to want us out of it and in the belt.

[Tbone1]

All you have to do to answer the question is to look at what people from the belt post about TECH and the belt. They all try to malign TECH for not being in the belt. They question TECH's travel expenses in the WAC and wonder how TECH will survive with those expenses. They continually question why TECH isn't in the belt through any reasoning they can use or even fabricate.

Why is that so? Because TECH is trying to better itself and those in the belt realize that the WAC is good for TECH and has made it better and will continue to make TECH better.
Simple answer, the WAC is better for TECH as long as the belt continues to want us out of it and in the belt.

I agree.
And you know that any one of those Sun Belt programs would bolt for the WAC if they had the chance.
The WAC is clearly a superior league in just about every facet.

[RhythmDawg]

What I can't figure out is if the travel was going to be our doom, why are we still going 9 years later and spending more money on non-travel luxuries?

[Dawg06]

LA Tech
2008-09: $1,463,501 WAC/NCAA revenue - $2,554,014 travel costs
2007-08: $1,733,667 WAC/NCAA revenue - $1,870,308 travel costs (Hawaii BC$)
2006-07: $1,558,017 WAC/NCAA revenue - $1,777,893 travel costs (Boise BC$)
2005-06: $1,123,872 WAC/NCAA revenue - $1,611,539 travel costs
2004-05: $1,326,783 WAC/NCAA revenue - $1,174,237 travel costs
5-YR TOTAL: $7,205,840 WAC/NCAA revenue - $8,987,990 travel costs
Net = -$1,782,151
*2009-10: Tech will receive a record BC$ payout, and Hawaii traveled to Ruston.

ULL
2008-09: $596,183 Belt/NCAA revenue - $1,426,333 travel costs
2007-08: $565,255 Belt/NCAA revenue - $1,373,843 travel costs
2006-07: $804,780 Belt/NCAA revenue - $1,152,820 travel costs
2005-06: $612,044 Belt/NCAA revenue - $1,041,962 travel costs
2004-05: $454,975 Belt/NCAA revenue - $1,107,359 travel costs
5-YR TOTAL: $3,033,237 Belt/NCAA revenue - $6,102,317 travel costs
Net = -$3,069,080
*2009-10: ULL will benefit from a Belt record of 2 bowl participants.

Academics
Louisiana Tech, Hawaii, Nevada, Idaho, and Utah State all rank higher than the best Belt school.
New Mexico State ranks as high as the top Belt school.
ULM ranks on the same level as Grambling, below Northwestern and McNeese.

[HogDawg]

i know that my being new here won't help much, but putting aside our hatred for the sunbelt and our belief that we're above the belt; would we be better off in the sunbelt than in a bronco-less wac?

Without boise we're looking at a distinctly different conference that doesn't pull in a multi million dollar bowl payday and probably doesn't appeal as much to the tv networks. We're still looking at extreme travel, especially in sports like baseball, softball, and basketball.

So...are we better off in the sunbelt if c-usa doesn't come calling? I think we are. It seams that tech fans love to belittle the sunbelt by calling it "the belch", "the scumbelt", etc. But is the wac without boise much better from a competitive standpoint?. I'm sure there will be plenty to say i'm way off, but i'd be interested to hear the discussion.

At the end of the day i just want to see us in the conference that allows us to put the most dollars toward the growth of the program while fielding competitive teams across sport and gender.

Flamer alert!!!!!


We know when we're being played.

HD