Printable View
I can tell you in DFW they move the needle about the same, which is barely at all. Not one person here who isn’t an alumnus is turning on the game if there’s remotely anything else they could be doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by TAILG8R
Frankly on the Dallas side of DFW when I tell people I went to NDSU about half of adult men make the “man you guys are in Frisco every year” comment. So NDSU honestly may have more name recognition than Texas State.
I am as casual a fan as you will ever see. I saw about 5 or 10 minutes of one of your games a few years back. I don't know much about UTSA other than they, along with Texas State, took the place in the WAC when Fresno and NV left for the MW. Nevada has played Texas State a couple of times.
We do have some good insiders on the Nevada message board who do provide some good scoopage.
When in the WAC they shared the conference with Utah St and San Jose State.
Right, wrong or indifferent, the perception of what a Texas school offers for recruitment for athletes and students is greater than what Montana or North Dakota offers in "media".Quote:
Originally Posted by Twentysix
There isn't a good fix for geography. But conferences clearly make decisions based on very random factors depending on differing circumstances and how desperate they are.
Definitely. Only thing that would make it worse is if they were called Texas State University Stephenville. They’d probably be in the B12 by now.Quote:
Originally Posted by abc123
I cannot describe how little people care about any school below SEC or B12. SMU gets about as much following in DFW as NDSU does in Minneapolis.
I would say the pecking order on the Dallas side of DFW is as follows. It really is college football Mecca.
TAMU
UT
TTU
Baylor
Houston
SMU
TCU
The Oklahoma schools
The rest of the SEC
The rest of the B12
Rice
UNT
Texas State
UTSA
…probably forgetting some…
UTEP
Sammy
Media market essentially means nothing here because it’s national games only on local channels. The thought of anyone other than TAMU, UT, or TTU ever being on local channel is completely laughable. I have lived in Texas for 10 years and never heard one person say “Tarleton State” or “stephenville” out loud.
I' pretty confident that they will make these choices based only on what benefits the conference the most. Hopefully Mr Larson has some salesmanship in him because he needs to convince MWC or PAC that inviting NDSU has significant upside for their conference. Our pitch obviously should be football driven, yet still pointing out what our vision is for all of our sports in this new environment, why Fargo is ready to support us in this move, that our fans are excited to shift loyalties to a new conference and won't be stuck in the past & proof that we have a plan to make this work to assure them that they will be getting quality participation long term.Quote:
Originally Posted by abc123
Anything that translates to a benefit for them is all they care about.
Bigger conferences seem to REALLY want to have a presence in Texas.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU92
That top tier has been claimed by the P4, so now there is a scramble over the second tier: Rice, UNT, Texas St, UTSA.
Rice seems to be largely ignored, perhaps because they haven't been that successful in recent years. The buzz is around UNT, Texas St, and UTSA.
Those 3 schools will have interest from some combination of PAC, AAC, and MWC. I just don't see any of them moving to MWC over AAC, SBC or PAC. PAC is likely to get who they want in Texas, then AAC will most likely get/keep who they choose.
While the whole "media market" thing is flawed, it is unfortunately still a big factor in conference invites. The entire media industry operates off of DMAs and where you lie geographically. Perhaps that will shift in time as people move to streaming and ESPN and others can more accurately track viewership.
I could be naive but I don't think AFA wants to pay a large exit fee to go to a depleted AAC. They play Army and Navy ooc every year anyway. UNLV is carrying heavy debt and attracts the smallest amount of tv viewers in the MW. Those are two reasons the PAC passed. Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe Memphis, Tulane and USF decide to stay in the AAC. That could certainly change the dynamic. It is possible that the MW will stay lean and regional by adding UTEP only. I don't see any real reason to spread out all over. I do believe the MWC will get about the same amount for their tv deal and splitting that pie by 9 instead of 12 helps cover some slack. Plus! Over 111 million dollars coming from the Pac and the defectors greases the wheels considerably.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
I just don’t see AFA leaving to go cross country all year long and I don’t see the non-service academies voting to include a school way out west that brings nothing to the conference except making two football only members happy. Half the schools in the AAC are in states that touch the Atlantic and I’m telling AFA to pound sand if I’m them.Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
I don’t see the pac luring away schools from the AAC. Not without at least doubling their conference payout. And they won’t know what that is until they’re a legit conference again. PAC has to take two from MW (or elsewhere…) and MW will have to backfill.
Another development now too is that all the conferences are now making their members sign GoRs that are almost prohibitive in their own right. If CUSA schools’ end goal is the Sun Belt or AAC, are they signing on to the MW knowing it probably takes them further from a future invite to those conferences? Same goes for MW schools potentially moving to the AAC or AAC schools moving to the PAC. Any moves now lock you into a conference for a while - you better make sure you don’t regret committing to something lesser than your end goal.
