What's the next realignment domino to fall?

[Wufan]

What WSU is doing is exactly what every school should be doing (and some certainly are, but in a less public way). See what's out there and what you want to accomplish. Evaluate and go after it. The MVC may very well be the best fit, but without exploring other potential options, you have no way of knowing.

Above, it is true that several schools have recently upgraded facilities, and it is false that WSU is the only public metro school (MSU). It is true that WSU doesn't fit with the other schools in the MVC, but it still might be the closest fit overall.

[squirrel]

But they were always the sleeping giant. Can you say that about everyone else?

Bradley, and that's it.

Just a hunch, but I'm guessing WSU has made more money for this conference in the last 5 years than what the entire conference has done combined in the last 20.

That's a big statement, and it may well be true given inflation and the NIT Championship payout...but unipanther already outlined why that is a bit of an overstatement of impact: within the past 20 years Missouri State has a Sweet 16 and a women's Final Four appearance. As someone already pointed out, there are additional Sweet 16s by 4 other league members in that time frame, including one from Wichita, and 2 from SIU. Prior to the Wichita run, there was a decent number of tournament wins overall by the league.

My guess is collectively that's no chump change, but again, with inflation it could be an accurate statement. But Wichita definitely benefited from the overall strength of the league, as did UNI and Drake, of all institutions.

Consider Drake and SIU's perspective. Getting rid of WSU allows the Valley to bring in UMKC or Grinnel College. In an instant, neither one is a lock for last place anymore. 8th or 9th place sounds much better than 10th. That whole double-digit thing is embarrassing.

Bradley has the market cornered here for the foreseeable future.

[AACguy]

The precursor to WSU openly exploring their conference options is beginning.

http://www.kansas.com/sports/college/wi ... 64335.html

We had a discussion not too long ago about possible additions to the AAC and there was support from more than a few people for Wichita St. Good luck with the exploratory process. If anyone wants to talk about the AAC you are welcome to visit.

We have a thread about realignment in the football section but you're welcome to talk hoops with us too. http://www.AACmessageboard.com

[uniftw]

Bardo may have changed opinion on football. Western Carolina fans seem to think, and did while he was there, that he wanted to kill football off

[Cdizzle]

Bardo may have changed opinion on football. Western Carolina fans seem to think, and did while he was there, that he wanted to kill football off

Maybe he did? Maybe they should have? Maybe WSU shouldn't add it and they are just looking at the options. You know, like they say they are.

[Rambler63]

WSU's total athletic budget (as of 2014) was $21,842,820-- and that's without any FBS or FCS football at all. Meanwhile, the LOWEST total athletic budget in the Mountain West is $25,140,676, but they had a basketball only budget of $1.8 million compared to WSU's $5.1 million basketball only budget. So presumably, to compete at roughly the same level as Utah State and keep baskeball funding the way it is, WSU would have to grow their athletic budget to around $28 million. The AAC's LOWEST athletic budget is Temple, at around $38 million; Louisville spends $88 million a year on athletics. Given Kansas' state finances, that's probably going to have to come directly from donors.

And that doesn't factor in the difficulty of Title IX issues, adding other sports like soccer, land for facilities, capital costs for a stadium, etc. Additionally, WSU's enrollment of around 14.5k would be on the far low end of both the AAC and MW. My source for numbers is bbstate.com.

[Cdizzle]

WSU's total athletic budget (as of 2014) was $21,842,820-- and that's without any FBS or FCS football at all. Meanwhile, the LOWEST total athletic budget in the Mountain West is $25,140,676, but they had a basketball only budget of $1.8 million compared to WSU's $5.1 million basketball only budget. So presumably, to compete at roughly the same level as Utah State and keep baskeball funding the way it is, WSU would have to grow their athletic budget to around $28 million. The AAC's LOWEST athletic budget is Temple, at around $38 million; Louisville spends $88 million a year on athletics. Given Kansas' state finances, that's probably going to have to come directly from donors.

And that doesn't factor in the difficulty of Title IX issues, adding other sports like soccer, land for facilities, capital costs for a stadium, etc. Additionally, WSU's enrollment of around 14.5k would be on the far low end of both the AAC and MW. My source for numbers is bbstate.com.

All good points. It's friggin' expensive. Doesn't make sense to me, but if somebody else wants to fund it, fine. WSU does already have the land for any and all facilities they might need. Other than that, you're definitely starting from scratch.

Luckily, Bardo seems to be somewhat realistic, estimating a $13MM yearly budget for football, which would be more on par with the middle of the MWC numbers you quoted. Doesn't mean someone actually has that money, just that at least they are being somewhat realistic about the required costs. I would be more worried about whatever eventual decision if they thought they could do it for $5MM a year.

[Championz]

Wasn't that long ago WSU was one of the teams who didn't look to have a shot all that often either....

Just a hunch, but I'm guessing WSU has made more money for this conference in the last 5 years than what the entire conference has done combined in the last 20.

Nobody is questioning the impact of of WSU's final four run and other recent success and the financial benefits that have come with that, but this sort of statement is just obviously false. Looking at tournament shares as an example, WSU has provided by my count 11 in the last 5 years. Certainly impressive. But with only one Arch Madness Tournament championship in the last 20 years, that means the other schools start out at 19 shares over that time without adding up all of the additional shares for wins in the tournament, multiple bids, etc.

My statement was obviously exaggerated but my point was WSU has carried this conference the for the last half-decade and has generated more money than anybody else during that fairly small time period. I'll give it to SIU in the mid 2000's. They carried their weight and kept the Valley relevant. But WSU has surpassed that and continues to be the flag barer.

It was irrelevant to point out what WSU was. They have made up for it and then some and certainly are a lone isolated big fish in a small pond. Their profile is not similar to anyone else's in the conference.

[squirrel]

Villanova never made the move to FBS because they weren't willing to commit to the price tag. They determined they would be looking at about a $30M net loss over the first 10 years, just to upgrade their program, which had been an FCS power on the verge of a National Championship.

That price tag therefore didn't include startup costs, scholarship initiations, etc. That was also 10 years ago, so you can add on another $10-15M.

Also, as it stands, the only way a school can reclassify to FBS now, is if they have an official offer of membership from a conference.

So, you'd be looking at about a $50-55M net loss over the first 10 years to get a new football program up and running, with no guarantee of a spot in FBS.

[xmvcrunner]

Todd Golden's nice article on the whole WSU looking to move thing

http://www.tribstar.com/sports/todd-aar ... 987e7.html