Mountain West General Realignment Thread

Quinn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am **Posts:** 3784

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

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.

It's relative, you know that.

The SEC, even Pac-12, Big Ten and many in the Big 12 fall into something different: they are statewide and national programs. That status outweighs market and market penetration any day. It's why Penn St. in a small town in PA is a national product. It's why Nebraska in Lincoln is a national product. Alabama falls in there too. Then you have the national/state level schools in the SEC...some are national, all are dominant in the state.

Where markets really come into play is a tier down in conferences like the nBE. If you have a Cincinnati, that's great...it gives you the Cincinnati market and a brand people know of outside of Cincy. But it doesn't give you all of Ohio at a level like Ohio St. does. In Michigan, you have the same issue a tier down with EMU, WMU, etc. In the Bay Area, you have Stanford and Cal at the top, with SJSU representing. But Stanford and Cal are more national brands that do bette rin their market than SJSU does, also in the market. But for the MWC, SJSU was a great media addition since it opened up that market to the conference.

We can all have our opinions about the role markets play. They definitely are most important for conferences with their own networks...or plans for their own networks since it means getting those subscriber fees (Big Ten adding Rutgers, Maryland...Nebraska falls into the "national" fold). For the SEC, they made real good additions by adding access to Texas (Houston) and Missouri (St. Louis & KC) markets.

But in the nBE...they need everything they can get: good markets and good programs. Houston is a solid program...and it gives the conference access to the Houston market that they don't currently have. Same goes for SMU. For Memphis, them too, albeit more on the hoops side for now. Same for UCF (Orlando) and when USF (Tampa) was added. Not to say it was the right move since it might have added to the problems, but USF was a 5 year old football program (football, not just FBS) when the Big East added them for Tampa access. A number of much better programs were passed over by the Big East in favor of USF...UCF, Houston for example.

There is no argument: the MWC will be vastly superior to the nBE in the quality of the product. What is still up to be finalized will be the actual TV revenue. The MWC might end up with a better deal...and they deserve it. But even if the nBE gets a better overall TV deal, you have to like the MWC structure that rewards the top programs that get national TV games. Boise St. is a lock for that. Others like Fresno St. can achieve that too. Meanwhile, UNLV football can just be happy for their conference mates.

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Wed Jan 09, 2013 7:05 pm

Quinn wrote:

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

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.

It's relative, you know that.

The SEC, even Pac-12, Big Ten and many in the Big 12 fall into something different: they are statewide and national programs. That status outweighs market and market penetration any day. It's why Penn St. in a small town in PA is a national product. It's why Nebraska in Lincoln is a national product. Alabama falls in there too. Then you have the national/state level schools in the SEC...some are national, all are dominant in the state.

Where markets really come into play is a tier down in conferences like the nBE. If you have a Cincinnati, that's great...it gives you the Cincinnati market and a brand people know of outside of Cincy. But it doesn't give you all of Ohio at a level like Ohio St. does. In Michigan, you have the same issue a tier down with EMU, WMU, etc. In the Bay Area, you have Stanford and Cal at the top, with SJSU representing. But Stanford and Cal are more national brands that do bette rin their market than SJSU does, also in the market. But for the MWC, SJSU was a great media addition since it opened up that market to the conference.

We can all have our opinions about the role markets play. They definitely are most important for conferences with their own networks...or plans for their own networks since it means getting those subscriber fees (Big Ten adding Rutgers, Maryland...Nebraska falls into the "national" fold). For the SEC, they made real good additions by adding access to Texas (Houston) and Missouri (St. Louis & KC) markets.

But in the nBE...they need everything they can get: good markets and good programs. Houston is a solid program...and it gives the conference access to the Houston market that they don't currently have. Same goes for SMU. For Memphis, them too, albeit more on the hoops side for now. Same for UCF (Orlando) and when USF (Tampa) was added. Not to say it was the right move since it might have added to the problems, but USF was a 5 year old football program (football, not just FBS) when the Big East added them for Tampa access. A number of much better programs were passed over by the Big East in favor of USF...UCF, Houston for example.

