NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Fri Oct 31, 2014 9:20 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 ... 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 1:40 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
It seems that being in a football conf. w/o football is a black mark on the conf. unless the school is ND(who has fb), even they have to play a 5 game ACC schedule. So out of the 10 FBS conferences only the SBC(suckiest conf) has non fb playing members UALR & UTA. So why doesn't the AAC go 1st and take VCU or Wichita St.? I don't think they will. We could always bring Hawaii in for everything if we had do have 12 and wanted to keep BYU bball out. Hawaii was in an all sports conf before w/ all of these schools. I'd still rather have BYU for other sports and a 5 gm ND type thing along w/ their bigger tv draw and 20K seat arena, scheduling alliance over Gonzaga and their 6K area and much smaller enrollment even though I hate BYU more than SDSU and SJSU.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 9:23 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:33 am
Posts: 312
Location: Austin, Texas
fighting muskie wrote:
Here's my take on the Gonzaga situation: The bulldogs have proved that their basketball program can sustain success and their RPI would be a welcomed addition by the basketball minded schools in the league. The other thing adding Gonzaga does is it significantly weakens the quality of BYU's conference of convenience and potentially brings the Cougars to the negotiating table for full membership in the MWC--they may as well be full member again since they are playing as many as 5 MWC schools a season in football. To round things off at 14 they would just need to bring in UTSA or UTEP to complete the league. UTEP has ties to many of the members in the league and UTSA is a great up and coming program, either would be a decent pick up.


Good points.

I do think it is a bit funny....that no matter what the expansion talk in the MWC....it always has to revolve around BYU. I would prefer that the MWC move on.....but, for some reason BYU always has to be on the fringe of any expansion talk. The MWC must really respect BYU??

Anyway....I don't really get why UTEP is the mix either when talking Gonzaga. UTEP, while a good school....isn't really anywhere near the other MWC schools....and if, travel is an issue.....why add UTEP and Gonzaga?

And if you don't like Gonzaga for the MWC...how about Wichita State. Wichita State would at least help the UTEP idea.

So, how about this then: UTEP, NMSU, Wichita State. That way....you get three great bb teams all in the same region...which lowers the overall travel in new directions. They could have double headers in the El Paso, Las Cruces area. And Kansas isn't all that far from either of these schools or the Colorado/Wyoming schools. BB gets a huge boost with this plan and could put the MWC on par with the A-10 or Big East as bb powers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 10:06 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1463
mozilla wrote:
Good points.

I do think it is a bit funny....that no matter what the expansion talk in the MWC....it always has to revolve around BYU. I would prefer that the MWC move on.....but, for some reason BYU always has to be on the fringe of any expansion talk. The MWC must really respect BYU??

Anyway....I don't really get why UTEP is the mix either when talking Gonzaga. UTEP, while a good school....isn't really anywhere near the other MWC schools....and if, travel is an issue.....why add UTEP and Gonzaga?

And if you don't like Gonzaga for the MWC...how about Wichita State. Wichita State would at least help the UTEP idea.

So, how about this then: UTEP, NMSU, Wichita State. That way....you get three great bb teams all in the same region...which lowers the overall travel in new directions. They could have double headers in the El Paso, Las Cruces area. And Kansas isn't all that far from either of these schools or the Colorado/Wyoming schools. BB gets a huge boost with this plan and could put the MWC on par with the A-10 or Big East as bb powers.


Let's be honest here, the MWC's footprint is any public fb school (omitting privates BYU/AFA) not considered the bottom of the barrel in the Mountain or Pacific Time Zone + Hawaii. While yes the MWC does not have schools in Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Montana, and Texas they are still considered in their footprint.

Out of those areas there are no additional fb candidates outside of BYU, UTEP, NMSU, Idaho, and upgrades like U of Montana/Mont St. And of those only BYU is the only slam dunk candidate that bring to the conference more than it takes. After BYU, UTEP (who has a histroy with many of these schools from the WAC) is the only attractive schools as they bring in a new market in El Paso and are easy to travel to plus the local rivalry with UNM helps.

