NCAAbbs

Looks to me like the total lack of info coming out of UTEP indicates that something is going on. I suspect they are trying to get the best deal possible from the WAC. Can anybody shed light on what the WAC has to offer?

Excuse the delay from the respondents but actually none can think of anything the WAC could offer UTEP that even closely resembles the CUSA benefits.

:snore: :snore: :snore: Thanks!

No,

The WAC has nothing to offer in comparison to the CUSA.

UTEP AD Bob Stull keeps his cards close to his vest. Don't take lack of communication out of El Paso as a sign that UTEP is not interested. Take it as a sign that an invite and acceptance is imminent.

If UTEP was not interested, you would hear that message loud and clear!

The issue is whether UTEP will be invited (if there is an issue)

They will accept if they are.

I agree. There are some UTEP fans (mostly those living on the West Coast) that are trying to argue that the best thing for UTEP is to stay in the WAC or perhaps wait for an invite from MWC. MWC will not be calling any time soon, and will be looking at other schools first. I believe that is a conference on its way down, based on it's post-season ineptness. The increase in the WAC ESPN deal will come from the old MWC deal, IMO. The MWC teams are UTEP's past, Conference USA is UTEP's future.

During a radio interview when UTEP was first being mentioned as a front-runner for CUSA, AD Bob Stull stated basically that UTEP is happy in the WAC but was open to listening to offers from other conferences. The statement that most resonates in my memory was that the decision whether or not to change conferences would come down to a financial one. Would it UTEP gain financially by moving. Let's see. 1/12 of 10 million per year sounds a little better than 1/9 of 1 million. That said, I think it's a no-brainer. UTEP will accept if invited. I personally believe it will be good for UTEP and for CUSA.

Is it me or are La. Tech post mostly propaganda instead of facts?

It's you.

UTEP will say little until invite is official... they would look pretty stupid if they acted excited... and no invite came... if cusa calls they will answer.. in the possitive.

If UTEP is invited they will accept and will never leave C-USA for a non-bcs conference. Yes they'd leave if the SEC, Big 12, or Pac-10 invited them but so would any non-bcs school. UTEP joined the WAC only because they were blackballed out of the Southwest Conference(as were many other schools including at least a couple that eventually got in). Clearly being in the WAC hurt UTEP because it killed their ability to compete for the top football talent in the state of Texas and all the money that we spent traveling to the rockies and the west coast was money we could have spent on coaches and facilities. UTEP will not make that mistake twice nor does UTEP have a history of conference jumping. We spent 30 years in the old Border Conference and more than 35 years in the WAC. If anything I think there is a better chance of TCU coming back to C-USA than there is of UTEP or any other Texas teams going to the MWC.

I've lurked a little on the Miner board and the discussion there is almost identical to the discussions on the TCU board before we announced the move to the MWC. The same issues were discussed- travel expenses, TV contracts, level of competition, conference stability, marketability, etc. In the end it comes down to what makes the best long term financial sense to UTEP and I suspect that just like it made sense for TCU to move to the MWC, the bottom line financials will make sense for UTEP to move to CUSA. It isn't a huge step up in either case (only a move to a BCS conference would be), but schools have to position themselves as best they can in this dynamic environment. I think will be a great move for UTEP and C-USA.

yeaaaah.... those bottom line financials... like when you guys left the conference with the bigger television package, more NCAA units, 5 bowl tie-ins, regional rivalries to help at the gate, and lower travel costs. :rolleyes:

They just aren't jumping up and down screaming "PICK ME, PICK ME OO OO, PICK ME" instead they are quietly going about their business and if they get invited they can just simly take a vote and say "Thank You" and go on. Like most of the others did.

Hey, the numbers are what they are. Do you really think we wouldn't make a move if they didn't add up? Schools just have to position themselves in the best position for the future. The MWC was a better situation for us, just as the CUSA is a better situation for UTEP.

If enthusiasm about the prospect of being a LOYAL contributing member of the future Conference USA is a crime, lock me and a lot of other Tech people up.

I won't apologize for that.

You have to excuse them, its the only thing they suceed in.

Thech ppl remind me of a kid in a candy store. They have to say something.

Not trying to flame but how has the situation improved. Going to the BE was better for all the teams that left except for USF even without the BCS affiliation because of basketball. TCU moving to the MWC does not have any on those advantages. Can you print just a few of the things about moving to the MWC that makes it a better situation?

