I agree that if TCU is added to the MWC there should be a second Texas team. Houston would be a better market but SMU has some merit. Did you know Houston has had two all-time Top 50 NBA players (Akeem/Clyde), a heisman trophy winner (Ware), Olympian Carl Lewis, and Fred Couples just to name them off the top of my head. There is great potential in that athletic program if it could be managed effectively! What a waste! SMU has great facilities and a much better academic reputation, but that big black mark just doesn't go away quickly. How about Rice? Facilities need an upgrade for MBB and FB, but the repuatation is solid. I think they are going to become permanently attached to Tulsa and Tulane for "like" regional institutions.

StatePackMan, I have to agree regarding Rice, Tulane, and Tulsa sticking together. Though unlikely, maybe Vanderbilt and Baylor will join them one day.

As for the Mountain West Conference, I have no knowledge, but wish to add my thoughts. I do not understand this push for TCU or schools like Boise State. All over this board on various threads terms such as "like minded institutions" and "flagship universities" are used. Looking at the BCS conferences, most of the schools are the larger state schools of national recognition with some steller private institutions added to the mix.

The Mountain West Conference has a good start with schools such as Utah, New Mexico, Colorado State, and Wyoming. I would think that schools such as New Mexico State, Nevada, Idaho, and Utah State would be great additions. I admit that I am biased towards these types of institutions, but if you look at the line up, it just sounds more like the other conferences.

I will say that I do not put too much stock into past performance. My personal belief is that the current system has hampered some schools efforts to rise above a conference label. Also, football is not all that a school contributes to a conference.

I don't how BYU & Utah feel about Utah State or UNM about NM State. I spwnd a fair amount of time in the Rockies but have not heard or read anything about those subjects. My understanding is that UNLV supports Nevada.

I don't know much about New Mexico/New Mexico State.

Utah State is much more separated from The Church than BYU and Utah. Nearly all non-Mormons in Utah that go to college in state go to Logan. Not that there is any antagonism, but no real common interests either. Plus BYU and Utah feel Utah State is inferior athletically.

The highest average attendance for Basketball, Football, and Baseball between two universities in New Mexico comes between University of New Mexico and New Mexico State University. Yes, both their football stadiums and basketball arenas fill with there is a game between these two teams. The main area that makes them different is on budget to athletic departments between the two schools. UNM has a lot of support from the state of NM while NMSU makes it mostly on it's own when it come to upgrades in athletics and facilities. This is a first year in over a decade that the state of New Mexico has released funds for upgrading athletic facilities (for offices and related spaces) at NMSU. NMSU also has an edge in having two major rivalries in both UNM (224 miles away) and UTEP (35 miles away). If UTEP stays in the WAC, it will be the first time in over 40 years that both NMSU and UTEP will be in the same conference. UNM calls UTEP a rival but the attendance will show they have better numbers with NMSU and others from MWC for most ball play.

The WAC and MWC just need to sit down....and come up with the most regional conferences in the West...

WAC

Hawaii
Fresno St.
San Diego St.
San Jose St.
Nevada
UNLV
Idaho
Boise St.
Utah St.

MWC

BYU
Utah St.
Wyoming
Col. St.
Air Force
New Mexico
New Mexico St.
UTEP

Then Travel Costs would be lowered and we could all live happily ever after...

I think this is a good arrangement, but I think that the current MWC teams will not go anywhere. The WAC is a step down. So, here is what I think they will have:

MWC:
Utah
BYU
Colorado State
Wyoming
Air Force
New Mexico
UNLV
San Diego State
NEWBIE: Boise State
Newbie?: TCU?

WAC:
Hawaii
Fresno State
San Jose State
Nevada-Reno
UTEP
NEWBIE: New Mexico State
NEWBIE: Utah State
NEWBIE: Idaho

If TCU accepts MWC bid, then CUSA will take LaTech. If not, then MWC would take Fresno State or Nevada-Reno with Boise State and North Texas would be invited with Idaho.

VFan,
I think you can add N. Texas to that list. They are an up and comer. Even if it moves the conference a bit to the east the pros will out weigh the cons.

Pros:
Very solid football
Potentialy very good t.v. marker
Texas recruiting ground
Would bring your conference to 9 for round robin play.

Cons:
A little far afield

I know this post will get me "jumped on," but I'll try it anyway.

TCU would be wise to stay put.

(1) More regional rivalries in CUSA and less travel cost...and the MWC is NOT head and shoulders above CUSA...they are about equal in strenght/prestige/intagibles/etc.

(2) Read the handwriting on the wall. In the next 1-8 years the Big 10 WILL expand and the PAC-10 will follow suit. While there is much speculation as to who the expansion teams will be...it is quite possible two of the best schools in MWC could go, further diluting the MWC strength...

Just my thoughts. I'll put on my helmet now.

stevus, Surprise I agree with you, at least on the TCU staying put part. It just makes more sense to me on TCU's part. I can see why the MWC is trying to get them, but in the end think TCU will not pass up the regional aspect of the new C-USA. I think you'll be surprised at the number of people here that think TCU should stay too.

On point #2, wrong...wrong...wrong. Pull your head out of your ass that ain't happenin', idiot!!! >:( Just kidding, but wanted you to get some use from your helmet. ;D Still, the Pac-10 won't expand until everything is just right (Colorado & Colo St.), and even then only if they absolutely are forced to.

I remember reading some speculation 6-8 years ago about when/if Big 10 and Pac 10 expanded. Back then someone was pretty sure about Colorado. They cited Colorado's recruiting in California and the more "west coast" than "midwest" outlook in Boulder and some more stuff I can't remember. So, I guess the question I would ask is? In spite of the cited things, what REAL advantage would Colorado gain by leaving the Big 12. It's a lateral move for one thing. With 8 conference games, it will all but kill some rivalries and long series. Year in Year out is the Big12 or Pac10 really all that "stronger" than the other. Travel will be longer. Is it really worth it?

Let me hear some thoughts.

Continuing previous thought......


IN regards to Colorado State.....I think they'd love to go the Pac 10, but.....

Why CSU as opposed to Utah (great for basketball) or Hawaii or SDSU or even New Mexico (attendence for football could be issue).....other than the fact that if Colorado goes, CSU is the natural choice since Pac 10 teams come in twos: :P

Oregon - Oregon State
Washington - Washington State
Arizona - Arizona State
USC - UCLA
Stanford - Cal

I swear I've never seen a conference so perfectly balanced for season ending rival to rival play!!