Mountain West General Realignment Thread

Fresno St. Alum · **Joined:** Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm **Posts:** 2803

tkalmus wrote:

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

Put me down as this, I don't think I've posted different since BSU came back.

nBE keeps SMU, Houston, adds Tulsa, (If Navy bails they pick 1 of UMass, S.Miss)
MWC adds SDSU (in a year if the added inventory of UTEP and UTSA is good enough to expand they'll add them)
BYU Indy
CUSA adds Arkansas St.
SBC adds App St., Georgia So. and 1 of NMSU(would only be added if the shame of adding yet another FCS school is too much :lol:

, Even though any FCS school looking at FBS could beat them ), Lamar, SHSU

nBE thinking they'll lose UH but keep SMU, adds Tulsa, Rice, and SoMiss for a 12 team league with pretty obvious E/W setup (no Navy)
MWC adds SDSU and picks up UH w/ UTEP holds at 14 always leaving a spot open for BYU
BYU stays indy for now...if the MWC gives them a ACC/ND deal then they will forever, if not...
CUSA adds Western Kentucky (if just 1) and then Ark St
SBC - (same thoughts) possibly Liberty too and Idaho as a fb only

Noted. Quinn, post your breakdown of what is going to happen.

westwolf · **Posted:** Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:21 pm

SDS staying looking more likely (posted elsewhere):

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jeremy-fowler/21516255/mountain-west-san-diego-state-talks-heating-up

TKthunder · **Joined:** Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm **Posts:** 1526

MWC in talks with Tulsa (most likely an option to partner w/ Houston) and not in talks with UTSA

http://www.mwcconnection.com/2013/1/8/3 ... an-antonio

Still think UTEP and Houston are the best pairings (sans SMU) but I'm sure the MWC is just looking at all of their options.

fighting muskie · **Posted:** Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:45 pm

I bet the reason they are talking to Tulsa is because the MWC is trying to thwart SMU's plans of staying in the Big East and have Tulsa as a travel partner. If Tulsa goes west instead of east SMU could find themselves in the BE without an attractive travel partner.

If the MWC was serious about forcing SMU's hand they would circulate the rumor that they want 4 Texlahoma schools and are looking at Houston, UTSA, Tulsa, and UTEP since SMU isn't interested. Faced with being the only Texas school in the Big East SMU would probably change their tune and the MWC could then just swap out UTEP or UTSA when SMU comes groveling. They could even bluff and wait for SMU to come to them and then vote on SMU/Houston and then not vote on the others and hold at 14.

Quinn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am **Posts:** 3814

fighting muskie wrote:

I bet the reason they are talking to Tulsa is because the MWC is trying to thwart SMU's plans of staying in the Big East and have Tulsa as a travel partner. If Tulsa goes west instead of east SMU could find themselves in the BE without an attractive travel partner.

If the MWC was serious about forcing SMU's hand they would circulate the rumor that they want 4 Texlahoma schools and are looking at Houston, UTSA, Tulsa, and UTEP since SMU isn't interested. Faced with being the only Texas school in the Big East SMU would probably change their tune and the MWC could then just swap out UTEP or UTSA when SMU comes groveling. They could even bluff and wait for SMU to come to them and then vote on SMU/Houston and then not vote on the others and hold at 14.

Would make sense. But Aresco has been public, despite all the departures, in saying that the Texas schools are committed and not going to the MWC. His comments cover both Houston and SMU.

TKthunder · **Joined:** Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm **Posts:** 1526

Quinn wrote:

fighting muskie wrote:

I bet the reason they are talking to Tulsa is because the MWC is trying to thwart SMU's plans of staying in the Big East and have Tulsa as a travel partner. If Tulsa goes west instead of east SMU could find themselves in the BE without an attractive travel partner.

If the MWC was serious about forcing SMU's hand they would circulate the rumor that they want 4 Texlahoma schools and are looking at Houston, UTSA, Tulsa, and UTEP since SMU isn't interested. Faced with being the only Texas school in the Big East SMU would probably change their tune and the MWC could then just swap out UTEP or UTSA when SMU comes groveling. They could even bluff and wait for SMU to come to them and then vote on SMU/Houston and then not vote on the others and hold at 14.

Would make sense. But Aresco has been public, despite all the departures, in saying that the Texas schools are committed and not going to the MWC. His comments cover both Houston and SMU.

If I was him I'd say that too, but the truth is that Houston released a statement saying this...

“We are undoubtedly disappointed in the latest conference realignment shuffle. As stated throughout these developments, we will continue to concentrate on the best interests of the University of Houston and its athletics department and focus on the issues we can control."
http://blog.chron.com/cougars/2012/12/h ... shuffling/

That would have been a perfect time to say, "We are committed to the Big East" but they decided not to do that.

