WyoNation.com

Popularity? I still say football. Many of us are gluttons for punishment and drive a full day to watch us get beat by Toledo, Cal-Poly and eek out wins vs Montana.

However, results, I would probably say wrestling and women's b-ball.

This has been a long dry spell in football. But, Wyoming still has had more success than 90% of the MWC historically. We've been ranked more than every team minus Boise......twice as many times of 1/2 the teams in the league. To me, this means we have had success and can again. Some teams have a couple good year runs, but then fall back to earth. Boise has been the only one to maintain success. We need to get back to the level we were in the 80's and 90's and maybe back to the level of the 60's. Coach Bohl is the guy who can get us there. Need to build the program and keep it there.

djm19 wrote:Popularity? I still say football. Many of us are gluttons for punishment and drive a full day to watch us get beat by Toledo, Cal-Poly and eek out wins vs Montana.

However, results, I would probably say wrestling and women's b-ball.

women's basketball? Talk about a program that has not capitalized on anything. That isn't even the top women's sport....volleyball, soccer, swimming, tennis, etc are all playing at a higher level the our women's basketball program.

ps. We've had more wins against P5 teams than losses vs FCS teams....by a wide margin.

I kinda wish we were a basketball school but the fact they couldn't come up with 3 million more to put into the AA when at the same time magically raising many times more than that for the High Altitude center shows us where our priorities are.

We need to keep trying to be good at both but I care much more about our basketball team than football. Love them both but basketball is another level. WHich is wierd cuz I like football and especially college football more than basketball but for UW its the oposite.

For me personally I wish UW would prioritize basketball, because as others have said it is much easier to become a perennial force in basketball and nearly impossible in football with the power conferences and schools dominating the landscape. Sad as it is to say, if Wyo ever wants to be dominant in football, they need to drop a division. Never will happen tho. Would hurt too many peoples pride.

FarmerPoke wrote:For me personally I wish UW would prioritize basketball, because as others have said it is much easier to become a perennial force in basketball and nearly impossible in football with the power conferences and schools dominating the landscape. Sad as it is to say, if Wyo ever wants to be dominant in football, they need to drop a division. Never will happen tho. Would hurt too many peoples pride.

Pride is not why it wouldn't happen. It's because there is no money in the FCS world and no rivals of ours. So what's the point?

Also, keep in mind that if we drop to the Big Sky/FCS in Football, our Basketball team and all the other sports have to follow to that conference (MWC requires Football). So the hope of becoming a perennial force in basketball would immediately be moot. The MWC/WAC history and opportunity in basketball is very underrated. You can do big things coming from this league. Strong enough to earn at-large bids and strong enough to earn decent seeds if you are at the top. Being in the Big Sky means relying on the conference tournament every year for the honor of being a 16 seed.

The problem with people's perception is that they view the FCS as being Montana and North Dakota St. They are the exception. The reality is that they should be FBS. FCS teams average about 7600 per game attendance. No, not in basketball, in Football. Seriously. We are where we belong. We will never be a "power conference" school, but we don't belong with Northern Colorado and Southern Utah either.

NowherePoke wrote:The problem with people's perception is that they view the FCS as being Montana and North Dakota St. They are the exception. The reality is that they should be FBS. FCS teams average about 7600 per game attendance. No, not in basketball, in Football. Seriously. We are where we belong. We will never be a "power conference" school, but we don't belong with Northern Colorado and Southern Utah either.

This is something not brought up often enough. Plus, if UW were to move down, there would no longer be the same incentive for someone in Gillette to drive down for the game. And you can kiss goodbye to the games on ESPN and CBS Sports Network. So not only is the level of competition worse, but you've made it less likely for someone to drive a long distance to the game and less available for folks across the state to watch the team.

But hey, we'd be able to beat up on Weber State and Northern Colorado every year!

Seems we see this topic at least annually.

Wyoming pays the bills with Football. As do most FBS-related athletic schools. So in that respect, we are a "football program." We are not Butler, Creighton, Wichita State, Georgetown, and I sure hope we never are.

I don't like football at all anymore but I'd never want to see our Pokes not playing D-1 ball. Who cares if we're the sacrificial lamb 15 out of 20 years? 17 out of 20? At least give our fans hope of seeing something special in the usually short lived good times of those years against the top competition. We do also have enough history in football/tradition to justify being a program in a D-1 division. I mean there are programs with much longer sustained D-1 futility going on just fine, some even turning the corner themselves. Hope for you football fans Bohl is the guy and we're the ones turning the corner soon! Wyoming already has enough depression (how much caused by the football team???) we don't need any other misery thrown on

I will state that even with this attitude towards football I have tuned into the 1 BIG game of the season a few times over the past 3 or 4 years. It's all I need and why? Because I get to see a D-1 Pokes squad take on a D-1 supposed powerhouse (Nebraska, Oklahoma,etc...) and find out how legit our program is. I can see our talent against their talent and decide if I'd want to continue to check them out with my time. Did they lose playing their guts out? Is the talent gap close enough that they could do something this year? Was it a good game? Do I like our players/coach? These questions only barely matter to me because we are a D-1 program. So they matter a HELL of a lot more to people who actually care because we're a D-1 program. Is D-1 football rigged in favor of the big guys? Yes....but would you rather gamble in a real casino going after big cash or just over at your friends house were it never really mattered in the first place.