If I go into specifics, the thread will just detoriate into a nuh-uh/ uh-uh debate. Suffice it to say that for TCU it was an easy decision- the board didn't even debate for more than an hour, and the financial numbers were a big reason the decision was so straightfoward. My point is that both UTEP and TCU were presented with a similar situation, and like TCU, UTEP will sit down with all the known facts and diligently and rationally come to what is the best for the institution. And like TCU UTEP will likely decide to switch conferences because it makes bottom-line sense.

Honestly, I can't see how the numbers would be better. Why do you think the MWC added you over Boise State or someone more in their geographic domain? Because the numbers are so bad that they couldn't afford to add a ninth member without adding a big tv market. They needed TCU (for DFW and FW Bowl) far more than you needed them. That is always a bad sign.

No, the numbers could not possibly be better. TCU took a calculated risk based on what I feel are two things:

1) That joining the MWC when they did, would result in a conference with improved BCS access over C-USA or at the least an improved strength of schedule. The former didn't work, obviously, and the latter is always a foolish thing to make decisions based on because it fluctuates so much. The MWC isn't a bad conference, but its not much better than C-USA. They only had 7 players drafted last weekend. There are two ways to look at the conference. Either everyone is beating eachother up (how they choose to look at it), or nobody is good enough to separate themselves from a pretty sordid pack. So I don't think a one loss season in the MWC would put you in the new BCS, anymore than the same 1 loss season would in C-USA.

2) Stability -- that we are assured of losing teams to the Big East, and you didn't want to get stuck with the rump of the conference. Its always sketchy to make decisions based on things that haven't happened yet. I would think we lose one school at most if we lose any, and again, with the new BCS structure, it would make even less sense for a team to jump to an 8 team football Big East. Again, this is a calculated risk that you guys took here, your whole logic is based on calculated risk.

The reason it is so risky is that if you guys have two or three bad football seasons in a row, as happens to everyone, it will be damn hard to keep the wheels from coming off. It will become very hard to overlook the warts of the MWC, which your fans have so easily done up to now. Nobody wants to see losing football being played against teams that nobody can identify with. You won't get 18,000 in ACS to see a 3-7 TCU team take on Wyoming or Utah or San Diego State. You wouldn't have in the WAC, why would you now? Then it gets harder to recruit in Texas because you are losing, your attendance has slipped, and you are playing road games at altitude in the middle of nowhere where their families can't see them play. And SMU might be winning at the time and getting all the media attention in Dallas!

If you guys have a losing season, all the reasoning will start to unravel...and you will come to realize what every AD in this conference already knows, which is that Hymen made a huge mistake for the ages. He'll be run out of Fort Worth, but you'll have to live with his decision long after he is gone. I would feel sorry for you, but the fans aren't innocent in this decision either. Their superiority complex over Rice and SMU partly drove this call, and in a sense you will deserve everything that happens. Once you have back to back losing seasons for the first time, it will soon be evident to you that you have basically switched places with SMU. Voluntarily.

I'm curious what the numbers were. There are these mysterious reports of espn tv coverage being cutoff for c-usa and huge contracts for the mwc, which we haven't seen yet. Also, at the time one of the big issues the MWC commish was pushing (and hyman was buying into) is that the mwc would replace the big east in the bcs. obviously, that is no longer the case and would massively skew the numbers into something unrealistic. The other theory out there is that AD and chancellor were being led around by the nose ring by big $$$ boosters, who if they pulled their funding would have devestated the athletic department.

As for the formal debate lasting less than an hour - most of the debate was already done by then and everyone would have been coming in with their decision already made. At that point, the board was pretty much backed into a corner by the actions of their AD anyways.

We're big people here; some of it will inevitably deteriorate, but we are both smart enough to filter through that. Obviously, 90% of the population is missing something if it was such an easy decision; we'd just like to know what it is. Your continued reluctance to provide any information perpetuates the perception that there is no such information. If it is that obvious, we'd all see it and leave you alone. Heck, we may even salute your keen business acumen for pulling off such a deal. Somehow, I doubt it, though...

It is possible the decision could backfire, but unlikely. Success is most dependent on the commitment of the individual institution, not conference affiliation. We sat back in the SWC and rested on the laurels of the stronger schools and suffered the biggest athletic drought in school history. It wasn't until we were left behind that we realized that we are responsible for our own success. Hence, we made a concerted financial and leadership commitment to better our athletic department. We turned the tide while we were in the WAC so we aren't afraid of going west. As far as our motives, there were other factors (and potential BCS positioning may have been one)that went into the move, but the financial bottom line was by far the biggest.

HerdZoned,

You've been a real jerk since day 1 towards Tech fans. Even prior to some of our overzealous posters taking you on, you were saying some real nasty things about Tech. I can understand not wanting a particular school to join CUSA for any number of reasons, but you seem to have a real fixation with "trashing" La Tech and I for one don't understand why. Hope we get to meet someday so you can see we don't have 1 eye in our forehead and horns growing out of our skulls. We're just loyal fans who love and support our school every bit as much as you.

