|
|
Post by aztecalways on Jun 17, 2010 14:08:01 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by robthevol on Jun 17, 2010 17:53:13 GMT -8
I doubt the MWC stays at nine.
As the super conferences build next year and the year after, they will reach down into the AAA farm system and call up the best and continue to marginalize the MWC.
I thought the MWC had a real shot at AQ and probably would have if Utah stayed.
The best thing to happen to SDSU is if the BIG 12 desperately wants a conference member in California. That is a reach.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jun 17, 2010 18:29:07 GMT -8
The best thing to happen to SDSU is if the BIG 12 desperately wants a conference member in California. That is a reach. Hey! Hey! Don't forget your travel partner. Yoda out.... |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuphilip on Jun 17, 2010 18:32:32 GMT -8
The Expanding isn't done, MWC will move again within 3 years imo, but they will not take a team unless someone is an obvious yes like Boise is
|
|
|
|
Post by rickdoerr on Jun 17, 2010 19:03:54 GMT -8
Right now I'd think we want the Big 12-2 to be stable for a couple of years. Next year at this time the Big 10+2 may set off another round of moves but hopefully only shaking up the east coast. Somebody in another thread said we (MWC, SDSU) needed time for more conference improvement. The 12-2 doesn't look all that secure. Losing one or two from there might mean we lose one or two from here(BYU & AF are the one's mentioned. If BYU leaves what do we have?). But, if we get that two/three years of relative calm the MWC/SDSU better make the most of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdsuaztecs on Jun 17, 2010 21:44:49 GMT -8
Almost all of the folks on this board feel the Aztecs are about ready to make a statement....football-wise. I'm not going to Oklahoma or OSU or Texas to watch Aztec football but I might go to Cabo if CSLU can get a team going. Any efforts to go to the Big-12 are pretty much a joke IMO. And SDSU will never/ever win a championship in the Big-12 so what's the point?
|
|
|
|
Post by theMesa on Jun 18, 2010 6:52:16 GMT -8
The MWC is not expanding for another 2-3 years? The football program is gradually getting better? Hey, I just found another gray follicle on my chin this morning... Maybe by the time all this greatness comes to fruition, I'll be in an old folks home senile as hell.
|
|
choop
Bench Warmer
Posts: 52
|
Post by choop on Jun 18, 2010 7:03:20 GMT -8
The MWC will need a lot more than a season or two of decent football by their bottom 6 teams. In two articles yesterday, the MWC was bashed for being a "top heavy" conference with no real football presence beyond the top teams. I fear that will be the prevailing attitude when the MWC comes up for AQ review.
Politics and money will also have a say. If the Big East still exists, and possibly grows, the BCS will use any means possible not to dilute the BCS money pool. Right now if I were handicapping the situation, I would rate the MCW review status as 3 to 1 against being included in the BCS. Less than 2 weeks ago I would have said 3 to 2 in favor. I hope I'm wrong but I doubt it.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jun 18, 2010 8:02:43 GMT -8
In about three years or so... the MWC will either not exist, having been raided by the Pac-something and Big Texas Conference... with the rest dropping to the WAC or whatnot...
...Or, the MWC will have earned BCS AQ status and then add 3 or 5 more schools (that number depending on whether the other main conferences go super-size or not).
