NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Sun Sep 21, 2014 11:28 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 144 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2003 10:23 am 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
UNLV to the PAC 10?

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sports/2003/sep/25/515664852.html

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Last edited by Quinn on Mon Oct 13, 2003 1:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2003 11:43 am 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 7:21 am
Posts: 748
Location: Midwest
Hmm,

came accross this article earlier, and its really a list of reasons why UNLV will NOT be invited to the PAC10...

But its interesting, and a good example of how an enterprising sports writer can make a story about practically anything...

Temple to the ACC? Equally improbably, but could use a couple stories on that too if the Philly Press could focus on anything other than the Eagles...

:D :D :D :D :D



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2003 3:22 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 8:39 am
Posts: 1055
Location: Alabama

Quote:


Ah Yes I posted that under my Articiles section but very interesting I don't see unlv above Hawaii or Fresno St both of these teams go 1 and 2 if the PAC did expand.

_________________
The Bear may be dead but he still hates Tennessee. Roll Damn Tide


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 20, 2003 6:58 am 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
TCU to Mountain West?

http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/college/article/0,1299,DRMN_40_2357179,00.html

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 20, 2003 7:01 am 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
More TCU to MWC...

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/7045145.htm

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2003 10:06 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri May 02, 2003 12:39 pm
Posts: 1215
While the concept of adding Fresno St. and/or Boise St. may not show immediate returns for the MWC, is do do two crucial things for the long term; 1) raises the level of strength and security that much higher above the further weakened (killed?) WAC, 2) protects the MWC from a potential future defection of members to the PAC 10. Sure, the later issue may never happen or could be addressed then, but who's to say that if the MWC did not expand now and then someday lost BYU and Utah to the PAC 10, that at that new point in time the WAC would have more to offer than the MWC?

Part of the ACC's expansion, IMO, was to simply create this security. Financially it may prove to be a wash, but the conference is now gauranteed a seat at the big boys table through shear numbers alone. I believe 10 member MWC would do the same.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:15 am 
While your concerns about the Mountain West protecting itself against potential future defections (e.g. Pac-10) seem somewhat off base, I think I understand what you are getting at about MWC's future position vis-a-vis the WAC, but respectfully disagree. Unless some future WAC expansion would include "western" programs, I don't think the MWC would have anything to worry about. The post-1999 WAC has been and will continue to be a series of regional compromises (East-West) for the near future, and should not sustain optimistic conference growth. Not sure what the future holds for the WAC, but I'm not sure it's anything that the MWC should worry about it, unless of course there were a future influx of quality I-A programs in the West not currently at that level, which seems unlikely (Portland State? Montana? UC-Davis?)...


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:42 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2003 5:31 pm
Posts: 281
I agree with 2-X :)
The MWC has little to fear from the WAC.
Actually the WAC will be forced into regionalizing itself, which might justl increase its long term survivability.
Whether the WAC sees this or not will be dependant on what it sees as the most viable options for expansion.
They need to start west and not east.
Utah State and New Mexico St. should be invited immediately, if not sooner... ;D
Past that it really comes down to regionalization over programs.
N.Texas is the best program.
Idaho is the regional choice, and becomes a stand alone west coast option, if the other two western schools are grabbed.

I see the MWC going to 9 because there is questionable economic advantage gained by going to 12 with what is available from the WAC.

However, the MWC may hold the SunBelt or WAC's survivability in its hands.
If MWC takes 4 from the WAC, the WAC is forced to take more from the Belt thus destroying the football side of the Belt. If the WAC doesn't respond right now by taking the western Belt schools, it may be the conference that could be destroyed by the MWC.

Benson needs to get off the study and get the invites out now!!! :o
8-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2003 3:42 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2686
Location: Phoenix Arizona
According to a report in the Sunday Arizona Republic quoted from the Fort Worth paper, the 8 MWC athletic directors had a meeting and voted to have the conference to expand to 9 teams. TCU was the unanimous choice.

The vote will be presented to the MWC Presidents as a recommendation for expansion. The push is to get TCU on board prior to Nov 4th BE meetings that will start the dominos falling.

