NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Tue Sep 30, 2014 6:50 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 ... 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 ... 62  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:55 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1554
tute79 wrote:
The problem with non-FB members is that once they are invited, you typically can't get rid of them or force them to add football (unless something is written into the contract when they join).


That's been true. Where has such worked to serious satisfaction in prominent conferences that emphasize fb? Even the Notre Dame deals can get ugly when it comes to conference operations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 19, 2013 9:22 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1448
sec03 wrote:
tute79 wrote:
The problem with non-FB members is that once they are invited, you typically can't get rid of them or force them to add football (unless something is written into the contract when they join).


That's been true. Where has such worked to serious satisfaction in prominent conferences that emphasize fb? Even the Notre Dame deals can get ugly when it comes to conference operations.

The Big East was an extreme, the Sun Belt and plenty of FCS conferences have done the non-fb membership and have been quite successful with it. 1 or 2 schools is not a problem. The problem would be with inviting 3 or more. That being said their are no other schools worth adding as a non-fb other than BYU, Gonzaga, or St Mary's.

The MWC didn't turn down BYU because they didn't want a bball member, they turned them down because they didn't want to be used like ND used the BE and now the ACC.

The Zags and St Mary's, if invited, would put the MWC above the PAC12 and solidify them as a top 8 bball conference (right now they are on the bubble depending on the year). Both schools would be 100% committed to the MWC knowing that this is the highest conference they could aspire to, plus it gets the MWC into Washington, Boise/SJSU great travel partners, and some more baseball schools.

Denver or Seattle would be settling for a warm body (no offense ATLpioneer). At the end of the expansion, the conference should be in a better position. The reason the Big12, Big East, and WCC don't want to expand is that it would delute their product and revenue, however I have a hard time seeing just about anyone other than football-is-all-that-matters meathead truly thinking the MWC would not be better by grabbing GU/StM.

Gonzaga and St Mary's would be an immediate splash to the conference's RPI that would get people into seeing conference games with those two and UNM, UNLV, Utah St, and SDSU. Plus the fact that BYU's conference would be greatly diminished might push them and their fb back into the fold of the MWC along with UTEP would just be icing on the cake to an already great non-fb move.

I don't see why their membership couldn't be conditional on them staying in the conference together (meaning if the Zags up and leave for a Western wing of the BE, the MWC can remove St Mary's w/o penalty) and restricting them from voting in any more non-fb members w/o 100% approval from the current fb members (thus reducing the chance of the MWC turning into the hybrid BE). Make this a term of their admission that they must agree to before joining, if they take it great, if not no biggie, but it sure seems like it would be worth a try...

While the major 8/8 Goliath failed in the BE it doesn't mean that smaller hybrid would. Without BYU the MWC can't get better in fb, but even w/o them they could become a powerhouse bball conference which could in turn bring the Cougars back.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 5:15 am 
Offline
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
tkalmus wrote:
sec03 wrote:
tute79 wrote:
The problem with non-FB members is that once they are invited, you typically can't get rid of them or force them to add football (unless something is written into the contract when they join).


That's been true. Where has such worked to serious satisfaction in prominent conferences that emphasize fb? Even the Notre Dame deals can get ugly when it comes to conference operations.

The Big East was an extreme, the Sun Belt and plenty of FCS conferences have done the non-fb membership and have been quite successful with it. 1 or 2 schools is not a problem. The problem would be with inviting 3 or more. That being said their are no other schools worth adding as a non-fb other than BYU, Gonzaga, or St Mary's.

The MWC didn't turn down BYU because they didn't want a bball member, they turned them down because they didn't want to be used like ND used the BE and now the ACC.

The Zags and St Mary's, if invited, would put the MWC above the PAC12 and solidify them as a top 8 bball conference (right now they are on the bubble depending on the year). Both schools would be 100% committed to the MWC knowing that this is the highest conference they could aspire to, plus it gets the MWC into Washington, Boise/SJSU great travel partners, and some more baseball schools.

Denver or Seattle would be settling for a warm body (no offense ATLpioneer). At the end of the expansion, the conference should be in a better position. The reason the Big12, Big East, and WCC don't want to expand is that it would delute their product and revenue, however I have a hard time seeing just about anyone other than football-is-all-that-matters meathead truly thinking the MWC would not be better by grabbing GU/StM.

Gonzaga and St Mary's would be an immediate splash to the conference's RPI that would get people into seeing conference games with those two and UNM, UNLV, Utah St, and SDSU. Plus the fact that BYU's conference would be greatly diminished might push them and their fb back into the fold of the MWC along with UTEP would just be icing on the cake to an already great non-fb move.