Cosmic Cowboy wrote:I don't like football at all anymore but I'd never want to see our Pokes not playing D-1 ball. Who cares if we're the sacrificial lamb 15 out of 20 years? 17 out of 20? At least give our fans hope of seeing something special in the usually short lived good times of those years against the top competition. We do also have enough history in football/tradition to justify being a program in a D-1 division. I mean there are programs with much longer sustained D-1 futility going on just fine, some even turning the corner themselves. Hope for you football fans Bohl is the guy and we're the ones turning the corner soon! Wyoming already has enough depression (how much caused by the football team???) we don't need any other misery thrown on

I will state that even with this attitude towards football I have tuned into the 1 BIG game of the season a few times over the past 3 or 4 years. It's all I need and why? Because I get to see a D-1 Pokes squad take on a D-1 supposed powerhouse (Nebraska, Oklahoma,etc...) and find out how legit our program is. I can see our talent against their talent and decide if I'd want to continue to check them out with my time. Did they lose playing their guts out? Is the talent gap close enough that they could do something this year? Was it a good game? Do I like our players/coach? These questions only barely matter to me because we are a D-1 program. So they matter a HELL of a lot more to people who actually care because we're a D-1 program. Is D-1 football rigged in favor of the big guys? Yes....but would you rather gamble in a real casino going after big cash or just over at your friends house were it never really mattered in the first place.

Yes....but would you rather gamble in a real casino going after big cash or just over at your friends house were it never really mattered in the first place.

Best FBS>FCS argument ever.

Wyoming pays the bills with Football. As do most FBS-related athletic schools. So in that respect, we are a "football program." We are not Butler, Creighton, Wichita State, Georgetown, and I sure hope we never are.

Gosh, no.

The last time anyone did any in-depth analysis, a couple of years ago, it showed that 82% of the top 120 football programs lose money.

The biggest problem is War Memorial Stadium was built in 1950 and expanded until the late 70's. Then nobody did much with it until 2000 or so except for water some trees.

The AA was built in 1983. Then nobody did much with it except sweep and paint until 2013 or so.

Look at the other facilities. The story repeats itself.

Wyoming's economy is so boom and bust (although a bit less than it used to be) that it would go through these cycles of building and expanding, then letting things fall apart - then upgrading.

This cycle - much more private money has went into our upgrades of Athletics than in the past.

Are we a basketball school or a football school? Both. I'll drive to Laramie for 6 football games a year wether we win or lose because of the atmosphere. We can have a bad ass basketball team - but the weekdays and weather slow me from going as quickly. I'd love to hit them all though!

SnowyRange wrote:

Wyoming pays the bills with Football. As do most FBS-related athletic schools. So in that respect, we are a "football program." We are not Butler, Creighton, Wichita State, Georgetown, and I sure hope we never are.

Gosh, no.

The last time anyone did any in-depth analysis, a couple of years ago, it showed that 82% of the top 120 football programs lose money.

Golly, yes.

Their football programs (specifically) aren't the ones losing money, if you remember, it is the athletic departments as a whole that are losing money. If it weren't for football, they probably all would lose money, with the exception of a few perennial winning basketball schools. I will look for the article - I think it was a USA today piece.

McPeachy wrote:

SnowyRange wrote:

Wyoming pays the bills with Football. As do most FBS-related athletic schools. So in that respect, we are a "football program." We are not Butler, Creighton, Wichita State, Georgetown, and I sure hope we never are.

Gosh, no.

The last time anyone did any in-depth analysis, a couple of years ago, it showed that 82% of the top 120 football programs lose money.

Golly, yes.

Their football programs (specifically) aren't the ones losing money, if you remember, it is the athletic departments as a whole that are losing money. If it weren't for football, they probably all would lose money, with the exception of a few perennial winning basketball schools. I will look for the article - I think it was a USA today piece.

Gee-whiz, I don't know. I think I'll have a beer and think about it.

McPeachy wrote:

SnowyRange wrote:

Wyoming pays the bills with Football. As do most FBS-related athletic schools. So in that respect, we are a "football program." We are not Butler, Creighton, Wichita State, Georgetown, and I sure hope we never are.

Gosh, no.

The last time anyone did any in-depth analysis, a couple of years ago, it showed that 82% of the top 120 football programs lose money.

Golly, yes.