Any additional members either have to come outside of FBS (either upgrades which the MWC thinks its above adding start ups or a non fb school or two) or outside of their current MST/PST time zone footprint.

Of those schools Gonzaga is the only non football school in the Mountain/West that could bring some quality to the MWC, and Texas has all the possible fb schools that the MWC could go after, like Houston, SMU, UTSA, Rice, UNT, TX St, and maybe Tulsa in OK. It also helps that Gonzaga was also looking around (Big East) and is cleary out preforming and possibly being held back by their conference in some ways. A rivalry with Boise St would be natural as both a fairly close together and the Zags also pretty much pull in the entire state of Washington including Seattle (none of which are currently represented in the MWC) when they are doing well.

Besides that there are no other candidates, as schools like Wichita St are both outside of the footprint and outside of the their must have fb rule in addition to being private.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 10:23 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:33 am
Posts: 312
Location: Austin, Texas
tkalmus wrote:
mozilla wrote:
Good points.

I do think it is a bit funny....that no matter what the expansion talk in the MWC....it always has to revolve around BYU. I would prefer that the MWC move on.....but, for some reason BYU always has to be on the fringe of any expansion talk. The MWC must really respect BYU??

Anyway....I don't really get why UTEP is the mix either when talking Gonzaga. UTEP, while a good school....isn't really anywhere near the other MWC schools....and if, travel is an issue.....why add UTEP and Gonzaga?

And if you don't like Gonzaga for the MWC...how about Wichita State. Wichita State would at least help the UTEP idea.

So, how about this then: UTEP, NMSU, Wichita State. That way....you get three great bb teams all in the same region...which lowers the overall travel in new directions. They could have double headers in the El Paso, Las Cruces area. And Kansas isn't all that far from either of these schools or the Colorado/Wyoming schools. BB gets a huge boost with this plan and could put the MWC on par with the A-10 or Big East as bb powers.


Let's be honest here, the MWC's footprint is any public fb school (omitting privates BYU/AFA) not considered the bottom of the barrel in the Mountain or Pacific Time Zone + Hawaii. While yes the MWC does not have schools in Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Montana, and Texas they are still considered in their footprint.

Out of those areas there are no additional fb candidates outside of BYU, UTEP, NMSU, Idaho, and upgrades like U of Montana/Mont St. And of those only BYU is the only slam dunk candidate that bring to the conference more than it takes. After BYU, UTEP (who has a histroy with many of these schools from the WAC) is the only attractive schools as they bring in a new market in El Paso and are easy to travel to plus the local rivalry with UNM helps.

Any additional members either have to come outside of FBS (either upgrades which the MWC thinks its above adding start ups or a non fb school or two) or outside of their current MST/PST time zone footprint.

Of those schools Gonzaga is the only non football school in the Mountain/West that could bring some quality to the MWC, and Texas has all the possible fb schools that the MWC could go after, like Houston, SMU, UTSA, Rice, UNT, TX St, and maybe Tulsa in OK. It also helps that Gonzaga was also looking around (Big East) and is cleary out preforming and possibly being held back by their conference in some ways. A rivalry with Boise St would be natural as both a fairly close together and the Zags also pretty much pull in the entire state of Washington including Seattle (none of which are currently represented in the MWC) when they are doing well.

Besides that there are no other candidates, as schools like Wichita St are both outside of the footprint and outside of the their must have fb rule in addition to being private.



Thanks for the insight.

A few thoughts:

-Wichita State is a public institution.
-If Texas and/or Tulsa is in the footprint....why not Kansas?
-I was under the impression that the MWC was always interested in lower travel...so, I was trying to coordinate that into any plans I was forming.
-I also, was under the impression that BYU didn't want anything to do with the MWC. So, my thoughts revolve around other institutions.
-If Gonzaga carries the whole state of Washington at times....why are they not being considered?

