FSA, I dont' see it happening. Boise St. would always have the Summit as an option, perhaps with Denver, if the Big West rejected them again and the Big Sky refused to budge on letting a non-football school in.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


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.

What does BSU add to the Summit other than a long road trip? If the Summit loses 2 or 3 schools to the HL and they are desperate I could see it.

_________________

WRANGLERS 153-55-1 CVFL CHAMPS '04 '05 '09 '12

NFL CHAMPS '29 '30 '31 '36 '39 '44 '61 '62 '65 '66 '67 '96 '10

BW/WAC/MWC CHAMPS '77 '82 '85 '88 '89 '91 '92 '93 '99 '12
['08 NCAA BASEBALL CHAMPS]

Brand would be the top gain. Boise St. will become even bigger with all the new east coast TVs they will be getting. Some of that will trickle down a bit to hoops, a very small amount for sure.

But as you said, if the Horizon took 3 schools from them (wouldn't 1 school to replace Butler seem more likely though?), then all of a sudden, the Summit might have to look west again with schools like Denver, Boise St., Utah Valley and maybe even Seattle. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


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.

Brett McMurphy blog article "suggesting" that the MWC will add SJSU and USU and stay at 10 until after the BE tv deals are negotiated in an attempt to keep spots open for BSU and SDSU.Link at http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... st-in-2013

So what happens after until? We and Texas St. and Idaho or NMSU?

I'd rather have Montana over the WAC schools

_________________

WRANGLERS 153-55-1 CVFL CHAMPS '04 '05 '09 '12

NFL CHAMPS '29 '30 '31 '36 '39 '44 '61 '62 '65 '66 '67 '96 '10

BW/WAC/MWC CHAMPS '77 '82 '85 '88 '89 '91 '92 '93 '99 '12
['08 NCAA BASEBALL CHAMPS]

Now that we are assured the AQ has been removed from the Big East, Boise State and SDSU should at minimum study the pros and cons to reconsider remaining in the MWC. Especially since there would be the benefits and security of an all sports league.

The Big East contract may initially have the ability to generate more dollars compared to a rebuilt MWC, however, which group of schools have the best shot at making or helping Boise State SOS reach one of the future final four BCS bids.

Creating the best possible situation to reach one of these BCS final four bids will most likely become a future payday bonanza and offset most regular season TV contract since the new Big East or MWC will most likely not be anywhere close to the other five power leagues in revenue.

Judging from the past BCS history and rankings, Boise State probably has the best chance to someday play in the final four version of college football. Here are the two 12 team options which could help Boise State SOS to possibly reach one of the final four BCS bids.

MWC East: Boise State, Utah State, Wyoming, Air Force, Colorado State, New Mexico
MWC West: Fresno State, SDSU, SJSU, Nevada, UNLV, Nevada

BE East: UConn, Rutgers, Temple, Navy, UCF, USF
BE West: Boise State, SDSU, Cincinnati, Memphis, SMU, Houston

Basically how does the bottom of each group help or hurt Boise’s future changes of playing in one of the lucrative college football final four games.

Both groups look very weak in college football with MWC format containing potential bottom dwellers such as SJSU and BE having bottom dwellers such as Memphis. Playing in a conference with either of these schools is not going to help anyone schools changes of reaching a final four BCS football game.

I almost thinking Louisville is the key here by remaining the Big East may help to offset which group of schools has the better potential to become a better football league.

Boise State and SDSU would be wise to insist on having some guaranteed figures of what the Big East may potential make in the new contract before passing up any changes of building the MWC back to a respectful all sports league while there is still time to do so.

Otherwise, long term what can Boise State and SDSU expect to gain with all the issues having football in one league and other varsity sports in other leagues if there is not huge gains to be had in ability to generate revenue.

I know I know we are all waiting to see how good this new contract is going to be for the coast to coast Big East. Problem is for Boise State and SDSU to now wait and become disappointed when they could helped to build a more suitable all sports league in their own geographical region.

BSU and SDSU:

Pros: lots of TV money in the Big East

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


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.

I guess the question is "Why ?"

Why is a TV network willing to pay big bucks for BE football ?

Note that Football-only members Boise State and SDSU would seem to only merit a share of the BE's Football TV contract.

If you are a TV network exec., you must be cognizant that you can no longer play up the conference champion automatically qualifying for the BCS.
Let me qualify that - I suspect the BE champion will go to one of the 6 New Year's Day games, but hardly to one of the 2 NCS Semi-Final games.
So the BE Football conference will be "just another FBS conference in the future".

The level of competition is rather "mid-major".
Former CUSA: Cincy, Louisville, Memphis, UCF, USC, SMU, Houston
Former MWC: Boise St., SDSU
Fermer FBS independent: Rutgers, Temple, Navy
Former 1-AA: UConn.

How does this merit the big TV dollars ? This group pales in comparison to the upper half of ACC, SEC, B1G, Big XII, and PAC12.

Once Boise St. and SDSU are presented with the numbers, MWC and CUSA need to produce the numbers for
the new CUSA + MWC (based on Boise St. and SDSU remaining in the MWC).
Will they be that dramatically different ? Will Boise and SDSU pack their sttadiums to see Temple, Memphis, CIncy ??
Perhps, but there's no rivalry there.....

I don't get it. Summit won't get anymore games on TV w/ BSU. So because Duke is a brand name in basketball that somehow translates to fb?
How about Nebraska basketball? I don't see how 1 relates to another especially when fb and bball are in 2 different conferences.

