choop
Bench Warmer
Posts: 52
|
Post by choop on Jun 15, 2010 7:00:14 GMT -8
From a purely monetary standpoint adding just Houston to go to 10 teams (assuming Utah leaves) makes sense. But SDSU is still missing it's natural rival in Fresno State. You want butts in the stands, bring on Fresno State too. And one more team (take your pick...Nevada, Hawaii, UTEP, SMU, Utah State) makes 12 and a championship game which pays for the additional teams and maybe an AQ to the BCS. IMO, 10 teams won't get a BCS AQ simply because there aren't enough tv sets to justify AQ. For those who continue to advocate a MWC12 league, you seem to constantly ignore the fact that more mouths to feed means lesser revenue to be earned. IF expanding to 12 teams meant gaining the AQ status quicker, our presidents and Commish would've acted hastily, albeit cautiously, to achieve this. Adding teams for the sake of staging a league championship doesn't necessarily augment a significant amount of money to our coffers. Keep in mind that what triggered all these recent realignments was the revenue for each schools would double or even triple. Do you think our league can demand from our TV networks to increase our current $1.2 mil payout per team to $5-$8 mil per team by adding Fresno St. and Houston or the other schools you mentioned if we go to a 12-team league? It has been argued often why the schools you mentioned aren't ideal candidates for MWC. Fresno St. and perhaps even Houston may have an advantage over the others but their addition isn't compelling enough to convince and appease the presidents. I advocate going to the MWC-12 because I seriously think the PAC-10 will consider killing the MWC as a competitor for recruiting, splitting BCS money, and pure West Coast bragging rights. The MWC did a great job outshining the PAC-10 last year in Football & Basketball. That job will be easier the next 2 years with USC out of the hunt. The PAC-10 could have won this battle by getting the Big 12 teams on board, but that has failed. The only remaining teams in the Western Region worthy of the PAC-10 pursuing are MWC teams. They can eliminate any true competition for recruiting and bragging rights, along with killing the chances of the MWC being a BCS conference by taking the 3 schools. To that end, I would hope the MWC would add Fresno and Houston. If we get hit for 3 teams we are where we are now, a 9 team league. If we get hit for 3 teams and are a weakened 7 team conference, it might be tougher to rebuild, and might have to accept weaker teams to do so. No matter what, I don't want to fall below the WAC and C-USA. When Scott went after the Big 12, he displayed his tendancy of doing the unexpected. Everyone expects just Utah now, but I think he goes for the jugular to destroy the MWC this time. MWC-12 NOW. |
|
|
|
Post by SD Johnny on Jun 15, 2010 7:37:23 GMT -8
I think the new Big 12 deal shelves realignment for a while but this will come up again. Realignment has been a huge issue in the last 15 years or so. This has happened in '94 (Big 8 became Big 12), '04 (ACC raids BigEast) and now '10 (Colorado, Nebraska, nearly Pac-16). This is going to happen again and the Pac 10 would be foolish to fill up any potential slots with average teams. I could be wrong but I don't think there is any guarantee that Utah gets invited at this time. For those who continue to advocate a MWC12 league, you seem to constantly ignore the fact that more mouths to feed means lesser revenue to be earned. IF expanding to 12 teams meant gaining the AQ status quicker, our presidents and Commish would've acted hastily, albeit cautiously, to achieve this. Adding teams for the sake of staging a league championship doesn't necessarily augment a significant amount of money to our coffers. Keep in mind that what triggered all these recent realignments was the revenue for each schools would double or even triple. Do you think our league can demand from our TV networks to increase our current $1.2 mil payout per team to $5-$8 mil per team by adding Fresno St. and Houston or the other schools you mentioned if we go to a 12-team league? It has been argued often why the schools you mentioned aren't ideal candidates for MWC. Fresno St. and perhaps even Houston may have an advantage over the others but their addition isn't compelling enough to convince and appease the presidents. I advocate going to the MWC-12 because I seriously think the PAC-10 will consider killing the MWC as a competitor for recruiting, splitting BCS money, and pure West Coast bragging rights. The MWC did a great job outshining the PAC-10 last year in Football & Basketball. That job will be