My whole motivation, here, is to discuss the MWC becoming a better conference. Is it Y'alls opinion that the MWC is fine, as is? Or is there room for improvement?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 11:23 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1463
mozilla wrote:
tkalmus wrote:
mozilla wrote:
Good points.

I do think it is a bit funny....that no matter what the expansion talk in the MWC....it always has to revolve around BYU. I would prefer that the MWC move on.....but, for some reason BYU always has to be on the fringe of any expansion talk. The MWC must really respect BYU??

Anyway....I don't really get why UTEP is the mix either when talking Gonzaga. UTEP, while a good school....isn't really anywhere near the other MWC schools....and if, travel is an issue.....why add UTEP and Gonzaga?

And if you don't like Gonzaga for the MWC...how about Wichita State. Wichita State would at least help the UTEP idea.

So, how about this then: UTEP, NMSU, Wichita State. That way....you get three great bb teams all in the same region...which lowers the overall travel in new directions. They could have double headers in the El Paso, Las Cruces area. And Kansas isn't all that far from either of these schools or the Colorado/Wyoming schools. BB gets a huge boost with this plan and could put the MWC on par with the A-10 or Big East as bb powers.


Let's be honest here, the MWC's footprint is any public fb school (omitting privates BYU/AFA) not considered the bottom of the barrel in the Mountain or Pacific Time Zone + Hawaii. While yes the MWC does not have schools in Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Montana, and Texas they are still considered in their footprint.

Out of those areas there are no additional fb candidates outside of BYU, UTEP, NMSU, Idaho, and upgrades like U of Montana/Mont St. And of those only BYU is the only slam dunk candidate that bring to the conference more than it takes. After BYU, UTEP (who has a histroy with many of these schools from the WAC) is the only attractive schools as they bring in a new market in El Paso and are easy to travel to plus the local rivalry with UNM helps.

Any additional members either have to come outside of FBS (either upgrades which the MWC thinks its above adding start ups or a non fb school or two) or outside of their current MST/PST time zone footprint.

Of those schools Gonzaga is the only non football school in the Mountain/West that could bring some quality to the MWC, and Texas has all the possible fb schools that the MWC could go after, like Houston, SMU, UTSA, Rice, UNT, TX St, and maybe Tulsa in OK. It also helps that Gonzaga was also looking around (Big East) and is cleary out preforming and possibly being held back by their conference in some ways. A rivalry with Boise St would be natural as both a fairly close together and the Zags also pretty much pull in the entire state of Washington including Seattle (none of which are currently represented in the MWC) when they are doing well.

Besides that there are no other candidates, as schools like Wichita St are both outside of the footprint and outside of the their must have fb rule in addition to being private.



Thanks for the insight.

A few thoughts:

-Wichita State is a public institution.
-If Texas and/or Tulsa is in the footprint....why not Kansas?
-I was under the impression that the MWC was always interested in lower travel...so, I was trying to coordinate that into any plans I was forming.
-I also, was under the impression that BYU didn't want anything to do with the MWC. So, my thoughts revolve around other institutions.
-If Gonzaga carries the whole state of Washington at times....why are they not being considered?

My whole motivation, here, is to discuss the MWC becoming a better conference. Is it Y'alls opinion that the MWC is fine, as is? Or is there room for improvement?


MY bad on the Wichita, they seem private like VCU.

Wichita isn't closer than UTEP or BYU and has a smaller airport than Houston/Dallas/SanAntonio. Distance and size of airport/# of flights all go into travel cost as it cheaper to fly to bigger airports despite being 200 miles further away. I only threw Tulsa in there because there was a rumor before they got the AAC invite that the MWC was looking at them (though many think it was just a ploy to offer/take the friends of Houston/SMU).

BYU has like5 MWC teams on their fb schedule and more on their non fb schedules. I dont think they hate each other.