Their football programs (specifically) aren't the ones losing money, if you remember, it is the athletic departments as a whole that are losing money. If it weren't for football, they probably all would lose money, with the exception of a few perennial winning basketball schools. I will look for the article - I think it was a USA today piece.

Actually, when I first ready Snowy Range's post, I was thinking the same thing as you McPeachy, but after doing some reserach, I found the number that he is referencing and it sounds fairly legit.

there’s actually a kind of hierarchy among the top-tier football programs. According to Jeff Benedict and Armen Keteyian, authors of The System: The Glory and Scandal of Big-Time College Football (2013), figures from the 2010-11 academic year show that only 22 of the 120 top-tier football programs broke even or made a profit. That means that while these big-time teams generate millions of dollars of revenue, the cost of running such programs usually exceeds that revenue. To put that more starkly, even within the so-called top tier, 82% of college football teams actually take away money from the university’s budget, rather than generate net revenue.

I found that quote in the following article...

http://thedailybanter.com/2014/10/upon- ... y-schools/

Now, is that a typo and it's supposed to read 82% of athletic departments instead of football programs, maybe, but that's quite the mistake. I might have to read that book to get a better look at things.

Wyoming isn't a football or basketball school. Not enough success in either sport. If we had to be classified as one or the other it would be basketball based on the success of the program. It definitely isn't a football school.

BeaverPoke wrote:

Cosmic Cowboy wrote:I don't like football at all anymore but I'd never want to see our Pokes not playing D-1 ball. Who cares if we're the sacrificial lamb ... it never really mattered in the first place.

Yes....but would you rather gamble in a real casino going after big cash or just over at your friends house were it never really mattered in the first place.

Best FBS>FCS argument ever.

I'd rather go over to a friends house every time. Casinos suck. If I wanted to blow hundreds of dollars for a couple minutes of joy followed by hours of misery I'd buy Wyoming football season tickets.

Now, is that a typo and it's supposed to read 82% of athletic departments instead of football programs, maybe, but that's quite the mistake. I might have to read that book to get a better look at things.

No, it's not a mistake.

Almost 0 schools have athletic departments that don't have to be subsidized at all (and the reported subsidies almost certainly understate the cost of subsidies...or at least don't take into account the full cost of operating an athletic department).

So, yes, contrary to the popular myth, very few football programs operate at a profit.

SnowyRange wrote:

Now, is that a typo and it's supposed to read 82% of athletic departments instead of football programs, maybe, but that's quite the mistake. I might have to read that book to get a better look at things.

No, it's not a mistake.

Almost 0 schools have athletic departments that don't have to be subsidized at all (and the reported subsidies almost certainly understate the cost of subsidies...or at least don't take into account the full cost of operating an athletic department).

So, yes, contrary to the popular myth, very few football programs operate at a profit.

I think it needs a disclaimer though. While it is true that athletic departments overall are typically subsidized (ours more than most), the impact of the football program within the department is understated by the accounting.

Some schools do things a little differently, but in general if you look at direct revenues/expenses for Football it will show a money loser as the scholarships, staff salaries, recruiting, etc exceed the revenue from ticket sales, seat licenses, other gameday revenue, etc.

However, a significant portion of the overall revenue to the athletic department that is not sport specific is actually related to football, it's just tough to quantify. Think about it in terms of Wyoming. Outside of the revenue streams I mentioned earlier, think about some of our biggest revenue contributions (other than "Institutional Support" of course): Media Revenue, CJC Membership, etc. While those are not technically sport specific, the reality is that a huge percentage of them (particularly the MWC media revenues) are dependent upon Football.

Some of the other significant contributions such as NCAA Tournament credit distributions, MWC Basketball Tournament revenue, and possibly even a significant portion of our Basketball ticket revenue are dependent upon our membership in the MWC. Without Football, we would be consigned to a different level of basketball conference and would likely see significant reductions in those revenue streams.

I am a basketball fan first (obvious from my posts), but Football is the primary revenue generator in intercollegiate athletics. Of course, beyond that there is the concept of competing in Intercollegiate Athletics as a marketing tool for the University. Football, being the highest profile sport, is by far the biggest contributor to that if you believe it has any value. I guess you could argue our Football program has not exactly brought positive attention in the last 15 years, but....

NowherePoke wrote:I don't think you can classify UW as one or the other. Primarily because we have not been successful enough in either consistently to warrant that designation.

This. Wyoming isn't performing at a high level in any major sport. Basketball has the edge right now by a pretty decent margin, but one doesn't have a major jump on the other until one of them wins big consistently. If the basketball program makes the big dance 2 out of the next 4 years, I think Wyoming will be on the verge of "basketball school" status, especially if the football program continues to be terrible.

Whether it's genuinely true or not, the Bohl era has a "final straw" feel to it. If he can't make this machine work, some will declare it is a lost cause. If that (knock on wood) happens, basketball school status is a given.