I don't see why their membership couldn't be conditional on them staying in the conference together (meaning if the Zags up and leave for a Western wing of the BE, the MWC can remove St Mary's w/o penalty) and restricting them from voting in any more non-fb members w/o 100% approval from the current fb members (thus reducing the chance of the MWC turning into the hybrid BE). Make this a term of their admission that they must agree to before joining, if they take it great, if not no biggie, but it sure seems like it would be worth a try...

While the major 8/8 Goliath failed in the BE it doesn't mean that smaller hybrid would. Without BYU the MWC can't get better in fb, but even w/o them they could become a powerhouse bball conference which could in turn bring the Cougars back.


I don't think there is any benefit for the MWC to mess around with any non-football schools. Personally, I don't think Gonzaga or St. Mary's fully make the cut. Gonzaga has been a solid program under Mark Few and regionally, they fit in great with Boise St. nearby. But Gonzaga has been good under Mark Few, not under a line of proven coaches. Who is to say that Gonzaga won't fall to being just another school once Few leaves? At St. Mary's, the same goes for Bennett. He's flirted with a number of schools, bust just hasn't gotten another gig. He's 183-103 in 9 years, so it's understandable why he hasn't been grabbed by a PAc-12 school.

So with either school, I see more question marks long term than benefits.

_________________
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 Aug 20, 2013 6:19 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:14 pm
Posts: 1021
Location: Ciales-Manatí-Bayamón, Puerto Rico
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
Here's the simple actual options in order. BYU & UTEP, no one, Hawaii as a full member, UTEP & UTSA, UTEP & UNT.

Montana would need to go fb only in the SBC 1st and be good before they get on that list at the ass end.

If they ever changed their mind to get a school for all sports but fb it would be BYU, which is what BYU wanted.


But like in C-USA, the MW doesn't allow member schools with full membership status (and sponsoring football in a different conference). Look what was about to happen to East Carolina from C-USA. The Pirates were about to join the then-old Big East for football for the 2014-15 season and stay in C-USA on other sports (without finding another suitable geographic-like conference like re-joining the CAA or the A-10) at that time. Now they'll be full members of the old Big East (now re-structured as The American). I doubt that BYU would want re-joining the MW for all sports except football (leaving football Independent). By the way, weren't there supposed to be a merger between the MW and C-USA back then?

_________________
Florida State Seminoles fan for life (mostly on football, basketball and baseball)! 2013 ACC football Atlantic Division champions; 2013 ACC football regular season champions; 2013 ACC football conference bowl tournament champions; 2014 NCAA D-I FBS BCS national champions!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 12:49 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1096
Would BYU even have the votes to get back into the conference if they wanted in? That the MWC is so firm on their matter but flexible with Hawaii...BYU's the bread-winner, and it's by the longest of country miles.

Could it be that some of these MW schools were relieved to finally lose both Utah and BYU?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:20 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1708
BYU really "played" the MWC, as part of Karl Benson's ill-fated "the Project" when Benson headed the WAC.
Consequently, I could see some real animosity toward BYU.

Utah, on the other hand, didn't jerk anyone around, they just accepted a great offer to join the PAC - who wouldn't ?


Hawai'i s football-only deal is sort of for the mutual convenience of both Hawai'i and the MWC.
The travel is a killer, and Hawai'i was goiing to have to subsidize it for all sports.
For a few FB games a year, it's not such a big deal,
and the air-travel for Olympic sports is much less burdensome, with Hawai'i in the Big West,
with much shorter travel times between Honolulu and California cities, and the ability to bundle multiple games into single trips.
Yeah, it gives the MWC a bit of asymmetry, but I think it works out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:42 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:14 pm
Posts: 1021
Location: Ciales-Manatí-Bayamón, Puerto Rico
tute79 wrote:
BYU really "played" the MWC, as part of Karl Benson's ill-fated "the Project" when Benson headed the WAC.
Consequently, I could see some real animosity toward BYU.

Utah, on the other hand, didn't jerk anyone around, they just accepted a great offer to join the PAC - who wouldn't ?


Hawai'i s football-only deal is sort of for the mutual convenience of both Hawai'i and the MWC.
The travel is a killer, and Hawai'i was goiing to have to subsidize it for all sports.
For a few FB games a year, it's not such a big deal,
and the air-travel for Olympic sports is much less burdensome, with Hawai'i in the Big West,
with much shorter travel times between Honolulu and California cities, and the ability to bundle multiple games into single trips.
Yeah, it gives the MWC a bit of asymmetry, but I think it works out.


