NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Fri Oct 31, 2014 5:47 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 929 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 ... 62  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:10 pm 
Offline
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
I see a benefit in bringing Houston and SMU in with Boise St. and expected SDSU to go to 14. Because Houston and SMU will likely help the TV contract based on those markets. Yes, they prefer to be east versus west...but money is money.

What I'm not sold on is Tulsa and UTEP. I just don't see that pair doing much to help what is already a 12 school conference (when SDSU returns).

I'm trying to think about the economics of say Houston, SMU, UTEP and Tulsa for a 16 school conference. I'm still not sold but I do see a potential benefit in having 3 Texas schools together to get a strong chunk of the markets with Tulsa as the 4th market. But still...16 schools...I don't think that will generate the "more" money that it would take to get SMU and Houston to leave for the MWC in the first place.

_________________
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: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:28 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1719
There are a lot of things in play right now.

First, I think MWC would love to bring BYU back in and they have one item of leverage -
One at large is guaranteed to the highest rated champ from the "little 5 conferences", and as BYU is an independent, they are ineleigible for that.
The stumbling block is that BYU has their own TV deal right now in conjunction with BYUTV and ESPN, I believe, and they may not be "mobile" until that is up for renewal.
So if they WANTED to come back to MWC, they might have to have a specail deal, at least for a transitition period.

Secondly, San Diego State wants back in (presumably for all sports). I think the delay, is that (since hteir other sports are currently parked in the Big West,
Craig Thompson may be using this as an opportunity to "even up the numbers", if Hawaii remains football only, or they get some partial deal with BYU.

Tulsa has been associated with the MWC/WAC schools in the past. But geographically, one would think they would like to wind up in whateve conference SMU and Houston wind up in.
Right now, they have to be careful. A jump to the BE could be disasterous, if SMU and Houston later abandon ship.
Then Tulsa would be stranded, and perhaps stuck with entrance / exit fees.

When we hear that UTEP / Tulsa are a package deal to the MWC, hmmm.....
UTEP is WAY WAY WAY out west in the Mountain time zone, and is in my opinion a better fit in MWC than CUSA.
Tulsa is much further east, and might be happier playing SMU, Houston, Tulane, Memphis (and we don't know how likely the all-sports schools currently slated for the BE are likely to stay).



My favorite outcome right now would be to see:
MWC add Hawaii, SDSU, BYU, and UTEP for 14 all-sports schools. If Hawaii stays in BW for Olympic Sports, SDSU could as well to give 12/14.

BE loses Boise (done), SDSU (likely), Navy (stays independent).
Grant all-sports membership to ECU for 10 all-sports schools, then add 2 more - UMass and a CUSA school (Marshall or Tulsa).

CUSA loses UTEP and one other to Big East All-Sports Contingent, replaces them with NMSU and Western Kentucky.

SunBelt having lost 3 to CUSA (FAU, MTSU already gone, plus WKU above) adds Appy State, Georgia Southern, and some other TX or sotheastern FCS school.

DONE !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:42 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 733
Location: Columbus, OH
Quinn wrote:
I see a benefit in bringing Houston and SMU in with Boise St. and expected SDSU to go to 14. Because Houston and SMU will likely help the TV contract based on those markets. Yes, they prefer to be east versus west...but money is money.

What I'm not sold on is Tulsa and UTEP. I just don't see that pair doing much to help what is already a 12 school conference (when SDSU returns).

I'm trying to think about the economics of say Houston, SMU, UTEP and Tulsa for a 16 school conference. I'm still not sold but I do see a potential benefit in having 3 Texas schools together to get a strong chunk of the markets with Tulsa as the 4th market. But still...16 schools...I don't think that will generate the "more" money that it would take to get SMU and Houston to leave for the MWC in the first place.


While on a dollars and cents level it might not make sense to go to 16 and include Tulsa and UTEP but for the MWC officials involved in the decision making this option is probably on the table if having geographically friendly rivals and travel schedules for SMU and Houston is what it takes to land the two programs and strike another blow to the Big East. In the end it becomes a financial win because it weakens a rival conference and boosts the MWC's claim to being the #6 conference.

On another note I think that instead of potentially leaving San Diego St in the Big West for Olympic sports as a punishment for flirting with the Big East the MWC should let them back in as full members and either A) giving Hawaii full membership again or perhaps an even better move B ) invite Gonzaga to be an all-sports member. Gonzaga would be a great contributor in basketball, they could be paired for travel with Boise St, and it would be a huge loss for a rival conference the WCC, which happens to be BYU's conference of convenience.

