NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Sat Dec 20, 2014 4:43 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 144 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:20 am 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 1:17 pm
Posts: 822
Location: Dothan, AL for the time being.
Well, I don't know for sure, but I do know that 12 team conferences are somewhat better than 14 team conferences and I'll tell you why. Most conferences mandate an 8 game schedule, which is made out by the conference(with or without the 12th game). The individual teams are left to schedule the remaining 3 or 4 games OOC by themselves. With a 12 team conference, you get to play everyone in your division plus half of the other division. This helps to create new rivalries and maintain some old ones. With a 14 team conference, it's a little more dicey. You can't play half of your division and several rivalries wind up being lost. I can't remember what oddball setup the MAC had for interdivisional games, but I don't think it worked too well, and the MAC is actually glad to see Marshall and UCF leave because this gets them back to their optimum level of twelve members.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 10:29 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri May 02, 2003 12:39 pm
Posts: 1215

Quote:
Why don't cusa invite Louisiana Tech Temple and UTEP make an 14 team conference. Revenue and TV deals will go up if they did this.

The revenue would increase only slightly due to Temple basketball, and unlikely the increase would offset the decreasing shares paid to each school.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 12:04 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 10:57 pm
Posts: 1292
Location: Portland! (and about time!)
I apologize for the lack of a link, though KTVB TV in Boise didn't provide one... but they reported last night that it is expected that TCU is the only invitee to the Mountain West in this go-around.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:25 pm 
That is sort of what can be interpreted from the gathered information to date, that only TCU will be invited to the MWC and they will say yes.

Though it has not been posted, and speculating here, TCU may have conveyed that they would join at this time, if only TCU gets an invitation. TCU may not want to come into the MWC with more far away schools, and may perceive a better opportunity to compete in a 9 team conference rather than one at 12. Also, the MWC from the days of their split with the WAC, have been reluctant to get "big".

The MWC may expand further later on with other current WAC members. Boise State has pushed openly and hard for MWC membership. It may be later for them, rather than sooner. The WAC will change here and there, but appears able to survive.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2004 5:47 pm 
It's done.....
http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/spt/colleges/topstories/stories/013004dnspotculede.63859f03.html


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2004 5:54 pm 
More from Frog Land:
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/colleges/7824128.htm


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:43 am 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3814
Done deal it is.

http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/spt/stories/012904dnspotculede.5e97380f.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: Fri Jan 30, 2004 4:58 pm 
So who or what is next gentlemen?


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 30, 2004 5:08 pm 
More on Done Deal:

http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/spt/colleges/tcu/stories/013104dnspotcu.68ae1c0d.html

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/7837477.htm

http://themwc.ocsn.com/




Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2004 12:04 pm 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3814
espn's link:

http://espn.go.com/ncaa/news/2004/0130/1723193.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: Sun Feb 01, 2004 5:45 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

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

Quote:
So who or what is next gentlemen?


So if the MWC takes Boise and lets say Houston which could be TCU's travel partner. Which other team will join the MWC as its 12th?

In return I see Louisiana Tech joining CUSA its a perfect fit. Also if CUSA loses Houston do they go ahead and get Temple or North Texas or Miami (OH) or Toledo?

Because there is no way UTEP will be in CUSA but I have been fooled before.

In return the WAC takes Idaho maybe just maybe North Texas.

Then the Sunbelt takes Florida A&M.

The only realignment so far that hasn't made since was when the ACC took Boston College. Is it me or was that the dumbest of all moves when all along a West Virginia or Pittsburgh would have been perfect. Just thoughts from the fbg

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2004 11:36 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 8:45 pm
Posts: 315
Location: Great Northwest
OK fbg, I'll just go point by point with you.

Unless the MWC gets some sort of guarantee from the BCS that it gets admission by going to 12 for the next contract, they will stay at 9. There are programs in the MWC that just can't afford to lose the revenue split by adding three more, namely Wyoming, SDSU, AFA, and to a lesser extent UNLV. If they do get a guarantee, I agree w/ Boise and Houston. As far as #12 is concerned, I'll go with Nevada if they can keep improving. Fresno makes the most sense, but they have for a while and haven't even gotten a sniff. The mistrust/hatred must run pretty deep.