Sports are the front porch (see: Chapman). He was correct; they are for alumni connection and student recruiting.
Given the available students to recruit, the Dakotas will always be at disadvantage to Texas and Calilfornia.
Its not clear to me how badly AAC wants AFA, or vice versa, but clearly those conversations happened in the past and are happening again. I'm not sure its a great fit geographically, but could be good for the American brand to have all 3 service academies.Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
Find it hard to believe that the MWC TV deal won't take a hit given the departure of their top 4 schools. Perhaps with inflation factored in, the media companies will agree to just keep it the same as before. Typically you would expect more schools to equal a higher media payout, because that provides more content and markets. But if adding more schools dilutes the payout to where existing members make less, obviously that can change how they view things.
Like all FBS reshuffles, this will come down to the money. The media companies control the money, and thus where everyone lands.
The MW media deal was not based upon who was in the conference. It was based upon late night time slots. There will be interest from more than one provider to get that content. I don't expect a bigger contract but I don't think there will be a significant drop off. It is a very modest deal to begin with. The good thing is the remaining schools are getting boatloads of cash which covers a lot of shortfalls. Of course, any added schools will not be getting that dough. The media deal may be smaller but having fewer teams means a bigger cut of that pie. No Boise carve out either. Plus, there are millions of dollars in basketball credits to be split among fewer schools. The overall distribution will be going up nicely.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
It is weird to lose some schools but the stupidity of OSU?Wazzu blowing their war chest to add G5 schools has really provided a financial boost to the MW. I can't see the MW having more than 9 when all is said and done.
Boise and Washington State have been active presences in the upper Midwest recruiting for several cycles.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka
Much truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
I have also never heard tarelton state or seen it anywhere. I would add that arkansas is the most visible school in my area of dfw with tamu being a close second. Texas seems to be a bit more elite/rich and is less common around here. Smu/tcu basically only exist in their immediate neighborhoods.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU92
I get the conferences idea about texas schools, but man. These 3rd/4th/5th teir schools literally have no following. I wouldn't be surprised if ndsu's fan base is 10x the size some of these schools being talked about. Saying they don't move the needle is an understatement. Most of these schools may well not exist as far as public recognition goes around here.
You're right, but yet the media networks seem to keep biting on the market concept again and again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Twentysix
CUSA added Sammy and Kennesaw (Atlanta) over some others that would have had bigger fanbases. Kennesaw is somewhere around #5 or #6 in Atlanta, and has a tiny following. Georgia St (also Atlanta) doesn't put many butts in seats, yet are mentioned as a potential AAC backfill.
AAC added schools like Charlotte and UNT also based on "market" over some other possibilities like App St and Marshall in the last reshuffle.
B1G adding UCLA was sort of a "market" add also, not that impressive outside of location in football. Oregon St beat them, and was more competitive in PAC, but got left behind. Looked like more butts in seats the games I watched also.
Its dang near crazy, yet the behavior pattern has persisted across all levels of FBS, largely based on location/market DMAs.
IMO it’s because the media can turn around and sell those markets to their advertisers. Doesn’t matter about who is actually watching or follows said team. Sell the potential over and over and over.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think one thing that people have mistaken, though, is that media markets only matter if you’re strong enough to get on local network TV in your own market. It’s abundant if you’re a P4 school but G6 and below it’s non-existent.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
I’m not sure the conferences that have taken them would consider SHSU, FAU, FIU, etc. to be a raging success. Compare that to the GSU, App, JMU, coastal Carolina additions that the sun belt has made that brought them back from the brink.
That’s the path to success as a G5 conference.
100% agree and I imagine that if you get a program like NDSU on more regional and national TV, even lower networks, you’d get an entire Midwest following because their school doesn’t have the same level of exposure.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU92
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's more about the coaches being able to go into the state to recruit and tell them they'll get a game or two in Texas if they go there. Let's say NDSU was in the MWC asking with 1 or 2 Texas schools, I bet the Bison get a couple extra Texas kids each year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Twentysix
Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk
Im loling just imagining a mountain west coach thinking to himself “man we could’ve gotten that kid if only we had Tarleton in our conference”Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyBison
:rofl: I still don't know what city and state Tarlton State is from. If I don't know, recruits won't know. If anything a recruit will become sad when he realizes he will play teams like Tarlton State.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU92
Meanwhile NDSU and South Dakota State will be playing a meaningful game on ESPN and the game once hosted College GameDay
Guarantee any recruit will be more impressed by us
I never heard of Tarlton State. Are they FCS?
