No Big East in 2012
by BroncoInDuckLand on Feb 22, 2012 5:16 PM PST
Email
PrintThere's been a lot of speculation about whether we're staying in the Mountain West or trying to make the early jump to the Big East for this coming season.
Well, the question has been answered. Could Boise make the move and have it work out financially? Kustra says no.
There's also another factor involved here. Apparently Temple is joining the Big East for the 2012-13 season (as an all-sports member) in our stead. Which is funny because they were shafted on the original invite. Temple joining will give the Big East 13 members for 2013 (assuming Pitt and Syracuse stay for the duration of their contractually obligated 27-month wait-to-exit period). That's a very odd number that comes with it's own scheduling difficulties.
Hmmmm, really gets me wondering about a lot of things... mostly just questions I want answered from Bob Kustra and Mark Coyle.
This content was not created by OBNUG and therefore may not meet our standards. On the contrary, it probably exceeds them.
36 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Hmm
maybe they plan to add Air Force when Navy joins. Anyways, between this and Tennessee Martin in 2013 I am kind of bummed. That said I have to consider the upside of the cheap buyout and a year to rebuild our team in the MWC (and deal with the lack of media exposure for one more season).
It's not too late
You can still stay and join the second super conference. The Big East is going to be really bad. It doesn’t matter the teams. Moving to the Big East will be bad for Boise St. Your program will go down and the media will move to the next “little guy who noone loves”. Why will the PAC-12 take your wresting team and not your football team?
by Bisquick_in_da_MGM on Feb 23, 2012 8:57 AM PST reply actions
I'm not sure...
why the wrestling team and not the football. It’s been that way for quite a while now. The wrestling team has always been excellent whereas the football program just came up from 1AA 15 years ago and took the better part of that 15 years to gain national recognition as a great football program. The Pac-12 cites academics for not including football. While they do have standards Boise may not meet academically, it doesn’t make sense to allow one sport and not the other. The academics doesn’t change between football and wrestling, it’s still Boise State.
I’d venture to guess that a major reason they didn’t invite Boise to the Pac-12 is because the TV market is so small that it would be a drain on their revenue sharing for TV money. Wrestling doesn’t bring in or rely on TV money whereas football does.
As far as moving to the Big East, it’s not going to be bad. Financially, it’ll be the best thing that’s happened to the athletic department. Even the worst teams in the Big East make more than Boise does currently if it goes to a BCS bowl. The Big East has a much bigger TV contract with more national exposure than the dismal MTN and VS. Tv deal the Mountain West has. I doubt it’s going to get that much better with this ridiculous super-conference idea. And even if they were offered anywhere in the vicinity of what the Big East is given in a TV contract, they have to split it 18-22 ways as opposed to 8-12 ways… huge difference there.
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." -The Dude
"If you're always worried that something could blow up on you, you're not going to push the envelope and not going to try new things. Some of the stuff does blow up on us, but the tradeoff is the problems we're creating for defenses when it works." -Chris Petersen
by BroncoInDuckLand on Feb 23, 2012 10:00 AM PST up reply actions
Super conference?
Sorry to say but when the most desirable non-AQ media markets are all gone from the super conference and don’t give me that garbage about UNLV, Tulane, etc. being major markets as the draw simply isn’t there (in terms of football). Other than Southern Miss, none of the teams in the new conference are consistent with their performance and half of the members have overall losing records in their history. Air Force is decent but I am still not sold on them being a solid lock after the next couple of years in this thing. As pointed out the law of simple economics states that money split 18-24 ways doesn’t go as far as money split 12-14 ways. The point is that the new super conference would have to generate at least 40% more revenue than the revised Big East to really make a difference. Take a look at the non-BCS Bowl tie-ins as well. The Big East definitely has the bowls of both the MWC and C-USA beat and C-USA stands a good chance of losing it’s most lucrative bowl (the Liberty Bowl) to the Big East completely as part of the deal with Memphis.
No matter which way you slice it the new Big East will still be in a better bargaining position than the super conference and as long as the Hair remains in charge of the new conference I don’t see things getting any better.
It sure seems like endowment size.
BSU along with San Diego St don’t compare, and might seem vulnerable financially to the bigger conferences. When Kustra says things like, “It won’t work out financially” it raises red flags.
If you ever wanted to see Boise St play...may be a good chance. Love em or Hate em, they are always interesting; and now, no matter where you live, "They're Coming To Your City"
Financial vulnerability.
