|
Post by RB Aztec on Jan 5, 2013 17:30:06 GMT -8
I am first a basketball fan and 2nd a football fan. I really like the MWC in basketball, but the idea of having us go to the BE/BW and in a few years be part of a BE expansion of a Western division with BYU, UNLV, Fresno, NM, etc. is really appealing. The quality of a nation-wide basketball league with Memphis, UNLV, SDSU, BYU (and Connecticut if they could be retained by a great TV deal) would be awesome. This would also be a decent football league. It makes me sick to be part of the BW for any amount of time, but I have really been favoring the long-term goal of a Coast-to-Coast league where all our sports would be in the Western Division.
|
|
|
Post by jdgaucho on Jan 5, 2013 17:38:31 GMT -8
Why would the BW sweeten the deal with SDSU when they need the BW more than the BW needs them? Aztecs have no where else to go if they want their football program in the BE. Seems that both the BW and SDSU already struck a deal that they both can live with. We could swallow the poison pill of going back to the MWC. The BW is in the middle of negotiating their tier one TV rights, make no mistake about it, they NEED SDSU. James has it spot on. To lose SDSU before the '13-'14 season would definitely result in the tier one value being diminished. Could go down by a third, by half, I don't know. As far as Fox and tier two are concerned, that tv deal took effect back in August. We're getting $1.5 million for this year no matter what happens with SDSU. Next year and beyond? If the BW effectively swaps them for Pacific, it may bump the value up to $1.75 or $2 million based on including extra incentives and other little throw-ins. Boise taking themselves out of the picture could be the best thing that happens to the BW, after doing everything it can do to retain SDSU. Its members are probably more willing to sweeten the pot now that Boise is no longer an issue.
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jan 5, 2013 17:40:27 GMT -8
I am first a basketball fan and 2nd a football fan. I really like the MWC in basketball, but the idea of having us go to the BE/BW and in a few years be part of a BE expansion of a Western division with BYU, UNLV, Fresno, NM, etc. is really appealing. The quality of a nation-wide basketball league with Memphis, UNLV, SDSU, BYU (and Connecticut if they could be retained by a great TV deal) would be awesome. This would also be a decent football league. It makes me sick to be part of the BW for any amount of time, but I have really been favoring the long-term goal of a Coast-to-Coast league where all our sports would be in the Western Division. I agree. The BW is a parking spot for a year or two. Hoops-only fans need to understand that it isn't permanent. Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jan 5, 2013 18:08:32 GMT -8
We could swallow the poison pill of going back to the MWC. The BW is in the middle of negotiating their tier one TV rights, make no mistake about it, they NEED SDSU. James has it spot on. To lose SDSU before the '13-'14 season would definitely result in the tier one value being diminished. Could go down by a third, by half, I don't know. As far as Fox and tier two are concerned, that tv deal took effect back in August. We're getting $1.5 million for this year no matter what happens with SDSU. Next year and beyond? If the BW effectively swaps them for Pacific, it may bump the value up to $1.75 or $2 million based on including extra incentives and other little throw-ins. Boise taking themselves out of the picture could be the best thing that happens to the BW, after doing everything it can do to retain SDSU. Its members are probably more willing to sweeten the pot now that Boise is no longer an issue. No you're not, you're getting a mil, it doesn't hit 1.5 until we come in, and I doubt you retain that mil if we don't come. And like I said before, we aren't going to extort money out of you guys as long as we get a package of 3rd tier games to sell to fox sports and get some ESPN, Fox SD and the LA channels exposure. We might ask again about 14 games, but we're not going to stick a gun to our system and sister system mates.