It's a lot more impactful than thinking the media market of Texas is a reason for getting a school like Tarleton. Ball State and Indiana State get very little attention from the Indy media unless it's a local kid or they have an exceptional season (i.e. see ISU baseball and basketball in the last year). You wouldn't add those schools because of the Indy media market. But you would if you wanted to recruit Indiana HS basketball. This is a G6 and possibly FCS consideration. Media market is more of an issue for P4. A big reason for Maryland and Rutgers was being able to add the B1G network to more cable networks in NYC and DC. That was huge revenue for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU92
While I agree with you in principle, it seems like only SBC is following that pattern thus far.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU92
AAC could have had its pick of SBC schools in the last round, and passed on all of them. AAC and their markets still have a larger payout for now. Its rumored that ESPN effectively told them who to add based on those markets to maintain their payout. At least for AAC and PAC they are trying to play the media market game.
I still like our odds of joining MWC when all the dust settles. It will take a little time, because PAC and AAC will make their moves first. If we can't get into MWC or MAC somehow, then I'm afraid we are stuck until another major reshuffle, perhaps if P4 splits entirely and shakes things up.
There are no available large market schools for the MW to chase. I really don't have any idea what the criteria they are seeking might be. Do schools moving up from FCS have to do a probationary period? I know about the 5 million dollar move up fee but where does that money go? Have any FCS schools moved up as football only? Would you be interested in football only.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
UC Davis and Sacramento St would be market adds imo. They don't make much sense outside of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
I don't know how much value those markets actually bring, or if MW contract would be impacted either way.
I think NDSU is very well positioned to join MWC, but don't have a crystal ball or inside details on how those decisions work. You seem to have had a lot of other thoughts. The $5m FBS fee goes to NCAA coffers. There is a 2 year transition period. The reclassification only applies to football, all the other sports are already full D1. Football has two sub-classifications in D1, and might add a third soon.
Davis makes sense if they want it. Whether they do or not, idk. Sleeping little giant there.
Mediocre D2 school that’s trying to use Texas hype to microwave an FBS program. Word on the street is they’re probably the next vial of blood for CUSA to crack open when MW or sun belt comes in and steals their life force.Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
I really don't think the add or adds will be solely for market share. NDSU checks a lot of boxes. I would guess they are under consideration but who knows. UTEP is a known quantity and in the Mountain time zone. I think they get a spot. If AFA and UNLV stick around UTEP might be the only add for all sports. 9 works for football. They then could add a non football school to get to 9 for basketball etc. That just screams Davis. They already have a MW level budget and sponsor a jillion sports. They could come aboard with an understanding that they will be football ready in a few years.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
If there are more defections i.e. UNLV and AFA then it will be a scramble and I don't know what the plan will be. I can't see any scenario where they go above 10 but anything is possible.
A smaller tv deal is not a conference killer. The MW has never had a large one and has still thrived. Nothing is easy in G5 but none of the MW schools are poor.
Why not NMSU and UTEP? Or would UNM have issue with that.
It could end up being NMSU and UTEP nothing is concrete at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka
They very well could add them. But they’ve shown an inability to invest in success at the level their programs perform at, which for me would be a concern and I believe has been the concern in the past from the MW.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka
I’m also not sure adding them really elevates the conference at all. There’s 2M people in the Dakotas and people in Minnesota too that would all of the sudden take an interest in the MW, when there is currently none to be had. There’s something to say about that.
I think this is a very valid point.Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU92
Apparently other colleges are more active in their attempts to move up.
https://www.sacbee.com/sports/colleg...292627949.html
So new Basketball arena and new Football stadium + $55m or more.Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalBison
Sounds like ballpark a minimum investment of $150-250m if they come thru with all that. Are pockets in Sacramento really that deep?
A whole lot of dough changes hands everyday in the Capital City of California. It has only ever been a matter of will with Sac State. Maybe now they got the wanna going.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
lol lost me at “climb to power in FCS” one 10 win season and one quarterfinal appearance in 6 years and absolute trash before thatQuote:
Originally Posted by SoCalBison
They at least have the state media aspect down
Like I said. There has never been much enthusiasm at SAC State. If you build it, they will come. If there are actually people that want to do this investing, Sacramento is in the middle of a whole lot of people. It just takes money..Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSU92
Well, the school and the students at Sac St are already shelling out over $30M annually (about 84% of their total athletic revenue) to support their FCS athletic department: https://sportsdata.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/110617. Not sure if anyone will come if they build it but also not sure how an athletic department that only pulls in about $300k in ticket revenue and about $700k in contributions expects to fund an FBS move without raking in a lot more money from the school's general fund and/or from student fees.Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
Yeah, it takes more than just money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor Chaos
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk