NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Fri Oct 31, 2014 12:42 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 929 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 ... 62  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 7:44 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1130
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
Fresno playing them says a lot, it was BYU and Utah that said we had to fire Tark asap if we wanted to be in the MWC when it started, knowing Fresno wouldn't do that b/c he had all the farmers putting in a lot of money to pay for the Savemart Center. BYU guys said if they would have fired Tark, they would have probably thought of something else to keep us out b/c they didn't like that Prez Welty was pro WAC 16.

Now look we will be playing them again.


That is one ridiculous demand! I thought they got onto the schedule because of that supposed deal the Cougars were trying to play with the WAC, parking their ollies there while playing football independently. BYU supposedly giving WAC schools home-and-home's for the "assist."

I know the Hawaii game came off because of the CCG, and Utah State wasn't going to walk away. I'm more surprised they worked with Boise. I thought this was one of the schools BYU strongly opposed for MWC membership.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 12:11 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:04 pm
Posts: 399
When Utah got picked for the now PAC12 is the time period BYU declared to become fb independent. BYU probably was offended Utah got picked without them. BYU had to know, though, the reasons the PAC12 would not include them.
While there were already strains in the MWC, the result only exacerbated the differences.
It is interesting to see that the three most secure, high profile conferences (PAC12, B1G, and the SEC) do not have the private, non-secular schools. It's not so much that schools such as BYU and Liberty are tightly administered by religious organizations, it is that they are actively engaged with political and social initiatives that don't set well with much of academia. Even the lower profile SunBelt has reservations about Liberty because of political activism using religion as the catalyst.
That's not to say that schools such as Baylor, TCU, ND, BC, Wake Forest, Furman, etc. are not controlled/guided/directed/influenced by religious orders, but they are not overtly ingraining activism into cooperative sports and transcends the mantra of networking with differing types. And, they are more careful about using the institutions names regarding political agendas.
And to face it, some theologies get more widespread acceptance than others, with location being a serious factor. Also, the Southern Baptists of Furman, Wake Forest, and Baylor, are not of the exhibiting evangelical order that the late Jerry Falwell's school displays. Images that are projected can be powerful, for better or worse, and depends on how diverse observers see it.

BYU doesn't recruit and tolerate the troublesome athletes that have become the norm elsewhere. I respect BYU, Army, and a few others for that aspect.

It is the MWC schools, for the most part, that would best meet BYU's scheduling needs. BYU needs to not let their pride detract from their better opportunities.


Last edited by louisvillecard01 on Sun Aug 25, 2013 12:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 12:43 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:14 pm
Posts: 1037
Location: Ciales-Manatí-Bayamón, Puerto Rico
Just wondering. What would had happen if BYU would be picked as the 12th Pac-10 (now Pac-12) member instead of Colorado for the 2011-12 season? The WCC would remain the same (even with the addition of Pacific as of today), but would Colorado replace both BYU and Utah by joining the MWC?

_________________
Florida State Seminoles fan for life (mostly on football, basketball and baseball)! 2013 ACC football Atlantic Division champions; 2013 ACC football regular season champions; 2013 ACC football conference bowl tournament champions; 2014 NCAA D-I FBS BCS national champions!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 1:39 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 733
Location: Columbus, OH
ncaanopaawaa2000 wrote:
fighting muskie wrote:
If access to the big bowls matters to BYU they could rejoin the MWC in 2015 and would only have to drop one of the 5 other games they have lined up.


So you're saying that BYU should follow Notre Dame's footsteps?


BYU essentially has a Notre Dame type of deal only its informal, doesn't include bowl tie ins, and they haven't parked their Olympic sports in the league. What I was essentially advocating for was for them to have full MWC membership so that BYU could take advantage of the "best of the little 5 gets to go to an access bowl" rule. BYU could retain a good chunk of the revenue they generate in the MWC through the policies the league inacted in order to retain Boise St--chiefly that schools appearing on national tv get a bonus and that if your school makes it to an access bowl they keep a big chunk of the revenue. It's hard to tell which route would be financially more lucrative for BYU.

