Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2010 17:50:58 GMT -8
There are enough rumors out there now to think this is going to go down by Tuesday at the latest:
1. Utah is going to leave us for the Pac to replace aTm, which is headed to the SEC.
2. Regardless of whether anybody else is headed to the Pac, the Big 12 is history. That's because if Texas, Oklahoma, et al. don't go to the Pac, they're going to the Big Ten or the SEC. (Not going to bother with the possibilities because this thread isn't about those conferences but the MWC.)
3. Also, to repeat what I keep saying on other people's threads, except for wet dream postings by some TCU fans, there is absolutely nothing on the internet to suggest the Big 12 leftovers can form a new conference and steal TCU or BYU or Boise. Absolutely nothing.
4. To add to my third point, there is surprisingly little to suggest that the Big East has any interest in the remnants of the Big 12. From that, I have to think that the Big East commish has informally polled his presidents and few if any have any desire to keep that conference together to play football since they all expect to go to either the Big Ten or the ACC within the next couple years.
5. What does all that mean? That other than Baylor - who nobody except a few Aztecs inexplicably think is worth more than newly laid dog poop - in order of desirability to other conferences, the following schools will be very much free agents by the end of next week: Missouri, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State.
Yoda will tell you the WAC is negotiating to take them just like the WAC has been in covert discussions with SDSU and UNLV to have us return to the fold when the MWC falls apart this week. Don't believe Yoda. Either is possible only in some alternate universe.
The complete absence of any legitimate reason to think the Big East has made an effort to reach out to any of these schools leads me to think that one or more IS going to end up in our conference. But make no mistake. Mizzou or Kansas would seem to be a good choice to join aTm in the SEC.
Having now reached 10, the MWC isn't going to again have an odd number of members. So with Utah leaving, we are going to agin be down to nine members. What does that mean?
That the conference could take none of those former Big 12 schools. That the conference could take one of them or that the conference could take three and go to 12, which would allow for two divisions and a conference football championship game.
My guess would be that if all are available, the MWC would take Mizzou, KU and KSU and go to 12. If Mizzou or KU goes to the SEC, the MWC would either take just the one which doesn't go to the SEC or more likely would take all three and then we'll all try not to laugh in Baylor's face during the press conference announcing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jun 12, 2010 18:02:22 GMT -8
We'll see. I want it to end quickly now, I am having growing trepidation of the outcome for SDSU. There are still so many moving parts and so much that can happen, that the quicker it ends with a solid MWC9 the better it will be for us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2010 18:11:54 GMT -8
Why the knock on Baylor? They have a pretty good athletic tradition, they sure as hell outdraw SDSU, UNLV, CSU, and WYO, and it's a fine academic school. It would be overall in the top half of this league I'd say. Academics? Get real, John. We just let Boise St. in. Attendance? Baylor drew 31K for Nebraska and 44K for Texas. What do you think SDSU would draw if we hosted those schools? Athletic tradition? They have had 14 consecutive losing football seasons and until this year, they hadn't won an NCAA basketball tournament game in 49 years. |
|
|
|
Post by azteken on Jun 12, 2010 18:25:30 GMT -8
SGF, regarding point 4: my guess is that the Big East is throwing in the towel as a football conference. That they were a BCS AQ has been a sham since Miami, BC and VT left for the ACC. The ACC will take who they want, and maybe the Big "10" will take some. Who knows where UConn, South Florida & Louisville will end up. The BE will still be a great BB conference, with Georgetown, St. John's, DePaul (if they get their mojo back), Marquette, Villanova, Notre Dame (I think they will stay independent in FB), Seton Hall, maybe work a deal for UConn to stay for BB. Maybe raid the A-10 for a school or two. Syracuse, WV & Rutgers to ACC. Probably missing someone from this.
|
|
|
|
Post by azteken on Jun 12, 2010 18:29:04 GMT -8
Re SGF point 5: I would bet there is a huge amount of bad blood between the former SWC schools who went to the Big 12, and those left behind. Especially for Baylor, who really brought nothing to the table. However, Baylor brings more to the MWC than Iowa State does.
|
|
|
|
Post by rickdoerr on Jun 12, 2010 18:40:48 GMT -8
SGF thanx for following and reporting all this stuff. Question for ya. Assume your 5pts above all happen, does any of this expidite our BCS qualification? How much damage might the Utah defection cause?