I think C-USA will go for La. Tech and ...Temple(?). I think the need to find a home for fb will outweigh the desire to stay A-10 in bb. I have a feeling, and thats all, that Miami is happy in the MAC. I don't think N Texas will get the support over the other two.

I think the WAC will go for Idaho and N texas, though I'm not sure N Texas will want to make the move. Travel would be a pregnant dog.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2004 11:59 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 8:08 pm
Posts: 979
#1 factor is TV$
#2 academics
#3 compatability
#4 sports other than fb
#5 geography

BC to the ACC only flunks #5. They were the logical addition. VT was the one that was not logical. They add very little if anything in TV$. BC is very compatible, even if they aren't a southern school, but MD isn't a southern state anymore either. I would have preferred WVU, Temple or Rutgers because they would have left the BE in better shape, but none of them were likely.

I think the MWC taking TCU is the odd one. They take a small school in a pro sports town dominated by another conference. It also makes a 12 team lineup very difficult. Boise, Hawaii or Fresno were the logical additions. I think TCU flunks #1, #3 and #5. The MWC is actually pretty compact considering the part of the country it is in.

USF to the BE is probably similar to the TCU choice. The BE is gambling that USF catches on and becomes the next "Virginia Tech." MWC is totally delusional to think TCU helps get a BCS bid. But maybe they are simply hoping for a consistent power.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2004 11:17 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri May 02, 2003 12:39 pm
Posts: 1215

Quote:
#1 factor is TV$
#2 academics
#3 compatability
#4 sports other than fb
#5 geography

I think the MWC taking TCU is the odd one. They take a small school in a pro sports town dominated by another conference. It also makes a 12 team lineup very difficult. Boise, Hawaii or Fresno were the logical additions. I think TCU flunks #1, #3 and #5. The MWC is actually pretty compact considering the part of the country it is in.

USF to the BE is probably similar to the TCU choice. The BE is gambling that USF catches on and becomes the next "Virginia Tech." MWC is totally delusional to think TCU helps get a BCS bid. But maybe they are simply hoping for a consistent power.

Bullett, I've offered some opposite thoughts on another thread, so allow me to debate you on this one. Though I should preface it with the fact that I agree with your comparison of TCU-to-MWC with USF-to-BE.

However, I don't think the MWC is "totally delusional" regarding the BCS. Not that this move will land them a member-status come 2005, but they have upgraded the depth of quality programs within their conference, a fact that could go along way if/when one of their schools becomes the next candidate to crash the BCS party. Having a decent sos for your conference schedule is a must for outsiders hoping to land in a big bowl, and it's safe to say that in the short run TCU can only help everyone's sos.

You say TCU flunks the TV money test. Given a) the calibre of schools that would move to the MWC, and b) the hype that has grown for quality mid-major programs recently, TCU may be about as good as they could get. Surely the MWC season will feature a few more quality match-ups than without TCU in the mix. Plus there's now the tie-in to the Fort (what its) Worth bowl. (Okay, I'll admit having saved that one for too long...)

You say TCU flunks the compatibility test. Yes the MWC is comprised of mostly larger state universities, but Air Force will certainly appreciate having another smaller, academically minded institution. What's more, athletic programs can vary from the college as a whole in terms of public appeal and scale. TCU has great facilities and support very comparable to (better than?) SDSU, Wyoming and New Mexico. It's not as simple as Louisville to the BE, but I'd say flunking this category is too harsh given the nature of athletic programs these days.

You say the move flunks the geography test. A) if the MWC stays within the region and simply takes BSU, than theres the risk of flunking the money issue. B) I have to believe western geography is viewed differently than eastern. The sparsity of populations and cities suggests that it may not prove as bad. Much like Miami, once you get on the plane, the destination doesn't matter. Plus, unlike Boston College, TCU won't literally be bypassing so many other schools (read: possible affiliations) en route to a conference game. They just happen to be farther apart.