As for your question concerning Colorado, had they been passed up by the PAC 12 in favor of BYU they would have just stayed in the Big 12.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:00 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:14 pm
Posts: 1037
Location: Ciales-Manatí-Bayamón, Puerto Rico
fighting muskie wrote:
ncaanopaawaa2000 wrote:
fighting muskie wrote:
If access to the big bowls matters to BYU they could rejoin the MWC in 2015 and would only have to drop one of the 5 other games they have lined up.


So you're saying that BYU should follow Notre Dame's footsteps?


BYU essentially has a Notre Dame type of deal only its informal, doesn't include bowl tie ins, and they haven't parked their Olympic sports in the league. What I was essentially advocating for was for them to have full MWC membership so that BYU could take advantage of the "best of the little 5 gets to go to an access bowl" rule. BYU could retain a good chunk of the revenue they generate in the MWC through the policies the league inacted in order to retain Boise St--chiefly that schools appearing on national tv get a bonus and that if your school makes it to an access bowl they keep a big chunk of the revenue. It's hard to tell which route would be financially more lucrative for BYU.


I see. Unfortunately, BYU doesn't have the same privileges like Notre Dame has; even if the Cougars might go a perfect season and highly-ranked as a football Independent.

Quote:
As for your question concerning Colorado, had they been passed up by the PAC 12 in favor of BYU they would have just stayed in the Big 12.


I see. But if that would have happened, that would leave the Big 12 as an 11-team league with Nebraska heading to the Big TEN, or Nebraska declining to join the Big TEN to remain in the Big 12; Missouri and Texas A&M would still plan go to the SEC, and the Big 12 would still have a CCG with the addition of West Virginia (Big 12 North) and TCU (Big 12 South) replacing their respective spots.

_________________
Florida State Seminoles fan for life (mostly on football, basketball and baseball)! 2013 ACC football Atlantic Division champions; 2013 ACC football regular season champions; 2013 ACC football conference bowl tournament champions; 2014 NCAA D-I FBS BCS national champions!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:30 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 733
Location: Columbus, OH
ncaanopaawaa2000 wrote:
I see. But if that would have happened, that would leave the Big 12 as an 11-team league with Nebraska heading to the Big TEN, or Nebraska declining to join the Big TEN to remain in the Big 12; Missouri and Texas A&M would still plan go to the SEC, and the Big 12 would still have a CCG with the addition of West Virginia (Big 12 North) and TCU (Big 12 South) replacing their respective spots.


My best guess is that had Colorado still been around then Louisville would have been added along with TCU and WVU to get back to 12. This would also mean that UConn would be an ACC member.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:38 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:14 pm
Posts: 1037
Location: Ciales-Manatí-Bayamón, Puerto Rico
fighting muskie wrote:
My best guess is that had Colorado still been around then Louisville would have been added along with TCU and WVU to get back to 12. This would also mean that UConn would be an ACC member.


Maybe that would be the case. UConn should had been a great addition. And true tests would be put up with if the Huskies would be facing Duke and North Carolina for basketball; and facing Florida State, Virginia Tech, Boston College and Miami for football.

_________________
Florida State Seminoles fan for life (mostly on football, basketball and baseball)! 2013 ACC football Atlantic Division champions; 2013 ACC football regular season champions; 2013 ACC football conference bowl tournament champions; 2014 NCAA D-I FBS BCS national champions!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:52 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 733
Location: Columbus, OH
Something to consider however ncaanopowa is that Colorado was the first to sign up for the PAC 12 and did so as part of the PAC 16 venture. The PAC 12 didn't look to Utah until after Texas and that whole block backed out of the deal thus leaving the PAC 12 in need of a #12. We were never going to see a PAC 12 with two Utah schools especially with the issues that certain PAC 12 institutions have with the LDS church.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:59 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 19
I agree that the Utah Pac-12 invite is a move that continues to have ripple effects and so many "what if?" hypotheticals. I wonder what high-profile program the Pac-12 could've recruited if they had simply stayed at 11 for a bit longer, laid out their future divisional alignment for all to see, and simply let it be known (before the Big 12 and ACC GOR's were in effect) that they were only going to take one more member. Could they have gotten UT-Austin for all sports as #12? Notre Dame? Nebraska or Missouri? I don't know. I also am unsure what happens if Utah ends up being a poor long-term fit. Could Utah (or Washington State, for that matter) ever be voted out by 9 of the other 11 members? Would that open the door for a more high-profile add once the Big 12 GOR expires?