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecpaulg on Jun 12, 2010 18:48:04 GMT -8
SGF, I have a couple of questions for you ...
1. What other team besides A&M are the SEC looking at? Adding only A&M would give them 13 teams so they'd need one more ... Virginia Tech?
2. Why would the PAC 10 take Utah over Missouri or Kansas?
3. If Texas holds the Big XII together with the ten remaining teams, will they be looking to add teams like Utah and TCU or will they stay at 10 and forgo a conference title game?
|
|
|
|
Post by boblowe on Jun 12, 2010 19:06:29 GMT -8
SGF, I have a couple of questions for you ... 1. What other team besides A&M are the SEC looking at? Adding only A&M would give them 13 teams so they'd need one more ... Virginia Tech? 2. Why would the PAC 10 take Utah over Missouri or Kansas? 3. If Texas holds the Big XII together with the ten remaining teams, will they be looking to add teams like Utah and TCU or will they stay at 10 and forgo a conference title game? 1. Maybe and I even heard, Maryland and UNC today. I doubt any happen. As someone who lives on Tobacco Rd., I'd be surprised if any left. 2. Better football and closer--keeps minsnomer of "Pacific." Utah also a good travel match with Colorado. 3. Yes |
|
|
|
Post by RiffelBooks on Jun 12, 2010 19:09:40 GMT -8
Reaction to SGF stuff:
1. I see nothing new today about Utah going anywhere, just rehashes of the old stuff. I think the Boise move was made with the idea that everyone is going to stay. I might be wrong, but we'll see next week. You're really telling me they're going to break up the Holy War?
2. There was a lot of renewed Save-the-Big 12 talk Friday. Not much today, that I saw. Big 12 is done by Tuesday night. However, the thread about the MWC going after KU, KSU says the expected remaining schools held a conference call Saturday in which they talked about staying together to form a league that would be strong in hoops.
3. Yes, there is absolutely something, above. I agree it's unlikely to really happen, but you're misleading us to say there is nothing.
4. The Big East has its own problems, like being too big in basketball. It's probably not that they're not interested, but that they can't move until the ACC or SEC make their moves. On a football/TV households basis, I think only Pittsburgh would be interesting. West Virginia brings a lot of tradition and an entire state might make them enticing. Once they're raided, they'll be free to take ISU or Baylor all they like.
5. If I'm the MWC, I take the Kansas schools, Houston and Fresno State. Missouri for some reason has a bad rep, but they might be worth it.
Why is TCU fighting Baylor? I don't understand that. You think they'd want another Texas team in. (answered by another thread pointing out lingering animosity over the Big 12 formation that left them out in the cold).
|
|
|
|
Post by RiffelBooks on Jun 12, 2010 19:12:02 GMT -8
1. Clemson. 2. Ditto. 3. They'll rebuild, but it's going to be hard for them. SGF, I have a couple of questions for you ... 1. What other team besides A&M are the SEC looking at? Adding only A&M would give them 13 teams so they'd need one more ... Virginia Tech? 2. Why would the PAC 10 take Utah over Missouri or Kansas? 3. If Texas holds the Big XII together with the ten remaining teams, will they be looking to add teams like Utah and TCU or will they stay at 10 and forgo a conference title game? [ |
|
|
|
Post by goaztecs on Jun 12, 2010 19:26:55 GMT -8
This was the best post so far on this site! Good rundown.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdsuaztecs on Jun 12, 2010 20:04:00 GMT -8
If the MWC can stay intact I say invite Kansas, Kansas State for starters and maybe Houston, SMU, Fresno and Nevada if 16 is the magic number. The PAC 16 obviously thinks they can get two teams in the BCS as does the Big 10 if they can get to 16. The MWC would be wise to preempt the notion that going to 16 teams entitles a conference to two AQ spots in the BCS by expanding to 16 teams now. A MWC with 16 could not be denied an AQ in the BCS and would preclude any other conference from having two AQ's without risking anti-trust.