On Zags, like FSA said, small private U, only really good and bball and baseball and no fb. I like them and think they could work but the MWC disagrees.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 12:16 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:33 am
Posts: 312
Location: Austin, Texas
tkalmus wrote:
mozilla wrote:
tkalmus wrote:
mozilla wrote:
Good points.

I do think it is a bit funny....that no matter what the expansion talk in the MWC....it always has to revolve around BYU. I would prefer that the MWC move on.....but, for some reason BYU always has to be on the fringe of any expansion talk. The MWC must really respect BYU??

Anyway....I don't really get why UTEP is the mix either when talking Gonzaga. UTEP, while a good school....isn't really anywhere near the other MWC schools....and if, travel is an issue.....why add UTEP and Gonzaga?

And if you don't like Gonzaga for the MWC...how about Wichita State. Wichita State would at least help the UTEP idea.

So, how about this then: UTEP, NMSU, Wichita State. That way....you get three great bb teams all in the same region...which lowers the overall travel in new directions. They could have double headers in the El Paso, Las Cruces area. And Kansas isn't all that far from either of these schools or the Colorado/Wyoming schools. BB gets a huge boost with this plan and could put the MWC on par with the A-10 or Big East as bb powers.


Let's be honest here, the MWC's footprint is any public fb school (omitting privates BYU/AFA) not considered the bottom of the barrel in the Mountain or Pacific Time Zone + Hawaii. While yes the MWC does not have schools in Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Montana, and Texas they are still considered in their footprint.

Out of those areas there are no additional fb candidates outside of BYU, UTEP, NMSU, Idaho, and upgrades like U of Montana/Mont St. And of those only BYU is the only slam dunk candidate that bring to the conference more than it takes. After BYU, UTEP (who has a histroy with many of these schools from the WAC) is the only attractive schools as they bring in a new market in El Paso and are easy to travel to plus the local rivalry with UNM helps.

Any additional members either have to come outside of FBS (either upgrades which the MWC thinks its above adding start ups or a non fb school or two) or outside of their current MST/PST time zone footprint.

Of those schools Gonzaga is the only non football school in the Mountain/West that could bring some quality to the MWC, and Texas has all the possible fb schools that the MWC could go after, like Houston, SMU, UTSA, Rice, UNT, TX St, and maybe Tulsa in OK. It also helps that Gonzaga was also looking around (Big East) and is cleary out preforming and possibly being held back by their conference in some ways. A rivalry with Boise St would be natural as both a fairly close together and the Zags also pretty much pull in the entire state of Washington including Seattle (none of which are currently represented in the MWC) when they are doing well.

Besides that there are no other candidates, as schools like Wichita St are both outside of the footprint and outside of the their must have fb rule in addition to being private.



Thanks for the insight.

A few thoughts:

-Wichita State is a public institution.
-If Texas and/or Tulsa is in the footprint....why not Kansas?
-I was under the impression that the MWC was always interested in lower travel...so, I was trying to coordinate that into any plans I was forming.
-I also, was under the impression that BYU didn't want anything to do with the MWC. So, my thoughts revolve around other institutions.
-If Gonzaga carries the whole state of Washington at times....why are they not being considered?

My whole motivation, here, is to discuss the MWC becoming a better conference. Is it Y'alls opinion that the MWC is fine, as is? Or is there room for improvement?


MY bad on the Wichita, they seem private like VCU.

Wichita isn't closer than UTEP or BYU and has a smaller airport than Houston/Dallas/SanAntonio. Distance and size of airport/# of flights all go into travel cost as it cheaper to fly to bigger airports despite being 200 miles further away. I only threw Tulsa in there because there was a rumor before they got the AAC invite that the MWC was looking at them (though many think it was just a ploy to offer/take the friends of Houston/SMU).

BYU has like5 MWC teams on their fb schedule and more on their non fb schedules. I dont think they hate each other.

On Zags, like FSA said, small private U, only really good and bball and baseball and no fb. I like them and think they could work but the MWC disagrees.


I wasn't trying to say BYU won't play teams in the MWC....they just didn't want to join it.