|
|
|
|
Post by Fred Noonan on Jun 18, 2010 8:13:07 GMT -8
I'd love to know the math behind the decision making. This mornings UT framed the issue pretty well, I thought--although that was not what they were trying to do. The article pointed out that AQ status for the MWC would mean about $1 Million per year for members. The article also pointed out that Utah's TV share went from $1.2 Million last year to $10 Million plus per year in the PacWhatever. So, although AQ BCS status may be a big deal in terms of how one feels about ones self and status the bigger pie is the TV contract. With that in mind then I would love to know the actual MWC numbers and what expansion would really mean in dollars and cents. We always talk about it in terms of getting in the BCS and why our football staus is improved by Boise. How that status might be improved with other schools. But, the real question is how big would the pie be and what would each schools share be? Forbes magazine does an annual article on the value of pro sports franchises which is really interesting. You read the financial bottom lines and then read the sports section to see what the owners are saying and you get two different pictures. How cool would it be to see a credible financial analysis of what's going on in the world of college football? The Fred Noonan School of Navigation.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecgold on Jun 18, 2010 8:22:02 GMT -8
That may be "their" plan, but unfortunately they are not the people that make those decisions . They are subject to the whims of the BCS conferences and they have to react accordingly. I hear the TV deal for the Big 12 is not that good and they may return to the PAC 16 discussion in a couple of years. Like the Commissioner said in the paper today, We were 3rd and 1 and fumbled and the other team took it back 85 years for a TD. Oops! The Golden Rule, the people with the gold make the rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecaggie on Jun 19, 2010 0:28:11 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by texasaztec on Jun 19, 2010 7:22:45 GMT -8
The reason for wanting to get accepted into the BCS is twofold:
1. Prestige and recognition of being an elite conference. We know our top teams qualify for elite status, and that our bottom teams are slightly lower than the bottom teams of some of the other conferences. But overall we stack up with the lower end of the BCS conferences and I think we are better than the Big East.
2. Money. Being part of the BCS means being invited to the major bowls which equals major money for the teams that go and for all teams in the conference.
Other than that I see no major reason why being in the BCS is worth panting over.
IF the MWC doesn't get invited we can still earn prestige and recognition through winning. We keep the pressure on by being good, and we make the BCS look ridiculous by being great. Enough people want to watch the top MWC teams that there will be a significant payout for bowl games our top teams get into and the controversy of "not inviting the MWC" will continue to keep us in the news and minds of fans across the country as we keep winning.
The real money in all of this comes way more from the TV contracts than it does from the bowls. In light of that, I hope our MWC commissioner is focused on building the strongest brand, with the best teams in the best markets possible. Houston might very well be a good choice, but if SMU takes off (like June Jones was able to get Hawaii to do under his leadership) then SMU would be a good choice as well.
We are not dead if we don't get a bid to the BCS. However, we need to keep winning, especially against the other BCS conference teams. AND we need to position ourselves for a better TV contract. That is where the real money is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2010 10:03:39 GMT -8
60-70 schools have "national TV appeal" and a "national fan base?" Sorry, John, but that's just silly. Alphabetically, here are the schools which fit those two criteria for football (I won't even bother with the other things on your list):
Alabama
BYU
Florida
Florida St.
LSU
Miami
Michigan
Nebraska
Notre Dame
Ohio St.
Oklahoma
Penn St.
Tennessee
Texas
USC
Virginia Tech
That's it. Just 16.
I'll grant you that about twice that number have a solid regional following in an area with sufficient population to matter (as opposed to the likes of Wyoming). So I'll say that maybe 50 schools have more potential for football success than SDSU. But that's it. So the bottom line is that SDSU's current predicament is very much of its own making and if SDSU can dig itself into a hole, it is fully capable of digging itself out with sufficient effort.
