NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Thu Apr 24, 2014 4:46 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 884 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 ... 59  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:40 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7296
Jon Wilner article with comments from MWC Commish regarding SJSU,USU and possible MWC expansion at http://www.mercurynews.com/sjsu-spartans/ci_19258567


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2011 2:23 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7296
Jon Wilner update(previously posted in another thread)with more on college conference realignment to include SJSU and the MWC at http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespo ... te-version


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:43 am 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3802
Discussing on the FB page....

When looking at the proposed Big East, it's clear a bCS AQ isn't a lock. And Boise St. seems to want not just western schools, but their interest in the BE also goes hand in hand with Houston and SMu joining.

So why not just stay in the MWC, have a cohesive all-sports conference, and just invite Houston and SMU to goto 12?

_________________
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: Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:30 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1654
Or go a step further.

MWC invites: UTEP, Tulsa, SMU, Houston for 14
CUSA (after losing 4) invites: UConn, Rutgers, Cincy, Louisville, USF, and Temple / LaTech / North Texas for 14.

BE football disappears. If the BCS would weigh in NOW on future AQ's, they could squelch the driving force for this ugly BE expansion.




BTW, Neinas (rightly) decries the "gerry-mandering" going on with the various conferences. How exactly does WVU fit with the other 9 in the Big XII ???


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:52 am 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3802
tute79 wrote:
Or go a step further.

MWC invites: UTEP, Tulsa, SMU, Houston for 14
CUSA (after losing 4) invites: UConn, Rutgers, Cincy, Louisville, USF, and Temple / LaTech / North Texas for 14.

BE football disappears. If the BCS would weigh in NOW on future AQ's, they could squelch the driving force for this ugly BE expansion.




BTW, Neinas (rightly) decries the "gerry-mandering" going on with the various conferences. How exactly does WVU fit with the other 9 in the Big XII ???


Again tute, there is little reason to expand to 14.
A) it's more mouths to feed with very little money to go around
B) the most important aspect is the BCS AQ. Expansion only works if the MWC can IMPROVE their BCA AQ criteria. Houston this year does that for the next ratings period. Even SMU is a bit of help at #50. But that's it...Utep/Tulsa don't help if we're talking scrapping the CUSA/MWC partnership and going for a MWC coup.

_________________
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 Nov 11, 2011 4:36 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 2:27 am
Posts: 478
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Is it worth it for Boise to leave for the Big East if the Big East does not have their AQ in 2014?

http://dennis-dodd.blogs.cbssports.com/ ... 2/33203093

Boise and Houston doesn't need the Big East to finish in the Top 10. They can do that where they are now without having to travel cross country or paying exit fees.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:33 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 10:57 pm
Posts: 1279
Location: Portland! (and about time!)
Boise fans are saying that the remaining runts of the BE are still preferable to Colorado State and Wyoming and New Mexico. They're convinced the power rating gets better.

More importantly...

"We go now, get the money, then someone will take us when the BE goes bad."

The second part is way too convincing in the Treasure Valley.

Texas was already practically at war with Nebraska over academic standards... damn, I want to be the SEC spy in the boardroom when BSU's standards come up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:28 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 873
The problem for the MWC top half and CUSA big market schools is that the current realignment/expansion is consolidation of power that will probably make the BCS LESS inclusive rather than MORE inclusive.

If the BCS was guaranteed to include the top six CONFERENCES as AQ members, its a no-brainer for the MWC: Invite Houston and SMU for all sports (12); Louisville and Cincinnati for football (14).

C-USA would add UConn, Rutgers (if no ACC), USF and either Temple or North Texas for 14.


But the BCS contract is up for total renegotiation in two years.

The Big Ten is already proposing a revert back to the "old system" of bowls: Rose (Pac-12 vs Big Ten), Orange (ACC vs Big East), Fiesta (Big XII vs other) and Sugar (SEC vs other), but with the BCS NCG remaining, featuring 1 vs 2.

The SEC is proposing the next system goes to SIX BCS bowls, adding the Cotton and ELIMINATING THE TWO-BID LIMIT.

No one is suggesting adding AQ bids (Why would they with the Big East struggling to put a team into the Top 25?)
No one is realistically suggesting a playoff.


Therefore, teams and conferences outside the Big FIVE have to make "all-star" configurations to lobby for inclusion.

That makes the bottom of the MWC and CUSA less desirable for the teams rumored to the Big East. Throw in the fact that the Big East has the paycheck from the BCS now, and a spot at the table in the next negotiations, and it makes the Big East a desirable destination for the Boise State, Houston, SMU, UCF's of the world.