If you ever wanted to see Boise St play...may be a good chance. Love em or Hate em, they are always interesting; and now, no matter where you live, "They're Coming To Your City"
I think he means how ate they going to justify paying $10 million to leave the MW on top on $2 million to enter the BE and another $million or so to enter the WAC.
i also think they’re playing the waiting game. See what happens to the WAC and BE in the next year
Well you got to look at like this
If your just tring to buy a year so you don’t look bad, then it’s Ok. Utah thought that they were the pooh until they joined the PAC-12 and had a losing record their first year. TCU might come in 3rd, if they get lucky. If the real reason is finance, then you don’t need to move. It’s going to get real expensive real quick to send your football team across the country every other week. Boise St. might be better off staying.
by Bisquick_in_da_MGM on Feb 27, 2012 10:42 AM PST reply actions
No we look at it like this
1) Utah may not have had the greatest season their first year in the PAC 12 but ultimately they are one of only two teams that brought home a bowl win (Utah and Oregon are the only two that won) and they still produced an 8 win season overall. People seem to keep comparing the Utah team that won the 2009 Sugar Bowl vs Alabama directly to the 2011 team. The fact of the matter is that the 2011 Utah team is more akin to the 2010 Utah team. The 2010 Utah team got blown out by TCU, Notre Dame and Boise State, so it stands to reason that given they followed up this season by joining the PAC 12 that it would be a struggle for them for a couple of seasons. Once again though their overall record wasn’t really that much worse than what it was in the season prior to it. I would say we give it another couple of seasons before we say that they are down and out.
2) TCU won the MWC by the skin of their teeth this year, so I think that ranked 3rd in the Big 12 for next season would be an accurate assessment but like Utah we aren’t talking about a follow up to the team that won the 2011 Rose Bowl.
3) That is just blind fanboy logic. The lowball estimate for the Big East additional revenue is 5 mil and the additional travel costs at max are about $500K. Current revenue for all sports in the MWC is $1.9 mil max.
4) I love it how proponents of the alliance will somehow be better than even a weakened big west. Half of the alliance conference have overall losing records in their history. On the other hand the overall losing records of the Big East are isolated to 4 teams out of the 12 and two of those 4 have been showing promise (SMU and Temple). Of the 8 teams listed for the alliance only Wyoming has shown promise and UTEP isn’t doing much better than breaking even.
5) As long as the genius who engineered that boneheaded MWC media deal is in charge and agreed to the Blue uniform ban then we as Boise State fans have no faith whatsoever in the new direction of the new conference.
6) The alliance would have to have significantly more revenue than the Big East to make it worth it due to the number of additional mouths to feed. Sorry, don’t see it happening.
The bottom line is that as much as you spout gloom and doom for the Big East and Boise’s future in it, the fact is that the alliance conference is in a worse position.
Whoops number 4 should read
Big East, not Big West.
Actually, with the losses of Pitt and Cuse the new Big East is stronger in FB than it was before, even with the loss of WVU.
Now if the the Big East loses UConn and Rutgers it will still be stronger, but losing Louisville and Cinci would make it weaker.
I really hope for more western FB only teams. I mean, if the conference adds anymore they will have to be FB only. We are already at 18 now, if Temple joins. Why add ECU or So.Miss in FB only, especially when So.Miss BB is pretty good. I personally hope that the Big east continues to push for Air Force and BYU, and then do whatever it takes to get Notre Dame to join. Let ND and BYU have their home media rights, if that’s what it takes. We need a strong FB presence if this thing is going to work. the So.Miss’s, ECU’s, and Tulsa aren’t going to do it. The only only reason Memphis and Temple are invited is because of BB and the conference hoping it convinces UL, Cinci, UConn, and Rutgers to stay.
And with regards to those schools: Are they so desperate to make more money that they would be willing to be the Big12’s doormats? Why not make decent money AND compete in the Big East?
Why do you think the Pac 12 jumped over states to get Colorado? It certainly wasn't their strength in football & basketball.