Not saying its a slam dunk that they are going to the MWC, but I think it is a possibility. Right now they are torn between ditching SMU/Tulane/Memphis who they know yet basically being in the same conference with a new name or gamble on going West into the great unknown and dealing with increased travel but hopefully turning out like TCU in a few years.

fighting muskie · **Posted:** Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:07 pm

tkalmus wrote:

Quinn wrote:

fighting muskie wrote:

I bet the reason they are talking to Tulsa is because the MWC is trying to thwart SMU's plans of staying in the Big East and have Tulsa as a travel partner. If Tulsa goes west instead of east SMU could find themselves in the BE without an attractive travel partner.

If the MWC was serious about forcing SMU's hand they would circulate the rumor that they want 4 Texlahoma schools and are looking at Houston, UTSA, Tulsa, and UTEP since SMU isn't interested. Faced with being the only Texas school in the Big East SMU would probably change their tune and the MWC could then just swap out UTEP or UTSA when SMU comes groveling. They could even bluff and wait for SMU to come to them and then vote on SMU/Houston and then not vote on the others and hold at 14.

Would make sense. But Aresco has been public, despite all the departures, in saying that the Texas schools are committed and not going to the MWC. His comments cover both Houston and SMU.

If I was him I'd say that too, but the truth is that Houston released a statement saying this...

“We are undoubtedly disappointed in the latest conference realignment shuffle. As stated throughout these developments, we will continue to concentrate on the best interests of the University of Houston and its athletics department and focus on the issues we can control."
http://blog.chron.com/cougars/2012/12/h ... shuffling/

That would have been a perfect time to say, "We are committed to the Big East" but they decided not to do that.

Not saying its a slam dunk that they are going to the MWC, but I think it is a possibility. Right now they are torn between ditching SMU/Tulane/Memphis who they know yet basically being in the same conference with a new name or gamble on going West into the great unknown and dealing with increased travel but hopefully turning out like TCU in a few years.

Houston was definitely trying to leave their options open with that comment so they wouldn't have to eat their words later. My guess is that it was their preference to go as a pair with SMU to the MWC but SMU has other ideas. They want to be in the BE with their private school buddies Tulsa and Tulane. The MWC's discussions with other schools like Tulsa make me think that A) they really want Houston and are looking at Texlahoma options to pair with Houston. or B ) they are trying to undermine SMU's BE plans by courting other schools.

That leaves me wondering if the MWC would consider adding a filler like UTEP as Houston's pair if they can't get SMU or if they will just hold at 12. I'm thinking they hold at 12.

Quinn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am **Posts:** 3814

fighting muskie wrote:

tkalmus wrote:

Quinn wrote:

fighting muskie wrote:

I bet the reason they are talking to Tulsa is because the MWC is trying to thwart SMU's plans of staying in the Big East and have Tulsa as a travel partner. If Tulsa goes west instead of east SMU could find themselves in the BE without an attractive travel partner.

If the MWC was serious about forcing SMU's hand they would circulate the rumor that they want 4 Texlahoma schools and are looking at Houston, UTSA, Tulsa, and UTEP since SMU isn't interested. Faced with being the only Texas school in the Big East SMU would probably change their tune and the MWC could then just swap out UTEP or UTSA when SMU comes groveling. They could even bluff and wait for SMU to come to them and then vote on SMU/Houston and then not vote on the others and hold at 14.

Would make sense. But Aresco has been public, despite all the departures, in saying that the Texas schools are committed and not going to the MWC. His comments cover both Houston and SMU.

If I was him I'd say that too, but the truth is that Houston released a statement saying this...

“We are undoubtedly disappointed in the latest conference realignment shuffle. As stated throughout these developments, we will continue to concentrate on the best interests of the University of Houston and its athletics department and focus on the issues we can control."
http://blog.chron.com/cougars/2012/12/h ... shuffling/

That would have been a perfect time to say, "We are committed to the Big East" but they decided not to do that.

Not saying its a slam dunk that they are going to the MWC, but I think it is a possibility. Right now they are torn between ditching SMU/Tulane/Memphis who they know yet basically being in the same conference with a new name or gamble on going West into the great unknown and dealing with increased travel but hopefully turning out like TCU in a few years.

Houston was definitely trying to leave their options open with that comment so they wouldn't have to eat their words later. My guess is that it was their preference to go as a pair with SMU to the MWC but SMU has other ideas. They want to be in the BE with their private school buddies Tulsa and Tulane. The MWC's discussions with other schools like Tulsa make me think that A) they really want Houston and are looking at Texlahoma options to pair with Houston. or B ) they are trying to undermine SMU's BE plans by courting other schools.

That leaves me wondering if the MWC would consider adding a filler like UTEP as Houston's pair if they can't get SMU or if they will just hold at 12. I'm thinking they hold at 12.