Its also very conceivable for the MWC to operate as a 15 member all sports conference with 16 for football by arranging teams in 3 pods for scheduling:

Pod A--San Diego St, Fresno St, San Jose St, Nevada, UNLV
Pod B--Boise St, Utah St, Wyoming, Colorado St, Air Force
Pod C--New Mexico, UTEP, Tulsa, SMU, Houston

In a sport like basketball with an 18-game conference schedule you'd play each of your pod mates twice and everyone else once. The MWC could even award trophies to the winners of each pod to give athletes and coaches an additional goal to strive for.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 2:03 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1130
I'm not optimistic for UTEP, though it makes the most sense after the SDSU-BYU-UH-SMU bloc. There's a reason UTEP was left behind by the MWC, and some of the schools who helped make that happen still call the conference home. I wish they'd "come home," but I'm doubtful they're wanted.

Both Houston AND SMU make Tulsa redundant. I don't like their chances, either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 2:19 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 733
Location: Columbus, OH
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
I'm not optimistic for UTEP, though it makes the most sense after the SDSU-BYU-UH-SMU bloc. There's a reason UTEP was left behind by the MWC, and some of the schools who helped make that happen still call the conference home. I wish they'd "come home," but I'm doubtful they're wanted.

Both Houston AND SMU make Tulsa redundant. I don't like their chances, either.


I think UTEP's exclusion from the MWC was two-fold. Yes, the Gang of 5 was trying to shrink the footprint and the Miners did not fit within that vision but the other reason was that UTEP liked the idea of playing in front of their alumni in east Texas and at the time the WAC still had TCU, SMU, Rice, and yes they are in OK but we may as well throw Tulsa in there too. In 2005 when that block departed for C-USA UTEP went with them. It's not like the MWC hasnt tried to call UTEP "home" before--the MWC wanted them back when San Jose St and Utah St were added but at the time C-USA still had Houston/SMU/Tulane (as well as Rice and Tulsa) so at the time staying in C-USA made a lot more sense.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 2:20 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7439
Article out of Boise with more details regarding BSU/MWC deal to include clause allowing SDSU to have "right of first option" regarding joining the MWC prior to 31 Jan 2013.Link at http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2013/0 ... _exit_fees


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 2:36 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 733
Location: Columbus, OH
I'm curious as to how the "right of first option" for San Diego St works. Does this mean that San Diego St can decide to come back at any time during January and they are in or does it mean that San Diego St only gets in if the MWC issues an invitation before 31 January 2013? If the later is true the MWC could wait until February 1st to make additional membership decisions after San Diego St's "right of first option" clause is expired.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 2:46 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1130
fighting muskie wrote:

I think UTEP's exclusion from the MWC was two-fold. Yes, the Gang of 5 was trying to shrink the footprint and the Miners did not fit within that vision but the other reason was that UTEP liked the idea of playing in front of their alumni in east Texas and at the time the WAC still had TCU, SMU, Rice, and yes they are in OK but we may as well throw Tulsa in there too. In 2005 when that block departed for C-USA UTEP went with them. It's not like the MWC hasnt tried to call UTEP "home" before--the MWC wanted them back when San Jose St and Utah St were added but at the time C-USA still had Houston/SMU/Tulane (as well as Rice and Tulsa) so at the time staying in C-USA made a lot more sense.


There's something I think I linked on an earlier post from UTEP's very own athletic page that has one of their people putting it out there that the formation of the MWC was done completely without UTEP. In fact, I think the words "it wasn't our choice" were used to describe it. You don't put that out there unless you want it known it wasn't the school's choice to sever that relationship.

Plus, when MWC wanted them back, it was because schools like BYU, Utah, and SDSU were no longer part of it, with AFA possibly on their way out, too. They also didn't have to worry about TCU. All that is to say, the MWC of that time was not the same was the MWC before the splits, nor the MWC that is potentially to become.

Quote:
I'm curious as to how the "right of first option" for San Diego St works. Does this mean that San Diego St can decide to come back at any time during January and they are in or does it mean that San Diego St only gets in if the MWC issues an invitation before 31 January 2013? If the later is true the MWC could wait until February 1st to make additional membership decisions after San Diego St's "right of first option" clause is expired.