|
|
|
Post by TheSanDiegan on Jan 5, 2013 18:13:34 GMT -8
See no reason why ADs would not support an all-sports western division. At our level, it is important to build a stable, successful conference. One that gets national attention. A conference with all-sports eastern and western division would be much more stable. With it, there is much greater chance of having teams making noise in the NCAA and bowl games. A conference without it would immediately have members looking for other opportunities. Schools like Cincy, SMU, and SDSU would not leave unless there was an opportunity for a better conference. Years away. Don't know about SDSU, but believe all other invited schools will join the nBE. In theory, the idea of an all-sports, 2-division C2C Conference (don't know who penned this first, but it effin rocks out with it's Big Johnson out) should succeed for all the right reasons: trasncontinental reach, television market focused, 4-time zone programming, and decent-to-really good teams in both FB and MBB. So why didn't all the pieces effortlessly seamlessly fall into place form the get go? Two reasons IMO. First, the constant state of realignment flux has made it impossible for Aresco to present a baseline product to the networks from which a deal can be struck. The landscape of the nBE has not been in a static state since when, exactly? Second, and of equal importance IMO, is the fact that this shift from a traditional regional BCS conference to a post-BCS transcontinental überconference is so revolutionary - such a big idea - that it requires time to gesticulate. A little stability for Aresco and all the ADs involved would go a long, long way towards making this happen. As many have pointed out, it wouldn't take much of a TV contract to make the nBE a revenue-positive move. On the flip side, is there enough T1 and T2 value in our MBB to merit a BSU-like agreement with the MWC to make it worthwhile? Maybe, considering we're the reason Fox is willing to pay $1.5 million for Big Lots hoops. At least enough to merit the bird in the hand vs. two ten in the bush consdieration. Furthermore, this would promise the one thing the nBE in its current state of continuous flux cannot: stability. But back to the question of the viability of the nBE. If only the new cornerstone programs - SDSU, SMU, Houston, Memphis, Temple - along with CU and UCONN will commit to the C2C model, for say, 4-5 years, it would provide a baseline with which Aresco can do his thing and market a 4-time zone, transcontinental two-division product that includes a BCS bowl in 2013, national TV exposure, significant increase in revenue, and what would arguably become one of the better MBB conferences in the nation. At the very least, temporary entry into the nBE/BW would position us for transition into a theoretical C2C. In other words, if the ADs and Aresco could provide a united voice in support of such an idea, I don't see how we don't make the jump, even without a new TV contract in place.
|
|
|
Post by zurac315 on Jan 5, 2013 18:35:30 GMT -8
After reading the story in the Union it sounds like the Big East is the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by frustratedfan on Jan 5, 2013 19:05:12 GMT -8
Well thought out SGF. I agree with what you lay out. Here are my thoughts. First, I believe the MGC blew their entire wad on Boise State, so when we give them an offer we can't refuse they won't be able to go along with it. I also agree with James. It is bad enough that Boise State will be making most of the Benjamins, but we have to pay to watch them make most of the Benjamins which is ludicrous. It is also apparent, unlike what some thought, Aresco and the BE still want us. To me, it appears the BE wants us more than the MGC. I still can't believe the small time ankle biters over there are trying to play hard ball with us. Overall, I still believe the BE will have a much better TV deal than the MGC, and I know they put us in a better position if/when the Big12 or the Pac12 come calling. Finally, I don't believe Aresco and the long term members of the BE , (i.e.-UH, SMU, UCF, Memphis,etc.), don't already know the value of having an all sports western division and the benefit of having a perennial top 25 basketball program like SDSU in that conference. Of course if there is any doubt, we can eliminate that by going deep in the NCAA Tournament this year which we have the potential of doing. Consequently, I believe the BE offers the most long term to SDSU and if the long term members want to have an all sports western division by 2015 we should put it into overdrive and make a full comittment to the BE.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jan 5, 2013 19:17:04 GMT -8
Well thought out SGF. I agree with what you lay out. Here are my thoughts. First, I believe the MGC blew their entire wad on Boise State, so when we give them an offer we can't refuse they won't be able to go along with it. I also agree with James. It is bad enough that Boise State will be making most of the Benjamins, but we have to pay to watch them make most of the Benjamins which is ludicrous. It is also apparent, unlike what some thought, Aresco and the BE still want us. To me, it appears the BE wants us more than the MGC. I still can't believe the small time ankle biters over there are trying to play hard ball with us. Overall, I still believe the BE will have a much better TV deal than the MGC, and I know they put us in a better position if/when the Big12 or the Pac12 come calling. Finally, I don't believe Aresco and the long term members of the BE , (i.e.-UH, SMU, UCF, Memphis,etc.), don't already know the value of having an all sports western division and the benefit of having a perennial top 25 basketball program like SDSU in that conference. Of course if there is any doubt, we can eliminate that by going deep in the NCAA Tournament this year which we have the potential of doing. Consequently, I believe the BE offers the most long term to SDSU and if the long term members want to have an all sports western division by 2015 we should put it into overdrive and make a full comittment to the BE. AMEN.