easier the next 2 years with USC out of the hunt. The PAC-10 could have won this battle by getting the Big 12 teams on board, but that has failed. The only remaining teams in the Western Region worthy of the PAC-10 pursuing are MWC teams. They can eliminate any true competition for recruiting and bragging rights, along with killing the chances of the MWC being a BCS conference by taking the 3 schools. To that end, I would hope the MWC would add Fresno and Houston. If we get hit for 3 teams we are where we are now, a 9 team league. If we get hit for 3 teams and are a weakened 7 team conference, it might be tougher to rebuild, and might have to accept weaker teams to do so. No matter what, I don't want to fall below the WAC and C-USA. When Scott went after the Big 12, he displayed his tendancy of doing the unexpected. Everyone expects just Utah now, but I think he goes for the jugular to destroy the MWC this time. MWC-12 NOW. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2010 8:02:41 GMT -8
I think the new Big 12 deal shelves realignment for a while but this will come up again. Absolutely. The next expansion thing may have no effect on the MWC since it's probably going to involve the SEC, the ACC and the Big East. However, the Big 12-2 is still in trouble. As an example, Bill King had the Rivals Missouri site guy on this morning and he said that although casual Tigers fans are happy right now, the true hardcore fan base is not. Although nobody from Mizzou has said so, they are apparently just as unhappy being in the same conference as Texas as was Nebraska. King and Jack Ketchum of Orangebloods also discussed how unhappy many aTm fans are for the exact same reason. I've come to think the Big Ten would be making a mistake to take ND because the Irish are going to cause the same intra-conference conflicts that Texas cause. Really the best thing for survival of the Big 12-2 would be for Texas to just go indy like ND. While I certainly don't want to see it happen, the Big 12-2 could then substitute BYU, TCU and Houston and they would have themselves a less profitable but much more emotionally cohesive conference. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2010 8:34:07 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2010 8:47:59 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by HollywoodAztec on Jun 15, 2010 8:52:03 GMT -8
If Utah stays in the MWC adding Houston and Fresno State to the MWC almost assures AQ to the BCS. However, the odds are less that happens without expansion. Ultimately the goal is AQ to the BCS (or better yet a playoff). Adding Houston and Fresno raises the likelihood that happens and moves the MWC closer to parity with the PAC-11. “Almost” is the key term here because how exactly can our league attain AQ status with the addition of Houston and Fresno St.? If my memory serves me correctly, I don’t recall either of these teams finishing in the top 25 the last 2-3 years, which what truly matters ‘coz their final rankings would count for MWC. Neither comes close to what our new member Boise St. has achieved. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuaztecs on Jun 15, 2010 9:00:49 GMT -8
Hollywood,
Almost is the key term but what are the odds the MWC gets an AQ to the BCS without expansion? All I'm saying is the odds are better with expansion because of more tv driving more advertising. Let's face it, it's all about advertising $$$$ and how to get higher tv ratings.
The Big 10 Network is really all you need to know. And considering the almost obscure "footprint" of MWC Network, there are a lot of pesos to be had by expanding the number of tv sets watching the "Mountain"........especially if the "Mountain" is part of the BCS party.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2010 9:00:56 GMT -8
If Utah stays in the MWC adding Houston and Fresno State to the MWC almost assures AQ to the BCS. However, the odds are less that happens without expansion. Ultimately the goal is AQ to the BCS (or better yet a playoff). Adding Houston and Fresno raises the likelihood that happens and moves the MWC closer to parity with the PAC-11. “Almost” is the key term here because how exactly can our league attain AQ status with the addition of Houston and Fresno St.? If my memory serves me correctly, I don’t recall either of these teams finishing in the top 25 the last 2-3 years, which what truly matters ‘coz their final rankings would count for MWC. Neither comes close to what our new member Boise St. has achieved. Right. Adding those schools does not put the MWC over the top, so why do it? Ultimately, what WILL put the MWC over the top is vastly improved OOC play over the next couple years from the likes of SDSU. |
