Don't let the Door Hit Ya

Big news broke out of the constant reshuffling of the conference realignment game this week. Just a couple weeks after my previous post about the problems Grand Canyon University brings to the Western Athletic Conference, they, along with Seattle University, accepted an invitations to the West Coast Conference, made notable by Gonzaga's domination the last couple of decades. There's a lot to unpack here and with everything else in conference realignment, the end result depends on other factors outside the WAC's and UT Arlington's control.

My first reaction was ecstatic, but it left me a little confused. I'm a firm believer that GCU is a cancer within the conference. As I detailed in the last post, their funding model cannot be replicated and they shovel a lot of money to athletics from online degrees. They outspend everyone overall but California Baptist in the WAC. Similar to an inflation adjuster, CBU spends more just by being in California and would spend dollar for dollar less than GCU were they in Arizona, or get more bang for their buck if spending was the same. However, in men's basketball, GCU almost doubles second-place CBU and is nearly 500 percent higher than last place MBB budget. 

Now I've taken flack on social media because I'm told the real reason I dislike GCU is because UTA just can't compete. The reality is that their funding mechanism creates a competitive unbalance where UTA's only shot is to win is via an upset (made even harder by the perceived officiating issues). I said it last post and I'll say it again, I don't believe GCU was the better team last year. When UTA couldn't get past Georgia State while in the Sun Belt Conference, I never despised the Panthers like I do GCU.

 But that's all the WCC's issue after next athletic year, even if I don't understand why they were selected over CBU. 

The initial reaction is the end of the WAC is nigh...again. And maybe so. The problem with conference realignment is no one wants to end up with the tab. Oregon State and Washington State are the latest examples, but locally the Southwest Conference works too. But now that the budgetary concern for one school is gone, coupled with the exit of the largest geographic outlier in Seattle (over 700 miles as the crow flies from the nearest school in Utah Valley), the remaining WAC schools may actually be better off staying where they are in the shrunken WAC.

Consider the following factors. One, there's a tight cohesion in the east with Abilene Christian, Stephen F. Austin, Tarleton State and UTA. It doesn't get much tighter than that, even if one of those schools moved to the Southland Conference. CBU, Southern Utah and Utah Tech are fairly close together and UVU isn't that far out of the footprint. CBU is a hair over 300 miles as the crow flies from Utah tech while Southern Utah and Utah Valley are a shade under 200 miles apart. Travel will tighten up considerably, reducing costs. 

Two, the WAC still maintains an auto-bid in all sports. Now instead of G¢U spending their way to half of them or more, every school has a legit shot in all sports. Maybe CBU starts to take some of GCU's share, but it won't be all. In any given year, every school has a legit shot to make the tourney in multiple sports. I get why the Power-5 conferences want more members. Their postseason chances are much higher with the high share of at-large bids they normally receive. But why does the American Athletic Conference or the Sun Belt Conference want 14 teams? The minimum is six to eight schools for an auto-bid depending on the sport. Any more than that dilutes a school's chance for postseason play.

Third, and perhaps more importantly, less membership means less dividing of revenue. An NCAA basketball tourney unit is real money just for appearing in the dance and any wins after that gain an additional unit. That money will now be divided by less teams. Not sure what the WAC TV package looks like, but any revenue from that gets divided by less schools too. In some cases, a smaller contract when a conference contracts still yields the same or in isolated cases more money per school.

Fourth, athletics are used for a marketing arm of their respective schools. Would you rather market yourself in California (most populated state), Texas (second most populous) and Utah (30th in pop), or would the marketers want the Midwest or few/no surrounding states? 

All that said, the main issue is fear. Does CBU want to be left holding the bag if the Utah schools bail and the Texas teams find another option. In college athletics, it's every U for themselves.

There are several rumors swirling about what the future potential holds. I'll ignore the completely absurd and focus on something that can be attributable or something that's been rumored by multiple sources. 

First is the big one that SFA is looking at leaving. Rumor is they are looking at a re-entry back to the Southland or the Atlantic Sun Conference. I find the first one a little hard to track, as they believed new schools like Houston Christian and Incarnate Word were holding back their athletic program. As a school that prides itself on being competitive in all sports, that means something. Part of the reason they are rumored to leave was students again rejected a student fee for athletics, and they may be looking at cost issues. They would have to swallow a huge amount of pride to go back.

However, two of their concerns are gone. SFA, like many other schools in the conference, had concerns about GCU's funding of athletics. With the 'lopes gone they will appear in the postseason more. With a trip to the Pacific Northwest is out, the ASUN doesn't solve the travel costs issue. Many of the Lumberjacks issues have solved themselves with GCU and SU's departure. They have a new Athletic Director and it will be interesting to see what the University does in the coming months.

The three Utah schools have been rumored to be in contact with the Summit League and would pair with former WAC school in Denver for a western flank. The Pioneers are currently quite the geographic outlier there and that could tighten trips up for them. However, I don't see a lot in common with Utah Valley and any school in the Dakotas or Minnesota. But conference shuffling has little to do with geography.

