Big Picture Time

It's been a bit since we looked beyond the statistics and really started digging into what this year means for the Wolf Pack and for Ault. Since we're near the end of the season and staring into the maw of a shared WAC championship, assuming we take care of business against Louisiana Tech, let's spend a moment and look at where we're at.

First, the good: Ault and the Wolf Pack have done a fantastic job this year. It's impossible to overstate this. We've won our big games, we beat the #4 team in the country, we beat a Pac-10 team for the first time in a long, long time, and we're nationally ranked for the first time since Dewey defeated Truman. We have excellent depth in the running back position. Our defensive coaching and performance has improved dramatically under Andy Buh, continuing a progression that began under Nigel Burton. Ault has displayed considerable flexibility in his offensive doctrine, switching to a running style that plays to our strengths far better than the passing attack he favored in the past. Let's give credit where credit is due - Ault has done an amazing job this year.

Honestly, we didn't know he had it in him. We're not complaining.

That said: Where do we go from here? How long will we be able to maintain success? Has Ault actually changed his stripes, humbled himself a little, and adopted a pragmatic and effective level of flexibility that will guarantee success for our program? How good will we be when we lose our NFL-caliber quarterback? How good will our defense be when our average time of possession isn't a staggering 32:45?

Will we win our next bowl game?

The good news is that, if Ault truly has learned his lesson, humbled himself a bit, and focused on creating an environment that encourages high-performing assistants to come to our program and stick around for a while, this blog is going to be incredibly pointless. Personally, I can live with that - we're Nevada football fans here first, and our love for Nevada football far transcends any grievances we might have against Ault, most of which were based on past performance. None of us on this side of the Blogger text window have any personal issues with Ault - we just didn't think he was doing a very good job when we started this thing a few years ago. If that changes, and it certainly looks like it has, our opinions will change too. There's some precedent here, of course: Bill Simmons, the incredibly popular ESPN.com columnist, had this to say about Doc Rivers before the Celtics started competing for championships:

Doc Rivers stinks as an NBA coach.

After watching him butcher my favorite team for 15 months and 134 games, I feel pretty comfortable making that assessment. On the surface, Doc seems fine. He always dresses nicely, his interviews are good, and his "Come on, guys, let's go!" clap ranks among the best in the league. When his team blows a winnable game -- which happens often, by the way -- you can always count on him to look sufficiently disappointed, almost like how Tony Almeida looks on "24" whenever Jack decides to disobey him. Doc has that look down pat. And if you weren't paying attention, you would almost think that he wasn't the problem here.

Well, I think he's the problem.

Now? Let's just say Simmons doesn't talk about Doc Rivers much anymore. Seriously - look it up. Not a single article mentioning him since the conclusion of the Celtics' 2008 championship season. Some might call that a coincidence. Some might call it a conspiracy. I'll just call it common sense. Rivers was bad, then he improved, now he's good. It happens in life, and there's no reason the same sequence of improvement can't happen to Ault. If that's what's happening before our very eyes, maybe we'll change the name of this blog to "FireChrisAultSomeLove.com" or something. I don't know. We'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Please note that, if we choke against Louisiana Tech or lose in the Kraft Hunger Emerald Nut Potato Bowl in New Canada, we'll keep the light on for you.

With that out of the way, let's talk long term. We're going to the MWC, though it's going to take another year and we're going to be $500,000 poorer, not including the bowl money we won't get next year since the WAC gets to keep that, too. Even if TCU leaves and even if the better parts of the WAC join the MWC with us (Utah State does improve the MWC's basketball profile significantly - considering how Boise State is almost a liability on that front and considering how we've had a fair amount of recent success in that sport, it would still be good for us if they followed Hawaii), the MWC will be a significantly better conference for us. At the very least, UNLV will be a conference game, which frees up an extra out-of-conference scheduling slot for a school that will actually improve our regional recruiting profile. Meanwhile, the only schools in the MWC that are consistently mediocre in football these days, excluding our in-state rivals, are New Mexico and Wyoming, and I guarantee you both are consistently far better programs than New Mexico State, San Jose State, and possibly Idaho. Colorado State is in a down period at the moment, but they had some success in the past, Air Force is improving, and San Diego State is going to a bowl game this year. Even if Hawaii (not a bad football program these days) and Utah State join us, it's going to be a much tougher conference than the WAC. Bear in mind that, when all is said and done, all three current top 25 teams in the WAC will be in the MWC, along with two "others receiving votes" teams (Air Force, San Diego State) and a traditionally decent football team (Fresno State). That's six nationally competitive football teams out of nine or ten possible programs, which is definitely on par with any other major conference in the country.

This brings us to a topic we've brought up here in the past, and which even the RGJ is starting to sniff out a bit. On paper, we will arguably be the weakest program in the MWC. Our football attendance, unless Utah State joins the conference, will be at the bottom of the conference. Our stadium will be the smallest in the conference; in fact, even if we sold out every single game, our average attendance would be no higher than fifth. Since attendance and revenue are closely correlated, that means we'll be dead last in football spending, with the potential to be, at best, middle of the conference. That's not a recipe for long-term success, regardless of whose at the helm, and any potential coaching or assistant coaching hire with an ounce of sense will recognize that. Clearly Groth and the rest of the athletic department have some serious work to do in order to put our program in a position where it can be consistently competitive. Given the numbers we're working with, it's frankly nothing short of miraculous that we've been able to remain competitive in the WAC, much less consistently contend for conference championships.

There is hope, though. Take Stanford, which is currently #4 in the BCS standings. It's in a large, prosperous metropolitan market with no other nationally competitive teams in its market. You would think that such a school would be able to routinely fill a 50,000 seat stadium. You would be wrong.

Harbaugh also expressed disappointment in Stanford's attendance figures this season. The school averaged just 40,042 fans at the 50,000-seat Stanford Stadium, selling out only for the game against Southern California.

Why is this encouraging for us? Simple - it shows there are no shortcuts. Truth is, attendance and success are linked, even here. As our program has become more successful, our average attendance has incrementally improved. Boise State certainly didn't start its football program averaging over 30,000 fans per game - that took time. Years worth of time. Better yet, attendance will most certainly improve as more competitive conference foes play in our stadium. The community has proven time after time that it will happily put butts in seats, even if the weather is poor, as long as the game is worth showing up for and the opponent is credible. Nobody wants to see San Jose State, New Mexico State, and the like. Colorado State, on the other hand, commands a local crowd even when they're not very good. We're in a city with plenty of entertainment options, so, if Wolf Pack football wants better attendance, it needs to be entertaining, and it needs to be consistent about it.

We're getting better on that front, both on the team level and the opponent level.

So, that's where we're at. If we can continue to build on this season, continue to remain competitive in whatever conference we play in, and beat a big time opponent once in a while, our attendance will continue to improve until it's consistently competitive with the rest of our conference. Heck, if we continue to play well, we might even build up a bit of a national following. Until then, though, we'll be playing from behind. Fortunately, we're getting pretty good at that.

Silver and blue are far more fashionable colors than blue and orange anyway.