Then why wouldn't Hawaii have gone for full membership status within the MWC instead? In my opinion, I don't believe that football-only members belong to a conference. They should be Independent instead.

_________________
Florida State Seminoles fan for life (mostly on football, basketball and baseball)! 2013 ACC football Atlantic Division champions; 2013 ACC football regular season champions; 2013 ACC football conference bowl tournament champions; 2014 NCAA D-I FBS BCS national champions!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 6:01 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1448
ncaanopaawaa2000 wrote:
tute79 wrote:
BYU really "played" the MWC, as part of Karl Benson's ill-fated "the Project" when Benson headed the WAC.
Consequently, I could see some real animosity toward BYU.

Utah, on the other hand, didn't jerk anyone around, they just accepted a great offer to join the PAC - who wouldn't ?


Hawai'i s football-only deal is sort of for the mutual convenience of both Hawai'i and the MWC.
The travel is a killer, and Hawai'i was goiing to have to subsidize it for all sports.
For a few FB games a year, it's not such a big deal,
and the air-travel for Olympic sports is much less burdensome, with Hawai'i in the Big West,
with much shorter travel times between Honolulu and California cities, and the ability to bundle multiple games into single trips.
Yeah, it gives the MWC a bit of asymmetry, but I think it works out.


Then why wouldn't Hawaii have gone for full membership status within the MWC instead? In my opinion, I don't believe that football-only members belong to a conference. They should be Independent instead.


Hawaii preferred the Big West because:

A: Competitiveness - Other than Hawaii football and women's volleyball Hawaii's other sports were pretty non-competitive in the WAC and would had been beaten up even more so in the MWC.

B: Cost - Hawaii was going to have to pay a travel subsidy for just about any conference it joined. The Big West is mostly out of LAX while the MWC would have been from Boise, Salt Lake City, Denver, Colorado Springs, Albuquerque, Las Vegas, and Reno.

So if it costs more and gets them little benefit why do it? If the MWC made them join in order to keep their football in it they totally would, but neither seem to want that. Hawaii would hurt their RPI and Hawaii sports would get clobbered in the MWC.

Hawaii didn't play as an independent because, like all remaining independents, they would have trouble filling their schedule each year once conference play begins. That's why ND agreed to 5 games a year against the ACC, because with more conference going to 9 game schedules, it getting harder for them to find opponents later in the season, and that's with a ton of "rivalry" games. Factor in the extra travel costs and lack of premier rivals and its obvious that Hawaii would have had a hard time as an independent.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 9:58 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
ncaanopaawaa2000 wrote:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
Here's the simple actual options in order. BYU & UTEP, no one, Hawaii as a full member, UTEP & UTSA, UTEP & UNT.

Montana would need to go fb only in the SBC 1st and be good before they get on that list at the ass end.

If they ever changed their mind to get a school for all sports but fb it would be BYU, which is what BYU wanted.


But like in C-USA, the MW doesn't allow member schools with full membership status (and sponsoring football in a different conference). Look what was about to happen to East Carolina from C-USA. The Pirates were about to join the then-old Big East for football for the 2014-15 season and stay in C-USA on other sports (without finding another suitable geographic-like conference like re-joining the CAA or the A-10) at that time. Now they'll be full members of the old Big East (now re-structured as The American). I doubt that BYU would want re-joining the MW for all sports except football (leaving football Independent). By the way, weren't there supposed to be a merger between the MW and C-USA back then?

BYU doesn't play football in another conf. Like I said if BYU wanted back in for all sports MWC would take them and UTEP. If for some reason MWC felt it had to have a 12th bball playing school w/o adding another fb school it would be BYU not Gonzaga or St.Mary's or Denver. They won't feel that need, they have lots of bball talent w/o BYU. BYU's plan was to keep all sports but fb in the MWC. MWC said no, so yes they would want that but got rejected.

Bish they'd have the votes, they'd make a lot of money for the conf. w/ the tv games, yes everyone hates them and still would but profit is profit plus it would add strength in football/bball.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 21, 2013 6:52 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:14 pm
Posts: 1021
Location: Ciales-Manatí-Bayamón, Puerto Rico
tkalmus wrote:
Hawaii preferred the Big West because:

A: Competitiveness - Other than Hawaii football and women's volleyball Hawaii's other sports were pretty non-competitive in the WAC and would had been beaten up even more so in the MWC.

B: Cost - Hawaii was going to have to pay a travel subsidy for just about any conference it joined. The Big West is mostly out of LAX while the MWC would have been from Boise, Salt Lake City, Denver, Colorado Springs, Albuquerque, Las Vegas, and Reno.

