Wichita State

[rabidTU]

None of those would be attractive candidates. However, it is not just the metropolitan area market size that matters. It is the geographic footprint of their fanbase. For example, Texas is not just Austin, it is all of Texas. KU gets all of Kansas and all of Missouri. For that reason, Wichita and Creighton are worthless for TV purposes. Dayton could get some play in Ohio and Richmond in Virginia so maybe they would have some value.

But the problem with Dayton is that we already have that footprint in the east with Cincy as another eastern team on the eastern side. And we already have an overabundance of east coast presence as it is. Richmond doesn't bring anything to the table because it wouldn't be a western team. The spot that needs to be filled is west. And this is about all things not FB including women's sports.

We don't really need more of an eastern influence in the conference - we already have that. We need a western team because the ones most likely to "jump" are in the west. WSU solidifies the west - Richmond doesn't, nor does Dayton. If you think Cincinnati will jump, then an argument for that would be _"well, at least we have Dayton". That's not a good scenario - to trade Dayton for Cincy. Besides, a lot of the reason we wanted into this conf was our association with Cincy, ECU, UCF, Memphis, Houston, SMU, Tulane and their association with us. We also have that with WSU who was a memeber of the MVC and has some assoc with the teams who used ot be in the Valley years ago (Memphis, Cincy, Houston,TU). Where is our association (in the west) with Richmond, Dayton? There is none.

 

[PhoggyBottom]

But the problem with Dayton is that we already have that footprint in the east with Cincy as another eastern team on the eastern side. And we already have an overabundance of east coast presence as it is. Richmond doesn't bring anything to the table because it wouldn't be a western team. The spot that needs to be filled is west. And this is about all things not FB including women's sports.

We don't really need more of an eastern influence in the conference - we already have that. We need a western team because the ones most likely to "jump" are in the west. WSU solidifies the west - Richmond doesn't, nor does Dayton. If you think Cincinnati will jump, then an argument for that would be _"well, at least we have Dayton". That's not a good scenario - to trade Dayton for Cincy. Besides, a lot of the reason we wanted into this conf was our association with Cincy, ECU, UCF, Memphis, Houston, SMU, Tulane and their association with us. We also have that with WSU who was a memeber of the MVC and has some assoc with the teams who used ot be in the Valley years ago (Memphis, Cincy, Houston,TU). Where is our association (in the west) with Richmond, Dayton? There is none.

Except Wichita is not going to be the factor that keeps someone from jumping conferences. If the conference needs to expand west as you say, it needs a more western football playing school. There are several Conference USA or Mid-American Conference schools that would be much better fits than Wichita.

 

[TU_BLA]

Except Wichita is not going to be the factor that keeps someone from jumping conferences. If the conference needs to expand west as you say, it needs a more western football playing school. There are several Conference USA or Mid-American Conference schools that would be much better fits than Wichita.

1st, and I quote you "Kansas gets all of Kansas and all of Missouri". 2nd, the reason Wichita St. would be an attractive thought to get the AAC to a 12th member is BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A FOOTBALL TEAM! The AAC doesn't need a 12th football team. If the AAC were to pursue WSU it would be as a non-football member and to get the basketball league to 12 (as well as add another school for some of the other Olympic sports, i.e. baseball). Have you not been paying attention to this entire thread?

 

[PhoggyBottom]

1st, and I quote you "Kansas gets all of Kansas and all of Missouri". 2nd, the reason Wichita St. would be an attractive thought to get the AAC to a 12th member is BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A FOOTBALL TEAM! The AAC doesn't need a 12th football team. If the AAC were to pursue WSU it would be as a non-football member and to get the basketball league to 12 (as well as add another school for some of the other Olympic sports, i.e. baseball). Have you not been paying attention to this entire thread?

Yes, Kansas gets on TV in all of Kansas and all of Missouri. Just like Texas gets on TV in all of Texas. That was the point of the statement. Not that everybody in those states are fans or watch the games.