81

Bingo.

The only thing... and I mean the only thing... I can think of is that splitting MWC revenue 9 ways isn't too far behind splitting C-USA revenue 12 ways. If that's the case, that's quite shortsighted (and I doubt that's the case).

There is no other compelling financial argument to make on TCU's behalf.

KinthKS ~~>

lol

I started to reply earlier, but had to do some work....

As to your previous post, the board of Trustees are the only ones who need to be convinced. I can appreciate your need to know, but I'm afraid you aren't going to be satiated here, partly because I don't know all the specifics (why would I be on a message board if I did) and partly because the specifics I do know about are meant to be kept quiet. For obvious reasons, we don't want the details known by the public.

I really didn't want to get into a why did TCU go debate, only to point out the similarities between UTEP's decision and our own. I think CUSA will be a good league and UTEP will be a great addition.

Ah... there was your error in judgement. We never pass up an opportunity to give the Frogs a hard time. :D

To the TCU fan above, the published available TV contract information, plus the realistic projections on football championship game revenue and expected loss of regular season basketball TV revenue, and the current rise in basketball NCAA tourney unit revenue, have been disseminated to each CUSA school in preparation for the recent CUSA deliberations on conference expansion. These figures showed the schools that they should not expect any material drop in conference revenue sharing, EXCLUSIVE of entry & exit fees and the new increase in BCS revenue sharing.

This is fact, not fiction. Losses in some areas are offset by increases in other areas; I have posted the details several times in the past, but suffice it to say that basketball revenue decreases will be offset by football championship game revenue, because the basketball contract is only 1/3 of the total to begin with.

Any financial information you guys were shown by the MWC, or were generated by TCU, which indicate to the contrary may have, just may have, been manipulated to justify what people otherwise wanted to do (in the case of your top money people and your AD), or were forced to do (your administration). I am convinced this is the case, since TCU alone (unlike all other key conference members) has been completely silent with respect to producing any support for their assertion that the "revenue will be better". If they had specifics, they'd get them out there somehow. Why would they not do so?

Several of us tried to appeal to your internet fan base, many of whom may be well-connected and influential, to arm you with the facts so that you could effectively intervene and keep your school from making such a mistake. However, it did no good. I enjoyed our brief conference association with TCU, most of whom are classy people, we had several great games, and I look forward to going there one more time in 2004. Beyond that, good luck to you, you'll need it where you're going.

tease...

it's not like anyone is asking for secret specifics on precisely what went on behind closed doors at the trustees meetings. all people want to know is generalities about where these mythical figures coming from. You're sort of in a hard spot in that you sound like you know just enough to be dangerous. Still, I would claim that after all the closed door discussions, the administration could get together and come up with a plausible explanation for their actions. Whatever your opinions of academics in general, one thing they tend to value is integrity. You chancellor should be able to look the presidents of the remaining schools in the eye and give them an honest explanation. I don't think that's happened, as all their public statements have them as baffled as the rest of us.

As far as UTEP goes, I do see a parallel in their behavior and your just before your invite. It's the expected behavior under the circumstances...

Don't underestimate this factor. Consider the following hypothetical numbers.

Lets say both the CUSA and MWC have 10 year TV contract worth 120 Mil.

In the CUSA TCU would get 1 mil a year
In the MWC TCU would get 1.33 mil a year, a 33% increase.

Now even if the CUSA contract is only 25% less than the MWC (90 mil)
In the CUSA, TCU would get 750 thou/ Year
In the MWC, TCU would get 1.33 Mil, a 78% increase over what we would get in the CUSA.

The same would happen with BCS dollars, both from the "shut up you non-BCS slime" yearly fund and any BCS dollars from actually making the BCS. And in the future the new CUSA has to make 4 basketball units for every three the MWC garners to keep basketball income equal (right now that is not a problem, obviously). Don't buy into this talk about the MWC expanding again. It just doesn't make sense form a revenue perspective. By adding TCU it is trying to maximize its revenue potential without increasing the denominator too much. If the MWC does expand, TCU will get screwed because the financials will no longer make sense.

This is the same reason I think the new CUSA is relatively safe from the Big East expanding. The Big East may end up adding one more football school to 9 for scheduling reasons, but there aren't four teams that will make up enough revenue to make up for the increase splitting of the pie. CUSA will stabilize and become a fine conference.

thanks for trying to shed some light on the situation...