_________________

WRANGLERS 153-55-1 CVFL CHAMPS '04 '05 '09 '12

NFL CHAMPS '29 '30 '31 '36 '39 '44 '61 '62 '65 '66 '67 '96 '10

BW/WAC/MWC CHAMPS '77 '82 '85 '88 '89 '91 '92 '93 '99 '12
['08 NCAA BASEBALL CHAMPS]

Tute79, Agreed!

I may be wrong, however, just do not see the Big East getting more than 5 million dollars per school on football shares per year based on the comments from Memphis AD on potential revenue per school the Big East may get in the new TV contract.

The Big East has always been the only BCS league to generate more revenue from basketball compared with football. It just the opposite situation in the other five BCS leagues where football generates far more revenue.

I do not see how adding SMU, Houston, Temple, UCF, and Memphis have created any more interest to TV viewers for Big East football. I tend to think the Big East as usual is using basketball to help assist with football revenue in the latest negotiations.

Less say the Big East football contract comes in at around 5 million per school based on an estimated 11 million per all sports school share. If you factor in travel for Boise State and SDSU football, there is going to be more cost associated with travel to the east coast compared to travel around the west.

If you bundle basketball and football into a modified MWC TV contract of 12 schools, the MWC may come close to what any school could get by joining another league as football only member. The MWC has to be undervalued the same as any other league in today’s modified TV figures.

I would not rule out ESPN paying the MWC for a new contract to sabotage the Big East plans especially if the Big East is not willing to go with ESPN and jumps to NBC.

If Boise State and SDSU make the same revenue in an sports conference compared to the issues of hybrid of having football in one league and all other sports in another, they would be foolish to go with the Big East.

Both of these schools need to talk with formal Big East schools on issues of having sports in multiple leagues and see how they like it and what kind of problems occurred with this type of conference alignments.

Again if I were Boise State and SDSU, would do my home work before jumping into a league that no longer has the original benefit and security of AQ BCS status.

It still comes down to money. I would love to see SDSU and BSU back in the MWC. But even without the BE AQ, there is still a lot of money to be made. The Big East essentially went out and took the top market schools (and some of the better performers) from CUSA. Just in time for their TV negotiations. They now get to show the networks that they have the Big East brand in NY/NJ, Philly, DC, Orlando, Tampa, Memphis, Houston, Dallas, Cincinnati, Louisville, Hartford. Throw in state penetration like UConn does (beyond Hartford). A national brand like Boise St. is a huge help and SDSU will give the conference a west coast presence they have never had.

The Big East TV contract is expected to be anywhere between 5 and 10 times the MWC, with or without the CUSA alliance. So even without the AQ, it still might be a ton of money that SDSU and BSU would have to leave behind.



FSA, with your Duke comparison. Yes, it would under a balanced comparison. If Duke was available for FB only, the Sun Belt, another FBs conference would likely take them for FB only for the brand alone. As for the Summit, if they need members...their numbers are a bit low, and if Denver made the move, wouldn't you think adding a known D1 school like Boise St. would be more valuable than a D2 upgrade? If you get to chose from a known D1 school with lots of national attention for it's FBS football program, or a D2 upgrade, I think you go for the brand you know. We have precedent: Notre Dame joined the Big East, a conference that's footprint extended only from Boston to Washington DC. It's not like South Bend was a close bus trip away, something the Big East was at the time (a bus league). But the Notre Dame brand, without football, was welcomed. Boise St. might not offer as much as Notre Dame...but Notre Dame was joining the best basketball league. The Summit is a lower level D1 basketball conference...lower than the WAC that Boise St. represented in the NCAA tourney just a couple years ago. My point is just that Boise St. will have options. They can try the Big Sky, willing to accept lower revenue for basketball if the BS changes their membership rules to permit them. They can try th Big West again with the same offer. And then there is the Summit...where even if they aren't welcomed as equal members, they can still offer a lower revenue split in return for a conference home.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


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.

Your theory about BSU has already been shot down by the BW. If they are such a name brand, BW would have taken them. You can't compare BSU to ND. I'm not saying that Summit won't I'm saying their chances increase w/ each lost member to the HL.

_________________

WRANGLERS 153-55-1 CVFL CHAMPS '04 '05 '09 '12

NFL CHAMPS '29 '30 '31 '36 '39 '44 '61 '62 '65 '66 '67 '96 '10

BW/WAC/MWC CHAMPS '77 '82 '85 '88 '89 '91 '92 '93 '99 '12
['08 NCAA BASEBALL CHAMPS]

The Big Sky, Great West, and Summit seem like the best fits for Boise's other sports.

In line with the conversation, how marketable (desirable) would the Big East be to teams like Boise and SDSU be to if Louisville and Cincinnati were to be annexed by the Big 12?

There were no negotiations between the Big West and Boise St. BSU asked to join, Big West said no and joined what appeared to be a stable enough WAC. Now if Boise St. negotiates with the Big West, the Big West could change their stance. If Boise St. asks for BW membership and is willing to accept only 90% of a full revenue share, who is to say the Big West would reject them. what about 80%? What about 70%. Point is, there have been no negotiations at that level because BSU had a backup plan, the WAC, and it wasn't a bad one at the time. Now that BSU has no leverage, they'd have to give more in order to get what they want.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


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.

What about them putting their non-FB sports in the MWC ? That + Hawaii FB = one all-sports member.