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jan 6, 2013 8:41:48 GMT -8
3. As long as Louisville, Rutgers,Uconn and UC have control of things, or ate least until July 1, 2013, an all-sports BE western division can’t be created. 4. When read carefully, the MWC’s new TV deal is so stacked toward Boise that it will do very little is anything to help anybody else. 5. Because of the above, there is no logical reason to think BYU is going to return to the MWC. I dispute a couple of your facts -- and therefore necessarily dispute some of your conclusions... 1. I have seen no evidence that Louisville, Rutgers,Uconn and UC are against a western division. Indeed, the nBE attempted to create a western division but it was the schools that you targeted that were not interested. And schools that announce their departures generally lose the right to vote on conference matters -- and especially on who replaces them in the conference. I'd love to see a link to wherever you got that information. 2. No question that Boise got the best deal but there is also no question that everybody comes out better off. And as I read it, you would as well. CBS only has access to 15 games -- and with you, Boise, BYU and Fresno all in the conference, there would be ample opportunity for you to earn bonus money with games shown on other networks. Even more so if Houston & SMU join. 3. BYU needs a conference and the MWC is the only one that is available locally. As it is, they have little opportunity to showcase themselves and their religion/values in the post season via a BCS bowl and the BCS payout is minimal because of it (not that money is really the issue). The have had some difficulty getting games in November. I'm not saying that they are coming; that is no slam dunk. However you are overreaching when you claim that there is no logical reason that they might. Based on all that, here’s what I now think. 1. SDSU should make the MWC an offer WE can’t refuse and if they’ll agree to it, we return. Do they want us as back? If so, show us the $. 2. Assuming the MWC refuses to make SDSU an offer we can’t refuse, we should . . . 1. The MWC will not, and should not, offer you any special deals. You're San Diego State, not frigging Texas, Notre Dame or Boise State. (That was a joke.) Seriously, you don't bring that much to the table. You've been good for two or three years -- and not good for almost a generation before that. You have no national cachet. You're Wyoming in a big city only without the same level of fan support. You're way over impressed with yourselves. You don't merit sweetheart deals. Sorry. (Possible exception: they might help with your $5 mil exit fee from the Big East -- which I presume that you would owe if you left before your get out of jail free card -- no other western teams by July 1 -- kicks in.) 2. You'd be making a mistake, in my view, putting off creating a western division for a year. You should do it before January 31 -- so that you know whether or not you were successful before making your decision to return or not to return to the MWC. If Aresco would get off his ass, you could do it now. The MWC is vulnerable because Kustra overplayed his hand, in my view. By demanding such a large share of the income, your target schools will necessarily be receiving a small enough share of the income that they will be interested in a counter offer that generates more. And Boise would come too, of course, on the nBE's terms, if they just lost half their conference.) If done now, the deal would be effective July 31, 2014 and the nBE would be virtually guaranteed the group of five BCS slot in 2014-15. Yoda out... .
|
|
|
Post by k5james on Jan 6, 2013 8:50:23 GMT -8
3. As long as Louisville, Rutgers,Uconn and UC have control of things, or ate least until July 1, 2013, an all-sports BE western division can’t be created. 4. When read carefully, the MWC’s new TV deal is so stacked toward Boise that it will do very little is anything to help anybody else. 5. Because of the above, there is no logical reason to think BYU is going to return to the MWC. I dispute a couple of your facts -- and therefore necessarily dispute some of your conclusions... 1. I have seen no evidence that Louisville, Rutgers,Uconn and UC are against a western division. Indeed, the nBE attempted to create a western division but it was the schools that you targeted that were not interested. And schools that announce their departures generally lose the right to vote on conference matters -- and especially on who replaces them in the conference. I'd love to see a link to wherever you got that information. 2. No question that Boise got the best deal but there is also no question that everybody comes out better off. And as I read it, you would as well. CBS only has access to 15 games -- and with you, Boise, BYU and Fresno all in the conference, there would be ample opportunity for you to earn bonus money with games shown on other networks. Even more so if Houston & SMU join. 3. BYU needs a conference and the MWC is the only one that is available locally. As it is, they have little opportunity to showcase themselves and their religion/values in the post season via a BCS bowl and the BCS payout is minimal because of it (not that money is really the issue). The have had some difficulty getting games in November. I'm not saying that they are coming; that is no slam dunk. However you are overreaching when you claim that there is no logical reason that they might. Based on all that, here’s what I now think. 1. SDSU should make the MWC an offer WE can’t refuse and if they’ll agree to it, we return. Do they want us as back? If so, show us the $. 2. Assuming the MWC refuses to make SDSU an offer we can’t refuse, we should . . . 