Why do you think the SEC nabbed Texas A&M. Their # 1 in the SEC in endowments. Vanderbilt was # 1. Of course their the SEC’s Stanford or Harvard. Mizzou would have been # 3, behind Florida, & in front of Alabama.(UF>400mil>Bama)
Here’s the Big 12
5. Texas – $15,613,672,000
10. Texas A&M – $6,590,300,000
57. Nebraska – $1,277,169,000 – (another big reason the Big 10 picked them)
60. Kansas – $1,238,695,000
66. Oklahoma – $1,114,426,000
70. Missouri – $1,097,846,000
74. Baylor – $1,018,012,000 (Baylor Med was 56th w/ $1,278,011,000)
100. Colorado – $716,656,000
118. Texas Tech – $641,640,000
128. Iowa State – $592,368,000 – (only half of Nebraska’s, hmmm?)
148. Oklahoma State – $468,735,000
186. Kansas State – $346,360,000
Pac 12
Highest – University of Southern California – $2,670,000,000
University of Colorado at Boulder – $665,442,000
University of Utah – $513,400,000
Lowest – University of Oregon – $410,000,000
I don’t want to get into research funds, & endowment averages amongst their members, but when you figure in Boise St’s endowment ($78.5 million) is 4 times as small as the smallest, and close to 200 times as small as the biggest member of those conferences, it just shows a whole different reasoning, other than just team strength, and media coverage, as to why the Big 12 & the Pac 12 didn’t even consider BSU.
With that being said, I think we should take advantage of the Big East offer, and look for opportunities to increase our endowment size every way possible.
If you ever wanted to see Boise St play...may be a good chance. Love em or Hate em, they are always interesting; and now, no matter where you live, "They're Coming To Your City"
Oh, by the way, TCU's endowment is well over a billion.
Things that make you go hmmm…
West Virginia, is below average but not the Big 12 smallest, but when you add their football strength, and relative location to some major metro media market, their value looks pretty good. Here is my new formula E+F/B+MMMM=Big Boy.
“A big (E)ndowment, a positive (F)ootball/(B)asketball program, a positive (M)ajor (M)etro (M)edia (M)arket = AQ conference likey. (-;
If you ever wanted to see Boise St play...may be a good chance. Love em or Hate em, they are always interesting; and now, no matter where you live, "They're Coming To Your City"
Yup it is interesting how that works out
incidentally though Stanford should be by far as number 1 in the PAC 12 and the smallest endowment is actually Oregon State.
Or like this
1) Utah will not win the PAC-12 for maybe 10-15 years. Last year was the best chance they will have for a long time.
2) I think we agree on TCU. They may win the Big XII, if it exists, in about 20 years.
3) If money is not an issue, then why not join now? Surely, your administration isn’t lying by saying that its not finacially wise to move. You clearly make the point that Boise St. would get more money by joining the Big East. Why would you support an administration that is not acting in Boise State’s best interest.
4-6) I will agree to disagree with you on the Big East. If your all for it, then have at it. I do not believe it will benefit you in the end.
by Bisquick_in_da_MGM on Feb 28, 2012 10:21 AM PST up reply actions
Okay if you say so
1) that is pure speculation. The Utes got some decent guys coming in with this recruiting class.
2) No arguments there.
3) People don’t get it. As mentioned above they figured the low ball figure for the Big East as 5 mil in TV revenue, the early exit fees (and early entrance fees to the WAC) were estimated in the $10 million range. The bottom line is that although there is a significant revenue increase (going from $1.9 mil to $5 mil at the least) there is no way to guarantee that either the Big East or Boise State would re-coup the $10 mil early exit fee after one season. The bottom line is that one season of Big East football (although significantly higher than the MWC) is probably not worth $10 mil. On the other hand if Boise waits until next year they only forfeit the TV revenue for the 2012 season and pay a $500K entrance fee in the WAC. The point is that if they go next season they could easily recoup their losses in the first season alone and from there on out be making more money.
4) while you may disagree with parts there is no denying that the alliance has a significantly higher percentage of teams that produce overall losing records and several that regularly make the bottom 10 list of FBS college football teams. 50% of the alliance has overall records of under .500 (with 8 teams under that mark), and the Big East has 33% with just 4 teams under that mark. Further consider that of the teams with overall losing records the only team that has shown signs of life as of late is Wyoming (UTEP has improved but hasn’t done much more than break even).