There is no argument: the MWC will be vastly superior to the nBE in the quality of the product. What is still up to be finalized will be the actual TV revenue. The MWC might end up with a better deal...and they deserve it. But even if the nBE gets a better overall TV deal, you have to like the MWC structure that rewards the top programs that get national TV games. Boise St. is a lock for that. Others like Fresno St. can achieve that too. Meanwhile, UNLV football can just be happy for their conference mates.

My point is being good has been forgotten in realignment, other than BSU. We don't watch a school because they are in a big market if they're 2-10 and not the top school in the market.

I still say it's a mistake to add markets where the football is no good. Over a good school in a sucky market. Tulsa is better for the BE than Tulane, Mass, Memphis(fb wise), Charlotte(as of now we don't know how good or bad they'll be), Georgia St.

Boise has no market if we aren't allowed to count the whole state but they made themselves relevant and wanted by winning. Mass, Ga. St. and Charlotte should have to do the same before the BE looks at them. Tulane has sucked for 14 years in a row, and almost dropped to D-III, they don't deserve a spot. Does the nBE want to make that at large spot in the BCS? They won't get it w/ those adds. It weakens their brand.

W/ Rutgers you're still talking about money, money doesn't make you a winner. Yay the B1G will make 30 mill instead of 25. Rutgers isn't going to win the B1G title.

tkalmus · **Joined:** Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm **Posts:** 1197

I agree with both of you, for the nBE and MWC markets mean a lot but you still have to put a quality product on the field. That one reason the MWC "moved the needle" and CUSA didn't. We are about to get into the same argument but now its just between a more lean version of CUSA called the nBE. At the MAC, CUSA, Sun Belt level I think they just need good football/basketball schools regardless of their markets (like Ark St/Troy and upgrades like GA So/App St).

I think the nBE has enough markets (DFW, Houston, Memphis, NOLA, Tampa, Orlando, Cincy, Philly, and UConn) so now its time to add the eyeballs like the Big Ten did with Nebraska. East Carolina was that type of add and I think they need another.

Lucky for them Tulsa is a bit of both but its really the next add that can make or break the league. If its UMass/ODU/UNCC or any other market add then they are putting at least one of their Eastern members in the Western division w/ the TX/OK/LA and Memphis schools which is odd. They need to keep there divisions school/fan/travel/TV friendly and just bite the bullet and add another Southwestern school like So Miss.

The MWC has gotten a bit better despite losing BYU/Utah they got back into SLC with Utah St, and they added Boise to replace some of the eyeballs those schools brought plus Hawaii, Nevada, Fresno St are all great adds in both markets/eyeballs, only SJSU was added almost soley on market potential (though they had a good season this year). Losing TCU hurt and they are looking at getting back into take with Houston as a replacement but honestly the MWC has added plenty of quality depth and markets to the league to make its TV deal much MUCH better when they can redo it. Only BYU/Houston would improve the league for now, UTEP/UTSA/Tulsa would all just be filler for the most part.

Quinn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am **Posts:** 3784

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

Quinn wrote:

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

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.

It's relative, you know that.

The SEC, even Pac-12, Big Ten and many in the Big 12 fall into something different: they are statewide and national programs. That status outweighs market and market penetration any day. It's why Penn St. in a small town in PA is a national product. It's why Nebraska in Lincoln is a national product. Alabama falls in there too. Then you have the national/state level schools in the SEC...some are national, all are dominant in the state.

Where markets really come into play is a tier down in conferences like the nBE. If you have a Cincinnati, that's great...it gives you the Cincinnati market and a brand people know of outside of Cincy. But it doesn't give you all of Ohio at a level like Ohio St. does. In Michigan, you have the same issue a tier down with EMU, WMU, etc. In the Bay Area, you have Stanford and Cal at the top, with SJSU representing. But Stanford and Cal are more national brands that do bette rin their market than SJSU does, also in the market. But for the MWC, SJSU was a great media addition since it opened up that market to the conference.