Those schools do not care if there are 10, 11 or 12 basketball schools. They do not care if there are 10, 11, 12 or 20 football schools. They care about revenue distribution from the conference. WSU with a small share of a low population state and no football is not going to help with revenue. All it is going to do is add another mouth to feed. If you want to expand west, add one or two football playing schools. Regardless, the only reason 11 is ever a problem is in football because you want to have the conference playoff and you have to have 12 teams. It makes no difference in basketball. Have you not been paying attention to college athletics?

 

[rabidTU]

Discussing this requires the use of a map (or a knowledge of geography) as well as knowledge of how the system of college athletics has evolved as well as being pro TU first and foremost. I think most of us are TU and AAC fans first and follow other schools/programs second. Unfortunately our discussions can get clouded by the desires and allegiances of others who don't support TU first and foremost. Trying to make logical decisions requires "logic". Anything else is just a distortion of it.

IMO

 

[TU_BLA]

Yes, Kansas gets on TV in all of Kansas and all of Missouri. Just like Texas gets on TV in all of Texas. That was the point of the statement. Not that everybody in those states are fans or watch the games.

Those schools do not care if there are 10, 11 or 12 basketball schools. They do not care if there are 10, 11, 12 or 20 football schools. They care about revenue distribution from the conference. WSU with a small share of a low population state and no football is not going to help with revenue. All it is going to do is add another mouth to feed. If you want to expand west, add one or two football playing schools. Regardless, the only reason 11 is ever a problem is in football because you want to have the conference playoff and you have to have 12 teams. It makes no difference in basketball. Have you not been paying attention to college athletics?

Basketball is not the driver. The AACs success in football is what is going to bring it into a more lucrative TV deal. Adding Wichita State and its basketball program might earn the conference a little more for the basketball side. Adding another team who can make the NCAA tournament and earn an additional share of the NCAA revenue is also a positive. So yes, I've been paying attention. Conference realignment mess is all ESPNs fault.

 

[cmullinsTU]

Can this thread just die? The season is almost here, let's talk about our team instead of bickering about if Wichita St. should be in the AAC... something none of us have any actual say in. Pretty please?!

 

[SHOCK_value]

I have nothing whatsoever against Tulsa, but felt compelled to respond to the KU/TU fan posting nonsense about WSU.


WSU:

NCAA Tourney Appearances - 12
NCAA Tourney W-L % - 56%
NCAA Tourney Wins - 15
NCAA F4's - 2
NCAA E8's - 4
NCAA S16's - 6
Total Weeks All-Time Ranked in AP Top 25 - 129
Total Weeks All-Time Ranked in AP Top 10 - 62
MBB Revenues - $6.8M (~42nd Nationally, 2nd only to Memphis in AAC)
Total AD Revenues (no football program) - $25.3M


TU:

NCAA Tourney Appearances - 15
NCAA Tourney W-L % - 44%
NCAA Tourney Wins - 12
NCAA F4's - 0
NCAA E8's - 1
NCAA S16's - 3
Total Weeks All-Time Ranked in AP Top 25 - 82
Total Weeks All-Time Ranked in AP Top 10 - 12
MBB Revenues - $6.1M (~60th Nationally)
Total AD Revenues, Less $15.1M Football - $25.2M

As you can see, WSU beats TU in everything but total number of NCAA appearances.

If anyone wants sources, just let me know. They're legit; not from some random sports media article or anything.

The data above was really easy for me to collect, as earlier this year during a lull in my work I built-up a spreadsheet comparing WSU to the AAC schools in a number of metrics. In the vast majority of metrics, WSU came in middle-of-the-pack or slightly better as compared to the AAC field. WSU is very near the top in basketball arena capacity (surprisingly), and second only to Memphis in average MBB attendance and MBB revenues. WSU was at the bottom in stuff like TV market size (according to Nielsen Wichita is 60th nationally, Tulsa is only 5 spots ahead of that), and total AD spending (if you either add a hypothetical football budget to WSU's spending, or do the opposite to the AAC field, WSU's overall AD budget would be average in the AAC at worst).

Anyways, looking forward to the game next week. Hopefully the series continues, and Haith has success at Tulsa.

Oh, and someone said something about that Wichita can support WSU basketball since the town has no major sports? Am I totally missing something that Tulsa has over Wichita in that regard? Kind of scratching my head there, to be honest.

