|
|
Post by sdsuaztecs on Jun 17, 2010 10:41:01 GMT -8
Geez, haven't you guys figured out that San Diego has the most "fair weather" fans both literally and otherwise of any city in the USA? Win and they will come. Lose and they are at the beach. Students in particular want to see a winner. And if they win, watch out...ALL of the students will be there to say they were there. Just win baby!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2010 10:56:43 GMT -8
My 2 cents... In 5 years the MWC will not exist. The next couple years are vital: 1) must win on the football field, and 2) must win at the poker table... 'The poker table' right now might even be more crucial. True, (correctly or not) the Pac-10/2 believes they already own the San Diego-area TV and recruiting market(s). So while maybe a better fit, it would do us no good to court them for future expansion. Our President & AD need to court the Big12-2... and NOW. More-direct access to the San Diego (& by extension, California) TV & recruiting markets *could* be very attractive to Big Texas Conference. So we try to sell them on the idea that SDSU & UNLV offer the best package deal for extending their reach to the west. I wouldn't go so far as to say the MWC won't exist in five years. I would say, however, that a couple weeks ago, I found the long-dormant attitude about the MWC by about half of TCU's fans both on the MWC board and their board to be of great concern. And it's ALL, i.e. 100%, i.e, absolutely a result of how terrible our football program is. In other words, I didn't hear one complaint about travel to California. Indeed, I think they would like to be in the same conference with us for recruiting and visiting purposes. However, they understandably think our miserable '00s football program hurt them. Make no mistake, Aztecs. The future of the Mountain West Conference depends as much on SDSU having a quality football program as any other single factor. SDSU doesn't have to get close to as good as TCU nor probably even as good as BYU. However, it must get at least as good as AFA - meaning finishing with a winning record annually and winning bowl games at least every third season - or the conference IS going to die because even with AQ status, there won't be enough TV revenue to keep the quality programs from leaving. As to UNLV, it's ironic you should mention them because I think they are the kind of "package" deal I was referring to that could conceivably be of interest to the Pac. Both of us have Pac-quality basketball programs and both of us are located in cities with median Pac-level populations for TV purposes. However, just like us, UNLV has had an awful football program. So just like us, they are also "on the clock." |
|
|
|
Post by aztech on Jun 17, 2010 11:58:19 GMT -8
I firmly believe we'll be very attractive to the Big 12 when we get our program turned around. I'm very confident that Hoke is going to do it. We are the Big XII's access to the California recruiting grounds. Texas had a fear of aTm going to the SEC for that very reason. They didn't want that conference to have any presence there. Don't think for a second that the Pac doesn't realize this. They'd rather see us lose our Div-1 status than ask us to join.
We also have the potential viewing audience that's bigger than anyone in the Big XII north. If we had a choice of being in a mega conference between the Pac and Big XII, I'd rather we go to the Texas side instead of the snooty Pac.
If we didn't have those points going for us I wouldn't feel so confident about our football future.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2010 12:15:19 GMT -8
I firmly believe we'll be very attractive to the Big 12 when we get our program turned around. I'm very confident that Hoke is going to do it. We are the Big XII's access to the California recruiting grounds. Texas had a fear of aTm going to the SEC for that very reason. They didn't want that conference to have any presence there. Don't think for a second that the Pac doesn't realize this. They'd rather see us lose our Div-1 status than ask us to join. The guy who runs the aTm Rivals site has said the single reason the Pac-16 thing didn't happen was that aTm didn't want to go to the Pac and Texas didn't want aTm to go to the SEC for the reason you state. However, as I've said elsewhere, I'm very skeptical about the Big 12's future. At this point it seems to me that Oklahoma's administration has been surprised at the backlash from fans about how they've bent over for Texas. Yeah, OU will allegedly get the same share of Big 12 TV revenue as UT. However, UT's going to be able to create the Longhorn Network as an overlay, which UT wouldn't have gotten in the Pac-16. It's all very speculative obviously, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if the upshot of all this isn't Texas earning so much from the Longhorn Network that OU and aTm eventually become as disgusted with UT as Nebraska did and then those two start negotiating with the SEC and Texas just goes indy. Maybe the remnants of what's left might want SDSU, but given the quality and geography, would we really care? To me, the better strategy for SDSU is to assume the following: 1. Just because the era of 16-member megaconferences didn't begin in 2010 doesn't mean they won't as early as 2012. 2. When they do, the Pac is going to add four more schools. 3. When that happens, SDSU already has geography and market size in its favor. 4. Therefore, SDSU needs to (a) vastly improve its football program and (b) cultivate a relationship with another school which would come in as a partner. The most obvious right now is UNLV. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuaztecs on Jun 17, 2010 13:14:22 GMT -8
The continuing "pie-in-the-sky" hope of SDSU landing in the PAC-14 or PAC-16 strikes me as totally unrealistic. Unless SDSU somehow manages to crash the BCS party and win a BCS game, I don't see how anyone would think SDSU could be invited to the PAC-14 or 16. The focus should be on improving the MWC to the point it gains AQ to the BCS. Standing pat may be one way to get there but I doubt it. Having 12 teams including Fresno, Houston and Nevada adds three to five miliion tv sets to the MWC market and a much more attractive tv product. Whether or not the $$$$ are diluted as a result is really small potatoes IMO because without AQ status the whole football program at SDSU appears to be in jeopardy. Simply put, advertisers are willing to pay more dollars with more tv viewers watching the MWC. Maintaining the status quo does not deliver more tv sets.
Moreover, winning the MWC with 12 teams (instead of 9) would also enhance SDSU's "pie-in-the-sky" chances of joining the PAC-14 or 16 if SDSU somehow managed to win the conference championship. Even thinking of winning the MWC football championship at this point in time strikes me as more "pie-in-the-sky"
|
|