We can all have our opinions about the role markets play. They definitely are most important for conferences with their own networks...or plans for their own networks since it means getting those subscriber fees (Big Ten adding Rutgers, Maryland...Nebraska falls into the "national" fold). For the SEC, they made real good additions by adding access to Texas (Houston) and Missouri (St. Louis & KC) markets.

But in the nBE...they need everything they can get: good markets and good programs. Houston is a solid program...and it gives the conference access to the Houston market that they don't currently have. Same goes for SMU. For Memphis, them too, albeit more on the hoops side for now. Same for UCF (Orlando) and when USF (Tampa) was added. Not to say it was the right move since it might have added to the problems, but USF was a 5 year old football program (football, not just FBS) when the Big East added them for Tampa access. A number of much better programs were passed over by the Big East in favor of USF...UCF, Houston for example.

There is no argument: the MWC will be vastly superior to the nBE in the quality of the product. What is still up to be finalized will be the actual TV revenue. The MWC might end up with a better deal...and they deserve it. But even if the nBE gets a better overall TV deal, you have to like the MWC structure that rewards the top programs that get national TV games. Boise St. is a lock for that. Others like Fresno St. can achieve that too. Meanwhile, UNLV football can just be happy for their conference mates.

My point is being good has been forgotten in realignment, other than BSU. We don't watch a school because they are in a big market if they're 2-10 and not the top school in the market.

I still say it's a mistake to add markets where the football is no good. Over a good school in a sucky market. Tulsa is better for the BE than Tulane, Mass, Memphis(fb wise), Charlotte(as of now we don't know how good or bad they'll be), Georgia St.

Boise has no market if we aren't allowed to count the whole state but they made themselves relevant and wanted by winning. Mass, Ga. St. and Charlotte should have to do the same before the BE looks at them. Tulane has sucked for 14 years in a row, and almost dropped to D-III, they don't deserve a spot. Does the nBE want to make that at large spot in the BCS? They won't get it w/ those adds. It weakens their brand.

W/ Rutgers you're still talking about money, money doesn't make you a winner. Yay the B1G will make 30 mill instead of 25. Rutgers isn't going to win the B1G title.

"Good" still IS important...but "good" in the sense of consistency. You mentioned Boise St...and rightly so, as they have consistently been good. TCU is in a similar situation. But after those, it's starts to be a drop down. An argument can be made for NIU who were in 5 straight bowls. But in general, after Boise St. and TCU, who is defined as "good" when "good" means you're consistently a good program?

fighting muskie · **Posted:** Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:30 pm

All the stuff that you guys have been saying is right. Right now the Big East and MWC have opposite problems.

The 2014 MWC has solid teams that would outperform the Big East if you matched them 1 vs 1, 2 vs 2, etc. When it comes to playoff/access bowl (or whatever were calling them) money the MWC probably has the edge. Where the MWC is hurting is television revenue and markets. While the MWC has more teams that truly "own" their markets their markets are smaller and less desirable to network executives despite the superior on field product. That's why the MWC really needs to get into Texas, specifically Houston and DFW--those markets would give the tv folks something to salivate over.

The 2014 Big East on the other hand has exceptional markets that trump the MWC's but those markets have come with a cost. The Big East football product has been watered down in order to get those markets--see Memphis and Tulane. Any further additions for the sake of markets without regard to onfield product (UMass, Georgia St, UNC Charlotte, gasp!) only exasperates this issue. Big East champions will struggle to make access bowls and playoff berths if they are carrying atrocious SOS and will routinely get passed up by more deserving MWC schools.

With that being said, the MWC "wins" if they can get those Texas markets even if the cost is admitting a couple companion schools to placate Houston/SMU. Even if they can lure away Houston w/o SMU I think its still a good move and then just choose a filler school like UTEP or UTSA. (I'm treating UTSA differently than other start ups because they are special case --big city, no nfl, football hungry market)

The Big East's win scenario is a bit more convoluted. They need to hold onto what they have first of all and that probably means keeping San Diego St and possibly stealing away a Fresno St. They also need to add for onfield value (which makes Tulsa a commodity) and resist the temptation to add markets with underachieving and unproven teams. Even if they achieve these goals they are still going to have to battle the MWC for playoff/access bowl access and hope their champ is ranked higher in more years than the MWC's and also hope that none of the conference's above them decide to raid others, creating a cascade that deprives them of UConn/Cincy/USF/whoever seems valuable at the time.