 

[Gold*]

I don't understand why people feed Phoggy. Go find a Big 12 board and let's talk TU. Apologies to our friends from Wichita.

 

[PhoggyBottom]

I have nothing whatsoever against Tulsa, but felt compelled to respond to the KU/TU fan posting nonsense about WSU.


WSU:

NCAA Tourney Appearances - 12
NCAA Tourney W-L % - 56%
NCAA Tourney Wins - 15
NCAA F4's - 2
NCAA E8's - 4
NCAA S16's - 6
Total Weeks All-Time Ranked in AP Top 25 - 129
Total Weeks All-Time Ranked in AP Top 10 - 62
MBB Revenues - $6.8M (~42nd Nationally, 2nd only to Memphis in AAC)
Total AD Revenues (no football program) - $25.3M


TU:

NCAA Tourney Appearances - 15
NCAA Tourney W-L % - 44%
NCAA Tourney Wins - 12
NCAA F4's - 0
NCAA E8's - 1
NCAA S16's - 3
Total Weeks All-Time Ranked in AP Top 25 - 82
Total Weeks All-Time Ranked in AP Top 10 - 12
MBB Revenues - $6.1M (~60th Nationally)
Total AD Revenues, Less $15.1M Football - $25.2M

As you can see, WSU beats TU in everything but total number of NCAA appearances.

If anyone wants sources, just let me know. They're legit; not from some random sports media article or anything.

The data above was really easy for me to collect, as earlier this year during a lull in my work I built-up a spreadsheet comparing WSU to the AAC schools in a number of metrics. In the vast majority of metrics, WSU came in middle-of-the-pack or slightly better as compared to the AAC field. WSU is very near the top in basketball arena capacity (surprisingly), and second only to Memphis in average MBB attendance and MBB revenues. WSU was at the bottom in stuff like TV market size (according to Nielsen Wichita is 60th nationally, Tulsa is only 5 spots ahead of that), and total AD spending (if you either add a hypothetical football budget to WSU's spending, or do the opposite to the AAC field, WSU's overall AD budget would be average in the AAC at worst).

Anyways, looking forward to the game next week. Hopefully the series continues, and Haith has success at Tulsa.

Oh, and someone said something about that Wichita can support WSU basketball since the town has no major sports? Am I totally missing something that Tulsa has over Wichita in that regard? Kind of scratching my head there, to be honest.

I do not know what the "nonsense" is. I stated that WSU had a good streak in the 1980s and is on a good streak now. However, from 1990 to 2005, WSU was miserable. That is also pretty easy to look up. I do not see that there can be any dispute to that. I also do not think there can be any dispute that the only thing that WSU can bring to the table revenue wise is men's basketball (should be easy to accept since WSU has no football). Accordingly, in order to have any basis to bring WSU in to the conference now, you have to be pretty certain that the current 7 or 8 year stretch is sustainable. I personally would make them prove it for a couple of years after VanVleet and Baker are gone. I do not see WSU getting scooped up by another conference in the interim. I still would not be sold that WSU makes economic sense for the conference because in my opinion adding WSU will not increase the tv money but at least it would make competitive sense.

 

[TU Man]

Wsu is an extremely low quality academic university that is public. The big east won't bring them in.

 

[SHOCK_value]

Wsu is an extremely low quality academic university that is public. The big east won't bring them in.

I almost elected not to respond to this since it was posted in the middle of the night (professionally productive poster no doubt), and with no regards given for proper capitalization.

Anyways, WSU is such a poor academic institution that if they joined the BE they would instantly become second in the conference in research activity/spending, as well as Carnegie Classification; second only to Georgetown in both cases. And it is not even close; WSU is literally more than an order of magnitude above BE average in research activity/spending (and three times what TU does), and several levels above BE average in Carnegie Classification (and one level above TU). WSU's endowment would also place it seventh out of eleven in this hypothetical BE (and well-above UCF, ECU, and Memphis in the AAC - WSU is nearly at Temple's endowment level), which is fairly respectable considering the BE is completely private, and WSU is a just a mid-sized public university.