If relegation is indeed legal, and a long-term possibility, it would would certainly impact the Mountain West.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 8:54 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1130
fighting muskie wrote:
Something to consider however ncaanopowa is that Colorado was the first to sign up for the PAC 12 and did so as part of the PAC 16 venture. The PAC 12 didn't look to Utah until after Texas and that whole block backed out of the deal thus leaving the PAC 12 in need of a #12. We were never going to see a PAC 12 with two Utah schools especially with the issues that certain PAC 12 institutions have with the LDS church.


Yeah. It didn't matter what Nebraska was going to do (stay or leave), Colorado was gone. If the PAC didn't want them, the B1G would have taken them. Even more than Nebraska, they should have just left before the Big XII started. Who knows if the Big XII would have went into the old WAC/MWC core to replace them.

I think what hurts BYU with the PAC isn't just the religious/political aspect, it was their changing the mission of the school to veer off from the research-centeredness of many big universities on the Pacific coast. I don't think it's a blanket "no religious school" policy, either. It's just on that one school.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 2:00 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:38 pm
Posts: 28
Colorado was almost in the PAC for the 1996 season. In 1994, CU thought they were going to the PAC with Texas. When Texas decided to go the Big 12 instead, the CU Board of Regents voted 5 to 4 to decline the impending invitation from the PAC and join Texas in the Big 12. A change of one vote would have put CU and Utah in the PAC for 1996.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 4:58 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:04 pm
Posts: 399
lew240z wrote:
Colorado was almost in the PAC for the 1996 season. In 1994, CU thought they were going to the PAC with Texas. When Texas decided to go the Big 12 instead, the CU Board of Regents voted 5 to 4 to decline the impending invitation from the PAC and join Texas in the Big 12. A change of one vote would have put CU and Utah in the PAC for 1996.


Good reminder there. Texas wanted to bring other Texas' schools with them wherever they went. So, hooking up north with the old Big Eight became the deal. Outside of the Oklahoma schools, resentment seemed to linger, and integration in attitudes never reached completion. Even the Oklahoma-Nebraska classic got reduced in frequency.

Texas also at the time, was against going to the SEC, while Texas A&M had the desire. But then, Texas and Texas A&M taking seperate avenues had more forces to keep such from happening.

Even after Arkansas left around '90, the Southwest conference still had eight schools, but all were in Texas. The private schools were struggling, and the SMU suspension sanction plus other schools earlier having NCAA probation penalties imposed, the conference had a diminished outlook.
Had those Texas schools stuck together through the difficult period, and actually expanded, so much may look very different today. They could have gone for a few of the now MWC/former WAC schools, and possibly pursued a few from Tulane eastward. There were actually some more eastern choices then that were in negotiations with other conferences.
Then though, the mindset was more contiguous and regional in nature. In any case, I believe Texas and Texas A&M wanted to separate from most of the Texas private schools and would have left for somewhere anyway.

When C-USA came along, and Houston was wanting something better, the whole Southwest Conference dissolved. It was only a few years earlier the SW Conference was a real power, and the Cotton Bowl was among the great ones.

The unclear thing for the MWC, is that the PAC12 and/or the B12 could extract from there at some point as expansion is not settled for the long-term. Also, some of the MWC schools and a some of the AAC schools may try to create a new conference in a effort to gain some inclusion with the power 5. I see some have discussed a bit that thought here. But I don't see that happening right away, because the stronger AAC and MWC schools are all looking for invites from the Power 5.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2013 12:03 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1130
louisvillecard01 wrote:
Also, some of the MWC schools and a some of the AAC schools may try to create a new conference in a effort to gain some inclusion with the power 5. I see some have discussed a bit that thought here. But I don't see that happening right away, because the stronger AAC and MWC schools are all looking for invites from the Power 5.