|
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on Jun 12, 2010 20:14:18 GMT -8
If losing Utah means getting KU, KSU and Mizzou I am all for it. The divisions might look like
West
SDSU
UNLV
UNM
Wyoming
BYU
Boise St.
East
TCU
CSU
AFA
KU
Mizzou
KSU
|
|
|
|
Post by HollywoodAztec on Jun 12, 2010 20:27:20 GMT -8
1. Utah is going to leave us for the Pac to replace aTm, which is headed to the SEC. It has been reported that A&M is torn between the SEC and the PAC10. However, I think A&M is only doing this to give the public the impression that they don't necessarily do whatever U of Texas asks them to do; that they don't have to go wherever Texas goes; that they're an autonomous school that pursues what's best for their own self-interests. In other words, their Board will come to the conclusion that their future is brighter by joining the PAC10. 4. To add to my third point, there is surprisingly little to suggest that the Big East has any interest in the remnants of the Big 12. From that, I have to think that the Big East commish has informally polled his presidents and few if any have any desire to keep that conference together to play football since they all expect to go to either the Big Ten or the ACC within the next couple years. The Big East's major dilemma is that they cannot expand their football league without expelling 2-4 of their basketball member schools. If the Big East football group even gives any innuendos of offering membership to the Big XII orphans, their league will implode as well. I think some of the football schools knows they're walking on precarious grounds 'coz they could end up being orphans too if the Big10 and ACC decides to raid their conference. So why rock the boat if they could potentially lose their BcS status? 5. What does all that mean? That other than Baylor - who nobody except a few Aztecs inexplicably think is worth more than newly laid dog poop - in order of desirability to other conferences, the following schools will be very much free agents by the end of next week: Missouri, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State. You were once quite adamant that the Big10 would expand by taking two Big XII schools with Missouri being its primary expansion target. However with Nebraska now being admitted into the Big10, it seems Mizzou has become an afterthought. They're no longer being mentioned as a possible expansion candidate. However, with the Big10 being so clandestine with their expansion plans, Mizzou could re-emerge as a target if 1 or 2 Big East targets don't pan out. As for Baylor, I think they immediately went to work behind the scenes the day they learned of Colorado's admission into the PAC10. Despite TCU's opposition to Baylor being offered a MWC membership, I'd think that there are backroom deals happening between the powerful and influential alumni of both schools. The TCU naysayers can be appeased if their own major boosters convinces them of the advantages Baylor brings to MWC. Besides, did they not just play each other in football last season? My guess would be that if all are available, the MWC would take Mizzou, KU and KSU and go to 12. If Mizzou or KU goes to the SEC, the MWC would either take just the one which doesn't go to the SEC or more likely would take all three and then we'll all try not to laugh in Baylor's face during the press conference announcing it. IMHO, MWC will either be a 14-member league or a 16-member conference when these realignments finally settles down. Our Commish is probably in constant discussion with our tv networks to figure out the best scenarios so we can maximize our league's value and increase the payout per team so we can convince Kansas, Missouri and K-State (Iowa St and Baylor) that even if their revenue in MWC aren't comparable to what they're currently receiving, the reduction wouldn't be very significant. But to convince these BigXII orphans to join us, our Commish has to sell the ideas of our "potentials" especially in basketball. Furthermore, if they join us, they can be convinced that it would be an "easier" road for their football teams to reach a BCS bowl game. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2010 21:05:43 GMT -8
Before addressing all the questions above, thought I'd link this: www.blatanthomerism.com/2010-articles/june/what-the-pac-16-means-for-the-oklahoma-sooners.htmlThis guy seems to have as much info about OU as anybody and rather than continuing to argue with a Utah fan on the MWC board about the Pac-16 thing falling apart, I thought I'd just link it here. Note it was posted just an hour and a half ago. I've asked the Utah guy for rationale or sources and he just ignores my request, so I tend to think he's still hoping that only Utah and CU go to the Pac. Why should he want that? Because Utah could compete well under that scenario. However, here is what the Utes' division is going to look like if they get in to the Pac: Utah Texas Texas Tech Oklahoma Okie State (w/ T. Boone Pickens $$$) Colorado Arizona St. Arizona How often does Utah figure to win THAT division? |
|
|
|
Post by RiffelBooks on Jun 12, 2010 21:11:58 GMT -8
That's why Utah stays home.