It's really sad that the CUSA/MWC merger is designed solely to get a paycheck. It's accepting second-class status, adding in all kinds of obstacles to a team like Boise State running the table.

Houston and Boise State are what? #7 and #8 in the BCS? Yet their conferences are saying they should play a PLAY-IN GAME to the BCS.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:07 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 2:27 am
Posts: 478
Location: Jacksonville, FL
JPSchmack wrote:
The problem for the MWC top half and CUSA big market schools is that the current realignment/expansion is consolidation of power that will probably make the BCS LESS inclusive rather than MORE inclusive.

If the BCS was guaranteed to include the top six CONFERENCES as AQ members, its a no-brainer for the MWC: Invite Houston and SMU for all sports (12); Louisville and Cincinnati for football (14).

C-USA would add UConn, Rutgers (if no ACC), USF and either Temple or North Texas for 14.


But the BCS contract is up for total renegotiation in two years.

The Big Ten is already proposing a revert back to the "old system" of bowls: Rose (Pac-12 vs Big Ten), Orange (ACC vs Big East), Fiesta (Big XII vs other) and Sugar (SEC vs other), but with the BCS NCG remaining, featuring 1 vs 2.

The SEC is proposing the next system goes to SIX BCS bowls, adding the Cotton and ELIMINATING THE TWO-BID LIMIT.

No one is suggesting adding AQ bids (Why would they with the Big East struggling to put a team into the Top 25?)
No one is realistically suggesting a playoff.


Therefore, teams and conferences outside the Big FIVE have to make "all-star" configurations to lobby for inclusion.

That makes the bottom of the MWC and CUSA less desirable for the teams rumored to the Big East. Throw in the fact that the Big East has the paycheck from the BCS now, and a spot at the table in the next negotiations, and it makes the Big East a desirable destination for the Boise State, Houston, SMU, UCF's of the world.

It's really sad that the CUSA/MWC merger is designed solely to get a paycheck. It's accepting second-class status, adding in all kinds of obstacles to a team like Boise State running the table.

Houston and Boise State are what? #7 and #8 in the BCS? Yet their conferences are saying they should play a PLAY-IN GAME to the BCS.


In the Big East they will play a "PLAY-IN" game called the Big East Championship Game and in the Big East, either Boise OR Houston would be playing that "PLAY-IN" game, not both because they will be in the same divison.

The MWC/CUSA merger is about keeping their members not money. Joining the Coast to Coast conference, err the Big East, is about money and 2 years of BCS access.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:07 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 10:57 pm
Posts: 1279
Location: Portland! (and about time!)
Anyone ready for an all-sports merger?

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports ... paign=Feed

Me neither... but something tells me there's a detail or two missing here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:30 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:52 pm
Posts: 473
pounder wrote:
Anyone ready for an all-sports merger?

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports ... paign=Feed

Me neither... but something tells me there's a detail or two missing here.


Again, C-USA doesn't go on the offensive. They should be killing the Big East but instead they are acting like they've lost members that STILL haven't left (and may not leave at all now). Merging with an MWC without Boise is not a very good idea. C-USA will be far superior to the MWC. Just grab New Mexico and maybe UNLV if you really want their basketball. Why do they want to bring in the likes of Wyoming?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:50 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 10:57 pm
Posts: 1279
Location: Portland! (and about time!)
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
pounder wrote:
Anyone ready for an all-sports merger?

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports ... paign=Feed

Me neither... but something tells me there's a detail or two missing here.


Again, C-USA doesn't go on the offensive. They should be killing the Big East but instead they are acting like they've lost members that STILL haven't left (and may not leave at all now). Merging with an MWC without Boise is not a very good idea. C-USA will be far superior to the MWC. Just grab New Mexico and maybe UNLV if you really want their basketball. Why do they want to bring in the likes of Wyoming?


You're kind of not paying attention.

They're gone. They're just waiting for Boise's other sports to find a resting place. By inference, this means San Diego State has to make their arrangements, too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:26 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:52 pm
Posts: 473
pounder wrote:
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
pounder wrote:
Anyone ready for an all-sports merger?

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports ... paign=Feed

Me neither... but something tells me there's a detail or two missing here.


Again, C-USA doesn't go on the offensive. They should be killing the Big East but instead they are acting like they've lost members that STILL haven't left (and may not leave at all now). Merging with an MWC without Boise is not a very good idea. C-USA will be far superior to the MWC. Just grab New Mexico and maybe UNLV if you really want their basketball. Why do they want to bring in the likes of Wyoming?