|
|
|
Post by HollywoodAztec on Jun 15, 2010 9:01:20 GMT -8
For those who continue to advocate a MWC12 league, you seem to constantly ignore the fact that more mouths to feed means lesser revenue to be earned. IF expanding to 12 teams meant gaining the AQ status quicker, our presidents and Commish would've acted hastily, albeit cautiously, to achieve this. Adding teams for the sake of staging a league championship doesn't necessarily augment a significant amount of money to our coffers. Keep in mind that what triggered all these recent realignments was the revenue for each schools would double or even triple. Do you think our league can demand from our TV networks to increase our current $1.2 mil payout per team to $5-$8 mil per team by adding Fresno St. and Houston or the other schools you mentioned if we go to a 12-team league? It has been argued often why the schools you mentioned aren't ideal candidates for MWC. Fresno St. and perhaps even Houston may have an advantage over the others but their addition isn't compelling enough to convince and appease the presidents. I advocate going to the MWC-12 because I seriously think the PAC-10 will consider killing the MWC as a competitor for recruiting, splitting BCS money, and pure West Coast bragging rights. The MWC did a great job outshining the PAC-10 last year in Football & Basketball. That job will be easier the next 2 years with USC out of the hunt. The PAC-10 could have won this battle by getting the Big 12 teams on board, but that has failed. The only remaining teams in the Western Region worthy of the PAC-10 pursuing are MWC teams. They can eliminate any true competition for recruiting and bragging rights, along with killing the chances of the MWC being a BCS conference by taking the 3 schools. To that end, I would hope the MWC would add Fresno and Houston. If we get hit for 3 teams we are where we are now, a 9 team league. If we get hit for 3 teams and are a weakened 7 team conference, it might be tougher to rebuild, and might have to accept weaker teams to do so. No matter what, I don't want to fall below the WAC and C-USA. When Scott went after the Big 12, he displayed his tendancy of doing the unexpected. Everyone expects just Utah now, but I think he goes for the jugular to destroy the MWC this time. MWC-12 NOW. If the Pac-10 is seriously considering killing our league, don’t you think they would’ve done so during these recent realignments? In other words, why take only Utah for their fallback plan if they’re so threatened by MWC? The Pac-10’s mission is to double/triple the revenue per team so they can level the playing field with other AQ leagues and stay competitive which was why they aggressively pursued the BigXII South teams. We had our moments last season but overall, the Pac-10 doesn’t really consider us a threat – at least not yet. Having the spotlight shone on our league for the first time in 10 years doesn’t make us a major threat. However, if we continue to do what we accomplished last season for the next 3-5 years, then yes, MWC will be considered a huge threat. Like I mentioned in my initial post, adding 2 more teams equals subtracting our revenue per team, which defeats the purpose of MWC teams to be more competitive. Less revenue means less money to work with for our sports programs. The only reason for us to add more teams is with the assurance of finally gaining AQ status, which looks like we’re on track to do so (and doubling our revenue). |
|
|
|
Post by HollywoodAztec on Jun 15, 2010 9:02:37 GMT -8
“Almost” is the key term here because how exactly can our league attain AQ status with the addition of Houston and Fresno St.? If my memory serves me correctly, I don’t recall either of these teams finishing in the top 25 the last 2-3 years, which what truly matters ‘coz their final rankings would count for MWC. Neither comes close to what our new member Boise St. has achieved. Right. Adding those schools does not put the MWC over the top, so why do it? Ultimately, what WILL put the MWC over the top is vastly improved OOC play over the next couple years from the likes of SDSU. Precisely. The bottom half of our league really needs to step up. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuaztecs on Jun 15, 2010 9:12:03 GMT -8
The MWC is in a good position right now to assure their fate by expanding to 12 teams. There is an old axiom that says "you either grow or die". By standing pat with nine teams (less Utah) the MWC virtually locks themself out of the BCS IMO because there simply are not enough bodies/tv sets to command an AQ to the BCS.