1. The MWC will not, and should not, offer you any special deals. You're San Diego State, not frigging Texas, Notre Dame or Boise State. (That was a joke.) Seriously, you don't bring that much to the table. You've been good for two or three years -- and not good for almost a generation before that. You have no national cachet. You're Wyoming in a big city only without the same level of fan support. You're way over impressed with yourselves. You don't merit sweetheart deals. Sorry. (Possible exception: they might help with your $5 mil exit fee from the Big East -- which I presume that you would owe if you left before your get out of jail free card -- no other western teams by July 1 -- kicks in.) 2. You'd be making a mistake, in my view, putting off creating a western division for a year. You should do it before January 31 -- so that you know whether or not you were successful before making your decision to return or not to return to the MWC. If Aresco would get off his ass, you could do it now. The MWC is vulnerable because Kustra overplayed his hand, in my view. By demanding such a large share of the income, your target schools will necessarily be receiving a small enough share of the income that they will be interested in a counter offer that generates more. And Boise would come too, of course, on the nBE's terms, if they just lost half their conference.) If done now, the deal would be effective July 31, 2014 and the nBE would be virtually guaranteed the group of five BCS slot in 2014-15. Yoda out... . Cool, if we don't bring any value, you should be glad we're leaving. Take a walk. Your obsession with us speaks volumes about our value to the MWC, your school and you in particular.
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jan 6, 2013 9:12:28 GMT -8
Wall of text from the bitter little man whose school gets left behind, left behind again, then bends over and let's boise steal their money.
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on Jan 6, 2013 9:23:37 GMT -8
3. As long as Louisville, Rutgers,Uconn and UC have control of things, or ate least until July 1, 2013, an all-sports BE western division can�t be created. 4. When read carefully, the MWC�s new TV deal is so stacked toward Boise that it will do very little is anything to help anybody else. 5. Because of the above, there is no logical reason to think BYU is going to return to the MWC. I dispute a couple of your facts -- and therefore necessarily dispute some of your conclusions... 1. I have seen no evidence that Louisville, Rutgers,Uconn and UC are against a western division. Indeed, the nBE attempted to create a western division but it was the schools that you targeted that were not interested. And schools that announce their departures generally lose the right to vote on conference matters -- and especially on who replaces them in the conference. I'd love to see a link to wherever you got that information. 2. No question that Boise got the best deal but there is also no question that everybody comes out better off. And as I read it, you would as well. CBS only has access to 15 games -- and with you, Boise, BYU and Fresno all in the conference, there would be ample opportunity for you to earn bonus money with games shown on other networks. Even more so if Houston & SMU join. 3. BYU needs a conference and the MWC is the only one that is available locally. As it is, they have little opportunity to showcase themselves and their religion/values in the post season via a BCS bowl and the BCS payout is minimal because of it (not that money is really the issue). The have had some difficulty getting games in November. I'm not saying that they are coming; that is no slam dunk. However you are overreaching when you claim that there is no logical reason that they might. Based on all that, here�s what I now think. 1. SDSU should make the MWC an offer WE can�t refuse and if they�ll agree to it, we return. Do they want us as back? If so, show us the $. 2. Assuming the MWC refuses to make SDSU an offer we can�t refuse, we should . . . 1. The MWC will not, and should not, offer you any special deals. You're San Diego State, not frigging Texas, Notre Dame or Boise State. (That was a joke.) Seriously, you don't bring that much to the table. You've been good for two or three years -- and not good for almost a generation before that. You have no national cachet. You're Wyoming in a big city only without the same level of fan support. You're way over impressed with yourselves. You don't merit sweetheart deals. Sorry. (Possible exception: they might help with your $5 mil exit fee from the Big East -- which I presume that you would owe if you left before your get out of jail free card -- no other western teams by July 1 -- kicks in.) 2. You'd be making a mistake, in my view, putting off creating a western division for a year. You should do it before January 31 -- so that you know whether or not you were successful before making your decision to return or not to return to the MWC. If Aresco would get off his ass, you could do it now. The MWC is vulnerable because Kustra overplayed his hand, in my view. By demanding such a large share of the income, your target schools will necessarily be receiving a small enough share of the income that they will be interested in a counter offer that generates more. And Boise would come too, of course, on the nBE's terms, if they just lost half their conference.) If done now, the deal would be effective July 31, 2014 and the nBE would be virtually guaranteed the group of five BCS slot in 2014-15. Yoda out... . you all can think small and stay that way. We don't have to. Watch and learn. Our hoops program alone has national cache that is of help, that's been proved by the fox TV contract for the big west. As for putting off a western division, one doesn't exist yet but most Likely will in two years. Aresco seemingly missed the opportunity when the C7 announced their departure. The facts are clear. The front range schools own the voting block to effectively keep the league small-minded and limit it's growth because of the same attitude you just showed. "Wyoming in a big city" - really? Think small, stay small. Sent from my DROID RAZR using proboards
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jan 6, 2013 10:08:50 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jan 6, 2013 10:09:51 GMT -8
I'm too bored to read your treatises on this nonsense
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jan 6, 2013 10:16:01 GMT -8
I'm too bored to read your treatises on this nonsense No biggie. You wouldn't have understood them anyway. I forgot to keep it to two syllable words. Yoda out... .