|
|
|
|
Post by FULL_MONTY on Jun 19, 2010 10:13:43 GMT -8
60-70 schools have "national TV appeal" and a "national fan base?" Sorry, John, but that's just silly. Alphabetically, here are the schools which fit those two criteria for football (I won't even bother with the other things on your list): Alabama BYU Florida Florida St. LSU Miami Michigan Nebraska Notre Dame Ohio St. Oklahoma Penn St. Tennessee Texas USC Virginia Tech That's it. Just 16. I'll grant you that about twice that number have a solid regional following in an area with sufficient population to matter (as opposed to the likes of Wyoming). So I'll say that maybe 50 schools have more potential for football success than SDSU. But that's it. So the bottom line is that SDSU's current predicament is very much of its own making and if SDSU can dig itself into a hole, it is fully capable of digging itself out with sufficient effort. Alabama - diagree BYU - agree Florida - agree Florida St. - diagree LSU - agree Miami - disagree Michigan - agree Nebraska - agree Notre Dame - agree Ohio St. - agree Oklahoma - agree Penn St. - disagree Tennessee - agree Texas - agree USC - agree Virginia Tech - disagree There are 11 at best. |
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jun 19, 2010 11:08:30 GMT -8
The reason for wanting to get accepted into the BCS is twofold: 1. Prestige and recognition of being an elite conference. We know our top teams qualify for elite status, and that our bottom teams are slightly lower than the bottom teams of some of the other conferences. But overall we stack up with the lower end of the BCS conferences and I think we are better than the Big East. 2. Money. Being part of the BCS means being invited to the major bowls which equals major money for the teams that go and for all teams in the conference. Other than that I see no major reason why being in the BCS is worth panting over. IF the MWC doesn't get invited we can still earn prestige and recognition through winning. We keep the pressure on by being good, and we make the BCS look ridiculous by being great. Enough people want to watch the top MWC teams that there will be a significant payout for bowl games our top teams get into and the controversy of "not inviting the MWC" will continue to keep us in the news and minds of fans across the country as we keep winning. The real money in all of this comes way more from the TV contracts than it does from the bowls. In light of that, I hope our MWC commissioner is focused on building the strongest brand, with the best teams in the best markets possible. Houston might very well be a good choice, but if SMU takes off (like June Jones was able to get Hawaii to do under his leadership) then SMU would be a good choice as well. We are not dead if we don't get a bid to the BCS. However, we need to keep winning, especially against the other BCS conference teams. AND we need to position ourselves for a better TV contract. That is where the real money is. Ok, in theory I probably agree. Except, $$$ is so absolutely, crucially important. The CA budget situation isn't going to magically improve anytime soon. Major collegiate athletics cost a lot of money, esp. football. That's not a good combination for SDSU. SDSU might need the MWC to gain BCS AQ status more than any other school in the conference due to the CA state budget situation. It would also be nice if the MWC could figure out a way to start making more money on internet-TV broadcasting rights, since that will quite possibly be the most lucrative new opportunity on the table for the near future. JMO. |
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Jun 19, 2010 11:25:09 GMT -8
The reason for wanting to get accepted into the BCS is twofold: 1. Prestige and recognition of being an elite conference. We know our top teams qualify for elite status, and that our bottom teams are slightly lower than the bottom teams of some of the other conferences. But overall we stack up with the lower end of the BCS conferences and I think we are better than the Big East. 2. Money. Being part of the BCS means being invited to the major bowls which equals major money for the teams that go and for all teams in the conference. Other than that I see no major reason why being in the BCS is worth panting over. IF the MWC doesn't get invited we can still earn prestige and recognition through winning. We keep the pressure on by being good, and we make the BCS look ridiculous by being great. Enough people want to watch the top MWC teams that there will be a significant payout for bowl games our top teams get into and the controversy of "not inviting the MWC" will continue to keep us in the news and minds of fans across the country as we keep winning. The real money in all of this comes way more from the TV contracts than it does from the bowls. In light of that, I hope our MWC commissioner is focused on building the strongest brand, with the best teams in the best markets possible. Houston might very well be a good choice, but if SMU takes off (like June Jones was able to get Hawaii to do under his leadership) then SMU would be a good choice as well. We are not dead if we don't get a bid to the BCS. However, we need to keep winning, especially against the other BCS conference teams. AND we need to position ourselves for a better TV contract. That is where the real money is. NO. It's all about the money....Period. College football has turned into a whore. And Basketball will follow if we aren't careful. I would add Houston tomorrow. Big market, prominent alumni, easy to get to. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2010 11:31:51 GMT -8