5) I don’t think you have any idea at how bad BSU fans were PO’ed (or Coach Petersen for that matter) when they were told that they were given home game restrictions for their uniform. It is ridiculous as no other team in college football has this stipulation (Oregon and Michigan State certainly aren’t banned from wearing green on green). The hair signed off on the that uniform ban as well as the crapfest media deal that kills the mountain west conference’s media exposure. I couldn’t believe the night and day media exposure difference between playing in the WAC last season with 7 games on ESPN and a couple I could pick up on rabbit ears locally and this year with only 3 games on ESPN and then dropping of the face of the earth until the Macco Bowl in December. The point was driven home to me during the BSU vs Air Force game. Bronco Stadium was packed to capacity and beyond and in order to see the game I had to have a $60 a month programming package with Versus. During half-time I flipped through the local channels to see if I could find any highlights and couldn’t find a peep, but guess what I could find? Fresno State and Nevada coming in live and clear from Reno Nevada on Rabbit Ears. So even in the Boise area Fresno State and Nevada got better media coverage than a top 10 team and arguably the best of the service academies. The point is how can I (or any other Bronco fan) put our trust in conference leadership when it’s commish could promote a media deal that incompetent. The media deal is largely responsible for the MWC failing as a conference and losing it’s best teams. Utah and BYU expressed their concerns about it 2-3 years before they left.
6) The fact of the matter is that with 16 or more teams the alliance will have to generate a much higher revenue share in order to produce better numbers than the Big East. The bottom line is that you need more to share to get equal revenue split 16 or more ways versus 12 ways. While it is true that more schools have the potential to bring in more revenue, there aren’t any super-desirable schools left to pull in. There are some decent football programs but not any big names. I for one would rather take my odds with 12 teams in a weakened Big East generating higher media revenue shares than 16 or more teams with roughly half of them producing overall losing records. The bottom line is that only a select few like to watch a football team that loses on a regular basis.
So
1-2) How is 1 pure speculation but 2 is not? Just because we agree on 2, does not mean that it isn’t speculation.
3) You are speculating on a conference that may not be in existance in 5 years. Or if they are, will not have the same buying power that it does today.
4) I will stipulate that both the alliance and the Big East have bad teams. True the alliance has more. However, you forget the sweetheart factor. All the Tim Brandos of the world will find the one team that rocks out the alliance and cry foul as to why it’s unfair. Boise St. will just be another team in the Big East.
5) I will not argue about how Boise St. feels about the MWC. I do not know and have no knowledge on the TV viewing options in Idaho.
6) I do not believe Boise St. will find a better future in the Big East. Boise will become lost in the crowd instead of being the star. The travel schedule will be hard and will make going undefeated harder. It’s true that no one wants to watch teams that lose games. It will be the same when Boise starts losing two or more every year.
by Bisquick_in_da_MGM on Feb 28, 2012 11:34 AM PST up reply actions
I guess we are both guilty of speculation
3) You are speculating on a conference that may not exist in 5 years, although I do agree that it is pretty much fact that they won’t have the same clout that they do now
4 and 6) You are speculating that Boise State won’t be much more than an average team in the Big East. While it is possible it doesn’t jive with Boise State’s overall record/history. Boise State has only produced 11 losing seasons since they started playing football in 1932 (They haven’t had a losing season at the FBS level since 1997, not bad considering they only became an FBS team in 1996). The fact of the matter is that all evidence points that each time they step up the competition they come out on top. We shall have to see.
Oops, Hello! By 9 Billion (just chump change)
I actually missed Stanford all together. The brainy schools are in the top two in almost every conference.
1. Stanford – # 1 – Pac 12
2. Northwestern – # 2 – BIG (a smidgen under Michigan, smidgen = 1/2 Billion)
3. Duke – # 1 – ACC
4. Vanderbilt – # 1 – SEC (as of 2011)
5. Rice – # 1 – Conf USA
Sorry, that’s it for my brainys.
If you ever wanted to see Boise St play...may be a good chance. Love em or Hate em, they are always interesting; and now, no matter where you live, "They're Coming To Your City"
It's sickening isn't it
No school should have that kind of endowment.
It's sad that
Rice is over $3 billion and they still can’t figure out how to get the people necessary to build a winning football program.
I could not disagree more with this statement:
No school should have that kind of endowment.
The reason endowments are created and grow over time is based on one thing: free will. That is, people donate their money under their own volition. There is no coercion nor compulsion. The rather bigger question is why tuition costs are still soaring when schools like Yale, for instance, boast that their endowment is large enough to basically pay for everyone to attend…free.
Time is the great equalizer.
Exactly my point
With disgustingly large endowments and soaring tuition, and billions generated in endowments, then what are they using that massive pile of money for?
Could be
All I can say is if I were a Rice alum I would be pitching a serious fit about their athletics given their resources.
