|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 15, 2010 10:33:27 GMT -8
I look at expansion as a matter of survival for the MWC. Keeping Fresno out of the MWC denies SDSU and Fresno fans of a natural rivalry and lots of fans in the seats. What's the purpose of college sports if it is all about $$$$ and nothing else? That's why you schedule teams like Nicholls State....not because you want to elevate the competition but because you need the bucks. Fresno and Houston make sense for the MWC in a number of areas not the least of which is a better chance of getting an AQ to the BCS. And once AQ status is attained, the MWC will be a lot more stable and far less vulnerable to pillaging by the PAC-12 or anyone else. I have to correct you on one point. You schedule the Nichols State Colonels to get a W, not to earn money. You travel to Ann Arbor, Columbus, and this year to Columbia, Missouri to earn money. As for Houston, or any other school in Texas, I think we will not and in my opinion should not add them. I really prefer regional integrity. That may not count for much is there if enough money involved, of course. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 15, 2010 10:50:22 GMT -8
I would add Houston and Fresno and Reno. Easy travel for fans. Travel partners, and rivals.
|
|
|
|
Post by RB Aztec on Jun 15, 2010 11:29:40 GMT -8
Disagree. Show me the TV market coverage for Fresburg. They share with Stanfurd and Cal- no way does inclusion give the MWC a larger audience than the inclusion of Reno or Boise. Thats a program on the decline-Pat Hill has applied for every decent D-1 job in the west and can't wait to leave (and the Admin can't wait for him to get out as well). Add UNR. Fresno State gives a WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY bigger audience than little Boise. Being an Ag school, it has hard core fans throughout the entire San Juacquin valley. I have family that lives 80 miles north of Fresno. Their town is packed with Fresno State fans. Bulldog bumper stickers and license plate frames are everywhere. Remember the San Juacquin valley is filled with medium sized cities with 150,000 residents and up (Fresno at over 400,000, Bakersfield, Modesto, Stockton, Sacramento area at 1,000,000, etc.) and dozens of towns of 50,000 and up. |
|
|
|
Post by greysuit on Jun 15, 2010 11:45:05 GMT -8
Disagree. Show me the TV market coverage for Fresburg. They share with Stanfurd and Cal- no way does inclusion give the MWC a larger audience than the inclusion of Reno or Boise. Thats a program on the decline-Pat Hill has applied for every decent D-1 job in the west and can't wait to leave (and the Admin can't wait for him to get out as well). Add UNR. Fresno State gives a WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY bigger audience than little Boise. Being an Ag school, it has hard core fans throughout the entire San Juacquin valley. I have family that lives 80 miles north of Fresno. Their town is packed with Fresno State fans. Bulldog bumper stickers and license plate frames are everywhere. Remember the San Juacquin valley is filled with medium sized cities with 150,000 residents and up (Fresno at over 400,000, Bakersfield, Modesto, Stockton, Sacramento area at 1,000,000, etc.) and dozens of towns of 50,000 and up. Fresno does not bring in BCS money. |
|
|
|
Post by haleiwaaztec on Jun 15, 2010 12:16:59 GMT -8
BTW - Here is an article that is saying that Utah to the Pac 10 is done. utah.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1094386Notice that it does say that a tenative agreement was in place 4 months ago...kinda like I posted on the other board about what my brother's friend told him. The one who was dating the AD's daughter (that Colorado & Utah were going to the Pac 10). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2010 12:18:36 GMT -8
That source has pretty much no credibility on the MWC Board. He's been saying it's a done deal for a while now. If it's such a done deal why would he throw this in at the end? I haven't really paid any attention to how the MWC board members feel about the site since it's so apparent to me that Utah will be leaving. Still, you make a great point. BTW, afan, having slept on it, I realize I took a cheat shot at you yesterday and I apologize. Apology not needed but accepted. We both want the same thing and that's for SDSU AND the MWC to thrive. I'm probably too negative but that just comes from being a fan of San Diego teams for far too long. I would like to think that college sports at some level are about competition and the joy it brings to a community. I know, crazy huh? In that light, it pains me to see a conference cornerstone desert the conference it founded to join up with the other guys. Losing Utah would be a BIG blow, from which I do not think the conference recovers. All of this just as the MWC is starting to feel like a real conference with some tradition and name recognition. Additionally, we (SDSU) are extremely vulnerable at this point in our history. We all know that things are about to turn around but the community at large doesn't. When it does turn for us, I'd like to think that community wide acceptance will follow quickly when they see a string on nationally known and ranked conference opponents coming into town to get their asses whipped. If the conference begins to atomize as the successful programs chase more lucrative contracts, the work that's been done to to improve our program will go little recognized by the folks we need to fill the stands. I guess I should add that this strictly my personal POV. I'm a big conference identity guy. I'm still pissed the AFL merged with the NFL.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2010 12:43:30 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by sdsuaztecs on Jun 15, 2010 12:51:02 GMT -8
My guess is Wazzu and maybe the Beavers vote against Utah. Odds are now against Utah getting into the PAC-11.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2010 13:14:36 GMT -8