It's not perfect, but upon further review I personally like the move. Granted, I have no stake in the conference or the school. Yet, like the ACC, once the MWC committed to the idea, it had to do something. In that respect I feel the MWC was the only conference that executed a near flawless expansion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2004 10:57 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 8:08 pm
Posts: 979
TV test-75% of Fresno or 50% of Idaho beats 5% of DFW. Nationally, it matters who is winning. Boise and Fresno have had similar results recently. Fresno has the advantage of playing more high profile ooc games.
Its more interesting to watch games with large excited crowds. Fresno does that. They regularly average in the upper 30s. They are talking about expanding their stadium to as much as 60k. TCU got 36k, probably their best since before the Cowboys came to town with a top 10 ranking. Upper 20s in their 44k stadium is more common. Large crowds also helps recruiting, which is the biggest factor in continued success-and continued TV ratings. So called big markets didn't do anything for the MWC in the short run in the WAC 16. They got a better deal with 8 teams without markets.

As for a guaranteed BCS slot, I do think the MWC is delusional. A lot of MWC fans on their own board agree (obviously some don't). Now does a better sos help? There is not a big difference between the non-BCS conferences and there is a big gap between the BCS and non-BCS. So I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference. Miami made #10 this year in the MAC east! Marshall and UCF were down, Ohio U., Kent St., Buffalo and Akron were pretty normal (in other words-bad). ooc was Iowa, NW and Cincinnati. While Iowa was good, that was a loss. To get a #6 slot for a non-BCS school, you almost have to go unbeaten, whether its in the MAC, the MWC or the new BE.

And if there are two guaranteed slots for the champs of the non-BCS schools, ooc is still going to be the difference if the teams have the same record. BYU will usually have a good chance (strong ooc) and AF never will (Army, Navy).

I didn't define compatability. I was thinking in terms of the schools mission and athletic challenges. TCU is the only small religious school in the MWC. Air Force is a military academy, BYU is a huge religious school, 3 are flagship schools, 2 are the #2 state school and one is a commuter school. Other than AF, they are not highly selective as most of the states don't have a lot of other state schools. Its not their mission to be selective. Of the other 8 schools, only 2 face NBA competition (Utah, BYU), only 1 faces MLB or NFL competition (SDSU), 5 are in states with no BCS competition with 2 of the others in much better position than TCU. AF is a national military academy so they aren't really competing with Colorado, and CSU is a solid #2 much like Iowa St. and Louisville, definitely #2, but with a good base. And SDSU at least has San Diego to itself along with a big alumni base.

If I were the czar of the MWC, I would have added Boise, Fresno, Hawaii and Nevada. Each of them dominates their market, similar to the existing MWC schools and is "compatible." Fresno and Hawaii have BCS level fan support. All but Nevada have been pretty successful lately. What this does is:
1) adds enormous exposure with a championship game (see the MAC);
2) eliminates competition for western viewers as the western WAC is gone (CUSA already took eastern WAC)-this allows the MWC to get more time slots and have better leverage with regional networks;
3) eliminates competition for western bowl slots;
4) adds all the western schools that are likely to ever make a BCS run and adds 2 schools who are likely to remain competitive because of their fan base (HI, Fresno) and 2 others with the potential to develop similar fan bases (instead of a school who has topped out at 36k) and similar long run success;
5) develops a base between Texas and LA/SF that the conference dominates, giving the conference a chance to eventually join the Big 5;
6) gives them much better access to the California recruits that most of them go after with Fresno and Nevada; and
7) Strengthens UNLV and SDSU by giving better rivalries.

Instead they got the Ft. Worthless Bowl and a school who is doing well now, but has had very little success since the 50s and who does not have the potential to be the next "Virginia Tech." Fresno, Boise and Hawaii do. For TCU, matching Colorado St. in continued fb success and Utah or Air Force in attendance would be a big accomplishment. Going beyond that, IMO, is simply not feasible for TCU. So the MWC took, IMO, a short sighted move and a cautious one by only adding one school.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 144 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest


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:  
 

 

cron




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