Question is does TCU want to join the MWC and will the MWC Presidents vote to expand. The MWC has been very reluctant to consider any expansion beond the current 8 teams.

This move was very surprising as most experts have predicted the MWC top expansion candidates have been Boise State, Neveda, Hawaii, and Fresno State.

Maybe the MWC is trying to keep up with the Big East as the conference is most likely going to add South Florida taking the conference out of the regional concept.







Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2003 4:19 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 7:21 am
Posts: 748
Location: Midwest

Quote:
According to a report in the Sunday Arizona Republic quoted from the Fort Worth paper, the 8 MWC athletic directors had a meeting and voted to have the conference to expand to 9 teams. TCU was the unanimous choice.

The vote will be presented to the MWC Presidents as a recommendation for expansion. The push is to get TCU on board prior to Nov 4th BE meetings that will start the dominos falling.

Question is does TCU want to join the MWC and will the MWC Presidents vote to expand. The MWC has been very reluctant to consider any expansion beond the current 8 teams.

This move was very surprising as most experts have predicted the MWC top expansion candidates have been Boise State, Neveda, Hawaii, and Fresno State.

Maybe the MWC is trying to keep up with the Big East as the conference is most likely going to add South Florida taking the conference out of the regional concept.


Lash, just want to addend some clarifications and a personal take...

I don't think the MWC has been reluctant to explore expansion. The presidents specifically authorized the lifting of the moratorium on expansion some four-five months ago, and charged a committee to identify possible candidates for such expansion, and develop a detailed set of criteria for ranking such candidates. I listed those criteria on a previous post.

What is surprising is that the AD's should take the lead in this thing--it almost seems to me to be a sort of "opinion poll" reported as a bit more, some leader among the AD's owing someone a favor, or a genuine push to get the presidents thinking they should be a little less deliberative, and a little more proactive.

I personally still don't understand the logic of TCU, and my own take is that this may be a bit of a feint along the lines of the ACC's approaches to NotreDame--simply a ploy by some to get the presidents moving toward thinking about how important it is to focus on possibilities, and take action more speedily.

Just my $.02 worth...

8-)



Last edited by javaman on Tue Oct 21, 2003 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2003 4:38 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2686
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Javaman, I have to disagree a bit on MWC reluctant to expand. After the fiasco of the old 16 team WAC, MWC expansion has not had much support.

TCU makes good sense for the MWC for a couple of reasons. Like the Big East expanding with South Forida, it creates the regional boundories for future expansion.

If TCU were in the conference, expansion to 12 could pick up any number of schools from Fort Worth to Utah and beond.

It produces the same impact as the ACC taking BC or the BE taking South Florida.

It provides a geographical illision similair to the Pac 10 strentching from Washington State to Southern California without having a zillion teams.

Besides the MWC conference may be trying to kill the WAC and Conf USA at the same time making it easier for the BCS to take one more conference.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2003 5:41 pm 
If things go as reported, the WAC is ready to raid the Sun Belt in turn. It looks like both C-USA and WAC are ready with candidates.
The MWC will not take Sun Belt teams for now, but the WAC would find N. Mex. St., N. Texas St., and Utah State as good regional replacements for Rice, Tulsa, and SMU. N. Texas St., clearly an upswing institution, will provide the bridge to La Tech. Ark. St. and MTSU seem a stretch, but these conferences have done some odd things.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:30 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri May 02, 2003 12:39 pm
Posts: 1215
Lash, concerning the MWC expansion support: Is it not the case that the conference voted this year to rescind the original ban on expansion talk for the sake of pursuing this opportunity to slip into the BCS? At least, that's what I thought was happening, as they perceived a change to surpass CUSA and possibly the BE and strengthen their case for inclusion.

If the MWC is reluctant or slow in supporting this motion for TCU, I can't see this move as a prelude to further expansion, either, especially considering the candidates in that neck of the woods. Further, I would suspect taking one of the WAC's better schools would serve better to weaken that league. IMO, anyway.

Is anyone else surprised at the TCU idea, as well, under the notion that I thought the MWC and CUSA had a mutual respect for each other considering the bowl ties?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 144 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group