So if it costs more and gets them little benefit why do it? If the MWC made them join in order to keep their football in it they totally would, but neither seem to want that. Hawaii would hurt their RPI and Hawaii sports would get clobbered in the MWC.

Hawaii didn't play as an independent because, like all remaining independents, they would have trouble filling their schedule each year once conference play begins. That's why ND agreed to 5 games a year against the ACC, because with more conference going to 9 game schedules, it getting harder for them to find opponents later in the season, and that's with a ton of "rivalry" games. Factor in the extra travel costs and lack of premier rivals and its obvious that Hawaii would have had a hard time as an independent.


If only the Big West would return football, all other schools in that conference would re-instate and/or add in their programs, and Hawaii would be a great contender as a football team, putting the Big West back on the map in that sport.

And why putting Notre Dame in this, who in my opinion should had joined the ACC for football, along with its other sports as a pure full member instead of still having football Independent status. Unfortunately, the deal the Irish made for 5 games against conference members as an Independent wasn't the one that they had back when they were a member of the old Big East. Then ND would had face the likes Miami, Viriginia Tech, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, West Virginia, Boston College, Louisville, UConn, Cincinnati and South Florida at least once with their 18-season span.

Fresno St. Alum wrote:
BYU doesn't play football in another conf. Like I said if BYU wanted back in for all sports MWC would take them and UTEP. If for some reason MWC felt it had to have a 12th bball playing school w/o adding another fb school it would be BYU not Gonzaga or St.Mary's or Denver. They won't feel that need, they have lots of bball talent w/o BYU. BYU's plan was to keep all sports but fb in the MWC. MWC said no, so yes they would want that but got rejected.

Bish they'd have the votes, they'd make a lot of money for the conf. w/ the tv games, yes everyone hates them and still would but profit is profit plus it would add strength in football/bball.


To answer the "BYU wanted back in for all sports except football" part: Look what I said earlier:

Quote:
But like in C-USA, the MW doesn't allow member schools with full membership status (and sponsoring football in a different conference or as an Independent).


In the future, and if possible, if BYU should return to the MW, they should be in full membership status (with football) in exchange for Hawaii. Not taking out from the Rainbow Warriors, who are an outstanding football team (like the time they won the 2007 WAC title, earning a BCS bid as an undefeated in that season) despite the slumps they recently have, but Hawaii should be a football member of the Big West, which that conference should be planning to re-instate that sport if the other current members like Long Beach State or Pacific (now in the WCC, but possibly an affiliate) or Cal State-Fullerton or Cal State-Northridge or UC-Irvine or UC-Riverside plan to add football back; also re-adding UC-Davis and Cal Poly from the Big Sky affiliate status; and all of those schools should upgrade to at least 30,000 seats as the FBS requirements indicate. It's like renewing themselves again.

_________________
Florida State Seminoles fan for life (mostly on football, basketball and baseball)! 2013 ACC football Atlantic Division champions; 2013 ACC football regular season champions; 2013 ACC football conference bowl tournament champions; 2014 NCAA D-I FBS BCS national champions!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:27 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1096
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
Bish they'd have the votes, they'd make a lot of money for the conf. w/ the tv games, yes everyone hates them and still would but profit is profit plus it would add strength in football/bball.


You don't think BYU's non-football sports not being in the MWC is a consequence of their standing in that collective? Hawaii's a travel burden no matter how you slice it, travel subsidy and all, but that's a big deal to play ball with Hawaii that way and not BYU. BYU's hoops would make any MW media deal that much more profitable, while also being centrally located within the conference.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:43 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 693
Location: Columbus, OH
BYU and the MWC have this weird relationship. BYU returning as a full member would be good for the league--BYU is a strong brand name and good for revenue. The MWC also has something that BYU doesnt have as an independent and that is access to the access bowls (the big bowls on years that they arent semi final host sites or whatever we're calling them now--)

BYU on the other hand has the freedom to schedule nationally and complete control over their television revenues.

The MWC schools who are scheduling BYU--Boise St, Fresno St, Nevada, UNLV, Hawaii, (and maybe some others) essentially enable BYU to be independent by agreeing to OOC games with them and being flexible with late season scheduling. To profit collectively from having BYU as a member the MWC would have to forbid its members to schedule BYU but that is an awfully hard thing to do considering the gate revenue generated by having BYU come to your place and the media exposure from playing at theirs. That's a hard thing to ask members to sacrifice.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:43 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
ncaanopaawaa2000 wrote:
tkalmus wrote:
Hawaii preferred the Big West because:

A: Competitiveness - Other than Hawaii football and women's volleyball Hawaii's other sports were pretty non-competitive in the WAC and would had been beaten up even more so in the MWC.