Quinn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am **Posts:** 3784

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

Quinn wrote:

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

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.

It's relative, you know that.

The SEC, even Pac-12, Big Ten and many in the Big 12 fall into something different: they are statewide and national programs. That status outweighs market and market penetration any day. It's why Penn St. in a small town in PA is a national product. It's why Nebraska in Lincoln is a national product. Alabama falls in there too. Then you have the national/state level schools in the SEC...some are national, all are dominant in the state.

Where markets really come into play is a tier down in conferences like the nBE. If you have a Cincinnati, that's great...it gives you the Cincinnati market and a brand people know of outside of Cincy. But it doesn't give you all of Ohio at a level like Ohio St. does. In Michigan, you have the same issue a tier down with EMU, WMU, etc. In the Bay Area, you have Stanford and Cal at the top, with SJSU representing. But Stanford and Cal are more national brands that do bette rin their market than SJSU does, also in the market. But for the MWC, SJSU was a great media addition since it opened up that market to the conference.

We can all have our opinions about the role markets play. They definitely are most important for conferences with their own networks...or plans for their own networks since it means getting those subscriber fees (Big Ten adding Rutgers, Maryland...Nebraska falls into the "national" fold). For the SEC, they made real good additions by adding access to Texas (Houston) and Missouri (St. Louis & KC) markets.

But in the nBE...they need everything they can get: good markets and good programs. Houston is a solid program...and it gives the conference access to the Houston market that they don't currently have. Same goes for SMU. For Memphis, them too, albeit more on the hoops side for now. Same for UCF (Orlando) and when USF (Tampa) was added. Not to say it was the right move since it might have added to the problems, but USF was a 5 year old football program (football, not just FBS) when the Big East added them for Tampa access. A number of much better programs were passed over by the Big East in favor of USF...UCF, Houston for example.

There is no argument: the MWC will be vastly superior to the nBE in the quality of the product. What is still up to be finalized will be the actual TV revenue. The MWC might end up with a better deal...and they deserve it. But even if the nBE gets a better overall TV deal, you have to like the MWC structure that rewards the top programs that get national TV games. Boise St. is a lock for that. Others like Fresno St. can achieve that too. Meanwhile, UNLV football can just be happy for their conference mates.

My point is being good has been forgotten in realignment, other than BSU. We don't watch a school because they are in a big market if they're 2-10 and not the top school in the market.

I still say it's a mistake to add markets where the football is no good. Over a good school in a sucky market. Tulsa is better for the BE than Tulane, Mass, Memphis(fb wise), Charlotte(as of now we don't know how good or bad they'll be), Georgia St.

Boise has no market if we aren't allowed to count the whole state but they made themselves relevant and wanted by winning. Mass, Ga. St. and Charlotte should have to do the same before the BE looks at them. Tulane has sucked for 14 years in a row, and almost dropped to D-III, they don't deserve a spot. Does the nBE want to make that at large spot in the BCS? They won't get it w/ those adds. It weakens their brand.

W/ Rutgers you're still talking about money, money doesn't make you a winner. Yay the B1G will make 30 mill instead of 25. Rutgers isn't going to win the B1G title.

People said the same about Northwestern. And wasn't in 1995, when the Darnell Autry team went to the Rose Bowl? Unlikely, yes. But who knows what Rutgers future will be like in the Big Ten.

sec03 · **Joined:** Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm **Posts:** 1355

It all started with friendly student competition in sports between neighboring colleges; the Harvard-Yale, Rutgers-Princeton games and so forth. Competition between like-minded schools in-state and neighboring states grew, resulting in conferences which organized certain rules, and scheduling. Westward, the idea was not different, usually just more geographic space between and among 'em. Bowls were the inter-conference competition among the best.
That's why I see the demise of certain conferences as sad; and see others as getting too big with numerical and financial greed; and are being pushed by TV networks in the effort to ever increase new subscribers and sponsors.