Agreed, although some are more rational about their chances than others. That won't stop certain schools from following presidents around at meetings or whatnot, but I think the schools who've been doing this for awhile will know how to "play their cards." TCU, for example, worked on the Big XII for years, but accepted a Big East invitation first, never to even participate.

Looking back at who was said to be in motion over the last two or three decades, there aren't a lot of surprises of who's ended up where they were, or where they no longer are.

For the MWC, I do wonder how long of a future schools like UNM, CSU, AFA, and SDSU have within it. They are some of the "chasers," and have a past with pursuing different conferences, or being pursued. I think BYU will always be out there until they get what they want (PAC), and schools like USU and UNR have potential (and maybe even Hawaii). I think UNM is probably the first to go somewhere else in terms of a P5 conference, but I expect them to be a part of whatever splinter group could emerge. They are simply too big a school and have some sort of athletic wherewithal (even if not always football) to be left out of arrangements.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:30 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
Flipping channels last night, I saw Keith Olbermann with his new show on ESPN2. He had a guest and they spent some time talking about the 4 super-conferences concept with a total of 64 members with 16 teams per each conference.
Much talk also centered around paying players and that college fb & bb really has been centered on being minor/training leagues for the pros.

It's hard to see getting down to only 4 super-conferences with 64 teams total. One has to go or combine with another after being stripped by the other three. And even if that was pulled off, somehow, the #4 one would really look odd. There would have to be immense compromising, and few in the now top conferences would get sidelined.

For a conference such as the MWC, what the PAC12 and/or the Big12 may do is critical. The PAC12 could end up never needing anything again from the MWC. The Big12 may sit and wait what direction super-conferences may further go. Some could split out for elsewhere eventually; or they could end up hosting/combining with new remnents from the Power 5.

If Olbermann was speaking for ESPN, he didn't appear to be endorsing the super-conference idea. Yet, is it the power conferences or the networks, or both, pushing for 4 mega conferences, locking up fb, and much of bb, for an even more select group?

Beyond adding a couple, or trying more to get BYU back, or some splitting off with some AAC types, the MWC could up itself a tad, but it may be more like struggling to maintain their current positioning as new and complex developments may grow.


Last edited by sec03 on Thu Aug 29, 2013 11:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:07 am 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 19
'The Pac-12 may end up never again needing anything from the Mountain West.' Very true, sec...which is why I'm so curious to find out if relegation is a possibility, albeit an ugly, cold one.

You mentioned that magic number of 64, 4 × 16. IMO, relegation is the only way we could realistically get there.

In my head I have a scenario where the power 64 basically say, 'we are our own division now. Every school has fully-funded scholarships for athletes up to the NCAA limit in every sport, every school in this club has to sponsor at least 20 varsity sports, and every athlete in those sports gets a 5k annual stipend.' They do this in part to create a distance between them and the rest, and for their athletes, and for their tv inventory.

In my head, here's what happens out west at that point:

1. Pac-12 'relegates' Utah and Washington State out, in part b/c of their poor performance and in part b/c of their difficulty in meeting the new financial requirements (also, their travel partners are each 5+ hours away, and they arent in recruiting havens).
2. Utah and BYU rejoin the Mountain West, along with Gonzaga. The Zags become Wazzou's travel partner in all non-fb sports in this awesome 14/15 team MWC, the 5th-best conference in the country.
3. The leaner, 10 team PAC grabs the Texahoma 6. (This would be insanely controversial; Utah no doubt feels its more worthy than Baylor/TCU).
4. Notre Dame and Navy fb-only commit to the ACC on an eight-game full slate, with ND basically picking its division (Navy, BC, etc.).
5. The SEC takes West Virginia and Kansas State
6. The Big 10 grabs Kansas and...Connecticut over Iowa State?

To me it's more feasible if relegation is actually legally possible.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 929 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 ... 62  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:  
 

 

cron




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