So, you are saying that the MWC 'says' they are 'fine' as is?
Gonzaga isn't strong enough for a non-fb school because they don't have fb and they are private? Even though their bb and baseball are excellent and would boost the conference profile and rpi in both.
I don't understand it...but, if that's what's really happening....then it is what it is.

With Wichita State...bigger school than Gonzaga...but, still not enough of a splash to overcome being in Kansas.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 4:04 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
mozilla wrote:
tkalmus wrote:
mozilla wrote:
tkalmus wrote:
mozilla wrote:
Good points.

I do think it is a bit funny....that no matter what the expansion talk in the MWC....it always has to revolve around BYU. I would prefer that the MWC move on.....but, for some reason BYU always has to be on the fringe of any expansion talk. The MWC must really respect BYU??

Anyway....I don't really get why UTEP is the mix either when talking Gonzaga. UTEP, while a good school....isn't really anywhere near the other MWC schools....and if, travel is an issue.....why add UTEP and Gonzaga?

And if you don't like Gonzaga for the MWC...how about Wichita State. Wichita State would at least help the UTEP idea.

So, how about this then: UTEP, NMSU, Wichita State. That way....you get three great bb teams all in the same region...which lowers the overall travel in new directions. They could have double headers in the El Paso, Las Cruces area. And Kansas isn't all that far from either of these schools or the Colorado/Wyoming schools. BB gets a huge boost with this plan and could put the MWC on par with the A-10 or Big East as bb powers.


Let's be honest here, the MWC's footprint is any public fb school (omitting privates BYU/AFA) not considered the bottom of the barrel in the Mountain or Pacific Time Zone + Hawaii. While yes the MWC does not have schools in Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Montana, and Texas they are still considered in their footprint.

Out of those areas there are no additional fb candidates outside of BYU, UTEP, NMSU, Idaho, and upgrades like U of Montana/Mont St. And of those only BYU is the only slam dunk candidate that bring to the conference more than it takes. After BYU, UTEP (who has a histroy with many of these schools from the WAC) is the only attractive schools as they bring in a new market in El Paso and are easy to travel to plus the local rivalry with UNM helps.

Any additional members either have to come outside of FBS (either upgrades which the MWC thinks its above adding start ups or a non fb school or two) or outside of their current MST/PST time zone footprint.

Of those schools Gonzaga is the only non football school in the Mountain/West that could bring some quality to the MWC, and Texas has all the possible fb schools that the MWC could go after, like Houston, SMU, UTSA, Rice, UNT, TX St, and maybe Tulsa in OK. It also helps that Gonzaga was also looking around (Big East) and is cleary out preforming and possibly being held back by their conference in some ways. A rivalry with Boise St would be natural as both a fairly close together and the Zags also pretty much pull in the entire state of Washington including Seattle (none of which are currently represented in the MWC) when they are doing well.

Besides that there are no other candidates, as schools like Wichita St are both outside of the footprint and outside of the their must have fb rule in addition to being private.



Thanks for the insight.

A few thoughts:

-Wichita State is a public institution.
-If Texas and/or Tulsa is in the footprint....why not Kansas?
-I was under the impression that the MWC was always interested in lower travel...so, I was trying to coordinate that into any plans I was forming.
-I also, was under the impression that BYU didn't want anything to do with the MWC. So, my thoughts revolve around other institutions.
-If Gonzaga carries the whole state of Washington at times....why are they not being considered?

My whole motivation, here, is to discuss the MWC becoming a better conference. Is it Y'alls opinion that the MWC is fine, as is? Or is there room for improvement?


MY bad on the Wichita, they seem private like VCU.

Wichita isn't closer than UTEP or BYU and has a smaller airport than Houston/Dallas/SanAntonio. Distance and size of airport/# of flights all go into travel cost as it cheaper to fly to bigger airports despite being 200 miles further away. I only threw Tulsa in there because there was a rumor before they got the AAC invite that the MWC was looking at them (though many think it was just a ploy to offer/take the friends of Houston/SMU).