What may eventually happen---and could take many years to come---is that these new structures shall fall from their own weight. These networks shall then move on to something else to prime up; international soccer or whatever; the impact of multiculturalism, internationalization, and new media technology utilization.

Colleges/Universities are losing control of this, if most haven't already. There's plenty of process losers recently. There's also the big college winners, for now---perhaps not realizing their limelight has a time limit they don't control.

tute79 · **Joined:** Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm **Posts:** 1595

sec -

I think your analysis is on target, and this gravy train of TV money may be reaching it's peak right now.
For instance, I know Texas is full of football-crazy fans, but enough eyeballs to really make the LHN profitable ?
There just doesn't seem to be enough content there, yet the investors in LHN are trying to shove this dog down the throats of cable / satellite subscribers...

Where the Cable / satellite subscribers push back, I applaud them.

I honestly think that with a few exceptions, the FBS landscape MAY settle down into a stable configuration, IF everyone would just cool their jets for a while.
I would like to see:
SDSU, BYU, UTEP to MWC (14)
ECU (all-sports), Tulsa, UMass to BE (12)
NMSU, WKU to CUSA (14)
and Army / Navy both independent or both to BE / MAC for FB only.

Following that, FCS / BB conferences shake out.

I think for the most part, the resulting alignment(s) have a chance to be reasonably logical, and we should have some good regional rivalries.
There will be a huge disparity between the Big 5 confrences (+ Notre Dame) - getting $25-30 mill per year of TV money, and the rest of D-1.
I don't know that that is such a horrible thing, but schools that are not in the Big 5 will NOT be able to compete with the Big 5 in a lot of things, due to funding disparities.
That is going to become more and more pronounced over the next 10 years.

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:34 pm

Quinn wrote:

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

Quinn wrote:

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

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.

It's relative, you know that.

The SEC, even Pac-12, Big Ten and many in the Big 12 fall into something different: they are statewide and national programs. That status outweighs market and market penetration any day. It's why Penn St. in a small town in PA is a national product. It's why Nebraska in Lincoln is a national product. Alabama falls in there too. Then you have the national/state level schools in the SEC...some are national, all are dominant in the state.

Where markets really come into play is a tier down in conferences like the nBE. If you have a Cincinnati, that's great...it gives you the Cincinnati market and a brand people know of outside of Cincy. But it doesn't give you all of Ohio at a level like Ohio St. does. In Michigan, you have the same issue a tier down with EMU, WMU, etc. In the Bay Area, you have Stanford and Cal at the top, with SJSU representing. But Stanford and Cal are more national brands that do bette rin their market than SJSU does, also in the market. But for the MWC, SJSU was a great media addition since it opened up that market to the conference.

We can all have our opinions about the role markets play. They definitely are most important for conferences with their own networks...or plans for their own networks since it means getting those subscriber fees (Big Ten adding Rutgers, Maryland...Nebraska falls into the "national" fold). For the SEC, they made real good additions by adding access to Texas (Houston) and Missouri (St. Louis & KC) markets.

But in the nBE...they need everything they can get: good markets and good programs. Houston is a solid program...and it gives the conference access to the Houston market that they don't currently have. Same goes for SMU. For Memphis, them too, albeit more on the hoops side for now. Same for UCF (Orlando) and when USF (Tampa) was added. Not to say it was the right move since it might have added to the problems, but USF was a 5 year old football program (football, not just FBS) when the Big East added them for Tampa access. A number of much better programs were passed over by the Big East in favor of USF...UCF, Houston for example.

There is no argument: the MWC will be vastly superior to the nBE in the quality of the product. What is still up to be finalized will be the actual TV revenue. The MWC might end up with a better deal...and they deserve it. But even if the nBE gets a better overall TV deal, you have to like the MWC structure that rewards the top programs that get national TV games. Boise St. is a lock for that. Others like Fresno St. can achieve that too. Meanwhile, UNLV football can just be happy for their conference mates.