Certainly, if the MWC wanted Houston and SMU, expanding to 16 (SDSU plus 4) with 4 Texas/Oklahoma schools would be a way to close the deal. Is the TV money there to justify adding 5 schools though? Might not be.

fighting muskie · **Posted:** Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:03 pm

Quinn wrote:

fighting muskie wrote:

tkalmus wrote:

Quinn wrote:

fighting muskie wrote:

I bet the reason they are talking to Tulsa is because the MWC is trying to thwart SMU's plans of staying in the Big East and have Tulsa as a travel partner. If Tulsa goes west instead of east SMU could find themselves in the BE without an attractive travel partner.

If the MWC was serious about forcing SMU's hand they would circulate the rumor that they want 4 Texlahoma schools and are looking at Houston, UTSA, Tulsa, and UTEP since SMU isn't interested. Faced with being the only Texas school in the Big East SMU would probably change their tune and the MWC could then just swap out UTEP or UTSA when SMU comes groveling. They could even bluff and wait for SMU to come to them and then vote on SMU/Houston and then not vote on the others and hold at 14.

Would make sense. But Aresco has been public, despite all the departures, in saying that the Texas schools are committed and not going to the MWC. His comments cover both Houston and SMU.

If I was him I'd say that too, but the truth is that Houston released a statement saying this...

“We are undoubtedly disappointed in the latest conference realignment shuffle. As stated throughout these developments, we will continue to concentrate on the best interests of the University of Houston and its athletics department and focus on the issues we can control."
http://blog.chron.com/cougars/2012/12/h ... shuffling/

That would have been a perfect time to say, "We are committed to the Big East" but they decided not to do that.

Not saying its a slam dunk that they are going to the MWC, but I think it is a possibility. Right now they are torn between ditching SMU/Tulane/Memphis who they know yet basically being in the same conference with a new name or gamble on going West into the great unknown and dealing with increased travel but hopefully turning out like TCU in a few years.

Houston was definitely trying to leave their options open with that comment so they wouldn't have to eat their words later. My guess is that it was their preference to go as a pair with SMU to the MWC but SMU has other ideas. They want to be in the BE with their private school buddies Tulsa and Tulane. The MWC's discussions with other schools like Tulsa make me think that A) they really want Houston and are looking at Texlahoma options to pair with Houston. or B ) they are trying to undermine SMU's BE plans by courting other schools.

That leaves me wondering if the MWC would consider adding a filler like UTEP as Houston's pair if they can't get SMU or if they will just hold at 12. I'm thinking they hold at 12.

Certainly, if the MWC wanted Houston and SMU, expanding to 16 (SDSU plus 4) with 4 Texas/Oklahoma schools would be a way to close the deal. Is the TV money there to justify adding 5 schools though? Might not be.

I posed the 16 team suggestion awhile back. In the long run it could prove very profitable--the Big East would be deprived of a lot of members--Boise St, San Diego St, Houston, SMU, and Tulsa (not in the BE yet but probably on their way). This would leave the BE very weak and with Strength of Schedule factored in, it would be unlikely that the BE could produce a champion ranked higher than the MWC's making the MWC the de facto 6th best conference and a playoff berth lock every year.

freaked4collegefb · **Joined:** Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm **Posts:** 7501

Couple of articles(ESPN and USAToday) with comments from MWC Commish regarding league realignment situation at http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story ... on-shortly
and at http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc ... te/1818981

NorwichCat11 · **Joined:** Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:56 pm **Posts:** 150

I have enjoyed reading these post's - being a newbie here. I have to agree that a 16 team model works here in jumping into Texas. This seems to be the most sound move to me. I am wondering if Houston[b] would be willing to partner with [b]U. Texas - E.P.[b] for a trip out west? If so, who would be the other two schools to come along? I am trying to keep in mind that [b]SMU[b] and [b]Tulsa[b] want to probably go play in the Big East with [b]Tulane[b]. The next schools in the area would be - [b]Rice, Texas State, U. Texas - S.A., U. North Texas[b]. Which of these schools might be the best fit? I am also bearing in mind that [b]Texas State[b] beat [b]Houston[b] in their opening game of the 2012 season. Does this make [b]Texas State[b] more or less a partner to be number 15 or 16?[/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b]

TKthunder · **Joined:** Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm **Posts:** 1526

NorwichCat11 wrote:

I have enjoyed reading these post's - being a newbie here. I have to agree that a 16 team model works here in jumping into Texas. This seems to be the most sound move to me. I am wondering if Houston[b] would be willing to partner with [b]U. Texas - E.P.[b] for a trip out west? If so, who would be the other two schools to come along? I am trying to keep in mind that [b]SMU[b] and [b]Tulsa[b] want to probably go play in the Big East with [b]Tulane[b]. The next schools in the area would be - [b]Rice, Texas State, U. Texas - S.A., U. North Texas[b]. Which of these schools might be the best fit? I am also bearing in mind that [b]Texas State[b] beat [b]Houston[b] in their opening game of the 2012 season. Does this make [b]Texas State[b] more or less a partner to be number 15 or 16?[/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b][/b]

Welcome to the board, quick tip, write everything you're saying then highlight what you want bolded and click the BOLD button, that'll save you from all those ["b"]s. (if you're manually doing it put the ["/b"] at the end.)