I have no idea why TCU left, but I'm sure GLAD TCU left!

Well, that certainly adds up as you presented it, but....

the C-USA and MWC television contracts are not even close to equal. In fact, I can't fathom that the MWC tv deal will ever be larger than C-USA's deal, let alone 25% less as you presented. To say it would be the other way around is still being generous to the MWC. Their just aren't the tv sets out there.

Closer to reality, using your $120 million starting point:

C-USA - $120 million over 10 years, $1 million for each school annually
MWC - $60 million over 10 years, $666,000 for each school annually

To be fair, the argument regarding basketball units is the first legitimate argument I've heard to date. But I'm not worried about our league's ability to perform in that regard.

no it doesn't; it neglects travels costs, bowl games, entrance/exit fees, etc. even with the optomistic estimate of mwc revenues, that will get the difference down to 100-200k a year. Less than the revenue from a single football game. I certainly don't thing a school with such lofty academic ideals as TCU would sacrifice the academic well-being of their student athletes for such a relatively small sum of money. There's still something going on we're not privy to.

Obviously, I was just illustrating the effects of fewer teams on revenue sharing and ignoring all other factors or using real numbers. It was a key issue to TCU- I doubt we would have joined a 12 team MWC.

Well, obviously you're right about the comparison. I should have said "ignoring all other factors except tv revenues..."

Dawg81...that's because UTEP did it the RIGHT way...no reason to spill the beans early.


From El Paso Newspaper Friday, April 30th


<a href='http://www.borderlandnews.com/stories/spor...30-112093.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.borderlandnews.com/stories/spor...30-112093.shtml</a>


Sports Friday, April 30, 2004

UTEP to get league news today

Darren Hunt
El Paso Times


UTEP officials are prepared to give Conference USA an immediate answer today if the league extends an invitation to the school, meaning the Miners' 37-year membership in the Western Athletic Conference could be history as soon as this afternoon.

"We are prepared to do that," UTEP Athletics Director Bob Stull said Thursday when asked if the school was ready to give Conference USA a response. "We've already done a complete analysis on what would be right for us as a university in the future."

Conference USA's board of directors, made up of presidents from the 11-member schools, are scheduled to meet via conference call this afternoon to discuss and possibly vote on expansion. Among the three items expected to be addressed are whether to add UTEP or Louisiana Tech, or stay at 11 schools.

Conference USA Media Relations Director Russ Anderson said a "three-quarters" vote is needed to add a school, requiring the approval of eight of the 11 presidents.

Stull would not indicate what UTEP's decision would be, but agreed that if an invitation to UTEP is made public today, it would be safe to speculate that the school was accepting it.

"All of it will be concluded (today), for the benefit of everyone," Stull said. "It makes no sense for the WAC or Conference USA to wait any longer. Whatever we've decided to do, though, we've thoroughly investigated it on both sides. We've tried to analyze both situations very carefully."

Stull, who has expressed concerns about the volatility of the WAC (12 schools have defected over the past five years), confirmed that Conference USA Commissioner Britton Banowsky visited UTEP last week.

"I spent the day with him and he met with (UTEP President) Dr. (Diana) Natalicio," Stull said. "We talked about the possibility of membership in his conference."

The Orlando Sentinel has reported that Conference USA athletic directors have already recommended UTEP for membership over Louisiana Tech. With 12 schools, Conference USA could form two divisions and stage a conference championship game in football. Several league ADs did not return calls from the El Paso Times this week.

Stull called today's decision for UTEP "a very complex one for a lot of reasons."

"Obviously, we've been in the WAC a long period of time and we're a staple of the conference," Stull said. "So any decision to leave the conference would be based on the fact that we felt there was a huge advantage to do so."

Natalicio did not return calls Thursday but it is believed she favors a move to Conference USA, because it allows the school to keep ties with other Texas schools.

"One of the issues that's been discussed is that we are part of the University of Texas system," Stull said. "We have a huge alumni fan base in San Antonio, Houston, Austin and the Dallas-Fort Worth area. But that was not necessarily the determining factor."

WAC Commissioner Karl Benson spent time with Stull at the Bowl Championship Series meetings in Phoenix this week making his last-minute pitch.

"We've had discussions about UTEP's future and the WAC's future," Benson said. "I think UTEP understands what the benefits of the WAC are and that they are important to the future of the league. The WAC values UTEP as a member and we are certainly hoping that they will continue their membership."

Darren Hunt may be reached at dhunt@elpasotimes.com; 546-6168.

<a href='http://www.borderlandnews.com/stories/spor...30-112093.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.borderlandnews.com/stories/spor...30-112093.shtml</a>