60-70 schools have "national TV appeal" and a "national fan base?" Sorry, John, but that's just silly. I would guess that most BCS schools have in most major areas of the country an alumni association whose membership exceeds ten. I just randomly typed in Penn State and look what I found: www.sdpsu.org/navFiles/event/naar.htmlI doubt San Jose State has that good an alum association in San Jose, let alone in Pennsylvania. Well, you might have refuted FM's post about Penn State, but not mine. As to SJSU, I've said for at least a year that Spartans football is a dead man walking. As I also said once before on Aztectalk, my first job out of SDSU was working for a small non-profit organization in the Bay Area in the early eighties and two of the board members were SJSU grads, one of whom was a season football ticket holder. Back then, they had recently had the likes of Steve DeBerg, Gerald Willhite and Swervin' Mervin Fernandez play for them and almost annually beat Cal or Stanford so that guy and I had some great discussions about SDSU versus SJSU football. However, the Spartans are far removed from those glory days as evidenced by the fact that if you subtract their game against Utah, they sold a pathetic average of 13,675 tickets per game last year. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2010 11:36:58 GMT -8
$$$ is so absolutely, crucially important. The CA budget situation isn't going to magically improve anytime soon. Major collegiate athletics cost a lot of money, esp. football. That's not a good combination for SDSU. SDSU might need the MWC to gain BCS AQ status more than any other school in the conference due to the CA state budget situation. FYI, the budget situation in Nevada is even worse. Just one more example of how SDSU is inexorably tied to UNLV for better or worse and one reason is how each of our locations is so dependent on tourism. That means when the national economy is going well, people have plenty of money to travel so we're going to do well. However, when it isn't, we're going to be in trouble as we are now. It's cyclical, however, so that will change within the next few years. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jun 19, 2010 13:53:01 GMT -8
60-70 schools have "national TV appeal" and a "national fan base?" Sorry, John, but that's just silly. Alphabetically, here are the schools which fit those two criteria for football (I won't even bother with the other things on your list): Alabama BYU Florida Florida St. LSU Miami Michigan Nebraska Notre Dame Ohio St. Oklahoma Penn St. Tennessee Texas USC Virginia Tech That's it. Just 16. I'll grant you that about twice that number have a solid regional following in an area with sufficient population to matter (as opposed to the likes of Wyoming). So I'll say that maybe 50 schools have more potential for football success than SDSU. But that's it. So the bottom line is that SDSU's current predicament is very much of its own making and if SDSU can dig itself into a hole, it is fully capable of digging itself out with sufficient effort. Alabama - diagree BYU - agree Florida - agree Florida St. - diagree LSU - agree Miami - disagree Michigan - agree Nebraska - agree Notre Dame - agree Ohio St. - agree Oklahoma - agree Penn St. - disagree Tennessee - agree Texas - agree USC - agree Virginia Tech - disagree There are 11 at best. The list offered by SleepingGiantsFan looks pretty accurate to me. I can't figure out why you disagree with his inclusion of Alabama, Florida St., Miami of FLA, and Penn St. Virginia Tech is the only school on the list that I might not have included (based on the criteria presented by JYP). I would add this; it's not really the list of 16 shown above that we need to worry about. While it is highly unlikely, even if we went undefeated, that SDSU would ever be included in a NCG (unless part of a playoff system), there are plenty of honors to be gained short of that. Winning records, national ranking, bowl wins, individual players receiving national recognition; all of these are within our reach. Win 2 non-conference games (which would allow for a loss to a very tough opponent plus a loss to a medium rank team) and 5 of 8 in conference, then win a bowl game. That adds up to an 8-5 record. Eight and five would put us in the upper one/third of all FBS schools and possibly the Top-25. Win one more game another year, and we could finish with 9 wins. If SDSU can finish with 8 or 9 wins most years, I maintain that most of our problems would be solved. With that in mind, it should be obvious that our main adversaries are not the USCs, Michigans, Floridas, Notre Dames, and Ohio States of the college football world. Our main adversaries are schools such as AFA, Colorado State, Cincinnati, Washington State, and Oregon State. In other words, schools that we have, for the most part, been losing to recently. If we beat them, and beat the weaker sisters (SJSU, Idaho, New Mexico) that we should have been beating all along we will be fine. Add to that a genuine upset of a ranked team here and there and we will be nudging into Boise State territory. Regardless of changes in conference memberships around the country, which is something we can do little or nothing about, there remains for us to pursue goals which are within our grasp. Let's start winning. AzWm |
|