BYU has like5 MWC teams on their fb schedule and more on their non fb schedules. I dont think they hate each other.

On Zags, like FSA said, small private U, only really good and bball and baseball and no fb. I like them and think they could work but the MWC disagrees.


I wasn't trying to say BYU won't play teams in the MWC....they just didn't want to join it.

So, you are saying that the MWC 'says' they are 'fine' as is?
Gonzaga isn't strong enough for a non-fb school because they don't have fb and they are private? Even though their bb and baseball are excellent and would boost the conference profile and rpi in both.
I don't understand it...but, if that's what's really happening....then it is what it is.

With Wichita State...bigger school than Gonzaga...but, still not enough of a splash to overcome being in Kansas.


I think its also about being a like minded school. Gonzaga is nothing like the other MWC schools. BYU is big enrollment, big stadium/arena still has a lot in common w/ the other MWC schools plus a lifetime or traditional rivals.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:00 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:56 pm
Posts: 118
Okay,
I know the MWC does not want to be a "doormat for entry into D1", but there is no lower conference in their footprint. They could still invite Montana, Montana St., Portland St., and Northern Arizona. This gives them the jump to 16, and brings in states that they do not currently have. Is this not a plus? Both Montana schools are top tier 1AA schools that can be expected to compete immediately. Portland St., and Northern Arizona are both the 3rd largest schools in their respective states. Portland St. is also in a large media market of Portland Oregon. Plus, we all know that the PAC12 will eventually tire of waiting for the B12 to fall apart and raid the MWC again. This move to get to 16 would preclude that raid, and allow those schools to get better prior to any PAC12 raid. Does this not sound plausible? I don't think anyone outside the MWC believes that BYU would ever return to the conference. They are happy trying to be the "Notre Dame of the west". U. Texas - E.P. would accept an invite, but you have to offer it first. Then you would only have to add 3 1AA schools for 16.
Any thoughts on the arguments that I provided here?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:08 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
NorwichCat11 wrote:
Okay,
I know the MWC does not want to be a "doormat for entry into D1", but there is no lower conference in their footprint. They could still invite Montana, Montana St., Portland St., and Northern Arizona. This gives them the jump to 16, and brings in states that they do not currently have. Is this not a plus? Both Montana schools are top tier 1AA schools that can be expected to compete immediately. Portland St., and Northern Arizona are both the 3rd largest schools in their respective states. Portland St. is also in a large media market of Portland Oregon. Plus, we all know that the PAC12 will eventually tire of waiting for the B12 to fall apart and raid the MWC again. This move to get to 16 would preclude that raid, and allow those schools to get better prior to any PAC12 raid. Does this not sound plausible? I don't think anyone outside the MWC believes that BYU would ever return to the conference. They are happy trying to be the "Notre Dame of the west". U. Texas - E.P. would accept an invite, but you have to offer it first. Then you would only have to add 3 1AA schools for 16.
Any thoughts on the arguments that I provided here?

1st any of those Big Sky schools would not add value to make the payout more per school so that kills that, 2nd if Montana wanted to move up, they could go for fb only in the SBC if they want FBS so bad and earn a spot if they dominate the SBC for a while. Yeah we are the bottom in the west out of 2 conf. so it's not like we're the SBC. but why settle for an FCS when we could just tap into Texas for UTEP, UTSA, Texas St., Rice, or UNT? None of them even add enough to go to 14. BYU, Houston, SMU are the only schools that could move the needle enough to expand. All 3 prefer where they are so 12/11 it is for us.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:59 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:56 pm
Posts: 118
Fresno St. Alum,
Thanks for the reply! I thought that Hawaii has a deal with the MWC that precluded them from going into Texas or any further east to save them on travel costs? I do not remember where I saw it, but had heard it from somewhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:38 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
NorwichCat11 wrote:
Fresno St. Alum,
Thanks for the reply! I thought that Hawaii has a deal with the MWC that precluded them from going into Texas or any further east to save them on travel costs? I do not remember where I saw it, but had heard it from somewhere.