If they balk, I think the invites go to other schools. If SDSU thereafter decides to rejoin, it's up to the conference to take them or not. Essentially, as of right now, there's a spot for them and only them for the rest of the month.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 3:42 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
UTEP, Fresno, Hawaii were all boned by the MWC. 2 of us are in now. UTEP knows that CUSA is the SBC/FCS move up conf. UNT, UTSA, Rice not = to SMU, Houston, Rice. Tulsa is as good as gone to the BE w/ or w/o Houston. So Rice would be the only western member from when UTEP joined and if Houston joins us. Rice replaces them in the BE. UTEP fans/boosters want in the MWC now according to the csn board and the UTEP guys on the MWC board.

I'll take any 2 of Houston, SMU, UTEP, UTSA in the MWC

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:13 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7439
Dennis Dodd blog article discussing SDSU/MWC membership situation at http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... ntain-west


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:23 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1719
That right of first option for SDSU reads funny in that press release. Since SDSU went to bat for BSU to get them into the BW,
even Kustra had to feel a snese of obligation to help SDSU land back on their feet, rather than being stranded.

The way that press release of BSU's deal reads makes it sound like the MWC could theoretically wait until Feb 1 while not offering a slot to SDSU,
then tell them "Oh, sorry...", and go invite someone else.

I can't imagine that is the case. More likely, SDSU has until the end of January to declare whether they want to rejoin the MWC.
If so, they are #12, pending negotiations of terms and conditions.
The details of whether they incur fees for leaving / rejoining MWC are probably in the details.
(they may not owe BE an exit fee, but probably owe the BW the same as BSU ($500,000 ?).

I would assume the Jan 31 is a deadline for SDSU, so by the end of January, MWC knows whether SDSU is in the fold aand they have 11/12,
Or SDSU is out, and they can proceed to invite other schools in order to get to 12 or 14.


With regard to UTEP, they WERE in the 16-team WAC, but never were in the MWC, they were left behind when the 8 teams left the WAC to form the MWC.
They joined CUSA around 2004, I believe, as the replacement for TCU, who left to become MWC #9.
Not clear if they truly would have preferred to join the MWC at that time, but TCU thought they'd have a better shot at the BCS in the MWC than in CUSA.

I think if MWC needs to add 2, they try to get SMU / Houston as a package, but if they only need to add 1, they MIGHT look to UTEP.
We should find out in the next few weeks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:52 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 733
Location: Columbus, OH
I think the MWC is in good shape regardless of whether they go with 12, 14, or 16. 12 gives them a neat footprint and in most years their champion should make the playoffs. 14 (with SMU and Houston) gets them into those Texas markets and weakens the Big East tremendously. 16 would optimize travel for the incoming Texas schools and if the Texas schools make going to 16 a condition I think the MWC is better off in the long haul to go to 16 than stay at 12. If they go to 16 they end up with a lot of schools with history together--12 of the 16 members of the old 16 team WAC. Of those who weren't part of the 16 team WAC:

Nevada--WAC (2000-2012), MWC (2012-)
Boise St--WAC (2001-2011), MWC (2011-)
Utah St--WAC (2005-2013), MWC (2013-)
Houston--while never a WAC member they spent several decades in the SWC with SMU and have been in C-USA with Tulsa, UTEP, and SMU since 2005

Additionally--San Diego St ('69-'78), Fresno St ('69-'92), San Jose St ('69-'96), Utah St ('78-'05), ('82-'96), Nevada ('92-'00), and Boise St ('96-'01) also all spent time in the Big West in the WAC (albeit they were never all in the league at the same time together).

I think my personal preference is 14.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 9:54 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1463
MWC w/ UH/SMU would be the clear #1
Line up

MWC - nBE
BSU - Cincy
AFA - ?Navy? (if they join)
Houston - ECU
Nevada - Temple
SMU - UCF
Hawaii - ?Tulsa?
Utah St - ?So Miss?
SJSU - ?Rice?
CSU - Tulane
WYO - Memphis
UNM - ?Marshall?UAB?ODU?LA Tech?
UNLV - ?UTSA?UNCC?GA St?UMass?

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:18 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
tkalmus wrote:
MWC w/ UH/SMU would be the clear #1
Line up

MWC - nBE
BSU - Cincy
AFA - ?Navy? (if they join)
Houston - ECU
Nevada - Temple
SMU - UCF
Hawaii - ?Tulsa?
Utah St - ?So Miss?
SJSU - ?Rice?
CSU - Tulane
WYO - Memphis
UNM - ?Marshall?UAB?ODU?LA Tech?
UNLV - ?UTSA?UNCC?GA St?UMass?


You forgot 2 of the 3 MWC tri champs Fresno and SDSU

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:20 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:26 pm
Posts: 403
SMU and Houston to the MWC is a bad joke.
In terms of money,location and academics.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 929 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 ... 62  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users 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