If you're determined to maintain the status quo (9 teams w/o Utah), the MWC would be far better off to kick out SDSU so the $$$$ could be shared by fewer teams and rid the MWC of a drag on the conference. But that approach would ignore the number of tv sets in San Diego.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fred Noonan on Jun 15, 2010 9:23:13 GMT -8
I advocate going to the MWC-12 because I seriously think the PAC-10 will consider killing the MWC as a competitor for recruiting, splitting BCS money, and pure West Coast bragging rights. The MWC did a great job outshining the PAC-10 last year in Football & Basketball. That job will be easier the next 2 years with USC out of the hunt. The PAC-10 could have won this battle by getting the Big 12 teams on board, but that has failed. The only remaining teams in the Western Region worthy of the PAC-10 pursuing are MWC teams. They can eliminate any true competition for recruiting and bragging rights, along with killing the chances of the MWC being a BCS conference by taking the 3 schools. To that end, I would hope the MWC would add Fresno and Houston. If we get hit for 3 teams we are where we are now, a 9 team league. If we get hit for 3 teams and are a weakened 7 team conference, it might be tougher to rebuild, and might have to accept weaker teams to do so. No matter what, I don't want to fall below the WAC and C-USA. When Scott went after the Big 12, he displayed his tendancy of doing the unexpected. Everyone expects just Utah now, but I think he goes for the jugular to destroy the MWC this time. MWC-12 NOW. While I do not believe the PacWhatever will be in the market to expand further this view should not be overlooked. We are dealing with financially predatory practices here, classic market place manipulation and coercion. College football is a monopoly/oligopoly/cartel of some sort and predatory practices of eliminating competition is a hallmark of a skewed marketplace. The PacWhatever has certainly demonstrated its predatory nature by attempting to scuttle the Big 12 while capturing the western part of the country. There is certainly reason to think that having been unsuccessful in that effort it may wish to satisfy its appetitie by scooping up the attractive parts of the MWC while scuttling such pains in the backside as SDSU. I don't think we'll see this one in the immediate future, but I wouldn't put it past those financial robber barons to our direct north. The Fred Noonan School of Navigation.  |
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jun 15, 2010 9:23:40 GMT -8
For those who continue to advocate a MWC12 league, you seem to constantly ignore the fact that more mouths to feed means lesser revenue to be earned. IF expanding to 12 teams meant gaining the AQ status quicker, our presidents and Commish would've acted hastily, albeit cautiously, to achieve this. Adding teams for the sake of staging a league championship doesn't necessarily augment a significant amount of money to our coffers. Keep in mind that what triggered all these recent realignments was the revenue for each schools would double or even triple. Do you think our league can demand from our TV networks to increase our current $1.2 mil payout per team to $5-$8 mil per team by adding Fresno St. and Houston or the other schools you mentioned if we go to a 12-team league? It has been argued often why the schools you mentioned aren't ideal candidates for MWC. Fresno St. and perhaps even Houston may have an advantage over the others but their addition isn't compelling enough to convince and appease the presidents. I advocate going to the MWC-12 because I seriously think the PAC-10 will consider killing the MWC as a competitor for recruiting, splitting BCS money, and pure West Coast bragging rights. The MWC did a great job outshining the PAC-10 last year in Football & Basketball. That job will be easier the next 2 years with USC out of the hunt. The PAC-10 could have won this battle by getting the Big 12 teams on board, but that has failed. The only remaining teams in the Western Region worthy of the PAC-10 pursuing are MWC teams. They can eliminate any true competition for recruiting and bragging rights, along with killing the chances of the MWC being a BCS conference by taking the 3 schools. To that end, I would hope the MWC would add Fresno and Houston. If we get hit for 3 teams we are where we are now, a 9 team league. If we get hit for 3 teams and are a weakened 7 team conference, it might be tougher to rebuild, and might have to accept weaker teams to do so. No matter what, I don't want to fall below the WAC and C-USA. When Scott went after the Big 12, he displayed his tendancy of doing the unexpected. Everyone expects just Utah now, but I think he goes for the jugular to destroy the MWC this time. MWC-12 NOW. If Scott wants to go for the jugular in killing the MWC "now," he has to do so by inviting SDSU & UNLV. No, the Pac-FAIL will do nothing more than add Utah (& I still see a slim 10% chance they stand pat for now, they could offer Utah next year and still have the Pac12 just begin in 2012) Right. Adding those schools does not put the MWC over the top, so why do it? Ultimately, what WILL put the MWC over the top is vastly improved OOC play over the next couple years from the likes of SDSU. Agreed. No reason to add Houston, or anyone else RIGHT NOW. MWC is pretty well set to go ahead and qualify for AQ as it stands now, even on the assumption that Utah bolts (esp. if they bolt after the 2011 season). THEN, expand and go to 12 once we get the increased BCS $$$, which will help elevate all the member schools' programs to the point where we EASILY go toe-toe-toe with the Pac-FAIL schools... (in football, and even further dominate them in hoops). |