I don't know if that's true or not, but the MWC could always give them an ultimatum, if they wanted into Texas so bad, say look you're in a div. where Nevada is your most distant opponent, which could become Utah St. or Boise if we went to 14. If you don't like it, you can go Indy.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 1:05 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
from my Hawaii guy, Mongoose, who's up on all this stuff..."I've never heard of such a clause. UH played in the WAC for years with UTEP so I can't imagine the addition of the Miners being a problem, especially given the MWC's current divisional structure that groups UH with the California and Nevada members.

My guess is that someone misinterpreted our AD's comments when we left the WAC for the MWC/BW. At the time he said we had to get out of the WAC because the conference footprint was moving east with the addition of UTSA, Texas State and UT Arlington. Keep in mind that the WAC lacked enough schools for divisional play so that would have meant sending UH teams to away games at all of those schools in all sports every season."

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 7:48 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:14 pm
Posts: 1037
Location: Ciales-Manatí-Bayamón, Puerto Rico
Norwich, when it comes to expansion candidates within the Western U.S. for the MW, samples like the Montana schools, Portland State and Northern Arizona are great within the MW's footprint. But know this. Prior to the era when D-I split into FBS and FCS since like 1978, Montana competed with FBS schools (competed in the old PCC, mostly with of the current Pac-12 schools PLUS Idaho until the late 1940's; and then competed in the Mountain States Conference, who mostly have original charter WAC turned charter MW members); while Montana State competed with D-II schools.

But during in recent years, Montana State has won like 6 Big Sky titles in the past 12, to at least reach to the quarterfinals in post-season play. While Montana has won at least a share of the Big Sky title on every year during the 2000's (almost a team of dynasty of that decade), only to appear on 5 FCS national title appearances, only to win one back in 2001.

But have you checked out Eastern Washington (also from the Big Sky). The Eagles have developed recent success in the past 10 years on the FCS post-season, including a national championship in 2010, and 5 Big Sky titles.

_________________
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: Sat Apr 19, 2014 4:28 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 10:57 pm
Posts: 1291
Location: Portland! (and about time!)
I think we're back to the thinking that, while Montana can go as is, the state won't let them go without Montana State. Montana State has grown their stadium, but not to the level the Mountain West expects... yet. Of course, there's something in the water in Bozeman that has them making an effort for a Winter Olympic Games, and while that's not going to happen, it shows a level of ambition.

Portland State has an ultimatum to start making money THIS YEAR or drop football. That hinges on few expenses and money games at Oregon State and Washington State this year. I don't think it bodes well; attendance is shrinking towards nonexistent. Meanwhile, the stadium would need expansion, but as the Portland Timbers have taken over the stadium, and they're saying (for a multitude of reasons, topography and the sewer system being major ones) that they can't add to the structure to expand it. For the Timbers, capacity will be expanded next year by removing seats, creating standing terraces preferred by soccer fans in some of the Timbers Army sections.

Northern Arizona; put it this way. They reduced the capacity of Walkup Skydome by several thousand. I recall they had an initiative to build a separate basketball arena and make other improvements, but it appears dead.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2014 12:40 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:45 am
Posts: 219
If the Mt West chose to expand past 12, which may not be likely due to the Go5 money issue, I would love to see Montana join. I wouldn't hate adding both Montana and Montana St but that's 2 schools from a large state that is a very small market. For Mt West expansion, I'd see UTEP as the 1st option with the 2nd option being open. Montana would be great. North Dakota St would be great as well, but I don't think they're interested. Perhaps Eastern Washington? Does anyone know if they're interested? What about another Texas school along with UTEP like Rice, UTSA, or North Texas? None add a whole lot athletically (neither does UTEP for that matter) but they add large markets (Houston, San Antonio, and Dallas, respectively).


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 929 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 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:  
 

 




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