B: Cost - Hawaii was going to have to pay a travel subsidy for just about any conference it joined. The Big West is mostly out of LAX while the MWC would have been from Boise, Salt Lake City, Denver, Colorado Springs, Albuquerque, Las Vegas, and Reno.

So if it costs more and gets them little benefit why do it? If the MWC made them join in order to keep their football in it they totally would, but neither seem to want that. Hawaii would hurt their RPI and Hawaii sports would get clobbered in the MWC.

Hawaii didn't play as an independent because, like all remaining independents, they would have trouble filling their schedule each year once conference play begins. That's why ND agreed to 5 games a year against the ACC, because with more conference going to 9 game schedules, it getting harder for them to find opponents later in the season, and that's with a ton of "rivalry" games. Factor in the extra travel costs and lack of premier rivals and its obvious that Hawaii would have had a hard time as an independent.


If only the Big West would return football, all other schools in that conference would re-instate and/or add in their programs, and Hawaii would be a great contender as a football team, putting the Big West back on the map in that sport.

And why putting Notre Dame in this, who in my opinion should had joined the ACC for football, along with its other sports as a pure full member instead of still having football Independent status. Unfortunately, the deal the Irish made for 5 games against conference members as an Independent wasn't the one that they had back when they were a member of the old Big East. Then ND would had face the likes Miami, Viriginia Tech, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, West Virginia, Boston College, Louisville, UConn, Cincinnati and South Florida at least once with their 18-season span.

Fresno St. Alum wrote:
BYU doesn't play football in another conf. Like I said if BYU wanted back in for all sports MWC would take them and UTEP. If for some reason MWC felt it had to have a 12th bball playing school w/o adding another fb school it would be BYU not Gonzaga or St.Mary's or Denver. They won't feel that need, they have lots of bball talent w/o BYU. BYU's plan was to keep all sports but fb in the MWC. MWC said no, so yes they would want that but got rejected.

Bish they'd have the votes, they'd make a lot of money for the conf. w/ the tv games, yes everyone hates them and still would but profit is profit plus it would add strength in football/bball.


To answer the "BYU wanted back in for all sports except football" part: Look what I said earlier:

Quote:
But like in C-USA, the MW doesn't allow member schools with full membership status (and sponsoring football in a different conference or as an Independent).


Yes, but I'm telling you they'd change that rule to let BYU back in over Gonzaga, Denver or St.Mary's(their arena is a joke, you guys make me laugh by putting them in) joining.

You saw my order BYU, UTEP all sports, then nothing. Then I had a whole after the 4 options thing saying they won't go bball school and if they ever did, which they won't it would be BYU over them.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:47 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:14 pm
Posts: 1021
Location: Ciales-Manatí-Bayamón, Puerto Rico
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
Yes, but I'm telling you they'd change that rule to let BYU back in over Gonzaga, Denver or St.Mary's(their arena is a joke, you guys make me laugh by putting them in) joining.

You saw my order BYU, UTEP all sports, then nothing. Then I had a whole after the 4 options thing saying they won't go bball school and if they ever did, which they won't it would be BYU over them.


But since when was that rule changed? Even so, it's too late for BYU to return back to the MW, unless the two could plan an agreement meeting.

_________________
Florida State Seminoles fan for life (mostly on football, basketball and baseball)! 2013 ACC football Atlantic Division champions; 2013 ACC football regular season champions; 2013 ACC football conference bowl tournament champions; 2014 NCAA D-I FBS BCS national champions!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:50 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
Bish they'd have the votes, they'd make a lot of money for the conf. w/ the tv games, yes everyone hates them and still would but profit is profit plus it would add strength in football/bball.


You don't think BYU's non-football sports not being in the MWC is a consequence of their standing in that collective? Hawaii's a travel burden no matter how you slice it, travel subsidy and all, but that's a big deal to play ball with Hawaii that way and not BYU. BYU's hoops would make any MW media deal that much more profitable, while also being centrally located within the conference.


football affiliate is much easier to do than a team playing all sports but refusing football(ND is the only one that does that) Idaho, NMSU, UMass, Hawaii, Navy all do the fb only thing. You guys seem to be missing the point. MWC is NOT going w/ a school for all sports w/o fb just to make everyone feel happy w/ an even number. BYU's option is all sports or nothing. If in some crazy world of MWC had to have a 12th bball school to make it even it would be BYU over any of the others. Football drives the bus and even though they have good bball it doesn't hold a candle to fb profit. Like muskie said we'd all refuse to play them to help force them to make a move to some conf. if we really hated them.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 929 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 ... 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:  
 

 




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