|
|
|
|
Post by RiffelBooks on Jun 12, 2010 21:13:38 GMT -8
Hollywood, there are concrete reasons why A&M is talking SEC. One of their board members is former bama coach Gene Stallings, who is a driving force in aiming them south. I guess their AD is big on the SEC, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by HollywoodAztec on Jun 12, 2010 21:15:34 GMT -8
Before addressing all the questions above, thought I'd link this: www.blatanthomerism.com/2010-articles/june/what-the-pac-16-means-for-the-oklahoma-sooners.htmlThis guy seems to have as much info about OU as anybody and rather than continuing to argue with a Utah fan on the MWC board about the Pac-16 thing falling apart, I thought I'd just link it here. Note it was posted just an hour and a half ago. I've asked the Utah guy for rationale or sources and he just ignores my request, so I tend to think he's still hoping that only Utah and CU go to the Pac. Why should he want that? Because Utah could compete well under that scenario. However, here is what the Utes' division is going to look like if they get in to the Pac: Utah Texas Texas Tech Oklahoma Okie State (w/ T. Boone Pickens $$$) Colorado Arizona St. Arizona How often does Utah figure to win THAT division? I honestly don't blame Utah's hard-on for the PAC10. I'm sure we Aztecs would rather join the PAC16 too (if we are being considered) even if we are to be a part of tougher league. It's all about the money and prestige that comes with being associated with these schools. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on Jun 12, 2010 21:21:12 GMT -8
Before addressing all the questions above, thought I'd link this: www.blatanthomerism.com/2010-articles/june/what-the-pac-16-means-for-the-oklahoma-sooners.htmlThis guy seems to have as much info about OU as anybody and rather than continuing to argue with a Utah fan on the MWC board about the Pac-16 thing falling apart, I thought I'd just link it here. Note it was posted just an hour and a half ago. I've asked the Utah guy for rationale or sources and he just ignores my request, so I tend to think he's still hoping that only Utah and CU go to the Pac. Why should he want that? Because Utah could compete well under that scenario. However, here is what the Utes' division is going to look like if they get in to the Pac: Utah Texas Texas Tech Oklahoma Okie State (w/ T. Boone Pickens $$$) Colorado Arizona St. Arizona How often does Utah figure to win THAT division? Tell me why the twins BYU & Utah would ever split up? They have always been joned at the hip, back decades. Very big rivalry in a very small pound of Utah. LDS heritage and all that. I don't think your SoCal perspective holds credibility. They both stand to lose a lot in Utah by not being in the same league. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2010 21:23:13 GMT -8
SGF thanx for following and reporting all this stuff. Question for ya. Assume your 5pts above all happen, does any of this expidite our BCS qualification? How much damage might the Utah defection cause? Losing Utah would hurt but qualification would be based on a formula only Monty or another rocket scientist could explain. Suffice it to say it's my understanding Utah's accomplishments could be counted, as could the fact that if Kansas comes, its Orange Bowl win in 2007 would be a big plus. BTW, Baylor's SDSU-like football numbers are among a myriad of reasons to avoid those guys like the plague. |
|