I understand holding their money.
They probably collect interest, and pay expenses,bla bla, bla, yadie, yadie, yaw .
But if they use it for Keggers, then why did I have to buy my own beer before, in, and around my college years. Now I’m pissed. Instead of tuna & peanut butter, think of all the pizza & cheeseburgers I could have been eating.
If you ever wanted to see Boise St play...may be a good chance. Love em or Hate em, they are always interesting; and now, no matter where you live, "They're Coming To Your City"
Oh the memories. Wait?
If you ever wanted to see Boise St play...may be a good chance. Love em or Hate em, they are always interesting; and now, no matter where you live, "They're Coming To Your City"
by astrosmurf on Mar 1, 2012 3:41 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah...
Everyone could get free tuition at Harvard and they wouldn’t have to spend 1% of their endowment.
They are mostly just hoarding the money, which makes you wonder why people still give to these universities.
by ce'sped azul on Feb 29, 2012 8:06 AM PST up reply actions
Research equipment?
This is an area I think should be a new focus for BSU. Obviously these schools revel in a high level of research, and are funded by some big players (Corporations). A lot of new tech activity is happening in the Boise area and this could be a great opportunity to align the school with these corporations, which would lead to some serious endowment & growth.
If you ever wanted to see Boise St play...may be a good chance. Love em or Hate em, they are always interesting; and now, no matter where you live, "They're Coming To Your City"
Conferences
The PAC conference was originally created (way back when) to further research with a sharing of staff and facilities. The Big 10 was the same. Athletic competition was the least of their considerations. In fact, the origin of the PAC12 was the Pacific coast Conference, and it linked 6 schools that were big on medical, scientific, and agricultural research in a joint effort. The reason for the breakup in 1959 was a pay for play scandal and ultimately the football dominant schools won out and the PAC 8 was formed.
You hit the nail on the head there
It wasn’t to be the last time that a pay for play scandal contributed to the breakup of a conference (ie SMU and the old Southwest Conference).
Thanks for that info Ala.
I was starting to come to that conclusion myself. Its to easy on a sports blog to get caught up in how important sports are.(To us) However, most people don’t play sports in college, and other than a social thing, in the bigger picture its not all that important to the institutions & the students. Just like GM’s recent alliance with Peugeot, I can see where a bunch of well funded universities could be a powerful entity, by pooling their funds. Their purchasing leverage would improve. The lobbyist would have more say. More corporate sponsors in regards to research & quality personnel. Just the interaction between the institutions is a major benefit. Can you imagine how much more money you can make with 20 billion dollars then you can with 900 million. You could manipulate the stock market, and still have plenty to spare. With all 6 AQ’s, whats that 70-80 bil. This is Bohemian Grove stuff…
OK, I’m getting a little out there, but interesting speculation.
If you ever wanted to see Boise St play...may be a good chance. Love em or Hate em, they are always interesting; and now, no matter where you live, "They're Coming To Your City"
Yup
it’s facts like these that keep the perennial BCS bottom feeders raking in the cash while producing virtually nothing on the field (ie Indiana, Vanderbuilt), other than the occasional decent season. Yes, I know these schools are known for other sports but let’s face it football is definitely the most lucrative sport in college football. Makes me sick that these teams get to suck up the field year after year and still pull in 10 times the cash (from TV revenue, BCS Bowl share) than BSU even when they go to a BCS Bowl and the other teams stay home and just collect revenue share.
Whoops
Price I pay for posting when half asleep (wish there was an edit button on this site) it should read college football is the most lucrative sport in college athletics.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
2012 Boise State Football Schedule
@ Michigan State  |
Fri 08/31 | 6:00 p.m. MT |
| Miami (OH) | Sat 09/15 | 2:00 p.m. MT |
| BYU |
Thu 09/20 | TBA |
| @ New Mexico | Sat 09/29 | TBA |
| @ Southern Miss | Sat 10/06 | TBA |
| Fresno State | Sat 10/13 | 1:30 p.m. MT |
| UNLV | Sat 10/20 | 1:30 p.m. MT |
| @ Wyoming |
Sat 10/27 | 1:30 p.m. MT |
| San Diego State | Sat 11/03 | 8:30 p.m. MT |
| @ Hawaii | Sat 11/10 | 5:00 p.m. MT |
| Colorado St. | Sat 11/17 | 1:30 p.m. MT |
| @ Nevada | Sat 12/1 | TBA |