|
|
|
Post by TheSanDiegan on Jan 6, 2013 11:01:50 GMT -8
You're Wyoming in a big city only without the same level of fan support. Wouldn't that then make Fresneck nothing but Wyoming in a WIC stamp-draped, dust-covered shithole? BTW, Wyoming manages to draw just over half the attendance on average, over the last four years, when playing @ Laramie than we do when the Pokes play at the Q, despite having an on-campus stadium. Of course, they also have half the student population State does. Either way, your patently antagonistic comment is at best awash in hyperbole, and at worst just an effort to troll, obfuscated and interlaced with a couple of facts.
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jan 6, 2013 11:10:28 GMT -8
I'm too bored to read your treatises on this nonsense No biggie. You wouldn't have understood them anyway. I forgot to keep it to two syllable words. Yoda out... . yea, me so stoopid
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jan 6, 2013 11:12:44 GMT -8
You're Wyoming in a big city only without the same level of fan support. Wouldn't that then make Fresneck nothing but Wyoming in a WIC stamp-draped, dust-covered shithole? BTW, Wyoming manages to draw just over half the attendance on average, over the last four years, when playing @ Laramie than we do when the Pokes play at the Q, despite having an on-campus stadium. Of course, they also have half the student population State does. Either way, your patently antagonistic comment is at best awash in hyperbole, and at worst just an effort to troll, obfuscated and interlaced with a couple of facts. His shtick is just his bitterness over always being left behind. I miss your fiduciary pablum, Yoda.
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jan 6, 2013 11:13:14 GMT -8
BTW, Wyoming manages to draw just over half the attendance on average, over the last four years, when playing @ Laramie than we do when the Pokes play at the Q, despite having an on-campus stadium. If you drew the same percentage of the population living within 2 hours of the stadium that they draw, then your average attendance would be over 200,000 -- per game. And if they drew the same percentage of the population living within 2 hours of the stadium that you draw, then their average attendance would be 167 -- per game. Honestly, I mean that more as a complement of a team that you folks consistently trash than I do as an antagonistic trashing of your fan base. But the fact is, you don't draw very well, given how many local residents you have to draw from. Specifically, you don't draw at a level that justifies special treatment by the MWC. Yoda out... .
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jan 6, 2013 11:14:52 GMT -8
BTW, Wyoming manages to draw just over half the attendance on average, over the last four years, when playing @ Laramie than we do when the Pokes play at the Q, despite having an on-campus stadium. If you drew the same percentage of the population living within 2 hours of the stadium that they draw, then your average attendance would be over 200,000 -- per game. And if they drew the same percentage of the population living within 2 hours of the stadium that you draw, then their average attendance would be 1267 -- per game. Okay, I made those numbers up -- sort of. I looked long ago and it was somewhere in that range, if I recall correctly. Honestly, I mean that more as a complement of a team that you folks consistently trash than I do as an antagonistic trashing of your fan base. But the fact is, you don't draw very well, given how many local residents you have to draw from. Specifically, you don't draw at a level that justifies special treatment by the MWC. Yoda out... .
|
|