WSU is primarily an engineering and business school, and one that allows most comers a chance at a college education, many from a first generation perspective. It is an extremely diverse school, from both a socio-economic and racial perspective. The school will - by design - never do well in USN&WR-style academic rankings that are focused nearly entirely on incoming students' past, rather than their future potential. WSU is inclusive, not exclusive, with regards to admissions, as are all of the Kansas public universities since their admission standards are literally and intentionally identical (KU just recently pushed through a future change to this on their own account, but it still won't make the school hard to get into). The approach seems to work okay for WSU, since we have the second highest average starting salary out of the 30-40 colleges and universities in the state, second only to K-State (who is not accidentally also a business and engineering school).

I have no idea why I'm engaging with an academic trash-talker, as the demographic is almost entirely populated by current college students looking to validate their college choice, and graduates who have failed to meet the career and income goals their inner narratives tell them they are entitled to. I don't recall the last time I have been asked my alma mater, or it's USN&WR academic ranking, in the course of what I do for a living.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

He didn't state it very diplomatically, but entrance requirements play a large part in how a conference rates a school they are looking at for expansion. You can argue for or against all day long, but that still does not change the fact.

 

[SHOCK_value]

He didn't state it very diplomatically, but entrance requirements play a large part in how a conference rates a school they are looking at for expansion. You can argue for or against all day long, but that still does not change the fact.

I certainly wouldn't argue that in the case of the BE (where I would not actually argue WSU as a fit), or perhaps most of the P5 conferences (and some other obvious exceptions), but it seems a tough argument to make otherwise. Outside of SMU, Tulane, TU, and UCONN, the balance of the AAC doesn't significantly differ from a school like WSU in such regards. I mean you're not suggesting that was the MO when CUSA invited in ECU, UCF, and Temple, are you?

 

[PhoggyBottom]

US News and World Report does not have WSU in the first tier or top 200 of national universities. It falls in tier 2.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

I'm simply pointing out the importance given that as a factor. Academically and athletically I think you guys are a fine fit for the American, as you should be able to see from my former posts on this topic.

 

[rabidTU]

Since we suddenly began discussing academic standing, where does UCF,USF, and some of the other institutions like UCF, USF rate?

 

[PhoggyBottom]

UCF is 168. USF is 156.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Tulane 41
Uconn 57
SMU 61
Tulsa 86
Temple 115
Cincinnati 140
USF 156
UCF 168
Houston 187
Memphis (Ranking Not Published)
Witchita St. (Ranking Not Published)

 

[SHOCK_value]

I believe the list of people who find USN&WR to be highly subjective has steadily grown over the years. Quite a bit of criticism exists over their methodology, and its impacts on higher education.

Personally, I hear more talk of the Forbes list as a more relevant, objective source, and they have the added bonus of throwing everyone into the same pool (no separate national, or masters, or regional this or that).

Here's the AAC via Forbes:

SMU - 108
Tulane - 134
UCONN - 162
Tulsa - 173
Houston - 358
Cincinnati - 381
Temple - 396
USF - 425
UCF - 427
ECU - 519
Memphis - 595

WSU is 553.

 

[Veritas5]

Yes, Kansas gets on TV in all of Kansas and all of Missouri. Just like Texas gets on TV in all of Texas. That was the point of the statement. Not that everybody in those states are fans or watch the games.

Those schools do not care if there are 10, 11 or 12 basketball schools. They do not care if there are 10, 11, 12 or 20 football schools. They care about revenue distribution from the conference. WSU with a small share of a low population state and no football is not going to help with revenue. All it is going to do is add another mouth to feed. If you want to expand west, add one or two football playing schools. Regardless, the only reason 11 is ever a problem is in football because you want to have the conference playoff and you have to have 12 teams. It makes no difference in basketball. Have you not been paying attention to college athletics?

Yes, Kansas gets on TV in all of Kansas and all of Missouri. Just like Texas gets on TV in all of Texas. That was the point of the statement. Not that everybody in those states are fans or watch the games.

Those schools do not care if there are 10, 11 or 12 basketball schools. They do not care if there are 10, 11, 12 or 20 football schools. They care about revenue distribution from the conference. WSU with a small share of a low population state and no football is not going to help with revenue. All it is going to do is add another mouth to feed. If you want to expand west, add one or two football playing schools. Regardless, the only reason 11 is ever a problem is in football because you want to have the conference playoff and you have to have 12 teams. It makes no difference in basketball. Have you not been paying attention to college athletics?