|
|
|
Post by k5james on Jun 15, 2010 9:42:14 GMT -8
The MWC is in a good position right now to assure their fate by expanding to 12 teams. There is an old axiom that says "you either grow or die". By standing pat with nine teams (less Utah) the MWC virtually locks themself out of the BCS IMO because there simply are not enough bodies/tv sets to command an AQ to the BCS. If you're determined to maintain the status quo (9 teams w/o Utah), the MWC would be far better off to kick out SDSU so the $$$$ could be shared by fewer teams and rid the MWC of a drag on the conference. But that approach would ignore the number of tv sets in San Diego. You are confused. Bodies/tv sets have zero effect on our AQ status with the BCS. |
|
|
|
Post by HollywoodAztec on Jun 15, 2010 10:29:29 GMT -8
The MWC is in a good position right now to assure their fate by expanding to 12 teams. There is an old axiom that says "you either grow or die". By standing pat with nine teams (less Utah) the MWC virtually locks themself out of the BCS IMO because there simply are not enough bodies/tv sets to command an AQ to the BCS. If you're determined to maintain the status quo (9 teams w/o Utah), the MWC would be far better off to kick out SDSU so the $$$$ could be shared by fewer teams and rid the MWC of a drag on the conference. But that approach would ignore the number of tv sets in San Diego. To finally put your argument to rest, I’ll give you an example of two non-AQ leagues that share our league’s desire to gain AQ status which followed your old axiom – MAC and CUSA. Both leagues grew to 12 teams. With small revenue, they thought that staging a championship game will garner more attention to their leagues, thus add more money to their coffers. But as we can clearly see, to the fair-weather college football fans and perhaps even to their fans, their leagues remain inconsequential. None of their champions, since they formed their 12-team conferences, has finished in the top 25. Neither comes close to what our 9-team league has achieved. If we lose Utah and add three teams, then we’re basically following their failed models. Now if we gain AQ status, then that’s a different story because we can then maybe consider adding more teams. The key ingredient is not to grow by addition with teams that hadn’t finished in the top 20 because they don’t help our cause, but rather grow from within. If the bottom half of MWC can improve their standing and all finish in the top 50, then this solves our AQ mission. |
|
|
|
Post by k5james on Jun 15, 2010 10:48:27 GMT -8
The MWC is in a good position right now to assure their fate by expanding to 12 teams. There is an old axiom that says "you either grow or die". By standing pat with nine teams (less Utah) the MWC virtually locks themself out of the BCS IMO because there simply are not enough bodies/tv sets to command an AQ to the BCS. If you're determined to maintain the status quo (9 teams w/o Utah), the MWC would be far better off to kick out SDSU so the $$$$ could be shared by fewer teams and rid the MWC of a drag on the conference. But that approach would ignore the number of tv sets in San Diego. To finally put your argument to rest, I’ll give you an example of two non-AQ leagues that share our league’s desire to gain AQ status which followed your old axiom – MAC and CUSA. Both leagues grew to 12 teams. With small revenue, they thought that staging a championship game will garner more attention to their leagues, thus add more money to their coffers. But as we can clearly see, to the fair-weather college football fans and perhaps even to their fans, their leagues remain inconsequential. None of their champions, since they formed their 12-team conferences, has finished in the top 25. Neither comes close to what our 9-team league has achieved. If we lose Utah and add three teams, then we’re basically following their failed models. Now if we gain AQ status, then that’s a different story because we can then maybe consider adding more teams. The key ingredient is not to grow by addition with teams that hadn’t finished in the top 20 because they don’t help our cause, but rather grow from within. If the bottom half of MWC can improve their standing and all finish in the top 50, then this solves our AQ mission. If the MAC didn't have a championship game Ball State would have finished 12-0 and been a threat for a BCS game in '08. |
|