You're kind of not paying attention.

They're gone. They're just waiting for Boise's other sports to find a resting place. By inference, this means San Diego State has to make their arrangements, too.


First of all as the article freaked posted today, things have stalled. Louisville is claiming they're headed to the Big 12 (also posted by freaked a couple days ago). They've been saying it's a done deal for weeks, maybe months now. So what's the hold up?

But regardless of that it still doesn't change what C-USA should do. As Quinn and I have both been saying for months now, C-USA should have offered football only membership to the Big East football schools. But that battle has long passed. I'll say it again, what does a MWC post Boise and SDSU offer? The football isn't going to be very good post Boise and TCU. SDSU is one of their best basketball programs so that basically leaves New Mexico and UNLV in basketball. New Mexico would fit well in C-USA and it would probably be pretty easy to bring them in.

I'll ask again, why bring in the likes of Wyoming and Colorado State when you can probably get at least New Mexico anyway? C-USA even without Houston, SMU, and UCF is still pretty good whereas the MWC without Boise, AFA, and SDSU is terrible.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 9:20 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 2:27 am
Posts: 478
Location: Jacksonville, FL
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
pounder wrote:
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
pounder wrote:
Anyone ready for an all-sports merger?

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports ... paign=Feed

Me neither... but something tells me there's a detail or two missing here.


Again, C-USA doesn't go on the offensive. They should be killing the Big East but instead they are acting like they've lost members that STILL haven't left (and may not leave at all now). Merging with an MWC without Boise is not a very good idea. C-USA will be far superior to the MWC. Just grab New Mexico and maybe UNLV if you really want their basketball. Why do they want to bring in the likes of Wyoming?


You're kind of not paying attention.

They're gone. They're just waiting for Boise's other sports to find a resting place. By inference, this means San Diego State has to make their arrangements, too.


First of all as the article freaked posted today, things have stalled. Louisville is claiming they're headed to the Big 12 (also posted by freaked a couple days ago). They've been saying it's a done deal for weeks, maybe months now. So what's the hold up?

But regardless of that it still doesn't change what C-USA should do. As Quinn and I have both been saying for months now, C-USA should have offered football only membership to the Big East football schools. But that battle has long passed. I'll say it again, what does a MWC post Boise and SDSU offer? The football isn't going to be very good post Boise and TCU. SDSU is one of their best basketball programs so that basically leaves New Mexico and UNLV in basketball. New Mexico would fit well in C-USA and it would probably be pretty easy to bring them in.

I'll ask again, why bring in the likes of Wyoming and Colorado State when you can probably get at least New Mexico anyway? C-USA even without Houston, SMU, and UCF is still pretty good whereas the MWC without Boise, AFA, and SDSU is terrible.


If C-USA does lose Houston, SMU, and UCF (very likely), Wyoming, Colorado State, and New Mexico would be good fits in the C-USA West, with Tulane moving to the East. If Air Force stays, they would also be a good fit for the west, to get to 14, C-USA could add Temple, Louisiana Tech, North Texas or even Appalachian State (upgrade).

I do not see how UNLV, Nevada, Fresno will help C-USA in all sports, due to small budgets and increased travel cost. Hopefully, Louisville and another Big East school (Cincy) get invited to the Big 12 and
the MWC and C-USA doesn't leave.

Possible C-USA

EAST- UAB, ECU, Memphis, Marshall, Southern Miss, Tulane (Temple, Appalachian State or Louisiana Tech)
WEST- Rice, UTEP, Tulsa, New Mexico, Colorado State, Wyoming (Air Force, North Texas)

Travel Partners-
EAST- UAB, Memphis-- Southern Miss, Tulane--Marshall, Temple--ECU, Appachian State
WEST- UTEP,New Mexico-- Rice, North Texas, Tulsa-- Wyoming, Colorado State, Air Force,


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 10:36 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2753
Location: Reedley, CA
Who thinks the BCS will get rid of the AQ? I do. why because that's what the big boys want. So explain why BSU, SDSU, AFA joining a non AQ for fb only on the other end of america and downgrading to the BW or BSky is worth it? If UConn/Rutgers think they are going to the ACC and the ACC has hinted at 16, plus Louisville thinks they're going to the B12 more reason for all schools to wait it out. Sounds to me like the Bballers should add Xavier, Dayton, St.Louis and forget fb. Sounds to me like they might as well press on w/ a merger or just stay 2 separate conferences since no one else would be going to a big boy conference for a while and a merger won't stop the B12 adding Cincy or BYU or Houston later.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 884 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 ... 59  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