Coupled with SFA, I've seen many say they expect ACU to go back to the Southland too. My take from ACU officials is that is a nuclear option as they are quite frustrated with the state of the SLC.

The Missouri Valley Conference recently lost Missouri State and UTA has been rumored to be back on their expansion candidate list. If the Mavs have zero desire for football, this is a good option, though the lack of geographic rivals will be a big huge issue.

I've seen nothing specific for Tarleton, but know they can land in the ASUN, Ohio Valley, SLC or Summit fairly easily due to their complete sports offering. Having football is the golden goose right now.

CBU may be the odd one out. That's fairly ironic to me as I would have speculated that they'd be number one on the WCC's list as they fund pretty well, fit the institutional profile, are improving every year and are in the geographic footprint. I'd have figured Seattle was next but faced a challenge in sharing a market with Gonzaga. I'd have figured GCU would have been last as most academics thumb their noses at the way GCU operates. 

Instead, the Lancers are rumored for a look at the Big West, but the institutional fit isn't there and they already have a school in the same city. With the way conference moves are lately, that isn't a killer, so short answer is anything is possible.

Now, out of left field, I saw that the WAC and Denver are in contact. The Summit League is in just as precarious a situation as the WAC. If some schools leave one for the other, the other has a mountain to climb to stay afloat. As for Denver, the current footprint favors the WAC. I've also heard a big reason, if not the main one, is that Denver didn't want to share a conference with GCU. Should Denver leave the Summit, I would think Oral Roberts would consider it too as they are similar in profile and would leave a geographic outlier situation in the Summit to one with drivable trips in the WAC.

I liked Denver the first time UTA shared a conference with them and ORU is on UTA's schedule in all sports quite often. They would be welcomed additions. If those two were to move, it creates more seats at the table, getting rid of a benefit listed earlier, but adds a bit more stability. 

As for UTA, I don't see GCU and Seattle leaving as anything but a positive. GCU and to a lesser extent their fans, were a cancer on the conference. The WAC took them from Division II out of necessity for survival, not out of a desire to associate with the school. I liked Seattle and I can support their move and will root for their success, but Arlington and the State of Washington share little in common. 

The Mavericks shouldn't share a conference with a school that funds athletics the way GCU does, so that is an addition buy subtraction. I know several admins within the school as well as other conference schools that are happy about that fact.

If the WAC falls apart due to those moves, and that is a big if, UTA will land on their feet. But what they have to do is ask themselves what their goals are, where do they want to be long term and who do they want to associate themselves with.

When the Southwest Conference folded and TCU was left in the outside the BCS conferences, they took a long, hard look in the mirror. They invested back into athletics, focused on a couple of key sports and went about making those a reality. Football was one of their focus points. They hired two good coaches in Dennis Francione and Gary Patterson. They finished second nationally in football outside of the Power structure in one notable year and received their invite to the Big XII. They built new facilities like baseball's Lupton Stadium, renovated others, like Amon Carter Stadium and Daniel Meyer Arena (now technically under a different name). They worked to improve their position so they wouldn't be left out again. And it worked. Their plan got them into the four-team College Football Playoff last year.

SMU would later get on that same bandwagon, building Gerald Ford Stadium, renovating Moody Coliseum and becoming nationally competitive in many Olympic Sports. They are now about to join the P5 in the Atlantic Coast Conference.

Even North Texas has invested heavily into their facilities to get into the AAC now. They targeted that goal two decades ago and made a plan to get there. 

What is UTA's goal? It looks like they just get by, day-to-day. Had the department had the foresight to start a football program five or ten years ago, they'd still be in the stable Sun Belt now. Had they had the foresight to start a program after the student vote last year, they'd have a number of other options in the FCS, with the possibility of getting looked at for Conference USA over Mizzou St, though personally that would be trading one problem in GCU for another in Liberty. However, it would be FBS. Many are speculating the MSU just grabbed the last FBS ticket. Either way, there'd be options where UTA would get to be choosy about where they'd go, not be at the will of outside forces.

If the Mav goal is to win at every sport, as quoted in the Shorthorn, then why is the Men's basketball budget in the bottom half of the conference? Why was this year's twenty-plus-win team the first winning season in half a decade? Why is it for the last two years, the only conference title in all sports came on the tennis courts?

I remember going to Regionals in baseball, Donna Capps getting rings in women's basketball, track and field being perennial contenders. Volleyball's history of success stopped a little after the century turned. UTA's five team sports have made a combined one NCAA tournament appearance in the last decade, one out of fifty tries. Thankfully, the tennis program and track until recently carried that load. The SBC consistently gets three schools in the baseball field. The COVID shortened year prematurely ended a promising season, but why couldn't UTA translate that into postseason play in other years?

I hope these discussions are being had. When I broach the generic topic, I get awkward exchanges, so I don't know what's being done behind the scenes. But if I'm wrong and the WAC does implode, not having these answers could set UTA back athletically for a long while.