My guess is Wazzu and maybe the Beavers vote against Utah. Odds are now against Utah getting into the PAC-11. Great minds think alike. Before the Pac8/Big12-6+2 deal came to the fore, there was discussion about how unhappy the Pacific Northwest schools would be with a north-south divisional setup. However, I still think the Pac can maybe pull this off by going to the kind of setup Cowboy Junky suggested for a 12-member MWC. Something like this, with travel partners for BB noted. North-SouthCU-Utah UCLA-USC ASU-Arizona UDub-WSU OSU-Oregon Cal-Stanford Schools would play everybody in their division annually as well as their travel partner annually plus a couple other members of the other division. But I think Wazzu in particular is probably having a problem with Utah. Take out SoCal recruiting and the Cougars would be constantly miserable. And then I would assume there would be disagreement between the Arizona schools and the L.A. schools in particular as to which would have to be in the same division with Wazzu since travel to Pullman is a major pain in the ass. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jun 15, 2010 15:23:09 GMT -8
My guess is Wazzu and maybe the Beavers vote against Utah. Odds are now against Utah getting into the PAC-11. Great minds think alike. Before the Pac8/Big12-6+2 deal came to the fore, there was discussion about how unhappy the Pacific Northwest schools would be with a north-south divisional setup. However, I still think the Pac can maybe pull this off by going to the kind of setup Cowboy Junky suggested for a 12-member MWC. Something like this, with travel partners for BB noted. North-SouthCU-Utah UCLA-USC ASU-Arizona UDub-WSU OSU-Oregon Cal-Stanford Schools would play everybody in their division annually as well as their travel partner annually plus a couple other members of the other division. But I think Wazzu in particular is probably having a problem with Utah. Take out SoCal recruiting and the Cougars would be constantly miserable. And then I would assume there would be disagreement between the Arizona schools and the L.A. schools in particular as to which would have to be in the same division with Wazzu since travel to Pullman is a major pain in the ass. I've stated for a rather long time that if an invite to SDSU were ever considered, it would be Wazoo and OSU that would put the kibosh on it. The rest of the conference is arrogant enough to not worry about recruiting in San Diego County, but no way those two schools, which are really the Smack-10 versions of Baylor, would ever allow that sort of incursion into one of their only fertile recruiting grounds. Besides, when isn't Wazoo "constantly miserable"? =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by HollywoodAztec on Jun 15, 2010 15:27:19 GMT -8
The plot thickens. I suspect that these “insiders” who are sharing their info with reporters don’t really know all the details. They’re jumping the gun just like all the others who shared their info about the imminent move by the Big XII South teams. I’m still convinced that the Pac-10 isn’t going to invite Utah. With their failed attempt to lure the Big XII schools, I think the excitement within the Pac-10 diminished tremendously with Utah as a consolation. They’re probably rethinking their strategy. OTOH, I find this an interesting comment since the Pac-10 has publically stated that they’re opposed to championship game even if they went to 16 teams. “The Pac-10 is one member short of the 12 it needs to hold a football championship game.” In other words, it’s unnecessary for the Pac-10 to add a 12th school since they won’t be holding a championship game anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by oc74aztec on Jun 15, 2010 16:17:18 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Village Aztec on Jun 15, 2010 16:40:09 GMT -8
They only want Utah to destroy the Mountain and get Hatch off their back. If they let them in Utah will have the resources to beat most of the Pac 10 schools. They know that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jun 15, 2010 17:22:08 GMT -8
They only want Utah to destroy the Mountain and get Hatch off their back. If they let them in Utah will have the resources to beat most of the Pac 10 schools. They know that. Well, let's not get paranoid. The Smack-10 doesn't have the where-with-all of destroying the MWC - it's far too strong for that to happen. If the Utes want to leave, let them go - we'll get along just fine without them while they get dissed up one side and down the other in a conference that they really have no particular affinity to (no matter how much they want to claim they do). =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuaztecs on Jun 15, 2010 18:16:41 GMT -8
No real reason to add Utah at this time. Utah brings some tv sets to the party but the PAC-11 can wait till the cows come home and Utah will come a runnin' whenever the PAC-11 beckons.
|
|
guest
New Recruit
Here to enlighten.
Posts: 36
|
Post by guest on Jun 15, 2010 19:32:40 GMT -8
Maybe they will invite us instead
|
|
|
|
Post by RiffelBooks on Jun 15, 2010 20:25:36 GMT -8
Let's put ourselves in Larry Scott's shoes. I don't view him as a dummy who got burned by the Texas/Oklahoma schools. He reached for the glory and fell short. No shame in that.
If I'm Scott, I wait. Let's see if the Big 12 commish can come through with his promises. If he does, fine. If he doesn't, Scott will have everyone but the Longhorns kissing his feet this time next year. You're already seeing cracks in the armor with stories that TTech is having second thoughts. Plus, I've already said I'm willing to stop at 11 schools and with Colorado not joining until 2012, I've got time.
If Utah goes to the Pac-10 Wednesday, good for them. They'll become a rich doormat in all sports, including football, in a couple of years. I hope they enjoy it. If it doesn't happen Wednesday, then we can start to move on to other topics.
|
|
|
|
Post by RiffelBooks on Jun 15, 2010 20:44:30 GMT -8
We'll also learn a lot about the state of journalism tomorrow.
1. The Comcast report is right or wrong.
2. The Deseret News has a banner across the top of its main sports Web page touting the Comcast report.
3. However, the Deseret News is reporting in a separate location that the Utah assistant AD denies that anything is going on and says there is no news conference planned for tomorrow.
4. The lady who reports on the Utes for the SLC Trib blogged tonight that a Denver Post colleague spoke directly to Larry Scott who also said nothing is happening with Utah.
5. You follow the trail to the Denver Post and there is no such story, as of the time I post this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Azpire! on Jun 15, 2010 22:17:57 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecfan1 on Jun 16, 2010 1:47:07 GMT -8
|
|
Everything else is just speculation.