My point is being good has been forgotten in realignment, other than BSU. We don't watch a school because they are in a big market if they're 2-10 and not the top school in the market.

I still say it's a mistake to add markets where the football is no good. Over a good school in a sucky market. Tulsa is better for the BE than Tulane, Mass, Memphis(fb wise), Charlotte(as of now we don't know how good or bad they'll be), Georgia St.

Boise has no market if we aren't allowed to count the whole state but they made themselves relevant and wanted by winning. Mass, Ga. St. and Charlotte should have to do the same before the BE looks at them. Tulane has sucked for 14 years in a row, and almost dropped to D-III, they don't deserve a spot. Does the nBE want to make that at large spot in the BCS? They won't get it w/ those adds. It weakens their brand.

W/ Rutgers you're still talking about money, money doesn't make you a winner. Yay the B1G will make 30 mill instead of 25. Rutgers isn't going to win the B1G title.

People said the same about Northwestern. And wasn't in 1995, when the Darnell Autry team went to the Rose Bowl? Unlikely, yes. But who knows what Rutgers future will be like in the Big Ten.

Rutgers was added for their market and being AAU, not because they are going to be a contender. Northwestern joined before there was TV and academics were the main reason you got to be in the B1G.

freaked4collegefb · **Joined:** Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm **Posts:** 7210

CBSSports article with comments from MWC Commish who says he is still in negotiations with SDSU with no MWC President's vote imminent.Link at http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... ks-ongoing

freaked4collegefb · **Joined:** Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm **Posts:** 7210

Article out of San Diego discussing SDSU/MWC situation at http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/jan ... to-resolve

NorwichCat11 · **Joined:** Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:56 pm **Posts:** 87

Tute79 makes a good point, but I will add something to this conversation. When Texas Tech was scheduled to play Texas State in San Marcos for 2012, it was gonna be played on the LHN. Texas Tech refused to come down and play Texas State unless the LHN was NOT GOING TO TELEVISE THE GAME. It was agreed, and LHN was not allowed to televise the Tech/State game - it only appeared on ESPN3.com as far as I know. I am curious to know if any other universities have had a similar beef with being televised (ie - supporting) the LHN and refusing to play if they are going to be aired on that network?

fighting muskie · **Posted:** Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:10 pm

San Diego St's negotiation window is about halfway over now and we really have no clear indication as to which way the Aztecs will go. As the clock winds down I wonder if the two sides will stop playing hardball and start negotiating reasonably. Has anyone heard what types of terms the MWC has out on the table and what kind of counter offers SDSU has made?

freaked4collegefb · **Joined:** Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm **Posts:** 7210

MWC MB thread discussing unconfirmed report out of San Diego that SDSU will be having a presser later this week to announce that they are staying in the MWC.Link at http://www.mwcboard.com/index.php?showtopic=45544

tute79 · **Joined:** Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm **Posts:** 1595

My guess is that SDSU was dragging their feet a bit to see if they could get some definitive idea of the TV money they would get in the BE.

I think ultimately the BE TV contract will be more $, but SDSU really preferred their other high-profile sports in the MWC (as opposed to BW).
SDSU would also apparently share in a $24 million BCS payout for this one last year of the BCS (maybe split 10-12 ways = 2 million).
Were they going to have to pay an entry fee to BE that would offset some of that ? Maybe.

It appears that the reconfigured MWC and BE will be conferences 6a and 6b (on roughly equal footing in the new set-up).
SDSU apparently is deciding that the logistics of being in the conference that is really the better fit,
outweighs the marginally better (still unknown) payout from the Big East.

Assuming Houston & SMU choose to stay in the Big East, adding Tulsa & others get to 14 (eastern / central time zones).
MWC should target BYU and UTEP for 14 (hawaiian / pacific / mountain time zones).

CUSA is so picked over, they really aren't going to appear that superior to the Sun-Belt. Will they earn much TV money ?
Would Marshall / WKU be interested in looking at the MAC ?

Mountain West General Realignment Thread

Who is online