IF we are talking 16 team MWC w/o the private schools like Tulsa/SMU I think Rice is also out, the nBE will want them to fill Houston's void so I think you're looking at UTEP, UTSA, North Texas, Texas St, and NMSU (not Texas but another option)

Immediately I think you pick UTEP over NMSU, and UTSA over Texas St. Those markets/demos are just too close together but they'd probably get a CUSA invite out of it so don't get bad for them.

So Houston is obvious #13 and I think UTEP is #14 when you take into account that they are in the Mountain Time Zone, with El Paso they'd help dominate Far West Texas/New Mexico with UNM, own the Sun Bowl Stadium, and have had great fan attendence for years. You can make an argument that UTSA is better already with record year 1 attendence, playing in the Alamo Dome, and big demo/market. Still I have a hard time thinking that UTSA/UNT or UTEP/UNT would be valued enough to warrent an invite as 15/16. Plus it makes it harder for BYU to ever come back...I know its a longshot but still.

I think 14 would be a solid number for the MWC who you could split into the Mountain division with UtahSt/WYO/CSU/AFA/UNM/UTEP/Houston and the West division Hawaii/SDSU/Fresno/SJSU/UNLV/Nevada/Boise

And while yes at 16 you can slide over Utah St and add 2 Texas schools I don't think its worth it at this time. When the TV contract is up and BYU has said no for 5 years then I'd think it might be time to expand again and one of the Montanas or UC Davis/CalPoly might want to come on board then.

playa4life · **Joined:** Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:53 pm **Posts:** 368

A thought experiment. Do a side by side comparison between MWC and BE. Look at the markets.New Orleans, Orlando, Tampa, Dallas, etc vs MWC. I would give that advantage to BE.

Quinn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am **Posts:** 3814

playa4life wrote:

A thought experiment. Do a side by side comparison between MWC and BE. Look at the markets.New Orleans, Orlando, Tampa, Dallas, etc vs MWC. I would give that advantage to BE.

Good point. That's why I would think that the nBE and MWC would be similar. But with Boise St. in the MWC, and the new bonus structure for the MWC TV deal, that MWC membership will be better for the top MWC schools than say the nBE contract will be for the top nBE teams. On average, the nBE might even get something better...but the top MWC schools will get a good amount.

I'm actually a fan of the system the MWC is setting up.

I really like that it is a bit more capitalist in that as a program, you can earn more money for things like cache which you get from winning games, rather than just getting a "bonus" via a bowl payout.

Fresno St. Alum · **Joined:** Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm **Posts:** 2803

Quinn wrote:

playa4life wrote:

A thought experiment. Do a side by side comparison between MWC and BE. Look at the markets.New Orleans, Orlando, Tampa, Dallas, etc vs MWC. I would give that advantage to BE.

Good point. That's why I would think that the nBE and MWC would be similar. But with Boise St. in the MWC, and the new bonus structure for the MWC TV deal, that MWC membership will be better for the top MWC schools than say the nBE contract will be for the top nBE teams. On average, the nBE might even get something better...but the top MWC schools will get a good amount.

I'm actually a fan of the system the MWC is setting up.

I really like that it is a bit more capitalist in that as a program, you can earn more money for things like cache which you get from winning games, rather than just getting a "bonus" via a bowl payout.

All this market sh*t has made people blind to what matters. How's the SEC's markets compared to the ACC? who gives a sh*t the SEC is better. I don't care if the MWC makes less and has smaller markets than the nBE we have BSU, Fresno, SDSU(probably), Nevada that makes us better, we have a better basketball conf too. We don't have to worry about the ACC backfilling w/ UConn and Cincy. I live in CA we have tons of markets. All those Orlando, Tampa, New Orleans, Dallas markets aren't owned by any nBE schools they're owned by Florida St., Florida, LSU, Texas, A&M. For us SJSU, SDSU, and Colorado St. are the ones that don't own their market. The rest of us do. Hawaii, BSU, UNM, Wyoming carry most of their state. UNLV/Nevada split it. AFA national. Fresno owns the San Joaquin Valley (3.9 million people)

If you want to live under the dilution that the nBE is still the better conference like the csn guys then use CUSA, still better markets than MWC, they still don't own them and the schools still want out. UTEP wants MWC, Tulsa will take whoever offers but would prefer to be w/ SMU and Tulane.

Mountain West General Realignment Thread

Who is online