Many of your fellow Phoggers disagree with you... Seems some of the KU games are hard to find in the state of Kansas.

http://www.scout.com/college/kansas/forums/2481-hoops-talk/14285469-remember-the-glory-years?page=1

Additionally, any talk of football outside the P 5 is pointless.

How about some game projections against WSU?
Could be a tough game.
Shox win.

 

[rabidTU]

OK, so we win the College Bowl compared to every school in Kansas. Also every school in all the surrounding states of Arkansas, New Mexico and Colorado (I believe). But when WSU comes here Tuesday, we won't be having that kind of competition. Maybe we can after the game, but I doubt it gets much press.

 

[PhoggyBottom]

Many of your fellow Phoggers disagree with you... Seems some of the KU games are hard to find in the state of Kansas.

http://www.scout.com/college/kansas/forums/2481-hoops-talk/14285469-remember-the-glory-years?page=1

Additionally, any talk of football outside the P 5 is pointless.

How about some game projections against WSU?
Could be a tough game.
Shox win.

Veritas, those people are complaining about the 5 KU games a year that are not on national tv. I am talking about the national conference tv packages and the value brought to those packages by schools that bring in fans from larger populated areas. The games you reference have nothing to do with that. Those are tv packages negotiated directly by the schools and the money is not shared with the conference.

 

[cmullinsTU]

 

[TUBballJunkie]

Can someone just blow up this thread?

Thx!

 

[texcane1982]

There is no doubt Wichita State, Dayton, and i'll even throw-in St. Louis and VCU would add great value to AAC basketball. However, what everyone is losing sight of is the reason why the AAC was created in the first place........... FOOTBALL.

The Football members in the AAC who generate the bulk of the TV revenue are NOT going to be in favor of sharing those revenues with a basketball only member. I'm not sure if the AAC currently pays more basketball money per member than MVC or A-10, but adding a 12th member would mean the AAC basketball money would have increase per member beyond the current shares as travel expenses would increase.

I'm guessing one way to satisfy a prospective member and the current AAC members would be inviting a member that can independently generate enough revenue to satisfy their own agenda, such as a TV rights deal for all non-Conference home games. For instance, Navy holds an exclusive non-conference TV rights deal with CBS for the Army/Navy game. I believe Navy currently receives $2.5 mil in TV money from the Army/Navy game, and that revenue is in addition to the TV money Navy will receive from the AAC TV contracts. According to a 2012 Forbes article, the Army/Navy TV rights are expected to double after 2018, and CBS will likely pay, especially considering the AAC's current relationship with CBS, and Aresco's relationship with the network as former VP of Sports programming.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeoza...e-most-undervalued-television-deal-in-sports/

While it might be interesting to discuss adding a Basketball only member to balance the membership at 12, IMO it will never happen as long as FOOTBALL is the driving force behind the AAC.

Another significant factor adding a 12th member to the current configuration of 11 would be the loss of everyone playing everyone twice every 2 years. A configuration of 12 members would result in a divisional alignment and loss of prime match-ups every 2 years.

The strength of AAC basketball revolves around the 5 most basketball rich programs, UCONN, Temple, Cincinnati, Memphis, and Tulsa. By adding a 12th basketball member the strength of basketball in the conference will be diminished by divisional alignment, a configuration that would eliminate the guarantee of these 5 members playing TWICE every 2 seasons. When these members play TWICE per season, each program is better served by the exposure and RPI implications. The 11 member format also serves the less tradition rich programs that have potential due to local recruiting hotbeds such as SMU, UH, USF, UCF, and ECU.


Just my .02

TX

 

[drboobay]

There is no compelling reason to add an 12th basketball member as much as I would like having Wichita State in our conference.

 

[TU_BLA]

Just to think, this thread started b/c WSU paid Marshall to keep him around instead of jumping to a P5 and TU would need to follow suit in football and basketball at the appropriate time if it wanted to keep its coaches if they are successful.

 

[The Big Kielbasa]

Phoggy, please email me. Thebigkielbasa@gmail.com